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.

Gladius is certainly a force to be reckoned with both because of the free points given and its objective grabbing potential

Ravenwing is surprisingly more common than I thought it would be locally at least but is pretty good with all the jink rerolls and scouting forward

Raven wing added to Thunderwolves seems very very strong from the one time I've seen it played

Scatbike spam has had a presence but hasn't really made the splash the internet initially thought it would

So my questions are:
what do you think the true impact is of these lists (or others) are on the current meta? What lists have not only survived but flourished because of these lists? Is there truly a dominate list anymore, or has it finally balanced out some?

Much depends on tournament restrictions. With a 3-detachment limit, there's so much diversity in list construction it's hard to pin down a true king of the hill.

I see the top tier, in no particular order, shaking out as:

Gladius, some type of Superfriends/Wolfstar, Jetseer, Nid Air Force, Daemons and War Convocation.

7th is currently the most balance edition of 40k, so far. It only unbalances when restrictions are placed, and each additional restriction imbalances it further. While the game does favor those that can afford to buy more, the variety of choices truly does reduce the game to who is the better player base on army construction and play style rather than which codex you are playing at the moment, as it has been for decades. People who complain about current game balance are still viewing the game through filters of previous editions.

Looking at ITC, with its three source limit, imbalance in the game is still pretty low, although it does encourage dropping some combo in favor of others, which means we will see similar army components going into the better player lists, yet we will still see a huge variance between those lists. And winner still set the trend, rather than follow, which means the top players will no doubt break away from the community favorite with very synergistic odd ball list that take advantage of what people currently aren't playing.

In short, the better player doesn't look at codexes as restrictions anymore, as codexes are now tool kits fills you can mix and match from to fix any problem, of which ITC is a specific set of problems.

SJ

The meta is still very much a Rock-Paper-Scissors (RPS) meta. There is no true dominant Top-dog of an army. Each army has a counter-army, or an army that it struggles against.


Scatterbike Eldar - has problems against Flyer armies (flyrant-spam, Daemons) or re-rollable cover armies (Ravenwing)

Gladius or MSU - has problems with armies with a high offensive output against multiple units (Eldar, Firebase Cadre, flyrant-spam, Ravenwing).

Flyrant-spam Tyranids - has problem with strong ground-based armies with resilient scoring units (Ravenwing, massed 2+ units)

Necron Decurion - will have problems against Gladius Battle Company, Ravenwing or any armies with durable ground units or massed ObSec.

Deathstar armies - have problems against MSU.

Psychic deathstars (Seer Council, Centstar) - have problems against other psychic armies (Daemons) or armies with have ways to shut down their psychic powers (Culexus).

Imperial Knights - have problems against flyrant-spam Tyranids or MSU armies that can attack them at multiple angles (Gladius, drop pods, Ravenwing).

Ravenwing - will have problems against armies that can ignore cover (Tau, centstar with Perfect Timing) or fast, durable assault armies (daemons, Knights).


There is no way for any army to be able to handle every other army. You just have to design your Take-All-Comer's list to deal with what you feel is the dominant meta-armies at the time and the luck of the tournament draw will determine the rest.

Regarding counters to raven wing you forgot to mention noise marine based csm armies are a pretty hard counter

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
7th is currently the most balance edition of 40k, so far. It only unbalances when restrictions are placed, and each additional restriction imbalances it further. While the game does favor those that can afford to buy more, the variety of choices truly does reduce the game to who is the better player base on army construction and play style rather than which codex you are playing at the moment, as it has been for decades. People who complain about current game balance are still viewing the game through filters of previous editions.

Looking at ITC, with its three source limit, imbalance in the game is still pretty low, although it does encourage dropping some combo in favor of others, which means we will see similar army components going into the better player lists, yet we will still see a huge variance between those lists. And winner still set the trend, rather than follow, which means the top players will no doubt break away from the community favorite with very synergistic odd ball list that take advantage of what people currently aren't playing.

In short, the better player doesn't look at codexes as restrictions anymore, as codexes are now tool kits fills you can mix and match from to fix any problem, of which ITC is a specific set of problems.

SJ

If 40k 7th edition was truly balanced, there'd be Ork, IG, Blood Raven, and Sister of Battle torunament lists around as well.

IG and SoB still don't have a 7th ed. Codex. I am one of the few people annoyed that the burst of new releases stopped.

But bith those armies can ally in some of the new hotness. If you restrict detachments, they're hurt far more than some of the books that are just all around good.

Sisters taxied in by fleshtearers is actually pretty ridiculous.

For 745 points you can have 2 tri-melta sister squads in pods, a 5-melta squad with ignore cover aof in a pod, and 3 squads of 4 heavy flamers each with rending aof in pods. Still 1105 points left to grab the other necessary squads and fill out the rest of the army. Heck you could add a BA cad as 3rd detachment to pod in 2 more ignore cover melta squads at least.

I would totally run that army if I had a rich relative die and leave me the necessary funding for it. People underestimate how good sisters are just because they never see them. They're FRIKKIN EXPENSIVE is the issue.

 saithor wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
7th is currently the most balance edition of 40k, so far. It only unbalances when restrictions are placed, and each additional restriction imbalances it further. While the game does favor those that can afford to buy more, the variety of choices truly does reduce the game to who is the better player base on army construction and play style rather than which codex you are playing at the moment, as it has been for decades. People who complain about current game balance are still viewing the game through filters of previous editions.

Looking at ITC, with its three source limit, imbalance in the game is still pretty low, although it does encourage dropping some combo in favor of others, which means we will see similar army components going into the better player lists, yet we will still see a huge variance between those lists. And winner still set the trend, rather than follow, which means the top players will no doubt break away from the community favorite with very synergistic odd ball list that take advantage of what people currently aren't playing.

In short, the better player doesn't look at codexes as restrictions anymore, as codexes are now tool kits fills you can mix and match from to fix any problem, of which ITC is a specific set of problems.

SJ

If 40k 7th edition was truly balanced, there'd be Ork, IG, Blood Raven, and Sister of Battle torunament lists around as well.

Not at all. What I'm saying is that a list with Orks, IG, and Sisters can be very competitive. The day of the mono-army are pretty much over. Yes, Knights struggle against Flyrents, but Knights with Flyrents are doing great at the moment. How many IoM list out there have Flesh Tearors as taxis? Draigo-Cent-stars are neither mono-GK nor mono-SM. Eldar and Necrons are about the only two monotone armies in the game that stand on their own, yet even the Space Elves still summon daemons, while Necro-AdMech pretty much flay everything apart. How about that War Convocation?

7th Ed seems to be balanced on mixing and match your favorite models on cluttered tables with card driven missions. Restricting any of that really does impact the game balance more than embracing it does.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 saithor wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
7th is currently the most balance edition of 40k, so far. It only unbalances when restrictions are placed, and each additional restriction imbalances it further. While the game does favor those that can afford to buy more, the variety of choices truly does reduce the game to who is the better player base on army construction and play style rather than which codex you are playing at the moment, as it has been for decades. People who complain about current game balance are still viewing the game through filters of previous editions.

Looking at ITC, with its three source limit, imbalance in the game is still pretty low, although it does encourage dropping some combo in favor of others, which means we will see similar army components going into the better player lists, yet we will still see a huge variance between those lists. And winner still set the trend, rather than follow, which means the top players will no doubt break away from the community favorite with very synergistic odd ball list that take advantage of what people currently aren't playing.

In short, the better player doesn't look at codexes as restrictions anymore, as codexes are now tool kits fills you can mix and match from to fix any problem, of which ITC is a specific set of problems.

SJ

If 40k 7th edition was truly balanced, there'd be Ork, IG, Blood Raven, and Sister of Battle torunament lists around as well.

Not at all. What I'm saying is that a list with Orks, IG, and Sisters can be very competitive. The day of the mono-army are pretty much over. Yes, Knights struggle against Flyrents, but Knights with Flyrents are doing great at the moment. How many IoM list out there have Flesh Tearors as taxis? Draigo-Cent-stars are neither mono-GK nor mono-SM. Eldar and Necrons are about the only two monotone armies in the game that stand on their own, yet even the Space Elves still summon daemons, while Necro-AdMech pretty much flay everything apart. How about that War Convocation?

7th Ed seems to be balanced on mixing and match your favorite models on cluttered tables with card driven missions. Restricting any of that really does impact the game balance more than embracing it does.

SJ

Problem is that if you make very model available to every amy, where does the uniqueness go. You may as well just abolish the codexes entirely and just create a pool of formations that people can draw from.

The mono-army is very much like a brick wall with a section of the wall that is made out of flimsy plywood, cardboard, or is just an empty hole. The size of that section depends on the mono-army in question. Some have very small sections, like Space Marines, Eldar, Necrons. Others have much bigger sections, IK, SoB, IG, Orks. A lot of wargames manage to make these sections very small without sacrificing identity of faction (Dropzone Commander, Heavy Gear), or make it so that most of the equiment shared is extremely similiar so you really are playing practically the same army (Battletech). The only other wargame that uses allies that I know of is Warmahordes, and I'm going to use them as an example. In warmahordes, you can use Mercenaries/Minions as wood, stone, or other materials to reinforce or fill in the section of the wall. For example, if you're playing Cygnar, you can grab some Rhulic infantry or Greygore Boomhowler units to fill in the section of the wall called Heavy Infantry, or as Cryx you can grab some Nyss Archers and Master Gunner Macdougal to fill in your ranged section of the wall. The important part here is that while those units are good at their role, they aren't as good as the faction specific ones, so while the section is reinforced, it still isn't as strong as the rest of the wall.. You don't have the Cryx player putting Arcane Tempest Gun Mages on the field or the Cygnar player fielding a Bane Thrall+UA+Tartaraus deathstar. That isn't what the 40K allies rules are. What the 40k Ally rules are is stealing part of your neighbors brick wall that is the exact size and shape of your hole, and using it to fill that in so you have a seamless brick wall. This forces all your neighbors to do the exact smae thing. This approach has been done in some games, like the before-mentioned battletech, but it works there because the factions aren't unique, at least on the tabletop. They mostly use the same equipment, with a few exceptions, whereas in 40k each faction is supposed to be completely unique, and for the most part, completely hate each other's guts. Even in the Imperium, the Inquisitions has executed Imperial Guard regiments for knowing to much, and we at one point had the Space wolves and Inquisition in close to open warfare with each other. Maybe I'm being to nitpicky, but this is just my view on the entire thing.

Edit: And another thing here, a lot of times for me true balance isn't each army or assortment of best-of units being equally viable, it's of units being viable. A well-balanced game should have it that each unit has around as much the same value and usefulness as each other. Each unit should have it's own role that it can perform adequately if not extremely well, and so each can provide something. Every game suffers from not being able to balance units of course, but at least they try. To me, this edition seems to to be GW saying "Aw to heck with it, we're sick of trying to balance these units agaisnt each other, so you know what, let's make it so you can cherrypick the best ones out of each army and use them instead." If people take IG allies, your going to see blob squads, Leman Russes, and Wyverns, but how many times are you going to see Rough riders/Ogryns/Hellhounds/Sentinels/Storm Troopers/Basilisks/Ratlings/Wyverdane/Primaris Psyker/Heavy Weapon Squads/Manticore/Deathstrike. Truly balanced would have these units beig used in one form or another in some at least semi-viable army, instead of the top five.

Problem is that if you make very model available to every amy, where does the uniqueness go. You may as well just abolish the codexes entirely and just create a pool of formations that people can draw from.

This is exactly what GW is going to do. The two most reliable rumormongers on the net floated that within 2 years, the codex will not exist. Why do you think they've been making codices now with every unit as its own data slate? They're easing us into the idea.

 jy2 wrote:


Imperial Knights - have problems against flyrant-spam Tyranids or MSU armies that can attack them at multiple angles (Gladius, drop pods, Ravenwing).

Ravenwing - will have problems against armies that can ignore cover (Tau, centstar with Perfect Timing) or fast, durable assault armies (daemons, Knights).

Surely that match-up (IKs vs Ravenwing) comes out about even, if each can give the other problems!

 Ian Sturrock wrote:

 jy2 wrote:


Imperial Knights - have problems against flyrant-spam Tyranids or MSU armies that can attack them at multiple angles (Gladius, drop pods, Ravenwing).

Ravenwing - will have problems against armies that can ignore cover (Tau, centstar with Perfect Timing) or fast, durable assault armies (daemons, Knights).

Surely that match-up (IKs vs Ravenwing) comes out about even, if each can give the other problems!

It really depends on how many knights there are. I believe that RW can handle a 3-knight army, but something like a 4-5 knight build will start to give them problems. In order to hurt the knights, RW needs to get in close. That means that if they don't kill it, they'll going to be assaulted next turn. With 5 knights, you are looking at potentially 3-4 assaults and 3-4 dead RW units a turn. RW units are going to go down faster than the knight units. With less knights, there will be less retalitorial assaults and hence, RW can still maintain a dangerous threat level to the knights. Against 4-5 knights, the key to a RW victory is they need to be able to take out 1 knight a turn. If they cannot, then they will have a tough battle ahead of them.

BTW, the matchup will favor the knights if they are running an Acheron.

Makes sense, thank you for the clarification.

I could see you writing a pretty good series of articles based just on your above post, on how to build and play each army so as to best deal with its bad matchups (recognising that sometimes, "best deal with" might mean expecting a draw, or even playing to minimise the severity of a loss) while still playing to their strengths against other armies. Got any spare time?

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
Makes sense, thank you for the clarification.

I could see you writing a pretty good series of articles based just on your above post, on how to build and play each army so as to best deal with its bad matchups (recognising that sometimes, "best deal with" might mean expecting a draw, or even playing to minimise the severity of a loss) while still playing to their strengths against other armies. Got any spare time?

While I have done so before (check out my tacticas below on how to play against the new Eldar with Tyranids), it generally consumes a lot of my time to do so, so I don't do it that often. But if it catches my fancy, I just might do it. What type of matchup tactical did you have in mind?


Jy2's Tactica - Tyranids Vs the New Eldar Part I


Jy2's Tactica - Tyranids Vs the New Eldar Part II

 jy2 wrote:

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
Makes sense, thank you for the clarification.

I could see you writing a pretty good series of articles based just on your above post, on how to build and play each army so as to best deal with its bad matchups (recognising that sometimes, "best deal with" might mean expecting a draw, or even playing to minimise the severity of a loss) while still playing to their strengths against other armies. Got any spare time?

While I have done so before (check out my tacticas below on how to play against the new Eldar with Tyranids), it generally consumes a lot of my time to do so, so I don't do it that often. But if it catches my fancy, I just might do it. What type of matchup tactical did you have in mind?


Jy2's Tactica - Tyranids Vs the New Eldar Part I


Jy2's Tactica - Tyranids Vs the New Eldar Part II

Those are actually some very good reads, I'd be interested in your opinion on how to take on one's brother, who is new to the 40k universe, and has chosen Decurion brothers baed off a question to me about competitve lists. Or jsut anotehr tactica on Tyrannid vs Decurion would work.

No Ad Mech insight J?