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.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Oh wait...these results proves nothing? we don't even know what armies played what. We don't even know how the event was scored. It was an eternal war GT though - not really gaurds strong point. You run out of time trying to table your opponent and he has a single tac squad in the middle of the table you lose. It matters not that 1500 points remain against 200 or less. Ofc when we play that out at home turn 4 IG scores a massive victory.

This is accurate.

BCP isn't perfect. In an ITC event, I was at the final table, lost without getting blown out, and finished 3rd. Because another guy was also undefeated but based on SOS, he played a weaker opponent, and got an easy win. So i drop to 3, despite being undefeated the entire time with 19-0 wins, because of 1 loss at the end.

Had I been paired differently, I could have easily finished first.

So, does this mean you two are going to stop complaining about guard "dominating all the tournaments" now that you've decided that tournaments mean nothing?

Or are you going to go with a policy of "a tournament only counts if it supports my predetermined conclusion"?

 ross-128 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Oh wait...these results proves nothing? we don't even know what armies played what. We don't even know how the event was scored. It was an eternal war GT though - not really gaurds strong point. You run out of time trying to table your opponent and he has a single tac squad in the middle of the table you lose. It matters not that 1500 points remain against 200 or less. Ofc when we play that out at home turn 4 IG scores a massive victory.

This is accurate.

BCP isn't perfect. In an ITC event, I was at the final table, lost without getting blown out, and finished 3rd. Because another guy was also undefeated but based on SOS, he played a weaker opponent, and got an easy win. So i drop to 3, despite being undefeated the entire time with 19-0 wins, because of 1 loss at the end.

Had I been paired differently, I could have easily finished first.

So, does this mean you two are going to stop complaining about guard "dominating all the tournaments" now that you've decided that tournaments mean nothing?

Or are you going to go with a policy of "a tournament only counts if it supports my predetermined conclusion"?

I'll give you two guesses, the first one's free.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Oh wait...these results proves nothing? we don't even know what armies played what. We don't even know how the event was scored. It was an eternal war GT though - not really gaurds strong point. You run out of time trying to table your opponent and he has a single tac squad in the middle of the table you lose. It matters not that 1500 points remain against 200 or less. Ofc when we play that out at home turn 4 IG scores a massive victory.

This is accurate.

BCP isn't perfect. In an ITC event, I was at the final table, lost without getting blown out, and finished 3rd. Because another guy was also undefeated but based on SOS, he played a weaker opponent, and got an easy win. So i drop to 3, despite being undefeated the entire time with 19-0 wins, because of 1 loss at the end.

Had I been paired differently, I could have easily finished first.

I mean if tourney results mean nothing then what does?

 ross-128 wrote:
So, does this mean you two are going to stop complaining about guard "dominating all the tournaments" now that you've decided that tournaments mean nothing?

Or are you going to go with a policy of "a tournament only counts if it supports my predetermined conclusion"?

I don't see why they would.

Depends on the composition of "Imperium" I guess, but 6 out of the top 15 isn't bad. Although I guess like all stats you can say this is manipulation - 2 out of the top 10 sounds a lot less impressive.

The thing is Eldar in 7th didn't win every single event. But they did end up by far the most played faction, to the point of composing something like 30% of the lists at major tournaments. They were clearly setting the meta (followed by riptides, double gladius and to some degree knight lances [not a super effective list but a meta warping one]). Later on Magnus and co became popular. Out of your 5 games odds are high you would play these lists at least 3 times, possibly all 5. If you didn't know how to deal with them - or your faction just didn't have the tools - then good luck advancing.

Kdash wrote:

Niiru wrote:

GhostRecon wrote:
Other dominant lists I've seen from other tourneys that occurred this weekend (though they were only 3 rounds):

SoCal Open Primer was won by Brandon Grant using a Conscript spam (iirc he won the NOVA Open too, using a similar list) - list.

Lords of War 15 was won by a Malefic Lord spamming Renegades and Heretics list.

Anyone know any of the entries from the ongoing first heat of the GT in nottingham? The only lists I know of are the ones from GW employees that are taking part.

Lawrence from Tabletop Tactics won heat 1 using BobbyG and Assault Cannon Razorback spam essentially. He basically tabled or got max points in every single game throughout the event. (In fact the top 6 players going into the final game were all on max points)
Those lists were -
1 x SoB
1 x Raven Guard
1 x Chaos
2 x BobbyG Ultramarines
1 BobbyG and Celestine

(If I’m remembering the above incorrectly, feel free to update!)
The Raven Guard list beat a BobbyG list in the final game due to it being the Relic (why why why is this still part of tournaments?) and he managed to seize. Basically, meant the Smurfs couldn’t win right from the first turn. Was an interesting Raven Guard list though – Interecessors, Agressors and Dreadnoughts (2 Contemptors, 1 Contemptor Mortis and 1 Mortis), Hellblasters and a Primaris Captain and Librarian along with a Stormtalon. I think a lot of people were surprised it won all 5 games with max points.

One thing to note – Lawrence managed to table an Astra Militarum list in 4 turns in game 4. It was a Super Heavy spam list I believe.

From what I gather there was only 1 Dark Eldar, 1 Ork, 1 Harlequin list there. I don’t think there were any Tau or Eldar. There were 2 pure Admech lists as well that apparently did reasonably. There were however lots of Magnus, Mortarion and BobbyG lists. Over 20% of the lists were Space Marines (1st and last place went to the Marines )

Warhammer Community will be posting a load of details and stats from the event over the course of this week apparently.

Thanks for this.

But some of these replies...let me make sure I understand this. Multiple sets of data come out which do not support the hypothesis that the IG codex is obviously, gamebreakingly OP and some just want to ignore that because it doesn't fit the feels? I will gladly grant that it isn't enough data to conclude anything but that was the point all along. People in the opposite camp were absolutely sure that we did not need to wait for data because the IG was obviously OP. Now, data contrary to the idea comes out and we are suddenly being told we need to wait for more?

It's totally correct to say this proves nothing and more data is needed, but that stance is totally contrary to what was being said before these results came in.

Edit: And I'm pretty sure that if an IG player had won one of these tournaments that would be "all the data we needed".

 Otto von Bludd wrote:

Kdash wrote:

Niiru wrote:

GhostRecon wrote:
Other dominant lists I've seen from other tourneys that occurred this weekend (though they were only 3 rounds):

SoCal Open Primer was won by Brandon Grant using a Conscript spam (iirc he won the NOVA Open too, using a similar list) - list.

Lords of War 15 was won by a Malefic Lord spamming Renegades and Heretics list.

Anyone know any of the entries from the ongoing first heat of the GT in nottingham? The only lists I know of are the ones from GW employees that are taking part.

Lawrence from Tabletop Tactics won heat 1 using BobbyG and Assault Cannon Razorback spam essentially. He basically tabled or got max points in every single game throughout the event. (In fact the top 6 players going into the final game were all on max points)
Those lists were -
1 x SoB
1 x Raven Guard
1 x Chaos
2 x BobbyG Ultramarines
1 BobbyG and Celestine

(If I’m remembering the above incorrectly, feel free to update!)
The Raven Guard list beat a BobbyG list in the final game due to it being the Relic (why why why is this still part of tournaments?) and he managed to seize. Basically, meant the Smurfs couldn’t win right from the first turn. Was an interesting Raven Guard list though – Interecessors, Agressors and Dreadnoughts (2 Contemptors, 1 Contemptor Mortis and 1 Mortis), Hellblasters and a Primaris Captain and Librarian along with a Stormtalon. I think a lot of people were surprised it won all 5 games with max points.

One thing to note – Lawrence managed to table an Astra Militarum list in 4 turns in game 4. It was a Super Heavy spam list I believe.

From what I gather there was only 1 Dark Eldar, 1 Ork, 1 Harlequin list there. I don’t think there were any Tau or Eldar. There were 2 pure Admech lists as well that apparently did reasonably. There were however lots of Magnus, Mortarion and BobbyG lists. Over 20% of the lists were Space Marines (1st and last place went to the Marines )

Warhammer Community will be posting a load of details and stats from the event over the course of this week apparently.

Thanks for this.

But some of these replies...let me make sure I understand this. Multiple sets of data come out which do not support the hypothesis that the IG codex is obviously, gamebreakingly OP and some just want to ignore that because it doesn't fit the feels? I will gladly grant that it isn't enough data to conclude anything but that was the point all along. People in the opposite camp were absolutely sure that we did not need to wait for data because the IG was obviously OP. Now, data contrary to the idea comes out and we are suddenly being told we need to wait for more?

It's totally correct to say this proves nothing and more data is needed, but that stance is totally contrary to what was being said before these results came in.

Edit: And I'm pretty sure that if an IG player had won one of these tournaments that would be "all the data we needed".

I remain dubious of our codex being played friendly, but your point is undeniable and your edit is spot on as well.

Well this thread doesn't matter anymore. Case closed, goodnight folks.

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
Well this thread doesn't matter anymore. Case closed, goodnight folks.

Did you come to post this exact same thing in two different threads?

 crimsondave wrote:

Spoiler:

 Otto von Bludd wrote:

Kdash wrote:

Niiru wrote:

GhostRecon wrote:
Other dominant lists I've seen from other tourneys that occurred this weekend (though they were only 3 rounds):

SoCal Open Primer was won by Brandon Grant using a Conscript spam (iirc he won the NOVA Open too, using a similar list) - list.

Lords of War 15 was won by a Malefic Lord spamming Renegades and Heretics list.

Anyone know any of the entries from the ongoing first heat of the GT in nottingham? The only lists I know of are the ones from GW employees that are taking part.

Lawrence from Tabletop Tactics won heat 1 using BobbyG and Assault Cannon Razorback spam essentially. He basically tabled or got max points in every single game throughout the event. (In fact the top 6 players going into the final game were all on max points)
Those lists were -
1 x SoB
1 x Raven Guard
1 x Chaos
2 x BobbyG Ultramarines
1 BobbyG and Celestine

(If I’m remembering the above incorrectly, feel free to update!)
The Raven Guard list beat a BobbyG list in the final game due to it being the Relic (why why why is this still part of tournaments?) and he managed to seize. Basically, meant the Smurfs couldn’t win right from the first turn. Was an interesting Raven Guard list though – Interecessors, Agressors and Dreadnoughts (2 Contemptors, 1 Contemptor Mortis and 1 Mortis), Hellblasters and a Primaris Captain and Librarian along with a Stormtalon. I think a lot of people were surprised it won all 5 games with max points.

One thing to note – Lawrence managed to table an Astra Militarum list in 4 turns in game 4. It was a Super Heavy spam list I believe.

From what I gather there was only 1 Dark Eldar, 1 Ork, 1 Harlequin list there. I don’t think there were any Tau or Eldar. There were 2 pure Admech lists as well that apparently did reasonably. There were however lots of Magnus, Mortarion and BobbyG lists. Over 20% of the lists were Space Marines (1st and last place went to the Marines )

Warhammer Community will be posting a load of details and stats from the event over the course of this week apparently.

Thanks for this.

But some of these replies...let me make sure I understand this. Multiple sets of data come out which do not support the hypothesis that the IG codex is obviously, gamebreakingly OP and some just want to ignore that because it doesn't fit the feels? I will gladly grant that it isn't enough data to conclude anything but that was the point all along. People in the opposite camp were absolutely sure that we did not need to wait for data because the IG was obviously OP. Now, data contrary to the idea comes out and we are suddenly being told we need to wait for more?

It's totally correct to say this proves nothing and more data is needed, but that stance is totally contrary to what was being said before these results came in.

Edit: And I'm pretty sure that if an IG player had won one of these tournaments that would be "all the data we needed".

I remain dubious of our codex being played friendly, but your point is undeniable and your edit is spot on as well.

This i think is the key bit. Currently, other top end competitive lists can beat Guard, however, on a casual level things start to fall apart a little more due to it being "bring what you like". This will, unfortunately, remain the same for several months until the major faction codices are all released.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

Spoiler:

 ross-128 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Oh wait...these results proves nothing? we don't even know what armies played what. We don't even know how the event was scored. It was an eternal war GT though - not really gaurds strong point. You run out of time trying to table your opponent and he has a single tac squad in the middle of the table you lose. It matters not that 1500 points remain against 200 or less. Ofc when we play that out at home turn 4 IG scores a massive victory.

This is accurate.

BCP isn't perfect. In an ITC event, I was at the final table, lost without getting blown out, and finished 3rd. Because another guy was also undefeated but based on SOS, he played a weaker opponent, and got an easy win. So i drop to 3, despite being undefeated the entire time with 19-0 wins, because of 1 loss at the end.

Had I been paired differently, I could have easily finished first.

So, does this mean you two are going to stop complaining about guard "dominating all the tournaments" now that you've decided that tournaments mean nothing?

Or are you going to go with a policy of "a tournament only counts if it supports my predetermined conclusion"?

I'll give you two guesses, the first one's free.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Get this guys the first place finisher had 6 squads of tactical marines in it. I see this is the solution to beating AM - bring tactical squads.

Oh wait...these results proves nothing? we don't even know what armies played what. We don't even know how the event was scored. It was an eternal war GT though - not really gaurds strong point. You run out of time trying to table your opponent and he has a single tac squad in the middle of the table you lose. It matters not that 1500 points remain against 200 or less. Ofc when we play that out at home turn 4 IG scores a massive victory.

Guard are strong at eternal war missions though? They not only have the fire power to potentially table the opponent (thus win) but they also have the bodies to take and hold objectives at the end of the game (i.e the whole aim of the Eternal War missions?) I don’t get where this whole “middle of the table” thing you keep going on about is coming from. The only time an objective is in the middle of a table is when you’re either playing an ITC set mission, or the relic. In all cases (except the relic) there is more than 1 objective (plus secondaries) – and even then, guard have options to grab the relic early due to orders and then just bunker down with it.

We all understand that Guard are very strong right now, but, i don't understand why you keep trying to make excuses as to why they didn't win in an attempt to continuously claim they are just the only broken army out there.

Had I been paired differently, I could have easily finished first.

Warhammer / 40k tournament placings have always been giant heapings of luck on who you draw to play against.

When I was tourney gaming back in 3rd edition I had an anti-marine eldar starcannon spam army. I never lost to marines. If I lost, it was to orks or nids.

Every GT i went to back then I did very well until I had to play an ork or nid player. If I didn't play one of them then I was always ranked very high. If I did play one of them my standings would fall incredibly.

Same with fantasy. I had a good shot of winning one of the GW GTs with my vampire army, until game 5 I played another vampire player and drew him, which dropped my rank.

Thats how these tournaments roll.

Christ. People spouting half-baked gak like "See guys the top list had 6 tactical marines in it!". I give the benefit of the doubt for 1 day.

It has Guilliman and 6 Assault Cannon Razorbacks w/ a Stormraven. Literally the BEST build that I have stated repeatedly is also BROKEN because of Guilliman

You wonder why I can't take IG "it isn't borken" players seriously?

 Quickjager wrote:
Christ. People spouting half-baked gak like "See guys the top list had 6 tactical marines in it!". I give the benefit of the doubt for 1 day.

It has Guilliman and 6 Assault Cannon Razorbacks w/ a Stormraven. Literally the BEST build that I have stated repeatedly is also BROKEN because of Guilliman

You wonder why I can't take IG "it isn't borken" players seriously?

Meanwhile Grey Knights get punished for 3 consecutive editions for their past sins but hey that's ok!

KurtAngle2 wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
Christ. People spouting half-baked gak like "See guys the top list had 6 tactical marines in it!". I give the benefit of the doubt for 1 day.

It has Guilliman and 6 Assault Cannon Razorbacks w/ a Stormraven. Literally the BEST build that I have stated repeatedly is also BROKEN because of Guilliman

You wonder why I can't take IG "it isn't borken" players seriously?

Meanwhile Grey Knights get punished for 3 consecutive editions for their past sins but hey that's ok!

Tyranids got punished 3 consecutive editions for their past sins, so you are almost there.

Tyran wrote:

KurtAngle2 wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
Christ. People spouting half-baked gak like "See guys the top list had 6 tactical marines in it!". I give the benefit of the doubt for 1 day.

It has Guilliman and 6 Assault Cannon Razorbacks w/ a Stormraven. Literally the BEST build that I have stated repeatedly is also BROKEN because of Guilliman

You wonder why I can't take IG "it isn't borken" players seriously?

Meanwhile Grey Knights get punished for 3 consecutive editions for their past sins but hey that's ok!

Tyranids got punished 3 consecutive editions for their past sins, so you are almost there.

Being a Tyranid player myself, I know that and it's depressing at best.

 Quickjager wrote:
Christ. People spouting half-baked gak like "See guys the top list had 6 tactical marines in it!". I give the benefit of the doubt for 1 day.

It has Guilliman and 6 Assault Cannon Razorbacks w/ a Stormraven. Literally the BEST build that I have stated repeatedly is also BROKEN because of Guilliman

You wonder why I can't take IG "it isn't borken" players seriously?

I believe the second place marine list wasn't an ultramarines list. And chaos did well. At the end of the day this thread has repeatedly said IG is so over the top broken they must be fixxed immediately. This data does not support that. Now you're trying to move the goalposts so that marines and IG and I suppose chaos and craftworlds are all super broken too. I hate to assign malice to your intentions but it's really looking like you have some sort of agenda.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KurtAngle2 wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
Christ. People spouting half-baked gak like "See guys the top list had 6 tactical marines in it!". I give the benefit of the doubt for 1 day.

It has Guilliman and 6 Assault Cannon Razorbacks w/ a Stormraven. Literally the BEST build that I have stated repeatedly is also BROKEN because of Guilliman

You wonder why I can't take IG "it isn't borken" players seriously?

Meanwhile Grey Knights get punished for 3 consecutive editions for their past sins but hey that's ok!

I will say this for the tournament data, while i don't believe that it supports IG being crazy overpowered, I will say it does raise concerns about admech, GK, and depending on what's in the chaos lists possibly DG as well. Sans codices demons, sisters, and two eldar lists made it up there, if GK and admech can't hack it now it certainly doesn't seem like it's going to get better. Though much like with the IG it may still be too early to tell.

 Quickjager wrote:
Christ. People spouting half-baked gak like "See guys the top list had 6 tactical marines in it!". I give the benefit of the doubt for 1 day.

It has Guilliman and 6 Assault Cannon Razorbacks w/ a Stormraven. Literally the BEST build that I have stated repeatedly is also BROKEN because of Guilliman

You wonder why I can't take IG "it isn't borken" players seriously?

The person who posted that was in the "this tournament's results don't matter because it doesn't show Guard is as broken as I think it is" crowd. The reasoning here being

Hypothesis: Guard is broken and will dominate tournaments.

Data: Guard did not dominate this tournament.

Ad Hoc rationalization: The top list used six tactical squads, a unit I believe to be underpowered.

Conclusion: The data from this tournament should be ignored. Therefore guard will dominate tournaments.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
Christ. People spouting half-baked gak like "See guys the top list had 6 tactical marines in it!". I give the benefit of the doubt for 1 day.

It has Guilliman and 6 Assault Cannon Razorbacks w/ a Stormraven. Literally the BEST build that I have stated repeatedly is also BROKEN because of Guilliman

You wonder why I can't take IG "it isn't borken" players seriously?

The person who posted that was in the "this tournament's results don't matter because it doesn't show Guard is as broken as I think it is" crowd. The reasoning here being

Hypothesis: Guard is broken and will dominate tournaments.

Data: Guard did not dominate this tournament.

Ad Hoc rationalization: The top list used six tactical squads, a unit I believe to be underpowered.

Conclusion: The data from this tournament should be ignored. Therefore guard will dominate tournaments.

That top player (Laurence) faced a Leman Russ / Conscript spam list. Did not see the game myself, but my understanding is it wasn't much of a fight.

Part of me wants to say 6 Twin Assault Cannons will do fine against most armies, another part of me wants to say his Guard opponent wasn't terribly good. I know I would not have had those results myself playing the same list.

Do I have to take a side here? Laurence seems to have been the better player, not the person with the better list.

You shouldn't draw conclusions from a single tournament result, that is just faulty statistics. The problem is, by the time the sample size is large enough we are going to have another 2-3 codexes and the whole thing will be different anyway.

Also, there are so many ways you could poke holes in a statistical analysis of tournament results that the whole thing can be viewed as pretty much a joke.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Get this guys the first place finisher had 6 squads of tactical marines in it. I see this is the solution to beating AM - bring tactical squads.

Oh wait...these results proves nothing? we don't even know what armies played what. We don't even know how the event was scored. It was an eternal war GT though - not really gaurds strong point. You run out of time trying to table your opponent and he has a single tac squad in the middle of the table you lose. It matters not that 1500 points remain against 200 or less. Ofc when we play that out at home turn 4 IG scores a massive victory.

Oh c'mon now; you guys were the same ones decrying how Guard can delete half an army turn one, bombarding everything with artillery that doesn't need LOS. Now they can't wipe out tac marines?! You can't have it both ways.

 Trickstick wrote:
You shouldn't draw conclusions from a single tournament result, that is just faulty statistics. The problem is, by the time the sample size is large enough we are going to have another 2-3 codexes and the whole thing will be different anyway.

Also, there are so many ways you could poke holes in a statistical analysis of tournament results that the whole thing can be viewed as pretty much a joke.

but importantly, you SHOULD draw conclusions from no tournament results. That's the best kind of data: none of it!

It also helps if your math is just wrong, and you make statements and just don't make any attempt to prove or defend them. I wonder where "Pask is three times as durable as Mortarion" guy went, for instance.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
You shouldn't draw conclusions from a single tournament result, that is just faulty statistics. The problem is, by the time the sample size is large enough we are going to have another 2-3 codexes and the whole thing will be different anyway.

Also, there are so many ways you could poke holes in a statistical analysis of tournament results that the whole thing can be viewed as pretty much a joke.

but importantly, you SHOULD draw conclusions from no tournament results. That's the best kind of data: none of it!

It also helps if your math is just wrong, and you make statements and just don't make any attempt to prove or defend them. I wonder where "Pask is three times as durable as Mortarion" guy went, for instance.

This guy gets it. It is inappropriate for us to all come out and say based on a single tournament that guard is not a problem with any sort of certainty. But the issue here is with what the hypothesis is. Without any data we shouldn't be assuming something is a problem. Therefore the hypothesis that has been presented is that guard is a problem (in fact according to this thread a massive one). The only data we have SO far does not support this hypothesis. We aren't (or at least I'm not) trying to say with absolute certainty that guard are fine or aren't OP, we're saying it's too early for any sort of reaction that they are.

One of the guys I play 40k with sent me this video the other day:



I believe it significantly relevant to the conversation. I don't want to agree with it, but it nails what GW's been doing since the beginning of time pretty well.

It also made me stop and consider whether rotating meta is a good thing or not. I feel like it could be, as long as it was done by types of units, and not necessarily armies. The alternative is either relying on pure chaos, like 7th's "decide everything by die rolls" mechanic worked, or turning into chess, which means that games become even more rote than they are now. And whichever you choose, you're stuck with, because there's no rotating meta.

It also made me realize that my enjoyment of (most) games are based upon how much I look at the mechanics of a game and are loosely modeled as a bell curve:
- I start a game, and I have that excitement and wonder about all the various components to it.
- I start looking at each of the mechanics and comparing choices I can be making, and the depth seems sprawling.
- I get really into it, and invest a lot of time in it, and I tear apart the mechanics piece by piece, building stuff to simulate scenarios and determining the most optimum way to handle them.
- (This is about when it peaks.)
- The next step is realizing that I'm either deliberately making bad decisions, or I'm making the best decision I can and hoping the die rolls come out on my side.
- I devolve into staring at two lists and saying "nah, this one beats this one" before we even start playing, and I'm arguing at people for their flippant statements about math and power levels online. I have an equal amount of contempt for the game as I do interest, and friends start asking my why I do this to myself.

I think I just realized I'm a casual gamer, or, at least, that I want to be.

Anyway, yeah, so, IG are overpowered because tournament results don't matter. Or not because they do. Or we need to wait and see because it's not enough results to know. Because <insert unjustifiable assertion for each one>.

I'm going for a walk.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
Christ. People spouting half-baked gak like "See guys the top list had 6 tactical marines in it!". I give the benefit of the doubt for 1 day.

It has Guilliman and 6 Assault Cannon Razorbacks w/ a Stormraven. Literally the BEST build that I have stated repeatedly is also BROKEN because of Guilliman

You wonder why I can't take IG "it isn't borken" players seriously?

The person who posted that was in the "this tournament's results don't matter because it doesn't show Guard is as broken as I think it is" crowd. The reasoning here being

Hypothesis: Guard is broken and will dominate tournaments.

Data: Guard did not dominate this tournament.

Ad Hoc rationalization: The top list used six tactical squads, a unit I believe to be underpowered.

Conclusion: The data from this tournament should be ignored. Therefore guard will dominate tournaments.

Actually what I look for is consistency. Even 6th and 7th Eldar weren't more than 50% of the winners circle. It took 1-2 tournaments, and I've said this over and over, but been ignored because it didn't fit the Eldar players' narrative, and now it doesn't fit the Guard narrative. That's unfortunate because I wanted to see if I predicted Genestealer Cults going to the top once everyone figured out how to use the darn army, but that's all in the past.

For the Tactical Marine thing, that's an easy one. There was a winning list or near 1st list back in 6th that had 5 Tactical Squads in Drop Pods with Calgar. There was a short lived hype there, but notice how nobody talked about it after that hype. That's because it didn't prove anything about Tactical Marines. It proved some lists get lucky. Hell, in 6th there was a list in the top 10 using 3 Rubric Marine squads with Ahriman, but you still didn't see anyone defending Rubric Marines barring ONE poster in this forum.
So in the same way, people with a hate boner for Marines keep telling us "LOOK 5 SQUADS" and I'll say "watch for the next one".

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Get this guys the first place finisher had 6 squads of tactical marines in it. I see this is the solution to beating AM - bring tactical squads.

Oh wait...these results proves nothing? we don't even know what armies played what. We don't even know how the event was scored. It was an eternal war GT though - not really gaurds strong point. You run out of time trying to table your opponent and he has a single tac squad in the middle of the table you lose. It matters not that 1500 points remain against 200 or less. Ofc when we play that out at home turn 4 IG scores a massive victory.

Oh c'mon now; you guys were the same ones decrying how Guard can delete half an army turn one, bombarding everything with artillery that doesn't need LOS. Now they can't wipe out tac marines?! You can't have it both ways.

It's unlikely the tac marines were ever out of their transports in this scenerio.

The game likely went like this. Razors move up and shoot conscripts and gaurd shoots back and destroys storm raven and 2 razors. Razors shoot back and eliminate anything close enough to contest the middle of the table at the end of turn 2. Gaurd shoots back and does a lot of damage and moves to get into possition but at this point it's clear hes going to have to table the marine player who still has undamaged guilliman in the middle of the table and 2 transports with marines inside screening him in the middle of the table. He tries to table and fails. Marine player wins with barely anything left on the table. His warlord is dead. A few straggling marines vs a horde of enemy armor. But tournament games are over in 3 turns. Due to time limits - some only go 2 turns.

This is a terrible situation for a gun line army. Even if its the most OP army in the game. To have to hold the middle of the table at the end of turn 3? I'm not sure why this game mode would ever be in a tournament.

 Xenomancers wrote:

The game likely went like this. Razors move up and shoot conscripts and gaurd shoots back and destroys storm raven and 2 razors. Razors shoot back and eliminate anything close enough to contest the middle of the table at the end of turn 2. Gaurd shoots back and does a lot of damage and moves to get into possition but at this point it's clear hes going to have to table the marine player who still has undamaged guilliman in the middle of the table and 2 transports with marines inside screening him in the middle of the table. He tries to table and fails. Marine player wins with barely anything left on the table. His warlord is dead. A few straggling marines vs a horde of enemy armor. But tournament games are over in 3 turns. Due to time limits - some only go 2 turns.

How much of that is "likely", and how much of it is known to be true?

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Get this guys the first place finisher had 6 squads of tactical marines in it. I see this is the solution to beating AM - bring tactical squads.

Oh wait...these results proves nothing? we don't even know what armies played what. We don't even know how the event was scored. It was an eternal war GT though - not really gaurds strong point. You run out of time trying to table your opponent and he has a single tac squad in the middle of the table you lose. It matters not that 1500 points remain against 200 or less. Ofc when we play that out at home turn 4 IG scores a massive victory.

Oh c'mon now; you guys were the same ones decrying how Guard can delete half an army turn one, bombarding everything with artillery that doesn't need LOS. Now they can't wipe out tac marines?! You can't have it both ways.

It's unlikely the tac marines were ever out of their transports in this scenerio.

The game likely went like this. Razors move up and shoot conscripts and gaurd shoots back and destroys storm raven and 2 razors. Razors shoot back and eliminate anything close enough to contest the middle of the table at the end of turn 2. Gaurd shoots back and does a lot of damage and moves to get into possition but at this point it's clear hes going to have to table the marine player who still has undamaged guilliman in the middle of the table and 2 transports with marines inside screening him in the middle of the table. He tries to table and fails. Marine player wins with barely anything left on the table. His warlord is dead. A few straggling marines vs a horde of enemy armor. But tournament games are over in 3 turns. Due to time limits - some only go 2 turns.

This is a terrible situation for a gun line army. Even if its the most OP army in the game. To have to hold the middle of the table at the end of turn 3? I'm not sure why this game mode would ever be in a tournament.

I played every game at NOVA to its conclusion with between 45 minutes to 1 hour 30 minutes left in every single round.

So I have no idea where you are getting your info from.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Get this guys the first place finisher had 6 squads of tactical marines in it. I see this is the solution to beating AM - bring tactical squads.

Oh wait...these results proves nothing? we don't even know what armies played what. We don't even know how the event was scored. It was an eternal war GT though - not really gaurds strong point. You run out of time trying to table your opponent and he has a single tac squad in the middle of the table you lose. It matters not that 1500 points remain against 200 or less. Ofc when we play that out at home turn 4 IG scores a massive victory.

Oh c'mon now; you guys were the same ones decrying how Guard can delete half an army turn one, bombarding everything with artillery that doesn't need LOS. Now they can't wipe out tac marines?! You can't have it both ways.

It's unlikely the tac marines were ever out of their transports in this scenerio.

The game likely went like this. Razors move up and shoot conscripts and gaurd shoots back and destroys storm raven and 2 razors. Razors shoot back and eliminate anything close enough to contest the middle of the table at the end of turn 2. Gaurd shoots back and does a lot of damage and moves to get into possition but at this point it's clear hes going to have to table the marine player who still has undamaged guilliman in the middle of the table and 2 transports with marines inside screening him in the middle of the table. He tries to table and fails. Marine player wins with barely anything left on the table. His warlord is dead. A few straggling marines vs a horde of enemy armor. But tournament games are over in 3 turns. Due to time limits - some only go 2 turns.

This is a terrible situation for a gun line army. Even if its the most OP army in the game. To have to hold the middle of the table at the end of turn 3? I'm not sure why this game mode would ever be in a tournament.

I played every game at NOVA to its conclusion with between 45 minutes to 1 hour 30 minutes left in every single round.

So I have no idea where you are getting your info from.

You run 3 baneblades at that? Are you seriously suggesting that time limits aren't an issue in tournaments? If your army is all super heavies the game goes faster don't you agree?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


I played every game at NOVA to its conclusion with between 45 minutes to 1 hour 30 minutes left in every single round.

So I have no idea where you are getting your info from.

I think last time I went to the Adepticon TT, we finished almost every game, and that was in early 7th. I want to say there were minimal tablings even.

 daedalus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


I played every game at NOVA to its conclusion with between 45 minutes to 1 hour 30 minutes left in every single round.

So I have no idea where you are getting your info from.

I think last time I went to the Adepticon TT, we finished almost every game, and that was in early 7th. I want to say there were minimal tablings even.

Table in 7th was rare. Cover was impenetrable except for a few good weapons. There were spells that made things literally immune to damage. FMC were practically indestructible. Plus horde was practically unplayable. I'm not sure why were are making comparisons to 8th from 7th anyways but even in 7th time is a serious issue. Granted almost no tournaments enforce a turn time limit just a game time limit. It's actually kind of shocking to see someone disagreeing with me about time limits in tournaments not being a problem.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Table in 7th was rare. Cover was impenetrable except for a few good weapons. There were spells that made things literally immune to damage. FMC were practically indestructible. Plus horde was practically unplayable. I'm not sure why were are making comparisons to 8th from 7th anyways but even in 7th time is a serious issue. Granted almost no tournaments enforce a turn time limit just a game time limit. It's actually kind of shocking to see someone disagreeing with me about time limits in tournaments not being a problem.

I point out the lack of tablings to emphasize that the games ran the full duration. I think we lost hard first and third rounds, and then won hard on the rebounds on second and fourth. Might have gotten tabled by the winning team round 1, but I could be confusing that with another year.

Anyway, the point of comparing editions is that it's pretty much impossible to argue that 7th was a quicker game than 8th, and so I bring up the fact that it wasn't a problem then, to show that I cannot imagine that it would be much of a problem now in 8th.

Having that been said, we were munchkining Tau/Eldar for that one as I recall, so we had about 20 models each tops, as did our opponents who were (IIRC) 2/4 doing the same thing and then a DA bike team, and then one of those indestructible Chaos gimmicks, so admittedly small model count. But on the other hand now horde plays at least twice as fast because you don't have to worry about spacing and can even use movement trays if you want.

I play foot guard and I don't think I've had a casual game at 2000 points run more than 3 hours in 8th, and that's my ass hungover, 1v1, with rule lookups, stopping for drinks, etc.