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.

 ace101 wrote:
Even then, template happy armies can still make your boyz and lootas cry. With the FAQ, Whirlwinds have Large Blast, OB has large blast, LRRs, flamers, and just generally lots of dakka can melt horde armies. Shooty mechs have priority over hordes in 6th.

That's a pretty interesting list. Have you run it or seen it run? Or are you just naming things that would have caused my list problems? Would such a list be tournament quality? I don't think I've ever seen or played against a list in a tournament that had that many templates and large blasts. Most split their special weapon options into template/blast and high S weaponry to deal with hordes or high AV, and they generally don't have strictly templates to handle so many Boyz. 5+ cover and 5+ FNP is a pretty mean combination against even Barrage weapons, and I don't know of any S8+ Templates that will deny FNP. I actually have more problems with those damn Dark Eldar and their poison weapons.

 Ghenghis Jon wrote:

 ace101 wrote:
Even then, template happy armies can still make your boyz and lootas cry. With the FAQ, Whirlwinds have Large Blast, OB has large blast, LRRs, flamers, and just generally lots of dakka can melt horde armies. Shooty mechs have priority over hordes in 6th.

That's a pretty interesting list. Have you run it or seen it run? Or are you just naming things that would have caused my list problems? Would such a list be tournament quality? I don't think I've ever seen or played against a list in a tournament that had that many templates and large blasts. Most split their special weapon options into template/blast and high S weaponry to deal with hordes or high AV, and they generally don't have strictly templates to handle so many Boyz. 5+ cover and 5+ FNP is a pretty mean combination against even Barrage weapons, and I don't know of any S8+ Templates that will deny FNP. I actually have more problems with those damn Dark Eldar and their poison weapons.

They were actually things that i could field in a tournie list to counter so many boyz; thats particularly why i'm starting to look at a whirlwind for dealing with horde armies.

 ace101 wrote:

 Ghenghis Jon wrote:
3X 30 Boyz Mobs with Mad Dok Grotsnik and a KFF Big Mek were pretty much unstoppable with 30 Lootas providing fire support.

Even then, template happy armies can still make your boyz and lootas cry. With the FAQ, Whirlwinds have Large Blast, OB has large blast, LRRs, flamers, and just generally lots of dakka can melt horde armies. Shooty mechs have priority over hordes in 6th.

My CSM would like to meet your list then. But to stay on topic, yes all infanteri armies can and will win tournaments in 6th

 Trondheim wrote:
My CSM would like to meet your list then.

I've already tabled a Noise Marine list. What would you bring to a tournament?

Kingsley wrote:Then why is it that major 6th ed tournaments are being won by foot lists? Last time I checked, the NOVA Open was won by foot Marines with blob IG, and Feast of Blades was won by Dæmons.

Congratulations, you've found two whole anomalous data points. If only there were some other explanation. Something like...

Ailaros wrote:Also, a couple of people winning a tournament here and there with a foot list does not a large data set supporting foot lists make. What is much more likely is that there are just more people giving foot lists a try, and thus the number of wins will increase by virtue of the fact that there are more of them. I'm sure once people get settled back into mech lists, things will go back to the way they were before.

 Ailaros wrote:

Kingsley wrote:Then why is it that major 6th ed tournaments are being won by foot lists? Last time I checked, the NOVA Open was won by foot Marines with blob IG, and Feast of Blades was won by Dæmons.

Congratulations, you've found two whole anomalous data points. If only there were some other explanation. Something like...

Ailaros wrote:Also, a couple of people winning a tournament here and there with a foot list does not a large data set supporting foot lists make. What is much more likely is that there are just more people giving foot lists a try, and thus the number of wins will increase by virtue of the fact that there are more of them. I'm sure once people get settled back into mech lists, things will go back to the way they were before.

I really hate Transports in 6th tbh, with the exception of flyers.

With the possible exception of GK Mech kinda took a big hit. The whole stunned transferring over to troops dealio is outright nasty. I'll occasionally play with rhinos/razorbacks right now if I need to make up some points but not being able to assault out of them even if not moving is nasty on a whole nother lvl.

Lots of rules changes to make transports worse. We may see vehicles come back in other variants, but I feel that the Mech of 5th is gone for good.

 Ailaros wrote:

Kingsley wrote:Then why is it that major 6th ed tournaments are being won by foot lists? Last time I checked, the NOVA Open was won by foot Marines with blob IG, and Feast of Blades was won by Dæmons.

Congratulations, you've found two whole anomalous data points. If only there were some other explanation. Something like...

Except that those "anomalies" are the two most competitive events thus far in the edition, and their results coincide with (reasonable) theory...

 Kingsley wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:

Kingsley wrote:Then why is it that major 6th ed tournaments are being won by foot lists? Last time I checked, the NOVA Open was won by foot Marines with blob IG, and Feast of Blades was won by Dæmons.

Congratulations, you've found two whole anomalous data points. If only there were some other explanation. Something like...

Except that those "anomalies" are the two most competitive events thus far in the edition, and their results coincide with (reasonable) theory...

He is kinda right.

Considering the discussion is tournament competitiveness of a list, citing two major tournaments demonstrating said list's competitiveness is pretty solid evidence.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:

Kingsley wrote:Then why is it that major 6th ed tournaments are being won by foot lists? Last time I checked, the NOVA Open was won by foot Marines with blob IG, and Feast of Blades was won by Dæmons.

Congratulations, you've found two whole anomalous data points. If only there were some other explanation. Something like...

Except that those "anomalies" are the two most competitive events thus far in the edition, and their results coincide with (reasonable) theory...

He is kinda right.

Considering the discussion is tournament competitiveness of a list, citing two major tournaments demonstrating said list's competitiveness is pretty solid evidence.

Except that the tournaments in question used their own house rules for the scenarios, and those house rules significantly change what units are good. NOVA's missions were especially bad about this, with the table quarters rule severely penalizing anyone who took vehicles of any kind. As a result those lists might prove that all-infantry lists are good in a special tournament game that kind of resembles 40k, but it doesn't say very much about the effectiveness of all-infantry lists in 40k.

 Peregrine wrote:

Except that the tournaments in question used their own house rules for the scenarios, and those house rules significantly change what units are good. NOVA's missions were especially bad about this, with the table quarters rule severely penalizing anyone who took vehicles of any kind. As a result those lists might prove that all-infantry lists are good in a special tournament game that kind of resembles 40k, but it doesn't say very much about the effectiveness of all-infantry lists in 40k.

Maybe it doesn't prove much for standard 40k. But the discussion at hand is at a Tournament level. It's shown it's worth at two major tournaments; that evidence counts for much more than speculation.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Except that the tournaments in question used their own house rules for the scenarios, and those house rules significantly change what units are good. NOVA's missions were especially bad about this, with the table quarters rule severely penalizing anyone who took vehicles of any kind. As a result those lists might prove that all-infantry lists are good in a special tournament game that kind of resembles 40k, but it doesn't say very much about the effectiveness of all-infantry lists in 40k.

Maybe it doesn't prove much for standard 40k. But the discussion at hand is at a Tournament level. It's shown it's worth at two major tournaments; that evidence counts for much more than speculation.

this is true Nova and FoB are huge events, what wins/does well there generally sets the tides for things to come. Unless there's a new codex coming out soon or update. Etc.

 TheCaptain wrote:
Maybe it doesn't prove much for standard 40k. But the discussion at hand is at a Tournament level. It's shown it's worth at two major tournaments; that evidence counts for much more than speculation.

That's assuming future tournaments use the same house rules. If you create your army specifically to take advantage of particular house rules then it probably isn't going to do as well in a tournament where those house rules aren't in effect. I'm sure the lists aren't entirely terrible and the player skills are obviously there, but they just aren't going to receive the benefits they were created to gain and would lose to an equally skilled player with a list designed to take advantage of the next tournament's rules.

If you want to talk about effectiveness at a tournament level of competition as opposed to effectiveness in particular tournaments you either need a decent set of tournament results (and not just the overall winner, I mean top standings, since the difference between first and second can easily be pure luck) from 6th edition tournaments run using the 6th edition rules as published by GW, or a large set of results from tournaments with a wide variety of house rules such that any house-rule-specific factors cancel out.