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.

 BoomWolf wrote:

You both fall for the sameissue, assuming there are real attacker/defender conditions in the base scenarios.
There aren't. these clearly stand for an fight in a greater ongoing conflict. in an ongoing conflict-you'd have an idea of who and what you are fighting.
Not full fledged intel, but a general concept.

.

We're not "falling" for anything but i assure you: in an "ongoing conflict", this issue does not change. \someone is still initating the attack. The other guy cannot know because so much of these forces are dropped from space, whats coming. Rememebr that these ground attacks START as naval battles in the 41st Millennium. So EVEN in an "ongoing" conflict, this fight was initiated by one side or the other, by the forces they could MUSTER at the time, which arent ideal ESPECIALL after the attrition of an "ongoing conflict" while the Defender is invariably in better defensive position usually but does not know what's coming until its far too late to order out for more Skyrays!

So yeah. i just don't see it.

 BoomWolf wrote:
TCGs are all sideboards, or even multiple decks because it's a system that works.
Yes, the costs are not the same. But at least in will give a semblance of a fighting chance for everyone involved.

Damn right the costs aren't the same. Playing Warhammer 40k is cheaper than playing Magic the Gathering. A tournament caliber modern deck can cost you $200-300 and must be repurchased every new set, which release 3-4 times per year and require buying or building another deck. Plus this suggests you're going with the smarter cherry picking and trading options, not simply buying boxes and boxes, packs and packs, hoping to get the cards yourself OR visiting ebay or the local game store to purchase rare singles for $20-$70 a pop.

 Peregrine wrote:
The problem is that list tailoring might make sense fluff-wise, but in a game like 40k what it really means is that players with more money get to win more.

TCGs have sideboards despite costing the competitive players over $1000 per year to play. Using a cost argument against 40k allowing it is ludicrous, money supply differences already exist with FW, super-heavies, and the folks who don't/can't buy them. Clearly you don't need any of those things to win and can do so even using the models you own, there's nothing broken or overpowered about being able to bring different lists when you can do the same, and there's always the option for a rich player to drop his existing army list and buy up a whole new one that he thinks is more viable. There is no evidence supporting your claim and it is debunked. Competing in games is expensive, not everyone has access to the best stuff because they can't afford it, it's a simple reality. So either use your fluffy list that you like the models for and are painted real nice like or pony up the cash to get more.

 Arkaine wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
The problem is that list tailoring might make sense fluff-wise, but in a game like 40k what it really means is that players with more money get to win more.

TCGs have sideboards despite costing the competitive players over $1000 per year to play. Using a cost argument against 40k allowing it is ludicrous, money supply differences already exist with FW, super-heavies, and the folks who don't/can't buy them. Clearly you don't need any of those things to win and can do so even using the models you own, there's nothing broken or overpowered about being able to bring different lists when you can do the same, and there's always the option for a rich player to drop his existing army list and buy up a whole new one that he thinks is more viable. There is no evidence supporting your claim and it is debunked. Competing in games is expensive, not everyone has access to the best stuff because they can't afford it, it's a simple reality. So either use your fluffy list that you like the models for and are painted real nice like or pony up the cash to get more.

While I will agree that Warhammer 40k is an expensive game (but cheaper than Standard-legal MtG), allowing sideboards is a blatant example of bias toward the people who have spent more on the hobby. Not everyone has the money to drop on not just an 1850-2000 point army, but also 750 points of extra models for siding in. In addition, sideboarding overwhelmingly helps out certain armies to the detriment of others. Imperium armies can take allied detachments in sideboards, or flexibly slide in units like Grav Cents and Skyhammer to deal with every threat. What are Tyranids going to sideboard in? More Flyrants? And how does the sideboard play into detachment/source restrictions anyway?

"Just buy more models" is not an acceptable rebuttal. Sure, people can buy a new army, but it often involves selling their existing one. Everyone should have a fair chance of competing with the models they have within the allotted points limit. Letting people go outside that points limit if they have more models is unfair to everyone else. Just because these things exist in other games does not mean that they should exist in 40k.

 TheNewBlood wrote:


While I will agree that Warhammer 40k is an expensive game (but cheaper than Standard-legal MtG), allowing sideboards is a blatant example of bias toward the people who have spent more on the hobby. Not everyone has the money to drop on not just an 1850-2000 point army, but also 750 points of extra models for siding in.

Same problem as Forge World creates only in a different way.

 Jancoran wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:


While I will agree that Warhammer 40k is an expensive game (but cheaper than Standard-legal MtG), allowing sideboards is a blatant example of bias toward the people who have spent more on the hobby. Not everyone has the money to drop on not just an 1850-2000 point army, but also 750 points of extra models for siding in.

Same problem as Forge World creates only in a different way.

Incorrect. Forge World only provides people with more options from which people can select their models. Who's to say that some Chaos or IG player didn't start off buying Forge World models just so that they can have a decently competitive army?

95% of the players dont start with Forge World. Easily half don't have any.

But lets not turn this into that thread. Already done that and its no fun. Let's keep it on target. My fault, i shouldnt have even said it.

 TheNewBlood wrote:
Incorrect. Forge World only provides people with more options from which people can select their models. Who's to say that some Chaos or IG player didn't start off buying Forge World models just so that they can have a decently competitive army?

Forgeworld provides players with access to different models to use for better list building. Sideboards allow better list building as well; you're not getting stronger units or more points in your army, you're getting more options. They both allow for more efficient lists. Having a flexible list doesn't give someone an advantage anymore than using a Land Raider 2.0 that is more cost effective for your build does. Additionally, I can't see the cost argument as valid when you aren't required to include different models anymore than you are required to field Forgeworld. Build a TAC list to fight all the sideboarders just as you would bring anti-vehicle spam to tackle super-heavies. But feel free to continue arguing the fact, it's hypocrisy at its finest.

 Arkaine wrote:
But feel free to continue arguing the fact, it's hypocrisy at its finest.

No, because the two cases are not at all the same. Having 3x500 points of sideboard added to a 1000 point "core" army is a 66% increase in cost for a 1500 point army. Allowing FW rules does not increase the cost of an army by that much.

Moving on!

 Arkaine wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:
Incorrect. Forge World only provides people with more options from which people can select their models. Who's to say that some Chaos or IG player didn't start off buying Forge World models just so that they can have a decently competitive army?

Forgeworld provides players with access to different models to use for better list building. Sideboards allow better list building as well; you're not getting stronger units or more points in your army, you're getting more options. They both allow for more efficient lists. Having a flexible list doesn't give someone an advantage anymore than using a Land Raider 2.0 that is more cost effective for your build does. Additionally, I can't see the cost argument as valid when you aren't required to include different models anymore than you are required to field Forgeworld. Build a TAC list to fight all the sideboarders just as you would bring anti-vehicle spam to tackle super-heavies. But feel free to continue arguing the fact, it's hypocrisy at its finest.

Forge World gives people options for things to include in their lists. Sideboards tamper with the list format itself. The two are in no way comparable. Also, there are no cost-effective Land Raiders, even from Forge World.

Detachment and source limits for tournaments already have major effects on list building. It was a huge move that the ITC allowed a second duplicate formation to be taken. Small changes like that have a massive effect on tournaments. What do you think is going to happen when players can sub out huge chunks of their armies to list tailor against certain opponents? How does that not overly benefit armeis that can take advantage of allies and formations to cover their weaknesses against bad matchups?

There's also the problem of actually impormenting the system itself. Who sideboards first? Do you get to counter-sideboard? How much can you sideboard and what can you have? All of these are questions that have to be answered, and will disproportionally affect certain armies (like Tau) more than others.

With this new book, what's to stop Tau from taking more Riptides or Stormsurges from Farsight Enclave in the sideboard? What about an entire Canoptek harvest to cover against melee armies?

In my opinion, you should build the best list you can for a tournament. That also means accepting that you cannot counter everything that's out there, especially in more open formats like the ITC. You will have bad matchups that your army will lose against if you have built toward the meta. The key to winning is metagaming enough to know what things you are likely to face and devise new ways to counter them.

 Jancoran wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:

You both fall for the sameissue, assuming there are real attacker/defender conditions in the base scenarios.
There aren't. these clearly stand for an fight in a greater ongoing conflict. in an ongoing conflict-you'd have an idea of who and what you are fighting.
Not full fledged intel, but a general concept.

.

We're not "falling" for anything but i assure you: in an "ongoing conflict", this issue does not change. \someone is still initating the attack. The other guy cannot know because so much of these forces are dropped from space, whats coming. Rememebr that these ground attacks START as naval battles in the 41st Millennium. So EVEN in an "ongoing" conflict, this fight was initiated by one side or the other, by the forces they could MUSTER at the time, which arent ideal ESPECIALL after the attrition of an "ongoing conflict" while the Defender is invariably in better defensive position usually but does not know what's coming until its far too late to order out for more Skyrays!

So yeah. i just don't see it.

You don't know exactly what's coming, but you need to be very dense, or completely taken by supersize (in a way the standard scenarios clearly don't represent) in order not to know even what FACTION you are fighting beforehand if you are already in an ongoing war with them on the very planet.
Not knowing the if you are running into a mechanized infantry battalion or a tank convoy is one thing, being oblivious to the fact you are currently fighting the imperial guard? a whole other story.
Even if they are supported by allied marines or something that you were not quite ready for-you should have known what the bulk of the opponent is, and prepared accordingly.
And sideboarding gives you just that.


The standard 40k scenarios very clearly represent a blunder of two forces that are a part of a larger war running into each other in a fluid battle where there is no clear attacker and defender at this specific time and space.
You may argue they shouldn't, and that more sided scenarios will be the norm-but the current case is that its not. all sided scenarios are just that-scenarios. not part of pickup and play eternal war/malstorm
If you want to play sided conflict, and these do seem like they could be alot of fun, there are plenty of scenarios to pick from all over. but malstorm/eternal war just don't fit that narrative.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:
Incorrect. Forge World only provides people with more options from which people can select their models. Who's to say that some Chaos or IG player didn't start off buying Forge World models just so that they can have a decently competitive army?

Forgeworld provides players with access to different models to use for better list building. Sideboards allow better list building as well; you're not getting stronger units or more points in your army, you're getting more options. They both allow for more efficient lists. Having a flexible list doesn't give someone an advantage anymore than using a Land Raider 2.0 that is more cost effective for your build does. Additionally, I can't see the cost argument as valid when you aren't required to include different models anymore than you are required to field Forgeworld. Build a TAC list to fight all the sideboarders just as you would bring anti-vehicle spam to tackle super-heavies. But feel free to continue arguing the fact, it's hypocrisy at its finest.

Forge World gives people options for things to include in their lists. Sideboards tamper with the list format itself. The two are in no way comparable. Also, there are no cost-effective Land Raiders, even from Forge World.

Detachment and source limits for tournaments already have major effects on list building. It was a huge move that the ITC allowed a second duplicate formation to be taken. Small changes like that have a massive effect on tournaments. What do you think is going to happen when players can sub out huge chunks of their armies to list tailor against certain opponents? How does that not overly benefit armeis that can take advantage of allies and formations to cover their weaknesses against bad matchups?

There's also the problem of actually impormenting the system itself. Who sideboards first? Do you get to counter-sideboard? How much can you sideboard and what can you have? All of these are questions that have to be answered, and will disproportionally affect certain armies (like Tau) more than others.

With this new book, what's to stop Tau from taking more Riptides or Stormsurges from Farsight Enclave in the sideboard? What about an entire Canoptek harvest to cover against melee armies?

In my opinion, you should build the best list you can for a tournament. That also means accepting that you cannot counter everything that's out there, especially in more open formats like the ITC. You will have bad matchups that your army will lose against if you have built toward the meta. The key to winning is metagaming enough to know what things you are likely to face and devise new ways to counter them.

You are making this far more difficult then it should be.
Both players sideboard simultaneously, choosing one of their per-prepared options without knowing what of the opponent's per-prepared options he is taken until after the decision is final. assuming a single match for each opponent, a single sideboarding round where you pick what will work best, and think about what he is likely to pick.

Example system, you make three distinct 1500 point lists, of them at least 1000 points spent much be the same across all three lists (akin to how escalation works from 1000 to 1500, except you take the same base and escalate to three different paths), once opponents have been set you review lists as usual, then each picks a single list of the three he owns, discreetly to play, with both players revealing their choices at the same time.
I'm sure better sideboard systems (both more flexible and more consistent) can be made, this is just off the top of my head.


Whats to stop more stormsurges and riptides from the sideboard? whats to stopthem from being spammed in a single main list to begin with? a sideboard is not extra points, its just a shift of points. anything that can be done with sideboard could have been without, its just that sideboard allows you to not shoot yourself in the leg by taking units who are "silver bullets"-good against some armies, useless against others (dedicated anti-air unit is the easiest example as they only matter when they enemy has flyers, and otherwise are complete junk. melta units in nid infested meta is another example.)


Will it be more in favor of the recent "decurion style" armies? possibly. in fact, even likely. they are the most flexible and powerful.
But the "down under" armies are mostly non-factors anyway, simply BECAUSE they are forced to try to answer one specific "meta list" and hope they will luck out and face it. they become what is know as "kingmakers" because they have no hope of winning, but can by sheer chance knock down a candidate for victory who did not prepare for them for the very reason they are irrelevant in the big picture.
When having luck of the draw in facing the armies your list is built to fight and not the armies you "gave up" on preparing to is a major part of the meta, then the meta NEEDS a serious shake. the system of "try to cover all bases" is obviously not plausible, the method of "pick some fights to win and some fights to lose" is lousy. you turned list building and metagaming into the majority of the game, where most games are decided in advance by the pairing lottery.
Sideboarding minimize that factor, as you CAN be ready for multiple opponents if you see them coming-but you can still take people by complete supersize with a wild lists as if they didn't see it coming they never made any of their sides to fight it.
It also punishes the most spammy and boring of lists-because people can afford to be ready for them (spend one of your sides to deal with IK spam with anti-tank saturation), without being utterly screwed against anything else (said anti tank saturation against a random nid assault) it forces variation in lists for the very reason that an overly spammed and predictable list can be countered without ruining your own lists entirely against anything and everything else.


Sideboards are healthy for competitive game. transition period will be hard, and people will bitch and moan about the increase in price to compete (who isn't actually true, as you won't need to own multiple armies to remain competitive any more, but that's another point)but in the end-if they do shift to such a system-the games will be more versatile, more interesting and more in-game skill induced over pairing luck, as the two lists facing each other off will usually be at least remotely fitted to face each other.

 TheNewBlood wrote:
Forge World gives people options for things to include in their lists. Sideboards tamper with the list format itself.

As though allowing Lords of War and Super-heavies doesn't... GW is starting to introduce them into the codices yet many factions still lack them entirely outside FW.

 TheNewBlood wrote:
Also, there are no cost-effective Land Raiders, even from Forge World.

A 200 pt Proteus is less taxing than a 230-250 one if all you care about is delivering models into close combat; it's the more cost effective option. This isn't about assault vehicle flyers replacing the land raider in the current meta...

The rest Boom has adequately explained. There are factions, FW tanks, units with D weapons, and formations that sufficiently counter anything they come up against. These are seen as creme of the crop and win all the tournaments because they can counter any list thrown at them. Yet not everyone gets the same treatment and most of the lesser factions have to work very hard to counter a specific threat, often building their list based on doing just that or they stand no chance of winning. Sorry, but not everyone can field Wraithguard or Imperial Knights and take on all comers. Some armies actually need to know what potential units they'll be facing to stand any hope of defeating them. You're being quite unfair to those armies, which are forced to exploit the only half-decent units in their list (lol, 7 flyrants!) just to have any hope of winning. Then you see the guys with TAC-style units and list diversity complain that <insert spammy unit is OP> when if you get rid of that unit, the faction fielding it doesn't have a competitive list to stand on. That's a far bigger problem than your possible tournament impacts.

 Peregrine wrote:
No, because the two cases are not at all the same. Having 3x500 points of sideboard added to a 1000 point "core" army is a 66% increase in cost for a 1500 point army. Allowing FW rules does not increase the cost of an army by that much.

That implies you are FORCED to buy more models for your army. Are you capable of fielding a 1500 pt list? If so, you have all the models necessary and can sideboard using different loadouts and options either through proxy or magnetization. The guy who doesn't use FW isn't forced to buy more models either, he can run his list perfectly fine without it, same stance you always take. In fact, when I argued that more options means more expense, you and a few others argued against that for an entire thread. If having options means mandatory purchases then you can't argue against FW bans for the same reason. No one is forcing you to bring anything other than your standard TAC list. But if you want to, just as if you want to field some FW models, you're going to have to spend some money.

I would just like to confirm something:

Someone said that my Guard where A) good and B) competitive in every phase.

I would like this person to come right back here and provide evidence because in my experience this is about as far from the truth as it gets.

 master of ordinance wrote:
I would just like to confirm something:

Someone said that my Guard where A) good and B) competitive in every phase.

I would like this person to come right back here and provide evidence because in my experience this is about as far from the truth as it gets.

You're going to be in for a very long wait.

What army did that someone play? Chaos Marines consisting of Possessed, Mutilators and Defilers? With Ksons for Psyker support?

 Sidstyler wrote:
You can talk all you want about it but when it comes down to it, you're not a general, and this isn't war. This is first and foremost a game, and as such should have some semblance of balance and fair play. Otherwise there isn't much point in playing, or spending all that time and money building an army, when you can essentially decide the winner with the roll to see who goes first or seizes.

5th edition is often cited as the height of 40k's popularity in recent years, and there's a good reason why; because even with an old or "bad" army in 5th edition, you could still participate in the fething game. It would be kind of an uphill struggle sometimes, you couldn't win as easily or as spectacularly as some of the top tier armies, but you could still build a list that could try and compete with them, and if you knew your army and how to play the game well, you could probably win. 5th edition still had lots of issues, but they could have been easily fixed with a few tweaks to the core rulebook, and making an effort to update every army. Far cry from the current state of the game where some armies might as well not even participate because of how uneven the playing field is.

Regardless of how "realistic" it is to field the perfect counter to your opponent's army, it makes for a pretty boring game, since with such a big advantage over your opponent the outcome becomes a lot more predictable. As a Tau player in particular it's even worse, as you said yourself you have a plethora of options, an arsenal that can be equipped to deal with virtually any enemy, whereas some armies legitimately lack answers to certain threats, and/or are forced to commit way, way more points to try and shore up that weakness, which then hamstrings the rest of the army. Tau can pack in anti-vehicle weaponry and still have plenty of S5 shooting to deal with anything else, and building a list to deal with flyers is as simple as slapping an upgrade on the units you already have.

I like the customization, I like the options the Tau codex has, but since not every army is designed that way, it kinda gives us an inherent advantage over everyone else, and our codex is already strong enough as it is simply because of how powerful a Tau shooting phase is. List-tailoring with that in mind is almost like playing Rock, Paper, Scissors where you always know what your opponent's going to pick.

This!

If we wanted to play "realistic" battles, I would never advance anywhere near the enemy. Artillery and aircraft would pound my foes to dust before I use asymmetric forces to wipe out the weak points in their lines and attack their supply trains. Tau and most of IG would never see the tabletop except to claim objectives from the burning corpses of their enemies, DE would mostly just target small forces with superior numbers of raiders, nids would only attack with several times the number of points than the opponent's army. Except in special circumstances, commanders don't send their forces out with the knowledge that there is a roughly 50% chance of success. They would allocate resources to ensure that they will win.

This would make for a really boring wargame as most encounters would be brutal curbstomp. No gamer wants to sit at the table just to be told that the opponent's IG army has initiated orbital bombardment to clear their bunkers or that the other army is setting up on another army to shell them before picking up the relic in a Devilfish after their forces are wiped out. The forces depicted are not realistic and any attempt to make the game more "real" while damaging the play-ability of the game is of questionable merit.

 master of ordinance wrote:
I would just like to confirm something:

Someone said that my Guard where A) good and B) competitive in every phase.

I would like this person to come right back here and provide evidence because in my experience this is about as far from the truth as it gets.

That was me. Evidence is in the codex. Take a gander i guess?

 Jancoran wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
I would just like to confirm something:

Someone said that my Guard where A) good and B) competitive in every phase.

I would like this person to come right back here and provide evidence because in my experience this is about as far from the truth as it gets.

That was me. Evidence is in the codex. Take a gander i guess?

Since when were Guard good in melee? Nearly all of our units that could do something in melee are either overcosted (bullgryns) or underpowered (blob squads) sometimes both (rough riders). So tell me, my good fellow, how exactly can Guard perform in the assault phase? It has been my experience that we suck in CC.

I think the Tau player is trolling a little. IG have some psykers, and nominal hth, where Tau have no psykers and no dedicated HtH. He fails to recognize that unplayable units in a sub par Codex don't make his point.

BoomWolf wrote:

You are making this far more difficult then it should be.
Both players sideboard simultaneously, choosing one of their per-prepared options without knowing what of the opponent's per-prepared options he is taken until after the decision is final. assuming a single match for each opponent, a single sideboarding round where you pick what will work best, and think about what he is likely to pick.

Example system, you make three distinct 1500 point lists, of them at least 1000 points spent much be the same across all three lists (akin to how escalation works from 1000 to 1500, except you take the same base and escalate to three different paths), once opponents have been set you review lists as usual, then each picks a single list of the three he owns, discreetly to play, with both players revealing their choices at the same time.
I'm sure better sideboard systems (both more flexible and more consistent) can be made, this is just off the top of my head.


Whats to stop more stormsurges and riptides from the sideboard? whats to stopthem from being spammed in a single main list to begin with? a sideboard is not extra points, its just a shift of points. anything that can be done with sideboard could have been without, its just that sideboard allows you to not shoot yourself in the leg by taking units who are "silver bullets"-good against some armies, useless against others (dedicated anti-air unit is the easiest example as they only matter when they enemy has flyers, and otherwise are complete junk. melta units in nid infested meta is another example.)


Will it be more in favor of the recent "decurion style" armies? possibly. in fact, even likely. they are the most flexible and powerful.
But the "down under" armies are mostly non-factors anyway, simply BECAUSE they are forced to try to answer one specific "meta list" and hope they will luck out and face it. they become what is know as "kingmakers" because they have no hope of winning, but can by sheer chance knock down a candidate for victory who did not prepare for them for the very reason they are irrelevant in the big picture.
When having luck of the draw in facing the armies your list is built to fight and not the armies you "gave up" on preparing to is a major part of the meta, then the meta NEEDS a serious shake. the system of "try to cover all bases" is obviously not plausible, the method of "pick some fights to win and some fights to lose" is lousy. you turned list building and metagaming into the majority of the game, where most games are decided in advance by the pairing lottery.
Sideboarding minimize that factor, as you CAN be ready for multiple opponents if you see them coming-but you can still take people by complete supersize with a wild lists as if they didn't see it coming they never made any of their sides to fight it.
It also punishes the most spammy and boring of lists-because people can afford to be ready for them (spend one of your sides to deal with IK spam with anti-tank saturation), without being utterly screwed against anything else (said anti tank saturation against a random nid assault) it forces variation in lists for the very reason that an overly spammed and predictable list can be countered without ruining your own lists entirely against anything and everything else.


Sideboards are healthy for competitive game. transition period will be hard, and people will bitch and moan about the increase in price to compete (who isn't actually true, as you won't need to own multiple armies to remain competitive any more, but that's another point)but in the end-if they do shift to such a system-the games will be more versatile, more interesting and more in-game skill induced over pairing luck, as the two lists facing each other off will usually be at least remotely fitted to face each other.

Alright, so under your format everyone brings three lists, each one of which has been list tailored to High Commoraugh to defeat a specific matchup. This still doesn't fix two important balance issues:

1. Some armies do not have as many options for flexibility. Tyranids have Flyrants, Mawlocs, and nothing else. CSM has the Heldrake, Bel'akor, and the ability to ally with Daemons. Orks have nothing. How are they supposed to list tailor against Gladius or Skyhammer or The Standard Eldar Tournament list or the new Tau? The power scale is such that at a competitive level, these armies have very little they can do against the top-tier factions.

2. Some armies are so powerful that they have no real bad matchups. My Eldar army of five Wraithknights is going to do well against pretty much any list CSM or Orks fields, even if I did list-tailor for Tyranids by taking out Scatbikers. New Tau can kill pretty much any army in two turns of shooting. Gladius wins because you can't kill that many bodies on objectives. Thunderdome just eats you alive. Evne if these armies are list-tailored against, they still stand a better chance of winning than any mono-DE force will.

The problem is not that people can spam units. The problem is that powerful units can be spammed, and some armies have no effective counters. Sideboards do nothing to solve the inbalnce problems between factions. Or should things just be as you say, and certain factions just always be set up to fail?

If you are trying to stop people from metagaming, you can't. Metagaming is present in any competitive game that allows people to pick their options. It's just as prevalent in Hearthstone, MtG, and Yugioh as it is in 40k. At a highly competitive level, all these games com edown to good vs. bad matchups and the RNG factor. There is a reason why people choose not to play at this level.

Kudos for not actually addressing how sideboards are biased toward people who have spent more on the hobby. Eliminating the need for allies does nothing to stop someone with 5000 points of Eldar having an advantage over someone with 1850 points of Space Marines.

Arkaine wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:
Forge World gives people options for things to include in their lists. Sideboards tamper with the list format itself.

As though allowing Lords of War and Super-heavies doesn't... GW is starting to introduce them into the codices yet many factions still lack them entirely outside FW.

Arkaine wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:
Also, there are no cost-effective Land Raiders, even from Forge World.

A 200 pt Proteus is less taxing than a 230-250 one if all you care about is delivering models into close combat; it's the more cost effective option. This isn't about assault vehicle flyers replacing the land raider in the current meta...

Arkaine wrote:The rest Boom has adequately explained. There are factions, FW tanks, units with D weapons, and formations that sufficiently counter anything they come up against. These are seen as creme of the crop and win all the tournaments because they can counter any list thrown at them. Yet not everyone gets the same treatment and most of the lesser factions have to work very hard to counter a specific threat, often building their list based on doing just that or they stand no chance of winning. Sorry, but not everyone can field Wraithguard or Imperial Knights and take on all comers. Some armies actually need to know what potential units they'll be facing to stand any hope of defeating them. You're being quite unfair to those armies, which are forced to exploit the only half-decent units in their list (lol, 7 flyrants!) just to have any hope of winning. Then you see the guys with TAC-style units and list diversity complain that <insert spammy unit is OP> when if you get rid of that unit, the faction fielding it doesn't have a competitive list to stand on. That's a far bigger problem than your possible tournament impacts.

Superheavies and Lords or War can be balanced. Believe it or not, every major faction has them. You should keep up on your Imperial Armour.

A 200 point Land Raider that has a transport capacity of eight? Ye gods! It's now only slightly more expensive than my Riptide! Ban this sick overpowered filth!

You accuse me of being unfair to armies on the lower end of the power scale? The problem is not that nothing in the Ork codex can reliably kill a Wraithknight. The problem is Wraithknights and other equally broken units and combinations. The best solution is to tone down the most powerful armies and bring up the weakest until everyone is on the same level of power.

Arkaine wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
No, because the two cases are not at all the same. Having 3x500 points of sideboard added to a 1000 point "core" army is a 66% increase in cost for a 1500 point army. Allowing FW rules does not increase the cost of an army by that much.

That implies you are FORCED to buy more models for your army. Are you capable of fielding a 1500 pt list? If so, you have all the models necessary and can sideboard using different loadouts and options either through proxy or magnetization. The guy who doesn't use FW isn't forced to buy more models either, he can run his list perfectly fine without it, same stance you always take. In fact, when I argued that more options means more expense, you and a few others argued against that for an entire thread. If having options means mandatory purchases then you can't argue against FW bans for the same reason. No one is forcing you to bring anything other than your standard TAC list. But if you want to, just as if you want to field some FW models, you're going to have to spend some money.

Options for purchase are by no means mandatory. Just because I can purchase a Phantom Titan does not mean that I will.

What happens when your standard "TAC" list at 1500 points just happens to contain a Forge World Army using Forge World models? Ex: Renegades and Heretics out of IA13: The Book That Makes Chaos Marines Playable? Just because someone apparently chose poorly with their faction to suit your ill-conceived and entirely arbitrary house rules does not mean they should be excluded. What happens if people sideboard in Forge World models to cover weaknesses i.e. a Chaos Fire Raptor against Flyer armies? It still doesn't help Chaos or any other army fight top-tier factions like new Tau.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jancoran wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
I would just like to confirm something:

Someone said that my Guard where A) good and B) competitive in every phase.

I would like this person to come right back here and provide evidence because in my experience this is about as far from the truth as it gets.

That was me. Evidence is in the codex. Take a gander i guess?

Just because a codex has options in every phase does not make that codex effective in every phase. It is possible to build an IG army of melee blobs, an all-shooty Ork list, or an Eldar army focused on melee. That does not mean that they are effective in every phase against typical opposition. Okay, the Eldar melee army is a bad example, but my point still stands.

Feel free to chime in on how Imperial Guard can beat new Tau, which with a certain build can table any army in the game in two turns of shooting.

Cover? Nope.
Mech? Nope.
Deathstars? Nope.
MSU? Nope.
Fun? Yes, if you're the Tau player and you're a complete sadist.

I ignored the "rich player" problem as it's irrelevant, it's just as true without sideboards anyway as they can shift to match meta, while the "just 1850" player can't.

Same thing with your ork/nids/csm argument. It's irrelevant, it's true already anyway. This is not the problem solved by sideboard but an inherit flawed codex issue, one that will never be fixed by any sort of tournament format short of mass banning, mass buffs or a new godamn codex.

Going against a change for the best because it doesn't solve every single problem is not a logical argument. Had the game allow subpar armies a chance at it was taken away by sideboards you would have a point, but as things stand you just bring an irrelevant factor the need for rules update for these armies to be remotely viable is already a fact.

IG is in the unique point if "just under par" that sideboards actually turn it viable, as with the ability to spam guns beyond belief if you just know what you need is strong in them,and they got enough choices to be workable against most targets they list against , just not at once. (they still need upgrade. But less so than CSM or orks for example)

 Jancoran wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
I would just like to confirm something:

Someone said that my Guard where A) good and B) competitive in every phase.

I would like this person to come right back here and provide evidence because in my experience this is about as far from the truth as it gets.

That was me. Evidence is in the codex. Take a gander i guess?

Okay, I scrolled back and took a look at your so called 'power build'

4 Guard sections blobbed together with three psykers and three commissars right? Upgrade the sections to have a Lascannon each? total of 46 models for around 670 points.
I could wipe this with a grand total of 240 points taken from the exact same codex.
My unit of choice is a tank squadron made from two of the weakest tanks in the entire IG codex, the over priced and near useless Eradicator.

Deployment: You set up with your Lascannons midway backboard, at the rear of your blob and I deploy my Eradicators exactly 42" away, hull down in cover.

1st turn: I will be generous and give you the initiative. You move forward 6" and then run an average of 4" (I am being generous) for a total of 10" moved. As you moved the blob your Lascannons can not fire even if you left them still. Current range: 32"
I respond by firing with my Eradicator cannons for an average of 6 hits each (yes I know it would probably be a lot higher but I am being very generous) for a total of 12. S 6 AP 4 so I need 2's to kill. I wound 10, and you go to take your cover sa... Oh, wait. The Eradicator ignores cover. So 10 Guard die (once again we shall say they are all meatshields, no special characters). I then fire my hull mounts for one wound. Total remaining blob: 35

2nd turn: You advance again and run once more, this time getting a 3, so you have advanced 9". Owing to casualties removing the front rank I am still 23" away.
I fire my main cannon again and kill another 10 infantry before spraying you for one more bod. Current remaining blobbers: 24
At this point you have to take a morale test which you pass.

3rd turn: you advance and run another 10" taking you too 13" away.
At this point I feel that you are too close for comfort and reverse my tanks a grand total of 6" away increasing the range to 19" and then fire once more. 10 blobbies die reducing you too 14. Owing to a general lack of bodies a psyker also falls at this point.
At this point you fail a morale check and the three surviving commissars execute the last three regular bods. current survivors: 11: 2 psykers, 3 commissars, 4 sergeants, 1 Lascannon.

4th turn: You advance and run 9" bringing you within 4" of my tanks
I reverse and shoot, killing another 6 (your last lascannon, a psyker, two commissars and two sergeants). Total blobsquad survivors: 5 - 1 psyker, 1 commissar, 2 sergeants.

5th turn: You advance and charge. For sheer generosities sake we shall say that each commissar and sarge had a Melta Bomb. You have three attacks of which one fails to hit (I moved so you need 3's to hit) and the remaining two damage. One tank is now on 1HP
On my turn I reverse again and shoot you once more. Your 5 survivors vanish in a fireball.


That was me killing your 670+ point blob with a 240 point tank troop. Now remember that I have another 430+ points of stuff as well to call on as well so in reality your blob is unlikely to make it past turn two, three if they get lucky.
The Guard have never been strong. We had a moment of brief glory where, provided your opponent was willing to play at 2K+ points and allow Inquisition allies, we where a top tier army but apart from that we have never been good.

Claiming that this current pile of garbage for a codex (rightly referred too as the 'Nerfdex' by many) is strong and competitive is a good way to be laughed off Dakka by many of us here. The current Guard codex is an extremely bad one which saw the nerfing of us because so many little timmies whined about how OP Guard where removing their Marines left right and centre when they tried to charge across open ground (yes I have seen this happen).
We have no mobility, or rather the mobility that we have we pay through the nose for and it is in all honesty crap (12/10/10? Have fun with all that S4+ out there).
In the shooting phase Space Marines can out shoot us. Hell, even ORKS can out shoot us at the moment.
In the psychic phase we have a very small number of overpriced and underpowered resources to call upon, each of which can be picked off by a well placed blast/template/shot.
In the Assault phase we can compete... Provided that Tau player let more than 10% of our force survive long enough to melee them. Or our opponent is not anything tougher than another Guardsman.

In other words we are boned. OUr codex is full of overpriced and massively underpowered options and even the seemingly good ones are done better by other armies (Space Marines do tanks better, Tau do amassed shooting better, almost everything does melee better, Eldar bone us in every damn phase, Orks have more bodies than we could ever hope to deal with, etc) so as you can see we are not in a good position.

By the way, I glanced at your battle reports on your blog and I can say that I envy you. Your meta is a very casual and easy going one and by the looks of things there are almost no tournament goers there. Believe me when I say this: You have it easy compared to some of us.

 Jancoran wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
I would just like to confirm something:

Someone said that my Guard where A) good and B) competitive in every phase.

I would like this person to come right back here and provide evidence because in my experience this is about as far from the truth as it gets.

That was me. Evidence is in the codex. Take a gander i guess?

Haha wat?

I'm not sure if you're read our codex, but it sucks ass.

If I may ask, what is sideboarding?

Kharne the Befriender wrote:
If I may ask, what is sideboarding?

It's where you've got a smaller pool of resources to switch in with your main pool of resources depending on the match up.

Examples:

Say you've got 60 cards in a MtG red-black deck and you're up against a green deck with powerful monsters. In your main deck, you have got very limited tools to deal with them but hey look! In your sideboard, you've got several cards that can kill those monsters by themselves, so you'll swap out the inefficient cards in your main deck for the good counters in your sideboard.

In 40k terms, let's say you've got a grounded SM force. It's good, but it doesn't have a lot of AA prescence, you wanted ground forces. Suddenly you come up against a flyer spam army (let's say PenTyrant). In your current army, you've got practically nothing to deal with it, but in your side board, you've got a Fire Raptor and two Storm Talons specfically for Flyers, so you'll swap out an equivalent number of points to fit in the Flyers to give you a better chance of winning.

 Frozocrone wrote:

Kharne the Befriender wrote:
If I may ask, what is sideboarding?

It's where you've got a smaller pool of resources to switch in with your main pool of resources depending on the match up.

Examples:

Say you've got 60 cards in a MtG red-black deck and you're up against a green deck with powerful monsters. In your main deck, you have got very limited tools to deal with them but hey look! In your sideboard, you've got several cards that can kill those monsters by themselves, so you'll swap out the inefficient cards in your main deck for the good counters in your sideboard.

In 40k terms, let's say you've got a grounded SM force. It's good, but it doesn't have a lot of AA prescence, you wanted ground forces. Suddenly you come up against a flyer spam army (let's say PenTyrant). In your current army, you've got practically nothing to deal with it, but in your side board, you've got a Fire Raptor and two Storm Talons specfically for Flyers, so you'll swap out an equivalent number of points to fit in the Flyers to give you a better chance of winning.

I don't know what MtG is so I won't ask. But sideboarding sounds illegalish, what kind of matches allow that?

I just wanted to say Kharne the Befriender best name i have seen here so far

I don't think any allows it to my knowledge.

Essentially your whole army is your sideboard, you just decide what you want to use on the day.

Kharne the Befriender wrote:

 Frozocrone wrote:

Kharne the Befriender wrote:
If I may ask, what is sideboarding?

It's where you've got a smaller pool of resources to switch in with your main pool of resources depending on the match up.

Examples:

Say you've got 60 cards in a MtG red-black deck and you're up against a green deck with powerful monsters. In your main deck, you have got very limited tools to deal with them but hey look! In your sideboard, you've got several cards that can kill those monsters by themselves, so you'll swap out the inefficient cards in your main deck for the good counters in your sideboard.

In 40k terms, let's say you've got a grounded SM force. It's good, but it doesn't have a lot of AA prescence, you wanted ground forces. Suddenly you come up against a flyer spam army (let's say PenTyrant). In your current army, you've got practically nothing to deal with it, but in your side board, you've got a Fire Raptor and two Storm Talons specfically for Flyers, so you'll swap out an equivalent number of points to fit in the Flyers to give you a better chance of winning.

I don't know what MtG is so I won't ask. But sideboarding sounds illegalish, what kind of matches allow that?

In 40k there is no sideboard.
In WMH, they use a different version of side boarding that is strict in what you are allowed to swap. It's had mixed results. It's made some niche units suddenly very viable, but also made certain tier lists become way too strong.

I have mixed feelings about it. I think a two list format would be better, or maybe just a small 250 point sideboard.

Kharne the Befriender wrote:
I don't know what MtG is so I won't ask. But sideboarding sounds illegalish, what kind of matches allow that?

Magic: The Gathering. The forums automatically translate some abbreviations, the text turns yellow and you can hover over it to see what a term means.

The assumption with sideboards is that both players have access to them, and can use them to alleviate "hard counter" match-ups, or surprise their opponent--but of course, their opponent can do the same. The Warmachine tournament rules have also allowed it as an optional tournament variant (ie, the organisers decide if they're using it for any given tournament).