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.

 Blackmoor wrote:

 krootman. wrote:


CTA is actually a good thing for the game. Makes it very very hard to build one list that can counter everything. IMO when not playing with ranged d, the competitive side of this game is more player skill based then it has ever been before. Building a great list is not enough to get you through a gt anymore.

I am going to disagree. When you allow everything people just take whatever the latest and greatest formation is. How many Adamantine Lance formations were there at the Nova Open, and how many Leviathan formations were at the LVO?

It is becoming less skill based because if you do not take one of the few top armies you will have no chance no matter how good you are.

For how many Leviathan and Adlance there were, it's amazing that the top 8 wasn't pure IKs and Flyrants. Except, it wasn't. Almost as if there's more to the game than taking what's percieved as a cheesy army..,

 Blackmoor wrote:

Tsilber wrote:

Well accept for the fact, plenty of the "not few top armies" scored high and did well at LVO....

Again, I disagree. (Except for the Orks that were a counter-meta army, and I think only one of them did well)

A lot of people look at the packaging and think that the top armies are different. Do you think that spending 300 points out of 1850 on lictors makes your army a lictor army when you spend about that much on one hive tyrant? Sean's list was hive tyrants and mawlocs. Those 6 models were 2/3 of his points and they did most of the killing. Everything else helped, and synergized well, but the TMCs did all of the heavy lifting.

Nick's scout army had less than 500 points of scouts in it, but what it really was is a centurion star featuring rock hard HQ/ICs and centurions to do most of the killing.

Don't get confused by what tangential units are around the killing units.

But in neither of those cases it was CtA allies. Yes list building is still important, but simply adding 3 Flyrants to the army doesn't makes it a top army.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
At least Calgar Loth and Tiggy are all Marines.

Why would EVERY daemon army have Fatey or Be'lakor ? They should come with the codex now .

...Not EVERY Daemon army, some Daemon players just use lords of change or regular daemon princes.

So your argument is already irrelevant

Now if you meant it as, why would the 2 named DP's show up to a battlefield skirmish (such as 1850 game)?
Then i agree, and say the same thing why the Greatest libbies and Big ole Chapter Masters in the imperuim be showing up.

Im unclear to your argument, as you yourself use a list with Draigo and Loth in it. Are you mad about named showing up or support it?

My argument is that a single named to show up, sure... for 2+ named to show up; thats as ridiculous as CTA allies.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackmoor wrote:

Tsilber wrote:

Well accept for the fact, plenty of the "not few top armies" scored high and did well at LVO....

Again, I disagree. (Except for the Orks that were a counter-meta army, and I think only one of them did well)

A lot of people look at the packaging and think that the top armies are different. Do you think that spending 300 points out of 1850 on lictors makes your army a lictor army when you spend about that much on one hive tyrant? Sean's list was hive tyrants and mawlocs. Those 6 models were 2/3 of his points and they did most of the killing. Everything else helped, and synergized well, but the TMCs did all of the heavy lifting.

Nick's scout army had less than 500 points of scouts in it, but what it really was is a centurion star featuring rock hard HQ/ICs and centurions to do most of the killing.

Don't get confused by what tangential units are around the killing units.

You names 2 armies...
The top 12 had 14 factions/codex.

I understand your point about Seans list using tyrants and scout army had some cents... but its their own flavor added to the list. So some units in some books are really good, you see them a lot. I guess with infinite players, its going to happen....
Plus, Sean Also lost 1 week earlier to a Tau list at Templecon in his 4th round.

14 factions, with allies, meaning the same "top armies" are not always winning. Every Book has a chance to give enough to help someone win a tourney.

There truly was incredible variety among the top lists at the LVO. Glad to see that the game is as much about being an outstanding general as what list you bring, and that there are no dominant outliers in the LVO format. Truly enjoying that point system

The only cta army in the top 8 was a single inq in a chaos list. While I'm all for banning cta from a fluff perspective it's virtually impossible in the current rules to ban them. You will always have demonology and shenanigans like eldar summoning demons of they wanted. So what's really the point?

Daemon summoning is not the same thing as CtA. It is a specific set of psychic powers. It's incorrect to say they are allies. It's just one of those really crazy things in the game now.

 Tomb King wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
It's competitive play in a tournament, the only thing that matters is winning.

Going to have to disagree here... I love winning as much as the next guy but I would like to enjoy a win or a loss in the process. Kind of holding back from D weapons as they can suck the fun right out of the game. I would rather just beat you with my ability to play the game rather then my list being the best money can buy... . Competitive 40k is quickly becoming about the people that have the money to buy the latest and greatest toys.

what major tournament this year were you watching that the latest and greatest was winning? Scouts vs lictors? 1 knight in the top 10. Very few new models or units in any codex made the top 10.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Daemon summoning is not the same thing as CtA. It is a specific set of psychic powers. It's incorrect to say they are allies. It's just one of those really crazy things in the game now.

They follow all the rules for cta allies when summoned. It is a lot more flexible then you give it credit for by allowing demons to ally with virtually any psychic faction and gives those armies access to many different demon units.
My point is of you ban cta you basically create a rule for every other faction except demons.

gungo wrote:
The only cta army in the top 8 was a single inq in a chaos list. While I'm all for banning cta from a fluff perspective it's virtually impossible in the current rules to ban them. You will always have demonology and shenanigans like eldar summoning demons of they wanted. So what's really the point?

I'm a fan of CTA allies. I think it's something that can be done even with the fluff in mind. I have a piece I'm working on for why the Silent King decides to have his Necron underlings ally with the Tyranid threat.....for now (yes I've read the new codex).

FWIW there was also a CTA force that came in ninth, so it definitely has some potential. But I think the fluff bunnies are more of the reason for why it's typically disallowed rather than the fear of cheese/spam. The best shenanigans really require battle brothers for psychic support/IC shenanigans

gungo wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
It's competitive play in a tournament, the only thing that matters is winning.

Going to have to disagree here... I love winning as much as the next guy but I would like to enjoy a win or a loss in the process. Kind of holding back from D weapons as they can suck the fun right out of the game. I would rather just beat you with my ability to play the game rather then my list being the best money can buy... . Competitive 40k is quickly becoming about the people that have the money to buy the latest and greatest toys.

what major tournament this year were you watching that the latest and greatest was winning? Scouts vs lictors? 1 knight in the top 10. Very few new models or units in any codex made the top 10.




I'm going to disagree here. The finals was NOT scouts vs. Lictors. It was Centstar vs. Flyrant spam.

A cheeseburger with a slice of pineapple is still a cheeseburger, not pineapple.

So, the fact that one list contained, what, 4 Centurions, and the other was playing effectively 300pts down because according to the internet Lictors suck and obviously the only thing that mattered in the entire army was his three flyrants, and despite the fact that there were tons of far nastier armies in attendance (at least, nasty according to the internet) that these guys had to beat out to win, skill had absolutely nothing to do with it and they only won because they were playing cheesy netlists.


Edit: 3 Centurions, not 4. And he didn't have Tigirius or Loth or Draigo. Yet someone actually thinks that his army was just a "Centstar" list? WTF?

Niether of which is the latest and greatest. Centurions have been around for almost 2 years and flyrants have been around forever. The idea of a centurion star is hardly a new concept putting a strong independsnt character into a tough unit.
Also neither of which is decidedly a spam list. 3 flyrants does not a spam list make. Furthermore mawlocs and lictors and spore mines are hardly popular units either.

You make the wrong assumption that because a list consists of a strong unit that unit makes the entire list. The reason people call those lists a scout or lictor list was because if you read most of the battle reports those units were the ones that won most of his matches. They earned the most points. Those units made the most advantage of the maelstrom missions. Not the three centaurians or the 3 flyrants.

 DarkLink wrote:
So, the fact that one list contained, what, 4 Centurions, and the other was playing effectively 300pts down because according to the internet Lictors suck and obviously the only thing that mattered in the entire army was his three flyrants, and despite the fact that there were tons of far nastier armies in attendance (at least, nasty according to the internet) that these guys had to beat out to win, skill had absolutely nothing to do with it and they only won because they were playing cheesy netlists.


Edit: 3 Centurions, not 4. And he didn't have Tigirius or Loth or Draigo. Yet someone actually thinks that his army was just a "Centstar" list? WTF?

Straw meet Man. Have fun together. Goodbye.

He has a point though even if you fail to accept it. Having 3 centaurians is NOT a cent star.

gungo wrote:
Niether of which is the latest and greatest. Centurions have been around for almost 2 years and flyrants have been around forever. The idea of a centurion star is hardly a new concept putting a strong independsnt character into a tough unit.
Also neither of which is decidedly a spam list. 3 flyrants does not a spam list make. Furthermore mawlocs and lictors and spore mines are hardly popular units either.

You make the wrong assumption that because a list consists of a strong unit that unit makes the entire list. The reason people call those lists a scout or lictor list was because if you read most of the battle reports those units were the ones that won most of his matches. They earned the most points. Those units made the most advantage of the maelstrom missions. Not the three centaurians or the 3 flyrants.

Scouts scored maelstrom points because the opponent had to contend with a huge amount of in your face threats from turn 1. In order just to survive these threats needed to be engaged and the cheap, hidden scouts could sit on maelstrom objectives in peace. The scouts did nothing on their own except to occupy space.

Yes 3 Flyrants do make spam because up until recently in the world of 40k most everyone was allowed only 2 HQ's. Three HQ's of over 750pts is called spam.

Yes Mawlocs have been popular since 6th edition. At least in Chicago and in the lists of Americas ETC team. Lictors do the same thing scouts do. They sit on objectives and hide and score maelstrom points while the real offensive threat of the lists, the Flyrants and Mawlocs, engage the enemy and keep the pressure off the Cheaper units who score points.

Why did OrdoSean add in a 3rd Flyrant for this tourney and reduce the number of Lictors he takes if he thought it was the Lictors who do the heavy lifting?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gungo wrote:
He has a point though even if you fail to accept it. Having 3 centaurians is NOT a cent star.

Having 3 centurions with a 250pt Lysander and a 175pt Mephiston and a level 2 librarian (3 HQ's to attach is) is a Centurion Deathstar. Almost half your armies entire points are tied into one unit and you don't call that a deathstar? Do we play the same game?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Look all I said was the finals was not a battle vs. lictors and scouts it was a battle of Centstar vs. Flyrant spam. That's all I said, but a couple of LVO apologists are in shark feeding frenzy mode right now and can't even acknowledge basic strategy of 40k.

Take a deep breath and go PM Blackmore if you want to keep fighting.

DarthDiggler wrote:

 DarkLink wrote:
So, the fact that one list contained, what, 4 Centurions, and the other was playing effectively 300pts down because according to the internet Lictors suck and obviously the only thing that mattered in the entire army was his three flyrants, and despite the fact that there were tons of far nastier armies in attendance (at least, nasty according to the internet) that these guys had to beat out to win, skill had absolutely nothing to do with it and they only won because they were playing cheesy netlists.


Edit: 3 Centurions, not 4. And he didn't have Tigirius or Loth or Draigo. Yet someone actually thinks that his army was just a "Centstar" list? WTF?

Straw meet Man. Have fun together. Goodbye.

The strawman fallacy requires that I intentionally misrepresent your argument in order to make it look like nonsense. Your claim literally consistes of the claim that Nick played a Centstar (the rest of my comment was not specifically directed at you). I don't think you actually know what a strawman argument actually is.

 DarkLink wrote:

DarthDiggler wrote:

 DarkLink wrote:
So, the fact that one list contained, what, 4 Centurions, and the other was playing effectively 300pts down because according to the internet Lictors suck and obviously the only thing that mattered in the entire army was his three flyrants, and despite the fact that there were tons of far nastier armies in attendance (at least, nasty according to the internet) that these guys had to beat out to win, skill had absolutely nothing to do with it and they only won because they were playing cheesy netlists.


Edit: 3 Centurions, not 4. And he didn't have Tigirius or Loth or Draigo. Yet someone actually thinks that his army was just a "Centstar" list? WTF?

Straw meet Man. Have fun together. Goodbye.

The strawman fallacy requires that I intentionally misrepresent your argument in order to make it look like nonsense. Your claim literally consistes of the claim that Nick played a Centstar (the rest of my comment was not specifically directed at you). I don't think you actually know what a strawman argument actually is.

You did misrepresent what I said. You still don't know what a Centstar is and now you are trying to passive-aggressive backpedal out of the hole you dug. Go PM Blackmoor with your fight. Stop the feeding frenzy.

I still enjoyed Chip's comment to Alan about this game not being about killing units. Which is odd, since you will not win without killing units. And no that does not mean tabling. You need units that can deal with the best and brightest in the game. Ignore Flyrants and try to win. Ignore Knights and try to win. Goodluck with that.

As far as CtA goes, it is part of the game and let it go. Deployment is the most important part (to me) of the game and that 12'' bubble could prove to be huge. And LVO cannot be the measuring stick for eliminating CtA as they seemed to have no impact on the Top 8.

Yes, the Flyrants did the heavy lifting, that's obvious. But they are still not even half of the army. Everything in Sean's list contributed to his victories, and how he used the Lictors and Spore Mines is impressive. And I don't see what Sean's list has to do with CtA.

Oh and btw, one of his Lictors wrecked a Lynx.

lol please having 3 hq's is not a spam list not is attaching two hq's to 3 tough units a cent star. You are the only one here interested in arguing and making false claims such as calling people apologist or claiming they are making straw man arguments simply because they not only disagree with you but make valid claims how the units you dismiss are actually the units that scored the most points in thier lists. So stop calling people names because your he only one here fighting and being insulting.

SCP Yeeman wrote:
Ignore Flyrants and try to win.

Decurion Necrons can do that .

 Tyran wrote:

SCP Yeeman wrote:
Ignore Flyrants and try to win.

Decurion Necrons can do that .

Touche! However, I would imagine those Necrons have other things to worry about!

How many points is Lysander, Mephiston, Level 2 Librarian and three Dev Cents ?

chipstar1 wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:

Tsilber wrote:

Well accept for the fact, plenty of the "not few top armies" scored high and did well at LVO....

Again, I disagree. (Except for the Orks that were a counter-meta army, and I think only one of them did well)

A lot of people look at the packaging and think that the top armies are different. Do you think that spending 300 points out of 1850 on lictors makes your army a lictor army when you spend about that much on one hive tyrant? Sean's list was hive tyrants and mawlocs. Those 6 models were 2/3 of his points and they did most of the killing. Everything else helped, and synergized well, but the TMCs did all of the heavy lifting.

Nick's scout army had less than 500 points of scouts in it, but what it really was is a centurion star featuring rock hard HQ/ICs and centurions to do most of the killing.

Don't get confused by what tangential units are around the killing units.

Alan, if you think this game is about killing things, you're more lost than I'd hoped.

It is the easiest way to win in any format. If your opponents army cease to exist then most tournaments award you the victory for tabling your opponent. However, if your army is also getting slaughter it is hard to capture and/or hold those objectives. His point is valid. Those listed were named lictor shame, and a scout list but neither had those models doing the heavy lifting. Even the eldar list that was near the top featured Range D! Thy grey knight list also had a centurion star with draigo to escort them around.

 Blackmoor wrote:

 krootman. wrote:


CTA is actually a good thing for the game. Makes it very very hard to build one list that can counter everything. IMO when not playing with ranged d, the competitive side of this game is more player skill based then it has ever been before. Building a great list is not enough to get you through a gt anymore.

I am going to disagree. When you allow everything people just take whatever the latest and greatest formation is. How many Adamantine Lance formations were there at the Nova Open, and how many Leviathan formations were at the LVO?

It is becoming less skill based because if you do not take one of the few top armies you will have no chance no matter how good you are.

Whereas putting CtA on the chopping block will only allow SOME armies (determined most likely randomly by GW at the time of the allymatrix publishing) to take the latest and greatest formation.

IMO this will only reduce the number of top armies that have the best chance at winning (and implicitly list variety at the very top) as they limit what codexes get access to the best stuff.

DarthDiggler wrote:

 DarkLink wrote:

DarthDiggler wrote:

 DarkLink wrote:
So, the fact that one list contained, what, 4 Centurions, and the other was playing effectively 300pts down because according to the internet Lictors suck and obviously the only thing that mattered in the entire army was his three flyrants, and despite the fact that there were tons of far nastier armies in attendance (at least, nasty according to the internet) that these guys had to beat out to win, skill had absolutely nothing to do with it and they only won because they were playing cheesy netlists.


Edit: 3 Centurions, not 4. And he didn't have Tigirius or Loth or Draigo. Yet someone actually thinks that his army was just a "Centstar" list? WTF?

Straw meet Man. Have fun together. Goodbye.

The strawman fallacy requires that I intentionally misrepresent your argument in order to make it look like nonsense. Your claim literally consistes of the claim that Nick played a Centstar (the rest of my comment was not specifically directed at you). I don't think you actually know what a strawman argument actually is.

You did misrepresent what I said. You still don't know what a Centstar is and now you are trying to passive-aggressive backpedal out of the hole you dug. Go PM Blackmoor with your fight. Stop the feeding frenzy.

? I don't think you know what passive aggressive means, either. Bluntly stating that you're misusing a logical fallacy isn't exactly passive. Though you are right, I should stop feeding the trolls. Since I'm sure you'll just come back with another accusation of me being a strawman and that you're right and I'm wrong because reasons, well, congratulations. You win. I'll stop feeding the trolls.

I will say this, though. Google centurion star. You'll find a bunch of articles and forum posts about relatively large units of centurions with Invisibililty attached, primarily via Tigirius or Loth, along with combat character, almost always Draigo for Gate of Infinity. I mean, I suppose if you want to get really pedantic, you could stretch the meaning to include any unit of Centurions with attached ICs, but without Invisibility it frankly doesn't really qualify. Centurions are too easy to kill for that, especially a unit of 3. It's a bit of a deathstar, but definitely not a typical Centurionstar.

Of course, now I'm getting sucked into a pointless circle jerk of when arbitrarily applied and defined labels apply or don't apply. Suffice to say that if you genuinely think that Nick only won the LVO because he took a netlist, you probably don't understand the top lists or the players or the game as well as you think you do. None of the top players just grabbed a random netlist and painted up the models to play for the LVO. They thought up a list, practiced with it, tweaked it, practiced some more, threw out half the tweaks and added new ones, then more practice, played the missions, practiced against other common armies and builds, and then practiced some more. The list itself, so long as it has adequate tools to handles all comers, is by no means the primary determinate of success, something show with how diversified the top tables were and how little those armies conformed to much of the internet's wisdom (no matter how much the internet wants to retroactively claim prescience). Any solid list in the hands of a good player has a good shot, with a little luck (this is a dice game, after all. Even the best player with the cheesiest army can't win if he misses every shot and fails every save).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SCP Yeeman wrote:
Ignore Flyrants and try to win. Ignore Knights and try to win. Goodluck with that.

Well.... I've watched several games in which one player stuck to the mission while ignoring Flyrants and won because they held the objectives and the Flyrants didn't manage to table them. And since I don't think I saw a single nidz army that didn't have 3 or 5 Tyrants (ok, I'm sure there was at least one, but I swear there were more Flyrants at the LVO than attendees), yet Nidz had a surprisingly low win rate, I'd say the idea that the mission doesn't matter at all is completely unfounded.

Banning CtA allies, as much as I disdain them, will only hurt some armies and leave others completely unhurt.

The question also arises of how it would affect Summoning. Can Eldar units then not summon? And if they can, why do they get CtA allies and no one else does?

There is so much in this game that is unbalanced, it seems odd that non-imperial factions should have to take the brunt of the nerf-block - because they're the ones that take CtA more the most.

This is coming from a guy who only takes pure Orks and doesn't even RUN CtA allies.

Tau with 3 Flyrants did really well and could've won. It's a dice game too.

No CtA means Nids can't ally with anyone. As a nid player, I approve.

 DarkLink wrote:


I will say this, though. Google centurion star. You'll find a bunch of articles and forum posts about relatively large units of centurions with Invisibililty attached, primarily via Tigirius or Loth, along with combat character, almost always Draigo for Gate of Infinity. I mean, I suppose if you want to get really pedantic, you could stretch the meaning to include any unit of Centurions with attached ICs, but without Invisibility it frankly doesn't really qualify. Centurions are too easy to kill for that, especially a unit of 3. It's a bit of a deathstar, but definitely not a typical Centurionstar.

You are very dogmatic in your thinking. A Centstar needs Drago and Tigerious or it is not a Centstar? The way you laid out the way a Centstar is built was so 2014 when their was not even the new Blood Angels codex,

Why does a Centstar need Drago?
#1. He has Gate. You need Gate to move the Centurians around because they are slow and have a short range.
#2. He is a beatstick in assault.

What Nick did to solve the movement problem was to take Drop Pods instead of needing Gate. That let him take cheap scouts for his troops instead of expensive grey knights that are horrible now, and then it lets him take Lysander who synergizes with the scouts, and fills the beatstick role.

Tigerious for invisibility? You don't need it for your durability. You have Lysander and Mephiston so assaulting them would be bad, and you are talking about a toughness 5 unit with 2+ saves. This unit is hard as a rock and does not need invisibility.
'

Nick's list definitely featured a CentStar. I watched one of his games. Characters drop down in one pod, cents in another then they attach during the movement phase. Three Cents are very good. 3-4 is typical too.

Cents dropped with Mephiston as he is in Artificer armor and can ride in the pod.

Lysander stayed with the Command squad to protect them and get FNP from the Sang Initiate in there.

While yes the list used Centurions as the heavy lifting killing unit - Lysander didn't join up with it. Nick's list used 2 heavy hammers that armies tried to deal with when most of the time - killing the scouts would have been a better idea. Also the scouts - being Sentinels of Terra would hit a lot better at close range with the TWL ability. This made them a better choice then Marines etc as they were cheaper.

The list was designed to have lose able big threats and still be able to win the secondary missions and hold objectives. It is a massed MSU concept with 1 extreme killing unit (Cents) and one surgical unit - Melta command squad with Lysander. Meph being a lvl 3 psyker can get ahold of perfect timing and prescience - causing the Cents to be a lot more effective at all parts of the game.

The Crazy thing is the regular Devastators were rocking it as people forgot they had Tank Hunting. They did a great job of removing vehicle threats and walking on the board edge and snap firing their way into everyone's hearts.

But oh well - I play Nick too much and know - kill the damned scouts.