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.

Bartali wrote:
Interesting that both BA lists here are terrible and could be improved by running almost any other marine faction instead.

Or, another BA list, imo.

Still, they did pretty well. That's 2x lists with BA primaries finishing in the top 15 of a major GT. No formations either.

It's not sexy "playing to the mission" but it obviously works in the ITC format. Similarities that I can see :

- A few high-strength psykers (can ID targets at S10)
- 1x dedicated Grav unit
- A super high speed FW centerpiece unit (Fire Raptor, Leviathan Dread)
- Some S8-S9 shooting, including Melta
- Wound stacking (templates or wyverns)
- Some Obsec
- Some Flyers

Nothing really stands out on paper but at this level of play I think you need to accept people know what they're doing.

Bartali wrote:
Interesting that both BA lists here are terrible and could be improved by running almost any other marine faction instead.

So terrible in fact that they won five games at a major. Lol.

In that light, it is a shining example that what you DO with a list is often more important than the list itself. Not that we will ever convince the "Codex faction" of thought of that but that's my opinion.

 Jancoran wrote:

Bartali wrote:
Interesting that both BA lists here are terrible and could be improved by running almost any other marine faction instead.

So terrible in fact that they won five games at a major. Lol.

In that light, it is a shining example that what you DO with a list is often more important than the list itself. Not that we will ever convince the "Codex faction" of thought of that but that's my opinion.

Which is weird to me. Like, yeah codexes are super imba and there're some obscene things that can be done with eldar or warcon that just don't work in other codexes, but at the end of the day the average power level is so high if you play like a numpty you're gonna lose your whole army. Make enough bad plays and you can get tabled by mono-codex sisters or single heldrake CSM. Not to mention that these guys that have top tier performances always have copycats that never do anywhere near as well. People have made direct clones of Matt Roots list and ended the gts 3-3. Heck, Brandon Grant's list doesn't look like anything compared to some of the crazier stuff, or even Codex:SM versions of the same detachment and he destroys people.

I think the idea that codex matters more than skill comes more from friendly games than tournament games. I don't have a great overall W-L record at major tournaments 3-4 across the last two i did (had to skip day 2 of one) but some of the most interesting, even games I've ever played were in tournaments. Hell, my favorite match in recent memory was against a super-friends star that was so much about movement and tactics we didn't even roll dice until turn 3. I've never been blown out at a tournament(I've had frustrating matchups but heavy grav vs demons does that) and the people I've blown out were because 1. Droppod Culexus on a seer star that was out in the open(Actually still lost because we only made it to turn 3. Also killpoints wreck gladius). 2. Ork player got super frustrated turn 2 and forgot all of his rules and I'm not gonna babysit him through his codex at a tournament. 3. Tyranid player who was just there to have a giggle 4. Eldar player 4th game of the day that was talking to his friend the whole game.

Meanwhile I've seen people totally quit the game after friendly beer and pretzels because one guy thought that meant 'footslog khorne berserkers and warp talons' and the other guy thought 'Hey let's see what 2 Cataphractii captains can do in a medusa strike force with 2 dev squads!'

 Jancoran wrote:

Bartali wrote:
Interesting that both BA lists here are terrible and could be improved by running almost any other marine faction instead.

So terrible in fact that they won five games at a major. Lol.

In that light, it is a shining example that what you DO with a list is often more important than the list itself. Not that we will ever convince the "Codex faction" of thought of that but that's my opinion.

By your own logic, a list can indeed be terrible and place well because of the player. Lists can be evaluated independently of the person playing them and I can tell you as a BA player that those are not so hot.

ERJAK wrote:


at the end of the day the average power level is so high if you play like a numpty you're gonna lose your whole army. Make enough bad plays and you can get tabled by mono-codex sisters or single heldrake CSM. '

Wait a second now! Lol. I play both of those and I have more tournament wins with Sisters fo Battle than any other force! My Night Lords only have one Heldrake. hehehe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

Bartali wrote:
Interesting that both BA lists here are terrible and could be improved by running almost any other marine faction instead.

So terrible in fact that they won five games at a major. Lol.

In that light, it is a shining example that what you DO with a list is often more important than the list itself. Not that we will ever convince the "Codex faction" of thought of that but that's my opinion.

By your own logic, a list can indeed be terrible and place well because of the player. Lists can be evaluated independently of the person playing them and I can tell you as a BA player that those are not so hot.

Yes. by my own logic, lesser lists (not terrible lists, I never said that) place well because of the player. Absolutely.

As proof of that, my own lists have gotten so much flakk over the years that the internet literally invented my nickname, Unorthodoxy (which I embraced and named my blog after).

Martel, and anyone who will listen, this game is a lot deeper than the STR and AP on your weapons. It is. It's one of the more complex games you will play and many shenanigans exist to mitigate the matchups you are overpowered in.

Bring a terrible list, you lose. Duh. Martel will follow that comment up by saying "Every BA list is terrible". Well thats bull crap. but any ways that aside, you have to bring a decent list that covers all the major bases. I don't think anyone is dumb enough to say otherwise. Having said that, as long as you have the tool bag, there are ways to mitigate the bad matchups. I have sort of made an art form out of doing it. I'm not special. You all are quick to point THAT out. So anything i can do, so can you. i travel all over the place for tournaments and see the different areas and their metas and you know what? there ain't really much difference. Same codex's, different city.

The difference is a willingness to look past what I can't do and look for what I can do...and try to do it well. Try to time it well more importantly. The second piece is an alertness to what the enemy does well... and a willingness not to play that game to the extent its possible. And that allows me to make MINOR tweaks to existing lists to compensate for the very few things i have no true answer for tactically.

the ITC standings will tell you about player skill. They wont say as much about the factions. You can glean the popularity of certain factions from it and you can guess based o nthat how people perceive the power levels of those codex's but that's all it is: perception. What makes it reality is the General.

That's the lens through which I see the world. Cynicism is like the cool kids club on the internet though so i probably wont win any converts. But that's okay.

" "Every BA list is terrible"."

Well, they are compared to White Scars lists. Army wide hit and run in a list with a dozen obj sec units, some of which are free, is probably pretty good at "playing the mission"

Martel732 wrote:
Lists can be evaluated independently of the person playing them

I don't know if I agree with this.

If player X can pull off 2+ Melta pistol shots with regularity, it's better than a Combi-Melta. If Player Y can't, the Combi-Melta is going to be superior.

This is a skill cap / strategy consideration.

I'm sure you understand how skill cap affects unit value in a game like Brood War. My buddy hates everything but carriers and dragoons becuae he hates to micro. His favorite unit is the defensive tower, his favorite strategy is attack-moving across the map. He'll never improve, despite playing for years, because his criteria for "good" is "ease of use".

I'm sure you can see the parallels right?

The Melta Pistol has literally half the range. For 5 points more you'd get two Combi-Melta.

Except in 40K, there are dice. No amount of skill makes it less likely for an infernus pistol to scatter out of range. That's the difference. I'm not microing my marines in 40K. I'm praying for die rolls. After playing Starcraft for some time, I can competently split my marines vs banelings. There is no analogous skill in 40K, imo. If I stumble my marines into banelings, that's on me in Starcraft. In 40K, bad stuff can just happen, and trying to use melta pistols makes that much more likely.

If I'm using deep strike mitigation in my list, I consider that list building, not player skill. I've totally thought about using melta pistols with no-scatter vanguard in a Dante-led Angel's Blade.

then...do it?

 Jancoran wrote:
then...do it?

The points don't quite add up, unfortunately. It's much better as a 2K list than a 1.850K list. Plus, sanguinary guard are really bad, and you have to take them to get Dante in an Angel's Blade.

Perhaps but a Sanguinary Priest nearby does a lot for Sanguinary Guard in my opinion. It certainly isnt a solution to their biggest weakness but it is one for most of their weaknesses. STR 8 AP 2 is still kind of a poppy situation but that's what Dante is for: tankeroo duty.

 Jancoran wrote:
Perhaps but a Sanguinary Priest nearby does a lot for Sanguinary Guard in my opinion. It certainly isnt a solution to their biggest weakness but it is one for most of their weaknesses. STR 8 AP 2 is still kind of a poppy situation but that's what Dante is for: tankeroo duty.

I don't know. Sanguinary priest is an expensive babysitter to just give FNP. I prefer SG naked honestly to keep them as cheap as possible. Priests were much better in 5th.

Sanguine Guard are bad because they require that much babysitting though. Death company only need the Hit And Run Dante provides. Sanguine Guard NEED Dante to tank hits AND a Priest to make them more durable. Just add a couple power Fists and Company are doing more, on top of being more durable to anything outside AP3.

Martel732 wrote:
In 40K, bad stuff can just happen, and trying to use melta pistols makes that much more likely.

The GT player's conclusion was the risk justified the reward. No scatter mitigation, no combi-melta, just a 6" range pistol out of a drop pod and dakkadakka can go feth itself.

That player doesn't have magic dice. So why do you think your opinions are so diametrical? You both have the same codex and rulebook. But you've got radically different attitudes towards risk acceptance.

In terms of Vanguard Vets, DC, Sang Guard -- in a GT players will be preparing for obvious opponents. That means a lot of Grav + Melta (WK, Riptides, Knights, vehicles), and a lot of anti-MEQ (Scatterbikes, Warp Spiders, Ravenwing, massed marines). Those BA lists which performed well had no pricey 2+ or 3+, aside from deepstriking Grav and Meltacide. Which is probably not coincidental. DC isn't more survivable than Warp Spiders, Grav Bikes are not more survivable than Ravenwing, Sang Guard with Priests are not more resilient than Riptides. And players are definitely preparing for these.

I know 'not tailoring' is a point of pride in your case, but if you don't adapt to meta you are going to be crushed by it. Though honestly I don't think it's the first time you've heard this argument. If you're intent on going mono-codex, I would try and pick apart what made these lists work so well at BAO, and what might be generally adaptable to your meta.

" just a 6" range pistol out of a drop pod and dakkadakka can go feth itself. "

Drop pod helps a lot because you get the 6" move.

Martel732 wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
Perhaps but a Sanguinary Priest nearby does a lot for Sanguinary Guard in my opinion. It certainly isnt a solution to their biggest weakness but it is one for most of their weaknesses. STR 8 AP 2 is still kind of a poppy situation but that's what Dante is for: tankeroo duty.

I don't know. Sanguinary priest is an expensive babysitter to just give FNP. I prefer SG naked honestly to keep them as cheap as possible. Priests were much better in 5th.

The sanguinary priest also does stuff. Hes not just there. He's another weapon, another wound, another combatant... People pay more for less.

 Jancoran wrote:

Bartali wrote:
Interesting that both BA lists here are terrible and could be improved by running almost any other marine faction instead.

So terrible in fact that they won five games at a major. Lol.

In that light, it is a shining example that what you DO with a list is often more important than the list itself. Not that we will ever convince the "Codex faction" of thought of that but that's my opinion.

Not quite. None of those lists will ever win a major GT regardless of player skill. I'd imagine skilled players with favourable match ups and bit a of luck can get top 20 with variety of lists, as these two have done.

you understand of course that they already have won GT's right?

I'm more curious how mono-build codex's have done rather then those splitting amongst with hard core allying going on.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
I'm more curious how mono-build codex's have done rather then those splitting amongst with hard core allying going on.

In those cases, BA will never win then. That's what bugs me everytime people talk about DE or BA winning tournaments. It's usually (faction that struggles on it's own) + Eldar or White Scars or Tau.

Yeah but watch, it'll happen ONCE and suddenly they're good because apparently you can treat the exception as the norm in Jancoran's eyes!

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Yeah but watch, it'll happen ONCE and suddenly they're good because apparently you can treat the exception as the norm in Jancoran's eyes!

You just don't get it. I play the "exception" armies in YOUR eyes as a rule and I win. yet you keep acting like i did it just once or something.

What you need to do, as i invited you to do before, is actually ASK the people who actually know me. I even gave you the link to the forums i am regularly on in the area once before. Because even the people who don't like me, and of course anyone who thinks differently has detractors, respect my actual ability. YOU can come to grips with the fact that a Generals skill counts for a lot or you can continue on with the absurd thought that a Codex can move itself and plan itself around the board.

I for one do not understand why you take so little credit for your wins. Perhaps it is because this allows you not to have to take credit for your failures? Who knows. What I do know for a certainty is that nothing you're saying changes the outcome of any of my games. I know that for sure.

While we are on the subject of allies and mono-codex lists :

1st overall LVO -- Eldar with 31pts in Inquisition.
2nd overall LVO -- Eldar with 630pts in DE Corpsethief Claw.
6th overall LVO -- Eldar with 200pts in a DE allied detachment.
3rd overall Omegacon -- Eldar with a 370pt Knight Errant.
1st overall Lantasy -- Eldar with 275pts in Inquisition allies.
3rd overall Lantasy -- Eldar with 100pts in a VSG.
3rd overall Huzzah hobbies -- Eldar with 445pts in a DE CAD.
2nd overall Adepticon -- Eldar with 136pts in Inquisition allies.
5th overall Adepticon -- Eldar with 210 points in a DE CAD.
6th overall Adepticon -- Eldar with 160pts in a DE allied detachment.
7th overall Adepticon -- Eldar with 34pts in Inquisition.
9th overall Adeoticon -- Eldar with 140pts in a Culexus.
10th overall Adepticon -- Pure Eldar.
14th overall Adepticon -- Eldar with 550pts in a WS CAD, 358pts in an AM allied detachment, and 140pts in a Culexus.
15th overall Adepticon -- Eldar with 100pts in a VSG.
2nd overall March Madness -- Eldar with 34pts in Inquisition.
3rd overall March Madness -- Pure Eldar.
2nd overall Broadside Bash -- Pure Eldar.
3rd overall Scorched Earth -- Eldar with 580pts in Riptide Wing and 646pts in SW.
3rd overall Guardian Cup -- Eldar with 34pts in Inquisition.
2nd overall Terracon -- Pure Eldar.
1st overall NW Open -- Eldar with 940pts in Riptide Wing.
4th overall BAO -- Eldar with 34pts in Inquisition.
9th overall BAO -- Pure Eldar.
2nd overall Capital City -- Pure Eldar.
1st overall NOVA -- Eldar with 555pts in Riptide Wing, 140pts in a Culexus.
3rd overall NOVA -- Eldar with 555pts in Riptide Wing, 400pts in Piranha Firestream Wing.
6th overall NOVA -- Eldar with 150pts in a DE allied detachment.
2nd overall Michigan GT -- Eldar with 571pts in Riptide Wing, 120pts in a CD allied detachment.
3rd overall Michigan GT -- Eldar with 305pts in Harlequins, 144pts in Inquisition, and 140pts in a Culexus.

That's something like 24 lists that pull from another codex (including Fortifications). There are about 6 that don't. Credit to Blood of Kittens for such a comprehensive archive.

Point is, Eldar is winning on the strength of their pure codex about 20% of the time. The other 80%, they're using at minimum Servo-Skulls and at maximum more points in another faction. I don't really understand dakka's obsession over not using allies. Competitive players are not divas about codex purity.

Eldar are very good. Top codex, and noone can argue otherwise.

I'm not; I just don't own allies other than IKs.

 Jancoran wrote:
Eldar are very good. Top codex, and noone can argue otherwise.

A number of people in the past (Eldar Players predominantly) have in fact argued that point

Also it funny how a LOT of those top Eldar lists field a Riptide wing


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also as far as why people dont like the ally matrix? Well it works great for the Have armies again, Tau, Eldar IoM (SMs) And not so well for the Have not armies Orks, Nids, I would argue CSM a well since your better off fielding a pure Demon army then CSM

Even if Orks could ally with other factions as well as Eldar/SMs can, you would still be better off taking the other armies units because atm the Ork/Nid codex sucks.

Eldar are far and away the best overall codex and still lend themselves well to taking allies in cases where that's necessary. That said, they're not unbeatable by other top tier armies, and matches between a good eldar list and a good Chaos Demon or SM or Tau or Warcon come down to mission design and player skill more often than not.

Side note: Saying 'Chaos' sucks and 'Imperials' are super broken because of the difference between SM and CSM is triggeringly unfair. It's pretty much the same as complaining that 'Chaos' is crazy broken and unfair and unfun for 'Imperials' to play against because of the difference between SoB and Chaos Demons(who have won the 2nd most big tournaments this year according to Bloodofkittens). The whole faction doesn't get to special snowflake because one book is bad. Only tangentially related to the topic but it's been coming up a lot and is infuriating when you play SoB, BA, IG, Deathwing, GK, or Inq.

2nd overall Adepticon -- Eldar with 136pts in Inquisition allies.
5th overall Adepticon -- Eldar with 210 points in a DE CAD.
6th overall Adepticon -- Eldar with 160pts in a DE allied detachment.
7th overall Adepticon -- Eldar with 34pts in Inquisition.
9th overall Adeoticon -- Eldar with 140pts in a Culexus.
10th overall Adepticon -- Pure Eldar.

Yikes thats a good run at Adepticon for the space elves.