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.
2014/12/14 17:42:45
Subject: 1850 Competitive - Jy2's Pentyrant Tyranids vs Spam Adam's Skyfire Tau
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.
Maybe the new guy in charge is a Tyranid player? Who knows what the "brilliant" minds at 40K Capitol are thinking.
As mentioned in the main Tyranid thread, odds are the Mucolids were intended to be in Fast Attack like all the other living bomb units (Spore Mines, Meiotic Spores) but whoever formatted the data slate mixed up the icon for Fast Attack with the Troops icon (particularly given that the troop icon is effectively an arrow).
Anyway, so far looking to be a good fight! I think the use of Rippers to push back the infiltrators was a good call (as said before, mobility seems to be the greatest weakness of the Tau list), though in hindsight the Mucolids might have served better as infiltration denial since they are cheaper and don't give up points as per the Living Bomb rule. I also have to say, I think the amount of firepower concentration might actually be hurting the Tau a bit in this match. He basically has all his damage output tied up in 6 units/10 individual models, so you've been able to just systematically eliminate his firepower by just focus-firing down the primary threats. Would be curious to see how the "pentyrant" list would do against a list with more decentralized distribution of firepower (maybe Mech Guard?).
2014/12/14 17:47:12
Subject: 1850 Competitive - Jy2's Pentyrant Tyranids vs Spam Adam's Skyfire Tau (Completed)
As mentioned in the main Tyranid thread, odds are the Mucolids were intended to be in Fast Attack like all the other living bomb units (Spore Mines, Meiotic Spores) but whoever formatted the data slate mixed up the icon for Fast Attack with the Troops icon (particularly given that the troop icon is effectively an arrow).
Anyway, so far looking to be a good fight! I think the use of Rippers to push back the infiltrators was a good call (as said before, mobility seems to be the greatest weakness of the Tau list), though in hindsight the Mucolids might have served better as infiltration denial since they are cheaper and don't give up points as per the Living Bomb rule. I also have to say, I think the amount of firepower concentration might actually be hurting the Tau a bit in this match. He basically has all his damage output tied up in 6 units/10 individual models, so you've been able to just systematically eliminate his firepower by just focus-firing down the primary threats. Would be curious to see how the "pentyrant" list would do against a list with more decentralized distribution of firepower (maybe Mech Guard?).
We really don't know what they intended, but until they FAQ it othewise, I am going to assume that it was meant to be a troop choice.
For some reason, I had it in my mind that the mucolids can only deploy via Deepstrike. Otherwise, I'd rather have them deployed and my rippers in reserves.
IMO, his firepower concentration was fine. It was distributed equally among 5 units, just as my firepower was distributed equally in 5 units as well. But what makes it fine is that the platforms on which his firepower resides are very durable. They can withstand a lot of firepower and still contribute to the offense. The only problem was in their range and lack of mobility, but that could have been mitigated somewhat with better deployment.
Red Corsair wrote: That's probably not far off. But to be fair it's not like min units of rippers are THAT much different.
They could have made closer the Maelstrom gap between the armies. Part of the reason he was dominating in the Maelstrom secondaries was because I had no ObSec units that I could deepstrike in to deny him some of his objectives.
Am I correct that BAO format allowed self allying to offset their restriction on CAD's? Players can only take one CAD though correct, then they have one slot for either allies, a formation or a detachment? Because at this point some of these detachments are basically just circumventing that restriction completely which is unfortunate.
Does the format require a CAD to start for that matter? They must or could you just take two of the leviathan formations and get 6 HQ's.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/14 19:37:50
Correct. The BAO format (and many of the other formats as well, except Adepticon) allow for self-allying but not dual-CAD's. As a matter of fact, they don't allow for repeat formations, so no running dual-Leviathan detachments.
Yeah, the tournament requirements will have to evolve with the formations. Right now, the trend is going more towards formations/detachments but the tournament formats are still the same as when they first came out. But you're starting to see more Primary + Formations (i.e. Pentyrant, GK Centstar with a Space Marine CAD and the Nemesis Strike Force formation, etc.). The problem is starting with the Centstar and now, Tyranids will exacerbate this situation. It will be interesting to see how tournaments in the future will deal with these types of situations.
The format doesn't actually require a CAD. However, you cannot repeat formations, thus no taking 2 Leviathan detachments.
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.
Maybe the new guy in charge is a Tyranid player? Who knows what the "brilliant" minds at 40K Capitol are thinking.
As mentioned in the main Tyranid thread, odds are the Mucolids were intended to be in Fast Attack like all the other living bomb units (Spore Mines, Meiotic Spores) but whoever formatted the data slate mixed up the icon for Fast Attack with the Troops icon (particularly given that the troop icon is effectively an arrow).
Anyway, so far looking to be a good fight! I think the use of Rippers to push back the infiltrators was a good call (as said before, mobility seems to be the greatest weakness of the Tau list), though in hindsight the Mucolids might have served better as infiltration denial since they are cheaper and don't give up points as per the Living Bomb rule. I also have to say, I think the amount of firepower concentration might actually be hurting the Tau a bit in this match. He basically has all his damage output tied up in 6 units/10 individual models, so you've been able to just systematically eliminate his firepower by just focus-firing down the primary threats. Would be curious to see how the "pentyrant" list would do against a list with more decentralized distribution of firepower (maybe Mech Guard?).
re: mucolids.
I think they were meant to be in troops.
considering GW released the rules for free post shield of baal and has kept the dataslate as troops.
TBH I think rippers are still a better choice, they have more survivability due to size, JY2 I don't think had an actual mucolid in his army (modelwise) they are quite tall and and easy to get LOS to. Maybe a mix of mucolids and rippers is good, which is what jy2 had here.
One of the things of note in this battle report that stood out to me, was that the models other than the tyrants had more presence in this battle report than in the last one with the eldar vs. the pentyrant list.
IMO from reading the two batreps the domination of the first one came from the pentyrants themselves, it was the army overall that won the second one.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/12/14 21:51:42
2014/12/14 21:52:14
Subject: 1850 Competitive - Jy2's Pentyrant Tyranids vs Spam Adam's Skyfire Tau (Completed)
So here's a question, do mucolids give up fb in LVO/BAO since they never award vps? If they don't (for what its worth we've been playing that they don't give up vps for fb or kp) you could have used them instead of the rippers, deepstruck them later, and had some obsec running around his backfield when he had limited s7 to focus on killing them instead of flyrants. Not that you ended up needing that to win the primary, I guess they could have helped for secondary. You mentioned some of the mistakes your opponent made and i think they're spot on. I still think he needs a pair of rays in this list, and i think the drones+buffy lite is a bit of a trap as its a fairly squishy firstblood+warlord in some matchups.
2013 Nova Open Tournament Champ- 2014 Las Vegas Open Best Tau Player/13th overall 2014 NOVA Open Second to One 2015 Las Vegas Open Best Tau Player/10th overall
TBH I think rippers are still a better choice, they have more survivability due to size, JY2 I don't think had an actual mucolid in his army (modelwise) they are quite tall and and easy to get LOS to. Maybe a mix of mucolids and rippers is good, which is what jy2 had here.
One of the things of note in this battle report that stood out to me, was that the models other than the tyrants had more presence in this battle report than in the last one with the eldar vs. the pentyrant list.
IMO from reading the two batreps the domination of the first one came from the pentyrants themselves, it was the army overall that won the second one.
Yeah, rippers are better because they are scoring/denial units. In larger games, I'd go with rippers over the mucolids any day. However, in smaller games (2K or less), you need a mix of both, especially if you want to run MSU like I did. One advantage of the mucolids is that they are cheap enough so that you can run other MSU units (like lictors, who are better threats than rippers). So for the Leviathan formation, you can either run 3 units (3 DS rippers at 135-pts) or for just a little more, you can run 5 units (3 mucolids and 2 lictors for 145-pts). I opted to go with rippers for my primary detachment (due to them being ObSec there) and 3 mucolids for my Leviathan detachment (so that I could fit in another 2 lictors).
I am actually in the process of converting the Forgeworld meoitic spores into mucolids. Just got them in after the battle.
While the flyrants are awesome, against the top-armies or armies that matchup well against Pentyrants, you need the rest of your army to do its share of work as well. That is why I have very carefully build up the rest of my army (after the flyrants) as I did. Your support units are not just an afterthought. They are just as integral to the army as the flyrants themselves, especially when going up against a top army or a "counter" army.
thanatos67 wrote: So here's a question, do mucolids give up fb in LVO/BAO since they never award vps? If they don't (for what its worth we've been playing that they don't give up vps for fb or kp) you could have used them instead of the rippers, deepstruck them later, and had some obsec running around his backfield when he had limited s7 to focus on killing them instead of flyrants. Not that you ended up needing that to win the primary, I guess they could have helped for secondary. You mentioned some of the mistakes your opponent made and i think they're spot on. I still think he needs a pair of rays in this list, and i think the drones+buffy lite is a bit of a trap as its a fairly squishy firstblood+warlord in some matchups.
I would think not, though I'd have to double-check the FAQ's (that is, if they've been updated yet). My problem was that I keep on thinking that they have to deepstrike in from reserves just like the spores used to do. It was a mistake on my part to deploy the rippers instead of the mucolids. Yeah, having the rippers around would have definitely helped me on the Secondary. Now most people are thinking that it doesn't matter if you win the Secondary or not as long as you win the Primary, but doing well in both will determine your overall rankings at the end of the tournament. That is because in the case of ties (i.e. several people with the same records), then they go by battle points. Thus, you should always strive for both the Primary and the Secondary.
I've seen Adam's list evolved from fire warriors to triple-burstides to ionheads to the O'vesastar and finally to its present form, the Tau Firebase Cadre with iontides. I can definitely see him going with some skyrays in the future should this type of Tyranid build become more popular. However, the Buffmander-lite+drones is actually a very good combo and the focal point of his offense. He's been doing very well with that unit and it is more resilient than most people think, especially if there is BLOS terrain on the table.
My opponent made several mistakes here that I was able to take advantage of.
1. First of all, I know how my opponent plays and I took advantage of it. Old habits die hard. I knew that he would probably deploy his Buffmander-lite + drones near the only BLOS terrain in his deployment zone - his ruins. It is pretty predictable of many Tau players to want to deploy near terrain so that they can do their JSJ (jump-shoot-jump) tactic. Thus, I knew that I could have avoided his markerlights for a turn or 2.
2. His infiltration. He should have infiltrated both of his broadsides more centrally. By deploying them on the flanks, I knew that I could avoid the further one (Shadowsun's unit) for probably 2 turns. With my refused flank maneuver, I was able to avoid a good chunk of his offense - his markerlights and 1 unit of broadsides for the first 2 turns. This gave me the time that I needed to focus down on 1 flank at a time while avoiding the brunt of his offense.
3. He moved towards my objectives too late. He should have moved at the very least 1 of his riptides and he should have done so at least 1 turn earlier. If he had done that, his riptide should have made it to one of my objectives and maybe even have taken it. At the very least, it would have gotten him Linebreaker.
Despite some of his mistakes, this game was a roller-coaster of a game in terms of dice. We both had good and bad dice. Adam passing so many Psychic Scream LD tests but then failing 2 crucial Morale tests. My flyrants failing to kill his riptide and devilfish in just 1 turn of shooting. My mawloc not hitting anything all game. Adam failing to shoot down my flyrant on Turn 3. My flyrants doing more damage to his broadsides with 2 snipfiring flyrants than with 3 full-BS flyrants. While probably not my most extreme game in terms of dice, it was pretty much an up-and-down type of game.
In any case, this battle really reflects on the resiliency of a Pentyrant army. Even against an extreme army designed to fight against it and in extremely hostile situations, not only did it manage to survive, but it also managed to achieve victory. After this battle, this army is, without a shadow of a doubt in my mind, one of the strongest builds currently in the game. Whether the BAO format or whatever, I am confident that it's got the necessary tools to do well in any tournament format. Not only do well, but it will be a nightmare for almost any army to go up against. So do yourself a favor. If you just want to have fun with your opponent, then don't run this type of list. However, if all you care about is winning, then you've got a winner on your hands.
That Postgame Analysis is great. It elevates this batrep to my favorite that you've posted.
After playtesting once myself, and doing a little thinking and Mathhammer, I'm inclined to agree that this list is everything you claim it is. A dominating spam list with a good ability to win tournaments and be a nightmare for almost any army it goes up against.
This next week, I am going to try and lock my list for LVO, so that I can start prep in earnest. I've been eyeing LVO since last year as a venue for me to compete with Tyranids in a sort of defiance of "Non-competitive codexes". I was eager for a chance to be "Best Tyranids", and I've worked hard to optimize my lists, and rework them to account for the changes brought about by the new Tyranid releases. I want to win. I want very badly to win. But my drive to win has limits, because I can't bring myself to even consider a 5 flyrant list. It is too representative of what I consider the most negative aspects of 40k. Spam, Rock-Paper-Scissors design, FOC abuse, Broken Fluff, and unfun games. Its the reason my Eldar wave serpents sit in my basement, and don't get any time on the table top.
I know that you and I often disagree over the more abstract aspects of 40k, but I'm really curious, after testing this type of list out, and seeing how the games go, are you prepared / willing / morally OK with bringing a list like this to a tournament?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/14 23:22:18
2014/12/15 00:16:01
Subject: 1850 Competitive - Jy2's Pentyrant Tyranids vs Spam Adam's Skyfire Tau (Completed)
I'm the same. As I've said several times in both this and my other report, I won't be running a 5-flyrant list in tournament play. To me, it's like playing on easy mode. I'd prefer to have my wins be a little more challenging. Also, I want my opponents to have fun and be involved in the game as well. With my Pentyrant list, I don't think most people would have fun against my list. As a matter of fact, they'll probably hate playing against it. That is not the type of lists that I like to run. For practice or on request, I've got no problems. But in tournament play where you opponent doesn't really have a choice, I'd prefer not to. That's the same reason why I don't run my mechdar or the seer council as well, at least not in competitive play.
Now my Necrons is just as strong, but people don't seem to have as big a problem with it as they do with some of the other armies I mentioned above. As tough as they are, at least people are able to kill the annihilation barges and night scythes. But with flyrant-spam, a lot of people just cannot deal with that (at least not presently).
So no, currently, I don't plan to run my Pentyrant list in tournament play. I'm not the type who wants to win so badly that I'd run the hardest army I can. Rather, I want to win, but I hope that both my opponent and I can have fun in the process.
jy2 wrote: Correct. The BAO format (and many of the other formats as well, except Adepticon) allow for self-allying but not dual-CAD's. As a matter of fact, they don't allow for repeat formations, so no running dual-Leviathan detachments.
Yeah, the tournament requirements will have to evolve with the formations. Right now, the trend is going more towards formations/detachments but the tournament formats are still the same as when they first came out. But you're starting to see more Primary + Formations (i.e. Pentyrant, GK Centstar with a Space Marine CAD and the Nemesis Strike Force formation, etc.). The problem is starting with the Centstar and now, Tyranids will exacerbate this situation. It will be interesting to see how tournaments in the future will deal with these types of situations.
The format doesn't actually require a CAD. However, you cannot repeat formations, thus no taking 2 Leviathan detachments.
It's only getting harder as time goes by to stem the insanity of list building
While I am optimistic about the current approach of toning down 7th books, the detachments are starting to put more preasure on anyways.
Part of me thinks single Detachment no allies would be the best answer even though I know it's a pipe dream I like 7th ed rules but I miss 5ths format thats for sure.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jy2 wrote: I'm the same. As I've said several times in both this and my other report, I won't be running a 5-flyrant list in tournament play. To me, it's like playing on easy mode. I'd prefer to have my wins be a little more challenging. Also, I want my opponents to have fun and be involved in the game as well. With my Pentyrant list, I don't think most people would have fun against my list. As a matter of fact, they'll probably hate playing against it. That is not the type of lists that I like to run. For practice or on request, I've got no problems. But in tournament play where you opponent doesn't really have a choice, I'd prefer not to. That's the same reason why I don't run my mechdar or the seer council as well, at least not in competitive play.
Now my Necrons is just as strong, but people don't seem to have as big a problem with it as they do with some of the other armies I mentioned above. As tough as they are, at least people are able to kill the annihilation barges and night scythes. But with flyrant-spam, a lot of people just cannot deal with that (at least not presently).
So no, currently, I don't plan to run my Pentyrant list in tournament play. I'm not the type who wants to win so badly that I'd run the hardest army I can. Rather, I want to win, but I hope that both my opponent and I can have fun in the process.
That's the best way to approach any table top tournament IMHO
I am actually eager to see how Necrons evolve in a month, I wonder if the LVO will allow the newer codex, it should be tight.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/15 05:55:43
So I was looking at the new Blood Angel detachment of 2-16 elites and had a thought...
"Is allowing Unbound such a bad thing?"
When 7th first hit, my first knee jerk reaction (along with many other folks) was that Unbound lists have no place in 40K aside from narrative casual games. But, with the rate of releases we've seen along with the myriad of dataslates and new detachments, 40K lists are largely able to do whatever they want and remain "Bound". An Unbound list has no command benefits, or special rules tied to it like these detachments and formations do.
At this point, I think I'm ready to change my stance on unbound armies. I doubt that I'm among the majority of 40K players on this, but honestly looking at what we've seen GW is pushing us in that direction regardless.
I mean, look at Jy2's completely LVO legal list that contains 5 Flyrants! Unbound is basically already here and legal, for some armies.
I say either take off all restrictions on list building, just make sure points costs and FOCs are lined up, or make it so only 1 CAD and 1 Ally FOC are allowed per player. This middle of the road style of list building still heavily favors some armies over others at the list building stage.
Been out of the game for awhile, trying to find time to get back into it.
2014/12/15 14:58:26
Subject: 1850 Competitive - Jy2's Pentyrant Tyranids vs Spam Adam's Skyfire Tau (Completed)
tetrisphreak wrote: So I was looking at the new Blood Angel detachment of 2-16 elites and had a thought...
"Is allowing Unbound such a bad thing?"
When 7th first hit, my first knee jerk reaction (along with many other folks) was that Unbound lists have no place in 40K aside from narrative casual games. But, with the rate of releases we've seen along with the myriad of dataslates and new detachments, 40K lists are largely able to do whatever they want and remain "Bound". An Unbound list has no command benefits, or special rules tied to it like these detachments and formations do.
At this point, I think I'm ready to change my stance on unbound armies. I doubt that I'm among the majority of 40K players on this, but honestly looking at what we've seen GW is pushing us in that direction regardless.
I mean, look at Jy2's completely LVO legal list that contains 5 Flyrants! Unbound is basically already here and legal, for some armies.
I say either take off all restrictions on list building, just make sure points costs and FOCs are lined up, or make it so only 1 CAD and 1 Ally FOC are allowed per player. This middle of the road style of list building still heavily favors some armies over others at the list building stage.
I have been saying this for a while now but for some reason people would rather see partial fixes. It's obviously no fault of TO's btw who try their best to make everyone happy. I think you either go all in an seriously comp 40k back to the basics or you let everyone have their options. This middle road just paints the illusion that things are fair while just shifting the bar to the left or right.
Every time I suggest allowing unbound, it takes all of 1-2 posts before someone suggests players will take 18 A-barges or 17 bike seers for sommoning etc etc. There is a lack of faith in fellow players in the community that I have not seen so bad before. I mean look, Jim is stating that he won't play his list here because it's not fun and he is a no holds bout competitive character type. I think a little more trust in the guy across the table is warranted here. If someone wants to win bad enough it's not like they can't alter dice or something anyway
Fire warriors then take out my lictor despite 3+ Stealth cover.
Why didn't you go to ground for a 2+ cover? Flyrants in synapse range perhaps?
I'm a gambling man. I'd take my chances with 3+ so that I can assault next turn.
When you do the math:
12 shots (fire warriors), 6 hits, 4 wounds, only 1W should have gone through. My lictor should have survived on average. I just rolled poorly.
tetrisphreak wrote: So I was looking at the new Blood Angel detachment of 2-16 elites and had a thought...
"Is allowing Unbound such a bad thing?"
When 7th first hit, my first knee jerk reaction (along with many other folks) was that Unbound lists have no place in 40K aside from narrative casual games. But, with the rate of releases we've seen along with the myriad of dataslates and new detachments, 40K lists are largely able to do whatever they want and remain "Bound". An Unbound list has no command benefits, or special rules tied to it like these detachments and formations do.
At this point, I think I'm ready to change my stance on unbound armies. I doubt that I'm among the majority of 40K players on this, but honestly looking at what we've seen GW is pushing us in that direction regardless.
I mean, look at Jy2's completely LVO legal list that contains 5 Flyrants! Unbound is basically already here and legal, for some armies.
I say either take off all restrictions on list building, just make sure points costs and FOCs are lined up, or make it so only 1 CAD and 1 Ally FOC are allowed per player. This middle of the road style of list building still heavily favors some armies over others at the list building stage.
Yes, Unbound is still a bad thing. This is the beginning of a trend, but it is still just the very beginning. No need to open the floodgates just yet. To use one of my colorful analogies, just because some people are already smoking marijuana legally (medicinal marijuana), does that mean we should make marijuana legal for all just because some people are doing it already? You want to curb a problem, just go straight to the source of the problem. I think making a very general, wide-sweeping change is not a good solution as it will hurt certain armies that already have it rough. If the problem is that Pentyrant is just too powerful for the game (like re-rollable 2+ or now, Invisibility in the BAO format), then just limit Tyranid builds to 4 flyrants total, no matter what type of detachment combos a player uses. Very simple change and it affects no one but the player who tries to abuse this combo.
To be honest i hate your army list. Too much fliers kill games interest for me :(
You're welcome.
And no problem. I'm sure a lot of people will hate it as well. This report is more of a cautionary tale than anything. If you run this type of list, you will win games but you do so at the expense of your opponent's enjoyment.
I have been saying this for a while now but for some reason people would rather see partial fixes. It's obviously no fault of TO's btw who try their best to make everyone happy. I think you either go all in an seriously comp 40k back to the basics or you let everyone have their options. This middle road just paints the illusion that things are fair while just shifting the bar to the left or right.
Every time I suggest allowing unbound, it takes all of 1-2 posts before someone suggests players will take 18 A-barges or 17 bike seers for sommoning etc etc. There is a lack of faith in fellow players in the community that I have not seen so bad before. I mean look, Jim is stating that he won't play his list here because it's not fun and he is a no holds bout competitive character type. I think a little more trust in the guy across the table is warranted here. If someone wants to win bad enough it's not like they can't alter dice or something anyway
Comp will become more and more prevalent as more and more of these army builds come up. Tournaments have to do it in order to remain in business. Just look at Adepticon's attendance ever since they changed their army requirements. They used to sell out in about a 1-2 hours with their Championships (about 240 slots). Now, it's been months and they still haven't sold out. You give the majority of the player base too much freedom in their army builds and there will be a backlash like what happened at Adepticon. People just aren't ready for it. Seriously, comp is not just a good thing, but it is a necessary thing at this time to ensure the success of your tournament IMO. (Well, maybe not "remain in business", but you get what I'm saying.)
I have been saying this for a while now but for some reason people would rather see partial fixes. It's obviously no fault of TO's btw who try their best to make everyone happy. I think you either go all in an seriously comp 40k back to the basics or you let everyone have their options. This middle road just paints the illusion that things are fair while just shifting the bar to the left or right.
Every time I suggest allowing unbound, it takes all of 1-2 posts before someone suggests players will take 18 A-barges or 17 bike seers for sommoning etc etc. There is a lack of faith in fellow players in the community that I have not seen so bad before. I mean look, Jim is stating that he won't play his list here because it's not fun and he is a no holds bout competitive character type. I think a little more trust in the guy across the table is warranted here. If someone wants to win bad enough it's not like they can't alter dice or something anyway
Comp will become more and more prevalent as more and more of these army builds come up. Tournaments have to do it in order to remain in business. Just look at Adepticon's attendance ever since they changed their army requirements. They used to sell out in about a 1-2 hours with their Championships (about 240 slots). Now, it's been months and they still haven't sold out. You give the majority of the player base too much freedom in their army builds and there will be a backlash like what happened at Adepticon. People just aren't ready for it. Seriously, comp is not just a good thing, but it is a necessary thing at this time to ensure the success of your tournament IMO. (Well, maybe not "remain in business", but you get what I'm saying.)
'Da Boyz, a tourney running a more aggressive comp restriction (non-troops are 0-2, dedicated transports 0-3) sold out quickly and had their best year ever. There is market saturation of open FOC, not enough offering of high level competitive play with meaningful army building restrictions.
2014/12/16 17:54:35
Subject: 1850 Competitive - Jy2's Pentyrant Tyranids vs Spam Adam's Skyfire Tau (Completed)
Dozer Blades wrote: If Adam had brought two Skyrays and Burstsides instead of iontides I think the outcome would have been different.
That's not guaranteed. As good as skyrays are, they are only limited to 6 shots (12 for 2). If my flyrants can survive that (through a combination of FNP and cover for at least 1 of those skyrays), then the game actually becomes easier. Skyrays hit hard but they only do it once. Broadsides consistently hit hard each and every turn as long as they live (and are in range).
Comp will become more and more prevalent as more and more of these army builds come up. Tournaments have to do it in order to remain in business. Just look at Adepticon's attendance ever since they changed their army requirements. They used to sell out in about a 1-2 hours with their Championships (about 240 slots). Now, it's been months and they still haven't sold out. You give the majority of the player base too much freedom in their army builds and there will be a backlash like what happened at Adepticon. People just aren't ready for it. Seriously, comp is not just a good thing, but it is a necessary thing at this time to ensure the success of your tournament IMO. (Well, maybe not "remain in business", but you get what I'm saying.)
'Da Boyz, a tourney running a more aggressive comp restriction (non-troops are 0-2, dedicated transports 0-3) sold out quickly and had their best year ever. There is market saturation of open FOC, not enough offering of high level competitive play with meaningful army building restrictions.
Right. Like I said, comp will become more and more prevalent. Tournaments need to comp to a degree in order to be successful at this time. The player base is still not ready for Unbound tournaments and/or an unrestricted environment.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/12/16 18:03:38
Even if you hit with both from a skyray, you still need to expend one in order to fire your seeker missiles. Thus, you won't be using it to ignore cover. Rather, for that, you need to rely on the Buffmander-lite + marker drones.
Basically, networked markerlights is used so that you can fire your missiles. Any excess will probably be lost as the flyrant won't survive 2 skyrays firing at it anyways. I suppose you can use the extra markerlight for +1 BS to a riptide. However, with or without the extra markerlight, any skyfiring riptide that shoots at a flyrant after it has already been shot at my a skyray will probably kill it anyways.
jy2 wrote: Even if you hit with both from a skyray, you still need to expend one in order to fire your seeker missiles. Thus, you won't be using it to ignore cover. Rather, for that, you need to rely on the Buffmander-lite + marker drones.
Basically, networked markerlights is used so that you can fire your missiles. Any excess will probably be lost as the flyrant won't survive 2 skyrays firing at it anyways. I suppose you can use the extra markerlight for +1 BS to a riptide. However, with or without the extra markerlight, any skyfiring riptide that shoots at a flyrant after it has already been shot at my a skyray will probably kill it anyways.
Any model can fire it's own seeker missiles in the 6e Tau codex. A skyray simply has to remain stationary to avoid the snapfire drawback. It can then use it's networked markerlights to ignore cover and fire 6 BS4 seeker missiles at a flyrant. Boom.
tetrisphreak wrote: So I was looking at the new Blood Angel detachment of 2-16 elites and had a thought...
"Is allowing Unbound such a bad thing?"
When 7th first hit, my first knee jerk reaction (along with many other folks) was that Unbound lists have no place in 40K aside from narrative casual games. But, with the rate of releases we've seen along with the myriad of dataslates and new detachments, 40K lists are largely able to do whatever they want and remain "Bound". An Unbound list has no command benefits, or special rules tied to it like these detachments and formations do.
At this point, I think I'm ready to change my stance on unbound armies. I doubt that I'm among the majority of 40K players on this, but honestly looking at what we've seen GW is pushing us in that direction regardless.
I mean, look at Jy2's completely LVO legal list that contains 5 Flyrants! Unbound is basically already here and legal, for some armies.
I say either take off all restrictions on list building, just make sure points costs and FOCs are lined up, or make it so only 1 CAD and 1 Ally FOC are allowed per player. This middle of the road style of list building still heavily favors some armies over others at the list building stage.
Yes, Unbound is still a bad thing. This is the beginning of a trend, but it is still just the very beginning. No need to open the floodgates just yet. To use one of my colorful analogies, just because some people are already smoking marijuana legally (medicinal marijuana), does that mean we should make marijuana legal for all just because some people are doing it already? You want to curb a problem, just go straight to the source of the problem. I think making a very general, wide-sweeping change is not a good solution as it will hurt certain armies that already have it rough. If the problem is that Pentyrant is just too powerful for the game (like re-rollable 2+ or now, Invisibility in the BAO format), then just limit Tyranid builds to 4 flyrants total, no matter what type of detachment combos a player uses. Very simple change and it affects no one but the player who tries to abuse this combo.
I respect you as a player and tactician, Jy2, and I really enjoy your battle reports and commentary. However, and i feel this way regarding much of the tournament scene, I feel like competitive 40K has this great big fear of anything that's new or unknown. Unbound sounds terrible - but at the root of the list you're giving up wonderful command benefits like objective secured to play that way.
The argument that comp needs to be in place to maintain a sense of balance - I challenge you or anyone else to come up with an 1850 Unbound list that is utterly invincible, and I bet myself or others can make an 1850 list that is LVO legal and either trumps it, or equals it in sheer winning power. There are just so many power lists out right now that leaving the doors open will actually give players with sub-par armies the chance to field something that stands up to Cent-Star, Pentyrant, etc etc.
When it comes to tournaments there will always be power gamers who care not for the fun of the other player -- they care only to win. You or I would not run a pentyrant list at a GT because it isn't fun -- but for each person who wouldn't, another person would see the sheer firepower and definitely would run a list like this.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/16 18:46:54
Been out of the game for awhile, trying to find time to get back into it.
2014/12/16 22:21:44
Subject: Re:1850 Competitive - Jy2's Pentyrant Tyranids vs Spam Adam's Skyfire Tau (Completed)
Any model can fire it's own seeker missiles in the 6e Tau codex. A skyray simply has to remain stationary to avoid the snapfire drawback. It can then use it's networked markerlights to ignore cover and fire 6 BS4 seeker missiles at a flyrant. Boom.
I respect you as a player and tactician, Jy2, and I really enjoy your battle reports and commentary. However, and i feel this way regarding much of the tournament scene, I feel like competitive 40K has this great big fear of anything that's new or unknown. Unbound sounds terrible - but at the root of the list you're giving up wonderful command benefits like objective secured to play that way.
The argument that comp needs to be in place to maintain a sense of balance - I challenge you or anyone else to come up with an 1850 Unbound list that is utterly invincible, and I bet myself or others can make an 1850 list that is LVO legal and either trumps it, or equals it in sheer winning power. There are just so many power lists out right now that leaving the doors open will actually give players with sub-par armies the chance to field something that stands up to Cent-Star, Pentyrant, etc etc.
When it comes to tournaments there will always be power gamers who care not for the fun of the other player -- they care only to win. You or I would not run a pentyrant list at a GT because it isn't fun -- but for each person who wouldn't, another person would see the sheer firepower and definitely would run a list like this.
Thanks.
While the game is moving more and more towards a direction that is similar to Unbound, the number of players who would accept Unbound in competitive play is still a relative minority. There is a place for Unbound tournaments. Personally for me, I don't have an issue with it (hey, I play Apoc and Escalation!). However, it is still premature for most of the 40K gamers. My opinion is that it is a mistake to make it commonplace so soon. The more hardcore and competitive players will adapt/adjust, but you will turn away many of the casual gamers or the more structured players. If you follow the current trends, players are more embracing structure and comp (i.e. Da Boyz, BAO formats) and rejecting nearly unrestricted freedom (Adepticon championships, Narrative sub-events in the major GT's). That's just how it is at this time. Your thinking may just be a little ahead of the times and we may eventually get there, but the timing for it just isn't now.
Wilson wrote: I would be excited to play against and with the 5 flyrant list so I wouldn't say it's fair to suggest that all players wouldn't enjoy it.
but each to their own bro!
@Dozerblades, I totally agree with you. 2 Burtides, 2 skyrays and ML support woulda/shoulda nail 2-3 (? guesstimate) flyrants in a turn.
That's perfectly fine. Personally, I enjoy a good challenge as well. There will be a minority of people who don't care or actually even enjoy the challenge of playing against a Pentyrant list (and I did mention this in my intro), but these are only a minority. Most of the people just won't enjoy playing against it. My concern is for the overall health of the hobby and I think armies such as this can potentially do more harm to the community than to help it. Therefore, I personally won't be running it in competitive play, though I have no problems playing against it (I love a good challenge!).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/16 23:40:41
jy2 wrote: We really don't know what they intended, but until they FAQ it othewise, I am going to assume that it was meant to be a troop choice.
As said, given that all other living bomb units are in fast attack, it seems probable they were meant to go there too. The theory doesn't change their current placement and role, but it does explain the balance problem they currently cause (namely it was never meant to be a 15 point Troop, but a stronger/more concentrated spore mine cluster).
It is hard to say. Presumably all of the data slates are just copied from the master document that was used for the Leviathan book, so if there was a mix up there it would naturally extend to the rest.
Regardless, another excellent report Jy2! Any chance of testing the list out against Hoard-Orks with their Tractor Cannons? I imagine such a list might have a bit better odds since it has an easy means of grounding the Tyrants for the hoard to tie-up in melee (not to mention said hoard might limit your mobility a bit with their massive footprint and the rules for flyer movement).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/17 18:37:00
.....Bay Area Open GT 2013 - Best Tyranids 
.....LVO GT 2014 Team Tournament - Best Generals
That's the best way to approach any table top tournament 
