Addressing the problems of the winning LVO list

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.

**peteralmo**

Yes, I think something like that would be fine. I still think ynnari will then need, in addition to that stratagem, a meaningful chapter tactic of sorts. Or else they're just craftworld with a new stratagem to use.

**Togusa**

peteralmo wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Eldar were god tier in 2nd ed. So there is no "before" they were god tier.

Perhaps, I was a middle schooler when I started playing them with my buddies, we had no clue about competitive lists, I was thinking more about those middle editions when they were average.

Back when a bright lance was like 60 points? I seem to recall it being one of the most over costed armies circa 4th edition.

But as for the topic at hand, I think the issue isn't actually the Ynarri, more than its the fact that for some slowed reason you can still use CRAFTWORLD/CABAL SPECIFIC stratagems by abusing the force organization structures.

Spam spam spam has been the mantra of the competitively minded side of the community for at least as long as I've been playing. What I am seeing in the larger community at the FLGS level is a return to fun games running very diverse model sets. Take me for example, I have Custodes and Tyranids currently. I run no less than 7 different types of units for my bugs, and I run no less than 4 for my custodes, with Trajann. I'm looking for a more narrative style of play and I'm choosing to both not play spam lists, nor play against people who play spam lists.

**the_scotsman**

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
peteralmo wrote:
AdmiralHalsey wrote:
The setting was perfectly fine before the Ynarri were a thing. It'll survive perfectly fine without them.

I don't necessarily disagree, but just to confirm, you are advocating for them just to be removed?

Sure. There are way to many factions at the moment. If Ynarri were going to stay a thing they should have been rolled into CWE or DE.

Genestealer cults should have been rolled into Tyranids.

Sisters should be rolled into Inquisition.

And so forth.

Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Dark Angels, Deathwatch, and Grey Knights should be rolled into Marines...

Oh wait, were you going to have it stop before that?

**peteralmo**

That all sounds great, good for you. The original thrust of the opening post had to do with LVO and equivalent level tournaments. I can completely sympathize with your dislike for spam, but it is a permanent fixture of the hyper competitive meta, and it isn't going anywhere. So given that spam will always be a reality at the highest level tournaments, how do we, within that reality, adequately address the gnashing of teeth going on over soulburst. And we've had some pretty good ideas floated.

**Martel732**

peteralmo wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Oh, the pearl clutching! Only mid-tier! Scandalous!
They weren't actually mid tier in 5th - I destroyed people with fortuned foot warlock units. Fire prisms and wraith lords and warwalkers were also amazing.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
This issue with elder is currently their underpriced units. Shinning spears and dark reapers and even wave serpents (is it really reasonable that a 130 point transport is has the effective wounds of a land raider vs anti tank weapons?). Compared to similar units they perform about 30-40% too well for their points.

Also their rules are just better...amazing stratagems and army traits that affect their entire army.

At some point the community has to accept that the fluff has to inform the tone of certain races at a baseline level. Eldar are light years ahead of humanity in regard to technology, their weapons and tanks should do as much, or more, for less. Where the balance comes in is predominantly with other metrics, marines have a universal 4+ toughness, pretty much 3+ armor or better, and never break ranks. Eldar are basically 3+ toughness across the board, 4+/5+ armor, can easily run away, etc. Orks, by the basic strictures of the lore, are super tough, but also extremely crude technologically, and their BS is also not great, etc. I never understood why people complained that a reaper launcher is better than a missile launcher, or that a wave serpent is better than a rhino, they have to be, the entire foundation of the lore of the game would crumble away if they weren't demonstrably better. If your natural reaction would then be to say, well then they should cost twice as much, you have just asked for the same end to be accomplished through different means; if you're not going to make them equal via the lore, then make them equal via points. And that just isn't what 40k is, it's not checkers, or chess for that matter. Some things are just better than other things in 40k, full stop, the game designers want it that way, everything isn't supposed to be equal. You're meant to pick an army, play to it's strengths, become strategic with what they can do well, what they can't do well, and master your choice. Not cry foul because the reaper launcher isn't directly equatable to the missile launcher, which isn't directly equatable to the big rokit (or whatever the Ork version is called).

Sorry, but to me, they have disconnected fluff from crunch entirely. There is no excuse for the eldar, imo. Other than some authors fapping off to them when they write the codex.

**peteralmo**

Martel732 wrote:
peteralmo wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Oh, the pearl clutching! Only mid-tier! Scandalous!
They weren't actually mid tier in 5th - I destroyed people with fortuned foot warlock units. Fire prisms and wraith lords and warwalkers were also amazing.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
This issue with elder is currently their underpriced units. Shinning spears and dark reapers and even wave serpents (is it really reasonable that a 130 point transport is has the effective wounds of a land raider vs anti tank weapons?). Compared to similar units they perform about 30-40% too well for their points.

Also their rules are just better...amazing stratagems and army traits that affect their entire army.

At some point the community has to accept that the fluff has to inform the tone of certain races at a baseline level. Eldar are light years ahead of humanity in regard to technology, their weapons and tanks should do as much, or more, for less. Where the balance comes in is predominantly with other metrics, marines have a universal 4+ toughness, pretty much 3+ armor or better, and never break ranks. Eldar are basically 3+ toughness across the board, 4+/5+ armor, can easily run away, etc. Orks, by the basic strictures of the lore, are super tough, but also extremely crude technologically, and their BS is also not great, etc. I never understood why people complained that a reaper launcher is better than a missile launcher, or that a wave serpent is better than a rhino, they have to be, the entire foundation of the lore of the game would crumble away if they weren't demonstrably better. If your natural reaction would then be to say, well then they should cost twice as much, you have just asked for the same end to be accomplished through different means; if you're not going to make them equal via the lore, then make them equal via points. And that just isn't what 40k is, it's not checkers, or chess for that matter. Some things are just better than other things in 40k, full stop, the game designers want it that way, everything isn't supposed to be equal. You're meant to pick an army, play to it's strengths, become strategic with what they can do well, what they can't do well, and master your choice. Not cry foul because the reaper launcher isn't directly equatable to the missile launcher, which isn't directly equatable to the big rokit (or whatever the Ork version is called).

Sorry, but to me, they have disconnected fluff from crunch entirely. There is no excuse for the eldar, imo. Other than some authors fapping off to them when they write the codex.

I'm sorry Martel but the foundational lore of the grim dark, the very thing that undergirds this whole thing we call 40k, was written before there was even rogue trader, and it's not changing. You don't have to like it, you can choose not to play the game, but the Eldar are far more advanced than space marines, and they always will be, and the rules will always reflect that. You wishing so hard for marines and eldar to somehow be equals isn't going to make a difference. It is what it is. Given that, we can discuss rules tweaks, and point tweaks, and that's what we're all trying to do here, for the most part.

No one is, or should, show up with some far reaching foundational and philosophical, wholesale change to the core of the game and it's respective races, that's frivolous and unhelpful.

By the way, it's also unhelpful to say, I don't like these guys so double all there point costs.

**Scott-S6**

peteralmo wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Eldar were god tier in 2nd ed. So there is no "before" they were god tier.

Perhaps, I was a middle schooler when I started playing them with my buddies, we had no clue about competitive lists, I was thinking more about those middle editions when they were average.

They've been top tier in every edition where they got a codex.

**peteralmo**

Scott-S6 wrote:
peteralmo wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Eldar were god tier in 2nd ed. So there is no "before" they were god tier.

Perhaps, I was a middle schooler when I started playing them with my buddies, we had no clue about competitive lists, I was thinking more about those middle editions when they were average.

They've been top tier in every edition where they got a codex.

My understanding is not in 3rd/4th/5th.

**Martel732**

peteralmo wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
peteralmo wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Oh, the pearl clutching! Only mid-tier! Scandalous!
They weren't actually mid tier in 5th - I destroyed people with fortuned foot warlock units. Fire prisms and wraith lords and warwalkers were also amazing.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
This issue with elder is currently their underpriced units. Shinning spears and dark reapers and even wave serpents (is it really reasonable that a 130 point transport is has the effective wounds of a land raider vs anti tank weapons?). Compared to similar units they perform about 30-40% too well for their points.

Also their rules are just better...amazing stratagems and army traits that affect their entire army.

At some point the community has to accept that the fluff has to inform the tone of certain races at a baseline level. Eldar are light years ahead of humanity in regard to technology, their weapons and tanks should do as much, or more, for less. Where the balance comes in is predominantly with other metrics, marines have a universal 4+ toughness, pretty much 3+ armor or better, and never break ranks. Eldar are basically 3+ toughness across the board, 4+/5+ armor, can easily run away, etc. Orks, by the basic strictures of the lore, are super tough, but also extremely crude technologically, and their BS is also not great, etc. I never understood why people complained that a reaper launcher is better than a missile launcher, or that a wave serpent is better than a rhino, they have to be, the entire foundation of the lore of the game would crumble away if they weren't demonstrably better. If your natural reaction would then be to say, well then they should cost twice as much, you have just asked for the same end to be accomplished through different means; if you're not going to make them equal via the lore, then make them equal via points. And that just isn't what 40k is, it's not checkers, or chess for that matter. Some things are just better than other things in 40k, full stop, the game designers want it that way, everything isn't supposed to be equal. You're meant to pick an army, play to it's strengths, become strategic with what they can do well, what they can't do well, and master your choice. Not cry foul because the reaper launcher isn't directly equatable to the missile launcher, which isn't directly equatable to the big rokit (or whatever the Ork version is called).

Sorry, but to me, they have disconnected fluff from crunch entirely. There is no excuse for the eldar, imo. Other than some authors fapping off to them when they write the codex.

I'm sorry Martel but the foundational lore of the grim dark, the very thing that undergirds this whole thing we call 40k, was written before there was even rogue trader, and it's not changing. You don't have to like it, you can choose not to play the game, but the Eldar are far more advanced than space marines, and they always will be, and the rules will always reflect that. You wishing so hard for marines and eldar to somehow be equals isn't going to make a difference. It is what it is. Given that, we can discuss rules tweaks, and point tweaks, and that's what we're all trying to do here, for the most part.

No one is, or should, show up with some far reaching foundational and philosophical, wholesale change to the core of the game and it's respective races, that's frivolous and unhelpful.

By the way, it's also unhelpful to say, I don't like these guys so double all there point costs.

That's not an excuse for an unfair game.

**JNAProductions**

Yeah, I'm gonna have to echo Martel. It's fine to have a million and one rules, it's fine to have better guns and other weapons, it's NOT fine for them to cost the same points while being better.

**Martel732**

If you want super duper Eldar, be prepared to outnumbered 3:1 by marines. Very simple. Foundational lore clearly means nothing to most other factions. I don't know why Eldar get a special pass.

**Desubot**

Martel732 wrote:
If you want super duper Eldar, be prepared to outnumbered 3:1 by marines. Very simple. Foundational lore clearly means nothing to most other factions. I don't know why Eldar get a special pass.

Id hope this would be the case for Marines to guard being outnumbered 1:100

but people complain about Ig enough as it is right?

**peteralmo**

Martel732 wrote:
If you want super duper Eldar, be prepared to outnumbered 3:1 by marines. Very simple. Foundational lore clearly means nothing to most other factions. I don't know why Eldar get a special pass.

I really don't want this to devolve into lore lawyering, techincally the astartes are few in number as well since lore wise the bulk of the imperiums numbers come from guard etc etc etc, astartes alone would never outnumber eldar 3:1 etc. Let me say this, forget the lore. GW has made the eldar the premier glass cannon race, their offensive output potential is second to none really, maybe guard and tau are close. They are very weak, they never impress with toughness, armor, or wounds (looking at you necrons), and their points costs make sense in the context of aeldari lore in general, not imperium lore. I mean why aren't you lamenting that genestealers are infinitely better than assault marines for combat yet cost less? I think dark reapers could probably withstand going from 27 ppm to 30, spears could probably go from 31 ppm to 35, I would never dream of going any more than that. Conversely I think a devastator with a lascannon should not cost more than 32-34 ppm, this is reflective of the astartes body itself being much sturdier than the dark reaper body, and the technology for a human to develop a lascannon being much more costly than eldars much more advanced weaponry (part of advanced technology is abundance and accessibility, not just power). So wrapped up in all of that are some gameplay considerations, some lore considerations, as well as price increase for the best eldar units, and a points decrease for some astartes units. That to me is reasonable, 40 points for a reaper, 50 points for a shining spear, is smoking crack territory.

**Martel732**

40 ppm for a reaper is too low they way they currently perform.

Lore lawyering? I actively ignore the lore, since it's poorly written and the crunch guys ignore it anyway.

Marines as they currently play on the tabletop are a joke. Which is fine if they were pointed as such.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Desubot wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
If you want super duper Eldar, be prepared to outnumbered 3:1 by marines. Very simple. Foundational lore clearly means nothing to most other factions. I don't know why Eldar get a special pass.

Id hope this would be the case for Marines to guard being outnumbered 1:100

but people complain about Ig enough as it is right?

Only because guardsmen are objectively worth more than 4 ppm and marines are not worth 13 ppm.

" I mean why aren't you lamenting that genestealers are infinitely better than assault marines for combat yet cost less?"

Because both units suck.

"being much sturdier than the dark reaper body"

Except in the crunch its not.

**peteralmo**

So you would be happy if GW "got into the crunch" and made everything equal as a ratio of points cost to offensive output? Are you saying you want 40k to be chess basically? I have two rooks, you have two rooks, I have two knights, you have two knights, they both move and do exactly the same things? Is that what you're looking for out of 40k?

Because I love that some units are just flat out better than other units, across all races. And that includes units that are a "bargain" or a "steal." It's not really fun when you always have to pay top dollar for good performance. Centurion Devastators "perform well" but no one runs them because they are charged at the highest possible premium. People aren't surprised when a ferrari performs like a ferrari, it costs 200k, it better perform like that. People get really excited when an 80k corvette performs like a 200k ferrari. =)

**Martel732**

Not exactly. I prefer starcraft style balancing. Marines are 50 mins, two zerglings are 50, and a zealot is 100. The units are different, and cost different amounts, but within their roles they are fair. For example, marines can shoot up, but have the least hps of the three.

40K would arbitrarily make one of the three units too expensive and one too cheap relative to their combat ability. I just want a unit that costs X points to have that much total combat utility. Currently, reapers have FAR more combat utility than their cost indicates.

No; units should be flat out better FOR THEIR COST, not just flat out better. Sure, if you want dark reapers to remain as they are, they can, but need to cost 50 ppm. Don't like it? Lose combat utility.

" It's not really fun when you always have to pay top dollar for good performance."

That's basically cheating in my view.

"People get really excited when an 80k corvette performs like a 200k ferrari. =) "

And then spam them and ruin everyone else's experience. No thanks.

**JNAProductions**

It's fine for Dark Reapers to be better than a ML Devastator... So long as it costs more.

And I don't want 40k to be chess-I have chess for that. I do, however, want it to be balanced, and right now, SFD and Dark Reapers are not.

**Breng77**

peteralmo wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
The issue with that stance is it allows for min max units. Something like dark reapers get way more out of their weapons and rules than they lose to being T3/ S3. By your argument individual eldar models should be costly because there are fewer eldar as they are a dying race. From a balance standpoint a model with better rules and weapons needs to cost more than a similar model that performs worse. Your argument seems to be eldar are super advanced so they should be OP. Marines don't fit their fluff as far as effectiveness. Put simply I'm ok with eldar having better weapons and rules so long as they pay for it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
You would have a point if list building were more restricted, but as it is not it doesn't work if points don't balance units. Do devestators have to be reapers no, but they should not cost more and do less. You say it is about synergy, but some units are outliers to synergy and are too powerful because they also benefit from synergy.

To your first point, yes, I think the game designers intend, or are ok with, the ability for savvy players to min/max. I don't think they're interested in re-designing the game away from this possibility, nor do I believe competitive warhammer players want the game to evolve into chess essentially. If you don't care for competitive 40k, simply play friendly games.

I stand by my opinion about where eldar are in 8th edition in regards to point costs, but I am more in agreement with you in regard to the state of marines. They do do less for more, and as such, I think they need point reductions, rather seeing eldar points increase. You may find that some people feel the imperium keyword alone opens up list building in a way to easily circumvent the point cost shortcomings of pure marines, but again, I think they really need point decreases.

I disagree with points decreases I think more things need to cost more in general in the game not less. The game already plays pretty slowly, adding more units and models to the table makes that worse. Further the more you lower points the less space you have for design and balancing.

**Martel732**

I can see that argument.

**HuskyWarhammer**

Wow, I must say, this is impressive: one user (Martel) managed to sidetrack a completely decent discussion about Ynnari and possible fixes into his saltfest. In particular, the idea of SfD tokens seemed like a viable alternative to the mechanic as it is.

(Also, I might point out that his comparison of Starcraft is good in theory, but forgot the most important part: you have to take units in the context of their entire armies, the game, and counterplay. For example, tight terrain-heavy maps hinder zerglings and advantage zealots and that needs to be accounted for)

**Martel732**

That's why they vet maps carefully. Old Lost Temple was imbalanced in favor of terrans significantly.

And fundamentally Ynarri units are undercosted. They can stay the same, but need to cost more points to field.

**peteralmo**

The problem is, even if GW agreed with you, and we don't know that they do, they might think the now nerfed ynnari are fine and the LVO results are acceptable, they probably would never go to the absurd length you're suggesting. It sounds like you're advocating for what? A 50 point toughness 3 one wound model with no invulnerable save or feel no pain? You're suggestion, if ported to a visual representation, might be that of a toddler jamming his fingers in his ears and stomping his feet (I'm not calling you a toddler, merely the point hike suggestion). I've offered what I think is a reasonable place to start as far as point increases go, but you seemed to scoff at it as very unreasonable. I'm wondering if GW would agree with you, considering they very recently LOWERED the cost of reapers.

**AdmiralHalsey**

the_scotsman wrote:
AdmiralHalsey wrote:
peteralmo wrote:
AdmiralHalsey wrote:
The setting was perfectly fine before the Ynarri were a thing. It'll survive perfectly fine without them.

I don't necessarily disagree, but just to confirm, you are advocating for them just to be removed?

Sure. There are way to many factions at the moment. If Ynarri were going to stay a thing they should have been rolled into CWE or DE.

Genestealer cults should have been rolled into Tyranids.

Sisters should be rolled into Inquisition.

And so forth.

Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Dark Angels, Deathwatch, and Grey Knights should be rolled into Marines...

Oh wait, were you going to have it stop before that?

Not at all. I thought that was aptly covered by 'And so forth'.

Though I would roll Deathwatch and Greyknights into Inquisition with Imperial Agents, Scions, and Sisters and Custodes, as Codex Imperium.
That leaves the Imperium with 4 Codexs, which is still too many really, but better than the sea of wallpaper we have now.

**mchammadad**

Which would result in books as big as the BRB itself. That is ridiculous

not to mention how much it would cost just to get one of those books, not to metion if you had an army that would be in two separate books.

No one in their right minds would pay 100$ + just to get one of two books

**peteralmo**

Not to mention, and no one has really brought this up yet, but I think the keyword system has represented a really elegant approach to controlling detachments and overall army composition. And if they keyword system is currently allowing from broken things, then just adjust which keywords certain things have, don't scrap the keyword system imo, I really like it.

**mchammadad**

nice part about the keyword system. Is that it can be modified if something new comes up (like a new rule and such)

All that needs to be done is add/ammend a keyword and bam, universally done

**Martel732**

Reapers functionally have 2+ armor and their offense is insanity. If i could take a model with those rules for 45 or 50 ppm id strongly consider it. Thats how you know something is reasonably costed; its neither an autotake or autopass.

Your point increase leaves them as an autotake. That's not really enough. They'd see play at 45-50 because they are that strong.

**peteralmo**

Martel732 wrote:
Reapers functionally have 2+ armor and their offense is insanity. If i could take a model with those rules for 45 or 50 ppm id strongly consider it. Thats how you know something is reasonably costed; its neither an autotake or autopass.

Your point increase leaves them as an autotake. That's not really enough. They'd see play at 45-50 because they are that strong.

So do oppose anything you see to be an auto-take in 40k? Do you feel 40k should have no units ever considered an auto-take? Because I like that there are really good units in a particular edition of a codex, and units that aren't so great, and I like whats on that list to fluctuate a bit over time. What you call auto-take, I just call the best units in the current dex. And every dex, at any given time, will have it's best units.

**JNAProductions**

peteralmo wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Reapers functionally have 2+ armor and their offense is insanity. If i could take a model with those rules for 45 or 50 ppm id strongly consider it. Thats how you know something is reasonably costed; its neither an autotake or autopass.

Your point increase leaves them as an autotake. That's not really enough. They'd see play at 45-50 because they are that strong.

So do oppose anything you see to be an auto-take in 40k? Do you feel 40k should have no units ever considered an auto-take?

In a word? Yes.

And at the same time, no unit should be an auto-pass.

I'm okay with CERTAIN LISTS having auto-take units (for instance, Spoilpox Scrivener for Plaguebearer-heavy Nurgle armies) but if it's an auto-take no matter what, it's too powerful.

**peteralmo**

JNAProductions wrote:
peteralmo wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Reapers functionally have 2+ armor and their offense is insanity. If i could take a model with those rules for 45 or 50 ppm id strongly consider it. Thats how you know something is reasonably costed; its neither an autotake or autopass.

Your point increase leaves them as an autotake. That's not really enough. They'd see play at 45-50 because they are that strong.

So do oppose anything you see to be an auto-take in 40k? Do you feel 40k should have no units ever considered an auto-take?

In a word? Yes.

And at the same time, no unit should be an auto-pass.

I'm okay with CERTAIN LISTS having auto-take units (for instance, Spoilpox Scrivener for Plaguebearer-heavy Nurgle armies) but if it's an auto-take no matter what, it's too powerful.

"It's too powerful" is a purely subjective statement, it's your opinion. I don't think things that are auto-takes are "too powerful," I just think they are the best thing at the moment that codex offers, and there always has to be a best thing.