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.

Trust me; Stelek speaks the truth about the Marine dex (and most other things too but lets not stroke his ego *too* much )

Typeline wrote:I can see where Stelek is coming from here, no army is defenseless they just need to get it together and find their tactical advantage or combo.

It's like when I used to play Street Fighter 3S competitively. There are tiers in that game, but it only feels like it applies to U.S. players. Chun-Li, Yun and Ken are the top tier. But when you jet set over to Japan it's completely different. Of course you see Chun, Yun and Ken win a little more but there are just some powerhouse combos that the others have.

The same is true for 40k too. There is a top tier. Probably CSM, Orks and Eldar. But it's not like other armies are complete trash. They have good combos and good players behind them. You will see the top tier win a little more but it doesn't mean the others are denfeseless.

Pepople who are on the bottom tier need to quit whining and find their combo or tactical advantage to win.

Anytime someone brings Street Fighter 3 into the conversation, I'm immediately interested.

Unfortunately I don't think it really applies very much when talking about 40k or any table top game. Too much of our game is random and too much of SF3 is based in execution. The tiers are just as apparent in Japan for "competitive play", you don't see Daigo winning stuff using Yang. Granted when you're playing in Japan, you see a wider range of people playing the other characters really well - but my experience over there was just playing for fun, not in anything serious.

But there's a much more apt comparison between fighters and table top games and that's in how the characters are used. There are only so many ways to actually "use" a character successfully. Just like using Ken against stiff competition in SF3TS will involve using SA3 (one of the 3 available Super Moves, for you non SF3 fans) and will more than likely involve some chain that eventually leads off into that super just a little *too* easily. Same thing for Chun Li SA2, Yun SA3, etc. There is no "secret revelation" that somehow makes one of their other Super choices all of a sudden "better" against the competition.

Just like how most competitive applications of Chaos Marines will involve the Lash, Orks will use Shoota Boyz, and Eldar (at least in 4th) revolved around Holofield Tanks.

Still though, just because there are things that are "better" in the game, or combo's that are proven to be more effective it doesn't mean that a good player can't use something "sub-standard" and win. After all, I was a die hard Hugo player with SA1 and was pretty damn well good with him too IMO.

EDIT: Server made me double post. Sorry Yak.

Aeon wrote:Trust me; Stelek speaks the truth about the Marine dex (and most other things too but lets not stroke his ego *too* much )

Oh I have doubts the new marine dex is over the top. I'm just hoping they make you pay good points for alot of those toys and options. It'll bring marines back to teir one. But it's sad for ones like DA who seem to get the short end of the stick in comparisson.

So anyway...

Stelek, what kind of marine builds are you expecting people to fear?

Sallies, Shrike, and one other. If you guess, good for you. lol

The other armies are still good, but I guess I should say 'I will fear' those armies because they are difficult to deal with.

One because it's very flexible, and the other because it's impossible to stop.

The third because I have yet to come close to beating it with my usual armies. lol that's not a good thing.

$10 says drop pods and outflanking assault.

Edit: Hehe close enough.

Two reasons why there are tiers in 40k:

1. A good business model would make everyone want to play whatever codex was most recently released. When all else fails, rewrite the rules and start the codex train over.

2. GW isn't good enough to playtest and balance all the armies.

My money is on No.2

@ GMM: Nah, that's Shrikes army.

@ Wildstorm: You forgot the most important one.

# 3: Dumb the game down, get the kids in, then undumb it and get the vets back.

It's the new trick. I expect it to bubble again in 6.5

Game is still dumbed down and easy enough for kids.

Game is still dumbed down and easy enough for kids.

GW should make a separate rule set for competitive play.

^They do, they call it WHFB

MarvinGayeIsMyDaddy wrote:^They do, they call it WHFB

Burn

I have to agree, I'm just getting into WHFB and it is a lot more strategic.

WFB is a great game, but so is 40K at the right level. The biggest problem with 40K is the proliferation of Space Marine books which holds up the progress of many other more interesting archetypes and floods the game with very similar lists. Every list in Fantasy has a niche, whereas 40K has like 6-ish lists all trying to squat in the "expensive all rounders with a 3+ save" niche.

Typeline wrote:

MarvinGayeIsMyDaddy wrote:^They do, they call it WHFB

Burn

I have to agree, I'm just getting into WHFB and it is a lot more strategic.

I read an interview with some multiple GT fantasy winner who said a good fantasy player can look at the table after deployment and know who will win. I'm not sure that indicates the game is strategic.

Da Boss wrote:WFB is a great game, but so is 40K at the right level. The biggest problem with 40K is the proliferation of Space Marine books which holds up the progress of many other more interesting archetypes and floods the game with very similar lists. Every list in Fantasy has a niche, whereas 40K has like 6-ish lists all trying to squat in the "expensive all rounders with a 3+ save" niche.

Preach it, brother. Preach it.

General Hobbs wrote:

Typeline wrote:

MarvinGayeIsMyDaddy wrote:^They do, they call it WHFB

Burn

I have to agree, I'm just getting into WHFB and it is a lot more strategic.

I read an interview with some multiple GT fantasy winner who said a good fantasy player can look at the table after deployment and know who will win. I'm not sure that indicates the game is strategic.

I can do that in 40K, but not many can do that.

It's a limitation of Fantasy in that it has a predictable movement system.

It has a predictable combat system.

In 40K, with 5E...well, neither system is predictable.

So it is much harder to judge winning or losing, alot more variables to keep track of.

I think I can still do it, but I guess we'll see--I've been expecting to lose with my DH and have not been even against lists I know should spank me.

I agree about the 3+ codex list. I remember a rant about Codex: Not Marine a while back. Good for a laugh.

We used to look at 40k army lists *before deployment* and know who would win 90% of the time. The "game" started at army selection and it was quite easy put yourself in the ditch before you left home. Of course dice can change everything, but it was very rare.

Now the rules have juggled and we've got to adjust. Only thing that keeps it interesting.

yakface wrote:

Stelek wrote:Hobbyist's willing to go to major tournaments are lower than ever.

Overall tournament attendance is lower than ever.

Go ahead and tell me it isn't. Hey if we "sell out" all of our tickets but only sell 120 instead of 200...nothings amiss, right? :S

Why should the tournament community lose so many members that GW is considering cancelling their GT's because they can't even break even?

What's worse, is they are changing their format to meet the needs of the vocal few--the that go to the Indy's and aren't happy that GW actually makes them not be pricks at their tournaments so lets bring in the adepticon guys and ruin the whole GT scene because GW can't be bothered to do it anymore.

Just bury your heads in the sand, call ME the , and watch the GT system disappear into nothing but hot dog fillers.

I don't see many (if any) of you trying to foment change in the community, GW or the GT system.

At least I am trying. Go ahead and flame away. Be a good whipped topping to this cherry of a thread.

I'm confused. This thread is not about the state of the GT tournament scene. It was a discussion about which armies are best for 5th edition.

Please keep the comments about how the tournament system is broken and you're the only one trying to fix it for another thread.

*scratches head*

But why would anyone care about precise application of the new rules and ergo any "tactics" founded on these rules unless they were playing against strangers in a competitive environment? It's not like we're all a bunch of unreasonable people who can't make house rules to try and have a good time, or like the 40k revisited project or any other fansets are disappearing. If we're posting in this section and are concerned about talking about how particular tips and tricks work, however academic a lot of people's interest, it would be as silly to assume that the conversation is totally unrelated to the tourney scene on some level. Ditto every other forum on this site with the exceptions of proposed rules and modelling.