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.

I don't really want to wade into this slowed debate... but it's worth noting that the Elysian detachment in the winning IG list could have easily been replaced with units just from the Index with very little difference in utility...

He was running psyker spam, conscript spam (120!), mortar spam and Taurox spam, and of course Celestine... the Elysian role could've been achieved with the GW Index as well.

I saw 2 really cool DKoK armies (with earthshakers too) that didn't do all that well.

Breng77 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I actually fought a pick-up game while I was there against a DKoK army with 9 Earthshaker cannons in 3 batteries.

Not only did I table him, but he was bringing some of the Earthshakers to the tournament and ended up 2-6.

Earthshakers OP indeed.

Nothing is OP if the rest of the list is not good, or the player is not very good. My argument about earthshakers is that if they aren't op then neither is a bunch of stuff people claim is OP from GW, as they have placed higher in events than most of what people complain about from GW.

But the same argument can be turned on its head: if it placed higher in events, perhaps the player was just good or the rest of the list is good?

The Earthshakers themselves didn't win BAO, it wasn't 2000 points of Earthshaker cannons.

A unit whose utility depends on player skill and the composition of the rest of the list is a balanced unit imo.

Then every unit is balanced, end of discussion. No list is ever made up of 2000 points of a single unit, no unit auto wins games without any skill or a good rest of the list.

I can be convinced to believe a unit is OP when there is more data than "it won a thing once" to back up such claims.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I actually fought a pick-up game while I was there against a DKoK army with 9 Earthshaker cannons in 3 batteries.

Not only did I table him, but he was bringing some of the Earthshakers to the tournament and ended up 2-6.

Earthshakers OP indeed.

Nothing is OP if the rest of the list is not good, or the player is not very good. My argument about earthshakers is that if they aren't op then neither is a bunch of stuff people claim is OP from GW, as they have placed higher in events than most of what people complain about from GW.

But the same argument can be turned on its head: if it placed higher in events, perhaps the player was just good or the rest of the list is good?

The Earthshakers themselves didn't win BAO, it wasn't 2000 points of Earthshaker cannons.

A unit whose utility depends on player skill and the composition of the rest of the list is a balanced unit imo.

Then every unit is balanced, end of discussion. No list is ever made up of 2000 points of a single unit, no unit auto wins games without any skill or a good rest of the list.

I can be convinced to believe a unit is OP when there is more data than "it won a thing once" to back up such claims.

That is basically the only data provided for all such claims. That x thing is popular and won a thing once (sometimes not even won anything). For instance Razorback Spam has won nothing, yet it is OP, because reasons. So the Earthshaker has more to support it being OP than Razor spam does, which is how it even got in this discussion. Performance of all units is dependent on the rest of the list, and player skill.

So we're back to "FW isn't any more overpowered than GW."

Glad you agree!

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So we're back to "FW isn't any more overpowered than GW."

Glad you agree!

I never said that it was. I said that I think it has issues regarding the correction of its imbalances that worry me. I hope they are as responsive as GW. If not I would call for it's exclusion based on the grounds that it stagnates the meta. Further, I think the meta it's inclusion creates (having a lot of things that wipe vehicles out easily) are undesirable. But the fix to this is amending anti-infantry fire power.

If the way we interpret tournament results is to argue about what is more broken, we are really missing the point.

There are some combinations of units that are more effective than others, which we really only learn about from reading the lists themselves. Eventually, they will probably be countered, but a lot of what goes into placing in the top 20 is rolls of the dice.

I don't think anyone is aware of how thin the margins of victory can be in any single game. Saying that a unit is OP just because it shows up in a winning list is like saying the dice don't matter, the format of the tournament doesn't matter, the people playing the games don't matter.

I am always interested in reading a list, but... honestly, this isn't data. It's a point which may or may not be valid based on hundreds of other points. No one is going to examine these lists and prove that the rules are skewed one way or another for any individual unit.

For example: I used to play in an extremely competitive local meta under 5th edition. The only list that was went undefeated in over 10 games was spawn rush - 30+ chaos spawn, a chaos lord, and 2 small CSM units at 1850 points. No one can tell me 5th edition spawn were OP, they were mindless and you could not control where they went. You could control 3 factors in the game, where you put them, whether or not they advanced during the shooting phase, and what the chaos lord aimed his melta bombs at. Other than that, it was all random and there were only a couple lists that came close to beating it.

Breng77 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So we're back to "FW isn't any more overpowered than GW."

Glad you agree!

I never said that it was. I said that I think it has issues regarding the correction of its imbalances that worry me. I hope they are as responsive as GW. If not I would call for it's exclusion based on the grounds that it stagnates the meta. Further, I think the meta it's inclusion creates (having a lot of things that wipe vehicles out easily) are undesirable. But the fix to this is amending anti-infantry fire power.

Is stagnating the meta bad? And if so, is there any evidence that Forge World is doing that?

And I think more things wholesale wipe out vehicles from GW than from FW. I was tabled once by a Gauss Pylon at the GT. I was tabled twice by regular GW units: Lascannon predator spam and neutron onager spam. The "tanks are easily murdered" meta is simply what GW/FW both seem to want, otherwise perhaps the proliferation of damage that can instant-kill a tank would go down.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So we're back to "FW isn't any more overpowered than GW."

Glad you agree!

I never said that it was. I said that I think it has issues regarding the correction of its imbalances that worry me. I hope they are as responsive as GW. If not I would call for it's exclusion based on the grounds that it stagnates the meta. Further, I think the meta it's inclusion creates (having a lot of things that wipe vehicles out easily) are undesirable. But the fix to this is amending anti-infantry fire power.

Is stagnating the meta bad? And if so, is there any evidence that Forge World is doing that?

And I think more things wholesale wipe out vehicles from GW than from FW. I was tabled once by a Gauss Pylon at the GT. I was tabled twice by regular GW units: Lascannon predator spam and neutron onager spam. The "tanks are easily murdered" meta is simply what GW/FW both seem to want, otherwise perhaps the proliferation of damage that can instant-kill a tank would go down.

I think a stagnant meta is bad (opinion), as for FW doing that, it is entirely up to whether they address any broken units in their books. If not then yes they are doing this.

I disagree on the second, point, but yes in general I think tanks are a bit to easy to kill when viewed with respect in infantry. Very few units can kill 18+ wounds of infantry in a single phase, multiple units can do this to tanks. This is why infantry spam is so prevalent.

MasteroftheBloodAngels wrote:

GhostRecon wrote:
For the GT side, the top 10 comprised 2 GK, 3 Chaos, and 5 Imperial lists.

I don't believe those were truly GK lists, but instead had a small detachment of them. One of the lists was this:
Tyler Devries

Patrol detachment

170 grand master- terminator psylencer, soul glave (warlord) (first to the fray)
214 x10 strikes, x8 storm bolters, x8 falchions, x2 psilencers
214 x10 strikes, x8 storm bolters, x8 falchions, x2 psilencers
113 x5 purgation squad, x1 falchion, x4 psilencers

Brigade detachment

45 elysian commander, plasma pistol
40 elysian commander, krak gernads
40 elysian commander, krak gernads
58 elysian command squad, x4 plasma guns
58 elysian command squad, x4 plasma guns
58 elysian command squad, x4 plasma guns
21 x3 elysian sniper teams, x1 sniper rifle
21 x3 elysian sniper teams, x1 sniper rifle
21 x3 elysian sniper teams, x1 sniper rifle
21 x3 elysian sniper teams, x1 sniper rifle
21 x3 elysian sniper teams, x1 sniper rifle
50 x10 elysian guard, krak gernads
50 x10 elysian guard, krak gernads
50 x10 elysian guard, krak gernads
107 x5 strikes, x4 storm bolters, x4 falchions, x1 psilencer
107 x5 strikes, x4 storm bolters, x4 falchions, x1 psilencer
107 x5 strikes, x4 storm bolters, x4 falchions, x1 psilencer
27 x3 heavy weapon team, x3 mortars
27 x3 heavy weapon team, x3 mortars
27 x3 heavy weapon team, x3 mortars
15 cyber wolf
15 cyber wolf
15 cyber wolf

Spearhead detachment

150 celestine
27 x3 heavy weapon team, x3 mortars
27 x3 heavy weapon team, x3 mortars
27 x3 heavy weapon team, x3 mortars
27 x3 heavy weapon team, x3 mortars
15 x1 astropath
15 x1 astropath

I imagine the other one followed the same broad outline of minimal GK with imperium allies. Here (https://mismatchedplay.com/2017/08/31/nova-invitational-lists) are some of the other lists used during the Invitational. You can watch some of the invitational and open games, including one of the semis and the final for the open, from Mismatched Play's twitch (http://www.twitch.tv/mismatchedplay).

This is so disappointing it makes me want to wretch. This isn't a Grey Knights list. It has a freaking AM Brigade. That isn't GK. A patrol of GK under 600 points DOESN'T MAKE YOUR ARMY GREY KNIGHTS, FFS.

 Marmatag wrote:
This is so disappointing it makes me want to wretch. This isn't a Grey Knights list. It has a freaking AM Brigade. That isn't GK. A patrol of GK under 600 points DOESN'T MAKE YOUR ARMY GREY KNIGHTS, FFS.

It's pretty simple to explain. Entrants had to give a name to their faction before their lists were completed and did not get a chance to change it.

I mean, it would be nice to be able to change faction names, but.... what do you really call Imperial Soup? How does this impact our perceptions about good factions?

They need the AoS rule of allowing only one allied faction and only 20% of your army can be spent on allies.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
This is so disappointing it makes me want to wretch. This isn't a Grey Knights list. It has a freaking AM Brigade. That isn't GK. A patrol of GK under 600 points DOESN'T MAKE YOUR ARMY GREY KNIGHTS, FFS.

It's pretty simple to explain. Entrants had to give a name to their faction before their lists were completed and did not get a chance to change it.

I mean, it would be nice to be able to change faction names, but.... what do you really call Imperial Soup? How does this impact our perceptions about good factions?

I don't know, but his list was Forgeworld Astra Militarum, with some GK on the side.

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

https://www.twitch.tv/mismatchedplay/videos/all

Don't know if everyone saw this, but videos of the games including the final table.

Some of those armies are insane. Watched enough to know the best lists combine multiple armies, Daemons with artillery, AM with psykers, etc.

Also, many of the Chaos lists (World Eaters, Black Legion) feature Kharbdyis Assault Claws. Supposedly this is the most OP Forgeworld unit these days, the best they placed is 11.

Having been there, there wasn't much guidance on picking what your faction is.

You could pick which detachment your Warlord was (which seems like the fluffy option), which detachment cost more points, which you identified as, etc.

 Marmatag wrote:

MasteroftheBloodAngels wrote:

GhostRecon wrote:
For the GT side, the top 10 comprised 2 GK, 3 Chaos, and 5 Imperial lists.

I don't believe those were truly GK lists, but instead had a small detachment of them. One of the lists was this:
Tyler Devries

Patrol detachment

170 grand master- terminator psylencer, soul glave (warlord) (first to the fray)
214 x10 strikes, x8 storm bolters, x8 falchions, x2 psilencers
214 x10 strikes, x8 storm bolters, x8 falchions, x2 psilencers
113 x5 purgation squad, x1 falchion, x4 psilencers

Brigade detachment

45 elysian commander, plasma pistol
40 elysian commander, krak gernads
40 elysian commander, krak gernads
58 elysian command squad, x4 plasma guns
58 elysian command squad, x4 plasma guns
58 elysian command squad, x4 plasma guns
21 x3 elysian sniper teams, x1 sniper rifle
21 x3 elysian sniper teams, x1 sniper rifle
21 x3 elysian sniper teams, x1 sniper rifle
21 x3 elysian sniper teams, x1 sniper rifle
21 x3 elysian sniper teams, x1 sniper rifle
50 x10 elysian guard, krak gernads
50 x10 elysian guard, krak gernads
50 x10 elysian guard, krak gernads
107 x5 strikes, x4 storm bolters, x4 falchions, x1 psilencer
107 x5 strikes, x4 storm bolters, x4 falchions, x1 psilencer
107 x5 strikes, x4 storm bolters, x4 falchions, x1 psilencer
27 x3 heavy weapon team, x3 mortars
27 x3 heavy weapon team, x3 mortars
27 x3 heavy weapon team, x3 mortars
15 cyber wolf
15 cyber wolf
15 cyber wolf

Spearhead detachment

150 celestine
27 x3 heavy weapon team, x3 mortars
27 x3 heavy weapon team, x3 mortars
27 x3 heavy weapon team, x3 mortars
27 x3 heavy weapon team, x3 mortars
15 x1 astropath
15 x1 astropath

I imagine the other one followed the same broad outline of minimal GK with imperium allies. Here (https://mismatchedplay.com/2017/08/31/nova-invitational-lists) are some of the other lists used during the Invitational. You can watch some of the invitational and open games, including one of the semis and the final for the open, from Mismatched Play's twitch (http://www.twitch.tv/mismatchedplay).

This is so disappointing it makes me want to wretch. This isn't a Grey Knights list. It has a freaking AM Brigade. That isn't GK. A patrol of GK under 600 points DOESN'T MAKE YOUR ARMY GREY KNIGHTS, FFS.

You missed the three Strike squads hidden. It's more like 800ish points. That's not bad.

Its actually over a 1000 points of Grey Knights. The guy obviously wanted the CP, we do have pretty good CPs.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Ghorgul wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The Earthshaker, Assault Claw, and Pylon are just excellent. They're not broken at all. Assault Claw I will say borders, but that's because it's more that its younger brother is bad, and the youngest of all (regular Drop Pod) is complete garbage right now.

Regular Drop Pod is not complete garbage. Just in this same NOVA OPEN Reecius got very nice results using one in his list. Of course it feels garbage in this edition when its not given free so people actually need to use brains how to make most of using it.

"Very nice results"
How far did Drop Pods make it again?

Well Reece managed to beat the AM player who placed fourth, and that was that players only loss in whole tournament. And reading his report this was mostly thanks to his drop pod.
Drop pods by themselves didn't win anything, and they shouldn't. So do you think that anything good/useable needs to be spammable? So if something fails 'spammability' test, it's not good unit?

Ghorgul wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Ghorgul wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The Earthshaker, Assault Claw, and Pylon are just excellent. They're not broken at all. Assault Claw I will say borders, but that's because it's more that its younger brother is bad, and the youngest of all (regular Drop Pod) is complete garbage right now.

Regular Drop Pod is not complete garbage. Just in this same NOVA OPEN Reecius got very nice results using one in his list. Of course it feels garbage in this edition when its not given free so people actually need to use brains how to make most of using it.

"Very nice results"
How far did Drop Pods make it again?

Well Reece managed to beat the AM player who placed fourth, and that was that players only loss in whole tournament. And reading his report this was mostly thanks to his drop pod.
Drop pods by themselves didn't win anything, and they shouldn't. So do you think that anything good/useable needs to be spammable? So if something fails 'spammability' test, it's not good unit?

No. Something does not need to be spammable to be good.

Abaddon is good. He buffs units around him, halves damage thrown at him, can do a ton of damage in close combat, and has a 4+ save. But you can only take one. That's a good unit that's not spammable.

Rapier Quad Heavy Bolters are good. For 56 points each, I can fit 9 of them into most lists and do 108 S 5 AP -1 shots at 48 inches. That's a spammable unit that's also a good unit.

I think we are getting caught up on the word 'good' here, I think it's being mistaken for 'points efficient.' In general, you want to combine as many points-efficient units into your army as possible. Units can be points-efficient for different reasons, and it usually depends on the role you want it to play in your army.

Ghorgul wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Ghorgul wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The Earthshaker, Assault Claw, and Pylon are just excellent. They're not broken at all. Assault Claw I will say borders, but that's because it's more that its younger brother is bad, and the youngest of all (regular Drop Pod) is complete garbage right now.

Regular Drop Pod is not complete garbage. Just in this same NOVA OPEN Reecius got very nice results using one in his list. Of course it feels garbage in this edition when its not given free so people actually need to use brains how to make most of using it.

"Very nice results"
How far did Drop Pods make it again?

Well Reece managed to beat the AM player who placed fourth, and that was that players only loss in whole tournament. And reading his report this was mostly thanks to his drop pod.
Drop pods by themselves didn't win anything, and they shouldn't. So do you think that anything good/useable needs to be spammable? So if something fails 'spammability' test, it's not good unit?

You didn't answer my question. You avoided it.

Breng77 wrote:
The comparison is not meaningless. The comparison as stock number of OP units is meaningless because it ignores a ton of issues.

Nope. If someone claims that FW writes rules worse than GW does, then pointing out that GW feths up with rules thrice as much is actually not meaningless.

You last Icing on the cake actually proves my tournament point which you still have not addressed about accessibility.

FW units simply have not been as broken as GW units have been, and this is the case once again in 8th edition. Top ITC and ETC lists and their players will include the best stuff around, accessibility simply doesn't matter. All good FW units from 7th ed were present in tournaments, such as Skatach Wraithknights, Tau Tetras, Sevrin Loth. They were in the lists. Have you even followed the meta during 7th? I get this impression you have not, due to this accessibility claim you're making.

I get this vibe: "There must be some super OP FW units that the most competitive players on the planet, participating in the largest tournaments out there just didn't use because of accessibility." - this is a fairytale. All the stuff that was worth using,was used. It's just that there was a fraction of it on FW's side.

If anything is meaningless, it's that, because the overpowered FW stuff WAS used in tournaments. It's just that in 7th for example, 90% of the broken stuff came from GW, and the best armies around were built on GW's mistakes. You fail to see this, clearly, but the lists from all the largest tournaments from a few years back can still be found and there it stands. Just no way around it. Accessibility isn't a factor for competitive play. Where the broken units lie is a factor, and those units will be used even if they were manufactured by Lego.

Breng77 wrote:
In older edtions that you mention FW was by and large banned so using tournament results as the indicator of OP is almost entirely meaningless. GK were OP in tournaments yes. But we have no idea what FW would have been back then, because they were not in tournaments so saying. "These are the worst tournament lists and they are all GW and not FW." is meaningless because NO FW was allowed in those events in the first place.

Wrong, FW has been allowed in major tournaments during 5th edition already, but admittedly it was more restricted than these days (numerically tournaments-wise). Still, no top lists with FW in them.

Breng77 wrote:
Fire Raptor Spam could have been a thing alongside storm raven spam. But people don't own 5 fire raptors, and the nerf came prior to anyone having the ability to buy/convert them.

Except that Fire Raptors are worse on the points/effectivity scale than Storm Ravens... so no.

Breng77 wrote:
Razorwing spam won exactly 0 tournaments (it was good at ETC in fixed matchups) so that is based on what that they got nerfed prior to any tournament where they dominated? What event has Drone spam dominated? You completely ignored the fact that tournament results are not any kind of indicator between GW and FW rules, because you will see a ton more GW in those events because more people own just GW.

A Skatach Wraithknight was still broken even if it didn't WIN a tournament. Your point is illogical and moot.

Breng77 wrote:
Also previous editions mean nothing when discussing current rules, and response. Most things you listed are not even units in 7th but formations.

Creations by GW that broke the game. Even if we leave formations out, GW still wins by units alone.

Make us a tournament list consisting of FW that is more broken than anything we've seen from GW in 8th edition. Paste it here.
Alternatively, make us a tournament list constisting of FW based on 7th edition that was more broken than GW's stuff. Paste it here.
Hell, do a 5th edition list that is worse than GK using FW units since you seem so certain it was possible FW could've done worse.

I eagerly await your factual concrete proof in the form of an actual example instead of antics.

 Marmatag wrote:
This is so disappointing it makes me want to wretch. This isn't a Grey Knights list. It has a freaking AM Brigade. That isn't GK. A patrol of GK under 600 points DOESN'T MAKE YOUR ARMY GREY KNIGHTS, FFS.

Ironically however, it's a turbo-fluffy list.

A small, elite strike force of Marines bolstered by a ton of fodder is far fluffier then how the individual codices for each chapter would have you believe.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Without being able to even read the rules and units in question, how can you claim they are OP? That's like saying "Paris is ugly but I have never been there!"

Or possibly I've seen the books in the past and no longer have access to them. Assumptions aren't hard to make both ways.

There are a few Forgeworld things that are op and a few that are under powered and some priced about right. My complaint is how much the stuff costs to ship to the US and that they are generally made to fill holes in an army. I'm a firm believe that each army should have holes in it.

Did the imperial knights perform so bad because of the missions?
Read a lot people being concerned about beating 3-4 of them.
Seemed no Problem with that at Nova.

As someone else said, I think we need to move away from using “OP”, and start discussing “high points efficiency”. Sure, a Cerberus can one shot tanks and pretty much do the same to super heavies, but, overall is it “cost effective” to do so? Malefic Lords aren’t exactly “OP”, and neither are their GW counterparts, Primaris Psykers for AM, but, right now they seem to be hyper points efficient for several reasons.

The same goes for conscript spam. It isn’t that the unit is “over powered”, as, let’s face it, if required you can usually make sure a unit dies in a turn (balanced lists). It’s the fact that they are so points efficient and spammable when compared to other units that provide the same role in a game.

A lot of noise recently has been about Elysians, so let’s start off looking at them. What makes them so “hyper efficient” compared to Scions, who do the same role? For the standard infantry unit, is 1 point for deep-strike that “effective” when in most lists chances are they’d be starting on the table anyway? Even if they deep-strike, is 10 points worth it for 10 T3, 5+ wound models wielding lasguns?
What are the best answers to Elysians? How do they stack up “overall”?
(For RAI purposes, we should presume that they work the same way as normal command squads – 1 commander = 1 command squad, as this hasn’t technically been FW FAQ’d)



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:

This is so disappointing it makes me want to wretch. This isn't a Grey Knights list. It has a freaking AM Brigade. That isn't GK. A patrol of GK under 600 points DOESN'T MAKE YOUR ARMY GREY KNIGHTS, FFS.

I also agree. That, and the other similar lists, are not Grey Knight lists. Bit of a “moot point”, unless you are trying to get first place in ITC faction rankings, but, I think Nova should have put a bit more thought into how they defined armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
There are a few Forgeworld things that are op and a few that are under powered and some priced about right. My complaint is how much the stuff costs to ship to the US and that they are generally made to fill holes in an army. I'm a firm believe that each army should have holes in it.

Personally, I think all the armies should be able to provide answers for all situations. How well they able to answer each situation, however, should vary. I'd rather things be able to put up a fight, rather than it be too swingy on "rock-paper-scissors".

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Ghorgul wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

"Very nice results"
How far did Drop Pods make it again?

Well Reece managed to beat the AM player who placed fourth, and that was that players only loss in whole tournament. And reading his report this was mostly thanks to his drop pod.
Drop pods by themselves didn't win anything, and they shouldn't. So do you think that anything good/useable needs to be spammable? So if something fails 'spammability' test, it's not good unit?

You didn't answer my question. You avoided it.

I did answer the question:

Ghorgul wrote:Well Reece managed to beat the AM player who placed fourth, and that was that players only loss in whole tournament. And reading his report this was mostly thanks to his drop pod.
Drop pods by themselves didn't win anything, and they shouldn't. So do you think that anything good/useable needs to be spammable? So if something fails 'spammability' test, it's not good unit?

Against this fourth placed AM he deployed the Multi-meltas with Drop Pod to destroy or heavily damage 1-2 Xiphons. Exact specifics were not mentioned in his report.

But please do allow me be more specific as normal english sentence did not go through to you. And you clearly didn't make the effort to go read Reece's report I was referring to.
So how did Reece find success with his Drop Pod? This is coming from reading his 2 reports he wrote on Frontlinegaming. Atleast in 2 matches he used the Drop Pod to deploy his Multi-melta Devastators to make alpha/beta-strike against enemy vehicles with quite good effect. He didn't write in his post-analysis of his list or matches that he was dissappointed with their performance, so I am somewhat safe to argue that he was satisfied with them.

Also I added some bolding for you to be able to catch the main points.

I think a major factor in the elysians is they currently have an order that, RAW, allows them to throw all of their grenades at the same time. Which is why we see so many loaded with nothing but krak grenades.

Move and Fire, their replacement for Forward for the Emperor, converts all of their weapons to Assault weapons. All of their weapons includes grenades, and losing the grenade type removes the one-grenade rule. It only has a 6" range, but getting hit by a lasgun volley, 10 frags, and 10 kraks hurts.

I'm surprised they didn't fix it when they FAQd the time-traveling vulcan and omni-buff searchlight, but perhaps the way it interacted with grenades didn't occur to them or they were worried that excluding grenades would make it strictly worse than FftE (because the Assault type gets -1 to hit after running, FftE doesn't).

Kdash wrote:
A lot of noise recently has been about Elysians, so let’s start off looking at them. What makes them so “hyper efficient” compared to Scions, who do the same role? For the standard infantry unit, is 1 point for deep-strike that “effective” when in most lists chances are they’d be starting on the table anyway? Even if they deep-strike, is 10 points worth it for 10 T3, 5+ wound models wielding lasguns?
What are the best answers to Elysians? How do they stack up “overall”?
(For RAI purposes, we should presume that they work the same way as normal command squads – 1 commander = 1 command squad, as this hasn’t technically been FW FAQ’d)

For 1pt more than regular guardsmen all Elysian Drop Troop Infantry get deep strike and +1 LD (giving them better leadership with a Sgt. than Scions can get, in fact). As others have pointed out, they also get access to a better Orders chart than regular IG. Scions are 9pts per model by comparison for +1BS, +1Sv, -1Ld; comparing Scions to Elysian Command Squads/Veteran Squads, Elysians are 7pts for the same BS, +1Ld, -1Sv. And both can get Plasma Guns for 7pts. And even the 9pts part is somewhat misleading in that any Scion not holding a special weapon or other option has to take a hot-shot lasgun at 1pt, so for non-PG Scions, etc., they're paying 10pts.

Because you don't need to keep them battle-forged to retain deep strike, you can fill the troop slots with three Conscripts, then take Elysian options elsewhere - though 50pts for 10 bodies that you can reserve/deep-strike or have objective sit when you need them to isn't bad at all. Add in Sniper Teams/Special Weapon Teams, etc., and you're getting cheap Infantry who let you pick what you want to deep-strike out of the whole force and you can put them exactly where you need to - giving you an incredibly flexible amount of choice with them. And since Scions are just as likely to die once they've deepstriked and accomplished their task, the Elysians having a lower save is hardly that big an issue compared to saving ~2pts for every model in a 1-for-1 comparison.

Need to snipe some characters? DS Sniper teams into good positions; next match, need to blap a specific vehicle? DS your Command Squads instead. And with how many other options the tournament winner has in the rest of his list, he can basically deep-strike the whole Elysian Detachment if he wants to.

GhostRecon wrote:

Kdash wrote:
A lot of noise recently has been about Elysians, so let’s start off looking at them. What makes them so “hyper efficient” compared to Scions, who do the same role? For the standard infantry unit, is 1 point for deep-strike that “effective” when in most lists chances are they’d be starting on the table anyway? Even if they deep-strike, is 10 points worth it for 10 T3, 5+ wound models wielding lasguns?
What are the best answers to Elysians? How do they stack up “overall”?
(For RAI purposes, we should presume that they work the same way as normal command squads – 1 commander = 1 command squad, as this hasn’t technically been FW FAQ’d)

For 1pt more than regular guardsmen all Elysian Drop Troop Infantry get deep strike and +1 LD (giving them better leadership with a Sgt. than Scions can get, in fact). As others have pointed out, they also get access to a better Orders chart than regular IG. Scions are 9pts per model by comparison for +1BS, +1Sv, -1Ld; comparing Scions to Elysian Command Squads/Veteran Squads, Elysians are 7pts for the same BS, +1Ld, -1Sv. And both can get Plasma Guns for 7pts. And even the 9pts part is somewhat misleading in that any Scion not holding a special weapon or other option has to take a hot-shot lasgun at 1pt, so for non-PG Scions, etc., they're paying 10pts.

Because you don't need to keep them battle-forged to retain deep strike, you can fill the troop slots with three Conscripts, then take Elysian options elsewhere - though 50pts for 10 bodies that you can reserve/deep-strike or have objective sit when you need them to isn't bad at all. Add in Sniper Teams/Special Weapon Teams, etc., and you're getting cheap Infantry who let you pick what you want to deep-strike out of the whole force and you can put them exactly where you need to - giving you an incredibly flexible amount of choice with them. And since Scions are just as likely to die once they've deepstriked and accomplished their task, the Elysians having a lower save is hardly that big an issue compared to saving ~2pts for every model in a 1-for-1 comparison.

Need to snipe some characters? DS Sniper teams into good positions; next match, need to blap a specific vehicle? DS your Command Squads instead. And with how many other options the tournament winner has in the rest of his list, he can basically deep-strike the whole Elysian Detachment if he wants to.

Thanks for the extra insight!


I guessed the whole 10 krak grenades might have been a big factor over the standard infantry units, but, they can't do this on the turn they deep-strike, so i wasnt sure how effective it'd be there (grenade range = 6" and can only be given 1 order). On the flip side, the hot shot lasguns will still put out the hurt but prob not worth double the points. (Edit to add - ok, didn't realise you'd then be able to use BOTH grenades AND the lasgun after the order...)

As for the command squads vs scion command, when taking the plasma pistol on the elysian's commander, for 1 commander and a plasma command squad, scions are actually cheaper by a very small margin, so i wasn't sure. The ld, save and morale re-roll etc is meaningless on the command squads as you say, cos 4 man units just die instantly anyway.

I must admit to not even looking at the eylsian vet squads - beyond the command squad and snipers i didn't see the point. Elites are already heavily contested.

What i haven't seen anyone do - that i want to do - is deep strike twin lascannon venators. They are like 86 points with a 12" move, no shooting penalty and a 5++ if they move 10". I'd also consider not deep-striking the snipers and keeping a commander with them. Instead, deep-strike a few officers of the fleet so they can re-roll 1's to hit and wound.

That... and i'd add a thunderbolt and maurader destroyer in for good measure....

 Runic wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
The comparison is not meaningless. The comparison as stock number of OP units is meaningless because it ignores a ton of issues.

Nope. If someone claims that FW writes rules worse than GW does, then pointing out that GW feths up with rules thrice as much is actually not meaningless.

Except it doesn't if GW writes 3 times as many rules....which is why proportion matters, I'm not even saying GW would come out on top in that comparison simply that it is the comparison that matters not the bulk number of broken units that matters. Further it would matter which "broken" units are more broken. Which again GW might come out on top with, but that matters more than more units.

You last Icing on the cake actually proves my tournament point which you still have not addressed about accessibility.

FW units simply have not been as broken as GW units have been, and this is the case once again in 8th edition. Top ITC and ETC lists and their players will include the best stuff around, accessibility simply doesn't matter. All good FW units from 7th ed were present in tournaments, such as Skatach Wraithknights, Tau Tetras, Sevrin Loth. They were in the lists. Have you even followed the meta during 7th? I get this impression you have not, due to this accessibility claim you're making.

I get this vibe: "There must be some super OP FW units that the most competitive players on the planet, participating in the largest tournaments out there just didn't use because of accessibility." - this is a fairytale. All the stuff that was worth using,was used. It's just that there was a fraction of it on FW's side.

If anything is meaningless, it's that, because the overpowered FW stuff WAS used in tournaments. It's just that in 7th for example, 90% of the broken stuff came from GW, and the best armies around were built on GW's mistakes. You fail to see this, clearly, but the lists from all the largest tournaments from a few years back can still be found and there it stands. Just no way around it. Accessibility isn't a factor for competitive play. Where the broken units lie is a factor, and those units will be used even if they were manufactured by Lego.

Of cource accessibility matters, if 2 things are close in power people will take the one they have easier access too, especially when the ETC doesn't allow FW as far as I recall. SO players building toward doing well in that format may specifically not take FW units in their armies. In the past FW was banned or restricted in many places (in 5e where you claim it was a thing, and largely it was not GW banned it from their own events), so people may have not been inclined to spend money on units that they rarely would get to use. Some more broken FW stuff was banned in past editions (I'm looking at you Revenant Titan) SO to a point accessibility is a factor in competitive play unless FW is universally accepted, and even then in a new edition things that are easier to acquire quickly this close to the beginning of an edition are more likely to see play than those that are not. (FW is harder to get quickly or needs conversion.)

Breng77 wrote:
In older edtions that you mention FW was by and large banned so using tournament results as the indicator of OP is almost entirely meaningless. GK were OP in tournaments yes. But we have no idea what FW would have been back then, because they were not in tournaments so saying. "These are the worst tournament lists and they are all GW and not FW." is meaningless because NO FW was allowed in those events in the first place.

Wrong, FW has been allowed in major tournaments during 5th edition already, but admittedly it was more restricted than these days (numerically tournaments-wise). Still, no top lists with FW in them.

Wrong, it was banned at adepticon, Ard Boyz, GW GTs, NOVA open and most GTs in 5e. The BAO was one of the only major events to allow it in 5th. Even in 6th it was banned from most events, toward the end of that edition and into 7th it was allowed in more events but still often restricted excepting the west coast events. It is still banned in the ETC. So it is provably false that it was allowed in major events with any regularity in previous editions.

Breng77 wrote:
Fire Raptor Spam could have been a thing alongside storm raven spam. But people don't own 5 fire raptors, and the nerf came prior to anyone having the ability to buy/convert them.

Except that Fire Raptors are worse on the points/effectivity scale than Storm Ravens... so no.

Then why do I see plenty of people running them?

Breng77 wrote:
Razorwing spam won exactly 0 tournaments (it was good at ETC in fixed matchups) so that is based on what that they got nerfed prior to any tournament where they dominated? What event has Drone spam dominated? You completely ignored the fact that tournament results are not any kind of indicator between GW and FW rules, because you will see a ton more GW in those events because more people own just GW.

A Skatach Wraithknight was still broken even if it didn't WIN a tournament. Your point is illogical and moot.

You were the one who said we needed to use tournament results as a means to show how OP things were. Where are the multitude of tournament results dominated by Razorwing spam (I know it was broken, but their are no results to corroborate this beyond a lot of ETC lists had them spammed.)

Breng77 wrote:
Also previous editions mean nothing when discussing current rules, and response. Most things you listed are not even units in 7th but formations.

Creations by GW that broke the game. Even if we leave formations out, GW still wins by units alone.

Make us a tournament list consisting of FW that is more broken than anything we've seen from GW in 8th edition. Paste it here.
Alternatively, make us a tournament list constisting of FW based on 7th edition that was more broken than GW's stuff. Paste it here.
Hell, do a 5th edition list that is worse than GK using FW units since you seem so certain it was possible FW could've done worse.

I eagerly await your factual concrete proof in the form of an actual example instead of antics.

I'm not going to take the time to go back and make lists for past editions from resources I would need to find to even do. My claim has never been FW is way more broken than GW, or that GW isn't broken. Only that your statement that GW has more broken units is functionally meaningless when it comes to looking at broken units, whether FW will address those units, or the effectiveness of said units. A strict count of GW had 8 broken things and FW had only 3 borders on completely irrelevant to any meaningful balance discussion, or honest discussion of rules quality.