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.
Niiai wrote: The one per faction universal rule sugested would prevent dark eldars from ever getting faction bonuses.
No one is suggesting all HQs are 1 per FACTION. We are suggesting CERTAIN HQs be limited to 1 per DETACHMENT. You can still have multiple of them, but you need another detachment.
Smaller, weedier HQs are NOT being suggested for the 1 per detachment rules. Archons, Haemis, Librarians, Eldar Warlocks, etc are fine as is for selection. The fluff supports multiples in most armies and gameplay doesn't really suffer. Tyrants, Tau Commanders, Greater Daemons, etc are NOT supported in the fluff as being something that you often see multiples of and clearly doing so hurts gameplay in some cases.
Niiai wrote: The one per faction universal rule sugested would prevent dark eldars from ever getting faction bonuses.
It's one per detachment, not faction. Also, per the Drukhari leaks, it appears they are designed to be taken in patrol detachments, so they would be just fine with one unique HQ per patrol detachment.
That aside, its still a poor band-aid. Other factions would definitely suffer from this rule, and some fluffy choices would be restricted. For instance, Eldar Warlocks would only be able to appear in numbers when taken in a conclave (which removes their character rule). I don't think having more than one Warlock in a detachment is breaking the game.
Edit: Looks like Galef beat me to the punch.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/04 17:09:13
We mortals are but shadows and dust...
6k
:harlequin: 2k
2k
2k
Yeah I'm curious about how DE will function in a competitive scene which usually limits you to 3 detachments. Wonder if they'll have that restriction waived for patrols or something.
If I was going to nerf flyrants I'd remove their invulnerable save. Make it so you had to choose between the wings or the invulnerable. The problem now is that there's no reason you'd ever take a non-winged flyrant.
I don't like the 1 per detachment thing on the Tau commander. It seems to me it would be better to make units balanced, rather than leaving them broken and not letting you have many of them. That said it does make a certain amount of sense that high-ranking characters would be rare - or it would if the same rule applied to everyone.
Niiai wrote: The one per faction universal rule sugested would prevent dark eldars from ever getting faction bonuses.
No one is suggesting all HQs are 1 per FACTION. We are suggesting CERTAIN HQs be limited to 1 per DETACHMENT.
You can still have multiple of them, but you need another detachment.
Smaller, weedier HQs are NOT being suggested for the 1 per detachment rules.
Archons, Haemis, Librarians, Eldar Warlocks, etc are fine as is for selection. The fluff supports multiples in most armies and gameplay doesn't really suffer.
Tyrants, Tau Commanders, Greater Daemons, etc are NOT supported in the fluff as being something that you often see multiples of and clearly doing so hurts gameplay in some cases.
Maybe, but it would have to at least double the cost of a non-winged Tyrant to really be effective. And even then you'd still see 5+ Tyrant lists
-
I fully support the idea of the "badass" hq's being limited. Quite frankly, I have no issue with spam, there are certain units that are SUPPOSED to the rarely seen, commanders, flyrants, princes, even Ork warbosses(yes it's not broken but I have hopes for the codex). Things that are.supposed to lead armies should be one-ofs
As a chaos player I believe princes should make the 1/detachments list as well.
Niiai wrote: The one per faction universal rule sugested would prevent dark eldars from ever getting faction bonuses.
No one is suggesting all HQs are 1 per FACTION. We are suggesting CERTAIN HQs be limited to 1 per DETACHMENT.
You can still have multiple of them, but you need another detachment.
Smaller, weedier HQs are NOT being suggested for the 1 per detachment rules.
Archons, Haemis, Librarians, Eldar Warlocks, etc are fine as is for selection. The fluff supports multiples in most armies and gameplay doesn't really suffer.
Tyrants, Tau Commanders, Greater Daemons, etc are NOT supported in the fluff as being something that you often see multiples of and clearly doing so hurts gameplay in some cases.
Maybe, but it would have to at least double the cost of a non-winged Tyrant to really be effective. And even then you'd still see 5+ Tyrant lists
-
This is more in line with what i was referring to. You still have the Supreme Command Detachemnt if you want to go that route, but then you have very little CP and troops.
10000+
10000+
8500+
3000+
8000+
3500+ IK Plus 1x Warhound, Reaver, Warlord Titans
Mandragola wrote: Yeah I'm curious about how DE will function in a competitive scene which usually limits you to 3 detachments. Wonder if they'll have that restriction waived for patrols or something.
If I was going to nerf flyrants I'd remove their invulnerable save. Make it so you had to choose between the wings or the invulnerable. The problem now is that there's no reason you'd ever take a non-winged flyrant.
I don't like the 1 per detachment thing on the Tau commander. It seems to me it would be better to make units balanced, rather than leaving them broken and not letting you have many of them. That said it does make a certain amount of sense that high-ranking characters would be rare - or it would if the same rule applied to everyone.
I actualy really like these units being broken, but being limited by how many you can take. It makes commands, autarch, hive tyrants, greater daemon, etc just feel like they should on the table. Power houses and truly meant to be leaders of thier force, but by being so limited in how many you can take keeps them from taking over like we see with the tyrant spam or commander spam.
Now I'm not saying they should be crazy good, but maybe just a tiny bit better than most. It's cool when you see a hive tyrant hit the table and your like "Oh sh**."
Wow, definition of that word has changed a lot over 20 years. Maybe it is a really good guy who wants to notch a win, and that's what he is forced to play according to the meta...
Anyways... There's clearly an answer here: MOAR REAPERZ!
Just kidding. I'm wondering how well dire avengers, guardians, and wave Serpents would do. Bury them in volume with units that they can kill, but don't have as much value as reapers and other gems.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also: please stop with the ham-handed Tau Commander nerf for every army. It is a bad way of fixing a model that is probably undercosted if it has that trait.
SPAM list = bad sportsmanship which i would classify as more then 50% of your list points being in the same type of unit/model.
A well build Difficult list I would not classifiy as bad sportsmanship.
If you are specifically cheesing the game, then its no fun to play, why do I want to waste 3 hours of my life playing your unbeatable spam list when we both no the outcome. Thats no fun. Lets just shake hands, Ill kick you in the balls, you get the Win, and we call it even.
You made a better list than I did because you bought the flavor of the month, that doesn't make you a better player or tactician than me.
What if you are playing checkers, and the rules are amenda and the red checkers always get to start with 4 Kings. Of course you are going to in. Don't waste time playing.
The best way TO can discourage this is to implement scenarios that force players to build balance list, and place limitations on either detachments, % thresholds, unit types, etc... Until that happens we will continue to have these arguments about the 40k Tourney scene like we have the last decade.
10000+
10000+
8500+
3000+
8000+
3500+ IK Plus 1x Warhound, Reaver, Warlord Titans
Sportsmanship has nothing to do with what your army is made of. I has do with how much of an ass you are. Are you a sorry loser? Do you run it in peoples face when you win?
Don't get me wrong everyone gets salty if they get their butts kicked, it happens. But that doesn't make the guy who beat you an donkey-cave just cause he brought a winning list.
In fact I'd venture to say if spam lists and tourney play bug you, just stay out tournaments. Whole point of a tourney is to win(some people can say it's to have fun but that happens regardless of winning and losing, just roll dice), if you don't like that kind of attitude than it's fine, but don't force that on other people or you might find people are calling YOU the bad sport.
Niiai wrote: The one per faction universal rule sugested would prevent dark eldars from ever getting faction bonuses.
It's one per detachment, not faction. Also, per the Drukhari leaks, it appears they are designed to be taken in patrol detachments, so they would be just fine with one unique HQ per patrol detachment.
That aside, its still a poor band-aid. Other factions would definitely suffer from this rule, and some fluffy choices would be restricted. For instance, Eldar Warlocks would only be able to appear in numbers when taken in a conclave (which removes their character rule). I don't think having more than one Warlock in a detachment is breaking the game.
Edit: Looks like Galef beat me to the punch.
One per detachment means dark eldar can never get their faction bonus outside of patrol detcahments. They only have 3 HQ witch each of they keywords (baring special characters.). If you mix keywords you loose detachment bonuses. Aka, you can not field anything outside of a patrol detcahments.
While dark eldar can function under a patrol it is very odd that you would limit choises to 2 units in most categories in patrol only lists.
The sugestion is bad. Your dowplayment of the problems in implementing such a rule is also quite bad,
Niiai wrote: One per detachment means dark eldar can never get their faction bonus outside of patrol detcahments. They only have 3 HQ witch each of they keywords (baring special characters.). If you mix keywords you loose detachment bonuses. Aka, you can not field anything outside of a patrol detcahments.
While dark eldar can function under a patrol it is very odd that you would limit choises to 2 units in most categories in patrol only lists.
The sugestion is bad. Your dowplayment of the problems in implementing such a rule is also quite bad,
But again, the "one per detachment" isn't being suggested as a fix to all HQs, only specific ones. No DEHQ is going to be limited to 1 per detachment.
Martel732 wrote: Reapers and flyrants both need significant nerfs. That's the bottom line here.
This.
Caveat as a nid player.
Flyrants dont need a point increase. They need to limit 1 per detachments like Tau Commanders. In fact that should be a general rule across all armies IMO. THe reason you see Flyrant spam is because all of the other Nid HQ units are mediocre and or point inefficient. If we saw Broodlords drop by about 20, or malanthropes down to 120 you would begin to see these again. The smite changes saw the end of neurothropes and increase cost of wings on Hive Tyrants Could be fair. Decrease Swarmy by 30 pts would probably result in him seeing more table time. GW will probably over compensate and drastically raise points of both units though so you dont need to worry to long.
Um no that's bad solution that bandaid the symptoms rather than fixing the problem(That is flying hive tyrants are too good and other HQ's are too bad). Howabout this radical concept: Nerf hive tyrant's abilities or up the cost until it's not so brokenly good and/or up the power of other HQ's until they are viable options to hive tyrants?
If you just slap 0-1 per detachment that's effectively 1 per detachment and 3 detachments per tyranid army for max 3 hive tyrants because they would STILL be too good for their points so would be stupid to not maximize on them.
tneva82 wrote: Howabout this radical concept: Nerf hive tyrant's abilities or up the cost until it's not so brokenly good and/or up the power of other HQ's until they are viable options to hive tyrants?
No, because Hive Tyrants are SUPPOSED to be amazaballs-awesome. That is why a Hive Fleet only makes like 1 per battle in the fluff. It takes resources to make one, and one is all they need.
I get that we "ignore the fluff" to balance the rules, but we shouldn't have to. We can have our cake and eat it too. We should allow fluff to dictate rules such as army construction. 7 Tyrants is unfluffy. 30 Dark Reapers is unfluffy. Making the change to limit this not only balances the rules, but creates more fluffy and varied armies.
Yes, hiking up the points can create balance too, but it does nothing to promote fluffy lists and often just makes players drop that unit and spam the next best thing. Why would you do something that only does A, when a solution exists that can do A and B?
If Tyrants are still really good, but limited, players will still take them. If Tyrants blow because they are ineffective, they'll just stop taking them.
-
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2018/04/04 21:30:47
If tyrants (or any other unit) are limited to 1 but are highly effective for their points/op then they will still be a no-brainer choice. No-brainer choices are bad, mmmkay?
A model can be super powerful, but this power has to be represented in its point cost if you want to be able to actually play a semi-balanced game. Just limiting availability is not balance, that's saying "I couldn't figure out the correct point cost for this unit, so I just hardcapped it at 1 lol". At that point I'd basically be forced to always take a tyrant as hq regardless of points level, because even though it is limited it is still way more powerful than my other options. I like having actual options.
shortymcnostrill wrote: If tyrants (or any other unit) are limited to 1 but are highly effective for their points/op then they will still be a no-brainer choice. No-brainer choices are bad, mmmkay?
A model can be super powerful, but this power has to be represented in its point cost if you want to be able to actually play a semi-balanced game. Just limiting availability is not balance, that's saying "I couldn't figure out the correct point cost for this unit, so I just hardcapped it at 1 lol". At that point I'd basically be forced to always take a tyrant as hq regardless of points level, because even though it is limited it is still way more powerful than my other options. I like having actual options.
^^This
Every mechanic in the game can be balanced through proper points costing, including things like Smite spam, flyer armies, and other 'broken' things which have been 'fixed' through arbitrary limitations that satisfy no-one. Don't get me wrong, its not an easy thing to do and GW has impressed me with their good reactive responses to balance issues this edition. However I would prefer if they focused on getting the points right instead of constantly tweaking rules in conjunction with points changes. They have for some reason gimped themselves to changing points once a year with Chapter Approved which doesn't help either.
shortymcnostrill wrote: If tyrants (or any other unit) are limited to 1 but are highly effective for their points/op then they will still be a no-brainer choice. No-brainer choices are bad, mmmkay?
A model can be super powerful, but this power has to be represented in its point cost if you want to be able to actually play a semi-balanced game. Just limiting availability is not balance, that's saying "I couldn't figure out the correct point cost for this unit, so I just hardcapped it at 1 lol". At that point I'd basically be forced to always take a tyrant as hq regardless of points level, because even though it is limited it is still way more powerful than my other options. I like having actual options.
We are not saying that the points cost doesn't also have to be balanced. Simply that limiting to 1 per detachment can allow the unit to remain powerful enough to be worth taking without being abused.
Too many times have a points increase been over done, or a rules change made a unit bland.
Raise the cost of the wings, limit to 1 per detachment, keep everything else as is. Now tyrants are appropriately costed AND can only be taken in a army at more appropriate numbers compared to the actual army.
No one was complaining when Reaper Spam stomped Flyrants out of existence at LVO.
Suddenly, one tournament where there's no place to hide or get cover, and Flyrants are this big problem.
Answer: Bring more reapers. Put them in a bastion in the center of your deployment zone.
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
No one was complaining when Reaper Spam stomped Flyrants out of existence at LVO.
Suddenly, one tournament where there's no place to hide or get cover, and Flyrants are this big problem.
Answer: Bring more reapers. Put them in a bastion in the center of your deployment zone.
True no bottom level of cover might maybe disadvantage dark reapers over Flyrants. However, the ITC mission pack does nothing to eldar, but punishes needs. Which is the real reason for a difference in preformance, as many of the tables at adepticon had some really nice levels of terrain.
As i said the missions dominate nids in ITC and eldar fly by with little care:
So looking at the scoring differences:
Both ITC and Adepticon have secondaries
29% of your total possible points for any given ITC mission is secondaries. Mind you the secondaries are the easiest to score, and winning tournament list generally score full secondaries. WIth primaries either not being scored due to games ending on turn 2 or 3 (time), or some missions making primaries so super difficutl to score. Meaning these secondaries can end up being worth 50% or more of your score toward winning in some cases.
Adepticon's secondaries (and we'll say tertiaries are part of this) is set to be at most 50% and can not be higher.
Now the meat:
ITC secondaries specifically target and nerf specific subsets of units. MSU, 10man squads, Monsters/tanks, monster tank warlords/lords of war. It was said these do as much on purpose on thier podcast signals from the frontline. For nids who bring many monsters giving out big game hunter 8pts out of 42 for ~20% of your points for killing 4 hive tyrants, and if one is your warlord can give out all 12 secondary pts by jsut picking out and killing 4 of your hive tyrants. that 29% of your possible points only considering if you actually finish all of your rounds. How do the eldar fair??? great, thier secondaries don't really target them out specificly, and any you use on the eldar player you could ahve almost jsut as easily have chosen to use those same secondaries on the nid player. Stuff like old school, recon, behind enemy lines, thousand cuts, and head hunter; all of which are objectives that you pick more because your army can do them and less about exploiting a nerf the ITC mission pack does to some subset of units. (edit: assume you kill a big unit of shining spears and dark reapers and 2 wave serpents, you'd get maybe 2 pts for big game hunters and that it, otherwise you have to stagger out those killson purpose over 4 turns, and actualy get a chance to play those turns to get the pts for killing a unit each turn. SO killing the same number of pts in both armies in ITC isn't really fair.)
Adepticon secondaries are modified kill pts can be worth 30% of your score and tertiary that are worth 20% of your pts. Secondaries are modified kill pts. This means the durability/pts of a model actualy matters dark reapers who are very squishy pts give up modified kill pts very quickly where as hive tyrants with thier 4+ invuln and more wound/pts and high toughness are more difficult to take pts off of. For sake of comparison a bright lance is worth 22.5pts per hit on a dark reaper vs only 18.95 worth of points off a hive tyrant. (edit going back to our 4 dead hive tyrant idea, assume one is your warlord you'd get 8pts off the secondary and up to 6 teriaries 26% of your total possible pts, or only half your total secondary/tertiar alotment. Now for the dark eldar example killing the big dark weaper squad and a big shining spear squad along side 2 wave serpents get's you 8 pts in secondary, and 4 tertiaries. Netting you almost the same pts as if you took the same amount of pts of stuff away from the eldar player.)
As you can see there is a big points disparity that you deny your opponent, or force your opponent to do more work to get based on your list in ITC. Where as in adepticon's style as long as you can kill stuff you can score those same pts.
Another point of comparison, In ITC while you are killing hive tyrants you are also scoring more pts from getting your 1 unit kill per turn atleast, and maybe more off the mucilid spore kills you start to get, meaning that's another +2pts per turn that you can rather confidently score meaning all things considered nids go into the game being behind 52% of the possible points that can be scored. Where the primaries for adepticon (50%) are more about being mobile and controling the table or by an end of the game surge onto objectives (for eternal war).
So what does it all mean??? well it means that in ITC Eldar are rock starts and are a very good army, while in the Adepticon mission pack the nids have a considerable advantage. More over i'd say similar analyse of eternal war and malestor missions from the Big book of rules and chapter approved also tend to have similar results that favor nids as well. I think the nerfing mind set of the ITC is a bit of the wrong way to go in the current GW climate. I say this because i really don't think dark reapers are all that power. They are definitly a very good unit, but they shined at LVO only off the back of the ITC mission pack. Should dark reapers go up in pts or something?? maybe tiny bit or have thier min unit size adjusted, but not to the level that LVO suggest. In any other mission pack with out bias the eldar would simply just be one of the top 8 (like it is at adepticon), and no one would have anything to say about them. What shows this even more if we look at the UKGT results where eldar don't show up until 17th place, and nids have a top 5 showing. This just shows how out of touch the ITC mission pack is with the rest of how 40k is played.
I personally wish ITC would change thier mission pack to be alittle more open with missions tailored alittle more toward your army being able to do a things (killing and grabbing objectives), and less on you being punished for bringing stuff to the table. Otherwise any ITC event really just needs to be completely thrown out of any consideration balancing the game, as to do otherwise would just see units unjustly nerfed or nerfed more than they should be. This would hurt casuals who don't care at all about ITC as thier seeing there units nerfed due to abnormal ITC preformance.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/04/05 06:10:02
mmizie thats basically my observation as well. the mission pack favored nids at Adepticon and ITC does not favor Flyrant spam. Big Game Hunter, Head Hunter, and Kingslayer will yield a $hit ton of secondary points on a flyrant list. (1 pt per 4 wounds) so you are looking at 3+1 Big Game +1 for warlord, +1 Head hunter (6 pts) for the warlord. FOr non warlord Flyrants you are still netting 2 pts each.
My issue is that the tourney scene has made the meta: "Oh, that army won, they are OP, my army needs a buff, they need a nerf, its so unfair...blah, blah, blah..."
Maybe they should give it more than one tourney of play, but they wont.
10000+
10000+
8500+
3000+
8000+
3500+ IK Plus 1x Warhound, Reaver, Warlord Titans
SPAM list = bad sportsmanship which i would classify as more then 50% of your list points being in the same type of unit/model.
A well build Difficult list I would not classifiy as bad sportsmanship.
If you are specifically cheesing the game, then its no fun to play, why do I want to waste 3 hours of my life playing your unbeatable spam list when we both no the outcome. Thats no fun. Lets just shake hands, Ill kick you in the balls, you get the Win, and we call it even.
You made a better list than I did because you bought the flavor of the month, that doesn't make you a better player or tactician than me.
What if you are playing checkers, and the rules are amenda and the red checkers always get to start with 4 Kings. Of course you are going to in. Don't waste time playing.
The best way TO can discourage this is to implement scenarios that force players to build balance list, and place limitations on either detachments, % thresholds, unit types, etc... Until that happens we will continue to have these arguments about the 40k Tourney scene like we have the last decade.
1) Sportsmanship is completely subjective. As clearly defined by you: you consider list building as a part of sportsmanship. Salty attitudes like that are exactly why sportsman points are usually just a side attraction for people to chase, OUTSIDE of the main tally. The second you put sportsman points into the overall standings is when the top cut becomes a popularity contest.
2) What if the flavor of the month list you just played was generated by the person sitting across from you? As a writer of a few decks that went viral in some CCGs years back, I would have be absolutely floored if you ripped me for netdecking my own deck. You simply do not know, yet you are holding them to the standard of being just another guy maliciously ripping ideas from other people to win a tournament. Even then, sportsmanship is covered under: well, you have no creativity, but can you win with class?
3) Get mad at the list, not the dude. Especially if the opponent was a classy guy, roflstomping you with a good attitude. Why would you punish a really good guy for trying to compete? There's already enough jerks who get WAY to competitive at those sorts of levels, why would you try to force out someone who wouldn't leave you feeling abused after a game?
4) Checkers is not 40k. If I could listbuild my starting forces with a King being worth X checkers, and I ran 4 kings only... well, I guess going in with 33% of my opponent's forces could change the stakes a bit. But the point I am making is that if someone tried to sneak in 4 kings with his starting checkers force, he is cheating and being a jerk. If someone sacrifices 60% of his points to spam some units at a high level tournament... he is not cheating, he is just trying to reasonably compete. Don't characterize a person by the list they bring, characterize them by the game they give you (even if it looks like doom to begin with... the models are not his personality).
This is the tournament scene. Hell, at least there is variety in the 40k scene. Usually, the only thing that shifts CCG meta is new cards and old cards dying. If there is a really strong concept, usually the only shift for it is when the concept is put to rest by an edition change. You usually have 1 concept roflstomping the environment for 1-2 years before it loses enough stuff to be put to rest... or another concept is made to trump it. If you want to compete, you either play the most competitive list... or you go in expecting to have to play that list and have a solution for it. Don't dog the people who are playing your nemesis list, don't try to ask someone to nerf 'em. Figure out how to beat 'em, or ask your opponent after the game where you went awry. If he is truly a good sport, he'll tell you exactly what he exploited in your play in hopes of making you a better player for next time.
As someone who plays one (or at most two) Hive Tyrant(s) generally I would be pretty annoyed if the solution was simply 'massively point hike wings'. I think a Tau commander style change would be more amenable.
shortymcnostrill wrote: If tyrants (or any other unit) are limited to 1 but are highly effective for their points/op then they will still be a no-brainer choice. No-brainer choices are bad, mmmkay?
A model can be super powerful, but this power has to be represented in its point cost if you want to be able to actually play a semi-balanced game. Just limiting availability is not balance, that's saying "I couldn't figure out the correct point cost for this unit, so I just hardcapped it at 1 lol". At that point I'd basically be forced to always take a tyrant as hq regardless of points level, because even though it is limited it is still way more powerful than my other options. I like having actual options.
We are not saying that the points cost doesn't also have to be balanced. Simply that limiting to 1 per detachment can allow the unit to remain powerful enough to be worth taking without being abused.
Too many times have a points increase been over done, or a rules change made a unit bland.
Raise the cost of the wings, limit to 1 per detachment, keep everything else as is. Now tyrants are appropriately costed AND can only be taken in a army at more appropriate numbers compared to the actual army.
-
Ah, my bad then, I misunderstood. I actually completely agree with this :p
Martel732 wrote: Reapers and flyrants both need significant nerfs. That's the bottom line here.
This is also why playing the list to "TABLE" an opponent is not the best strategy. SO many times people build list for alpha or tabling to kill everything. This leads to Spam list. If ITC missions were done at all tourneys just take troops for Obj Secured and play the objectives. for secondaries Hive Tyrants Give up a $hit ton of points Take Big Game Hunter(pt for monsters), Headhunter(1 pt per character) and King Slayer (point per 4 wounds done on a monster). So if you kill 1 hive Tyrant you just banked 5 points. Lets say your game only goes 3 or 4 turns and you kill 1 tyrant per turn. Thats 15-20 points off secondaries. Add in your troops for objective secured and your fine.
The issue at Adepticon was the ruleset.
TO can also place limits on HQ choices to no more than say 25% of your army. We could also add a Hobby and Sportsmanship score. If someone is bringing a spam list you can score them poorly on sportsmanship.
Totally agree. Even if playing a friendly game, if you know you're going up against Flyrant spam then insist on playing Maelstrom or Open War and bring a list with plenty of ObSec.
I play:
40K: Daemons, Tau
AoS: Blades of Khorne, Disciples of Tzeentch
Warmachine: Convergence of Cyriss
Infinity: Haqqislam, Tohaa
Malifaux: Bayou
Star Wars Legion: Republic & Separatists
MESBG: Far Harad, Misty Mountains
Martel732 wrote: Reapers and flyrants both need significant nerfs. That's the bottom line here.
Flyrants finished outside the top 50 at LVO, Blood Angels were in the top 10.
Therefore, Blood Angels need a nerf.
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
Couldn't increasing your average size for rangers squads effectively counter these lists? 3 mawlocks only averages 6 mortal wounds. Increase ranger squads to 8 - and you back the tyrants up an additional (up out of turn 2 charge range possibly even).
Also - how about warlock conclaves on foot? With singing spears? A squad of 10 could probably deal with 2 tyrants at once. Also - wave serpants - blow serpant sheild and charge the closest tyrant - he will keep that tyrant from charging for at least 2 turns.
Heres what I am thinking
3 units of 8 rangers
10 man foot warlocks with singing spears Inside one of your serpents. That's a lot of d3 damage that doesn't really care about a 4++ save. Plus their destructor smite and jinx/protect.
D cannon support weapons - individual units once they deploy (getting almost 3 cannons per hive tyrant)- Tyrant shooting not super effective against them and great to absorb smites. Each one packing legit firepower too.
Probably better off playing these units as Ulthwe also - as the -1 to hit aloitoc is being ignored generally by this list. It also gives your rangers some protection against the mawlocks attacks. How fantastic would it be if your rangers were able to survive just enough to hold up a tyrant in assault.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/06 19:33:50
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Martel732 wrote: Reapers and flyrants both need significant nerfs. That's the bottom line here.
Flyrants finished outside the top 50 at LVO, Blood Angels were in the top 10.
Therefore, Blood Angels need a nerf.
They are too cheap for a T7 model with a 4++ that can be held in reserve. I'm looking at more that tournament results. IG are getting skunked in tournaments, but dominate friendly, because of time constraints.
BA also cheated to get in the top 10 of LVO, so it basically didn't happen.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/04/06 19:30:06
whirlwindstruggle wrote: As someone who plays one (or at most two) Hive Tyrant(s) generally I would be pretty annoyed if the solution was simply 'massively point hike wings'. I think a Tau commander style change would be more amenable.
Ltierally all they need to do is give MRC a point cost of about 20 point and perhaps increase the base of the tyrant by about 5-10 points. It will hardly affect an army bringing 3 or less will only be about 60-75 points more. For an army of 7 though that will go up almost 200 points.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
whirlwindstruggle wrote: As someone who plays one (or at most two) Hive Tyrant(s) generally I would be pretty annoyed if the solution was simply 'massively point hike wings'. I think a Tau commander style change would be more amenable.
Ltierally all they need to do is give MRC a point cost of about 20 point and perhaps increase the base of the tyrant by about 5-10 points. It will hardly affect an army bringing 3 or less will only be about 60-75 points more.
For an army of 7 though that will go up almost 200 points.
Which many players would gladly pay to spam a unit so good. Small points increase are always advised over huge points hikes, but they do not always solve the issue.
Limiting the number of times a unit can be taken does.
6k
2k
10000+
8500+
3000+
8000+
3500+ IK Plus 1x Warhound, Reaver, Warlord Titans
