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.

Combined Arms Detachment

HQ - Autarch w/ Fusion Gun (Fire Dragons)

Troops - 5x Windriders w/ 5x Scatter Lasers
Troops - 5x Windriders w/ 5x Scatter Lasers
Troops - 5x Windriders w/ 5x Scatter Lasers

Elites – 6x Wraithguard w/ D-Scythe’s
Transport – Wave Serpent w/ TL-Scatter Laser, Shuriken Cannon & Ghostwalk Matrix

Heavy Support - Falcon w/ Pulse Laser & Bright Lance

Lord of War – Wraithknight w/ 2x Wraithcannons & Star Cannon


- Aspect Host (BS +1)

5x Fire Dragons w/ Exarch (Falcon)
6x Dark Reapers w/ Exarch & all Starshot
10x Warp Spiders w/ Exarch

Having 2 vehicles makes them each an obvious target particularly carrying the short ranged threat that each is.

With no Farseer I don't see why you've gone for 3 x 5 bikes rather than 5 x 3 bikes for more spread of firepower and ObSec.

I don't really like solo Wraithknights, they work better in at least pairs. The list looks like its trying to be 3 or more different lists at once and thus not really being strong as any individual list.

So much of this is my list I'm planning to bring to a big GT.

Difference being, instead of D-scythes in a Serpent, I have a 3 WWs, 2 less Scatbikes and 2 units of C.A.D. Hawks (that is, not in the Aspect Host formation).

As for FiN's dislike of solo WKs, I field one because of the ITC rules.

peteralmo:
My losses have been from Drop Pod armies and poor play on my part in dealing with them. I'm 8-4-1 with mostly this set up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:
With no Farseer I don't see why you've gone for 3 x 5 bikes rather than 5 x 3 bikes for more spread of firepower and ObSec.

Possibly because of Morale Check mechanics? At big groups of 5, it's 2 dead each to cause morale (so 6 dead bikes for 3 Morale Checks). And these are guardians at L8. The enemy only needs to cause 5 dead in those smaller units to cause Morale Checks.

Plus, there's a dice mechanic in putting in far more wounds in one segment/throw than a few shots from here, a few there, etc.

Yeah, I try to consider ITC when building lists, hence no double or triple LoW's.

Possibly because of Morale Check mechanics? At big groups of 5, it's 2 dead each to cause morale (so 6 dead bikes for 3 Morale Checks). And these are guardians at L8. The enemy only needs to cause 5 dead in those smaller units to cause Morale Checks.

Plus, there's a dice mechanic in putting in far more wounds in one segment/throw than a few shots from here, a few there, etc.

Splitting actually does more damage and forces the enemy to waste firepower over killing small units. As well as giving more options for scoring and avoiding assault. Yes there is a slight downside with morale checks, but that is more than made up for in the advantages of MSU in 7th.

If people are limiting LoW why bother even writing a competitive list its obviously a tournament or group for bad players scared of tactical challenges so why waste your time?

Am I alone in thinking that 3 night spinners are incredible now?

300 pts? 9 hull points and 3 large blast str9 Barrage or 3 torrents that ignore cover ? Even the extra shuiken canon is only the same cost as a jet bike. Really brilliant.

I am only mentioning it because my next build is going to be CAD with WK and 3 night spinners

I believe you're mistaken, in order to get a str 9 blast two of the night spinners in the squad need to forgo shooting in order to "super charge" the one shooter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
NM, I was confusing it with the Fire Prism.

 FlingitNow wrote:
If people are limiting LoW why bother even writing a competitive list its obviously a tournament or group for bad players scared of tactical challenges so why waste your time?

@FiN
I've known you for a long time here on dakka. I respect your opinion and your posts. You are not a dick nor troll. Sincerely.

And yet, this is so incredibly ... the most inaccurate statement you've ever typed.

We have, in a friendly manner, discussed lists and rules and such. Thus with kindness and respect, I assert you dunno what-the-heck-you-are-talking-about.

Yes, it is definitely a tournament set of rules, specifically written for tourneys, by several big TOs of events in the USA, mostly western events if I'm correct.

Ind. Tournament Circuit is huge in the USA, 400+ names last I checked. The tourney is the Bay Area Open. 128 spots sold out in 5 days. Last year, it took a few months (weeks?) to sell out. It's a blast of fun, and some truly cut-throat players at top tables.

@peteralmo
PM me. Maybe we can hoist a brewsky. Gripe at the faux pas of bringing the same list, like girls do when they show up to a party wearing the same dress?

128 players isn't that big a place.

I'm not saying people don't turn up to pointless tournaments. I just don't see the value in it. I go to tournaments to test myself against the best players and lists. People that restrict 7th Ed obviously don't want the best list to exist and thus don't want to test themselves. So what is the point of going to a tournament that isn't looking to give players a tactical challenge but is instead interested in maintaining the 5th Ed status quo. If you want to go to a tournament where you are not challenged can you explain why? Seriously what is the point of going to a tournament but not being competitive? I just don't get it.

Going ahead and hijacking peter's thread ....

 FlingitNow wrote:
I'm not saying people don't turn up to pointless tournaments. I just don't see the value in it. I go to tournaments to test myself against the best players and lists. People that restrict 7th Ed obviously don't want the best list to exist and thus don't want to test themselves. So what is the point of going to a tournament that isn't looking to give players a tactical challenge but is instead interested in maintaining the 5th Ed status quo. If you want to go to a tournament where you are not challenged can you explain why? Seriously what is the point of going to a tournament but not being competitive? I just don't get it.

What's challenging? 500 points of just troops vs. the same? A mirror match seems to be the most challenging game of 40k I can think of, because it isn't my eldar versus a casual player's Slaanesh CSMarines. Instead, with identical tools/units, lotsa terrain, and dual missions, it is gonna come down to who is the best player. No rock-paper-scissors blow outs.

How about a 3k game? Are you now challenging the opponent or his bank account? Have you tried to stop a Revenant Titan?

If the field is leveled, then it is not lists you are facing, but the players. So, Unbound says to me, who bought Forge World and brought max LoW?

A barring of certain units means a leveled field where battle field acumen rules, not the models you brought.

Answered?

What's challenging? 500 points of just troops vs. the same? A mirror match seems to be the most challenging game of 40k I can think of, because it isn't my eldar versus a casual player's Slaanesh CSMarines. Instead, with identical tools/units, lotsa terrain, and dual missions, it is gonna come down to who is the best player. No rock-paper-scissors blow outs. 

This is only true if you don't think list building is part of the game. Where as I see it as a key part of the strategy and mitigates the impact of dice rolls (or doesn't if you write bad lists).

How about a 3k game? Are you now challenging the opponent or his bank account? Have you tried to stop a Revenant Titan? 

3k is bigger than I enjoy playing and you nneed more time and space to play that level (ideally should be played on an 8'x6' table). But yes I've dealt with Revenants. Powerful sure but not something a good player should have a problem with. Particularly a Tau player as a couple of FBSCs kill it in a turn. Though there are ways of dealing with it without having to even kill it.

If the field is leveled, then it is not lists you are facing, but the players. So, Unbound says to me, who bought Forge World and brought max LoW? 

Again written from a perspective in the assumption that list writing isn't done by players or an important part of the game. Which begs the question as to why you ever come on this sub forum? You seem to like and be good at writing lists yet claim it is not part of the game? Unbound to me says there's no meta. Cram FW & LoW into your list all you want Gladius or CAD Eldar bike lists will laugh at you. In a game where scoring is done throughout the game killing power is not the only or indeed even the best strategy to win.

A barring of certain units means a leveled field where battle field acumen rules, not the models you brought. 

Once again the false assumption that lust building isn't an important skill in the game. Coupled with the wildly inaccurate claim that banning models makes a levelled playing field. Once you start banning models all you do is imbalance the game by taking tools away from one or more codexes. For instance a flat ban on LoW hugely skews how effective the Thunderknightstar is as one of its big weaknesses is stomps. Take away ranged D and/or stomps and 2++ rerollables become stronger. Take away 2++ rerollables and gravstar becomes stronger etc etc etc. So either you get to the point where you're picking the exact list for each army which is a waste of time or you imbalance the power builds you like or are unaware of. I've never seen a comp that has come close to banning all power builds, nor have I seen one that allows a fluffy army to compete with an efficient one. Nor will I ever see such a comp.

So throw your toys out of the pram because you don't want the challenge of dealing with X or Y (which is what all comp is) or because you don't want a meta shift that effects your net list (because good list writers are unafraid of meta shifts). The other option is to actually play the game unafraid of the challenges your opponent might throw at you because that is what you are after. You want that challenge because you're a competitive gamer. If you don't want that challenge you're nit a competitive gamer you're either a fluff player or a WAAC player. If you're going to a tournament that rules out the option of being a fluff player...

 FlingitNow wrote:
Again written from a perspective in the assumption that list writing isn't done by players or an important part of the game. Which begs the question as to why you ever come on this sub forum? You seem to like and be good at writing lists yet claim it is not part of the game? Unbound to me says there's no meta. Cram FW & LoW into your list all you want Gladius or CAD Eldar bike lists will laugh at you. In a game where scoring is done throughout the game killing power is not the only or indeed even the best strategy to win.

Good points. I agree with all of this (and most of your post).

 FlingitNow wrote:
Unbound to me says there's no meta.

And, running a RTT or GT, would you do anything about this?

Back to your main point:
List building, and as my participation in this forum indicates, yeah, list building is part of the game and part of a player's skill. But the guy's wallet ways in heavily, too.

But, FiN, there ought to be a line drawn on some of these things, cuz not everybody is gonna have the FarSightBomb, all FusionBlasters, to deal with SuperHeavies, and then be read to face a an IG blob the next game, and Green Tide after that.

At some point though, given how wide the range of choices there are to play, and GW having no intent on any structuring for tourneys, at some point, the players and TOs step in and say, "Okay, let's coral the silliness" or un-fun parts of the game, and in this case, Lords of War. Just a bit.

And 0-1 LoW doesn't seem like a bad way to square the game off.

@Peter
Beg your pardon for the hijacking.

Sorry but I don't understand why you need to reduce choices? Why is it good to restrict players and encourage everyone to take the same or a similar list? Yes there will be miss matches, guess what that happens in every tourney anyway.

As for pay to win I'm not convinced that is accurate either. There are plenty of units that are expensive pounds and rubbish and vice versa. Look at the Gladius nearly everyone is writing are you telling me that unbound lists are significantly better and more expensive to buy than that? Look at the Revenant you mentioned compare £s vs Pts on that and even full price Razorbacks let alone 20 point ones with an AssCann upgrade sprue...

Then look at Centurions for less than 40pts of Razorback you get 250 pts of one of the best units in the game. Army lust building is a vital part of the game and isn't dependent on the size of your wallet. Tournaments should absolutely be about that (and playing the game too). The more variety and choices you give players the more healthy the game.

Gonna take this to PM

 FlingitNow wrote:

What's challenging? 500 points of just troops vs. the same? A mirror match seems to be the most challenging game of 40k I can think of, because it isn't my eldar versus a casual player's Slaanesh CSMarines. Instead, with identical tools/units, lotsa terrain, and dual missions, it is gonna come down to who is the best player. No rock-paper-scissors blow outs. 

This is only true if you don't think list building is part of the game. Where as I see it as a key part of the strategy and mitigates the impact of dice rolls (or doesn't if you write bad lists).

How about a 3k game? Are you now challenging the opponent or his bank account? Have you tried to stop a Revenant Titan? 

3k is bigger than I enjoy playing and you nneed more time and space to play that level (ideally should be played on an 8'x6' table). But yes I've dealt with Revenants. Powerful sure but not something a good player should have a problem with. Particularly a Tau player as a couple of FBSCs kill it in a turn. Though there are ways of dealing with it without having to even kill it.

If the field is leveled, then it is not lists you are facing, but the players. So, Unbound says to me, who bought Forge World and brought max LoW? 

Again written from a perspective in the assumption that list writing isn't done by players or an important part of the game. Which begs the question as to why you ever come on this sub forum? You seem to like and be good at writing lists yet claim it is not part of the game? Unbound to me says there's no meta. Cram FW & LoW into your list all you want Gladius or CAD Eldar bike lists will laugh at you. In a game where scoring is done throughout the game killing power is not the only or indeed even the best strategy to win.

A barring of certain units means a leveled field where battle field acumen rules, not the models you brought. 

Once again the false assumption that lust building isn't an important skill in the game. Coupled with the wildly inaccurate claim that banning models makes a levelled playing field. Once you start banning models all you do is imbalance the game by taking tools away from one or more codexes. For instance a flat ban on LoW hugely skews how effective the Thunderknightstar is as one of its big weaknesses is stomps. Take away ranged D and/or stomps and 2++ rerollables become stronger. Take away 2++ rerollables and gravstar becomes stronger etc etc etc. So either you get to the point where you're picking the exact list for each army which is a waste of time or you imbalance the power builds you like or are unaware of. I've never seen a comp that has come close to banning all power builds, nor have I seen one that allows a fluffy army to compete with an efficient one. Nor will I ever see such a comp.

So throw your toys out of the pram because you don't want the challenge of dealing with X or Y (which is what all comp is) or because you don't want a meta shift that effects your net list (because good list writers are unafraid of meta shifts). The other option is to actually play the game unafraid of the challenges your opponent might throw at you because that is what you are after. You want that challenge because you're a competitive gamer. If you don't want that challenge you're nit a competitive gamer you're either a fluff player or a WAAC player. If you're going to a tournament that rules out the option of being a fluff player...

The arguments you are using, taken to their logical extreme, would suggest that unbound would be the most challenging and competitive format.

This is of course ridiculous. There is absolutely nothing inherently un-competitive about a 0-1 restriction on a unit slot, not anymore than 0-3 heavy slots or what have you. As long as both sides are limited in comparatively the same way, that's all you need for a competitive game (unless it is so simple as to be immediately solvable) .

You could argue that not having a 0-1 limit would make the game more complex (very possible), but more complex does not automatically mean more competitive.

Go is more complex than chess, but they are both super competitive games with burgeoning professional scenes.

A restriction on low is therefore a call that needs to be made using far more variables. If GW had a better track record in their rule writing I'd be more skeptical of the need to patch their product, but gw rules aren't exactly well considered competitively at the best of times.

Personally i have no horse in this game, i lack the game knowledge to judge, but i dont find the idea that a group of competitive players could make a better tournament ruleset than gw, to be at all outlandish.

The issue is that it is not a considered approach on making a more competitive game. It is a reactionary approach driven by fear and superstition. Just look at any banned lists and look at the prevalence (heck near exclusivity) of FW stuff on those lists then compare the power level of those items with things like Screamerstar, Invisigravstar, ThunderKnightstar, Dakka Flyrant etc. None of which are on many (if any) banned lists.

Going back to restrictions on LoW you either deny an entire army by doing that (Imperial Knights) or you take the unfair uncompetitive option of having different restrictions on different armies. Likewise given that armies have different strengths and weaknesses different restrictions will effect different armies in different ways. HQ restrictions make little difference to the power level of the Necron codex (though does reduce effective build options) whilst it cripples a Tyranid army. So blanket restrictions don't necessarily mean a fair playing field either.

Also what's wrong with allowing unbound in tournaments? It is not an inherently more powerful way of building a lust than battleforged (in fact the opposite is true that BF is stronger).

It's very possible the reasons for the limitation are silly, I wouldn't know, but the decision to restrict something is not inherently un-competitive, which was the point I was trying to get at.

I wasn't saying that there was anything wrong with unbound being allowed, simply that if more options = more competitive, then there should just not be any slot limitations at all (I realize this is a step beyond unbound as unbound has drawbacks).

Again want to re-iterate that I'm not trying to argue FOR these restrictions (in general I prefer as few as possible), just that they aren't ipso facto un-competitive.