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.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
I don't think GW designs terrain with rules in mind at all. The box size probably has a bigger affect on the terrain piece than the rules do.

I think GW design(ed) terrain to look good first and to be practical for the game second.

Remember a lot of it like the Administratum Ruins was sculpted when Kirby was insisting they they were a miniatures company, not a game company. The more recent stuff works far better for its intended purpose.

This is 100% not true. With the exception of the single large pillar piece in the sector mechanicus sets, that whole terrain setup is utterly worthless in 40k. It's so tall that to climb it you basically give up your whole movement phase, it's so spindly that it wobbles and knocks your models over, and it's so sparse underneath that it almost never blocks any los.

Give me equal money in older GW ruin sets every day of the week.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
I don't think GW designs terrain with rules in mind at all. The box size probably has a bigger affect on the terrain piece than the rules do.

Which is fine. But they should write rules that function with the terrain they make. It is completely absurd that they wrote rules in which terrain with no base and full of holes do basically nothing when pertty much all the terrain they sell is like that.

 Crimson wrote:
I read the second part. I'm not sure I share his optimist about fast melee armies being able to threaten gunlines and thus force a meta shift. I hope he is right, though.

Maybe what he is implying that the army will struggle with: I will win a lot of my games, but if I run up against X, Y, or Z, I am completely screwed because I brought in NO security against that concept. The concept he is referring to is stuff like wych cults, shining spears, Alaitoc, Warp Spiders, Alpha Legion, etc. Things that are naturally ruggedized against their list.

You face any more than 1 (one) of those armies, and your day is done. Your event is done.

And what should happen is that a lot of these "prey on shooting heavy guard" lists should manifest, because they exist to prey on the top dog. They may be worse at a TAC game, but they are much better at simply ruining guard's day.

Now the burden is on guard players to not be a fat pig laying around next to a spit and a fire pit waiting for one of these lists to skewer them. Thus they have to incorporate counters and safeties... and you'll start to notice the list morph from "SPAM ALL ZE GUNZ!" to something more rounded - another TAC style list.

Edit: I played this mentality heavily in CCG format games. It is usually not a surprise who is running the scene, what deck is roflstomping the environment. You develop something that can counter that concept, but can also do decently against the rest of the field. If you can hold your own when you don't meet your desired match-up, if you can pound out those wins... and you make the top cut... where you're times more likely to face those desired match-ups. Best of luck, though, because the pilots are much better after swiss, too, so you get your dream match... but against a solid player

One problem I have with his analysis, is that he is only thinking about a tournament format.
In the second part for example he lays out how Tau/Guard gunlines have to build to counter Eldar (with theit -x to hit) and that would in turn somehow make them weaker against other armys, who do not have that trait (but he does not say how that works).

Well that argument is completely null and void in one-off games.

In our games for example, we usually know beforehand what we are going to face and the armys are tailor made for this opponent.
Not to the extreme, but if tell my opponent I am going to bring Nids versus his Blood angels for example, I am sure to see an above average number of assCannons showing up to the fight.

HMint wrote:
One problem I have with his analysis, is that he is only thinking about a tournament format.
In the second part for example he lays out how Tau/Guard gunlines have to build to counter Eldar (with theit -x to hit) and that would in turn somehow make them weaker against other armys, who do not have that trait (but he does not say how that works).

Well that argument is completely null and void in one-off games.

In out games for example, we know beforehand what we are going to face and the armys are typcially tailor made for this.

List tailoring is always a problem, unless both players are list-tailoring, in which case the player playing against Guard can meta-break harder than the guard player can against him. Guard options range from shooting heavy to less shooting heavy with a bit of CC.

While e.g. Blood Angels have the same shooting options as the best of the best Marines, but can also assault like a truck.

HMint wrote:
One problem I have with his analysis, is that he is only thinking about a tournament format.
In the second part for example he lays out how Tau/Guard gunlines have to build to counter Eldar (with theit -x to hit) and that would in turn somehow make them weaker against other armys, who do not have that trait (but he does not say how that works).

Well that argument is completely null and void in one-off games.

In out games for example, we know beforehand what we are going to face and the armys are typcially tailor made for this.

One-off games do not define the meta. They are by their name unique and are prone to rabid amounts of variables that can change that outcome.

If you get trounced by a Guard list with heavy shooting... and you NEVER play that guy again: digest the data and either incorporate some defense, or just say... well, I'll never see him again. Otherwise, if you regularly play this guy, incorporate some of the counters to start pushing back on him and develop your own meta local to that table.

Purifying Tempest wrote:

HMint wrote:
One problem I have with his analysis, is that he is only thinking about a tournament format.
In the second part for example he lays out how Tau/Guard gunlines have to build to counter Eldar (with theit -x to hit) and that would in turn somehow make them weaker against other armys, who do not have that trait (but he does not say how that works).

Well that argument is completely null and void in one-off games.

In out games for example, we know beforehand what we are going to face and the armys are typcially tailor made for this.

One-off games do not define the meta. They are by their name unique and are prone to rabid amounts of variables that can change that outcome.

If you get trounced by a Guard list with heavy shooting... and you NEVER play that guy again: digest the data and either incorporate some defense, or just say... well, I'll never see him again. Otherwise, if you regularly play this guy, incorporate some of the counters to start pushing back on him and develop your own meta local to that table.

You missed the point.
The pro-player we are discussing here, is assuming all lists are built without a certain opponent in mind.
What about games where this is not the case?
I can play that one player many times, but if he knows what I am bringing and I know what he his bringing, we will both tailor our lists to that. Which negates the point Mr. pro-player (forgot the name) makes in his article.

HMint wrote:
One problem I have with his analysis, is that he is only thinking about a tournament format.
In the second part for example he lays out how Tau/Guard gunlines have to build to counter Eldar (with theit -x to hit) and that would in turn somehow make them weaker against other armys, who do not have that trait (but he does not say how that works).

Well that argument is completely null and void in one-off games.

In our games for example, we usually know beforehand what we are going to face and the armys are tailor made for this opponent.
Not to the extreme, but if tell my opponent I am going to bring Nids versus his Blood angels for example, I am sure to see an above average number of assCannons showing up to the fight.

A meta where it is normal to list-tailor is pretty much always going to feel gakky for everyone. You basically set up "bigger collection wins." I always encourage players to build pure TAC lists for their local games.

 auticus wrote:
Thats the thing. In any wargame, the terrain should be variable.

Some tables its ok to have little terrain.

Some tables should have a lot.

Some tables have a moderate amount.

Not every game should be played on the same degree of terrain IMO.

However iif you are buildiing for unforseen terrain where you COULD end up on heavy terrain table you'd definitely be discouraged from showing up with a skew gunline.

Same if terrain was used iin conjunction with scatter on deep strike. People would have to take that into consideratiion.

Now its a no brainer. Why would you never do it? Before there was no reason to not show up wiith a turn 1 deep striike tabling of your opponent or gunline.

These are things that to me kill the game.

Exactly - variable is what it should be. Then guess what - we wouldn't have people winning the same event over and over because they know exactly what the tables are going to look like and can tailor a list to it.

HMint wrote:

You missed the point.
The pro-player we are discussing here, is assuming all lists are built without a certain opponent in mind.
What about games where this is not the case?
I can play that one player many times, but if he knows what I am bringing and I know what he his bringing, we will both tailor our lists to that. Which negates the point Mr. pro-player (forgot the name) makes in his article.

That's really pointless and falls under a casual game if anything else.

If I know someone is bringing a super heavy i'll pack in so many anti-tank that it's pointless under ANY meta.

HMint wrote:

Purifying Tempest wrote:

HMint wrote:
One problem I have with his analysis, is that he is only thinking about a tournament format.
In the second part for example he lays out how Tau/Guard gunlines have to build to counter Eldar (with theit -x to hit) and that would in turn somehow make them weaker against other armys, who do not have that trait (but he does not say how that works).

Well that argument is completely null and void in one-off games.

In out games for example, we know beforehand what we are going to face and the armys are typcially tailor made for this.

One-off games do not define the meta. They are by their name unique and are prone to rabid amounts of variables that can change that outcome.

If you get trounced by a Guard list with heavy shooting... and you NEVER play that guy again: digest the data and either incorporate some defense, or just say... well, I'll never see him again. Otherwise, if you regularly play this guy, incorporate some of the counters to start pushing back on him and develop your own meta local to that table.

You missed the point.
The pro-player we are discussing here, is assuming all lists are built without a certain opponent in mind.
What about games where this is not the case?
I can play that one player many times, but if he knows what I am bringing and I know what he his bringing, we will both tailor our lists to that. Which negates the point Mr. pro-player (forgot the name) makes in his article.

This is the definition of a local meta. And his statements are still right on:

1) Gunline guard got better... players will flock to gunline guard.

2) Players who do not want to play gunline guard, or already play a counter faction to gunline guard, will find ways to make that army weaker.

3) Gunline guard will now have to change their tactics to meet those lists on more equal ground.

Your meta is missing step 3... where the natural counters form to stop "that guy" from winning all of his games, or to give him a better match.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

HMint wrote:

You missed the point.
The pro-player we are discussing here, is assuming all lists are built without a certain opponent in mind.
What about games where this is not the case?
I can play that one player many times, but if he knows what I am bringing and I know what he his bringing, we will both tailor our lists to that. Which negates the point Mr. pro-player (forgot the name) makes in his article.

That's really pointless and falls under a casual game if anything else.

If I know someone is bringing a super heavy i'll pack in so many anti-tank that it's pointless under ANY meta.

Well yeah, it's obviously a casual setting. Casual is not supposed to be balanced?
I did try to promote 'blind list building' in the past because I felt it would lead to more interesting games, but they are absolutely against that. So I am screwed?

HMint wrote:
So I am screwed?

Short answer? Yes.
Long answer? Yes.

It's just not a great way to play. Imagine doing this in any other game...Starcraft, Magic, etc.

Maybe they'd be open to bringing two lists and you each pick which to use secretly at the table?

 Crimson wrote:
I read the second part. I'm not sure I share his optimist about fast melee armies being able to threaten gunlines and thus force a meta shift. I hope he is right, though.

Still, he seems to think that marines are basically fethed. On that, he is probably right...

SM/DA- Well, the only success these guys seemed to be having on the highest levels of competition seemed to be spamming fliers, and now that’s gone. I’m not sure if these have a place as more than just an ally unfortunately.

Considering how many marine players there are, this is exactly not an ideal state of affairs...

If that's what he is saying then I would bet money that next event the one list he will not be running is a "fast assault" based force.

After reading the rest I would bet evens on some kind of marine based spam list but more likely a gunlines of some description.

A fast and mobile shooting army I could see maybe as an option, somthing that can cause gunlines issues and murder any mugs daft enough to bring a fast melee army.

Mind you his pox spam list is untouched by the NERF so maybe he dusts that off.

Poxwalker spam is dramatically affected.

1. Poxwalkers can no longer spawn beyond max squad limits.
2. Tide of traitors is 1 per game.

How can you say it is not affected?

 Marmatag wrote:
Poxwalker spam is dramatically affected.

1. Poxwalkers can no longer spawn beyond max squad limits.
2. Tide of traitors is 1 per game.

How can you say it is not affected?

They can go beyond starting size, but they pay points at that point.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Poxwalker spam is dramatically affected.

1. Poxwalkers can no longer spawn beyond max squad limits.
2. Tide of traitors is 1 per game.

How can you say it is not affected?

They can go beyond starting size, but they pay points at that point.

Which would be pretty dumb - better to just add more units so you have them automatically. Just like every other ability like that - no one ever uses it. GW doesn't seem to understand that - it's almost useless. I can imagine a few situations where it could be beneficial - but it's even less beneficial for pox walkers

 Xenomancers wrote:

Spoiler:

 auticus wrote:
Thats the thing. In any wargame, the terrain should be variable.

Some tables its ok to have little terrain.

Some tables should have a lot.

Some tables have a moderate amount.

Not every game should be played on the same degree of terrain IMO.

However iif you are buildiing for unforseen terrain where you COULD end up on heavy terrain table you'd definitely be discouraged from showing up with a skew gunline.

Same if terrain was used iin conjunction with scatter on deep strike. People would have to take that into consideratiion.

Now its a no brainer. Why would you never do it? Before there was no reason to not show up wiith a turn 1 deep striike tabling of your opponent or gunline.

These are things that to me kill the game.

Exactly - variable is what it should be. Then guess what - we wouldn't have people winning the same event over and over because they know exactly what the tables are going to look like and can tailor a list to it.

I completely agree with this. Forcing players to adapt to more or less terrain in the same event is 100% a better test of how good they are.
It also means certain types of armies may have to play on the tables with less than ideal terrain for their playstyle.
A gunline army might get to play on a shooting gallery one game, but have to deal with loads of LoS blocking terrain the next game.
If every event was like this, it would promote more versatile listed that can find benefits to more and less terrain

-

 Xenomancers wrote:

Which would be pretty dumb - better to just add more units so you have them automatically. Just like every other ability like that - no one ever uses it. GW doesn't seem to understand that - it's almost useless. I can imagine a few situations where it could be beneficial - but it's even less beneficial for pox walkers

Huh? Maybe you're confused about the wording? What's bad about replenishing a unit of 20 that got knocked down to 5 for free? The part that is gone is where you take unit of 10 or whatever and sacrifice cultists and grow them to 30+

Tyel wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
How is 100 of a horde unit spam? They are horde for a reason.

20 custodes guardian is more spam than 90 ork boyz. Wich makes clear that the definition of spam is 100% subjetive and for that reason useless. One can put a hard limit based in whatever reason he wants, normally to try to achieve balance. But what constitutes spam isn't actually productive to that conversation.

It actually is, because some people wanted hard limits because of "spam".

They want hard limits because of skews - not spam in and of itself.

Its bizarre to claim 6 units of 5 Marines is the same issue as 6 Flyrants.
Or 5-6 Plagueburst Crawlers.
Etc.
They are not the same.

If you have 500 points of A, 500 points of B, 500 points of C and 500 points of D then for me at least that almost certainly isn't a spam list - even if it means you have 120 cultists or 50 naked tactical marines or whatever.

Skews are because of bad internal balance, not because you can take as many of a unit as you want. Otherwise if you have an army with a broken troop choice, that's spam as well.

 Crimson wrote:
I read the second part. I'm not sure I share his optimist about fast melee armies being able to threaten gunlines and thus force a meta shift. I hope he is right, though.

Still, he seems to think that marines are basically fethed. On that, he is probably right...

SM/DA- Well, the only success these guys seemed to be having on the highest levels of competition seemed to be spamming fliers, and now that’s gone. I’m not sure if these have a place as more than just an ally unfortunately.

Considering how many marine players there are, this is exactly not an ideal state of affairs...

I'm confident that fast melee will pop its head in the meta to keep armies like guard and Tau honest. The reason why I'm confident is I have used this exact tactic through multiple editions of Hearthstone to reach legends. When they released the absolute (pre nerf) broken quest rogue that 80% of players copied I simply threw down a mediocre rush lock that could beat it about 80% of the time and breezed to legends in an afternoon. When rush shaman/ pirate warrior was ripping up the meta I ran a control warrior/shaman and made it to legends easily. The funny thing too is that this strat only lasts a little while then the meta changes because these people realize if they keep playing crazy skew decks they will just lose. The same thing will happen in 40k If a large percentage of people begin to take parking lots with no mobility and not enough screens people will exploit it just like he's claiming in the article and then the meta will settle somewhere in the middle.

As for his outlook on SM.... yeah I agree they aren't in a great spot. I think there is some room for detachments or certain builds but I think they are going to struggle a bit until the next Chapter Approved. Also if Guard gun line does get too prevalent I could see a raven wing player with plenty of las cannons having a very good time.

Not true skews are a product of the variety of units available in the game. Unless specific units are over costed there will always be some effectiveness in taking a boat load of infantry and no bigger models or the reverse. Doing so lessens the effectiveness of a portion of your opponents force. Which units get used in these are directed by poor internal balance. Now the restriction in place stops spam not necessarily skews as it is still possible to bring all infantry or all tanks etc even with the 0-3.

Further spam is exacerbated by a lack of limits on what you can take and no point costing will every be able to fully solve the issue.

 Marmatag wrote:
GW should publish a guideline for how much terrain there should be.

GW should publish a guideline for what spam is so we can move the feth on already

HMint wrote:
One problem I have with his analysis, is that he is only thinking about a tournament format.
In the second part for example he lays out how Tau/Guard gunlines have to build to counter Eldar (with theit -x to hit) and that would in turn somehow make them weaker against other armys, who do not have that trait (but he does not say how that works).

Well that argument is completely null and void in one-off games.

In our games for example, we usually know beforehand what we are going to face and the armys are tailor made for this opponent.
Not to the extreme, but if tell my opponent I am going to bring Nids versus his Blood angels for example, I am sure to see an above average number of assCannons showing up to the fight.

List tailoring is always going to be a problem and there is no way to really fix it except to heavily discourage people in your group or to make people have a fixed list. We used to do this in our WHFB group when we would meet for weekend games. You would print out a list to play people with but not know your opponent so that nobody was tempted to be "that guy" and build his list that week with combinations made to stomp a specific opponent. Honestly, if your playing people that are just list tailoring to beat you, you're going to either have to spend a ton of money on models to keep evolving or run 2 different codexes and not tell them what your going to show up with that week.

HMint wrote:
One problem I have with his analysis, is that he is only thinking about a tournament format.
In the second part for example he lays out how Tau/Guard gunlines have to build to counter Eldar (with theit -x to hit) and that would in turn somehow make them weaker against other armys, who do not have that trait (but he does not say how that works).

Well that argument is completely null and void in one-off games.

In our games for example, we usually know beforehand what we are going to face and the armys are tailor made for this opponent.
Not to the extreme, but if tell my opponent I am going to bring Nids versus his Blood angels for example, I am sure to see an above average number of assCannons showing up to the fight.

Yes, context is important. When reading the perspective and analysis from a tournament player talking about the tournament meta, it is important to recognize that he isn't talking about one-off games. What did you expect?

 Crimson wrote:
I read the second part. I'm not sure I share his optimist about fast melee armies being able to threaten gunlines and thus force a meta shift. I hope he is right, though.

Still, he seems to think that marines are basically fethed. On that, he is probably right...

SM/DA- Well, the only success these guys seemed to be having on the highest levels of competition seemed to be spamming fliers, and now that’s gone. I’m not sure if these have a place as more than just an ally unfortunately.

Considering how many marine players there are, this is exactly not an ideal state of affairs...

This makes me feel soooo good to hear an "expert" say. Where's my boy Xeno to get some of this "we've been trying to tell you rock-heads that marines suck since IG codex dropped" validation?

But hey don't let that stop GW from more marine nerfs...

 Galas wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I'm thiinking if proper terrain exiists and not the barren tables that I saw everywhere at Adepticon that gunlines shouldn't have a super easy time at all.

Of course thats a challenge in and of itself: providing proper terrain. And while planet bowling ball is the tournament standard, that is also the expected standard at many FLGS pick up games.

Indeed Adepticon's terrain had little LOS blocking.

This is LVO:

Spoiler:

This is Adepticon:

Spoiler:

Nova dictates big LOS blockers:

Spoiler:

Ok, now I know why I have 0 problems with gunlines and shooting alpha strike. Our tables have so much terrain that in many cases is even hard for rhinos and other vehicles to move. If you want to hide half your army from the enemy in your first turn, you absolutely can.

For Context, this was me playing agaisnt Tyranids in my first tournament of 8th after jumping back to the hobby:

Spoiler:

Bah you still don't have enough terrain for tactical movement and game play.

This is our normal 2nd ed or 8th ed games:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/917145-.html

That Adepticon table looks sparse for a Warmachine board.

 LunarSol wrote:
That Adepticon table looks sparse for a Warmachine board.

Yeah, it's a complete joke.

 admironheart wrote:


https://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/917145-.html

Stuff like this would heavily favor flyers and bikes. There is a consequence to everything.