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.
2015/01/24 18:48:24
Subject: 2015 TSHFT Open GT - The Last Hurrah for the Oldcrons (Game #1 completed p.2)
But seriously though, I've been playing my seer council consistently since 4th edition so I'm not going to disagree that it's in my list but I've run into problems with the lynx that it can't deal with and a good old seer council I've been able to counter the problem at least.
To be honest a ranged D weapon is very effective against vehicles but against infantry if their sticking to cover it's tough to do deal massive damage. Unless the player is rolling all "6's" then I would check his dice.
I've found a really effective way for armies or deathstars to counter my D, Thunderblitz, and Stomps. Is to just roll on the escalation warlord trait table. A "4" makes the unit immune to getting "6" out by -1 to those tables. The warlord and his entire unit benefit from that one in particular. But of course their are plenty more good traits on that table that are effective against a ranged D platform if that's what your facing.
2015/01/24 22:34:32
Subject: Re:2015 TSHFT Open GT - The Last Hurrah for the Oldcrons (Game #1 completed p.2)
necron99 wrote: So what are the rules these days for dealing with a parking lot on top of a landing pad? I've had games where the other guy said if you couldn't fit your model on the pad you couldn't assault anything.
Wouldn't the rules for multi level structures come into play? Height wise you can fight 6 inches up if you are not in btb.
You can only fight 6" up while engaged. To engage, base contact is required. CC and multi level terrain is broken in 7th without house ruling.
Right. So many parts of the rules need to be FAQ'd or at least house-ruled. Seems like GW, instead of making the rules tighter, have decided to make the rules looser instead.
I think what necron99 was talking about was filling up the skyshield pad with enough units so that you couldn't fit enemy models up there without being within 1" of an enemy model.
necron99 wrote: So what are the rules these days for dealing with a parking lot on top of a landing pad? I've had games where the other guy said if you couldn't fit your model on the pad you couldn't assault anything.
The way I play it is this. You cannot place a model if there is not enough space to legally do so in a multi-level ruins as far as the Movement phase is concerned. However, in the Assault phase, you can legally be within less than 1" of an enemy model. Thus, if you can see the model and roll the appropriate distance to make the charge, then I assume that you made it into base-to-base with the model even if your model can't actually fit on the building. You can call it the Wobbly-model-syndrome that you don't want to actually put your model up there because it will fall.
Again, the rules are not 100% clear on this and it requires a little common sense/house-ruling to reach such a decision. Just double-check with your opponent before the game.
Grant Theft Auto wrote: Hahaha, well Jy2 when your rolling just happens to be full of "6's" for your first game there's nothing you can do.
Whatever as soon as all you take out the D then LOW type units like the barb and deathstars will start dominating the scene again
You guys are so quick to get rid of the lynx and the few experimental LOW D weapons that you don't realize that it has actually caused deathstars to slowly disappear
What's up Grant!
First of all, my stance is this. There are a lot of broken units/mechanics in the game. 5 flyrants is broken. My AV13 army is broken. Mindshackles is broken. A deathstar unit that can lock itself in Assault to protect itself from shooting but leave whenever it wants (i.e. Hit-&-Run deathstars, Gating deathstars) is broken. The ability to ignore cover army-wide (or for a deathstar unit) is broken. The Lynx is broken because Destroyer weaponry is broken (the D SHOULDN'T have a place in regular 40K). However, that doesn't mean that I advocate the banning/nerfing of any of these units/mechanics/combos.
Secondly, fixing a problem with another problem doesn't necessarily make it better (2 wrongs do not make a right). This was the issue first introduced in 6th with the integration of D weaponry. Yeah, they will discourage deathstar builds. However, that doesn't really solve anything. All it does is to introduce another set up problems to the game. At least in 7th, they've toned down the D a lot. It was just ridiculous in 6th.
using the Tournament format as it is now, I think a better way to go (or the direction to go in) is to keep the detachment/formation as it is now but place a % restriction on any one type of organizational slot based on your forces points. It will trim out the deathstars a bit, put restrictions on some of the crazy LOW (note I don't consider the Lynx crazy good, I consider it good, but hardly broken), and bring the game to a closer semblance of balance (well to a degree at least, some armies will still fair better there is no getting around that).
so you could still take your CAD +ally or formation or whatever but in total your values couldn't exceed the above.
EDIT: looking back at the 2nd codices they used:
up to 50% characters (HQ)
25%+ squads (troops)
up to 50% support (ELITE/FAST/HEAVY/LOW)
I don't think this is a solution. While it encourages a somewhat more balanced build, it also renders a lot of builds obsolete (like deathstars or the current Tyranids and many hammer-&-anvil-type lists). Moreover, it forces some armies to use their rather lackluster troop selections. There is a reason why so many armies run min-troop builds. That is because their troops are the weakest and least killy units in the dex.
I don't think there is any real solution, as each suggested solution comes with its own share of problems. Better to leave things the way they are, with a few modifications to certain builds/units as necessary, because that will impact a lot less people than a more general change like the army% change.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2015/01/25 01:54:40
Wow failing that many 2+ re rolling saves is unbelievable bad luck. I don't know if assaulting the chapter master was a good idea though. I'd wager him beating a barge lord most of the time.
I don't think a % based system is a good idea. Firstly it can be pretty confusing, and secondly forcing armies to take more points in troops punishes everybody but eldar. It's not like eldar need a buff.
I'm not sure why tournaments are limiting it to 2 detachments though. Is there some broken build that this stops. I think it really discourages small formations like the tyranid spore mine formation. If you take the spore mine formation then you are limited to two hive tyrants.
2015/01/25 02:52:07
Subject: 2015 TSHFT Open GT - The Last Hurrah for the Oldcrons (Game #2 completed p.3)
coblen wrote: Wow failing that many 2+ re rolling saves is unbelievable bad luck. I don't know if assaulting the chapter master was a good idea though. I'd wager him beating a barge lord most of the time.
I don't think a % based system is a good idea. Firstly it can be pretty confusing, and secondly forcing armies to take more points in troops punishes everybody but eldar. It's not like eldar need a buff.
I'm not sure why tournaments are limiting it to 2 detachments though. Is there some broken build that this stops. I think it really discourages small formations like the tyranid spore mine formation. If you take the spore mine formation then you are limited to two hive tyrants.
I think that's the point. 2 detachments forces you to make deliberate trade offs. Take my Sister-AM list for example. After buying all my normal stuff for the Sisters CAD and AM allied detachments, I normally end up right around 1850 points. In 2 detachment limits, I the spend the last ~50 points on melta bombs, combi-meltas and other "non-essential" war gear. If the cap wasn't there, I would invest in a 33 point servo skull inquisitor every time to stop scout and infiltrate shenanigans. I could also easily thin out my Battle Sister squads and sneak an assassin in as well. Its not about stopping specifically broken builds, but forcing choices. Do you really want a knight to support your army or do you need an allied detachment more?
2015/01/25 16:53:53
Subject: 2015 TSHFT Open GT - The Last Hurrah for the Oldcrons (Game #2 completed p.3)
coblen wrote: Wow failing that many 2+ re rolling saves is unbelievable bad luck. I don't know if assaulting the chapter master was a good idea though. I'd wager him beating a barge lord most of the time.
I don't think a % based system is a good idea. Firstly it can be pretty confusing, and secondly forcing armies to take more points in troops punishes everybody but eldar. It's not like eldar need a buff.
I'm not sure why tournaments are limiting it to 2 detachments though. Is there some broken build that this stops. I think it really discourages small formations like the tyranid spore mine formation. If you take the spore mine formation then you are limited to two hive tyrants.
I was actually planning on charging his HQ's unit with 2 bargelords. But despite the re-roll on the charge, one of them just failed. It would have been a good trade-off for potentially 2-VP's as well as his Warlord had I made the charge. The difference was that his Warlord was making his 3++ (or maybe it was 4++ ) in cc whereas my Overlord wasn't making his 3++ (btw, his Chapter Master could not hurt my barge). And then my other bargelord failed 3 out of 6 2+ saves. It was just bad luck, but statistically, I should have held up his unit with 1 bargelord and most likely beat them with 2.
With regards to limiting detachment, that restricts the power combos out there. If there were no limits, there can be some truly nasty combos. Take my Pentyrant list and throw in that Spore Mine formation and you will have a truly scary list. Oh, and throw in an Inquisitor with servo-skulls in there while you are at it.
Dozer Blades wrote: Burn those dice Jim. I'd never roll them agsin. Not much else you can do. I hope you bounce back.
They've been both good and bad to me. At least they rolled high on occasions (failed morale), just not when I needed them to (saves, ever-living rolls).
coblen wrote: Wow failing that many 2+ re rolling saves is unbelievable bad luck. I don't know if assaulting the chapter master was a good idea though. I'd wager him beating a barge lord most of the time.
I don't think a % based system is a good idea. Firstly it can be pretty confusing, and secondly forcing armies to take more points in troops punishes everybody but eldar. It's not like eldar need a buff.
I'm not sure why tournaments are limiting it to 2 detachments though. Is there some broken build that this stops. I think it really discourages small formations like the tyranid spore mine formation. If you take the spore mine formation then you are limited to two hive tyrants.
I think that's the point. 2 detachments forces you to make deliberate trade offs. Take my Sister-AM list for example. After buying all my normal stuff for the Sisters CAD and AM allied detachments, I normally end up right around 1850 points. In 2 detachment limits, I the spend the last ~50 points on melta bombs, combi-meltas and other "non-essential" war gear. If the cap wasn't there, I would invest in a 33 point servo skull inquisitor every time to stop scout and infiltrate shenanigans. I could also easily thin out my Battle Sister squads and sneak an assassin in as well. Its not about stopping specifically broken builds, but forcing choices. Do you really want a knight to support your army or do you need an allied detachment more?
Exactly. You can get some truly stupid sh*t without limits to what you can do if you don't set limits to the game.
For my round #3 match, I got paired up against my friend and fellow teammate, Frankie aka The World's Greatest 40K Player. There was actually a pairing mixup going into this match. I was 0-2 and Frankie 1-1. However, I had no problems playing against his army (at this point, I didn't really care who I would be playing against). Also, I guess Frankie wanted to see if he could finally take one over me, especially in my "current" condition.
Just a little history between Frankie and I. I am basically Frankie's cooler. He hasn't won a game against my army since the very first time we played. It isn't because of skill. We are both relatively skilled. It's mainly the dice. For some inexplicable reason, I almost always roll better than him. Dice-wise, he just couldn't get a break from me, even when I brought my more "underdog" armies against his. However, so far in this tournament, my dice has been way off. Perhaps this would be the game where he (Frankie) can break the curse of the Jimbino? In any case, Frankie was willing to try his luck against the scrub with the 0-2 record.
By the ways, Frankie's newly redone Dark Eldar where a thing of beauty. His army won the Best Appearance award for the tournament (Best Appearance was voted on by the players) and deservedly so.
1. Hold Objective 1.
2. Hold Objective 2.
3. Destroy an enemy unit.
4. Destroy an enemy unit.
5. Have a scoring unit at least partially within the opponent's deployment zone.
6. Have at least 3 of your and no enemy scoring units partially within your deployment zone.
Tertiary Objectives: First Blood, Linebreaker, Slay the Warlord, 1-pt each
Traditionally, this should be a very bad matchup for Dark Eldar in general. It's almost like DE venom-spam vs Tyranids back in 5th Edition. My teslas will just wreck his skimmers and going 2nd, my flyers should get the alpha-strike against his flyers. The only thing that I may struggle against slightly is his formation of 5 Talos. That's 15 T7 wounds with 3+ and FNP. Sure I can probably lock them in combat if I put multiple bargelords against them, but if he can get them onto the Relic, it'll be hard to wrestle the Relic away from him.
Still, Frankie will need a bit of luck to pull a victory off of my Necrons. If my dice continues the way it has been going, then Frankie's got a chance to pull off the upset. Otherwise, his chances of winning is almost as great as a blind man watching porno (magazines) in the dark.
4. Destroy an enemy unit.
6. Have at least 3 of your and no enemy scoring units partially within your deployment zone.
Necrons:
3. Destroy an enemy unit.
5. Have a scoring unit at least partially within the opponent's deployment zone.
The Talos advance. Ravagers stay back. Sorry for the lack of pictures, but not much happens in this turn.
Ravagers fire but between jink saves and night-fight, they do nothing to my annihilation barges.
Necrons 1
Spoiler:
Necron movement. I move the AB that jinked. The other 3 AB's don't move.
Shooting by all 4 barges only manage to kill 1 talos and take off 1 or 2W from another talos.
I then move my barge-lords flat out, keeping 2 within counter-assault range for my AB's (but far enough from the Talos to make it a very difficult charge for them). I flat-out my Warlord as deep as I can into enemy territory, thus contesting one of his Maelstrom objectives (3 units in his deployment zone without an enemy unit contesting).
Frankie gets 0 Maelstrom objectives. I don't kill a unit, but I do manage to get 1 unit, my Warlord, into Frankie's deployment zone for 1 Maelstrom VP.
Maelstrom VP's - Dark Eldar: 0, Necrons: 1
Dark Eldar 2
Spoiler:
Maelstrom Objectives:
Dark Eldar:
3. Destroy an enemy unit.
5. Have a scoring unit at least partially within the opponent's deployment zone.
Necrons:
2. Hold Objective 2.
4. Destroy an enemy unit.
2 venoms come in (but not his Warlord)....
....as do 2 of his razorwings. Ravagers move away from my bargelord.
Talos advance, with the wounded guy shifting to the rear of the unit.
Splinter-cannon fire from the Talos kill 1 warrior....which is all they could see.
Between the 2 razorwings and 3 ravagers, DE shooting actually takes down 1 bargelord and put 1W on my Warlord.
Fortunately for me (and unfortunately for my opponent), the bargelord gets back up.
Necrons 2
Spoiler:
Only 1 flyer comes in (with cryptek).
Both of my bargelords advance. Warlord, however, would stay on Objective #2.
I surprise Frankie by moving flat-out with my night scythe instead of shooting at his talos. 1 of the bargelord opts to move flat-out.
Otherwise, my shooting is horrendous this turn. I might have taken off 1 or 2W from the talos (with 4 AB's!) but that is all.
Still, I am setting up myself for some major carnage next turn. I also grab 1 Maelstrom VP (bargelord on Objective #2) to 0 for Frankie.
Maelstrom VP's - Dark Eldar: 0, Necrons: 2
Dark Eldar 3
Spoiler:
Maelstrom Objectives:
Dark Eldar:
1. Hold Objective 1.
5. Have a scoring unit at least partially within the opponent's deployment zone.
Necrons:
2. Hold Objective 2.
3. Destroy an enemy unit.
The Dark Eldar back away. The other 2 venoms come in from reserves.
Razorwings fly off the table.
Talos go after my Warlord.
Unfortunately for my opponent, they would fail their charge (about 6").
Darklances take down my bargelord again....
....well, you know the drill. You just can't keep a good bargelord down.
Necrons 3
Spoiler:
1 flyer comes in. The other flyer on the table flies off.
I get ready for assault. BTW, the Talos have picked up the Relic....not that they are going to be able to hold onto it.
Bargelord sweeps and blows up a ravager. First Blood to Necrons.
I then shoot down 3 out of the 4 talos.
The 2 lords then charge the last talos.
I also charge another ravager.
Neither the ravager nor the talos survives.
I get both of my Maelstrom objectives. Frankie gets neither of his.
Maelstrom VP's - Dark Eldar: 0, Necrons: 4
Dark Eldar 4
Spoiler:
Maelstrom Objectives:
Dark Eldar:
4. Destroy an enemy unit.
5. Have a scoring unit at least partially within the opponent's deployment zone.
Necrons:
4. Destroy an enemy unit.
5. Have a scoring unit at least partially within the opponent's deployment zone.
Razorwings come back in. Venoms try to get the heck out of dodge.
Shooting takes down my bargelord.
His venoms then move flat-out to surround my bargelord so that he can't get back up....
....and he doesn't.
That is all he is able to kill with his shooting.
Necrons 4
Spoiler:
2 night scythes come in (one from Ongoing Reserves). I drop off the unit of ObSec troops behind the BLOS terrain.
The other night scythe and both bargelords go after the venoms.
Night scythe shoots down the Warlord's venom transport.
My bargelords then make the charge.....
....reducing both venoms into wrecks.
Frankie gets 1-VP (finally) for killing a unit (bargelord). I get both of my VP's (killing a venom and bargelord in Frankie's deployment zone).
Maelstrom VP's - Dark Eldar: 1, Necrons: 6
Dark Eldar 5
Spoiler:
Maelstrom Objectives:
At this point, Frankie concedes the Secondary Maelstrom mission so we don't even bother rolling for it.
His flyers go after my flyers....
....but instead of going after my flyers, Frankie actually goes after my ObSec troops. He takes them out.
Well, not entirely. The haywire cryptek gets back up.
Necrons 5
Spoiler:
I drop off another unit of troops onto the objective.
Bargelords go after the units who are moving towards the Relic.
I wipe out the venom along with the unit inside.
With that, we call it at the end of the turn. I win the Secondary and I've pretty much got a lock on the Primary as well. I also get all 3 bonus points for a 10-0 Necron victory.
Total Domination by the Metallic Dead - Necrons!!!
I knew exactly how this match would turn out (barring any extreme dice). I've actually played against Frankie's 7E DE before with my AV13 Necrons and the results were quite similar. Secretly, I was actually rooting for Frankie to finally beat me. Alas, the moment I went up against him, my dice just changed. Oh well, that's a dice game for you.
Coming up next....Orks! It's krumpin time!
This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2015/01/29 09:08:13
coblen wrote: Wow failing that many 2+ re rolling saves is unbelievable bad luck. I don't know if assaulting the chapter master was a good idea though. I'd wager him beating a barge lord most of the time.
I don't think a % based system is a good idea. Firstly it can be pretty confusing, and secondly forcing armies to take more points in troops punishes everybody but eldar. It's not like eldar need a buff.
I'm not sure why tournaments are limiting it to 2 detachments though. Is there some broken build that this stops. I think it really discourages small formations like the tyranid spore mine formation. If you take the spore mine formation then you are limited to two hive tyrants.
To illustrate a little more about why a detachment cap is necessary, here is a list I build quickly without a cap. Its unbalanced, but will definitely make the game not very fun for the average tournament attendee. The total so far is 1759, so at the 1850 standard you've got about 90 points to add in some extra buffers.
Leviathan Detachment #1
3x Flyrant
3x Muclid
CAD #1
2x Flyrant
2x Muclid
Adeptus Astartes Storm Wing
1x Stormraven
2x Storm Talon
Inquisition Detachment
Ordo Xenos Inquisitor, 3x Servo Skulls
2015/01/25 22:27:42
Subject: 2015 TSHFT Open GT - The Last Hurrah for the Oldcrons (Game #2 completed p.3)
coblen wrote: Wow failing that many 2+ re rolling saves is unbelievable bad luck. I don't know if assaulting the chapter master was a good idea though. I'd wager him beating a barge lord most of the time.
I don't think a % based system is a good idea. Firstly it can be pretty confusing, and secondly forcing armies to take more points in troops punishes everybody but eldar. It's not like eldar need a buff.
I'm not sure why tournaments are limiting it to 2 detachments though. Is there some broken build that this stops. I think it really discourages small formations like the tyranid spore mine formation. If you take the spore mine formation then you are limited to two hive tyrants.
I was actually planning on charging his HQ's unit with 2 bargelords. But despite the re-roll on the charge, one of them just failed. It would have been a good trade-off for potentially 2-VP's as well as his Warlord had I made the charge. The difference was that his Warlord was making his 3++ (or maybe it was 4++ ) in cc whereas my Overlord wasn't making his 3++ (btw, his Chapter Master could not hurt my barge). And then my other bargelord failed 3 out of 6 2+ saves. It was just bad luck, but statistically, I should have held up his unit with 1 bargelord and most likely beat them with 2.
With regards to limiting detachment, that restricts the power combos out there. If there were no limits, there can be some truly nasty combos. Take my Pentyrant list and throw in that Spore Mine formation and you will have a truly scary list. Oh, and throw in an Inquisitor with servo-skulls in there while you are at it.
Ah I thought he had a thunder hammer not a medusa axe(I'm assuming thats some kind of power axe). One 6 with the thunder hammer and suddenly that attack bikes can attack armor 11 with their grenades and it all starts coming down. It's not a super high chance, but I'd still wager him with a thunder hammer beating the bargelord most of the time.
I suppose every army would take inquisitors with servo skulls wouldn't they. That probably says something more about the inquisitor than anything. What would you take out to add spore mines to your penta tyrant list. The lictors or the mawlock? The mawlock is really neccessary for dealing with centurians, so I'm guessing lictors. I dont know if the spore mines are gonna do you that much better, and it deffinitly feels like a trade off.
I'm against going full on unbound, but none of the greater then 2 detatchment armies that I have seen proposed seem any more crazy then the tournament legal lists I see. I like it as a change becuase I dont think it helps eldar, but does help armies like orks, tyranid, and dark eldar. I'm no pro though so I may be wrong. I just wish I could see these power combo's go toe to toe with the current super lists to actually see how powerfull they really are.
2015/01/26 06:57:33
Subject: 2015 TSHFT Open GT - The Last Hurrah for the Oldcrons (Game #2 completed p.3)
To illustrate a little more about why a detachment cap is necessary, here is a list I build quickly without a cap. Its unbalanced, but will definitely make the game not very fun for the average tournament attendee. The total so far is 1759, so at the 1850 standard you've got about 90 points to add in some extra buffers.
Leviathan Detachment #1
3x Flyrant
3x Muclid
CAD #1
2x Flyrant
2x Muclid
Adeptus Astartes Storm Wing
1x Stormraven
2x Storm Talon
Inquisition Detachment
Ordo Xenos Inquisitor, 3x Servo Skulls
I can top that. See my list below.
coblen wrote: Ah I thought he had a thunder hammer not a medusa axe(I'm assuming thats some kind of power axe). One 6 with the thunder hammer and suddenly that attack bikes can attack armor 11 with their grenades and it all starts coming down. It's not a super high chance, but I'd still wager him with a thunder hammer beating the bargelord most of the time.
I suppose every army would take inquisitors with servo skulls wouldn't they. That probably says something more about the inquisitor than anything. What would you take out to add spore mines to your penta tyrant list. The lictors or the mawlock? The mawlock is really neccessary for dealing with centurians, so I'm guessing lictors. I dont know if the spore mines are gonna do you that much better, and it deffinitly feels like a trade off.
I'm against going full on unbound, but none of the greater then 2 detatchment armies that I have seen proposed seem any more crazy then the tournament legal lists I see. I like it as a change becuase I dont think it helps eldar, but does help armies like orks, tyranid, and dark eldar. I'm no pro though so I may be wrong. I just wish I could see these power combo's go toe to toe with the current super lists to actually see how powerfull they really are.
Actually, without a limit to detachments (and assuming 0-1 for each detachment), I wouldn't even call it Pentyrant list anymore. And honestly, I probably won't be running the running the Sporefield formation. Instead I would run something like this:
Wall of Martyrs Imperial Defence Emplacement w/1 extra Barricade
Tyranid Allies:
Dakka Flyrant - Egrubs
Mucolid
Eldar Allies:
Farseer - Jetbike, Mantle of the Laughing God, Spirit Stones of Anath'lan
3x Windrider Jetbikes
This abomination of a list may be weak in Maelstrom objectives, at least initially, but it will get stronger later in the game. Flyrants will control/limit the movement of the enemy. With 15 Warp Dice base, Mantleseer will zip around and reliably summon daemons wherever they are needed. It gets stronger and stronger in Maelstrom objectives over time, that is, if it even matters (or should I say, if the opponent doesn't get tabled by the flyrants).
Without limits, abomination lists like these would become reality. There are more - much, much more - but this is just 1 example off the top of my head about a list that I could realistically run in such a case.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/26 07:00:08
Well call me crazy but I think the penta tyrant list looked scarier then the sex tyrant list. You gave up the mawlocks ability to hurt invisible death stars for more flying dakka. Really narrowing the focus. Opening up new weaknesses to accentuate a strength you already had an abundance of.
The problem I have with limiting 2 detachments is that it severely discourages some of the smaller formations. On the flip side though it seems that having no limit makes a lot of small detachments feel mandatory. The inquisitor becomes mandatory in everything imperial, and would probably just be thrown into tons of xenos lists as well. Similar things would happen with other formations. While I'm not convinced about the effects on balance I do think there would be negative effects on diversity.
Also suddenly your gonna see armies like bullyboyz formation+ dark artisan formation+ firebase cadre formation+ inquisitor+ summoning farseer. In this case all the different codex's lose their identity.
2015/01/26 19:58:12
Subject: 2015 TSHFT Open GT - The Last Hurrah for the Oldcrons (Game #2 completed p.3)
Gah, I need to get my army painted! Embarrassing to play with only primed models, but I have just been swamped.
Thanks for posting the report, Jim! Congratz to AbusePuppy, he beat me solidly in our game and stopped me from taking that tournament! Very fun, had a blast.
Reecius wrote: Gah, I need to get my army painted! Embarrassing to play with only primed models, but I have just been swamped.
Thanks for posting the report, Jim! Congratz to AbusePuppy, he beat me solidly in our game and stopped me from taking that tournament! Very fun, had a blast.
If it's because you've been painting others, I'll be hopefully sending more that way next month.
Full Frontal Nerdity
2015/01/27 00:56:20
Subject: 2015 TSHFT Open GT - The Last Hurrah for the Oldcrons (Game #2 completed p.3)
coblen wrote: Wow failing that many 2+ re rolling saves is unbelievable bad luck. I don't know if assaulting the chapter master was a good idea though. I'd wager him beating a barge lord most of the time.
I don't think a % based system is a good idea. Firstly it can be pretty confusing, and secondly forcing armies to take more points in troops punishes everybody but eldar. It's not like eldar need a buff.
I'm not sure why tournaments are limiting it to 2 detachments though. Is there some broken build that this stops. I think it really discourages small formations like the tyranid spore mine formation. If you take the spore mine formation then you are limited to two hive tyrants.
To illustrate a little more about why a detachment cap is necessary, here is a list I build quickly without a cap. Its unbalanced, but will definitely make the game not very fun for the average tournament attendee. The total so far is 1759, so at the 1850 standard you've got about 90 points to add in some extra buffers.
Leviathan Detachment #1
3x Flyrant
3x Muclid
CAD #1
2x Flyrant
2x Muclid
Adeptus Astartes Storm Wing
1x Stormraven
2x Storm Talon
Inquisition Detachment
Ordo Xenos Inquisitor, 3x Servo Skulls
A detachment cap is not necessary. Keep unlimited detachments, but put a hard lock on factions instead. One faction per player. This takes the teeth out of the mythical cheese beast and makes this list invalid.
2015/01/27 01:25:53
Subject: 2015 TSHFT Open GT - The Last Hurrah for the Oldcrons (Game #2 completed p.3)
A detachment cap is not necessary. Keep unlimited detachments, but put a hard lock on factions instead. One faction per player. This takes the teeth out of the mythical cheese beast and makes this list invalid.
A faction cap doesn't help either. Some factions are too small to stand on their own (Knights, Inquistion, Legion of the Damned) and some have so many formations or options that unlimited detachments just make for crazy combinations. At 1750 and unlimited detachments, you could run the following:
CAD 1
Flyrant
Flyrant
Muclid
Muclid
CAD 2
Flyrant
Flyrant
Muclid
Muclid
Formation: Manufactorum Genestealers
Formation: Manufactorum Genestealers
This gives you 4 flyrants and 50 (yes, you read that right) genestealers who get Hit & Run for free and gain the ability to infiltrate within 6 inches of enemy troops so long as they can appear in a ruin. That's a ton of bodies and its almost the ultimate in MSU since its a total of 10 stealer squads. Almost any pure faction army would have a hard time countering this, regardless of how many detachments you give them. A detachment cap is still a necessary thing, especially as more formations come out.
2015/01/27 08:01:49
Subject: Re:2015 TSHFT Open GT - The Last Hurrah for the Oldcrons (Game #2 completed p.3)
Looking forward to this match. Corpsethief has 'Crons number imo- their bread and butter strength 7 AP 4 just isn't going to do much against T7 3+ 5++. This match'll fall on Jim's ability to contain them/work around them I think.
2015/01/27 15:44:12
Subject: 2015 TSHFT Open GT - The Last Hurrah for the Oldcrons (Game #2 completed p.3)
A detachment cap is not necessary. Keep unlimited detachments, but put a hard lock on factions instead. One faction per player. This takes the teeth out of the mythical cheese beast and makes this list invalid.
A faction cap doesn't help either. Some factions are too small to stand on their own (Knights, Inquistion, Legion of the Damned) and some have so many formations or options that unlimited detachments just make for crazy combinations. At 1750 and unlimited detachments, you could run the following:
CAD 1
Flyrant
Flyrant
Muclid
Muclid
CAD 2
Flyrant
Flyrant
Muclid
Muclid
Formation: Manufactorum Genestealers
Formation: Manufactorum Genestealers
This gives you 4 flyrants and 50 (yes, you read that right) genestealers who get Hit & Run for free and gain the ability to infiltrate within 6 inches of enemy troops so long as they can appear in a ruin. That's a ton of bodies and its almost the ultimate in MSU since its a total of 10 stealer squads. Almost any pure faction army would have a hard time countering this, regardless of how many detachments you give them. A detachment cap is still a necessary thing, especially as more formations come out.
Are any/all of the Legion of the Damned or Inquisition or Imperial Knights the same faction as marines or Guard? If so one could have a detachment of Knights, let's say, with marines and still be of the same faction. One faction keeps Eldar from summoning Daemons using Tyranid Warp Charges. It keeps Servo skulls out of everyones list, etc...
For instance the list you posted above is much easier to deal with then the previous one you posted where servo skulls are keep infiltraters/scouts away from the Hive Tyrants on turn 1 to mitigate the alpha strike on them.
One faction helps all lists because it reduces the craziness that has to be prepared for,
2015/01/27 16:19:57
Subject: 2015 TSHFT Open GT - The Last Hurrah for the Oldcrons (Game #2 completed p.3)
Knights, space marines,inquisition, Astra militarium are all separate factions. They are all members of the imperium for ally conditions but each is a separate faction for detachment conditions.
2015/01/27 16:34:33
Subject: 2015 TSHFT Open GT - The Last Hurrah for the Oldcrons (Game #2 completed p.3)
Are any/all of the Legion of the Damned or Inquisition or Imperial Knights the same faction as marines or Guard? If so one could have a detachment of Knights, let's say, with marines and still be of the same faction. One faction keeps Eldar from summoning Daemons using Tyranid Warp Charges. It keeps Servo skulls out of everyones list, etc...
For instance the list you posted above is much easier to deal with then the previous one you posted where servo skulls are keep infiltraters/scouts away from the Hive Tyrants on turn 1 to mitigate the alpha strike on them.
One faction helps all lists because it reduces the craziness that has to be prepared for,
Like coblen said, all the Imperial mini-dexes are their own factions. So Imperial Assassins is both a faction and a detachment. Same with knights. Now if you house ruled that all Imperials were one faction, you could set something up that way. But you'd essentially get huge Imperial army buff as now no one can ally except Imperial armies.
2015/01/27 22:32:23
Subject: 2015 TSHFT Open GT - The Last Hurrah for the Oldcrons (Game #2 completed p.3)
Reecius wrote: Gah, I need to get my army painted! Embarrassing to play with only primed models, but I have just been swamped.
Thanks for posting the report, Jim! Congratz to AbusePuppy, he beat me solidly in our game and stopped me from taking that tournament! Very fun, had a blast.
If it's because you've been painting others, I'll be hopefully sending more that way next month.
Fair play, lol. And we look forward to the new business!
coblen wrote: Well call me crazy but I think the penta tyrant list looked scarier then the sex tyrant list. You gave up the mawlocks ability to hurt invisible death stars for more flying dakka. Really narrowing the focus. Opening up new weaknesses to accentuate a strength you already had an abundance of.
The problem I have with limiting 2 detachments is that it severely discourages some of the smaller formations. On the flip side though it seems that having no limit makes a lot of small detachments feel mandatory. The inquisitor becomes mandatory in everything imperial, and would probably just be thrown into tons of xenos lists as well. Similar things would happen with other formations. While I'm not convinced about the effects on balance I do think there would be negative effects on diversity.
Also suddenly your gonna see armies like bullyboyz formation+ dark artisan formation+ firebase cadre formation+ inquisitor+ summoning farseer. In this case all the different codex's lose their identity.
Each build has its strengths and weaknesses. 6 flyrants isn't necessarily better than 5, but I think that it could be, especially when you throw in some summoning to offset its lack of a ground force.
While my Pentyrant list might be slightly more balanced due to its larger ground force, I actually think the Sextyrant list is better overall in this case. That is because it's got better "long-term sustainability". It's got better offense with more devourer shots as well as better offensive resiliency due to more flyrants. And while its ground game is weak, it gets better over time due to daemon summoning. With my Pentyrant list, the ground forces diminish over time as the more experienced general will go after the ground targets. But with the Sextyrant list, the ground forces actually increase over time thanks to the Summoning. So as an opponent, you're not actually facing a 1850 5-flyrant list. It's more like you're facing a 2250 6-flyrant list by the end of the game.
Great point on the identity of the races. One of the characteristics of any race is that it's got its strengths and it's got its weaknesses. For example, Tau has good shooting at the expense of assault. Well, with allies, you can address many of those weaknesses. But at least with a limit in the number of detachments, there are still weaknesses in the build that cannot all be addressed. Take out those limits and now you've got some armies with truly almost no weaknesses. IMO, that is not how the game should be. No army should be near unbeatable without any weaknesses to exploit. Also, when you take away the limits in detachments, a lot of the armies are going to start looking similar as well (as with your example).
Reecius wrote: Gah, I need to get my army painted! Embarrassing to play with only primed models, but I have just been swamped.
Thanks for posting the report, Jim! Congratz to AbusePuppy, he beat me solidly in our game and stopped me from taking that tournament! Very fun, had a blast.
Slacker!
Congrats on your performance as well. You did very well with such a oddball list.
Verviedi wrote: Wow...
A meta... Fully painted armies... Good terrain... Mecca!!
WHY CAN'T I PLAY GAMES THERE???!
*Weeps to self*
One of these days, you've got to come to Vegas, whether for the gaming or not.
djones520 wrote: Yeah, with him doing so little damage in the first two turns, there was no other way that was going.
He did do some damage. He dropped one of my lords! It's just that my lord got back up.
Not much you can do in that situation other than to just take it. Man, if only my 1st 2 games where a little more like this game.
.....Bay Area Open GT 2013 - Best Tyranids 
.....LVO GT 2014 Team Tournament - Best Generals
3000
4000 
