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:
Lost in all of this is the assumption that LVO lists wouldn't have mopped the floor in this event. I believe they would have. Mid size GTs will have an entirely different meta, just like smaller RTTs.

Maybe. Probably. It could be that the lists here didn't play in the meta that Dark Reapers prefer and would have had an easier time. Sometimes a meta-breaker can get busted their first game and get stuck on lower tables, too.

Either way i'm eager to see how things shape out after the March FAQ.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
TBH I don't believe that stuff about Reece without a legit citation. I disagree with a lot of what he says/does, but that is some pretty serious accusations.

Look at his website around 8th edition release. Or even on this forum in the 8th edition release threads.

You can find it from his own mouth.

I heard if you say his name into a mirror, in a dark room, he'll appear and nerf your army. Spooky stuff.

Does anyone know what the list was for the Slaanesh Daemons army? Was it a soupy list or mono-Slaanesh?

I like the mission format for LVO - it was developed with help from GW and NOVA. It’s kind of like Maelstrom except you pick your tactical objectives at the beginning and there are enough choices every army shouid be able to score.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
Correct but that isn't what GW is doing - they made adjustments based on ITC events prior to now. This isn't an argument about what they SHOULD do but what they HAVE done and what they have done at this point is look at ITC styled events as well as their own events for data points. Also I don't think their events are getting more balanced results, just a different set of skewed results.

Yes, they’ve made changes off the back of ITC events, but, prior to the GT Heats beginning they had no real reference data of their own outside of “play testing”.

We can see that they nerfed Flyers pretty quickly after ETC events.
We can also see that the Razorback/Assault Cannon nerf came quickly after GW Heat 1 finished.

Now that GW is starting to get more and more data from their own events, I can see, and I kinda hope, that they start using that as a focus for balance as opposed to anything else.

Yes, feedback and external data is helpful, but, the game needs to be balanced around “how the game is meant to be played”, rather than how others are playing it. Once that is done, other styles of play (ITC and ETC etc) can be adjusted to the required balance.

So the great, underperforming army this tournament lifted up (see comments on page 1-2) was... Chaos soup?

Ugh all you that are claiming Reece to be some sort of evil manipulator of the meta are so bogus it hurts. You have no evidence outside of anecdotal prattle and he has done more for the hobby than all of you combined. No one's perfect but he's a damn sight better than people are unfairly painting him here.

With regards these results I don't think the question is "are ITC or GW own missions better"? Both systems are different and lead to different metas which is a good thing in my book. Chapter Approved is a very strong GW mission set that said. The question should be "is the ITC or GW own scoring system better"?

GW reward "best opponent" and "best army" as part of the same thing. The guys who came in 2nd and 3rd went 4w 1d. 4th to 13th place went 4w 1l. In this scoring system it doesn't matter if you destroy your opponent or its a really really close game - you get scored the same either way. This leads people to play differently, often more conservatively.

meleti wrote:
So the great, underperforming army this tournament lifted up (see comments on page 1-2) was... Chaos soup?

Well .. Orks.

And Mortarion even without dodgy Daemon Codex stratagems or Magnus is likely still too strong in "normal" 40K.

One tournament doesn't make a meta.

As it is Orks have a good list and while (imo at least) its boring its not a shock some people have managed to win four games with it. I might be reaching here but I also think it does better against meta-Eldar than most.

Kdash wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
Correct but that isn't what GW is doing - they made adjustments based on ITC events prior to now. This isn't an argument about what they SHOULD do but what they HAVE done and what they have done at this point is look at ITC styled events as well as their own events for data points. Also I don't think their events are getting more balanced results, just a different set of skewed results.

Yes, they’ve made changes off the back of ITC events, but, prior to the GT Heats beginning they had no real reference data of their own outside of “play testing”.

We can see that they nerfed Flyers pretty quickly after ETC events.
We can also see that the Razorback/Assault Cannon nerf came quickly after GW Heat 1 finished.

Now that GW is starting to get more and more data from their own events, I can see, and I kinda hope, that they start using that as a focus for balance as opposed to anything else.

Yes, feedback and external data is helpful, but, the game needs to be balanced around “how the game is meant to be played”, rather than how others are playing it. Once that is done, other styles of play (ITC and ETC etc) can be adjusted to the required balance.

Of course that results in the broken combo's not being nerfed. The UK heat wasn't exactly all that competive with top game breaking lists in abundance. So if GW balances game based on tournaments where people aren't as much in to break the game as in ITC...Well that just means broken stuff will remain broken.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

ArmchairArbiter wrote:
Reecius, from someone who knows the internal testers, was said to have wanted to make Tau unplayable so they squat them while playtesting and doesn't he run LVO?

He's well known to create rules/playtesting feedback that benefit his and his friends armies and hurt armies that aren't.

He plays Orks so I'm not sure this holds a ton of weight. His preferred form of Eldar is footdar as well. I'm not saying Reese is perfect but this is ascribing to him some pretty grievous moral flaws.

Yeah, this is nonsense. You guys thing GW wouldn't do anything if he did something so blatant? Gee, maybe, just maybe they are genuinely good players and can fit their armies to format, not format to their armies?

Also, I like how fixing completely bonkers, broken rule is "squatting". I take like 9-10 armies that were still worse in 7th than Tau after ITC fix don't exist at all then?

Audustum wrote:
And then Guard getting a fantastic Codex.

Yup, it's not like there is a pattern stretching back last four editions on which GW writer produces what rules for what army. See Cruddace's 5th edition IG, very similar to 8th edition Cruddace IG book, or Kelly producing broken Eldar books every edition (and then "balancing" it by writing really mediocre rules for say SM expansions he did) - it's all retroactive Reece's fault, eh?

Spoletta wrote:
Remember that Dark Reapers are not OP by definition

Yeah, MEQ body for one third the price, one of the best guns in game with a hefty discount over what (worse) guns fielded by other armies get, and a special rule outshining virtually all other units, that makes dozens of units completely obsolete and gone from comp tables = not OP

May I inquire what you think is OP, then? Because compared to the above, 95% of the units in the game are utter garbage. Even vast majority of the must-take units of other armies don't really compare, and if not for cost/difficulty in obtaining, literally all Eldar army would have 60 of the above. They need "support"? Please, even without it they beat point-for-point most unit doing similar role, even if you give these units free captain or librarian. And seeing Eldar buffers tend to be better/cheaper than what other armies get, well...

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Ugh all you that are claiming Reece to be some sort of evil manipulator of the meta are so bogus it hurts. You have no evidence outside of anecdotal prattle and he has done more for the hobby than all of you combined. No one's perfect but he's a damn sight better than people are unfairly painting him here.

I agree, but I still reserve the right to make fun of him for claiming that stompas will be ridiculously broken in 8th.

 Irbis wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

ArmchairArbiter wrote:
Reecius, from someone who knows the internal testers, was said to have wanted to make Tau unplayable so they squat them while playtesting and doesn't he run LVO?

He's well known to create rules/playtesting feedback that benefit his and his friends armies and hurt armies that aren't.

He plays Orks so I'm not sure this holds a ton of weight. His preferred form of Eldar is footdar as well. I'm not saying Reese is perfect but this is ascribing to him some pretty grievous moral flaws.

Yeah, this is nonsense. You guys thing GW wouldn't do anything if he did something so blatant? Gee, maybe, just maybe they are genuinely good players and can fit their armies to format, not format to their armies?

Also, I like how fixing completely bonkers, broken rule is "squatting". I take like 9-10 armies that were still worse in 7th than Tau after ITC fix don't exist at all then?

Audustum wrote:
And then Guard getting a fantastic Codex.

Yup, it's not like there is a pattern stretching back last four editions on which GW writer produces what rules for what army. See Cruddace's 5th edition IG, very similar to 8th edition Cruddace IG book, or Kelly producing broken Eldar books every edition (and then "balancing" it by writing really mediocre rules for say SM expansions he did) - it's all retroactive Reece's fault, eh?

Spoletta wrote:
Remember that Dark Reapers are not OP by definition

Yeah, MEQ body for one third the price, one of the best guns in game with a hefty discount over what (worse) guns fielded by other armies get, and a special rule outshining virtually all other units, that makes dozens of units completely obsolete and gone from comp tables = not OP

May I inquire what you think is OP, then? Because compared to the above, 95% of the units in the game are utter garbage. Even vast majority of the must-take units of other armies don't really compare, and if not for cost/difficulty in obtaining, literally all Eldar army would have 60 of the above. They need "support"? Please, even without it they beat point-for-point most unit doing similar role, even if you give these units free captain or librarian. And seeing Eldar buffers tend to be better/cheaper than what other armies get, well...

Way to look at a single line of a post and then run with it in a completely different direction than the actual content of the post.

This was the winning list. So glad to see someone making use of a Dark Apostle, Word Bearers, and Rhinos.

Death Guard Super Heavy Auxillary
Mortarion

Alpha Legion Battalion
Daemon Prince + wings + 2 malefic talons
Sorcerer + jump pack + force sword
40 cultists
10 cultists
10 cultists
3 obliterators
3 obliterators

World Eaters Battalion
Dark Apostle
Exalted Champion + power sword
8 Berzerkers
5 Berzerkers
5 Berzerkers
Rhino
Rhino

Honestly it's a cool list. It's effectively a derivative of competitive chaos lists, but it's nice to see it as a pure Chaos Space Marines army rather than daemon soup.

It is unfortunate to see the primarch in there but what can you do

 Marmatag wrote:
Honestly it's a cool list. It's effectively a derivative of competitive chaos lists, but it's nice to see it as a pure Chaos Space Marines army rather than daemon soup.

My thoughts, too. Smart use of points and just the right characters to make it all work. Shoot Mortarion or shoot the Rhinos with mostly morale immune Berzerkers? And then try to shoot a bunch of AL cultists when tons of CP are kicking around.

Yeah as a Tyranid player i like it. We have to do similar things with our list building - unless you're spamming flyrants, there is always a trade off, and you need to kind of be able to create multiple different kinds of threats for your opponent to have a chance. It looks like this list does that fairly well. Lots of different threats bouncing around. Although I do think it falls apart without Mortarian, which is unfortunate, because I think that guy is really broken.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Honestly it's a cool list. It's effectively a derivative of competitive chaos lists, but it's nice to see it as a pure Chaos Space Marines army rather than daemon soup.

My thoughts, too. Smart use of points and just the right characters to make it all work. Shoot Mortarion or shoot the Rhinos with mostly morale immune Berzerkers? And then try to shoot a bunch of AL cultists when tons of CP are kicking around.

Definitely the Rhino's first so that the Berserkers have to walk, buying you time to deal with Morty.

 Ordana wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Honestly it's a cool list. It's effectively a derivative of competitive chaos lists, but it's nice to see it as a pure Chaos Space Marines army rather than daemon soup.

My thoughts, too. Smart use of points and just the right characters to make it all work. Shoot Mortarion or shoot the Rhinos with mostly morale immune Berzerkers? And then try to shoot a bunch of AL cultists when tons of CP are kicking around.

Definitely the Rhino's first so that the Berserkers have to walk, buying you time to deal with Morty.

He has that sorcerer there for warptime, I presume, which means the pressure from Morty is much higher. Jump pack means he comes down whenever and wherever he is needed.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Honestly it's a cool list. It's effectively a derivative of competitive chaos lists, but it's nice to see it as a pure Chaos Space Marines army rather than daemon soup.

My thoughts, too. Smart use of points and just the right characters to make it all work. Shoot Mortarion or shoot the Rhinos with mostly morale immune Berzerkers? And then try to shoot a bunch of AL cultists when tons of CP are kicking around.

Definitely the Rhino's first so that the Berserkers have to walk, buying you time to deal with Morty.

He has that sorcerer there for warptime, I presume, which means the pressure from Morty is much higher. Jump pack means he comes down whenever and wherever he is needed.

I think the demon prince had warptime in the game on stream but yes hes obv going to try a T1 Morty charge.

Trying to kill Morty in 1 turn is always risk, it can be done but its far from certain. And if those Berserkers make it to your army unmolested the game is basically over. So kill the Rhino's to make them take long and try to then deal with Morty to you can kill more berserkers before they get to you, all the while also dealing with the rest of his army.

In the finals Morty and the cultists kept his opponent busy (3 plague crawlers, 89 plaguebearers and a bunch of character) until the Berserkers arrived who tore the plaguebearers to bits (not hard when you attack 3x in 1 turn) to secured the win.

 Ordana wrote:

I think the demon prince had warptime in the game on stream but yes hes obv going to try a T1 Morty charge.

Trying to kill Morty in 1 turn is always risk, it can be done but its far from certain. And if those Berserkers make it to your army unmolested the game is basically over. So kill the Rhino's to make them take long and try to then deal with Morty to you can kill more berserkers before they get to you, all the while also dealing with the rest of his army.

In the finals Morty and the cultists kept his opponent busy (3 plague crawlers, 89 plaguebearers and a bunch of character) until the Berserkers arrived who tore the plaguebearers to bits (not hard when you attack 3x in 1 turn) to secured the win.

Nice i'll have to find some time to go back and watch that game.

Note you need to sub to watch back video's on the Warhammer channel.

A lot of armies will struggle with Mortarian in one turn. Guard and Eldar can do it but the rest of us really struggle.

I think the only thing that rubs me the wrong way in that list is Morty, because he's just there. Hes the only Death Guard model in the list. As fluff-breaking as it is to have Slaanesh/Khorne models in the same army (the "Alpha Legion" stuff all had MoS I think) it can be excused. But "Here's the primarch of the death guard by himself!" is a little harder to swallow.

Wayniac wrote:
I think the only thing that rubs me the wrong way in that list is Morty, because he's just there. Hes the only Death Guard model in the list. As fluff-breaking as it is to have Slaanesh/Khorne models in the same army (the "Alpha Legion" stuff all had MoS I think) it can be excused. But "Here's the primarch of the death guard by himself!" is a little harder to swallow.

Agreed, the list without Morty is pretty cool. But, with him in there, this just shows how absurd souping has become.

I still say that the primarchs should have a rule where in matched play 50% of your points have to be the proper legion in order to run that primarch. So no Morty unless you can fit at least 525 more points of Death Guard in your army.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
I still say that the primarchs should have a rule where in matched play 50% of your points have to be the proper legion in order to run that primarch. So no Morty unless you can fit at least 525 more points of Death Guard in your army.

GW just needs to do something about souping to make it less attractive as a choice. Right now there is literally no trade off. Souping is always the right decision for Imperium, Eldar, and Chaos, which have been consistently the best.

Wayniac wrote:
I think the only thing that rubs me the wrong way in that list is Morty, because he's just there. Hes the only Death Guard model in the list. As fluff-breaking as it is to have Slaanesh/Khorne models in the same army (the "Alpha Legion" stuff all had MoS I think) it can be excused. But "Here's the primarch of the death guard by himself!" is a little harder to swallow.

You know originally there was no problem with a Khorne/Slaanesh combo. The original pairings for hate were Khorne/Tzeench (no magic just muscle/magic > muscle) and Nurgle/Slaanesh (ugly/beautiful). I don't know when GW retconned it but there it was.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
I think the only thing that rubs me the wrong way in that list is Morty, because he's just there. Hes the only Death Guard model in the list. As fluff-breaking as it is to have Slaanesh/Khorne models in the same army (the "Alpha Legion" stuff all had MoS I think) it can be excused. But "Here's the primarch of the death guard by himself!" is a little harder to swallow.

You know originally there was no problem with a Khorne/Slaanesh combo. The original pairings for hate were Khorne/Tzeench (no magic just muscle/magic > muscle) and Nurgle/Slaanesh (ugly/beautiful). I don't know when GW retconned it but there it was.

It's Nurgle vs Tzeentch and Khorne vs Slaanesh.

Think of it this way. Nurgle is unchanging. Despair and hopelessness. Tzeentch is constant change and abmition, which does not suit Nurgle in the least.

Khorne hates Slaanesh, because they are sissy fighters.

I know what the current situation is. I literally don't know when the pairings were retconned.