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.

180 pts spent on Velocity trackers... as if you'd face that in a real competitive game.

 Wilson wrote:
180 pts spent on Velocity trackers... as if you'd face that in a real competitive game.

I would not be so sure. With the current meta change and the domination of tyranids, you need to kill flyers, and also a lot more armies will bring their flyers to kill hive tyrants, so they should have plenty of targets.

Naw wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:

 jy2 wrote:

Yup. I swear, 15-pt troops is just plain stupid and 45-pts in order to take another 3 flyrants is just ridonculous.

Yeah. Not sure what the idea there was. Essentially gave Nids a play Unbound whenever you want card.

That is just typical GW, they don't see any problem as nothing like this would ever come to their minds. It wouldn't surprise me if they thought that e.g. vespids were of great use.

As for this battle, Tyranids, of course. Those Iontides can't even touch the Flyrants and first turn is not enough.

True. Another example of the difficulties facing those who have to shape the game into a competitive format.

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Wilson wrote:
180 pts spent on Velocity trackers... as if you'd face that in a real competitive game.

I would not be so sure. With the current meta change and the domination of tyranids, you need to kill flyers, and also a lot more armies will bring their flyers to kill hive tyrants, so they should have plenty of targets.

People always say things like that though. They get a new ridiculous toy and then expect the meta to remain static forever

thanatos67 wrote:
JY what was your warlord trait this game?

I think nids have a fairly decent advantage in this game, as the opponent lacks the optimal tool for killing flyrants (skyrays).

It's actually a good one. I mention it in the Deployment phase of my battle report. Check it out.

Skyrays might be more optimal, but my opponent was running with what he had without resorting to proxying.

Naw wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:

 jy2 wrote:

Yup. I swear, 15-pt troops is just plain stupid and 45-pts in order to take another 3 flyrants is just ridonculous.

Yeah. Not sure what the idea there was. Essentially gave Nids a play Unbound whenever you want card.

That is just typical GW, they don't see any problem as nothing like this would ever come to their minds. It wouldn't surprise me if they thought that e.g. vespids were of great use.

As for this battle, Tyranids, of course. Those Iontides can't even touch the Flyrants and first turn is not enough.

Maybe the new guy in charge is a Tyranid player? Who knows what the "brilliant" minds at 40K Capitol are thinking.

 Wilson wrote:
180 pts spent on Velocity trackers... as if you'd face that in a real competitive game.

As I mentioned in my report, yeah, his list was tailored to try to take mine down, but at least he was running the models that is in his current TAC list. He could have very easily went and proxied 3 skyrays (with possibly a 4th allied skyray) if he was truly tailoring. That would have been a pain in the arse to deal with....not that 6 skyfiring broadsides is easy to deal with or anything.

But as a practice game, I don't care. If anything, it could provide very useful data to see how extreme the conditions where my Pentyrant list will start to fail.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Wilson wrote:
180 pts spent on Velocity trackers... as if you'd face that in a real competitive game.

I would not be so sure. With the current meta change and the domination of tyranids, you need to kill flyers, and also a lot more armies will bring their flyers to kill hive tyrants, so they should have plenty of targets.

 Red Corsair wrote:

People always say things like that though. They get a new ridiculous toy and then expect the meta to remain static forever

Yeah, Tyranids are definitely going to cause a meta-change. Adam's list, while tailored, actually won't be too far off from how tournament armies will change. You will see an increase in skyfiring capability, maybe not to the degree of my opponent's list here, but it will be evident in tournament play where you will start to see more quad/pentyrant builds spring up.

Heres hoping necrons have a device to hard counter all this Jive Tyrant crap

I was surprised not to see at least one skyray and you guys proxy a lot .

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Wilson wrote:
180 pts spent on Velocity trackers... as if you'd face that in a real competitive game.

I would not be so sure. With the current meta change and the domination of tyranids, you need to kill flyers, and also a lot more armies will bring their flyers to kill hive tyrants, so they should have plenty of targets.

People always say things like that though. They get a new ridiculous toy and then expect the meta to remain static forever

Oh please. The world wide Competetive meta is dominated by marines, Knights and eldar. Tau players do not write up lists with 200 pts dedicated to upgrades on units to give them skyfire.

If you took a list like this to a tournement next month you would get merked.

Hell, I'd merk the crap out of you.

Did blackmoor just use "dominate" and "tyranids" in the same sentence??? Neil would have a heart attack.

Turn 2 posted.

What's the Tyranid formation called that lets you field those three extra Flyrants.

Edit: Oh, wait, I figured it out. Huh.

Unless there are some crazy dice I see a Tyranid win now as he really needed to take out 2 Flyrants by turn 2. I predict one Flyrant death next turn and 1 Riptide death along with the rest of the drones and maby a devilfish from a lictor fleshhooks :-)

Jy2 - just so you know - psychic scream isn't a leadership test. You roll and compare the targets leadership, they don't roll it themselves.

 tetrisphreak wrote:
Jy2 - just so you know - psychic scream isn't a leadership test. You roll and compare the targets leadership, they don't roll it themselves.

+1


Also, this is the battle of the year. I am excited to see what happens.

I think you definitely made the right call with the Rippers. If you hadn't, you could've lost 2 Flyrants first turn, which would've crippled your offense, meaning unable to win primary, as well as giving Adam First Blood and possibly Warlord. You would secondary maelstrom possibly, as well as LineBreaker and possibly Warlord, for a score of 5, whereas Adam would likely have Primary, Warlord, and First Blood. This is all very hypothetical but that is the more likely of the outcome. Now you are in a much better position to win or at least draw.

Given the results are pretty much preordained, and assuming you're playing against the Adam that got 4th at the BAO, how do you think it would have gone against his original list which had two Ionheads instead all of his other units Skyfire?

Also, apropos of nothing but is that a Battle Masters tower in the first picture from Tau turn 1?

 Wilson wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Wilson wrote:
180 pts spent on Velocity trackers... as if you'd face that in a real competitive game.

I would not be so sure. With the current meta change and the domination of tyranids, you need to kill flyers, and also a lot more armies will bring their flyers to kill hive tyrants, so they should have plenty of targets.

People always say things like that though. They get a new ridiculous toy and then expect the meta to remain static forever

Oh please. The world wide Competetive meta is dominated by marines, Knights and eldar. Tau players do not write up lists with 200 pts dedicated to upgrades on units to give them skyfire.

If you took a list like this to a tournement next month you would get merked.

Hell, I'd merk the crap out of you.

Wow, thank God you are here to educate us with your extensive first hand knowledge of this world meta

I am also not sure what merking is, but if it has anything to do with a pubic wig like I am visualizing, then you have another thing coming if you think I will let you near me

Go home Wilson your drunk.

"My strategy is to give up the Maelstrom Secondary and instead, try to win with Big Gun Primary along with the Tertiary bonus objectives. That is what I feel is my best chances for a victory in this matchup. " -Jy2

This is an example of what I posted in the thread from your first game with this list: It is entirely possible to ignore the BAO tactical objectives and still win. While it may be a game-time decision to ignore the Secondary in this case, nothing in the BAO missions discourages building lists to do the exact same thing from the very beginning. Ignoring the Secondary pushes the game back into the same dimensions/parameters as 6th edition missions, doesn't it? The inflated value of First Blood, last-turn objective-grabbing, etc. These (old) Eternal War missions accentuate the imbalances introduced by spam. If the tactical objectives could NOT be ignored, they would be a balancing influence, but they can, so they aren't.

I've played a couple dozen (or more) games using BAO missions (even submitted suggestions for revisions). I've also played a dozen games or so using Maelstrom/AdeptiCon Maelstrom. I don't think it's a flaw of BAO missions so much as it is a flaw of Primary/Secondary/Tertiary scoring. Maelstrom missions (NOT the ones released with 7th--I regret buying a deck), using 6 objective markers and simply adding First Blood, Slay the Warlord and Linebreaker to the Victory Point total, by virtue of not having a Secondary, don't offer the same kind of opportunity to build/play around it. It may be that Maelstrom is susceptible to list-building that ignores certain cards (or types of cards), but that approach comes with much more risk than tailoring a list to ignore BAO Secondary missions.

Very exciting first two turns !!! I know Mr. Adams can play - can't wait to read more.

 Wilson wrote:


Oh please. The world wide Competetive meta is dominated by marines, Knights and eldar. Tau players do not write up lists with 200 pts dedicated to upgrades on units to give them skyfire.

If you took a list like this to a tournement next month you would get merked.

Hell, I'd merk the crap out of you.

It depends on how quick your meta changes. Some places it never changes, or changes very slowly.

The Tyranid formations are very new, meaning that Nid players can now take multiple Hive Tyrants. It takes a little while to buy and paint them so it might be a little while before you will see them in numbers, but I fully expect the LVO to have a lot of them and a ton of skyfire because of it.

DCannon4Life wrote:
"My strategy is to give up the Maelstrom Secondary and instead, try to win with Big Gun Primary along with the Tertiary bonus objectives. That is what I feel is my best chances for a victory in this matchup. " -Jy2

This is an example of what I posted in the thread from your first game with this list: It is entirely possible to ignore the BAO tactical objectives and still win. While it may be a game-time decision to ignore the Secondary in this case, nothing in the BAO missions discourages building lists to do the exact same thing from the very beginning. Ignoring the Secondary pushes the game back into the same dimensions/parameters as 6th edition missions, doesn't it? The inflated value of First Blood, last-turn objective-grabbing, etc. These (old) Eternal War missions accentuate the imbalances introduced by spam. If the tactical objectives could NOT be ignored, they would be a balancing influence, but they can, so they aren't.

I've played a couple dozen (or more) games using BAO missions (even submitted suggestions for revisions). I've also played a dozen games or so using Maelstrom/AdeptiCon Maelstrom. I don't think it's a flaw of BAO missions so much as it is a flaw of Primary/Secondary/Tertiary scoring. Maelstrom missions (NOT the ones released with 7th--I regret buying a deck), using 6 objective markers and simply adding First Blood, Slay the Warlord and Linebreaker to the Victory Point total, by virtue of not having a Secondary, don't offer the same kind of opportunity to build/play around it. It may be that Maelstrom is susceptible to list-building that ignores certain cards (or types of cards), but that approach comes with much more risk than tailoring a list to ignore BAO Secondary missions.

This. The fixed 4/3/1/1/1 scoring of the BAO format lets you essentially concede a mission early on knowing that it doesn't really matter too much in the overall scheme. That's why I'd like to see this Pentyrant build play in an ETC style format where if JY2 concedes Maelstrom early and ends up losing big on tactical objectives he'd have to win equally big on the primary to offset it or still risk losing the game.

Turns 4 posted.


To be concluded tomorrow....

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Wilson wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Wilson wrote:
180 pts spent on Velocity trackers... as if you'd face that in a real competitive game.

I would not be so sure. With the current meta change and the domination of tyranids, you need to kill flyers, and also a lot more armies will bring their flyers to kill hive tyrants, so they should have plenty of targets.

People always say things like that though. They get a new ridiculous toy and then expect the meta to remain static forever

Oh please. The world wide Competetive meta is dominated by marines, Knights and eldar. Tau players do not write up lists with 200 pts dedicated to upgrades on units to give them skyfire.

If you took a list like this to a tournement next month you would get merked.

Hell, I'd merk the crap out of you.

Wow, thank God you are here to educate us with your extensive first hand knowledge of this world meta

I am also not sure what merking is, but if it has anything to do with a pubic wig like I am visualizing, then you have another thing coming if you think I will let you near me

Go home Wilson your drunk.

Cheers for the sarcasm, real mature.

Although it may not be accurate, I am basing my "knowledge" from torrent of fire.

FYI;
merked
1. Total and undeniable beatdown of a person by means of trashtalk.

Synonyms: owned, faced, pwned, ruled.

Edit: sorry to detract from your game Jy2. I'm looking forward to seeing the final turn but I'm totally undecided on who will win! It Looks like you have more board coverage to claim the primary, warlord and line breaker and therefore taking a win with a minor...

Cheers again for sharing man. You're awesome.

So now your calling me immature when you threatened me with probably the lamest verbal beat down I have ever been informed of.

Maybe you should go watch you got served for a 5th time or something and chill out

Merking is the equivalent to GBH. It's mainly used in the south east of England and is one of colloquialisms that could stand for anything depending on how you say it.


As for Tau sky fire, the average competitive list in England has 2-3 skyrays +the fire cadre formation in it.

Battle report completed.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Red Corsair wrote:
Heres hoping necrons have a device to hard counter all this Jive Tyrant crap

Necrons as they currently are....sure.

The new necrons coming out in January? I don't know. Word is, they will be getting the nerfhammer.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I was surprised not to see at least one skyray and you guys proxy a lot .

Depends on the opponent. Adam likes to use his own, nicely-painted models. Besides, he's been doing very, very well with them and hasn't lost with them in quite some time. His only losses with them were against Necrons (both Ben Cromwell and my Necrons). I think that Necrons are the only armies that his Tau fear. Otherwise, he is supremely confident with them against Tyranids. I don't think his Tau has lost to Tyranids in a long, long time. I know my Tyranids have never beaten his Tau until this game.

So why would you change up your list if you think what you've got is enough to destroy your opponent's army (from my opponent's perspective)?

 tetrisphreak wrote:
Did blackmoor just use "dominate" and "tyranids" in the same sentence??? Neil would have a heart attack.

LOL!

Timeshadow wrote:
Unless there are some crazy dice I see a Tyranid win now as he really needed to take out 2 Flyrants by turn 2. I predict one Flyrant death next turn and 1 Riptide death along with the rest of the drones and maby a devilfish from a lictor fleshhooks :-)

Good call.

 tetrisphreak wrote:
Jy2 - just so you know - psychic scream isn't a leadership test. You roll and compare the targets leadership, they don't roll it themselves.

My bad. I've been letting my opponents roll for the Psychic Scream tests. In the future, I'll do it myself.

 herpguy wrote:

Also, this is the battle of the year. I am excited to see what happens.

Thanks. I was also very excited to have played this battle and see it unfold.

jathomas2013 wrote:
I think you definitely made the right call with the Rippers. If you hadn't, you could've lost 2 Flyrants first turn, which would've crippled your offense, meaning unable to win primary, as well as giving Adam First Blood and possibly Warlord. You would secondary maelstrom possibly, as well as LineBreaker and possibly Warlord, for a score of 5, whereas Adam would likely have Primary, Warlord, and First Blood. This is all very hypothetical but that is the more likely of the outcome. Now you are in a much better position to win or at least draw.

Thanks. In hindsight, I think it was the right call as well. It's like cutting off the arm to save the body.

 Red Corsair wrote:
So now your calling me immature when you threatened me with probably the lamest verbal beat down I have ever been informed of.

Maybe you should go watch you got served for a 5th time or something and chill out

We're talking about warhammer and it wasn't intended as a threat. Chill the feck out, stop raging and taking things so personally.

 JohnU wrote:
Given the results are pretty much preordained, and assuming you're playing against the Adam that got 4th at the BAO, how do you think it would have gone against his original list which had two Ionheads instead all of his other units Skyfire?

Also, apropos of nothing but is that a Battle Masters tower in the first picture from Tau turn 1?

Well, he also ran the Tau Firebase Cadre at the BAO. He hasn't run his ionheads in a long time (I think it was back when he was running triple burstides).

My list would have taken apart his older ionhead army.

Yes it is, though I couldn't find the top. I was using it as my VSG.

DCannon4Life wrote:
"My strategy is to give up the Maelstrom Secondary and instead, try to win with Big Gun Primary along with the Tertiary bonus objectives. That is what I feel is my best chances for a victory in this matchup. " -Jy2

This is an example of what I posted in the thread from your first game with this list: It is entirely possible to ignore the BAO tactical objectives and still win. While it may be a game-time decision to ignore the Secondary in this case, nothing in the BAO missions discourages building lists to do the exact same thing from the very beginning. Ignoring the Secondary pushes the game back into the same dimensions/parameters as 6th edition missions, doesn't it? The inflated value of First Blood, last-turn objective-grabbing, etc. These (old) Eternal War missions accentuate the imbalances introduced by spam. If the tactical objectives could NOT be ignored, they would be a balancing influence, but they can, so they aren't.

I've played a couple dozen (or more) games using BAO missions (even submitted suggestions for revisions). I've also played a dozen games or so using Maelstrom/AdeptiCon Maelstrom. I don't think it's a flaw of BAO missions so much as it is a flaw of Primary/Secondary/Tertiary scoring. Maelstrom missions (NOT the ones released with 7th--I regret buying a deck), using 6 objective markers and simply adding First Blood, Slay the Warlord and Linebreaker to the Victory Point total, by virtue of not having a Secondary, don't offer the same kind of opportunity to build/play around it. It may be that Maelstrom is susceptible to list-building that ignores certain cards (or types of cards), but that approach comes with much more risk than tailoring a list to ignore BAO Secondary missions.

Different strokes for different folks. Yes, you can potentially win the game by ignoring the Secondary. However, you could also potentially win the game by winning the Secondary and ignoring the Primary as well. It's much rarer, but it does happen on occasions.

I really don't find anything unbalancing about the BAO format. Instead, I think it is more of a playstyle preference. With the BAO, you can win by either going for Option #1 (the easier way) or by going for Option #2 (the harder way). By design, you don't have to win both to win the game (though winning both will help to determine your overall rankings). In some of the other formats, you do have to account for both to win. It doesn't make the other format better. It just makes it a different way of playing. With the BAO, you can choose how you want to win. With another format, you don't get that choice. You have to do everything.

However, no matter the format, having mobile armies that can grab the objective at the end is always an advantage. No matter the format, it can always be tailored to as well. For example, with a progressive scoring format, in a ways, you tailor to it when you build an army with a very strong ground presence. But in the end, if you bring a truly well-designed Take-All-Comer's list, it should be able to handle most armies and most formats. Maybe not quite as well as an army that is tailored for that format, but if you take that army to the BAO and then to the ETC and to Adepticon, it should perform relatively the same. However, if you take a list that is more tailored for 1 format and you run it exactly as it is in another format, chances are, it won't do as well. IMO, my Pentyrant list is a TAC list that should be able to do well in almost any format. It's got the tools to do so. All it really requires is the general. If the general is savvy enough, he will do well with this type of list no matter the format.

 Wilson wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
So now your calling me immature when you threatened me with probably the lamest verbal beat down I have ever been informed of.

Maybe you should go watch you got served for a 5th time or something and chill out

We're talking about warhammer and it wasn't intended as a threat. Chill the feck out, stop raging and taking things so personally.

Ha ha your assuming I am raging now? I'd reread the thread bud, the only person trying to make things personal has been you after being called out on a stupid statement. If you have an issue beyond that hit the yellow triangle otherwise your the one in need of backing off.

 Blackmoor wrote:

The Tyranid formations are very new, meaning that Nid players can now take multiple Hive Tyrants. It takes a little while to buy and paint them so it might be a little while before you will see them in numbers, but I fully expect the LVO to have a lot of them and a ton of skyfire because of it.

Gosh, I hope not. I, for one, won't be running 5 flyrants in tournament play. If I bring my Tyranids again, I'd max out with 4 flyrants. It'll probably be either 3 flyrants + Skyblight or 3 flyrants + Skytyrant.

But for the LVO, I'm not thinking about bringing Tyranids at all!

PanzerLeader wrote:

This. The fixed 4/3/1/1/1 scoring of the BAO format lets you essentially concede a mission early on knowing that it doesn't really matter too much in the overall scheme. That's why I'd like to see this Pentyrant build play in an ETC style format where if JY2 concedes Maelstrom early and ends up losing big on tactical objectives he'd have to win equally big on the primary to offset it or still risk losing the game.

What it does is give you options, which was what the 2-tiered format is designed to do. If you could not win one way, then you had an alternate path to victory. That's not an inherent flaw of the BAO. That's just the design of the format. It gives you a choice. A format like the ETC doesn't give you that type of choice. You just have to do everything. That doesn't make it a superior design (though obviously, many people think it does). It just makes it a different way of playing the game. It's like comparing apples to oranges. There's no need to make the apple taste like the orange. You can enjoy the different taste that both has to offer. And if you are an orange person, then go to the orange store. If you are an apple person, then go to the apple store. However, if you like variety, then you're in luck. You've got a lot of fruit to choose from.

 Red Corsair wrote:

....

 Wilson wrote:

....

Ok, guys, knock it off. No need to compare your manhoods in my thread, because neither will be bigger than mine. Sorry, just had to get that in, but please, if you guys want to continue your conversations to each other, do it in PM mode.