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.

 Ishagu wrote:
They aren't using official GW rules for 40k so LVO means nothing in terms of indicating the meta.

AoS is using the official mission rules.

Only thing LVO shows is how armies perform in ITC homebrew missions. It's actually staggering that this topic doesn't point out the custom, 3rd party missions as a massive differential.

Official GW rules favor marines MORE than ITC does. Eternal war missions heavily favor armies with heavy duty killing power and not having as much line of sight blocking means that things like leviathan dreads and chaplain dreads can just waste their way through an opponent's army unimpeded.

You're also ignoring the fact that not every tournament uses ITC, but EVERY tournament is seeing the same results. Some events that were previously militantly anti-ITC are using the ITC terrain rules in the hopes that the extra LoS terrain will curb marine's power a bit.

Switching to the GW mission is NOT the magic bullet of balance you seem to think it is and is likely worse simply due to Ewar having no real victory conditions beyond 'kill more than your opponent so you can sit on objectives easier'.

You don't want to believe that marines are OP. Cool, whatever. At some point you have to accept you're wrong and marines dominating EVERY event (even the ones where they didn't take first place had 4+ marine armies in the top 8) since they've been released should be a pretty clear indicator.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
You must have missed Flesh-Eater Courts when the Archregent first dropped.

I played against them at Adepticon in the AoS champs when they were full strength. They were insanely strong but weren't anywhere near as bad as what marines are.

As much as I hate to admit it the ITC rule that first floor blocks LOS is one of the major reasons the IH list works. You can hide all of your troops in the building and your opponent has no choice but to shoot the dread because the infantry models fit so nicely in the building and there is no way to draw LOS to them.

The list is so killy that anything you try to maneuver around to get the LOS angle just dies because you can't move enough of your army there to present enough targets that the army cares about.

That's probably about where the "fault" of ITC lies. That IH list does board control and killing so good. The ability to grey shield one detachment and advance and charge with your troops one turn to get onto objectives if you have to was pivotal and being ably to casually blow anything not protected by the character key word (and in may cases kill them in two turns from out of LOS) means that you can't just "play the mission."

In the semi-final game the IH list basically tabled the eldar player in 2 turns. As soon as the eldar player tried to grab any objectives his units got smoked. If you can't survive sitting on the objectives it's really hard to get any points no matter the mission format.

I was wrong about the unkillable IH levi not being a huge issue at the top tables. I didn't foresee it being used to prevent you shooting at any other parts of the IH army while passing off wounds to 2 wound troops that got to take their FNP for those as well. Meaning you have to hit, wound t8, get through a 4++, get your damage halved and then reduced by 1, get through a 6+++ FNP, get through a 5+++ FNP and then have the wounds that go on the dread healed and then the wounds that go to the meatshields healed...

I didn't see that coming and I don't think a lot of other players did but my god if that isn't a billion rule stacking interactions combined with being able to hide all of the other targets in the army through character protection of ITC "home brew rules" made for the most powerful army in 40k at the moment.

Combined with one of the most killy factions it's no wonder that the list was so dominate, the levi dread unkillable and the only way to beat it was to get lucky.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and that mani cheema IF list pretty much breaks 40k. It removes 800-1200 points of your army TURN 1 without LOS (unless you are an unkillable levi dread who bossess all of their saves/fnps or a chaplain dread who is just too angry to roll below a 5 on their invuln saves)....

I imagine that Games Workshop is fully aware of how much of a nightmare the game is becoming with the amount of bloat in the game. Space Marines are certainly OP, though I don't see this changing. Honestly, I think the chances of a new edition coming this Summer to work as a soft reset are actually quite likely. It just seems like the easier solution.

Darsath wrote:
I imagine that Games Workshop is fully aware of how much of a nightmare the game is becoming with the amount of bloat in the game...

And yet they're still putting Psychic Awakening books adding doctrines, more stratagems, more relics, more psychic powers, and more warlord traits to more armies.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Darsath wrote:
I imagine that Games Workshop is fully aware of how much of a nightmare the game is becoming with the amount of bloat in the game...

And yet they're still putting Psychic Awakening books adding doctrines, more stratagems, more relics, more psychic powers, and more warlord traits to more armies.

Probably because they already know it's coming. They did something similar last edition too.

Darsath wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Darsath wrote:
I imagine that Games Workshop is fully aware of how much of a nightmare the game is becoming with the amount of bloat in the game...

And yet they're still putting Psychic Awakening books adding doctrines, more stratagems, more relics, more psychic powers, and more warlord traits to more armies.

Probably because they already know it's coming. They did something similar last edition too.

And the end of fantasy was the same way as well. So they have done this twice now.

GW did it twice or is it that most people did not play 3 or 4 editions ago?

Karol wrote:
GW did it twice or is it that most people did not play 3 or 4 editions ago?

I wanted to focus on the most recent example. This has been the case more often than not with new editions.

bananathug wrote:
As much as I hate to admit it the ITC rule that first floor blocks LOS is one of the major reasons the IH list works. You can hide all of your troops in the building and your opponent has no choice but to shoot the dread because the infantry models fit so nicely in the building and there is no way to draw LOS to them.

The list is so killy that anything you try to maneuver around to get the LOS angle just dies because you can't move enough of your army there to present enough targets that the army cares about.

That's probably about where the "fault" of ITC lies. That IH list does board control and killing so good. The ability to grey shield one detachment and advance and charge with your troops one turn to get onto objectives if you have to was pivotal and being ably to casually blow anything not protected by the character key word (and in may cases kill them in two turns from out of LOS) means that you can't just "play the mission."

In the semi-final game the IH list basically tabled the eldar player in 2 turns. As soon as the eldar player tried to grab any objectives his units got smoked. If you can't survive sitting on the objectives it's really hard to get any points no matter the mission format.

I was wrong about the unkillable IH levi not being a huge issue at the top tables. I didn't foresee it being used to prevent you shooting at any other parts of the IH army while passing off wounds to 2 wound troops that got to take their FNP for those as well. Meaning you have to hit, wound t8, get through a 4++, get your damage halved and then reduced by 1, get through a 6+++ FNP, get through a 5+++ FNP and then have the wounds that go on the dread healed and then the wounds that go to the meatshields healed...

I didn't see that coming and I don't think a lot of other players did but my god if that isn't a billion rule stacking interactions combined with being able to hide all of the other targets in the army through character protection of ITC "home brew rules" made for the most powerful army in 40k at the moment.

Combined with one of the most killy factions it's no wonder that the list was so dominate, the levi dread unkillable and the only way to beat it was to get lucky.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and that mani cheema IF list pretty much breaks 40k. It removes 800-1200 points of your army TURN 1 without LOS (unless you are an unkillable levi dread who bossess all of their saves/fnps or a chaplain dread who is just too angry to roll below a 5 on their invuln saves)....

Same nonsense that makes shield drones broken. Units should not be able to use bodyguard abilities unless they are in LOS of the shooting unit. It is so plainly obvious as to why...

 Xenomancers wrote:
Same nonsense that makes shield drones broken. Units should not be able to use bodyguard abilities unless they are in LOS of the shooting unit. It is so plainly obvious as to why...

You have to be a LITTLE careful about stuff like this and accounting for the opponent's ability to block their own LOS, but yes.

bananathug wrote:
As much as I hate to admit it the ITC rule that first floor blocks LOS is one of the major reasons the IH list works. You can hide all of your troops in the building and your opponent has no choice but to shoot the dread because the infantry models fit so nicely in the building and there is no way to draw LOS to them.

The reasons are not binary, it's a bit more nuanced than that. The ability of these lists to deny secondaries is among the plethora of reasons for their domination, since most of their opponents are operating at a disadvantage in terms of potential scoring.

 Xenomancers wrote:

bananathug wrote:
As much as I hate to admit it the ITC rule that first floor blocks LOS is one of the major reasons the IH list works. You can hide all of your troops in the building and your opponent has no choice but to shoot the dread because the infantry models fit so nicely in the building and there is no way to draw LOS to them.

The list is so killy that anything you try to maneuver around to get the LOS angle just dies because you can't move enough of your army there to present enough targets that the army cares about.

That's probably about where the "fault" of ITC lies. That IH list does board control and killing so good. The ability to grey shield one detachment and advance and charge with your troops one turn to get onto objectives if you have to was pivotal and being ably to casually blow anything not protected by the character key word (and in may cases kill them in two turns from out of LOS) means that you can't just "play the mission."

In the semi-final game the IH list basically tabled the eldar player in 2 turns. As soon as the eldar player tried to grab any objectives his units got smoked. If you can't survive sitting on the objectives it's really hard to get any points no matter the mission format.

I was wrong about the unkillable IH levi not being a huge issue at the top tables. I didn't foresee it being used to prevent you shooting at any other parts of the IH army while passing off wounds to 2 wound troops that got to take their FNP for those as well. Meaning you have to hit, wound t8, get through a 4++, get your damage halved and then reduced by 1, get through a 6+++ FNP, get through a 5+++ FNP and then have the wounds that go on the dread healed and then the wounds that go to the meatshields healed...

I didn't see that coming and I don't think a lot of other players did but my god if that isn't a billion rule stacking interactions combined with being able to hide all of the other targets in the army through character protection of ITC "home brew rules" made for the most powerful army in 40k at the moment.

Combined with one of the most killy factions it's no wonder that the list was so dominate, the levi dread unkillable and the only way to beat it was to get lucky.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and that mani cheema IF list pretty much breaks 40k. It removes 800-1200 points of your army TURN 1 without LOS (unless you are an unkillable levi dread who bossess all of their saves/fnps or a chaplain dread who is just too angry to roll below a 5 on their invuln saves)....

Same nonsense that makes shield drones broken. Units should not be able to use bodyguard abilities unless they are in LOS of the shooting unit. It is so plainly obvious as to why...

Drones are before the target makes saves. which makes a BIG difference when its a 2+/4++ model.
Christ imagine if you could pass of wounds to drones after trying a 3++ save on riptides. Oh the salty tears (with good reason).

Sure the IF is after damage so in theory is worse against multi damage weapons but lol half all damage and reduce by 1 first...

Darsath wrote:
I imagine that Games Workshop is fully aware of how much of a nightmare the game is becoming with the amount of bloat in the game. Space Marines are certainly OP, though I don't see this changing. Honestly, I think the chances of a new edition coming this Summer to work as a soft reset are actually quite likely. It just seems like the easier solution.

There's not going to be big revolution in 9th ed anyway. Minor tweaks, consolidiated rulebook. Codexes where the major issues lie will still work etc

Karol wrote:
GW did it twice

Oh GWs definitely done it at least twice.

Karol wrote:
or is it that most people did not play 3 or 4 editions ago?

Very likely. 4 editions ago would be 4e. If you go back to the start of that edition your looking at 12 years ago. That's alot of players coming/going.

 Ordana wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

bananathug wrote:
As much as I hate to admit it the ITC rule that first floor blocks LOS is one of the major reasons the IH list works. You can hide all of your troops in the building and your opponent has no choice but to shoot the dread because the infantry models fit so nicely in the building and there is no way to draw LOS to them.

The list is so killy that anything you try to maneuver around to get the LOS angle just dies because you can't move enough of your army there to present enough targets that the army cares about.

That's probably about where the "fault" of ITC lies. That IH list does board control and killing so good. The ability to grey shield one detachment and advance and charge with your troops one turn to get onto objectives if you have to was pivotal and being ably to casually blow anything not protected by the character key word (and in may cases kill them in two turns from out of LOS) means that you can't just "play the mission."

In the semi-final game the IH list basically tabled the eldar player in 2 turns. As soon as the eldar player tried to grab any objectives his units got smoked. If you can't survive sitting on the objectives it's really hard to get any points no matter the mission format.

I was wrong about the unkillable IH levi not being a huge issue at the top tables. I didn't foresee it being used to prevent you shooting at any other parts of the IH army while passing off wounds to 2 wound troops that got to take their FNP for those as well. Meaning you have to hit, wound t8, get through a 4++, get your damage halved and then reduced by 1, get through a 6+++ FNP, get through a 5+++ FNP and then have the wounds that go on the dread healed and then the wounds that go to the meatshields healed...

I didn't see that coming and I don't think a lot of other players did but my god if that isn't a billion rule stacking interactions combined with being able to hide all of the other targets in the army through character protection of ITC "home brew rules" made for the most powerful army in 40k at the moment.

Combined with one of the most killy factions it's no wonder that the list was so dominate, the levi dread unkillable and the only way to beat it was to get lucky.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and that mani cheema IF list pretty much breaks 40k. It removes 800-1200 points of your army TURN 1 without LOS (unless you are an unkillable levi dread who bossess all of their saves/fnps or a chaplain dread who is just too angry to roll below a 5 on their invuln saves)....

Same nonsense that makes shield drones broken. Units should not be able to use bodyguard abilities unless they are in LOS of the shooting unit. It is so plainly obvious as to why...

Drones are before the target makes saves. which makes a BIG difference when its a 2+/4++ model.
Christ imagine if you could pass of wounds to drones after trying a 3++ save on riptides. Oh the salty tears (with good reason).

Sure the IF is after damage so in theory is worse against multi damage weapons but lol half all damage and reduce by 1 first...

They are both broken. Obviously the Ironhands version is more broken because it's Ironhands. Jezz - don't give them any ideas about the tau.

ERJAK wrote:



Also, those 'OP' armies were never anywhere near as OP as marines are(statistically going by tournament results during their OP time), even post IH nerf. A book like release IH would NEVER make it to print in AoS.

This isn't really true. The problem is that marines are WAY more accessible than Ynnari and it is only IH reaching Ynnari levels of crazy.

Ynnari
2018 (only real data outside LVO is July forward)

Jul - 67.3%
Aug - 69.8
Sep - 58.0
Oct - 60.8
Nov - 62.8
Dec - 47.0

IH
2019
Jul - 25%
Aug - no games
Sep - 54.9
Oct - 69.4
Nov - 65.8
Dec - 65.9

Tyel wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
So, theyre one faction.

Out of what...twenty?

And 2..5x representation from 1/20th of the army lists is a bad thing?

I don't understand what you are saying here?
I'm all for nerfing Marines. I was just saying there is this view that 40k is all Marines all the time. We just had a length of time when this wasn't the case.

OK, I'm confused here.

Are you saying it was 13.5% CODEX: SPACE MARINES or 13.5% Space Marines+Space Wolves+Dark Angels+Grey Knights+Deathwatch+Blood Angels+Chaos Space Marines+Death Guard+Thousand Sons?

I was under the impression you meant the former.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
GW did it twice or is it that most people did not play 3 or 4 editions ago?

No, I've been playing since 4th, the only time they've done this before is 7th ed. There were not these huge campaign books with tons and tons and tons of rules in 4th or 5th or even...unless I'm misremembering when the first few subfaction supplements came out, 6th.

You have to understand though throughout most of 40ks lifetime you got one book every 2 months or so. The current release schedule is BONKERS compared to 2nd ed thru 5th ed.

bananathug wrote:
As much as I hate to admit it the ITC rule that first floor blocks LOS is one of the major reasons the IH list works. You can hide all of your troops in the building and your opponent has no choice but to shoot the dread because the infantry models fit so nicely in the building and there is no way to draw LOS to them.

I started out thinking this rule was a good idea, and the more time goes on, the more I see it getting seriously abused and causing issues just as bad as the ones it was trying to prevent, it cuts off *too* much LoS frequently and leaves a lot of things like character gimmickry much more capable than it should be.

 Vaktathi wrote:

bananathug wrote:
As much as I hate to admit it the ITC rule that first floor blocks LOS is one of the major reasons the IH list works. You can hide all of your troops in the building and your opponent has no choice but to shoot the dread because the infantry models fit so nicely in the building and there is no way to draw LOS to them.

I started out thinking this rule was a good idea, and the more time goes on, the more I see it getting seriously abused and causing issues just as bad as the ones it was trying to prevent, it cuts off *too* much LoS frequently and leaves a lot of things like character gimmickry much more capable than it should be.

If it can be abused tournament players will find a way. It would be impressive if it wasn't so depressing.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

ERJAK wrote:



Also, those 'OP' armies were never anywhere near as OP as marines are(statistically going by tournament results during their OP time), even post IH nerf. A book like release IH would NEVER make it to print in AoS.

This isn't really true. The problem is that marines are WAY more accessible than Ynnari and it is only IH reaching Ynnari levels of crazy.

Ynnari
2018 (only real data outside LVO is July forward)

Jul - 67.3%
Aug - 69.8
Sep - 58.0
Oct - 60.8
Nov - 62.8
Dec - 47.0

IH
2019
Jul - 25%
Aug - no games
Sep - 54.9
Oct - 69.4
Nov - 65.8
Dec - 65.9

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

bananathug wrote:
As much as I hate to admit it the ITC rule that first floor blocks LOS is one of the major reasons the IH list works. You can hide all of your troops in the building and your opponent has no choice but to shoot the dread because the infantry models fit so nicely in the building and there is no way to draw LOS to them.

I started out thinking this rule was a good idea, and the more time goes on, the more I see it getting seriously abused and causing issues just as bad as the ones it was trying to prevent, it cuts off *too* much LoS frequently and leaves a lot of things like character gimmickry much more capable than it should be.

Combined with the character protection rule it is a broken game IMO.

the_scotsman wrote:

OK, I'm confused here.

Are you saying it was 13.5% CODEX: SPACE MARINES or 13.5% Space Marines+Space Wolves+Dark Angels+Grey Knights+Deathwatch+Blood Angels+Chaos Space Marines+Death Guard+Thousand Sons?

I was under the impression you meant the former.

13.5% of "mono-lists" (which you may say is a weird abstraction because soup was right there, drink the soup), were mono-Imperial aligned Space Marines. So Codex Space Marines, or SW/DA/BA/GK/DW etc. Chaos would be chaos.

I guess you can argue whether its a good or bad number - but you had about 3 times as many on a proportional basis turn up at LVO 2020 compared to the situation a year ago. This is because the rules changed, not because 40k is intrinsically all Marines all the time.
I was disagreeing with a poster above who believed it was.

The truth is that GW cannot be held to account for any meta that is built around 3rd party, homebrew rules. Hard to accept but it is what it is.
If the same volumes of data show the same problems in CA missions then we have more ground to complain. The recent events held by GW have not suffered from faction dominance the same was as the ITC have, and that is also a fact.

Are GW balancing the factions perfectly? Not at all. Doesn't change the fact that homebrew 3rd party rules can have an effect on a game and alter the nature of the meta in one way or another.

 Ishagu wrote:
The truth is that GW cannot be held to account for any meta that is built around 3rd party, homebrew rules. Hard to accept but it is what it is.
If the same volumes of data show the same problems in CA missions then we have more ground to complain. The recent events they've held have not suffered from faction dominance the same was as the ITC have, and that is also a fact.

Are GW balancing the factions perfectly? Not at all.

If you think GW can't be held to account, you've never had a customer service role.

Now, if you're saying GW shouldn't be held to account, that's worthy of debate.

(Not literally disagreeing with you. Being a bit pedantic to call out the difference and put more weight on who people "blame" versus who people should "blame".)

Fair enough. I'll specify:

They should not be held to account for a meta built around 3rd party, unofficial, homebrew rules.

 Argive wrote:

Ill keep completing my army and doing the hobby side/ enjoying the game. But once I'm done? It'll probably be time for another system rather than another army unless there will be some change in direction.



In 40k you have factions with units throwing out something like 60+ dice with re-rolls... The dice game becomes meaningless when you have weight of dice..

So much this.

 Ishagu wrote:
Fair enough. I'll specify:

They should not be held to account for a meta built around 3rd party, unofficial, homebrew rules.

I mean... I agree, but I'll hold them to account for the disaster that is the SM rules in their own, 1st party, official, rules.

 Crazyterran wrote:
nerfing the Dread damage reduction to only work on 11 wound dreads or less might be the way to go

Except... It's not. "Stratagems" like this shouldn't exist at all. There's nothing "strategic" in Duty Eternal, especially since it's activated AFTER the opponent targets the Dreadnought.

I think GW made a giant mistake with how they designed their stratagems, which are the core of 8th edition and therefore, its core problem. They're basically just extra powers on a limited budget. Unfortunately, being able to use any stratagem at any time with virtually no opportunity cost ruins everything.

You want to fix 40k ? Make stratagems 1 use only OR allow only 1 stratagem to be played each turn. Now, you can call them "stratagems".

Edit : or have people draw stratagems like they draw Objective cards ! Draw 3, can't use other stratagems unless you've used the ones in your hand.

 Nym wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
nerfing the Dread damage reduction to only work on 11 wound dreads or less might be the way to go

Except... It's not. "Stratagems" like this shouldn't exist at all. There's nothing "strategic" in Duty Eternal, especially since it's activated AFTER the opponent targets the Dreadnought.

I think GW made a giant mistake with how they designed their stratagems, which are the core of 8th edition and therefore, its core problem. They're basically just extra powers on a limited budget. Unfortunately, being able to use any stratagem at any time with virtually no opportunity cost ruins everything.

You want to fix 40k ? Make stratagems 1 use only OR allow only 1 stratagem to be played each turn. Now, you can call them "stratagems".

In general, I hate that Stratagems exist.

But a counterpoint for why they're good? Fire And Fade. Eldar should be able to shoot then run away. But being able to do it with every unit every turn would be (/was) increadibly unfun for their opponent. The Stratagem mechanic allows GW to give them the rule, but limit it's use and give it a cost.

Bharring wrote:

 Nym wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
nerfing the Dread damage reduction to only work on 11 wound dreads or less might be the way to go

Except... It's not. "Stratagems" like this shouldn't exist at all. There's nothing "strategic" in Duty Eternal, especially since it's activated AFTER the opponent targets the Dreadnought.

I think GW made a giant mistake with how they designed their stratagems, which are the core of 8th edition and therefore, its core problem. They're basically just extra powers on a limited budget. Unfortunately, being able to use any stratagem at any time with virtually no opportunity cost ruins everything.

You want to fix 40k ? Make stratagems 1 use only OR allow only 1 stratagem to be played each turn. Now, you can call them "stratagems".

In general, I hate that Stratagems exist.

But a counterpoint for why they're good? Fire And Fade. Eldar should be able to shoot then run away. But being able to do it with every unit every turn would be (/was) increadibly unfun for their opponent. The Stratagem mechanic allows GW to give them the rule, but limit it's use and give it a cost.

Aye. They should be heavily, heavily reduced.

Probably won't be though, they're too flashy.

 Vaktathi wrote:

bananathug wrote:
As much as I hate to admit it the ITC rule that first floor blocks LOS is one of the major reasons the IH list works. You can hide all of your troops in the building and your opponent has no choice but to shoot the dread because the infantry models fit so nicely in the building and there is no way to draw LOS to them.

I started out thinking this rule was a good idea, and the more time goes on, the more I see it getting seriously abused and causing issues just as bad as the ones it was trying to prevent, it cuts off *too* much LoS frequently and leaves a lot of things like character gimmickry much more capable than it should be.

Interestingly GW use a less binary version of the same rule at their events

https://warhammerworld.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2019/07/Warhammer-40000-Ruins-House-Rule.pdf

Given the way their terrain tends to be set up that does create some LOS block but if you build a list assuming you will always be able to hide your Intercessors then you are in for a nasty shock. Just one small gap in the terrain undoes your whole strategy.

However the GW tournament results are nothing like as skewed as ITC results and I really do not think you can put it all down to this difference in terrain rules. I do think that the missions are the biggest difference so you have to look at those as by far the most likely cause. As per the subject of this thread, it is worth noting that the ITC AoS tournament used the book missions rather than ITC homebrew and it had a far more diverse leaderboard.