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.

Hey, I like winning as much as the next guy. But when the next guy runs the unbreakable razor/dreadspam GK list, loudly announcing he built this to win, the game gets a bit old.

Let's bring back some of the old scenarios when certain slots were limited or out-right cut out. Just fun, not "we have a tournament army, I don't play anything else." That's why I left Magic. Friendly games were not friendly nor games. They were serious events.

I'm very surprised to hear the lists are so small in NZ. Here in the US, the top lists in uncomped, competitive circles seem to be going much higher model count, overall.

My 2k CSM list for the Battle for Salvation GT 2011 had 58 models, whereas my 6th ed list for 2012 had 75.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Hey, I like winning as much as the next guy. But when the next guy runs the unbreakable razor/dreadspam GK list, loudly announcing he built this to win, the game gets a bit old.

Let's bring back some of the old scenarios when certain slots were limited or out-right cut out. Just fun, not "we have a tournament army, I don't play anything else." That's why I left Magic. Friendly games were not friendly nor games. They were serious events.

You don't enjoy competition?

I doesn't help that 5th edition actively punished people for bringing large volumes of dismounted infantry. 6th has swing the pendulum back, and now infantry hordes of 60+ MEQ or 200 GEQ are actually good, so as players adapt, you'll see a return to the 4th edition armies that you evidently missed.

 Ailaros wrote:
1.) The rise of the tournament scene. 5th ed introduced things like 'ard boys tournaments, while other tournaments greatly expanded during this time.

Ard Boys started in 4th ed. It got a bit more popular in 5th, because 5th was a better-balanced edition, and the change in emphasis to objectives over victory points made it so that a lot wider variety of lists were competitive. Sadly that variety was sabotaged a bit by the dominance of transports, but because nearly every army had access to transports, and because Kill Point missions made them a weakness a good percentage of the time, 5th was overall the best-balanced and fun edition for competition there had* ever been. Lots of lists were viable in competitive events, from just about every codex.

*The jury's still out on 6th, as it's such a radical change from 5th. Certainly the biggest edition change since 2nd to 3rd. But allies certainly seem to have opened up the playing field quite a bit, and we're seeing a lot of different combinations and codices win and do well so far. It's pretty exciting and fun.

 Ailaros wrote:
Tournaments do things differently than regular games of 40k, and so tournament meta began to have a trickle-down effect on the rest of the 40k world. For example, I'd like to see YOU run a 250 model horde army and finish a game in two hours.

This is true. Of course, quite a few good players did field horde armies and win events with them. Of course, no competent tournament organizer tries to run an event at 1500+ pts with only two hour rounds.

 Ailaros wrote:
2.) 6th edition killed assault armies, and it killed horde armies as they used to be run. As such, you're going to take a already low-model-count tournament-style army that focused on shooting (thanks to usually criminally sparse terrain at tournaments), and made that kind of list better, while making most other kinds of lists worse.

6th edition is focused more on shooting again, as was 4th ed. It didn't kill assault, although it has handicapped it. "Horde armies as they used to be run" is an interesting non-statement, It certainly didn't kill horde armies. So far they're much more common in competitive events than they used to be. Without the "as they used to be run" part it's simply false. Once you add the "as they used to be run", it becomes a meaningless truism. Every edition requires adapting your lists and using new tactics.

-----

 DestructerPeach wrote:
What has happened to 40k???

Matt Ward happened sir.

Take your uninspired trolling somewhere else.

Thank you, pretre! Your signature line in proven yet again!

Ther is also a maximum number of models an army can have right now. For example I can run 108 warriors and one naked overlord for 109 models at 1500 pts. GK have much more expensive individual models ( excluding a Coteze henchman build) and naturally are only capable of having fewer models. Orks and guard can have much more, it is just the nature of some armies.

It could be because the prices in NZ and Australia are so much higher than in other places in the world. When you're paying $73 for each tactical squad, it makes sense that people would want to limit their model count. It's easier for us North Americans to have armies that reach well into the hundreds of models because we pay almost half of what they do, at least when buying directly from GW.

Also if an event requires or encourages fully painted armies you would be inclined to see, on average, a lower model count.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Hey, I like winning as much as the next guy. But when the next guy runs the unbreakable razor/dreadspam GK list, loudly announcing he built this to win, the game gets a bit old.

Let's bring back some of the old scenarios when certain slots were limited or out-right cut out. Just fun, not "we have a tournament army, I don't play anything else." That's why I left Magic. Friendly games were not friendly nor games. They were serious events.

You don't enjoy competition?

Sounds like a job for the comp system. Good ol compy; yelling at us, walking over picking up parts of our army and telling us how we're having fun wrong.

1500 points could give you 100 marines.
Take at least 120pts away for HQ.
92 marines.
Fast attack ~150pts of whatever.
82 marines.
Couple cheap heavies ~210pts
68 marines.
Some elite ~210pts
54 marines.
So some 5 full ten man squads could be done not including their rides and any extra fancy stuff you may want to add.

People like their extra toys and that is what takes away from the marine horde. If you play bare bones 1500 points is the way to go. 1850 gives you all the options you really want without having to hunt around overly much and the Ork players just make bigger boy blobs.

I see the need to be aware of higher model count: more models = more to kill every turn = happy players raking off dead models.

Here's the thing: competitive 40k has always been whacked out. Because there are balance issues in the game (and let's be honest in a game this big it's impossible not to have any) these little glitches get multiplied by a thousand and exploited in every possible way by players trying to game the system. So if special character a is really good for his points, and he's a lot of points? Every comp player will bring him. It's further distanced the comp scene from the casual scene with the addition of allies-now every marine spinoff dex can have all the op units from every spinoff marine dex.

Frankly, I like it. Lets me spot the overcompetitive players before I waste an hour and a half playing them.

Thanks for the replies guys.

I'm still of the view that in uncomped top end tournament play 5e/6e armies look less like an army at the same points level than 3e/4e armies.

That's no comment on the balance of one version vs. another rather on the tabletop aesthetics.

I've not played, nor seen, any games from pre 5th, but I can't say I've seen many army-lists that don't look like armies. The one I can think of is the 6x croissant flier list.

I struggle classing a Special Character, 15 Marines, 2 Dreads, 3 Stormravens as an army

Well, given that 100 marines can subjugate a planet I would say its an army.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Thank you, pretre! Your signature line in proven yet again!

OT, but as a conversation continues, the liklihood of *anything* being mentioned approaches 1.

I can see what the OP means. There are a lot of things in the modern game that are very small but very expensive and very dangerous. How many popular ICs are there that are 200+ points? That's an entire mob/blob, or a full tactical squad with upgrades. Not uncommon to see one of these on both sides.

 PLC wrote:
I'm still of the view that in uncomped top end tournament play 5e/6e armies IN NEW ZEALAND look less like an army at the same points level than 3e/4e armies. .

Capitalized text is mine, but an important distinction. As we have mentioned, the armies in uncomped top end tournament play in the US are much different and have more models than previous editions.

 TheCaptain wrote:

You don't enjoy competition?

Depends on the manner of the competition.

L. Wrex

In 2nd ed, 10-15 Grey knight terminators WAS an army - and they were capable of so much more.

3rd-5th ed (and by extension, 6th) is a different game and the tabletop experience is a lesser one for it.

I also got bored with 40k last edition and transitioned back to WHFB (something I last played in 1994). It wasn't the armies that made me do this, but the players.

Mannahnin wrote:Of course, quite a few good players did field horde armies and win events with them.

Which is why, when we look back at 5th ed, all anyone will remember is how it was filled with horde armies and nobody ever went with mech...

TheCaptain wrote:You don't enjoy competition?

Firstly, don't confuse competing with winning.

Secondly, don't confuse enjoyment with winning.

Fun, competing, and winning are not synonyms, even if they have a relation to each other.

I think you see those kind of lists a lot more in tournaments as people are looking for the most effective rather than most fluffy army lists. With introduction of flyers and all their only snapshot/ jink rules they have become the number one add on to tournament lists, replacing mech spam from 5th ed.

 pretre wrote:

 DestructerPeach wrote:
What has happened to 40k???

Matt Ward happened sir.

Take your uninspired trolling somewhere else.

It's true, you mad? I can sense the jimmies rustling.

Yeah, I know. All lists these days are purely competitive and not fluffy. It's hard to even make a list that would look similar to what an actual 40k army would send out. But then again if it was like that then army points values wouldn't be even. Two armies are never of the same size and effeciency so points wouldn't really matter. Also, in my opinion, 40k battles are very small compared to what they actually would be. An apocalypse battle is like a skirmish in the 40k universe.

Which is really a problem with GW not making a balanced rules set.

And some armies CAN make a list that is both competitive and fluffy. Such as GKs, Necrons, and IG.

Of course fluffy is what you make of it. its a subjective term, one man's fluffy is another man's cheese.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Which is really a problem with GW not making a balanced rules set.

And some armies CAN make a list that is both competitive and fluffy. Such as GKs, Necrons, and IG.

Of course fluffy is what you make of it. its a subjective term, one man's fluffy is another man's cheese.

True

 Grey Templar wrote:
Which is really a problem with GW not making a balanced rules set.

And some armies CAN make a list that is both competitive and fluffy. Such as GKs, Necrons, and IG.

Of course fluffy is what you make of it. its a subjective term, one man's fluffy is another man's cheese.

Indeed. I like to think that balance problems between codices are because the authors are pretty different in how they go about their army books. Now if all 3 of them worked on each book, then there wouldn't be as big of a discrepancy. Of course, the trick is making sure that each of them play to their strengths, rather than to their weaknesses (See Sisters of Battle for a prime example).

I think what the OP is seeing is an effect of the higher prices on GW products in the region on the game meta. Models cost substantially more in the area and would encourage more MSU style armies then in other regions such as Europe or North America where we have lower GW prices and greater access to discount sellers. This allows us in other parts of the world to build our armies with more variety then our friends in NZ and Australia.