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.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
You guys should take a look at the winner of warzone atlanta.

No surprise to me it's a gaurd list featuring a brigade with 3 company commanders (exactly what I said can and should be done to make infantry OP) - 6 infantry squads- and wow 3 vetrens squads all with las cannons. 0 units of conscripts. OFC the obligatory 8 manticores as well.

"Oh no, an army with no Death Stars, smite-spam gimmicks, or easily exploitable rules loopholes won a tournament! NERF THEM!"

I propose, Xenomancers, that we make other armies just as competitive, instead of nerfing the only army that doesn't need shenanigans like Guilliman to win. Would you be alright with that?

Just want balance man - however it comes.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
You guys should take a look at the winner of warzone atlanta.

No surprise to me it's a gaurd list featuring a brigade with 3 company commanders (exactly what I said can and should be done to make infantry OP) - 6 infantry squads- and wow 3 vetrens squads all with las cannons. 0 units of conscripts. OFC the obligatory 8 manticores as well.

"Oh no, an army with no Death Stars, smite-spam gimmicks, or easily exploitable rules loopholes won a tournament! NERF THEM!"

I propose, Xenomancers, that we make other armies just as competitive, instead of nerfing the only army that doesn't need shenanigans like Guilliman to win. Would you be alright with that?

Just want balance man - however it comes.

We should make a "positive changes" thread instead of "nerf these things" threads. I think when GW wanted Community Feedback, they didn't mean every non-IG player saying "NERF IG" I think what they wanted is every non-IG player saying "Man, what a cool and characterful codex! Let me identify weak-spots in my own codex that make it less cool and characterful!"

An example is asking "why do SM tanks not get chapter tactics." I've argued why they might not before, but in all honesty, I wouldn't be bothered if they did.

If marine infantry were actually getting more out of the chapter tactics than other lists were getting out of their chapter-tactic equivalent, then I think we could call it even.

 daedalus wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
I like how a Guard list winning a tournament means they're OP.

Guard should never win tournaments.

It's even funnier when you consider that it was a cheating (intentional or otherwise) list.

"Guard are OP. Look! They finally won a tournament without Imperial soup!

Oh.. it's an invalid list, to the favor of the guard player? Eh. Close enough. Still counts."

To be fair...he could have just taken a company commander switched a few lascannons to autocannons and ad another psyker too - seems like an honest mistake. Or maybe even the TO allowed it. It wouldn't have made or broken his list.

Martel732 wrote:
If marine infantry were actually getting more out of the chapter tactics than other lists were getting out of their chapter-tactic equivalent, then I think we could call it even.

This is another option: Perhaps the marine ones could stay super restrictive about what units get it, but actually be really good? The Iron Hands one especially stands out as one that should have included tanks, while the Salamanders one I think is strong enough that having it only on Infantry, Dreads, and Bikes is fair.

See, this is I think a more useful discussion than "Guard are OP nerf please!"

 Spinner wrote:
I like how a Guard list winning a tournament means they're OP.

Guard should never win tournaments.

This mindset is real in some ways. For some of the more "mundane"/horde armies like Orks, IG and Tyranids, there's a line of thinking among some people, conscious or unconscious, that they really arent supposed to ever win, theyre supposed to be filler. I recall a rare win with my IG against Eldar in 4E, and the Eldar playing being nearly apoplectic not because they lost, but that they lost to IG, and Eldar aren't supposed to lose to them, it was "unfluffy".



Now that doesnt mean that there cant be issues with these armies or that they cant potentially be OP (hypothetically speaking), and there are a few issues with the IG codex (GW...what were you thinking with the Shadowsword...), but there is also some very real unspoken feeling with a subset of the playerbase that such "filler" armies really shouldn't be as competitive as Marines or Eldar or the like either.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
I like how a Guard list winning a tournament means they're OP.

Guard should never win tournaments.

It's even funnier when you consider that it was a cheating (intentional or otherwise) list.

"Guard are OP. Look! They finally won a tournament without Imperial soup!

Oh.. it's an invalid list, to the favor of the guard player? Eh. Close enough. Still counts."

To be fair...he could have just taken a company commander switched a few lascannons to autocannons and ad another psyker too - seems like an honest mistake. Or maybe even the TO allowed it. It wouldn't have made or broken his list.

It's a tournament.

You either play RAW or you don't play.
If you don't know how to write a list properly, that's a problem.
If you don't know your own rules as a TO? You have no business running a tournament.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
If marine infantry were actually getting more out of the chapter tactics than other lists were getting out of their chapter-tactic equivalent, then I think we could call it even.

This is another option: Perhaps the marine ones could stay super restrictive about what units get it, but actually be really good? The Iron Hands one especially stands out as one that should have included tanks, while the Salamanders one I think is strong enough that having it only on Infantry, Dreads, and Bikes is fair.

See, this is I think a more useful discussion than "Guard are OP nerf please!"

It's too late for this. Read the Tyranid codex. Nerfing IG just makes the nids the new king. Marines are UP, straight up. Poor model count, poor equipment prices, non-universal chapter tactic. Marines have been UP before, and it's not nearly as bad as 2nd. It's just really annoying for those of us who didn't have the gladius or the barkstar.

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
If marine infantry were actually getting more out of the chapter tactics than other lists were getting out of their chapter-tactic equivalent, then I think we could call it even.

This is another option: Perhaps the marine ones could stay super restrictive about what units get it, but actually be really good? The Iron Hands one especially stands out as one that should have included tanks, while the Salamanders one I think is strong enough that having it only on Infantry, Dreads, and Bikes is fair.

See, this is I think a more useful discussion than "Guard are OP nerf please!"

It's too late for this. Read the Tyranid codex. Nerfing IG just makes the nids the new king. Marines are UP, straight up. Poor model count, poor equipment prices, non-universal chapter tactic. Marines have been UP before, and it's not nearly as bad as 2nd.

GW is making changes. Let's ask them to make positive changes to Marines, rather than wholesale nerfing the rest of the armies.

Yeah, I just said that.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
I like how a Guard list winning a tournament means they're OP.

Guard should never win tournaments.

This mindset is real in some ways. For some of the more "mundane"/horde armies like Orks, IG and Tyranids, there's a line of thinking among some people, conscious or unconscious, that they really arent supposed to ever win, theyre supposed to be filler. I recall a rare win with my IG against Eldar in 4E, and the Eldar playing being nearly apoplectic not because they lost, but that they lost to IG, and Eldar aren't supposed to lose to them, it was "unfluffy".



Now that doesnt mean that there cant be issues with these armies or that they cant potentially be OP (hypothetically speaking), and there are a few issues with the IG codex (GW...what were you thinking with the Shadowsword...), but there is also some very real unspoken feeling with a subset of the playerbase that such "filler" armies really shouldn't be as competitive as Marines or Eldar or the like either.

I don't consider IG a filler army. They are a core army. They deserve to have just as good a codex as space marine in terms of power. Right now though - their codex is is flat better than every army in the game. Eldar are also really strong and so are nids - but they would get destroyed by this list with 8 manticores and 90 infantry that most get to shoot twice. It's not even a contest for them. Point increases are needed - all infantry should go up 1 point. Most tanks and artillery could go with a points increase too.

It's going to have to start happening with LEGAL IG lists for GW to lay the hammer.

Martel732 wrote:
It's going to have to start happening with LEGAL IG lists for GW to lay the hammer.

Oh please...

They wrecked Commissars on the basis of lists that weren't being played correctly, you really think "legal" means they'll do something or not?

Just some stuff about the tournament with the flawed list.

"From the Competitive 40K FB group, just posted by the man himself:
"Hey guys, it has been pointed out here and elsewhere that I indeed put the relic on a unit that could not have it and thus my list was technically illegal. I would just like to say, that I had no idea pre-event that Primaris Psychers didn't have the <Regiment> rule. I totally read right passed that fact and it sucks. All lists were published pre-event and Dozens of people read it and didn't say anything, it was screened by the TO's and they missed it, and I had no idea at all. It's small comfort, but putting that relic on that guy was an honest to God mistake. I played my ass off this weekend and I know I did not win the event because I listed the relic on the Psycher instead of one of my Company Commanders. It was a mistake and it's a bummer. It is entirely fair to put an asterisk next to my win but to the extent possible, I would very much appreciate no one calling me a "cheater" or implicate that I did this on purpose. I did not. And frankly I'm pretty upset about my mistake because it mars an otherwise awesome win at the best event in 40K.""

He has also said that the relic was used once per game.

How the feth do you miss it when you're writing your list?

Other people aren't responsible for you reading the book. Not everyone else has the codex and isn't responsible for you understanding what your unit does or does not have.

 Chris521 wrote:
Just some stuff about the tournament with the flawed list.

"From the Competitive 40K FB group, just posted by the man himself:
"Hey guys, it has been pointed out here and elsewhere that I indeed put the relic on a unit that could not have it and thus my list was technically illegal. I would just like to say, that I had no idea pre-event that Primaris Psychers didn't have the <Regiment> rule. I totally read right passed that fact and it sucks. All lists were published pre-event and Dozens of people read it and didn't say anything, it was screened by the TO's and they missed it, and I had no idea at all. It's small comfort, but putting that relic on that guy was an honest to God mistake. I played my ass off this weekend and I know I did not win the event because I listed the relic on the Psycher instead of one of my Company Commanders. It was a mistake and it's a bummer. It is entirely fair to put an asterisk next to my win but to the extent possible, I would very much appreciate no one calling me a "cheater" or implicate that I did this on purpose. I did not. And frankly I'm pretty upset about my mistake because it mars an otherwise awesome win at the best event in 40K.""

He has also said that the relic was used once per game.

I do believe it was an honest mistake.

The once-per-game use surprises me though!

To be fair, the 8E game is still relatively new, the codex hasnt been out very long at all, there's a billion keyword interactions, and it's not hard to overlook something like that. Yes it's illegal, but it is an understandable mistake with they keyword stuff. Keeping all the faux-latin factions in line and who has what and what cant go with who is a bit of a mess with the IG codex.

Beyond that, Im wondering where he got that 2nd relic unless he's just costing in the 1CP price into every game.

I think it was a honest mistake. I do not think that excuses it at all.

Your responsibility to know your rules, dude.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Chris521 wrote:
Just some stuff about the tournament with the flawed list.

"From the Competitive 40K FB group, just posted by the man himself:
"Hey guys, it has been pointed out here and elsewhere that I indeed put the relic on a unit that could not have it and thus my list was technically illegal. I would just like to say, that I had no idea pre-event that Primaris Psychers didn't have the <Regiment> rule. I totally read right passed that fact and it sucks. All lists were published pre-event and Dozens of people read it and didn't say anything, it was screened by the TO's and they missed it, and I had no idea at all. It's small comfort, but putting that relic on that guy was an honest to God mistake. I played my ass off this weekend and I know I did not win the event because I listed the relic on the Psycher instead of one of my Company Commanders. It was a mistake and it's a bummer. It is entirely fair to put an asterisk next to my win but to the extent possible, I would very much appreciate no one calling me a "cheater" or implicate that I did this on purpose. I did not. And frankly I'm pretty upset about my mistake because it mars an otherwise awesome win at the best event in 40K.""

He has also said that the relic was used once per game.

I do believe it was an honest mistake.

The once-per-game use surprises me though!

Yes, while the list is still illegal, at least it wasn't stacked onto a broken rule.

 Vaktathi wrote:
To be fair, the 8E game is still relatively new, the codex hasnt been out very long at all, there's a billion keyword interactions, and it's not hard to overlook something like that. Yes it's illegal, but it is an understandable mistake with they keyword stuff. Keeping all the faux-latin factions in line and who has what and what cant go with who is a bit of a mess with the IG codex.

Beyond that, Im wondering where he got that 2nd relic unless he's just costing in the 1CP price into every game.

I just can't understand how you manage to overlook the fact that the relic says Cadian only and that the one HQ you put in there does not have <Regiment>.

 Kanluwen wrote:

I just can't understand how you manage to overlook the fact that the relic says Cadian only and that the one HQ you put in there does not have <Regiment>.

I mean, I missed it too at first. Of course, I didn't make the list and bring it to a tournament either.

I would bet the average player would think their Autarch lets their Phoenix Lord reroll 1s.

This stuff is easy to miss.

He did make a mistake. An asterix should be by his win. It seems honest, so it belongs placed against his win, not his name.

Bharring wrote:
I would bet the average player would think their Autarch lets their Phoenix Lord reroll 1s.

This stuff is easy to miss.

He did make a mistake. An asterix should be by his win. It seems honest, so it belongs placed against his win, not his name.

The problem I have with it is this:
How many games did he play that tournament? How many times did he reference his book? Did he actually reference the book or just BattleScribe it?

At some point, he should have caught it. I absolutely think the asterix should be both next to his win and his name since he didn't manage to self-police it at some point.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
To be fair, the 8E game is still relatively new, the codex hasnt been out very long at all, there's a billion keyword interactions, and it's not hard to overlook something like that. Yes it's illegal, but it is an understandable mistake with they keyword stuff. Keeping all the faux-latin factions in line and who has what and what cant go with who is a bit of a mess with the IG codex.

Beyond that, Im wondering where he got that 2nd relic unless he's just costing in the 1CP price into every game.

I just can't understand how you manage to overlook the fact that the relic says Cadian only and that the one HQ you put in there does not have <Regiment>.

To be fair, most armies dont have the array of subfactions that IG do. With Space Marines, everything is <Chapter>, as opposed to juggling <Regiment>,<Militarum Tempestus>,<Militarum Auxilia>, <Scholastica Psykana>, <Aeronautica Imperialis>, <Officio Praefectus>, <Forgeworld>, etc.


I can see where the mistake would be innocently made, particularly relative to other armies.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
To be fair, the 8E game is still relatively new, the codex hasnt been out very long at all, there's a billion keyword interactions, and it's not hard to overlook something like that. Yes it's illegal, but it is an understandable mistake with they keyword stuff. Keeping all the faux-latin factions in line and who has what and what cant go with who is a bit of a mess with the IG codex.

Beyond that, Im wondering where he got that 2nd relic unless he's just costing in the 1CP price into every game.

I just can't understand how you manage to overlook the fact that the relic says Cadian only and that the one HQ you put in there does not have <Regiment>.

To be fair, most armies dont have the array of subfactions that IG do. With Space Marines, everything is <Chapter>, as opposed to juggling <Regiment>,<Militarum Tempestus>,<Militarum Auxilia>, <Scholastica Psykana>, <Aeronautica Imperialis>, <Officio Praefectus>, <Forgeworld>, etc.


I can see where the mistake would be innocently made, particularly relative to other armies.

Just so we're clear, this isn't true.

We might have an array of subfactions...but only <Regiment> and <Forge World>(which is on two units) are ever in brackets. You'll never see Militarum Tempestus, Militarum Auxilia, Scholastica Psykana, Aeronautica Imperialis, or Officio Praefectus in brackets

Really, it's just a matter of reading the damn book when you're writing a list.

Keep in mind, this guy played a number of games against other player, presumably all competent tournament players, and nobody else caught it.

You can hold people to a strict standard, but you can't presume that every error is malicious or intentional. Some people just rely on battlescribe, others just don't notice stuff. It happens.

I think we can say the victory has some context, but I don't think we have any reason to castigate the guy.

The fact I missed that just goes to show how wonky keywords can be.

Yes, he should have caught that, and the mistake is on him, but, again, I can see where it would be innocently made, and nobody else appeared to catch it either

 Polonius wrote:
Keep in mind, this guy played a number of games against other player, presumably all competent tournament players, and nobody else caught it.

You can hold people to a strict standard, but you can't presume that every error is malicious or intentional. Some people just rely on battlescribe, others just don't notice stuff. It happens.

I think we can say the victory has some context, but I don't think we have any reason to castigate the guy.

I do. It shows one of the biggest reasons why I am so vehemently against having tournament players involved at all in development.

When would lists have been due for this tournament? How long would he have been practicing/mathhammering this stuff out?
And he couldn't ever figure out that a lynchpin HQ he chose to field (because I guarantee that's why he put the Primaris in the Cadian Detachment, to have a "cheap" HQ that wouldn't be wasted if it had Orders or things like that and so he could put a Relic of Lost Cadia on it) couldn't actually do what he wanted?

FFS, all he had to do was add a single Master of Ordnance as an Elite and he could have taken the Relic of Lost Cadia since it had <Regiment>.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Keep in mind, this guy played a number of games against other player, presumably all competent tournament players, and nobody else caught it.

You can hold people to a strict standard, but you can't presume that every error is malicious or intentional. Some people just rely on battlescribe, others just don't notice stuff. It happens.

I think we can say the victory has some context, but I don't think we have any reason to castigate the guy.

I do. It shows one of the biggest reasons why I am so vehemently against having tournament players involved at all in development.

When would lists have been due for this tournament? How long would he have been practicing/mathhammering this stuff out?
And he couldn't ever figure out that a lynchpin HQ he chose to field (because I guarantee that's why he put the Primaris in the Cadian Detachment, to have a "cheap" HQ that wouldn't be wasted if it had Orders or things like that and so he could put a Relic of Lost Cadia on it) couldn't actually do what he wanted?

FFS, all he had to do was add a single Master of Ordnance as an Elite and he could have taken the Relic of Lost Cadia since it had <Regiment>.

A master of ordnance is nowhere near as powerful as the Relic of Lost Cadia. It's re-rolls 1s to hit.

The relic is re-rolls 1s to hit and wound, and against Chaos (the most common tournament army right now iirc), it's re-roll EVERYTHING. That's huge.

 Vaktathi wrote:
The fact I missed that just goes to show how wonky keywords can be.

Yes, he should have caught that, and the mistake is on him, but, again, I can see where it would be innocently made, and nobody else appeared to catch it either

Nobody else wrote his list. He did. Presumably he has the Codex, presumably he knows how the army works, presumably presumably presumably...

It stinks to high heavens that he has a Primaris Psyker sitting in there if I'm going to be honest. It suggests to me that he wanted a cheap HQ to fill it out and bring the Relic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Keep in mind, this guy played a number of games against other player, presumably all competent tournament players, and nobody else caught it.

You can hold people to a strict standard, but you can't presume that every error is malicious or intentional. Some people just rely on battlescribe, others just don't notice stuff. It happens.

I think we can say the victory has some context, but I don't think we have any reason to castigate the guy.

I do. It shows one of the biggest reasons why I am so vehemently against having tournament players involved at all in development.

When would lists have been due for this tournament? How long would he have been practicing/mathhammering this stuff out?
And he couldn't ever figure out that a lynchpin HQ he chose to field (because I guarantee that's why he put the Primaris in the Cadian Detachment, to have a "cheap" HQ that wouldn't be wasted if it had Orders or things like that and so he could put a Relic of Lost Cadia on it) couldn't actually do what he wanted?

FFS, all he had to do was add a single Master of Ordnance as an Elite and he could have taken the Relic of Lost Cadia since it had <Regiment>.

A master of ordnance is nowhere near as powerful as the Relic of Lost Cadia. It's re-rolls 1s to hit.

The relic is re-rolls 1s to hit and wound, and against Chaos (the most common tournament army right now iirc), it's re-roll EVERYTHING. That's huge.

Did you actually read what I wrote?

A Master of Ordnance is an Astra Militarum Character with <Regiment>. As such, he could take the Relic of Lost Cadia.