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.

Wayniac wrote:
Some notes though:

1) The Death Guard player is running like 10 plagueburst crawlers though to "prove" to GW it's OP and needs a nerf.

2) The Eldar guy in #1 is using the dubious interpretation of a rule as written to get the craftworld bonus PLUS Ynnari to abuse it. He's literally playing to the rules, not playing the game.

Is this really the kind of bullgak we want to see? Tournament or not. Min/maxing lists are one thing. But exploiting obvious loopholes just because you can? Is that what we have really degenerated into? At that point why not trot out that bullgak about how by the letter of the rules you can't advance and fire assault weapons due to the wording? Where do you draw the line at "This clearly isn't intended but I can get away with it by claiming RAW"?

There is nothing dubious about what the Eldar list does.

The pure Craftworld Detachments unlocks all Strategems which can then be used on <Craftworld> units in other detachments.
He did not get or use the Craftworld traits of the Ynnari detachment since you need to be in a pure detachment for that.

A mixed IG, SM or CSM army can do the same.

Wayniac wrote:
Some notes though:

1) The Death Guard player is running like 10 plagueburst crawlers though to "prove" to GW it's OP and needs a nerf.

2) The Eldar guy in #1 is using the dubious interpretation of a rule as written to get the craftworld bonus PLUS Ynnari to abuse it. He's literally playing to the rules, not playing the game.

Is this really the kind of bullgak we want to see? Tournament or not. Min/maxing lists are one thing. But exploiting obvious loopholes just because you can? Is that what we have really degenerated into? At that point why not trot out that bullgak about how by the letter of the rules you can't advance and fire assault weapons due to the wording? Where do you draw the line at "This clearly isn't intended but I can get away with it by claiming RAW"?

This is tournament play. Playing like tournament play as intended. Exploiting loopholes just because you can has been a time honored tradition since even back in the 90s and the GW GTs. We used to have a tournament team that would literally drill ourselves on the rules and be able to argue several controversial rules both ways because in a tournament, being able to browbeat the judge or your opponent with lawyering was just as important as understanding that starcannon spam back in those days was awesome.

Following the rules? That's Heresy. Everyone knows following the rules makes you a jerk!

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Following the rules? That's Heresy. Everyone knows following the rules makes you a jerk!

Pointing out "But it's RAW!" when you know it's not the intent IS being a jerk. Exploiting shoddily written rules (by "incompetents" as you are so quick to scream) to get an advantage is. You seem like the type of person who would also argue that advance+assault nonsense during a game too (in fact I think you were the first person I saw pointing it out) and hide behind "It's the rules yo!"

Bacon doesn't actually play the game, the complaining here is more of a hobby for him. I wouldn't worry about it.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Following the rules? That's Heresy. Everyone knows following the rules makes you a jerk!

In a game which doesn't work at all if you only consider RAW...Yeah. Well guess you could not play since it doesn't work without RAI.

Watching karma come back to bite Tony was something simply beautiful. After being such a jerk about the other player not following the exact order (which more would have been on his side if his turn wasn’t an hour long forcing Alex to pay a turn in like 15min). Then crying like a baby for the rest of the next game when he got called on the exact same style mistake. He did everyone from whine and moan to call over a judge to ask about moving onto ruins (something he had done the previous game) just to throw a tantrum. Nothing is better then watching someone like that get their BS thrown back in their face.

Ordana wrote:


The pure Craftworld Detachments unlocks all Strategems which can then be used on <Craftworld> units in other detachments.
He did not get or use the Craftworld traits of the Ynnari detachment since you need to be in a pure detachment for that.

A mixed IG, SM or CSM army can do the same.

No. IG, SM or CSM cannot do that. Those books all have explicit rules stating Stratagems cannot cross from, say, Vanilla Marines to Space Wolves, even if the Adeptus Astartes Keywords match. There is a similar rule forbidding it in the Eldar Codex for Dark Eldar, Harlequins, etc.., they simply forgot to put Ynnari in with it. No unlocking Space Marine Stratagems with some Scouts and Tigurius to use Honour the Chapter on a unit of Wulfen or something.

Doing it with Ynnari is currently legal, but it's almost certainly an omission/typo to be fixed soon.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Ordana wrote:


The pure Craftworld Detachments unlocks all Strategems which can then be used on <Craftworld> units in other detachments.
He did not get or use the Craftworld traits of the Ynnari detachment since you need to be in a pure detachment for that.

A mixed IG, SM or CSM army can do the same.

No. IG, SM or CSM cannot do that. Those books all have explicit rules stating Stratagems cannot cross from, say, Vanilla Marines to Space Wolves, even if the Adeptus Astartes Keywords match. There is a similar rule forbidding it in the Eldar Codex for Dark Eldar, Harlequins, etc.., they simply forgot to put Ynnari in with it. No unlocking Space Marine Stratagems with some Scouts and Tigurius to use Honour the Chapter on a unit of Wulfen or something.

Doing it with Ynnari is currently legal, but it's almost certainly an omission/typo to be fixed soon.

Incorrect. As the Death Guard FAQ proves, all you need to do is unlock them, then the stratagems can be used on ANY legal unit.

 BaconCatBug wrote:


Incorrect. As the Death Guard FAQ proves, all you need to do is unlock them, then the stratagems can be used on ANY legal unit.

The Death Guard FAQ cannot override a rule in the Space Marine Codex.

It's actually a quite interesting question on whether the Death Guard FAQ can override the CSM Codex rule that states the exact opposite, since an FAQ is not an errata. But even if it does, the Death Guard FAQ simply creates another anomaly exception for Death Guard (alongside Ynnari). The CSM Codex explicitly and clearly states the Death Guard cannot do what the FAQ states they can do (without actually providing errata to change the former).


The rule in the CSM Codex is quite clear. Death Guard and TS cannot make use of any rules or abilities in the CSM rules section (which includes Stratagems).

I misunderstood the "dubious" part. It's the fact you can, by RAW, use for example the Biel-tan stratagem on a Biel-tan craftworld unit in a Ynnari detachment, which is where the gray area comes from. It's technically allowed, but it seems like a weird thing that is likely not intended, because they aren't a Craftworld detachment they are Ynnari, but the stratagem specifies the craftworld keyword, which they retain. I think the solution would be to just make Ynnari replace the Craftworld/Kabal/Troupe keyword instead of being an addition.

Also, unrelated to this debate: Is it true that the final table was basically the exact same list against each other? I also heard the top 3 lists were A) All Eldar and B) All essentially the same list, with very little modifications. If so, that's ridiculously funny. Most balanced edition, indeed.

Why shouldnt it be allowed? Just b.c they are Ynnari doesnt mean they forgo all their all abilities and years spent training or modifications to their gear, should it?

Wayniac wrote:
I misunderstood the "dubious" part. It's the fact you can, by RAW, use for example the Biel-tan stratagem on a Biel-tan craftworld unit in a Ynnari detachment, which is where the gray area comes from. It's technically allowed, but it seems like a weird thing that is likely not intended, because they aren't a Craftworld detachment they are Ynnari, but the stratagem specifies the craftworld keyword, which they retain. I think the solution would be to just make Ynnari replace the Craftworld/Kabal/Troupe keyword instead of being an addition.

Also, unrelated to this debate: Is it true that the final table was basically the exact same list against each other? I also heard the top 3 lists were A) All Eldar and B) All essentially the same list, with very little modifications. If so, that's ridiculously funny. Most balanced edition, indeed.

Don’t think they were carbon copies but it was a mirror matchup and close to the same list.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Why shouldnt it be allowed? Just b.c they are Ynnari doesnt mean they forgo all their all abilities and years spent training or modifications to their gear, should it?

This exactly as the Ynarri rules are currently. It is possible this could change when Ynarri get a codex of some sort. This would be no different from an SM army having a Ravenguard detachment alongside a mixed detachment containing RG units. The RG detachment unlocks access to the RG strats and the RG from the mixed detachment could have those strats played on them. In the case of deathguard/csm most of the csm strats specify legion keywords but Tide of traitors doesn't hence it works. Nick's army list specified the craftworld type of each unit in the Ynarri detachment so completely legal.

I'd just like to see 8th not be the third edition in a row where the rest of us have to kneel to our Eldar overlords, but it's not looking too good.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Why shouldnt it be allowed? Just b.c they are Ynnari doesnt mean they forgo all their all abilities and years spent training or modifications to their gear, should it?

I think the main contention here it's the limit of the Detachment restrictions.

Some people believe the Craftworld/Space marines/CSM Death guard and such entries exclude everything from that point in the codex to be used outside the proper Detachment. (this should refer the specific detachment rules, the stratagems, relics and walord traits as example) hence why they say granting the keyword to a unit so it can get access to the stratagem it's not allowed.

Others just believe that restriction apply only to the specific Army traits and rules like Battle focus, The red thirst, Chapter tactics and such thus being allowed.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Ordana wrote:


The pure Craftworld Detachments unlocks all Strategems which can then be used on <Craftworld> units in other detachments.
He did not get or use the Craftworld traits of the Ynnari detachment since you need to be in a pure detachment for that.

A mixed IG, SM or CSM army can do the same.

No. IG, SM or CSM cannot do that. Those books all have explicit rules stating Stratagems cannot cross from, say, Vanilla Marines to Space Wolves, even if the Adeptus Astartes Keywords match. There is a similar rule forbidding it in the Eldar Codex for Dark Eldar, Harlequins, etc.., they simply forgot to put Ynnari in with it. No unlocking Space Marine Stratagems with some Scouts and Tigurius to use Honour the Chapter on a unit of Wulfen or something.

Doing it with Ynnari is currently legal, but it's almost certainly an omission/typo to be fixed soon.

I can have a pure Cadian detachment and a soup Imperium detachment that contains a Tallarn unit and use a Tallarn stratagem on them.
I can have a pure Imperial Fist detachment and a soup Imperium detachment that contains an Ultramarine unit and use an Ultramarine stratagem on them.
I can have a pure Black Legion detachment and a soup Chaos detachment that contains a Word Bearer unit and use a Word Bearer stratagem on them.

Yes Armies with their own codex are excluded from this (BA,DA,SW,DG,TS) but that is not the case here. There is no such exception listed for Yannari (nor is there one for DE or Harlequins, there is no need since they dont have the Asuryani or Craftworld keyword) and no reason to believe this is an oversight considering GW did put in an exception for Craftworld traits.
(which doesn't mean GW might not change it in a faq if they deem is necessary).

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I'd just like to see 8th not be the third edition in a row where the rest of us have to kneel to our Eldar overlords, but it's not looking too good.

I'd like to see an edition where a pair of lists don't force everyone to kneel before them the entire time. Actual balance and where listbuilding (or copying someone else's list as is often the case) be secondary to playing.

 auticus wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I'd just like to see 8th not be the third edition in a row where the rest of us have to kneel to our Eldar overlords, but it's not looking too good.

I'd like to see an edition where a pair of lists don't force everyone to kneel before them the entire time. Actual balance and where listbuilding (or copying someone else's list as is often the case) be secondary to playing.

I'll wait for the next update in March before I complain about GW not addressing Eldar.

 ChazSexington wrote:
As a sidenote, Chaos didn't finish 6th, as he was DQed.

Why was it DQ’d?

They need to either reduce the points for the matches or extend the time. Currently you need to finish your turn in less than 15 minutes per side, which unless you’re playing a low model count list, just isn’t feasible most of the time.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 ChazSexington wrote:
As a sidenote, Chaos didn't finish 6th, as he was DQed.

Why was it DQ’d?

They need to either reduce the points for the matches or extend the time. Currently you need to finish your turn in less than 15 minutes per side, which unless you’re playing a low model count list, just isn’t feasible most of the time.

He wasn't DQ'ed as such. There was a mistake is the scoring of his last game. Both players realized the mistake and Josh voluntarily stepped out of the top 8 in favor of his opponent.

Ordana wrote:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 ChazSexington wrote:
As a sidenote, Chaos didn't finish 6th, as he was DQed.

Why was it DQ’d?

They need to either reduce the points for the matches or extend the time. Currently you need to finish your turn in less than 15 minutes per side, which unless you’re playing a low model count list, just isn’t feasible most of the time.

He wasn't DQ'ed as such. There was a mistake is the scoring of his last game. Both players realized the mistake and Josh voluntarily stepped out of the top 8 in favor of his opponent.

Ordana has it.

 Nithaniel wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Why shouldnt it be allowed? Just b.c they are Ynnari doesnt mean they forgo all their all abilities and years spent training or modifications to their gear, should it?

This exactly as the Ynarri rules are currently. It is possible this could change when Ynarri get a codex of some sort. This would be no different from an SM army having a Ravenguard detachment alongside a mixed detachment containing RG units. The RG detachment unlocks access to the RG strats and the RG from the mixed detachment could have those strats played on them. In the case of deathguard/csm most of the csm strats specify legion keywords but Tide of traitors doesn't hence it works. Nick's army list specified the craftworld type of each unit in the Ynarri detachment so completely legal.

If they get a codex, they may not tho.

 auticus wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I'd just like to see 8th not be the third edition in a row where the rest of us have to kneel to our Eldar overlords, but it's not looking too good.

I'd like to see an edition where a pair of lists don't force everyone to kneel before them the entire time. Actual balance and where listbuilding (or copying someone else's list as is often the case) be secondary to playing.

Yeah. A big part of the problem is that competitive players think listbuilding and finding loopholes/exploits is the pinnacle of skill in this game.

Wayniac wrote:

 auticus wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I'd just like to see 8th not be the third edition in a row where the rest of us have to kneel to our Eldar overlords, but it's not looking too good.

I'd like to see an edition where a pair of lists don't force everyone to kneel before them the entire time. Actual balance and where listbuilding (or copying someone else's list as is often the case) be secondary to playing.

Yeah. A big part of the problem is that competitive players think listbuilding and finding loopholes/exploits is the pinnacle of skill in this game.

Way to project.

List building is part of the game. And one that you have the most influence on as a player (much of the actual tabletop game is influenced by RNG). Making the most of it is normal for competition.

Wayniac wrote:

 auticus wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I'd just like to see 8th not be the third edition in a row where the rest of us have to kneel to our Eldar overlords, but it's not looking too good.

I'd like to see an edition where a pair of lists don't force everyone to kneel before them the entire time. Actual balance and where listbuilding (or copying someone else's list as is often the case) be secondary to playing.

Yeah. A big part of the problem is that competitive players think listbuilding and finding loopholes/exploits is the pinnacle of skill in this game.

This mindset is such cancer.

Sometimes I go into the 'youmakethecall' threads and just want to facepalm.

Came to this thread to learn about what lists people took and what worked and what didn't.

Instead I'm reading a bunch of blowhards compare phallus size and throw poo at each other.

Yeesh guys, tone it down a bit; the tourney made some rulings live with it.

Some things from this old geezer that I noticed:
1. Conscript spam was decent, but only so because no one was playing hard counters for it. Which leads to....
2. People who know how the assault phase works are winning matches which is why large blobs aren't effective anymore. It's better to stay away from assault or have hard counters to it. Eldar lists with flying units are very very hard counters to the assault style lists.
3. Dark Reapers need to be adjusted a bit, not killed off.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:

 auticus wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I'd just like to see 8th not be the third edition in a row where the rest of us have to kneel to our Eldar overlords, but it's not looking too good.

I'd like to see an edition where a pair of lists don't force everyone to kneel before them the entire time. Actual balance and where listbuilding (or copying someone else's list as is often the case) be secondary to playing.

Yeah. A big part of the problem is that competitive players think listbuilding and finding loopholes/exploits is the pinnacle of skill in this game.

Yep! I remember the KDK "character and/or" argument and literally had to tell a TO to go away as he kept trying to correct me to use the broke as all hell interpretation against my opponent I had been playing 2 turns already with. (Oh yeah, just gonna play the rule differently because you said so??? Great sportsmanship there chief.)

Any lists that include Imperial Guard Superheavies?

I can't get an eye on the list (sadly) but I'd like to see where they ended up, just out of curiosity. I see a bit of guard filtering around in the top lists, which is fine and dandy, but the big tanks are conspicuously absent.

 sfshilo wrote:

2. People who know how the assault phase works are winning matches which is why large blobs aren't effective anymore. It's better to stay away from assault or have hard counters to it. Eldar lists with flying units are very very hard counters to the assault style lists.

Explain?

As someone who briefly left this board (because Warframe absorbed me like Kim Kardiashian does to news media) when people were crying "IG are OP! Eldar will never catch on!" this is rather hilarious to me.

I'm sure this could all be fixed by throwing a few shadowswords at it, Right? Riiiiiight?

Joking aside, given how fast the meta has changed in just a handful of months, I do take this as a good sign since this is a sign that either GW is working towards balance (which, to be very honest, is not possible to perfectly achieve, but something to strive for) or that their attempts at balance is working, since it seems that players can no longer agree on what is cheese and what is not (unlike 7th edition where Wraithknight and Gladius spam were basically the undisputed champions above all else).