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.

It's not GK showing up, it's 4 GK models and the rest imperial guard. It's absolutely disingenuous to say GK are showing up.

Just like people can say Tyranids showed up in 1 tournament, too, but that list had plasma scions, and a bunch of other guard, because GSC.

 Marmatag wrote:
It's not GK showing up, it's 4 GK models and the rest imperial guard. It's absolutely disingenuous to say GK are showing up.

Yeah, I mean it's not like having >50% of your army be GK, with a GK warlord, and GK stratagems/psychic powers means you're GK.

After all, we judge armies by model count here.

My 3 Baneblade army with 4 Inquisitorial Acolytes is an inquisition army, you see. It has 4 Inquisition models and 3 AM models.

 Marmatag wrote:
Khorne Berzerkers are a staple in a lot of placing lists. I have also seen obliterators place.

- I'll take your word for it, most of my reference comes from the BoK list, which hasn't been updated since August, at which point there was one list with 3 minned out Berzerker squads that placed. The rest were Smite spam. I can see an angle for Obliterator-based lists placing, I mean Alpha Legion Tzeentchian Obliterators with the Changeling should be really solid.

Most of what annoys me about the CSM codex is that the Legion traits don't apply to all units. I honestly think that would eliminate 99% of my complaints about the codex. The other 1% is the fact that I've been through this dance in so many editions, CSM gets released early looks decent and then the Codex creep begins and 6 months later CSM are a joke. I'd like to actually field some of my tanks, but the math just doesn't support doing so, they always end up on the cutting room floor, along with pretty much any flavor of basic CSM squad and most cult marines, Raptors, Chosen, etc.

 Marmatag wrote:
In any case, I actually have the CSM codex, and there are some really nice things in there. Compared to some of the other codexes. What the CSM codex does, that the SM codex doesn't do, is give you a really good way to synergize with the rest of your soup. Marines don't really have that to the same effect. IMO.

- Outside of a few builds that have been beaten to death in this thread, I agree.

 Marmatag wrote:
I find the Eldar codex encouraging though for the rest of the Xenos. I'll share my thoughts on the Tyranids codex this Friday for those who care (a small sample). And I do hope Necrons get love in their codex, too.

I haven't played them for 20 years and don't plan to, but I would like to see Orks be properly feared again, not just as the tide of green flesh, but for the dakka from which this site takes it's name.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
It's not GK showing up, it's 4 GK models and the rest imperial guard. It's absolutely disingenuous to say GK are showing up.

Yeah, I mean it's not like having >50% of your army be GK, with a GK warlord, and GK stratagems/psychic powers means you're GK.

After all, we judge armies by model count here.

My 3 Baneblade army with 4 Inquisitorial Acolytes is an inquisition army, you see. It has 4 Inquisition models and 3 AM models.

LOL, it was effectively 50%. Near 1000/1000 split. It's just as much AM as it was GK, but it's labeled GK purely because of how ITC handles "Best in faction" rankings. Come on, you have to know this and understand it. Right? If you honestly don't, i'll be happy to explain in more detail.

People really care about "best in faction," i've had people offer to pay me to lose games.

That's pretty sad

 Marmatag wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
It's not GK showing up, it's 4 GK models and the rest imperial guard. It's absolutely disingenuous to say GK are showing up.

Yeah, I mean it's not like having >50% of your army be GK, with a GK warlord, and GK stratagems/psychic powers means you're GK.

After all, we judge armies by model count here.

My 3 Baneblade army with 4 Inquisitorial Acolytes is an inquisition army, you see. It has 4 Inquisition models and 3 AM models.

LOL, it was effectively 50%. Near 1000/1000 split. It's just as much AM as it was GK, but it's labeled GK purely because of how ITC handles "Best in faction" rankings. Come on, you have to know this and understand it. Right? If you honestly don't, i'll be happy to explain in more detail.

People really care about "best in faction," i've had people offer to pay me to lose games.

Yes, it was near 1000/1000, but was 1.4% greater GK than AM. So 51.4% GK, 48.6% AM. That's a much larger difference than most presidential elections, you realize.

Not sure why you'd think it's not a GK list. 51.4% GK by points, GK warlord, GK stratagems and psychic powers...

 Marmatag wrote:
It's not GK showing up, it's 4 GK models and the rest imperial guard. It's absolutely disingenuous to say GK are showing up.

Just like people can say Tyranids showed up in 1 tournament, too, but that list had plasma scions, and a bunch of other guard, because GSC.

It's not disingenuous because at least SOMETHING from the codex has shown up in a tournament, that's the point I was trying to make.

Purely by "how frequently do things from the actual codex book turn up in tournaments" your split looks like Admech<GK><CSM><SM><DG><CWE><Guard.

Admech: We know what the best combo in the book is, but have yet to see it actually turn up in a winning list.
GK: GMNDKs, one time (might have been one or two in other lists smattered around)
CSM: Alpha Bezerkers occasionally bring a melee threat to normal chaos soup stuff. Occasionally Oblits.
SM: Guilliman, Assbacks, Stormravens, has been discussed ad nauseum. Random other stuff occasionally.
DG: Mortarion, and that's it, but Mortarion pretty frequently.
CWE: Recent tournaments have shown that a lot of elements in Codex CWE are quite good, whether or not they're good in just ynnari, just craftworld, or both remains to be seen. Still very early, but they seem to have a solid range of options.
Guard: obviously solid across the board. I do expect to see less-ubiquitous Guard post commissar nerf, but they are obviously still good thanks to the structure of 8th and undercosted infantry.

now, you can argue CSM vs SM all you like - but I'm going to make the assertion that due to how frequently we see CSM at the actual CORE of a list, rather than a single element to a soup list, they're actually a hair below SM. Yes, oblits exist, alpha bezerkers are silly. but the actual CSM core list shows up less commonly than the Guilliman core marine list.

queue the usual suspects chiming in to say that OBVIOUSLY this means the data supports SMs being forced out inevitably because they're already almost half worst >

 Marmatag wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
It's not GK showing up, it's 4 GK models and the rest imperial guard. It's absolutely disingenuous to say GK are showing up.

Yeah, I mean it's not like having >50% of your army be GK, with a GK warlord, and GK stratagems/psychic powers means you're GK.

After all, we judge armies by model count here.

My 3 Baneblade army with 4 Inquisitorial Acolytes is an inquisition army, you see. It has 4 Inquisition models and 3 AM models.

LOL, it was effectively 50%. Near 1000/1000 split. It's just as much AM as it was GK, but it's labeled GK purely because of how ITC handles "Best in faction" rankings. Come on, you have to know this and understand it. Right? If you honestly don't, i'll be happy to explain in more detail.

People really care about "best in faction," i've had people offer to pay me to lose games.

while its fair to acknowledge a soup list for what it is, lets also not go calling it an IG army either. Ultimately, the army was played using a GK warlord, GK powers and stratagems, and had a majority of its points in GK's. Most people would consider that a GK army, at least by the standards of tournaments where such mixed lists are commonplace. To me, it was a fluff abortion soup list, but from a tournament perspective, it wasnt any less GK than half the other multifaction armies out there are their headlining faction. An asterisk is probably fair, but then, its also probably fair of half the armies showing up these days too.


Also...ive been to dozens of tournaments over multiple editions...when did people start caring enough to pay people to throw games? Ive never seen that in over a decade of tournament play, though admittedly I havent played in a *large* GT in two editons now.

This is all about to change anyway. Almost everything in the Bobby G list is staring at a points increase. Other things, like inceptors, look likely to decrease.

When I'm building my lists, I don't think about how i can beat Space Marines. I think about how I can beat Imperial Guard, and Chaos. I don't think you appreciate how much Xenos struggle with IG right now.

So reading over the rest of this thread the basic problem in analyzing the tournament results is this:

Team 1 is basically advocating pre-allies 40k. Codex strength in a tournament should be judged based on showings of mono-faction or near mono-faction armies.

Team 2 is saying anytime an army appears in a list the performance of that list can be used to evaluate the Codex. This is the post-allies group.

Team 1 wants a game balanced around a each Codex being balanced against the other Codexes on a mono or near mono army basis. Team 2 is fine if an army has to take allies to be viable (see debate over GK/AM lists).

I am pointing this out because, ultimately, no matter how much you debate, neither side will ever convince the other because their fundamental preference changes the perspective entirely.

 Marmatag wrote:
When I'm building my lists, I don't think about how i can beat Space Marines. I think about how I can beat Imperial Guard, and Chaos. I don't think you appreciate how much Xenos struggle with IG right now.

My lists are tuned against IG right now. Other marines are an afterthought.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Audustum wrote:
So reading over the rest of this thread the basic problem in analyzing the tournament results is this:

Team 1 is basically advocating pre-allies 40k. Codex strength in a tournament should be judged based on showings of mono-faction or near mono-faction armies.

Team 2 is saying anytime an army appears in a list the performance of that list can be used to evaluate the Codex. This is the post-allies group.

Team 1 wants a game balanced around a each Codex being balanced against the other Codexes on a mono or near mono army basis. Team 2 is fine if an army has to take allies to be viable (see debate over GK/AM lists).

I am pointing this out because, ultimately, no matter how much you debate, neither side will ever convince the other because their fundamental preference changes the perspective entirely.

I agree in theory, but Team 2's point fades into Team 1's point when every BA list is better off just totally replaced by IG units. Which they are.

Audustum wrote:
So reading over the rest of this thread the basic problem in analyzing the tournament results is this:

Team 1 is basically advocating pre-allies 40k. Codex strength in a tournament should be judged based on showings of mono-faction or near mono-faction armies.

Team 2 is saying anytime an army appears in a list the performance of that list can be used to evaluate the Codex. This is the post-allies group.

Team 1 wants a game balanced around a each Codex being balanced against the other Codexes on a mono or near mono army basis. Team 2 is fine if an army has to take allies to be viable (see debate over GK/AM lists).

I am pointing this out because, ultimately, no matter how much you debate, neither side will ever convince the other because their fundamental preference changes the perspective entirely.

Not entirely accurate. The lists you see winning tournaments are monofaction or very very close to monofaction. Eldar, Astra Militarum, are both top tier monofaction.

People are using the presence of GK in a soup list to advocate GK are fine, when that GK+IG list is still outperformed by mono-IG. It's a completely disingenuous argument and exists because people argue in bad faith. MonoIG should be viable but not mono anything else.

 Marmatag wrote:

Audustum wrote:
So reading over the rest of this thread the basic problem in analyzing the tournament results is this:

Team 1 is basically advocating pre-allies 40k. Codex strength in a tournament should be judged based on showings of mono-faction or near mono-faction armies.

Team 2 is saying anytime an army appears in a list the performance of that list can be used to evaluate the Codex. This is the post-allies group.

Team 1 wants a game balanced around a each Codex being balanced against the other Codexes on a mono or near mono army basis. Team 2 is fine if an army has to take allies to be viable (see debate over GK/AM lists).

I am pointing this out because, ultimately, no matter how much you debate, neither side will ever convince the other because their fundamental preference changes the perspective entirely.

Not entirely accurate. The lists you see winning tournaments are monofaction or very very close to monofaction. Eldar, Astra Militarum, are both top tier monofaction.

People are using the presence of GK in a soup list to advocate GK are fine, when that GK+IG list is still outperformed by mono-IG. It's a completely disingenuous argument and exists because people argue in bad faith. MonoIG should be viable but not mono anything else.

If mono IG outperforms GK+IG, why did the GK+IG list win a tournament that included a lot of mono-IG?

I mean, I could get IG screening units for my BA, but then, the units being screened by the IG screening units from C:IG are better than BA units.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Audustum wrote:
So reading over the rest of this thread the basic problem in analyzing the tournament results is this:

Team 1 is basically advocating pre-allies 40k. Codex strength in a tournament should be judged based on showings of mono-faction or near mono-faction armies.

Team 2 is saying anytime an army appears in a list the performance of that list can be used to evaluate the Codex. This is the post-allies group.

Team 1 wants a game balanced around a each Codex being balanced against the other Codexes on a mono or near mono army basis. Team 2 is fine if an army has to take allies to be viable (see debate over GK/AM lists).

I am pointing this out because, ultimately, no matter how much you debate, neither side will ever convince the other because their fundamental preference changes the perspective entirely.

Not entirely accurate. The lists you see winning tournaments are monofaction or very very close to monofaction. Eldar, Astra Militarum, are both top tier monofaction.

People are using the presence of GK in a soup list to advocate GK are fine, when that GK+IG list is still outperformed by mono-IG. It's a completely disingenuous argument and exists because people argue in bad faith. MonoIG should be viable but not mono anything else.

If mono IG outperforms GK+IG, why did the GK+IG list win a tournament that included a lot of mono-IG?

WELL, remember how that one list with Tactical Marines was being used as proof that Tactical Marines were good and I said it was a one-off thing and don't expect it to happen often? Well look how often it happened since. Same applies here.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

clownshoes wrote:
Can someone put this thread out of our collective misery? It was funny 5 pages ago, the joke has long since played itself out.

The premise is premature and petulant.

The leaks of chapter approved indicates some measure of game balance maintenance on behalf of GW. They are on here and spikey bits, if yu want to check them out.

Hey guy - nice of you to join the community. Nice post count.

Speaking as someone with more posts than you, post count means nothing.

quality over quantity?

 Marmatag wrote:


People are using the presence of GK in a soup list to advocate GK are fine, when that GK+IG list is still outperformed by mono-IG. It's a completely disingenuous argument and exists because people argue in bad faith. MonoIG should be viable but not mono anything else.

Mmm. this isn't disingenuous, no sir, not one bit.

"Second worst, behind the codex that we have literally never seen in a tournament setting" now apparently equals "advocating GK are fine."

Their codex is obviously terrible. Same with Admech. Space Marines and CSM both have a couple elements that are seen semi-regularly in competitive events, and therefore make up the middle of the pack.

Depending on the accuracy of the rumors, all four of the evidently written pre-launch codexes may be getting points rebalancing in CA.

Which of course if you're Martel means that they're clearly going to be heavily nerfed and made worse, further proof of GWs hatred of all things Marine.

I don't think they hate them. I just think they are inept and think marines are way better than they function on the table. Sounds like some units might get large discounts, though, like inceptors. Inceptors would be a lot better though, if assault bolters were S6. The devil's always in the details.

the_scotsman wrote:

Their codex is obviously terrible. Same with Admech. Space Marines and CSM both have a couple elements that are seen semi-regularly in competitive events, and therefore make up the middle of the pack.

Depending on the accuracy of the rumors, all four of the evidently written pre-launch codexes may be getting points rebalancing in CA.

I wonder if that'll be enough. The guys I know quit in 7th when I did (for the obvious reasons) and now are pissed off enough about 8th to not be willing to give 40k another chance. Talking about people with multiple armies who started between 3rd and 5th here.

Which of course if you're Martel means that they're clearly going to be heavily nerfed and made worse, further proof of GWs hatred of all things Marine.

I found four comments in the first three pages of his post history that weren't actively complaining about BA or IG, or trying to fix BA. There's an almost uncomfortable fixation going on there, and I don't think even he knows how to stop it at this point.

Can't win any games, but at least I'm making some people uncomfortable lol.

Martel732 wrote:
Can't win any games, but at least I'm making some people uncomfortable lol.

I haven't won a single game of 8th yet either, if it makes you feel any better.
But almost all my games so far have been Eldar vs Marines. Marines tabling my Eldar by turn 3-4 most of the time.

-

 Galef wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Can't win any games, but at least I'm making some people uncomfortable lol.

I haven't won a single game of 8th yet either, if it makes you feel any better.
But almost all my games so far have been Eldar vs Marines. Marines tabling my Eldar by turn 3-4 most of the time.

-

I've won a few games, but most have been very lopsided. I'm sure your fortunes will change post-codex. The Eldar are a bit nuts now, I think.

 Galef wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Can't win any games, but at least I'm making some people uncomfortable lol.

I haven't won a single game of 8th yet either, if it makes you feel any better.
But almost all my games so far have been Eldar vs Marines. Marines tabling my Eldar by turn 3-4 most of the time.

-

By Martel's standards you must be the absolute worst player of all time.

He called me an awful player for losing with my unscreened Baneblades to a Space Marine army once.

Also, Ynnari aren't a mono list. CWE mono is now doing well too, but Ynnari will always have at least 2 books.

Martel732 wrote:
Can't win any games, but at least I'm making some people uncomfortable lol.

You don't have to be on the internet long to find folks with extremely detailed and involved fantasy lives designed to increase legitimacy. If I had a nickel for every time a random guy on a website named "JoeSwagga156234" turned out to be a nuclear physicist with an iq of 364 even though he couldn't figure out the difference between "Your" and "You're" I'd at least have enough change for a couple free loads of laundry.

The "guy who's extremely passionate about the game but who always loses because the devs can't balance the game and his favorite thing is so underpowered, and everyone but him is a horrible powergamer who just uses the strongest thing which he won't stoop down to because he has honor and principles" is incredibly prevalent in gaming forums. Admittedly, a tiny bit funnier than usual in the context of a miniature game hobby where changing out an army costs hundreds of dollars and requires a ton of painting, but still pretty recognizable as the normal song and dance.

I was Martel for a few months. But I play CWE, so GW fixed that recently.

(read: I feel for your plight, Martel. Not sarcasm.)

I'm not blaming them. I just can't believe that GW missed how strong screens are vs elite melee lists. And how much better T3 and 5+ armor is now.

Martel732 wrote:
I'm not blaming them. I just can't believe that GW missed how strong screens are vs elite melee lists.

It's any melee list.

Tyranids and Orks are not elite melee but get mangled by IG.

But maybe the Tyranid codex will change this, fingers crossed.

Horde melee has a hope. Because of the physical shot limitation. But IG can usually overcome that.