FAQ Analysis from LVO winner

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.

**Arachnofiend**

Lemondish wrote:
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

I mean, they did. "More than three of a single datasheet, other than troops" is spam as defined by GW.

**Sherrypie**

Daedalus81 wrote:
admironheart wrote:

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

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

Almost like fast things should be able to benefit from being fast in other ways than simply getting to charge immediately, gee. I'm up for that, if it means boring gunlines have to manouver a bit to get things done. Add some terrain rules regarding movement to the mix, use Cityfighting rules for +2 cover from digging in and see how the games get a whole lot better.

Also, admironheart, that's a cool table with a respectable amount of terrain

**Purifying Tempest**

Daedalus81 wrote:
admironheart wrote:

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

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

But not Militarum lists? Find it odd that you only point out fliers and bikes. Terrain empowers and weakens units on a sliding scale. There's no way you can hit the "perfect" amount, but many players will agree that more is better than less... unless they've calibrated their playing experiences to tables like Adepitcon. If they have calibrated to that crap, getting them to play with a hill is a trial because they cannot see 100% of your army with that one tank.

**Daedalus81**

Purifying Tempest wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
admironheart wrote:

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

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

But not Militarum lists? Find it odd that you only point out fliers and bikes. Terrain empowers and weakens units on a sliding scale. There's no way you can hit the "perfect" amount, but many players will agree that more is better than less... unless they've calibrated their playing experiences to tables like Adepitcon. If they have calibrated to that crap, getting them to play with a hill is a trial because they cannot see 100% of your army with that one tank.

Fliers, Bikes, and LOS weapons. Better? :p

This is the table that basilisk love.

**Wayniac**

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

Of note is that the picture caption said 2011, so maybe it's not current? But if it is, then yeah, although part of that is due to the fact forests and hills are little more than decoration now and serve no actual terrain purpose. If forests were, for instance, where they block LOS through them but not into them, suddenly having a few large forests on the table actually does something.

**Unit1126PLL**

I'd actually love that table for my superheavies as well. It fits their lore (as an urban combat regiment) and actually has places where a Baneblade can hide from things like Killshot, for example. I think it would absolutely be a blast. If it was on a 12x8 even more so, though I recognize that's beyond most people's space limits.

**Purifying Tempest**

Daedalus81 wrote:

Fliers, Bikes, and LOS weapons. Better? :p

This is the table that basilisk love.

Much, thanks

Though, tables like these also favor the strong 12" and in armies like Sororitas as well. They can move around behind obscurity and pop into LoS at their preferred ranges.

**deviantduck**

That's too much terrain. The table can't be completely chokepoints.Adepticon was laughably sparse. LVO has a good amount, but I wish every table wasn't the exact same setup. Each table has the twin LoS blockers perfectly symmetrical in the center of the table laid out for a DoW deployment. Yawn.

**Daedalus81**

deviantduck wrote:
That's too much terrain. The table can't be completely chokepoints.Adepticon was laughably sparse. LVO has a good amount, but I wish every table wasn't the exact same setup. Each table has the twin LoS blockers perfectly symmetrical in the center of the table laid out for a DoW deployment. Yawn.

Yea that's the evils of tournaments. If you want consistent results you need consistent terrain.

**mokoshkana**

Not sure about LVO, but at adepticon, you get to roll off and place terrain before the game if you so desire. So the tables can be a bit more dynamic.

**Sherrypie**

deviantduck wrote:
That's too much terrain. The table can't be completely chokepoints.Adepticon was laughably sparse. LVO has a good amount, but I wish every table wasn't the exact same setup. Each table has the twin LoS blockers perfectly symmetrical in the center of the table laid out for a DoW deployment. Yawn.

Can't say I'd agree on that being too much, as it gives a proper urban feel to the table instead of merely riffing with the idea. Compared to those bowling balls those tournaments had, that's a proper table and I wager I'd personally enjoy it a whole lot more. It's nice to play a very, very terrain heavy match now and then. What's wrong with chokepoints aplenty, Zone Mortalis says hi

**Galef**

I actually like terrain that is "even" on both sides. It seems more fair that way as players have the same options to interact with that terrain.
At events, however, each table should have different levels of terrain and each player should be moved to a different table each round.
That way having more terrain in one game many give them an advantage, but the next game they might have to deal with mush less terrain.
But whether you have more or less terrain, having terrain heavily on only one side is not fair.

**DCannon4Life**

@Daedalus81

Your picture of "typical" terrain at AdeptiCon, I have a question: What event was that terrain for? Unless it was pre-2015 (before I came on board), that wasn't 40K Championship or 40K Team Tournament terrain. That picture isn't even from the hall where the Championship/Team Tournament is held.

EDIT: I found it. That pic is from 2011. Tsk.

Here's a walk through of the Team Tournament from 2018. Terrain starts around 4:32. I am not saying AdeptiCon terrain is 'good', but anyone claiming that there are NO LoS blocking elements is wrong:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl4UtmnR7sg

**Therion**

Breng77 wrote:
NO it really is an overreaction. Deepstrike is not destroyed, it just isn't noob stomper stupid. First turn deepstrike assault is bad in tournament play, other than maybe by flyrants. Reserves will now be more defensive than they are now.

Soup is not effected much Ynnari, assasins, celestine are really the only units that are much effective.

The rule of 3 knocks out PBC spam, Dark Talon Spam, Hive tyrants, hurts Reapers...probably some other stuff as well.

There are other changes that hurt top meta lists
Pox walkers requiring points to go above starting size is a big deal, Tide of traitors getting 1 per game. Eldar getting points increases on many key parts, and Word of the Phoenix going up in WC . Fire Raptors going up in points

There are other changes that people aren't really looking at right now as they lose their minds of OMG deepstrike is dead, and OMG rule of 3 sux.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
BTW Rule of 3 is very good for tournament balance in the long run compared to unrestricted list building.

+1 everything you said, and what Nick said. I think most active tournament players agree the FAQ is a resounding success and nobody can identify the next meta shaping lists yet because the balance is in a much better place. Sure, some armies like Eldar are still better than some others, but the most egregious offenders are all gone.

Tyranids took a little bit too big hit, because they went from deeping 7 cheap Tyrants to not deeping 3 expensive ones (or anything at all really). I’d say Gene Cult is clearly stronger than Tyranids now.

**Daedalus81**

DCannon4Life wrote:
@Daedalus81

Your picture of "typical" terrain at AdeptiCon, I have a question: What event was that terrain for? Unless it was pre-2015 (before I came on board), that wasn't 40K Championship or 40K Team Tournament terrain. That picture isn't even from the hall where the Championship/Team Tournament is held.

EDIT: I found it. That pic is from 2011. Tsk.

Here's a walk through of the Team Tournament from 2018. Terrain starts around 4:32. I am not saying AdeptiCon terrain is 'good', but anyone claiming that there are NO LoS blocking elements is wrong:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl4UtmnR7sg

No, you're right. I grabbed the wrong image. Sorry if it seemed like I was disparaging Adepticon. Totally not my intent.

**Xenomancers**

Daedalus81 wrote:
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+

Your opponent will simple not shoot at them until they can focus fire to kill them off completely. The Pox walker list was super busted - running 50 man cultist squads in front of units of 10 pox walkers - you really don't have a choice but to shoot at 50 man cultist squads because if you don't they will lock up your whole army - so 10 man pox walkers would automatically grow for free. Pox walkers now are just like necrons - you just don't shoot at them until you are ready to kill them.

What I was saying is there is no reason to pay points for the ability to go over starting size - you could just take more pox walkers to begin with - which would be better.

**Breng77**

That is likely true unless you see value in squad sizes over 20. The way many buffs and strats work there might be reasons to take a max squad and some points to go over max. What you won’t do is take 10 and extra points. The big killer to doing that is Dark Eldar, you don’t want to have points set aside and get them killed because your strat gets canceled.

**admironheart**

I build all my tables for thematic effect.

Ice Moon with base
Forest Landing Strip.
Cities
Town with a Main Street at high noon.
Ports
Canyons with 10" tall edges on most of both sides
Mountain Satelite Station
Fort on the Riverbank
Etc

My table is 6x8 or 6x12 and can be 6x16 with enough room for 8+ mates playing with Beer and chips and a wife who cooks a great meal to go with the dinner wine.

Deployment is normally 24" per side so you have ample space to hide those Basilisks and set up screens.

So you need to have a flier/drop pod, etc to get into that hidden backfield.

Every army needs to build for those contingencies and counter contingencies....meanwhile rhinos rush of the streets to deliver a payload or Landspeeders zoom in between buildings dodging sniper fire and Gargoyles.
Lets just say it is fun for everyone.

The last one was called a Chaos Night Before Emperormass. (yeah that imperial village never knew what hit them)

**Scott-S6**

Tyel wrote:

On the terrain argument - most people don't play in tournaments. But I think people overwhelmingly play on tables that look like those. Most people do not have hundreds of pounds worth of LOS blocking terrain features on their tables - whether they play at tournaments, at clubs or at home.

Given that filling a table with LoS blocking terrain can be done for a few tens of pounds then you're probably correct that they don't have hundreds of pounds worth of terrain.

The only reason not to have that terrain is laziness - it certainly isn't money as you're suggesting.

**Zid**

Scott-S6 wrote:
Tyel wrote:

On the terrain argument - most people don't play in tournaments. But I think people overwhelmingly play on tables that look like those. Most people do not have hundreds of pounds worth of LOS blocking terrain features on their tables - whether they play at tournaments, at clubs or at home.

Given that filling a table with LoS blocking terrain can be done for a few tens of pounds then you're probably correct but that they don't have hundreds of pounds worth of terrain.

The only reason not to have that terrain is laziness - it certainly isn't money as you're suggesting.

You can make terrain out of anything... literally. Just takes creativity, enginuity, and a bit of effort.

Every game store I have frequented in my life has a decent selection of terrain; the standard seems to be 6 large terrain pieces per table plus around 5-10 smaller features, depends on how dedicated your club is. My current club everyone donates lik $10 to a communal pot to buy new terrain at least annually, and one guy (a pro painter and modeler) comes to the store and makes set pieces the owner pays for.

**peteralmo**

Blood Angels- As far as I know the verdict isn’t out yet for how the Wings of Fire strat and the new reinforcement rules interact, but assuming they don’t work, BA armies are going to have to look for more fire support (potentially from guard) in order to make up for the pressure they lost turn 1.

I'm a little late to this thread. But this stood out to me, where a lot of people were saying BA would be fine, Nick seems to get what I and many other BA players also realized, that BA are pretty well neutered and if you want to play them, best to pair them with a gunline capable ally, aka guard. Pure BA as competitive is done for the time being.

**Martel732**

There's no point in having BA with IG when you can just buy more IG guns and be way better off.

**Ordana**

peteralmo wrote:
Blood Angels- As far as I know the verdict isn’t out yet for how the Wings of Fire strat and the new reinforcement rules interact, but assuming they don’t work, BA armies are going to have to look for more fire support (potentially from guard) in order to make up for the pressure they lost turn 1.

I'm a little late to this thread. But this stood out to me, where a lot of people were saying BA would be fine, Nick seems to get what I and many other BA players also realized, that BA are pretty well neutered and if you want to play them, best to pair them with a gunline capable ally, aka guard. Pure BA as competitive is done for the time being.

The verdict is out after GW made a facebook post about the changes and added that it was done in collaboration with the rules team. See YMDC for details.

Yes you can leave your deployment zone in turn 1 with On Wings of Fire and similar abilities.

**peteralmo**

Ordana wrote:
peteralmo wrote:
Blood Angels- As far as I know the verdict isn’t out yet for how the Wings of Fire strat and the new reinforcement rules interact, but assuming they don’t work, BA armies are going to have to look for more fire support (potentially from guard) in order to make up for the pressure they lost turn 1.

I'm a little late to this thread. But this stood out to me, where a lot of people were saying BA would be fine, Nick seems to get what I and many other BA players also realized, that BA are pretty well neutered and if you want to play them, best to pair them with a gunline capable ally, aka guard. Pure BA as competitive is done for the time being.
The verdict is out after GW made a facebook post about the changes and added that it was done in collaboration with the rules team. See YMDC for details.

Yes you can leave your deployment zone in turn 1 with On Wings of Fire and similar abilities.

Unfortunately those stratagems only affect one unit. And Blood Angels assault units are built around a layering of multiple HQ buffs/auras. The bone the designers thought they were throwing deep strike focused armies may help certain factions, unfortunately not blood angels. Sending your expensive Sanguinary Guard or Death Company out into the fray without there buffs is a sure fire way to throw away a lot of points.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
There's no point in having BA with IG when you can just buy more IG guns and be way better off.

Well I didn't want to say it, but unfortunately this is just true. If you're simply min/maxing there's now no reason to ever play space marines in general, including blood angels. Pure guard will almost always be better.

**Breng77**

Pure guard is not better they lack assault counter punch. Guard + marines is better than guard if for no other reason than scouts. Otherwise you lose to armies like alpha legion or Ravenguard that get first turn. Now you don’t want to over invest in SM units but 2 BA captains and 3 units of scouts is better than what those 450 extra points if guard will likely buy you. Especially with the rule of 3 guard has some diminishing returns.

**Fafnir**

Breng77 wrote:
Pure guard is not better they lack assault counter punch. Guard + marines is better than guard if for no other reason than scouts. Otherwise you lose to armies like alpha legion or Ravenguard that get first turn. Now you don’t want to over invest in SM units but 2 BA captains and 3 units of scouts is better than what those 450 extra points if guard will likely buy you. Especially with the rule of 3 guard has some diminishing returns.

Bullgryns are one of the best assault units in the game. As in considerably better than what most assault-based armies have to offer.

**grouchoben**

They also get T1 assault with a priest when you bundle them on a valk.

**lolman1c**

grouchoben wrote:
They also get T1 assault with a priest when you bundle them on a valk.

ot sure if this is still the case but I remember someone showing a list of about 450pts or less hq units that can buff your guardsmen to be just as good as Ork boyz.

**Breng77**

Fafnir wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
Pure guard is not better they lack assault counter punch. Guard + marines is better than guard if for no other reason than scouts. Otherwise you lose to armies like alpha legion or Ravenguard that get first turn. Now you don’t want to over invest in SM units but 2 BA captains and 3 units of scouts is better than what those 450 extra points if guard will likely buy you. Especially with the rule of 3 guard has some diminishing returns.

Bullgryns are one of the best assault units in the game. As in considerably better than what most assault-based armies have to offer.

They are pretty good but not very mobile, they also don’t give you the forward screen like you get from scouts. They are a decent counter assault element, not nearly as good at getting across the table as things marines can offer. You don’t have to agree with me, but I see a lot more top table lists bringing in BA stuff turn 2 than I do using bullgryn. Further I’ve yet to lose to guard with my marines and the toughest match was against a player using BA (we were on a chess clock and had he not clocked out I might have lost) every other game my scouts let me claim table space to do turn 1 damage that I would other use be unable to do. Guard struggles against -1 to hit and forward assault elements are the answer to that weakness.

**the_scotsman**

lolman1c wrote:
grouchoben wrote:
They also get T1 assault with a priest when you bundle them on a valk.

ot sure if this is still the case but I remember someone showing a list of about 450pts or less hq units that can buff your guardsmen to be just as good as Ork boyz.

I mean, you can make them 3A S4 with catachans, a priest, and Straken, but they'll still be WS4+, T3, no mob rule and no whatever the rule is called that gives you 4A if you go above 20 boyz. You're also spending however many points, like 80 for straken or something and 30ish for the priest, just to make a couple 4 point models not quite as good as a 5 point model.