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.

 Marmatag wrote:

Thank you. I didn't sign up to play Astra Militarum.

Me either! I signed up to play Daemonhunters. That codex that had stormtroopers, chimeras, and inducted imperial guard! Oooh man though, was there ever that awesome Grey Knight codex in 5th. The one that had acolytes. They weren't guard, which was sad, but they were still pretty cool. Lotta people started playing then. Of course, it was weird that they took away the storm troo... oh hey, there's allies in 6th edition! That's kinda cool!

I'm... not going to continue this, but my point is this: Grey Knights, in particular, out of all of the marine codexes, are special. They've ALWAYS had access to cheap screening units, and through a lot of it, it was actually IG units. Have they always NEEDED it? No, not especially. This edition they admittedly need it more.

The issue here is a fundamental unwillingness to accept that Codex: Whatever has now turned into Codex: Imperium. You might or might not like it, but it's here, and looking back on previous editions, I don't think it's going anywhere really, especially for GK.

Xenomancers wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
Heh. Only comment from that spiky bits article about the army lists:

If Justin Gibbs was running Grey Knights because he took a supreme command of them behind a conscript + yarrik wall, then that alpha legion list should have been filed under "malefic lord" or "cheeky psychic gits"

I fething hate the 40k community.

Hate the game not the community. The community wanted a balanced game and that's not what they got. Imperial armies that don't include a core of AM are not viable. people are upset about it.

by this standard seemingly few or no IG armies are winning events without allies and bits from other armies either...

The big consistent thing is, much like 7th, superfriends lists exploiting synergies that were not intended because armies are still designed as self contained forces but can be taken and built ala-carte from anywhere.

Give it time. A lot of these results are pre codex before literally every unit in the IG codex got buffed.

wait...did my Hydras and Chimeras get buffs and suddenly become good?

Oh wait, nope...

Even many of those that got buffs still arent seeing tables (like half the Russ variants).

I guess we'll see moving forward, but from the data at hand the issue appears far more that allies are the issue in general across all armies, rather thn IG being a single standout powerbox.

It's also fair to assume that a lot of the people playing AM with allies actually prefer to play the army they are allying AM with.

Most of these people playing power lists have little such army loyalty and simply buy, build, and play whatever they find powerful and fun themselves. More to the point, even if we are accepting this argument, it goes equally well for IG which are seemingly always including elements from other armies as well and not just playing straight IG either...

Marmatag wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
Heh. Only comment from that spiky bits article about the army lists:

If Justin Gibbs was running Grey Knights because he took a supreme command of them behind a conscript + yarrik wall, then that alpha legion list should have been filed under "malefic lord" or "cheeky psychic gits"

I fething hate the 40k community.

Hate the game not the community. The community wanted a balanced game and that's not what they got. Imperial armies that don't include a core of AM are not viable. people are upset about it.

Thank you. I didn't sign up to play Astra Militarum.

Then don't...?

Like...seriously.

Nobody is forcing you to, and by the same theme, all of these IG lists are having to include elements of other armies themselves...

 Galas wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 ChargerIIC wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Hate the game not the community. The community wanted a balanced game and that's not what they got. Imperial armies that don't include a core of AM are not viable. people are upset about it.

Well, I mean except for Space Marines, Sisters of Battle, AdMech. All of which traditionally don't need AM Infantry in their list to work.

Inquisition/Assassins needs AM since they lack valid troop choices. Grey Knights have always benefitted from including a cheaper faction and would probably be loading up on space marines if you succeed in nerfing AM to uselessness.

Am I forgetting a faction?

You seem to be forgetting that AM infantry are hands down better than those other armies infantry. Also - space marine infantry is trash.

Wheren't Scouts pretty damm good by your own metrics?

Scouts are trash too but they are better than tactical marines. Scout bikers aren't bad.

 daedalus wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
Heh. Only comment from that spiky bits article about the army lists:

If Justin Gibbs was running Grey Knights because he took a supreme command of them behind a conscript + yarrik wall, then that alpha legion list should have been filed under "malefic lord" or "cheeky psychic gits"

I fething hate the 40k community.

Hate the game not the community. The community wanted a balanced game and that's not what they got. Imperial armies that don't include a core of AM are not viable. people are upset about it.

Fine. Be upset. Do you see how irrationally blind that emotion is making people though?

The list he's complaining about is that GK/AM list we've been discussing. This one:

Spoiler:

It's on the page he made the comment, that he's referring to by the player's name. He looks at that list and he sees conscripts in that list. He must. I don't see any conscripts in that list. Do you? He thinks that the GK
faction is going to be hiding behind the conscripts (that don't exist in the list). Stop and seriously think about that for a while.

He's so completely lost in his own paralyzing fixation on this imaginary movie playing through his head about things he thinks he knows about IG. He's SO fixated on these things that he "knows" to be true that he literally can't see that they're entirely inapplicable to the list.

It's cemented my thought from some time ago. There's nothing that could be done with or to the AM codex at this point that would change the movie people have playing in their brains convincing them that it's unstoppable. It's stopped being a topic of conversation, and it's a bullet point utterly solidified by faith. It's a religion.

I tots see the conscripts. It's listed right under the Grand Master in Dreadknight Warlord.

/sarcasm.

Right now, speaking of Codexes, I'll rank the powerfull ones like this:

1º-Imperial Guard.
1º/2º- Craftworld Eldar (?)
3º- Codex: Space Marines and Chaos Space Marines.

I'll put Grey Knights as the least powerfull codex right now. AdMech isn't as bad, but isn't really that strong.

But to be honest, I don't think the most powerfull codex IN GENERAL has access to the most broken lists. I think the most powerlists right now are:
1º- Magnus, Changeling, Brimstones and Malefic Lords Spam
2º- Guilliman+Parking Lot
3º- Imperial Guard mortar+astropath+Taurox spam/ Ynnari Eldar Dark Reaper spam.

 daedalus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
This is the second time I've seen Xenomancers say a high-placing list at a tournament has a unit that is irredeemably bad and has no possible reason to be in a list.

I am beginning to question his understanding of Warhammer 40,000.

It's really weird to me, because he seems to genuinely get it in the first half of the of the statement, but then the second half somehow arrives at the utterly opposite conclusion from the reality of the tournament's outcome.

Sadly, I think it's you two missing it. That Librarian is absolutely inferior. There's a near unanimous consent in the GK Tactics thread on this very board about that. 1d4chan too (so I mean, like wow, Dakka and 1d4chan agreement).

The exception being if the player was claiming it was an 'Index' Librarian and thus got full powered Smite, but most places won't let you get away with that I think.

Audustum wrote:

Sadly, I think it's you two missing it. That Librarian is absolutely inferior. There's a near unanimous consent in the GK Tactics thread on this very board about that. 1d4chan too (so I mean, like wow, Dakka and 1d4chan agreement).

The exception being if the player was claiming it was an 'Index' Librarian and thus got full powered Smite, but most places won't let you get away with that I think.

And even the index Librarian wasn't great. But that's a different discussion. I've said before:

 daedalus wrote:

Of course, when an army can potentially consist of 20-50 primaris psykers unless you house rule a limit to detachments (and that list would likely be deceptively powerful) I don't see anything out of hand about giving GK the Scooty Puff Senior version of smite, or at least on the HQs. Hell, at least the _librarian_. As it stands now, I don't know why you would take one now.

I agree about the Librarian. I disagree with everyone's takeaway, which appears to be a jumble of cognitive dissonance and IG hate.

Thing is, we've now seen two situations (three if you count that chaos list no one is talking about) where, at a competitive event, a contender went contrary to popular wisdom and placed super high in spite of it. Everyone wants to point fingers, but no one wants to sit down and dig into what are the actual reasons people are pointing those fingers. That's the useful (but difficult) discussion to have. Anything else is the same hundreds of pages worth of complaining about conscripts we've seen in the last few months. And that's getting boring.

So here's my thoughts. It's probably a combination of several of the below:

1. Identifying the shortcomings of one codex and supplementing them with another one is the single most useful thing you can do to improve your standing.

2. Units identified as "useless" are useful, but their uses are counter-intuitive. This might not apply to all such units.

3. Player skill probably goes a lot further toward placement than we're all willing to admit.

4. A longtime player used to a weak codex is going to be very, very good with a strong one. This was once said back in 5th as something along the lines of "A competent demonhunters player will be nigh unstoppable with the GK codex". I think that was Grey Templar, but that was many beers ago.

 daedalus wrote:
Thing is, we've now seen two situations (three if you count that chaos list no one is talking about) where, at a competitive event, a contender went contrary to popular wisdom and placed super high in spite of it.

By the Chaos list you mean the one with 1000 points of Obliterators right? I guess it'd be a surprise list for most people, but everything in it is considered to be pretty great in chaos circles other than maybe the nurgle herald. It's certainly not "won with a bunch of tac marines" weird.

 daedalus wrote:

3. Player skill probably goes a lot further toward placement than we're all willing to admit.

If skill were the important factor than everybody would be responsible for their own win/loss record. That's simply not acceptable.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 More Dakka wrote:
I read that the FW Conqueror and Annihilator LR tanks now have access to the shoots twice Grinding Advance rules, can anyone verify this?

I tried asking in the AM Tactics thread but that's become a cluster-feth since the FAQ nerfed conscripts back to the stoneage.

Wasn't aware there was a FW erratas. However - in any case unless they can be LR commanders they will never be picked.

Its on the same community page as the new AM FAQ.

No, they can't be commanders.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

By the Chaos list you mean the one with 1000 points of Obliterators right? I guess it'd be a surprise list for most people, but everything in it is considered to be pretty great in chaos circles other than maybe the nurgle herald. It's certainly not "won with a bunch of tac marines" weird.

Yeah, that's the one. Maybe it's that I'm not in the chaos tactica threads, but I'm pretty sure anything not in the malific lord or horrors (?) category is regarded as "trash" here.

At any rate, it's not the netlist I hear everyone complaining about. So it was at least a pleasant surprise to me.

 daedalus wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

By the Chaos list you mean the one with 1000 points of Obliterators right? I guess it'd be a surprise list for most people, but everything in it is considered to be pretty great in chaos circles other than maybe the nurgle herald. It's certainly not "won with a bunch of tac marines" weird.

Yeah, that's the one. Maybe it's that I'm not in the chaos tactica threads, but I'm pretty sure anything not in the malific lord or horrors (?) category is regarded as "trash" here.

At any rate, it's not the netlist I hear everyone complaining about. So it was at least a pleasant surprise to me.

Yeah the CSM codex has a lot of good stuff in it that doesn't get as much attention as malefic lords, magnus etc. Obliterators are probably the singularly best unit in the codex, they've largely snuck by before now in the eyes of people who weren't paying attention because they really were trash tier in the Index.

It definitely isn't the #1 netlist, so it proves that Chaos has multiple good builds (though seeing someone use a legion other than AL would be nice) and that's certainly cool.

 daedalus wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

By the Chaos list you mean the one with 1000 points of Obliterators right? I guess it'd be a surprise list for most people, but everything in it is considered to be pretty great in chaos circles other than maybe the nurgle herald. It's certainly not "won with a bunch of tac marines" weird.

Yeah, that's the one. Maybe it's that I'm not in the chaos tactica threads, but I'm pretty sure anything not in the malific lord or horrors (?) category is regarded as "trash" here.

At any rate, it's not the netlist I hear everyone complaining about. So it was at least a pleasant surprise to me.

The 'good' lists and the 'complained of' lists are not always the same. In 7th, just about all the hate was focused on Space Marine formations, Necron FNP, Eldar and Tau. You know what the best lists were? Renegades and Heretics artillery barrage and Chaos Daemon Flying Circus. Tauder was the only one even close that people complained about.

So if your basis is "the best lists aren't the same as what people whine on forums about" then yeah, that's been true for awhile.

 daedalus wrote:

Audustum wrote:

Sadly, I think it's you two missing it. That Librarian is absolutely inferior. There's a near unanimous consent in the GK Tactics thread on this very board about that. 1d4chan too (so I mean, like wow, Dakka and 1d4chan agreement).

The exception being if the player was claiming it was an 'Index' Librarian and thus got full powered Smite, but most places won't let you get away with that I think.

And even the index Librarian wasn't great. But that's a different discussion. I've said before:

 daedalus wrote:

Of course, when an army can potentially consist of 20-50 primaris psykers unless you house rule a limit to detachments (and that list would likely be deceptively powerful) I don't see anything out of hand about giving GK the Scooty Puff Senior version of smite, or at least on the HQs. Hell, at least the _librarian_. As it stands now, I don't know why you would take one now.

I agree about the Librarian. I disagree with everyone's takeaway, which appears to be a jumble of cognitive dissonance and IG hate.

Thing is, we've now seen two situations (three if you count that chaos list no one is talking about) where, at a competitive event, a contender went contrary to popular wisdom and placed super high in spite of it. Everyone wants to point fingers, but no one wants to sit down and dig into what are the actual reasons people are pointing those fingers. That's the useful (but difficult) discussion to have. Anything else is the same hundreds of pages worth of complaining about conscripts we've seen in the last few months. And that's getting boring.

So here's my thoughts. It's probably a combination of several of the below:

1. Identifying the shortcomings of one codex and supplementing them with another one is the single most useful thing you can do to improve your standing.

2. Units identified as "useless" are useful, but their uses are counter-intuitive. This might not apply to all such units.

3. Player skill probably goes a lot further toward placement than we're all willing to admit.

4. A longtime player used to a weak codex is going to be very, very good with a strong one. This was once said back in 5th as something along the lines of "A competent demonhunters player will be nigh unstoppable with the GK codex". I think that was Grey Templar, but that was many beers ago.

Index Librarian can at least have a Storm Shield too.

Anyway, I'll at least contribute:

1. Agreed.

2. Some units are getting a lot of hate that may not deserve it so much.

3. I'll disagree on this one. I think many expectations are about in line. I'd personally say faction selection is about 35%, list building is 40% and then 25% is actual skill.

4. I'm going to disagree here too. A good player with a weak codex might get a boost (up to 25% based on what I said at #3) but just because you used a weak codex before does not ipso facto mean you're a great player.

 Galas wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 ChargerIIC wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Hate the game not the community. The community wanted a balanced game and that's not what they got. Imperial armies that don't include a core of AM are not viable. people are upset about it.

Well, I mean except for Space Marines, Sisters of Battle, AdMech. All of which traditionally don't need AM Infantry in their list to work.

Inquisition/Assassins needs AM since they lack valid troop choices. Grey Knights have always benefitted from including a cheaper faction and would probably be loading up on space marines if you succeed in nerfing AM to uselessness.

Am I forgetting a faction?

You seem to be forgetting that AM infantry are hands down better than those other armies infantry. Also - space marine infantry is trash.

Wheren't Scouts pretty damm good by your own metrics?

Scouts are awesome. Intercessors are...alright. Tactical Marines are all bad though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

By the Chaos list you mean the one with 1000 points of Obliterators right? I guess it'd be a surprise list for most people, but everything in it is considered to be pretty great in chaos circles other than maybe the nurgle herald. It's certainly not "won with a bunch of tac marines" weird.

Yeah, that's the one. Maybe it's that I'm not in the chaos tactica threads, but I'm pretty sure anything not in the malific lord or horrors (?) category is regarded as "trash" here.

At any rate, it's not the netlist I hear everyone complaining about. So it was at least a pleasant surprise to me.

Yeah the CSM codex has a lot of good stuff in it that doesn't get as much attention as malefic lords, magnus etc. Obliterators are probably the singularly best unit in the codex, they've largely snuck by before now in the eyes of people who weren't paying attention because they really were trash tier in the Index.

It definitely isn't the #1 netlist, so it proves that Chaos has multiple good builds (though seeing someone use a legion other than AL would be nice) and that's certainly cool.

The CSM codex is definitely one of the best Codices written in terms of internal balance, with only a real few exceptions being bad as a whole (Black Legion without Abigail, Chaos Marines themselves, Mutilators, Chosen are a little lackluster but they're not terrible I guess, etc).

Audustum wrote:

Index Librarian can at least have a Storm Shield too.

It has bugged me for a while that "knights" can't get shields.

Anyway, I'll at least contribute:
3. I'll disagree on this one. I think many expectations are about in line. I'd personally say faction selection is about 35%, list building is 40% and then 25% is actual skill.

At this point I don't meaningfully distinguish between faction selection and list building. At least for soup. I also think "luck" legitimately deserves to be in there too. I've seen enough make or break situations go far enough off the bell curve at the perfect time to know that's not something that you can necessarily skill your way back from.

If I had to throw out percentages, I'd say 40% faction/list building, 40% actual skill, and 20% luck, but I'm still undecided about the first two percentages.

4. I'm going to disagree here too. A good player with a weak codex might get a boost (up to 25% based on what I said at #3) but just because you used a weak codex before does not ipso facto mean you're a great player.

In retrospect, maybe I overstated the case for the boost said player would receive. Regardless of the actual amount of boost, I do think it's real.

My problem with the "standard" analysis of what's going on in the tournament scene is the rigid binary thinking present.

I don't think there's a single person here who will disagree with point 1 that I made.

I don't know how you can disagree with point 2 in the face of these weird "b-side" lists that have been placing highly in tournaments without retreating to the notion that "the rest of the list is carrying the suboptimal handicap". But if that were true, then surely an equal skill player without the handicap would have done better, right?

"Player skill probably goes a lot further toward placement than we're all willing to admit" is a tricky one, but if point 2 is true, then I think we have to accept that point 3 is at least somewhat correct*. And with my own admittedly lazy caveat of "than we're willing to admit", I'm almost absolutely sure it's true. The question then becomes how much more.

Point 4 is something I'd never be able to prove without tracking player performance by army from edition to edition. Based upon my anecdotal data among people I know at roughly equal skill levels who've played lackluster codexes spanning from 3rd ed to now, it seems to track pretty consistently.

* So here's the paradox: Say that GK is a handicap, and so are Tac squads, and that IG is fundamentally better than everything else. So then why are there armies dipping into these lackluster armies placing, and not pure AM? Way I see it is that you (as in the thread, not you specifically) either have to admit that skill is a higher contributor than is credited, or there are units in armies that operate on par with AM, or that all we're really playing is candyland and all this thinking is a glorious waste of time.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Maybe he was thinking he could do 12 mortal wounds to a daemon primarch with his GK portion? I mean i dunno. The list is measurably weaker than the typical winning AM list. The best answer would be he's trying to get "Best Grey Knights player" for 2017.

You can tell it's measurably weaker than the typical winning AM list because it probably beat a ton of copies of that AM list in its climb up the rankings.

Oh wait. That means it's stronger not weaker. Silly me.

No, its because it has MARINES in it Unit.

If an army has IG in it, that makes it a stronger list. But if you include marines, and beat IG, that means your list is weak and you won through pure chance and/or application of superior intelligence.

Life is so much more calming and relaxing when any data, no matter whether or not it supports the hypothesis, can be made to support the hypothesis through wanting it to.

Is it sad that when I read the first part I thought you were being serious? That said yeah the amount of let's ignore results (because they don't say what I want) in here is staggering. As near as I can tell all we can say (based on data) at this point is something seems like it may be off with admech and perhaps pure GK, and yet there is so much nerf guard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
Right now, speaking of Codexes, I'll rank the powerfull ones like this:

1º-Imperial Guard.
1º/2º- Craftworld Eldar (?)
3º- Codex: Space Marines and Chaos Space Marines.

I'll put Grey Knights as the least powerfull codex right now. AdMech isn't as bad, but isn't really that strong.

But to be honest, I don't think the most powerfull codex IN GENERAL has access to the most broken lists. I think the most powerlists right now are:
1º- Magnus, Changeling, Brimstones and Malefic Lords Spam
2º- Guilliman+Parking Lot
3º- Imperial Guard mortar+astropath+Taurox spam/ Ynnari Eldar Dark Reaper spam.

Not sure what you're saying. What metric are you going by to define something as powerful, when the order in which the broken lists come from runs counter to the power ranking. Like does guard have the best internal balance...probably (which is a good thing and something they should want to be true of every codex). Maybe it's power once "broken" things are excluded, but that sorta is wishy washy because "broken" ain't really an objective thing to judge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Audustum wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
This is the second time I've seen Xenomancers say a high-placing list at a tournament has a unit that is irredeemably bad and has no possible reason to be in a list.

I am beginning to question his understanding of Warhammer 40,000.

It's really weird to me, because he seems to genuinely get it in the first half of the of the statement, but then the second half somehow arrives at the utterly opposite conclusion from the reality of the tournament's outcome.

Sadly, I think it's you two missing it. That Librarian is absolutely inferior. There's a near unanimous consent in the GK Tactics thread on this very board about that. 1d4chan too (so I mean, like wow, Dakka and 1d4chan agreement).

The exception being if the player was claiming it was an 'Index' Librarian and thus got full powered Smite, but most places won't let you get away with that I think.

Even unanimous consent doesn't mean much if it flies in the face of evidence. I mean there was near unanimous consent that ulcers weren't caused by bacteria.

I play neither conscripts nor commissars in my AM lists, and even I think the commissar nerf was too harsh.

It probably would have been better to change conscripts to make them too unruly to be properly controlled by commissars, instead of gutting the commissars one thing the commissars had going for them.

One Eldar Craftworld gets the Commissar ability for free, detachment wide, but it's too powerful in the hands of AM when they pay for it and have to be within a bubble ?

@Darkagl1
My ranking was based in number of "viable and powerfull" options that every Codex has. Imperial Guard for me has the most of those. But at the same time, those options can't compete with the wildly over powered options of some other codex, indexes or lists.

A good example was Flyrants in 7th. The Tyranid Codex as a whole, sucked **s, but the Flyrant was one of the most broken units in 7th and by his power, lists with 5-6 Flyrants where winning tournaments.

Audustum wrote:


3. I'll disagree on this one. I think many expectations are about in line. I'd personally say faction selection is about 35%, list building is 40% and then 25% is actual skill.

GTs are won by the same small group of people. If skill was not the dominate factor than the pool of winners would be much greater as anyone could show up and win provided they got the faction, list, and strength of schedule right. It would be very difficult to a GT more than once.

 Galas wrote:
@Darkagl1
My ranking was based in number of "viable and powerfull" options that every Codex has. Imperial Guard for me has the most of those. But at the same time, those options can't compete with the wildly over powered options of some other codex, indexes or lists.

A good example was Flyrants in 7th. The Tyranid Codex as a whole, sucked **s, but the Flyrant was one of the most broken units in 7th and by his power, lists with 5-6 Flyrants where winning tournaments.

The example makes sense, but I wouldn't call Flyrants broken as much as SUPER good.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Audustum wrote:


3. I'll disagree on this one. I think many expectations are about in line. I'd personally say faction selection is about 35%, list building is 40% and then 25% is actual skill.

GTs are won by the same small group of people. If skill was not the dominate factor than the pool of winners would be much greater as anyone could show up and win provided they got the faction, list, and strength of schedule right. It would be very difficult to a GT more than once.

People would STILL use the skill argument if Cultists were BS/WS2+, S10, T10, M10" and they were all carrying twin assault cannons, and it was Codex Cultist.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Should also point out that the "AM List with GK" literally has a GK character as a Warlord.

Yeah it's really a GK list with AM support. I know that doesn't support the narrative that AM are OMGWTFBBQ OH SO POWAFAHL TEHY KEEL EVRRTHAN AN DUN FRAID'A NOFFIN! and such, but it's just good decency to be honest about it.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
@Darkagl1
My ranking was based in number of "viable and powerfull" options that every Codex has. Imperial Guard for me has the most of those. But at the same time, those options can't compete with the wildly over powered options of some other codex, indexes or lists.

A good example was Flyrants in 7th. The Tyranid Codex as a whole, sucked **s, but the Flyrant was one of the most broken units in 7th and by his power, lists with 5-6 Flyrants where winning tournaments.

The example makes sense, but I wouldn't call Flyrants broken as much as SUPER good.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Audustum wrote:


3. I'll disagree on this one. I think many expectations are about in line. I'd personally say faction selection is about 35%, list building is 40% and then 25% is actual skill.

GTs are won by the same small group of people. If skill was not the dominate factor than the pool of winners would be much greater as anyone could show up and win provided they got the faction, list, and strength of schedule right. It would be very difficult to a GT more than once.

People would STILL use the skill argument if Cultists were BS/WS2+, S10, T10, M10" and they were all carrying twin assault cannons, and it was Codex Cultist.

There are other posts I should respond to too but I'm on a phone.

You have it right. People want to justify placing well on something besides their list building, but it's not really true in this game. 40k is just NOT that complex and has 0 'mechanical' skill to test either. We're even less complicated than we'd seem at first glance due being in an alpha strike meta.

The people who routinely show up high in tournaments have two things in common:

Time and money to attend a wide swath of tournaments. Most players are much more regionally focused and thus you won't see them all the time, even if good, because they just aren't going everywhere.

Adhere the closest to what math can tell us are the most efficient units and lists. Frequently they do not invent these lists, that title belongs to the internet Hive mind Gestalt, but they cram more in then their opponents.

GW links for English Codex AM FAQ missing

?

Still on the community blog site.

Still where it was: https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Codex_Astra_Militarum_ENG.pdf

duWhee wrote:
GW links for English Codex AM FAQ missing

Article is still on the community website and the link itself is also active
https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Codex_Astra_Militarum_ENG.pdf

Huh, I was actually looking at that page and it wasn't there a few minutes ago.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
GTs are won by the same small group of people. If skill was not the dominate factor than the pool of winners would be much greater as anyone could show up and win provided they got the faction, list, and strength of schedule right. It would be very difficult to a GT more than once.

I'm going to offer that the current pool of GT winners is increasingly being held together by TOs. I had a judge at NOVA last year tell me "I hate to see my GT winners in bracket 3 or 4" in response to a complaint about pairings. You have TOs ignoring rules violations (berserkers at NOVA, taking more than the allowed points elsewhere, etc) or handing out "slaps on the wrist" at top tables. And NOVA ostensibly has a charitable mission; Frontline Gaming is first and foremost a RETAILER and stands to profit from netlists, especially if people win consistently and having well-known names tout their lists is good advertising. So, strength of schedule is going to be heavily against your average player. There is a skill factor, and list building is important (though again, influenced by the TOs even more since they are now writing the 40K rules) but I would argue that the difference between skill of the top 8 and the rest of the top 50 in the country is probably a lot less than people claim it is.

So your argument is; that lists are the most important factor because tournaments are corrupt?

I give the commissar change a month tops before its changed again.

A simple solution would be that you lose no more than D6 models each time you fail a morale check for a conscript squad and D3 each time you fail a morale test for an infantry platoon.

Makes it so that summary execution scales with bigger squad sizes without literally gutting them as the new rule does, but allows the use of morale to thin numbers as it should do.

commissars already reduce the amount of casualties conscripts take by 4/5, and also give a reroll to failed morale tests.

Pretty good for 30 points.

If someone shoots twenty models worth three points off the table, it should be pretty good for you even if the other ten run for it. That's what, two or three twin assault cannons used for 90 points lost? Then your stuff that actually does damage gets to reply.

Conscripts were stupid before. They won't revert the change, since commissars work fine for other units, buffing leadership and giving you a reroll to ten men infantry squads. For thirty points.

The change will stand.