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.

 crimsondave wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
What's embarrassing actually is the nerd panic "Sky is falling" freak out we get with every edition, and probably every 3rd or 4th codex release - since the dawn of 40k.

Fact is, (yes the fact) there is no real data yet. It's too early.

It might be broken as heck, but nothing is "obvious" yet, and frankly I think new Death Guard can do all the things people are crying about, just as well or better.

They have several great options for bubble wrap, durable as heck troops and armor.

If you've got a friendly list I can take against anything other than Death Guard with LOWs (and other IG) that has any chance of losing and isn't all Tank or some silly spam I'm all ears.

Well, I can give you the ingredients.

1) Take a warlord trait that isn't Grand Strategist. Take a Regiment trait that isn't Cadian. Take a Relic that isn't Kurovs Aquila (even this one isn't that bad on its own, on average it'll net you 1-2 CP over the course of a game, it really just exacerbates the problem with Grand Strategist)

2) Don't spam conscripts, baneblade variants, Hellhounds, Taurox Primes, or Manticores.

3) Do a mix of long range shooting, short range shooting, and melee. Don't just stack long range shooting.

That's it. Really. The whole "the entire codex is broken OP!" hyperbole is the exact same thing we saw with Eldar in 7th, when everyone was shaking their boots about foot HQs, guardians, rangers, dire avengers, fire prisms, howling banshees, shining spears, wraithblades, warlock conclaves, wraithlords, striking scorpions, storm guardians, avatars of khaine and Falcons. Oh, wait, they weren't? it was just 3-4 units that were dominating tournaments?

To add to that - play aggressively instead of gunlining. This is a less powerful way to play the codex and more fun for both sides.

Made a massive difference with Tau in 7th as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elemental wrote:


How long do you think it should be before something can be called overpowered? Be as specific as possible.

How about until enough significant tournaments have occurred that we can analyse the results with a worthwhile amount of confidence (5-6 at minimum)?

 Scott-S6 wrote:
To add to that - play aggressively instead of gunlining. This is a less powerful way to play the codex and more fun for both sides.

Made a massive difference with Tau in 7th as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elemental wrote:


How long do you think it should be before something can be called overpowered? Be as specific as possible.

How about until enough significant tournaments have occurred that we can analyse the results with a worthwhile amount of confidence (5-6 at minimum)?

^This. Throughout seventh we had a Tau player who played an incredibly short-ranged, mobile tau army using a ton of Breachers, Stealth Suits, Ghostkeels and Crisis Suits and it was a blast to play against, because as an opponent you felt you had a chance of getting to grips with them and the game actually moved.

My latest game was against a 75% guard, 25% admech army that used the Catachan doctrines to buff up a gnarly melee unit with Straken, a Priest, a Commissar and a Psyker to make one 20-man Combined Squad of infantry into a melee wrecking ball. I had Thousand Sons without Magnus and it was a perfectly fine, close game that was basically decided by where the comet objective dropped down.

 Scott-S6 wrote:
To add to that - play aggressively instead of gunlining. This is a less powerful way to play the codex and more fun for both sides.

I'm working on a short range Tallarn list, mainly consisting of bolter/plasma infantry squads, demolisher/punishers and maybe a stormsword/knight. The entire point is to get up close and personal. I'm also trying to lock down how to build around the ambush stratagem. It is hard not to fall into the trap of building a list with the 3 ambushers already selected. It is much better to have option on what to choose, or even not doing it at all and saving the CP. Some games a fireball demolisher and a melta/punisher tank commander would be a great outflanking force, in other games they will get one round off then get charged and die. Trying to build for both can be a challenge.

 Scott-S6 wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elemental wrote:


How long do you think it should be before something can be called overpowered? Be as specific as possible.

How about until enough significant tournaments have occurred that we can analyse the results with a worthwhile amount of confidence (5-6 at minimum)?

Pretty much this. It's early days yet in regards to big tournaments, but even if we just base it on the GW GT Heat 1 last weekend, AM seemed to have done ok, but weren't on the top tables. We just need to understand the balance. Super competitive list vs super competitive list seems to be reasonable right now, its just fun list vs fun list that may be a problem while waiting for codices to drop.

To be fair, a codex is not going to show its full potential a week after it is released. People need time to build their list, practice with it, and run it in smaller local tournaments to fine tune it. I doubt a lot of people could jump on a codex as soon as it is released and perform as well as they could with a book they have had for a month or two, even if said book is "more powerful". Practice and experience are important.

I don't understand how people are making the claim that the codex is somehow new. The codex is the index on steroids, we know how it plays and we know what its problems are.

Hell, when I can kill Morty in one turn of shooting but it takes three turns to kill pask because of Take Cover and Psychic barrier there's a problem.

 tpogs wrote:
I don't understand how people are making the claim that the codex is somehow new. The codex is the index on steroids, we know how it plays and we know what its problems are.

Hell, when I can kill Morty in one turn of shooting but it takes three turns to kill pask because of Take Cover and Psychic barrier there's a problem.

Not sure why Pask is such trouble. A single shadowsword volley should handle him more neatly than it handles Morty.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 tpogs wrote:
I don't understand how people are making the claim that the codex is somehow new. The codex is the index on steroids, we know how it plays and we know what its problems are.

Hell, when I can kill Morty in one turn of shooting but it takes three turns to kill pask because of Take Cover and Psychic barrier there's a problem.

Not sure why Pask is such trouble. A single shadowsword volley should handle him more neatly than it handles Morty.

Oh! Okay. I should clearly just bow to your superior wisdom and take a Shadowsword every game. My mistake. Sorry to interrupt, please carry on and have a nice day.

 tpogs wrote:
I don't understand how people are making the claim that the codex is somehow new. The codex is the index on steroids, we know how it plays and we know what its problems are.

Hell, when I can kill Morty in one turn of shooting but it takes three turns to kill pask because of Take Cover and Psychic barrier there's a problem.

With what weapons does it take longer to kill a buffed up Pask than mortarion?

By my math, Pask with Take Cover and Psychic Barrier takes 15 unbuffed Dark Lance shots for me to take down, Mortarion takes 33. the math appears to be identical for BS3+ lascannons, and very similar for Melta and overcharged Plasma, because they're also S8 Ap-4 like Dark Lances.

Also, if Pask gets Psychic Barrier does Mortarion get Putrescent Vitality to take him up to T8? Because that puts you at 44 shots.

oh, and before you say Nightshroud, Mortarion can get Miasma of Pestilence, which is identical, and you don't even need separate psyker models to buff him, Mortarion buffs himself.

So yeah, it would be a problem if firepower required to kill Mortarion took three turns to take down pask. Luckily, if you have enough basic anti-armor firepower to one-round mortarion, you can kill three pasks, psychic buffs or not.

 tpogs wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 tpogs wrote:
I don't understand how people are making the claim that the codex is somehow new. The codex is the index on steroids, we know how it plays and we know what its problems are.

Hell, when I can kill Morty in one turn of shooting but it takes three turns to kill pask because of Take Cover and Psychic barrier there's a problem.

Not sure why Pask is such trouble. A single shadowsword volley should handle him more neatly than it handles Morty.

Oh! Okay. I should clearly just bow to your superior wisdom and take a Shadowsword every game. My mistake. Sorry to interrupt, please carry on and have a nice day.

Considering you apparently one-shot Magnus with his 3++ re-rolling 1s then I assumed you brought a Shadowsword.

Oh, derp- you said morty, not magnus.

 Elemental wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
What's embarrassing actually is the nerd panic "Sky is falling" freak out we get with every edition, and probably every 3rd or 4th codex release - since the dawn of 40k.

Fact is, (yes the fact) there is no real data yet. It's too early.

How long do you think it should be before something can be called overpowered? Be as specific as possible.

I mean seriously? ...how about until we have at least a few more codex (coming out faster than EVER) and they have a chance to absorb into the meta, and we get some actual tournament statistical data. Did you really need me to say this? Is this not common sense?

For those of you totally new to 40K -- with nearly every previous edition of the game (I played all of them), we have waited eons for Codex releases to catch up with the current edition. Some armies were using books that were 2 editions behind and severely hampered. The "Index" for 8th were a "stop-gap" solution, is there anyone that doesn't know this?

The BS cry of IG "dominating" is not even accurate. We've had so little data at this point, from an extremely narrow window of time, with so FEW other codex being released, and further it was the IG "Index" plus "Imperial Soup", not even the new book/codex to that credit.

When I said CSM and especially Death Guard can compete, I meant without FW for the record (not that I think FW is a problem). They have multiple options for cheap and/or improved bubble wrap, they have durability, alpha strike capabilities, a powerful psychic phase and armor. Give it time.

So, a model that is 47% as expensive as another model can spend a cp and have a dedicated psyker cast a power to make it 48% as durable as that other model base. (assuming standard paskisher+triple heavy bolters loadout)

say it ain't so, the sky is certainly falling.

So it looks like Iyanden gets free commissar rules and units with damage charts degrade half as fast.

Guardians just became a decent screening unit. A bit expensive, but you get much more out of them than you do conscripts, and you don't need a babysitter.

I suspect that most of the upcoming codexes will be fine. That still doesn't fix the mess that GK was in, but I can't say that I'm surprised that GK has been bottom barrel for the last three editions.

kinda lame that GW can only come up with 5 traits for a faction that's been around since Rogue Trader, while they had what, eight for the faction that came out 20 minutes ago in 40k terms? Yme-Loc? Lugganath? Altansar? No? Just five?

Regardless, free commissar for everybody and Valhalla trait on vehicles is pretty sweet.

the_scotsman wrote:


Also, if Pask gets Psychic Barrier does Mortarion get Putrescent Vitality to take him up to T8? Because that puts you at 44 shots.

Mortarion cannot be the target of Putrescent Vitality as he does not have the infantry keyword.

 D6Damager wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:


Also, if Pask gets Psychic Barrier does Mortarion get Putrescent Vitality to take him up to T8? Because that puts you at 44 shots.

Mortarion cannot be the target of Putrescent Vitality as he does not have the infantry keyword.

Ah, good catch. Seems he can be targeted by Miasma of Pestilence, though, which reduces the damage by the same die shift. So Mortarion caps out at 44 shots.

I guess the argument can be made that Pask can have one more layer of buffs, but how much more does that actually get him? Let's assume that Pask is in the standard punisher+triple bolter config, putting him at 221 points IIRC. Add 42 points for two astropaths. Assume you pass both Nightshroud and Psychic Barrier, and spend the CP on Take Cover. It now requires 20 BS3+ lascannon shots to kill pask, who is now 56% as costly pointswise as Mortarion.

Mortarion, who only has to pass one psychic test, and doesn't keep his ability to cast powers in a couple of super-squishy guard bodies who have to trail behind the tank and hope nobody brought a sniper, takes 44 shots to kill.

Pask can get 45% the durability for 56% of the points. He also has a 56% chance to fail one or both of his psychic buff spells on any given turn, and it costs a CP. And, more importantly, almost no army at 2-2.5k points can muster 44 heavy anti-tank shots in a single turn. Since anti-tank weaponry tends to be on longer range platforms, it isn't that unheard of for an army to put some buffs/cps into anti tank and get the damage to whack Pask in one round, especially if he doesn't have all his defenses up. he puts out tons of damage and buffs the stuff around him, he's really a no-brainer to target any time he's on the field.

So did I miss something or how do we square IG codex is so insanely overpowered with the best IG list being 6th best at the GT?

Darkagl1 wrote:
So did I miss something or how do we square IG codex is so insanely overpowered with the best IG list being 6th best at the GT?

They also had more spots in the top 15 by a wide margin - There are four 'Astra Militarum' armies. Space Marines, Chaos Soup, and Imperium Soup all had two armies each, everyone else who made it to the top 15 was one or fewer. (And while I can't find all the lists posted anywhere, I'd bet you dollars to donuts that the two Imperium armies were pretty guard-heavy.)

Darkagl1 wrote:
So did I miss something or how do we square IG codex is so insanely overpowered with the best IG list being 6th best at the GT?

From what I can tell from reading a great deal of this very entertaining thread, the trick is to quickly come up with justifications for facts that don't align with your preconceived notions (which are based on simple math in a vacuum).

Darkagl1 wrote:
So did I miss something or how do we square IG codex is so insanely overpowered with the best IG list being 6th best at the GT?

It's been like a week. I don't think that someone travelling across the world for a GT is going to take a list they threw together at the last minute. They are going to have wanted to practice with it so that they know it won't be a waste. Or at least I think a large percentage of top players wouldn't jump army a week before a major event.

jaxor1983 wrote:

Darkagl1 wrote:
So did I miss something or how do we square IG codex is so insanely overpowered with the best IG list being 6th best at the GT?

From what I can tell from reading a great deal of this very entertaining thread, the trick is to quickly come up with justifications for facts that don't align with your preconceived notions (which are based on simple math in a vacuum).

Since when is math a worse way to judge something than random anecdotes of a game you saw once?

That being said, the tournament really does prove that IG are quite powerful. Maybe not unstoppable, but they made up a full quarter of the top armies - More, if you count in the soup lists.

Also, it takes a while for people to paint all of the Leman Russes.

(-:

Waaaghpower wrote:

Darkagl1 wrote:
So did I miss something or how do we square IG codex is so insanely overpowered with the best IG list being 6th best at the GT?

They also had more spots in the top 15 by a wide margin - There are four 'Astra Militarum' armies. Space Marines, Chaos Soup, and Imperium Soup all had two armies each, everyone else who made it to the top 15 was one or fewer. (And while I can't find all the lists posted anywhere, I'd bet you dollars to donuts that the two Imperium armies were pretty guard-heavy.)

Yet that isn't so overpowered they can't be beat. They aren't even in the top 4. Good certainly, but this doesn't even come close to representing the sky is falling scenario that was being posited throughout this thread. Beyond that many armies don't even have a codex yet. This seems to be a point solidly in the column of wait and see, not in the column of omg gw fix now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Waaaghpower wrote:

jaxor1983 wrote:

Darkagl1 wrote:
So did I miss something or how do we square IG codex is so insanely overpowered with the best IG list being 6th best at the GT?

From what I can tell from reading a great deal of this very entertaining thread, the trick is to quickly come up with justifications for facts that don't align with your preconceived notions (which are based on simple math in a vacuum).

Since when is math a worse way to judge something than random anecdotes of a game you saw once?

That being said, the tournament really does prove that IG are quite powerful. Maybe not unstoppable, but they made up a full quarter of the top armies - More, if you count in the soup lists.

Powerful sure, but not unbeatable and competing with a variety of armies still lacking codices. Perhaps a better question since when is a theoretical approach more valid than experimental data?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Trickstick wrote:

Darkagl1 wrote:
So did I miss something or how do we square IG codex is so insanely overpowered with the best IG list being 6th best at the GT?

It's been like a week. I don't think that someone travelling across the world for a GT is going to take a list they threw together at the last minute. They are going to have wanted to practice with it so that they know it won't be a waste. Or at least I think a large percentage of top players wouldn't jump army a week before a major event.

Maybe but guard were supposedly OP strong prior to the codex, so there was likely plenty of guard there. And there is certainly guard in the top 15. They were just beaten by other armies. As I said above evidence that they're good, but not evidence they're so OP as to be unbeatable.

Get this guys the first place finisher had 6 squads of tactical marines in it. I see this is the solution to beating AM - bring tactical squads.

Oh wait...these results proves nothing? we don't even know what armies played what. We don't even know how the event was scored. It was an eternal war GT though - not really gaurds strong point. You run out of time trying to table your opponent and he has a single tac squad in the middle of the table you lose. It matters not that 1500 points remain against 200 or less. Ofc when we play that out at home turn 4 IG scores a massive victory.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Get this guys the first place finisher had 6 squads of tactical marines in it. I see this is the solution to beating AM - bring tactical squads.

Oh wait...these results proves nothing? we don't even know what armies played what. We don't even know how the event was scored. It was an eternal war GT though - not really gaurds strong point. You run out of time trying to table your opponent and he has a single tac squad in the middle of the table you lose. It matters not that 1500 points remain against 200 or less. Ofc when we play that out at home turn 4 IG scores a massive victory.

So your theory of good data to prove guard is broken at the tournament level is not tournament data makes sense. Like what do you need to see for your theory to be proven wrong? If your beliefs are so ingrained that evidence directly proving your point wrong is discarded you don't have a theory you have a belief. Which is great but at that point, what the point of discussing it?

Darkagl1 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Get this guys the first place finisher had 6 squads of tactical marines in it. I see this is the solution to beating AM - bring tactical squads.

Oh wait...these results proves nothing? we don't even know what armies played what. We don't even know how the event was scored. It was an eternal war GT though - not really gaurds strong point. You run out of time trying to table your opponent and he has a single tac squad in the middle of the table you lose. It matters not that 1500 points remain against 200 or less. Ofc when we play that out at home turn 4 IG scores a massive victory.

So your theory of good data to prove guard is broken at the tournament level is not tournament data makes sense. Like what do you need to see for your theory to be proven wrong? If your beliefs are so ingrained that evidence directly proving your point wrong is discarded you don't have a theory you have a belief. Which is great but at that point, what the point of discussing it?

Nah - it's more like I am saying these heat1 results don't matter - it's the finals that are going to matter.

Darkagl1 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Get this guys the first place finisher had 6 squads of tactical marines in it. I see this is the solution to beating AM - bring tactical squads.

Oh wait...these results proves nothing? we don't even know what armies played what. We don't even know how the event was scored. It was an eternal war GT though - not really gaurds strong point. You run out of time trying to table your opponent and he has a single tac squad in the middle of the table you lose. It matters not that 1500 points remain against 200 or less. Ofc when we play that out at home turn 4 IG scores a massive victory.

So your theory of good data to prove guard is broken at the tournament level is not tournament data makes sense. Like what do you need to see for your theory to be proven wrong? If your beliefs are so ingrained that evidence directly proving your point wrong is discarded you don't have a theory you have a belief. Which is great but at that point, what the point of discussing it?

You're wasting your time with that.

I believe the top tables were streamed. I'm in neither a position of convenience or interest to actually go looking, but I would imagine those videos are still available, were someone actually interested in finding out how many IG players any of the top tables played against on their way to making it into the top.

Unless the tournament is ranked very strangely, it's highly unlikely that the top lists managed to completely avoid IG lists after a round or two.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Darkagl1 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Get this guys the first place finisher had 6 squads of tactical marines in it. I see this is the solution to beating AM - bring tactical squads.

Oh wait...these results proves nothing? we don't even know what armies played what. We don't even know how the event was scored. It was an eternal war GT though - not really gaurds strong point. You run out of time trying to table your opponent and he has a single tac squad in the middle of the table you lose. It matters not that 1500 points remain against 200 or less. Ofc when we play that out at home turn 4 IG scores a massive victory.

So your theory of good data to prove guard is broken at the tournament level is not tournament data makes sense. Like what do you need to see for your theory to be proven wrong? If your beliefs are so ingrained that evidence directly proving your point wrong is discarded you don't have a theory you have a belief. Which is great but at that point, what the point of discussing it?

Nah - it's more like I am saying these heat1 results don't matter - it's the finals that are going to matter.

I mean if the other heats/finals tell a drastically different story then they do. I find that doubtful the sheer amount of anti infantry those razorbacks represent is pretty awesome but we'll just have to wait and see.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Oh wait...these results proves nothing? we don't even know what armies played what. We don't even know how the event was scored. It was an eternal war GT though - not really gaurds strong point. You run out of time trying to table your opponent and he has a single tac squad in the middle of the table you lose. It matters not that 1500 points remain against 200 or less. Ofc when we play that out at home turn 4 IG scores a massive victory.

This is accurate.

BCP isn't perfect. In an ITC event, I was at the final table, lost without getting blown out, and finished 3rd. Because another guy was also undefeated but based on SOS, he played a weaker opponent, and got an easy win. So i drop to 3, despite being undefeated the entire time with 19-0 wins, because of 1 loss at the end.

Had I been paired differently, I could have easily finished first.