Switch Theme:

1,800 points of models removed in one turn in GT final  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwtO6nVBr5g

For full context, this is the scenario:

Sean Nayden, an extremely well-known competitive player, brought his Drukhari against an ork Speedwaagh list with about 8 buggies, 3 kustom mega kannons and several flyers.

Sean got the first turn, and saw that this list would basically explode his very quickly, and subsequently went all-out attempting to get to and tie up the ork units. He rolled poorly on his advances and charges, and failed to tie up many units at all.

On the ork player's turn, he declared the Speedwaagh and destroyed 1,800 points of models in one single shooting phase.

so, in your opinion, understanding that the opposing player went for an all-out offensive strategy in an attempt to reach his opponent, do you think it is good game design for it to be possible to remove effectively an entire 2,000 point army in a single turn? Is this healthy for a competitive game? What should be the maximum amount of units it should be possible to remove in one turn if, say, you were to line up a 2000pt army against another 2000pt army in the open and allow them all to open fire?

"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"

"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"

"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"

"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"  
   
Made in us
Waaagh! Warbiker





One has to consider that these sort of lists for orks were kinda made to completely counter drukhari, and are entirely designed to remove models. I think this is just drukhari having a weakness for once.

"Us Blood Axes hav lernt' a lot from da humies. How best ta kill 'em, fer example."
— Korporal Snagbrat of the Dreadblade Kommandos 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
One has to consider that these sort of lists for orks were kinda made to completely counter drukhari, and are entirely designed to remove models. I think this is just drukhari having a weakness for once.


Should a 2,000 point list built in the strategy layer of the game to counter another particular faction be capable of removing 90% of a list of that faction in a single turn?

Let's say orks are powerful and dominant, just all the units in the ork codex. Should it be possible for me to decide 'I'm going to make my list to destroy orks' and if you show up with an ork list, I get to kill 90% of your army in one turn?

"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"

"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"

"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"

"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"  
   
Made in us
Waaagh! Warbiker





If my entire list is hinging on failable rolls to get into melee for protection, I think it’s fair to get punished for losing that gamble.

"Us Blood Axes hav lernt' a lot from da humies. How best ta kill 'em, fer example."
— Korporal Snagbrat of the Dreadblade Kommandos 
   
Made in us
On a Canoptek Spyder's Waiting List




 the_scotsman wrote:

understanding that the opposing player went for an all-out offensive strategy in an attempt to reach his opponent, do you think it is good game design for it to be possible to remove effectively an entire 2,000 point army in a single turn?

Yes, players being punished for making bad plays is good game design. At the end of the day, its a dice game and a bad roll can ruin any game plan. Should such alpha strikes be the standard? No. But I've also never played in a competitive setting and all my local tables allow both players a chance to hide the majority of their units so
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
If my entire list is hinging on failable rolls to get into melee for protection, I think it’s fair to get punished for losing that gamble.


That wasn't the question.

If I know that Ork armies are common, should it be possible to prepare my list in the strategy layer of the game such that if I come up against an Ork army, I can destroy 90% of it in a turn?

Your previous statement was that this performance was OK, because the ork list was prepared and tailored against Drukhari lists, which was a change in subject from my initial line of questioning, so now I'm responding to you. How much of your list should I be able to destroy in 1 turn if I am tailoring my list to counter your faction? is 90% OK?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
dewd11 wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:

understanding that the opposing player went for an all-out offensive strategy in an attempt to reach his opponent, do you think it is good game design for it to be possible to remove effectively an entire 2,000 point army in a single turn?

Yes, players being punished for making bad plays is good game design. At the end of the day, its a dice game and a bad roll can ruin any game plan. Should such alpha strikes be the standard? No. But I've also never played in a competitive setting and all my local tables allow both players a chance to hide the majority of their units so


So, if you were to play without terrain, open table and just set up two armies, do you believe that the army that goes first should destroy the army that goes second in one turn?

As in: the damage potential of a unit firing at another unit it can see should be a 100% points return? my 20 point space marine should destroy 20 points of the type of target it's supposed to be attacking, say, guardsmen, as long as he can see them and is in range?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/27 17:12:12


"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"

"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"

"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"

"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"  
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

Mistakes should be punished, but the game should not reach the point were armies can become a coin flip.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Galas wrote:
Mistakes should be punished, but the game should not reach the point were armies can become a coin flip.


How many points of an army do you think should be generally able to be removed if a player either makes a major mistake or is heavily tailored against?


"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"

"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"

"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"

"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"  
   
Made in us
Waaagh! Warbiker





If you completely tailor your list to take on another list, I think murderizing them is fine. If you decide you just absolutely hate knights, just go grab your shadow swords. The flip side is that you’ll get murderized in return by other things.

"Us Blood Axes hav lernt' a lot from da humies. How best ta kill 'em, fer example."
— Korporal Snagbrat of the Dreadblade Kommandos 
   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader





 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
If you completely tailor your list to take on another list, I think murderizing them is fine. If you decide you just absolutely hate knights, just go grab your shadow swords. The flip side is that you’ll get murderized in return by other things.


Isn't this basically saying games should be decided by a list comparison and a coin flip?
   
Made in fi
5th God of Chaos (O'rly?)





If it takes less than 3x points to delete unit game is too lethal as a rule of thumb.

2021 painted/bought: 857/1043 
   
Made in es
[DCM]
Secret Inquisitorial Eldar Xenexecutor






your mind

1/3… so maybe 700 pts max first turn no terrain in a 2000 pt game. Typical losses might be closer to 1/5 for a five turn game.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/27 18:42:57


   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




List tailoring or poor positioning aside... it shouldn't be possible to delete 1800 points (especially of what most people consider the "best or one of the best" armies in the game) in one round of shooting. The game has been to deadly for a while now but... when 2k points can shoot off 1800 thats really... really... unhealthy for the game.
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

 the_scotsman wrote:
 Galas wrote:
Mistakes should be punished, but the game should not reach the point were armies can become a coin flip.


How many points of an army do you think should be generally able to be removed if a player either makes a major mistake or is heavily tailored against?



In a worst case scenario something like 2000 points killing 600-700 points of stuff but I think that should literally not be possible in the first turn, that turn should be more about positioning both forces.
At that point , if you basically made an extreme list, ran into a hard counter, over commited and were destroyed, you should be absolutely on the back foot but at least have a chance to if you play very very well win or at least to still be a game and go for a draw or a "better" loss.

This is not a CS:GO match, 1-turn games are totally unnaceptable.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/10/27 19:00:04


 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






I am...at least somewhat hopeful that GW understands that there is not NO limit of what is acceptable to their playerbase.

It seems like they understand that durability is something that is desired, as basically all factions that theyve previewed so far, theyve listed increasing durability as a major feature in their previews for those armies.

Even Drukhari, the new Kabalite statline with increased sv was one of the first things they showed. Necrons with functional RP. Marines with W2. Thousand Sons and BT with army-wide 5++ saves. Orks with T5.

GW gets that 'I want my stuff to last more than 3 turns' is a desire, but the addition of 1-2 additional army-wide rules layers following the release of Marines 2.0 for basically every new faction book appears to have tipped the balance of what is 'normal' damage returns from approximately 20-25% to 35-40% for at least most pieces being used in competitive play.

maybe they thought the addition of Obscuring and Dense cover in 9th would allow them to pursue this escalation? but regardless, I really hope this example serves as a template for the designers that something has gotten a bit...silly, much akin to the moment in 8th edition where the Thousand Sons codex came out and Tzaangor+Bloodletter Bomb turn 1 deep strike lists were an indication that...nope...turn 1 deep strike is not a thing that can make for good interactive gameplay in a system that uses as little restraint as 40k does with its melee unit lethality.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 jeff white wrote:
1/3… so maybe 700 pts max first turn no terrain in a 2000 pt game. Typical losses might be closer to 1/5 for a five turn game.


This is about what I'd aim for. Take an average, normal army, set it up in the open with no terrain, I'd want to see 2000pts be able to kill approximately 700pts. Set it up in the open with no terrain and 12" away (basically, allow all short range and melee units to just go straight to town) I'd want to see 2000pts capable of killing approximately 1000pts.

With terrain available (or with a simple battlefield rule like a 'sandstorm' or something for if players want to have a more open battlefield) I'd want to see about 20% of an opposing army destroyed in a turn, for a game that lasts 5 turns on average.

Of course, the present situation with terrain doesnt let you get from 1/3 to 1/5, because terrain benefits are both difficult to obtain and negligible. if terrain benefits are going to be limited to -1 to hit and +1 to save only, then it should be very, VERY easy to claim terrain - such that in a normal deployment your whole army can easily claim those benefits.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/10/27 19:10:51


"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"

"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"

"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"

"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"  
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
If you completely tailor your list to take on another list, I think murderizing them is fine. If you decide you just absolutely hate knights, just go grab your shadow swords. The flip side is that you’ll get murderized in return by other things.


That's not what the Ork player did though. This was a 9-game tournament. He defeated 8 other opponents (some of which may have been playing DE too). You don't get to the final of a large tournament with a list that is skewed to killing only one type of enemy. You need to prepare for AdMech and DE if you want to win a tournament but this list is just generally extremely powerful. As well as relatively fragile Eldar you also need plans to defeat Grey Knights or Death Guard who are fairly strong armies you can expect to encounter at a large number of tournaments.

This game wasn't an example of a player getting punished for a mistake either, as some have tried to claim. The DE had to go for one risky play in order to not just instantly lose. Their choice was literally try a hyper-aggressive, risky plan and hope it succeeds, or lose in turn 1. Honestly, the level of apologism from people here trying to claim this is all fine and the game is working as designed, or it's all because Nayden's plan was flawed, is comical. Losing 90% of an army in one turn is terrible, laughable game balance.

To answer the OP's question, I'd prefer to see something along the lines of 500-700 points destroyed in a favourable match-up where the opponent makes some minor errors in positioning. On planet bowling ball you could probably push that as high as 1000 points but that's a pretty artificial scenario. Something around 33% offensive efficiency is the generally accepted balance point for most games. I can see unfavourable scenarios and poor play from one player maybe pushing that up to 50% in extreme cases but no more than that.
   
Made in us
Waaagh! Warbiker





Rihgu wrote:
 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
If you completely tailor your list to take on another list, I think murderizing them is fine. If you decide you just absolutely hate knights, just go grab your shadow swords. The flip side is that you’ll get murderized in return by other things.


Isn't this basically saying games should be decided by a list comparison and a coin flip?


I mean, you basically just described games of 40k. All the tactics are in list building, and at the end of the day it’s a dice game.

"Us Blood Axes hav lernt' a lot from da humies. How best ta kill 'em, fer example."
— Korporal Snagbrat of the Dreadblade Kommandos 
   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader





 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
Rihgu wrote:
 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
If you completely tailor your list to take on another list, I think murderizing them is fine. If you decide you just absolutely hate knights, just go grab your shadow swords. The flip side is that you’ll get murderized in return by other things.


Isn't this basically saying games should be decided by a list comparison and a coin flip?


I mean, you basically just described games of 40k. All the tactics are in list building, and at the end of the day it’s a dice game.


Which is exactly why we always see random people using netlists at the top of every tournament, instead of consistent names.
   
Made in us
Da Head Honcho Boss Grot




New Jersey, State of Perfection

On the one hand, the losing player made a gross tactical miscalculation and was severely punished for it. That is what *should* happen.

On the other hand, I question whether its sound game design to have an army that can achieve 90% points efficiency in a single phase of the game, let alone a single turn. This is *not* what should happen, as it indicates that the game - any game - can potentially be decided in a single phase of play in a manner which leaves one player without any means of recourse to counter or save themselves from the outcome.

This ain't no pansy GW Armor, son - Digital Sculpting Plog, Now with Heavy Weapon Platforms!
Sympathy for the Devil, or: The Project Log from Hell

Ma55ter_fett wrote:It reads like the ramblings of a Nigerian lobotomized Shakespeare typed into a cellphone with a very aggressive autocomplete function.
 
   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader





On the one hand, the losing player made a gross tactical miscalculation and was severely punished for it. That is what *should* happen.

Did they? They couldn't hide from the majority of the Ork shooting (planes + Out of LOS shooting) so they had to make some attempt to move forward into combat, right?
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

Yeah. The game is too damn lethal.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




chaos0xomega wrote:
On the one hand, the losing player made a gross tactical miscalculation and was severely punished for it. That is what *should* happen.


That's not what happened. It wasn't a gross miscalculation. According to the player himself, the commentators and several fairly knowledgeable people that was literally his only chance to win. So his options were to go with a very risky play and have a shot at winning or not do that and lose pretty much straight away.
   
Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut





40K is bad. Oh well, only 20 months until 10th edition rolls out!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/28 00:56:37


 
   
Made in us
Da Head Honcho Boss Grot




New Jersey, State of Perfection

My general philosophy is that no game is unwinnable, some are just more difficult to win than others.

In this case, my take is that he looked at the matchup and decided that his best option to win was to go as aggressive as possible on his first turn in hopes of getting a strong alpha strike off. He was unsuccessful and he paid the price for it. Is it possible that he might have been blown off the table if he didn't go all out on turn 1? Possibly, but we won't know because thats not the course of action that he took - if he had and still lost 1800 points of minis on turn 1, then the situation would be different and it would be clearer cut that this was indicative of a gross failure to properly design and balance the game....

But he didn't - and to me, the reason he didn't was a tactical miscalculation he made that indicated that a defensive strategy was doomed to failure and that the rewards of pursuing an aggressive offensive play instead outweighed the risks.

This ain't no pansy GW Armor, son - Digital Sculpting Plog, Now with Heavy Weapon Platforms!
Sympathy for the Devil, or: The Project Log from Hell

Ma55ter_fett wrote:It reads like the ramblings of a Nigerian lobotomized Shakespeare typed into a cellphone with a very aggressive autocomplete function.
 
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

Dude you are saying that Sean Nayden, one of the probably top 3 players of warhammer 40k in the wod , in the finals of a 9 round GT, did a tactical miscalculation as big as this one that costed him the game.

Theres no other way to read this but in the "40K lethality is out of whack" one.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/10/27 23:28:29


 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




chaos0xomega wrote:
My general philosophy is that no game is unwinnable, some are just more difficult to win than others.

In this case, my take is that he looked at the matchup and decided that his best option to win was to go as aggressive as possible on his first turn in hopes of getting a strong alpha strike off. He was unsuccessful and he paid the price for it. Is it possible that he might have been blown off the table if he didn't go all out on turn 1? Possibly, but we won't know because thats not the course of action that he took - if he had and still lost 1800 points of minis on turn 1, then the situation would be different and it would be clearer cut that this was indicative of a gross failure to properly design and balance the game....

But he didn't - and to me, the reason he didn't was a tactical miscalculation he made that indicated that a defensive strategy was doomed to failure and that the rewards of pursuing an aggressive offensive play instead outweighed the risks.


So you're saying one of the best players in the world, along with every commentator, and the consensus of the viewers in chat, is wrong and you're right? Seems like a convenient excuse to me. Since we can never know for sure how the game would have gone had the Orks gone first, or had Sean played more defensively, you can just continue to claim whatever you want.

I don't know how you can claim the situation would be clearer cut and "indicative of a gross failure to properly design and balance the game" only if the other scenario had also played out. Does that mean you think it's fine to be able to remove 90% of an opponent's army in a single turn? Why is that good design under any set of circumstances?
   
Made in us
Agile Revenant Titan





Florida

Has Sean publicized his thoughts on the game in question? I'd be interested in what what he thinks regarding this game.

No earth shattering, thought provoking quote. I'm just someone who was introduced to 40K in the late 80's and it's become a lifelong hobby. 
   
Made in nl
Longtime Dakkanaut





chaos0xomega wrote:
My general philosophy is that no game is unwinnable, some are just more difficult to win than others.

In this case, my take is that he looked at the matchup and decided that his best option to win was to go as aggressive as possible on his first turn in hopes of getting a strong alpha strike off. He was unsuccessful and he paid the price for it. Is it possible that he might have been blown off the table if he didn't go all out on turn 1? Possibly, but we won't know because thats not the course of action that he took - if he had and still lost 1800 points of minis on turn 1, then the situation would be different and it would be clearer cut that this was indicative of a gross failure to properly design and balance the game....

But he didn't - and to me, the reason he didn't was a tactical miscalculation he made that indicated that a defensive strategy was doomed to failure and that the rewards of pursuing an aggressive offensive play instead outweighed the risks.
what miscalculation? If he doesn't come forward his critical transports will die to flyers and the contents will have to walk into the buggy gunline. And you can't hide from flyers, turn one they can reach any point on the table.

As for the point of this thread. Same answer as always.
Lethality is to high.

Even in the worst possible matchup and biggest possible counter scenario a 2000 point army should not be able to remove 1800 points in a single shooting phase.
Until power levels are brought down this is going to keep happing. Maybe it won't be turn 1 every time but 'only' turn 2. But that is the way its going to be until lethality comes WAY down,
   
Made in ca
Jinking Ravenwing Land Speeder Pilot



Canada

I think its OK if you occasionally have a match-up where you realize "Oh gak, this list is my kryptonite." Removing 1800 points of models in one turn, however, is not good for the game. Perhaps there was a failed gamble by one of the game's top-ranked players that exacerbated the carnage (if not the eventual result), but that losing 1800 points in one turn is even possible is certainly problematic.

All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Should a glass army just stand in optimal range of a gunline army loaded with rapid fire/Dakka weapons and say come shoot me bro?

The drukari list was built around first turn assault got first turn and failed to assault and left themselves vulnerable in the open with no protection. Then rolled poorly on saves from str 5/6 range weapons with bs4+ shooting and ap1/2 weapons. And then got folllowed up with a bunch of easy charge rolls….I mean this list has been around for 3 months and it’s not exactly tearing up the tournament scene.

My point is similar drukari lists are literally winning most tournaments, besting similar ork lists along the way and achieving absurd 70% winrates. There are going to be blowouts when someone plays poor, rolls poorly even if they are playing the current fotm net list especially When they face a bad matchup. Sounds to me like someone simply got outplayed because even with this 1 fringe case I can list about a dozen other tournaments where drukari are winning vs similar freebooter lists. It’s not even close drukari are literally tearing up the meta right now with 70%…, not orks… and this type of freebooter ork list has been out for 3 months and played in nearly every major tournament since and you know what faction has been winning most of those tournaments? Drukari….

This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2021/10/28 05:08:22


 
   
 
Forum Index » Tournament Discussions
Go to: