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.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 helgrenze wrote:
Seems that this list is a bit illegal to me. There appears to be three Warlords in this army, two in one detachment.

Is this kind of thing allowed on the tourney circuit now?

If you don't know the rules you shouldn't call lists "illegal". The Imperial Knights have a stratagem that allows you to make up to two knights CHARACTERS and gain a Warlord Trait IN ADDITION to the one you can get via the Knight Lances rule.

Knights are a blight on the game and are one of the reasons I now feel 8th edition is no longer salvageable.

If knights are a blight on the game, what was index Ynnari, that's still going as a competitive list?
Also the ability to complain about knights left the building when banblades shadowswords and Primarch etc became normal.

 Bosskelot wrote:
Isn't it always funny how the "fluffy" and "casual" players spit the most vitriol and get incredibly angry over how people choose to enjoy their hobby.

Not really, given that it's not actually true. Yes, there are some casual players who feel strongly about tournament-style gaming. There are also some competitive players who wax equally vitriolic about people who don't go all out to win the game. And between those two extremes are a whole bunch of people who play the game with a wide variety of different motivations, while managing to not insult each other over a game of toy soldiers.

see, this is why i have abandoned 40k in favor of AoS and AT.
only mono codex should be allowed in matched play!

Thommy H wrote:
There's honestly no way anyone can be even slightly mad about this tbh.

Dakka:

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
see, this is why i have abandoned 40k in favor of AoS and AT.
only mono codex should be allowed in matched play!

...aren't the Grand Alliances still a thing in AoS?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
This is very different than 2 captains, mehphiston 32 guard and 3 knights link up and go for a wander, it’s internally inconsistent with the setting and externally weird too.

Again, you're missing the fact that a 40k game is often representing one tiny piece of a battlefield. The space marine leaders aren't at the battle without anyone to lead, there's a tactical squad just off the edge of the table and a Thunderhawk full of assault marines arriving soon.

Not missing that, not dismissing it, just pointing out it’s incisistent with the setting, a captain turning up alone is rare, two wouldn’t happen and Mephiston going on a merry wander with them compounds the issue, it’s jarring to see such a messy load of units thrown together.

Guy wanted a competitive list though so meh

I love how much gak is thrown to the Imperium list, but the Eldar with Drukhari, 4-6 harlie bikes and Craftworlds Planes is largely ommited from the discussion.

As properly pointed by the pics, it's a match between 2 tournament players with tournament lists so maybe GW slight approach to show how the competitive people play to show in WD.

Wayniac wrote:Let's hope that was done so they can see how OP it is and address it. I cannot believe that sort of "army" is in any way, shape or form the way the studio intends 40k to be played. That list offends my senses. Please please tell me that's someone not on the staff playing. Like, did they bring someone in from the tournament circuit to play a game?

Because if the designers actually start to play that sort of trash...

it's exactly how they intend the game to be played. Literally nothing but benefits to the strength of your army for buying into a second or third army. They said themselves in the last FAQ, that we see what people are saying about soup, and so many people want to keep it, so it's staying as is.

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
see, this is why i have abandoned 40k in favor of AoS and AT.
only mono codex should be allowed in matched play!

Isnt one of the top lists in AoS right now Undead soup, combining Nagash with Nighthaunt stuff?

 Ordana wrote:

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
see, this is why i have abandoned 40k in favor of AoS and AT.
only mono codex should be allowed in matched play!

Isnt one of the top lists in AoS right now Undead soup, combining Nagash with Nighthaunt stuff?

I think that's a bit different, Legions of Nagash have always had access to pretty much every undead unit (that isn't really a huge roster, even including the new night haunt stuff) and it made sense both fluff and crunch wise to bring all the undead model;s together as they always had been. Nighthaunt has been expanded since then and if they are dominating Nagash lists then that is an issue with the Nagash book but it isn't really soup for me.

Dai wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
see, this is why i have abandoned 40k in favor of AoS and AT.
only mono codex should be allowed in matched play!

Isnt one of the top lists in AoS right now Undead soup, combining Nagash with Nighthaunt stuff?

I think that's a bit different, Legions of Nagash have always had access to pretty much every undead unit (that isn't really a huge roster, even including the new night haunt stuff) and it made sense both fluff and crunch wise to bring all the undead model;s together as they always had been. Nighthaunt has been expanded since then and if they are dominating Nagash lists then that is an issue with the Nagash book but it isn't really soup for me.

I don't see how that is any different from the Imperium who always work together and how certain units within the books are the problem and not the books themselves...

I really like that the GW article represets actual armies being played out there. Instead of what they usualy show, a handfull of units that has very bad synergi.

 Niiai wrote:
I really like that the GW article represets actual armies being played out there. Instead of what they usualy show, a handfull of units that has very bad synergi.

This is a bit of a misnomer; only competitive/tournament armies tend to look like that. I'd wager the vast majority of lists look way closer to what they usually show. Honestly I miss when they had people use their own armies rather than the studio, you often saw a little better variety because these were armies that, while often built based on looks/fluff, weren't just one of each unit with a variety of options to show off the various models; they were made with a bit more thought towards actual gameplay.

I see no problem with WD having a battle report between two hardcore lists with debatable fluffiness, full stop.

What I've always found funny though is what people can justify as "fluffy". If that IoM list (or as somewhat else pointed out, the Eldar soup list too) is considered fluffy, what couldn't be considered fluffy? If you can always just say "oh, the other missing fluffy component of the army is over there", doesn't that just completely devalue fluffiness as a concept? I don't think it's unreasonable for this to stick in somebody's craw. But again, that doesn't mean GW should ignore this aspect of the game and I do think it's healthy to put it in a WD occasionally.

I think the fact the setting is loose enough that you can post hoc reason nearly any force fielded as fitting in to the setting is a feature not a bug.

The setting exists to encourage you to collect the toys you want, not to create obstacles to stop you collecting.

nareik wrote:
I think the fact the setting is loose enough that you can post hoc reason nearly any force fielded as fitting in to the setting is a feature not a bug.

The setting exists to encourage you to collect the toys you want, not to create obstacles to stop you collecting.

Is anybody playing these sorts of lists "collecting the toys they want" though? I think they're collecting the best toys, and maybe you can post-hoc turn that into something fluffy but again, I think it's a far cry from what people who primarily have fluffiness in mind are bringing.

I guess overall, the new wave of 40k popularity has brought in a swathe of people who grew up on MOBAs and MMOs and RTSs and people with that background are looking for something out of 40k that's different than the fluffy rules and models with questionable balance that it traditionally delivers (I don't know if that's the case with the players in this batrep, but my anecdata from my local playgroups tends to support this.)

 Ordana wrote:

Dai wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
see, this is why i have abandoned 40k in favor of AoS and AT.
only mono codex should be allowed in matched play!

Isnt one of the top lists in AoS right now Undead soup, combining Nagash with Nighthaunt stuff?

I think that's a bit different, Legions of Nagash have always had access to pretty much every undead unit (that isn't really a huge roster, even including the new night haunt stuff) and it made sense both fluff and crunch wise to bring all the undead model;s together as they always had been. Nighthaunt has been expanded since then and if they are dominating Nagash lists then that is an issue with the Nagash book but it isn't really soup for me.

I don't see how that is any different from the Imperium who always work together and how certain units within the books are the problem and not the books themselves...

I guess there's two main differences for me 1) Nighthaunt have always come under both their own sub faction and Legions of Nagash (Death) which leads into 2) The death roster is far smaller than the imperium (it's probably on the larger side of what would have been a standard faction a decade or so ago).

Nevertheless with the Grand Alliances around it is more than possible to soup in AoS...you'll just have weaker allegiance abilities and what have you so though it is seen it is not overly common.


I don't think Games Workshop are going to do away with soup with the way they seem to be doing things currently. I'm not a fan but it's a way of ensuring they can push more models on more people (a good or bad thing depending on your view of the company) and there doesn't seem to be a huge backlash to it currently.

I don't know how this can be anything but a good thing. I'm dipping my toe into the competitive scene next month (I can say that now, it's January, yikes) with the LVO. I would normally call myself a casual, fluffy gamer. I kno going in that I'm going to be seeing the filth of the filth and will have ZERO complaints about it. I just hope the guy/gal running the filth is a cool cat.

WD featuring these armies means that they are FULLY aware that this is how the competitive game is being played. They then can be in a position to decide whether that matches their intent or not. I can't see how it cannot match what they want overall for the game.

I really think it's up to TOs to change the meta on a regular basis. If you want to see diversity, change the parameters. Make an event mono dex only. Or change how CPs are accumulated/used. There are so many ways to manipulate the game that will provide variety it's absurd to me that the big tourny organizers are hesitant to try it.

 Asherian Command wrote:
https://twitter.com/servoarm/status/1079706997220667393



So the army list for the Imperium in the new white dwarf is...

Spoiler:

Loyal 32
Battalion Detachment

Company Commanders
Boltgun
Warlord Grand Strategist

Company commander
Bolt pistol chainsword
Heirloom Kurvov's Aquilia

3 Infantry Squads (catachan)
30 lasguns

5cp

Supreme Command Detachment
Mephiston

Blood Angels Captain with
Jump pack, thunderhammer, the angel's wing

Blood Angels Captain with
powerfist, jump pack, stormshield

1cp


Super Heavy Detachment
Knight Gallant

Thunderstrike Gauntlet, reaper chainsword

Heavy Stubber,

Warlord Trait : Landstrider

Knight Crusader
Rapid fire battlecannon, avenger gatling cannon, heavy flamer, 2 heavy stubbers,
Heirloom: endless fury


Knight Castellan
Plasma Decimator, volcano lance, four shieldbreaker missiles, 2 twin melta guns, twin siegebreaker cannons

Warlord trait : Ion Bulwark

Hierloom : Cawl's Wrath

total 1991 pts.

Seems fair


Yeah its real, i saw it in my own white dwarf.

Personal Thoughts on this list dakka?

Note : it was between two tournament players!

If its fighting a similar power list than its ok by me - what did it fight - my WD not arrived yet

As explained, an equally powerful eldar list.

This was clearly two strong lists versus one another and entirely misplaced outrage.

Dude, I self-identify as a militant casual fluffbunny, and I think these style of battle reports are awesome to see in the White Dwarf.

Because White Dwarf is a magazine for everyone, not for me. I don't have to buy it, and I certainly don't have to assume The Sky Is Falling because GW wanted to look at competitive play.

 Cephalobeard wrote:
As explained, an equally powerful eldar list.

This was clearly two strong lists versus one another and entirely misplaced outrage.

I don't see a lot of outrage in this thread. I see a bit of outrage and then some pouncing on any and every casual player in the game. Yes, Dakka has a lot of CAAC dorks who can be vocal at times. But the amount of pearl clutching in this thread is not proportionate to that at all.

 Stux wrote:
What I don't get is why would you make such a WAAC list and then not use your last 9 points..?

to insult your opponet. It is like someone bigger grabs you in a strangelhold, he could easily now kick you down in 2 kicks or smack your head against the wall for a instant KO, but instead he chokes you out so that the whole school sees it.


Did GW show any GK reports in 8th ed ? We don't get WD here, so it is kind of a hard to keep track of the articles.

 Dysartes wrote:

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
see, this is why i have abandoned 40k in favor of AoS and AT.
only mono codex should be allowed in matched play!

...aren't the Grand Alliances still a thing in AoS?

only in the beginning of AoS when you only had 1 or 2 battletomes. no reason to play grand alliances anymore(unless you play an old fantasy army) cuz there is alot of battletomes and more to come.
only 1 grand alliance is still active cuz it needed urgent attension and it takes far to long to propely fix that alliance then it does to make a new grand book.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

What I've always found funny though is what people can justify as "fluffy". If that IoM list (or as somewhat else pointed out, the Eldar soup list too) is considered fluffy, what couldn't be considered fluffy? If you can always just say "oh, the other missing fluffy component of the army is over there", doesn't that just completely devalue fluffiness as a concept? I don't think it's unreasonable for this to stick in somebody's craw. But again, that doesn't mean GW should ignore this aspect of the game and I do think it's healthy to put it in a WD occasionally.

The thing is, for most people, 'Is the army fluffy' actually means 'Does this army match my preconceptions about what a fluffy army should look like?' rather than whether or not there is actually justification in the fluff for that army to exist.

In a setting like 40K, where we have examples throughout the fluff of unlikely alliances and odd force compositions, the difference between a 'fluffy' army and an 'unfluffy' army is down to nothing more than how much effort you want to put into devising a fluffy explanation for it.

So it's not so much that 'fluffiness' is devalued as a concept as simply that 'unfluffy' armies only exist if you refuse to accept the fluff.

Danny slag wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:
People play 40k differently.if anything, maybe this will get Competitive players to actually buy a white dwarf (index astartes, Competitive batreps) and introduce them to the more casual playstyles.

The vitriol on this forum towards people who don't play with absolutely good awful mishmashes of units against one another is the most ridiculous thing.

i contend that the god awful mishmash of units is the competition hating tournament players who just want to list-hammer and avoid having to roll actual dice to win a game.

Nobody has ever been able to coherently answer this question for me so maybe you can give it a shot. What is "too strong" of a list? If I play Tau, is it too strong for me to take 1 riptide? What if that's my favorite model? What if I really like battlesuits and want to take 3 riptides, a yvahra and 3 broadsides? Am I TFG because I like battlesuits more than infantry or tanks? Who decides what is "too strong" or what is "listhammer"? Me? You? My opponent? Some random guy on Dakka/Facebook/Reddit? The CEO of GW? A guy walking by on the sidewalk? Who should I cross-reference every list with to make sure I'm not listhammering?

Answer these questions and then you will have a point. I've been asking them to every beer and pretzels forge the narrative hammer player I can find for the last 20 years and haven't gotten a decent answer yet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bosskelot wrote:
Isn't it always funny how the "fluffy" and "casual" players spit the most vitriol and get incredibly angry over how people choose to enjoy their hobby.

But but but if you make a strong list you're having fun wrong! The only right kind of fun is the kind of fun I endorse!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Audustum wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
Isn't it always funny how the "fluffy" and "casual" players spit the most vitriol and get incredibly angry over how people choose to enjoy their hobby.

It seems mostly to be a dakkadakka thing. There is a large swathe of this forum that is, what I would call, 'militantly casual' as opposed to just actually casual.

That's a great point. I don't notice it at all in my local playgroup, or nearly as much on other forums or social media sites.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 First Among Gators wrote:

it's exactly how they intend the game to be played. Literally nothing but benefits to the strength of your army for buying into a second or third army. They said themselves in the last FAQ, that we see what people are saying about soup, and so many people want to keep it, so it's staying as is.

"So many people want to keep it" being the people in marketing. I don't think anyone thinks it's good for the game or truly enjoys having to buy a bunch of models that wouldn't normally be included in their army or appeal to them just to have enough CP to have a chance at winning the game. Soup is literally good for GWs bottom line, that's it. It's bad for the balance and health of the game, it's bad for the players who just want to collect Eldar, it's bad for the people who refuse to buy into 3 armies so they get roflstomped by the soup of the month club, etc.

 Stux wrote:
What I don't get is why would you make such a WAAC list and then not use your last 9 points..?

Make that 10?

Wayniac wrote:
What did it face? I'm curious if this was a purposely done "competitive style" battle report? They used to do that from time to time.

From the twitter chat, an Eldar soup list ... oh sorry "Aeldar"

Also, the last 9 points were unfilled because they were building lists out of what the studio had readily to hand.

Ice_can wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 helgrenze wrote:
Seems that this list is a bit illegal to me. There appears to be three Warlords in this army, two in one detachment.

Is this kind of thing allowed on the tourney circuit now?

If you don't know the rules you shouldn't call lists "illegal". The Imperial Knights have a stratagem that allows you to make up to two knights CHARACTERS and gain a Warlord Trait IN ADDITION to the one you can get via the Knight Lances rule.

Knights are a blight on the game and are one of the reasons I now feel 8th edition is no longer salvageable.

If knights are a blight on the game, what was index Ynnari, that's still going as a competitive list?
Also the ability to complain about knights left the building when banblades shadowswords and Primarch etc became normal.

Point being that none of that belongs on a routine 40k table.
Expecting it too fit ends up ruining the game.
Case in point: now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 helgrenze wrote:
Seems that this list is a bit illegal to me. There appears to be three Warlords in this army, two in one detachment.

Is this kind of thing allowed on the tourney circuit now?

If you don't know the rules you shouldn't call lists "illegal". The Imperial Knights have a stratagem that allows you to make up to two knights CHARACTERS and gain a Warlord Trait IN ADDITION to the one you can get via the Knight Lances rule.

Knights are a blight on the game and are one of the reasons I now feel 8th edition is no longer salvageable.

If knights are a blight on the game, what was index Ynnari, that's still going as a competitive list?
Also the ability to complain about knights left the building when banblades shadowswords and Primarch etc became normal.

Ynnari was a phat sh!t on the face of reason itself.

I genuinely enjoy soup and that it gives mean excuse o bit models from armies I typically wouldn't.

I don't want a full AM army, but I enjoy my little brigade I've made and have had a lot of fun with it.

Wouldn't have ever bought those or done that without soup.