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_scotsman wrote:
I mean.

Fusion pistols though, right?

they are 5 points.
If you made Lascannons 5 points you would see them yes...

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Voss wrote:
I think that's kind of the point. It wasn't even viable then. But now its even better (because of the added damage at close range and twice the shots) at half the cost/half the multimeltas, to the point that you don't consider 6 spamming.

Two units that didn't even max their available heavy weapons is not spamming. It's the kind of list building you want. Taking a tool for effect and not having to over rely on that aspect to tackle most opponents.

Great, fine. The point is, you said 12 multimeltas were too much, and now 6 multimeltas are better than 12 used to be. Its a huge shift in how the game works, regardless of how you want to pointlessly argue about 'spamming'

 Ordana wrote:
Sisters might be T3 but they are still 3+/6++. I think its a mistake to label them as 'paper thin'.

5 model squads, single wound, T3, no stealth, firepower, or close combat ability to speak of. They represent no meaningful obstruction to any kind of attacking unit in the game.

KurtAngle2 wrote:
Ask yourself why Sisters are consistently top 3 in almost all tournaments, the answer is quite simple:
- Buff to HB
- Buff to Melta
- Buff to Melee scenarios

It's certainly boosted them up, but even before the change they were competitive and running essentially the same list with the multimeltas traded out for more meltagun and inferno pistol sisters.
You'll note that only the retributors have multimeltas with their extra shot cherubs - none of the other sisters infantry or vehicles have touched them despite fairly widespread availability.

A.T. wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
Sisters might be T3 but they are still 3+/6++. I think its a mistake to label them as 'paper thin'.

5 model squads, single wound, T3, no stealth, firepower, or close combat ability to speak of. They represent no meaningful obstruction to any kind of attacking unit in the game.

KurtAngle2 wrote:
Ask yourself why Sisters are consistently top 3 in almost all tournaments, the answer is quite simple:
- Buff to HB
- Buff to Melta
- Buff to Melee scenarios

It's certainly boosted them up, but even before the change they were competitive and running essentially the same list with the multimeltas traded out for more meltagun and inferno pistol sisters.
You'll note that only the retributors have multimeltas with their extra shot cherubs - none of the other sisters infantry or vehicles have touched them despite fairly widespread availability.

Battle Sisters only have access to a single MM per squad (whereas their Meltagun access is 3x) and the only vehicles with MM access is the Immolator
The only place where you can any MM consistency is Retributors so try again

KurtAngle2 wrote:
Battle Sisters only have access to a single MM per squad (whereas their Meltagun access is 3x) and the only vehicles with MM access is the Immolator
The only place where you can any MM consistency is Retributors so try again

Try again at what? None of the battle sister squads in the list are carrying multimeltas which is what I was saying - retributors get a lot more power per gun than other squads.

And that doesn't even address the main point of my post which is that sisters were getting top 3 before the melta change - it's not the only reason they are there.

 Ordana wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
I mean.

Fusion pistols though, right?

they are 5 points.
If you made Lascannons 5 points you would see them yes...

How much does a melta pistol cost sisters/space marines? Don't they have the exact same gun with improved rules?

the problem with fusion pistols is Soaring Spite, and the fact that you can just take them on absolutely everything. If the new codex comes out and fusion pistols aren't limited to 2 per troupe as they come in the actual kit, I'll eat my hat.

Point was, I was just disproving the whole 'd6 damage weapons are always bad and the sux because they're too unreliable' point.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
I mean.

Fusion pistols though, right?

they are 5 points.
If you made Lascannons 5 points you would see them yes...

How much does a melta pistol cost sisters/space marines? Don't they have the exact same gun with improved rules?

the problem with fusion pistols is Soaring Spite, and the fact that you can just take them on absolutely everything. If the new codex comes out and fusion pistols aren't limited to 2 per troupe as they come in the actual kit, I'll eat my hat.

Point was, I was just disproving the whole 'd6 damage weapons are always bad and the sux because they're too unreliable' point.

one very cheap gun taking in large numbers does not disprove that d6 damage is bad and unreliable.

 Ordana wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
I mean.

Fusion pistols though, right?

they are 5 points.
If you made Lascannons 5 points you would see them yes...

How much does a melta pistol cost sisters/space marines? Don't they have the exact same gun with improved rules?

the problem with fusion pistols is Soaring Spite, and the fact that you can just take them on absolutely everything. If the new codex comes out and fusion pistols aren't limited to 2 per troupe as they come in the actual kit, I'll eat my hat.

Point was, I was just disproving the whole 'd6 damage weapons are always bad and the sux because they're too unreliable' point.

one very cheap gun taking in large numbers does not disprove that d6 damage is bad and unreliable.

It is still pretty bad which is probably why lascannons are fairly "cheap" for what you get compared to much better weapons like MM. At this point I feel like lascannons are now the premier guard weapon since they are the only ones who can take advantage of fielding them in large enough numbers to make a difference. On the flip side they are also TERRIBLE choices for fielding lascannons so we are reminded that lascannons are not good weapons

Voss wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Voss wrote:
I think that's kind of the point. It wasn't even viable then. But now its even better (because of the added damage at close range and twice the shots) at half the cost/half the multimeltas, to the point that you don't consider 6 spamming.

Two units that didn't even max their available heavy weapons is not spamming. It's the kind of list building you want. Taking a tool for effect and not having to over rely on that aspect to tackle most opponents.

Great, fine. The point is, you said 12 multimeltas were too much, and now 6 multimeltas are better than 12 used to be. Its a huge shift in how the game works, regardless of how you want to pointlessly argue about 'spamming'

There's a lot more to this than the reduction presented here.

12 MM was a ton of points and not worthwhile. 6 MM isn't a lot given that retributors alone can bring 12 to the table. The point being is that MM didn't win him the game and he would gladly omit them if he could.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ordana wrote:
No, Lascannons are dead because 1 shot D6 damage weapons are complete garbage and have been since this damage system was first introduced.

There is a reason no one was using Lascannons before either but using multishot weapons with less damage.

D6 damage is way way to unreliable to be of any real use.

Lascannons used to be 25. Being costed at 60% of previous cost helps a bit. It's just still irrelevant, because most things you want to shoot at coming mid-table so MM won't struggle. You'd need a model that doesn't have to come to the middle to be incredibly threatening like a Tyrant/Castellan. People were opting for strong melee that could cross the table ( shining spears, smash captains ) or stuff that put out absurd lethality with mega rerolls ( levis, chaplain, mortis dreads ) - the chaplain and mortis dread notably came with TLC all the time.

Melta right now overshadows other options and makes playing vehicles incredibly hard.

The best fix would be just reducing its range.
At range 18" (including eradicators) it would be more of a choice. Still very cheap for its possible damage, but less automatic in its delivery (and no bonus melta out of deep strike).

Spoletta wrote:
Melta right now overshadows other options and makes playing vehicles incredibly hard.

The best fix would be just reducing its range.
At range 18" (including eradicators) it would be more of a choice. Still very cheap for its possible damage, but less automatic in its delivery (and no bonus melta out of deep strike).

Well, that's why people take bikes, because it is hard to get Eradicators into melta range. But then they get even fewer shots for the cost.

Put into context - an Eradicator @ 45 nets you two D6 shots most of the time. Two devs with LC is 66 and gets you two shots that has as much AP turn 1, more protection from mid-range guns, and another wound ( but less T ). Eradicators can pick up a proper MM for 4 shots, but then Devs can cherub and signum. Havocs can walk and talk and will have their own strengths when they go W2.

It isn't perfectly balanced internally, but it isn't far off.

As for people not taking vehicles - Eradicators have a hard time taking down T8 with and weak vehicles with an invuln. Imagine spending all your shooting to take out a KFF'd Trukk and failing to do so. The lack of vehicles is half partially misplaced fear of MM and half desire to control the mid-board with competent melee units.

Lascannons are "dead" because MMs are so ludicrously superior.

If you were to imagine such a thing as a Retributor with a Lascannon, how many points would it be to be competitive with a 34 point one with an MM? The Lascannon in this scenario is worth 5 points - if that.

Since they are obviously overcosted for what they do, people don't take them. See Missile Launchers as another example. Autocannons are probably there too.

I'm not sure that's the reason the list won though. Realistically I think the old claim that lists win 40k is getting less and less true for 9th, because the objective system makes it much more a function of player decisions and dice rolls. There are obviously still good and bad units - but I don't think we'll get the situations of previous editions where two or three lists (and variants thereof) are obviously head and shoulders above the rest - and prove at tournament after tournament.

Tyel wrote:
Lascannons are "dead" because MMs are so ludicrously superior.

If you were to imagine such a thing as a Retributor with a Lascannon, how many points would it be to be competitive with a 34 point one with an MM? The Lascannon in this scenario is worth 5 points - if that.

Since they are obviously overcosted for what they do, people don't take them. See Missile Launchers as another example. Autocannons are probably there too.

I'm not sure that's the reason the list won though. Realistically I think the old claim that lists win 40k is getting less and less true for 9th, because the objective system makes it much more a function of player decisions and dice rolls. There are obviously still good and bad units - but I don't think we'll get the situations of previous editions where two or three lists (and variants thereof) are obviously head and shoulders above the rest - and prove at tournament after tournament.

Agreed. Terrain and objectives (both Primary and Secondary) mean more than they did in 8th Ed. Players have to take those into account to win. A bad list can sink you and a great list can help you, but you need some acumen as well. Theoryhammer/Mathhammer will only get you so far in 9th.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Lascannons are "dead" because MMs are so ludicrously superior.

If you were to imagine such a thing as a Retributor with a Lascannon, how many points would it be to be competitive with a 34 point one with an MM? The Lascannon in this scenario is worth 5 points - if that.

Since they are obviously overcosted for what they do, people don't take them. See Missile Launchers as another example. Autocannons are probably there too.

I'm not sure that's the reason the list won though. Realistically I think the old claim that lists win 40k is getting less and less true for 9th, because the objective system makes it much more a function of player decisions and dice rolls. There are obviously still good and bad units - but I don't think we'll get the situations of previous editions where two or three lists (and variants thereof) are obviously head and shoulders above the rest - and prove at tournament after tournament.

Agreed. Terrain and objectives (both Primary and Secondary) mean more than they did in 8th Ed. Players have to take those into account to win. A bad list can sink you and a great list can help you, but you need some acumen as well. Theoryhammer/Mathhammer will only get you so far in 9th.

I do agree with this, but in this particular istance these results don't support it.

Despite all the SM OP threads, sisters are the indiscussed queens of the meta right now and Admech are well within tier 1.

Both are considered stronger than any 9th edition dex, with only 'crons coming close.

Tyel wrote:
Lascannons are "dead" because MMs are so ludicrously superior.

If you were to imagine such a thing as a Retributor with a Lascannon, how many points would it be to be competitive with a 34 point one with an MM? The Lascannon in this scenario is worth 5 points - if that.

Since they are obviously overcosted for what they do, people don't take them. See Missile Launchers as another example. Autocannons are probably there too.

I'm not sure that's the reason the list won though. Realistically I think the old claim that lists win 40k is getting less and less true for 9th, because the objective system makes it much more a function of player decisions and dice rolls. There are obviously still good and bad units - but I don't think we'll get the situations of previous editions where two or three lists (and variants thereof) are obviously head and shoulders above the rest - and prove at tournament after tournament.

The more the game is aimed towards objectives rather then kills the more tactics matter, which was a major problem with ITC, where kills were everything.

But lists are still important in giving you the tools you need.
The sister list has decent firepower with the Retibutors, Repentia are very lethal and thanks to miracle dice make long charges reliably, Zephirem and Seraphims for speed, Morifiers for chaff clearing (to many forget this) and a bunch of sister units to stand on objectives.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Lascannons are "dead" because MMs are so ludicrously superior.

If you were to imagine such a thing as a Retributor with a Lascannon, how many points would it be to be competitive with a 34 point one with an MM? The Lascannon in this scenario is worth 5 points - if that.

Since they are obviously overcosted for what they do, people don't take them. See Missile Launchers as another example. Autocannons are probably there too.

I'm not sure that's the reason the list won though. Realistically I think the old claim that lists win 40k is getting less and less true for 9th, because the objective system makes it much more a function of player decisions and dice rolls. There are obviously still good and bad units - but I don't think we'll get the situations of previous editions where two or three lists (and variants thereof) are obviously head and shoulders above the rest - and prove at tournament after tournament.

Agreed. Terrain and objectives (both Primary and Secondary) mean more than they did in 8th Ed. Players have to take those into account to win. A bad list can sink you and a great list can help you, but you need some acumen as well. Theoryhammer/Mathhammer will only get you so far in 9th.

If Retributors could take LC they would use them competently since they can step out from behind cover without penalty. They can cherub and miracle dice the damage. They'd have a place if there were a need. There just isn't a need.

135 for the 3MM & cherub. 135 for 4 LC & cherub. One steps out and kicks off 8 shots and the other 5. ( Cherub should maybe be 1 additional shot instead, but w/e ). You don't have a delivery problem with LC, but you do have a terrain problem. Like I said - it isn't perfect, but it isn't very far off, either.

I am surprised that GW and event organisers, maybe the ITC, don’t use tourney results and game experience to forge a narrative with a live points cost adjustments on GW website or with some explanation on an event site, such as “Sisters of Battle have been using meltas during so many recent engagements that supplies of promethium are low in this sector. Melt a weapons will cost +25% points...” or something to that effect, to respond to meta hawking list optimisers.

That, and eldar and dark eldar do not belong together. It saddens me to see that it continues to be a thing. Yuck.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
If Retributors could take LC they would use them competently since they can step out from behind cover without penalty. They can cherub and miracle dice the damage. They'd have a place if there were a need. There just isn't a need.

135 for the 3MM & cherub. 135 for 4 LC & cherub. One steps out and kicks off 8 shots and the other 5. ( Cherub should maybe be 1 additional shot instead, but w/e ). You don't have a delivery problem with LC, but you do have a terrain problem. Like I said - it isn't perfect, but it isn't very far off, either.

I feel the need to point out that 8 is much larger than 5. I don't think its remotely close.
And then you get into 12" and it becomes the equivalent of about 12 versus 5. (Stratagem is comedy gold, but assume it would buff Las in this situation too.)

For Spoletta - agree and disagree.
Sisters are undoubtedly top tier - its probably them and Harlequins fighting it out for the top spot. I think Ad Mech are decent - but if they are in the top tier (and probably there or thereabouts), I think so are a lot of other armies. I'm not convinced Ad Mech are better than all forms of Marines or DG although I guess we'll see as more tournaments in the US are held.

But yes, its not the same as someone rocking up to a tournament and winning with Tau or GSC.

Spoletta wrote:
At range 18" (including eradicators) it would be more of a choice. Still very cheap for its possible damage, but less automatic in its delivery (and no bonus melta out of deep strike).

Yeah, no thanks.
Instead of nerfing the weapon for everyone without good reason, why don't we stop pretending 110x150cm is the size of an average kitchen table and thus "the perfect size that should be used, always" and stop using "minimum sizes" to get back some space, since it looks like some of us feel constrained on these setups.

Also, why are we even talking about meltas like they are what made this list strong when it's a triumph/20+repentias/bloody rose list ?
Remove 2 multi meltas if you want, it won't be a big deal.

Tyel wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
If Retributors could take LC they would use them competently since they can step out from behind cover without penalty. They can cherub and miracle dice the damage. They'd have a place if there were a need. There just isn't a need.

135 for the 3MM & cherub. 135 for 4 LC & cherub. One steps out and kicks off 8 shots and the other 5. ( Cherub should maybe be 1 additional shot instead, but w/e ). You don't have a delivery problem with LC, but you do have a terrain problem. Like I said - it isn't perfect, but it isn't very far off, either.

I feel the need to point out that 8 is much larger than 5. I don't think its remotely close.
And then you get into 12" and it becomes the equivalent of about 12 versus 5. (Stratagem is comedy gold, but assume it would buff Las in this situation too.)

Sure and 48" is also distinctly different from 24" as is S9 vs T8. People just don't have a need ( or ability, I suppose ) to work those angles. Take a knight - 8 MM shots ( > 12" ) do 6.2 and 5 LC shots do 5.2. That's a whole heck of a lot closer together.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Sure and 48" is also distinctly different from 24" as is S9 vs T8. People just don't have a need ( or ability, I suppose ) to work those angles. Take a knight - 8 MM shots ( > 12" ) do 6.2 and 5 LC shots do 5.2. That's a whole heck of a lot closer together.

Yes, the issues are LOS-blocking terrain (and to a degree Dense terrain), that lots of platforms can move and shoot without penalty and so easily move into shorter range and that in a game about sticking *something* on objectives, stuff tends to have to get close - if you camp 48" back, you are just out of the game. Which is why I think we see a meta evolution to having less and less "hang back". You have to get a critical mass of firepower - and usually bodies - at a certain point on the table in given turns.

But barring a total re-write, that's not shifting. That's 9th editon.
In a world where the MM is 20% better than the Lascannon in a scenario tilted as much in favour of the Las as its possible to be, and where the MM can improve that superiority to 90% by getting into 12", you have a clear problem.

And the only real solution is to take things MMs don't want to shoot. Which is why you see this weird meta evolve.

Tyel wrote:
in a scenario tilted as much in favour of the Las as its possible to be

If we exclude the scenario where the LasCan is in range and not the MM, I guess.

Perhaps the Sisters are benefiting from late 8th Ed design doubling down on 9th Edition changes (likely unintentional but who knows). The Strat to make Multi-Meltas on Retributors better is even better when you add in the changes to Multi-Meltas in 9th (Rate of Fire 2 and the damage change), smaller boards and Obscuring Terrain favouring shooty units that can also move. I'd be surprised to see that Stratagem survive unchanged. While some armies can't wait for their 9th Ed Codex, others are probably happy with things just the way they are!

Sisters appear to be due a book much sooner than I imagined so I guess we'll find out pretty soon.

Tyel wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
If Retributors could take LC they would use them competently since they can step out from behind cover without penalty. They can cherub and miracle dice the damage. They'd have a place if there were a need. There just isn't a need.

135 for the 3MM & cherub. 135 for 4 LC & cherub. One steps out and kicks off 8 shots and the other 5. ( Cherub should maybe be 1 additional shot instead, but w/e ). You don't have a delivery problem with LC, but you do have a terrain problem. Like I said - it isn't perfect, but it isn't very far off, either.

I feel the need to point out that 8 is much larger than 5. I don't think its remotely close.
And then you get into 12" and it becomes the equivalent of about 12 versus 5. (Stratagem is comedy gold, but assume it would buff Las in this situation too.)

For Spoletta - agree and disagree.
Sisters are undoubtedly top tier - its probably them and Harlequins fighting it out for the top spot. I think Ad Mech are decent - but if they are in the top tier (and probably there or thereabouts), I think so are a lot of other armies. I'm not convinced Ad Mech are better than all forms of Marines or DG although I guess we'll see as more tournaments in the US are held.

But yes, its not the same as someone rocking up to a tournament and winning with Tau or GSC.

As a faction Harleys have better average results, but for top lists Admech are actually preferred. They can stack old design rules one on top of another to obtain disgustingly powerful shooting, while completely dominating the battlefield with the Serberys. Take a look at the Alpha League finals (season 7) to see what an Admech list can really do. It is the kind of list you will likely see only on TTS, since it costs quite the $ and is almost surely going to be demolished in the incoming codex.

Honestly, if I were a cutthroath competitive Admech player I would have a lot to fear from this new dex. It will surely buff a lot of units and make new builds, but right now Admech lives on rule abuse and those are going away.

A lot of debate on MM vs LC, and I think it's easy to figure out.

Lascannon had more value because of range, terrain for a time also meant much less. The pushed board size makes range much less of an issue and terrain also makes the range more of a hindrance than a help if setting up for good fire lanes as they are easier to avoid/easier for the enemy to close the distance quickly.

Almost every unit in the game has a way to show up very close to your front line, making that range mean less and less.

1 D 6 for damage as has been said, sucks. Set values or less variance or both are king.


MM just benefits from the closer ranges, quicker closing the gap and less variance in damage results and for all it does well, which is a lot. It's also cheap to field and on units that can move and get use of it well, which will only increase with the Numdam Suits when they land.

Now the elephant in the room is people are keep calling the sisters book an 8th ed codex and it is but it was at the tail end of 8th which leads me to believe perhaps some of this being upper end is having a better idea on what the game would be when this book dropped. I'd like to think they planned it up well enough for that at least.

The DE spot is using cheap costs for a unit thats changed a lot I don't think that is in itself a mystery either.

Ad mech I feel like just have such a good suite of units and abilities now with their current book and the PA stuff. PA really placed the power creep high for people though.

I think we're still too early in the edition to draw any conclusions about where the army power/player skill divide is going to settle (never mind that the best players almost always take the broken lists). One point to note here is that the winner of this event was using a completely different army to the one they used at the last major tournament just a week earlier. Being in a position to switch armies to the most meta-relevant is still one of the biggest advantages a plyer can have in 40k.

I think what we're seeing right now is that army strengths break down into 3 categories:

1. All the 9th edition Codexes seem at least decent, verging on very good. Some of the SM supplements don't seem quite as good as others but overall the factions with new rules are doing pretty well from a balance and power perspective.

2. There's a subset of 8th edition Codexes that have benefitted from the switch to 9th, becoming very powerful or borderline broken due to certain rule or weapon changes. Harlequins gained a big boost form board size changes and the objective-based gameplay forcing armies into the middle of the board, for example. Sisters are benefitting from pretty much all their signature weapons getting buffed and their close combat units being harder to avoid. We saw a similar thing in the switch from 7th to 8th edition WHFB where, for about 6 months, Orcs were a top-tier army because of one broken spell that interacted well with the updated rules.

3. Everyone else, who are languishing with pretty poor Codexes or armies that have just never functioned that well. These guys might make a good showing here or there but anyone showing up with GSC or Tau are very much playing on hard mode right now.

Spoletta wrote:
As a faction Harleys have better average results, but for top lists Admech are actually preferred. They can stack old design rules one on top of another to obtain disgustingly powerful shooting, while completely dominating the battlefield with the Serberys. Take a look at the Alpha League finals (season 7) to see what an Admech list can really do. It is the kind of list you will likely see only on TTS, since it costs quite the $ and is almost surely going to be demolished in the incoming codex.

Honestly, if I were a cutthroath competitive Admech player I would have a lot to fear from this new dex. It will surely buff a lot of units and make new builds, but right now Admech lives on rule abuse and those are going away.

I'll admit to knowing almost nothing about the competitive TTS scene. Probably should have found a way to follow it this last year, but never really found a suitable platform.

While I can imagine the meta is different due to money being no object, and there are no concerns of sunk cost losses (both reasons for why I don't just "have" 120 Acolytes with Hand Flamers sitting on my shelf) I'm sort of surprised if Ad Mech are the top performing faction why they are not winning more tournaments/generally doing better in realspace.

 jeff white wrote:
I am surprised that GW and event organisers, maybe the ITC, don’t use tourney results and game experience to forge a narrative with a live points cost adjustments on GW website or with some explanation on an event site, such as “Sisters of Battle have been using meltas during so many recent engagements that supplies of promethium are low in this sector. Melt a weapons will cost +25% points...” or something to that effect, to respond to meta hawking list optimisers.

That, and eldar and dark eldar do not belong together. It saddens me to see that it continues to be a thing. Yuck.

I mean, the new codex literally has a rule that says de and eldar can't actually be in the same detachment together called 'weakling kin.'

But craftworlders do hire dark eldar in the lore as mercenaries. It is a thing that happens. You can say they don't belong together if you want, but like it or not, you would be wrong. Dark eldar being mercenaries has always been a thing since they were added to the game.

Tyel wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
As a faction Harleys have better average results, but for top lists Admech are actually preferred. They can stack old design rules one on top of another to obtain disgustingly powerful shooting, while completely dominating the battlefield with the Serberys. Take a look at the Alpha League finals (season 7) to see what an Admech list can really do. It is the kind of list you will likely see only on TTS, since it costs quite the $ and is almost surely going to be demolished in the incoming codex.

Honestly, if I were a cutthroath competitive Admech player I would have a lot to fear from this new dex. It will surely buff a lot of units and make new builds, but right now Admech lives on rule abuse and those are going away.

I'll admit to knowing almost nothing about the competitive TTS scene. Probably should have found a way to follow it this last year, but never really found a suitable platform.

While I can imagine the meta is different due to money being no object, and there are no concerns of sunk cost losses (both reasons for why I don't just "have" 120 Acolytes with Hand Flamers sitting on my shelf) I'm sort of surprised if Ad Mech are the top performing faction why they are not winning more tournaments/generally doing better in realspace.

AdMech actually did really good in this very tournament (getting 2nd) and routinely do well in realspace.