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:
Here's how you effortlessly game the clock.

Your opponent is carefully moving on the other side of the table.

You hit the switch.

GG

Why is your opponent carefully moving on your time in the first place?

torblind wrote:
Hitting the clock for whatever reason is no problem even at 288 times for 6 turns. Tell the guy he has 10 wounds ap-2 and hit the clock and let he take his time rolling saves, FNPs and removing models.

Hitting the thing is pure muscle memory after the first 2 times you try it. Just look at chess tournaments.

For rules discussions or things not related to moving models and rolling dice,just stop both clocks and duke it out.

For your points 1 and 2, I'm going to bring this up in my next few games to see how cumbersome it is.

For your point 3: how does this help rounds end on time, if the clocks aren't expired yet?

 Xenomancers wrote:
Apparently only 1% of Dakka thinks SS are OP but they are the corner stone of the winning eldar list. I wonder if their opinion will change.

Step up folks and enjoy the newest round of Xenos hasty generalizations and logical fallacies!

The winning list had 1 squad of Shining Spears.

He had 4 squads of Dark Reapers, I think the cornerstone was here, not with the Bikers. Just guessing, based on hearsay while at LVO.

Furthermore, despite generalizing us all in the same category, I think the conclusion of that thread was that SS were very good, perhaps undercosted, but that the data sample size was simply too small to draw a real conclusion.

However, now that we have some actual tournament data from a large tournament, I would agree they probably need to be adjusted for points, as do Dark Reapers. I would still rate Dark Reapers as the greater balance issue.

Sadly, I still don't consider them the super-sayan death maneuver that you like to claim they are.

But hey, I met you halfway, they probably need a points adjustment. See? Opinions can evolve Xenos, you should try it sometime!

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Apparently only 1% of Dakka thinks SS are OP but they are the corner stone of the winning eldar list. I wonder if their opinion will change.

Step up folks and enjoy the newest round of Xenos hasty generalizations and logical fallacies!

The winning list had 1 squad of Shining Spears.

He had 4 squads of Dark Reapers, I think the cornerstone was here, not with the Bikers. Just guessing, based on hearsay while at LVO.

Furthermore, despite generalizing us all in the same category, I think the conclusion of that thread was that SS were very good, perhaps undercosted, but that the data sample size was simply too small to draw a real conclusion.

However, now that we have some actual tournament data from a large tournament, I would agree they probably need to be adjusted for points, as do Dark Reapers. I would still rate Dark Reapers as the greater balance issue.

Sadly, I still don't consider them the super-sayan death maneuver that you like to claim they are.

But hey, I met you halfway, they probably need a points adjustment. See? Opinions can evolve Xenos, you should try it sometime!

LOL. Nice try twin-pole. The guy who won the tourney said that the SS were his MVP unit in every game he played. Not the reapers, not the other crap but the SS.

Check the tape if you can, post game interview with Nick. Gushes over how they deleted some enemies entire armies.

MVp doesnt mean OP.

Take out al the Dark Reapers and see if he still says that.

Many units can Delete units, I can WWP a Ynnari 12 man unit a Harlequins with a Shadowseer (in cover or our of LoS, if they can fire at you from DSing, wont matter in a sec), move it after DSing via Shadwoseer, Shoot 12 Melta guns into a unit to kill it, Soulburst "melee" or "Shoot" twice now have either 12 more Mleta or 48 -3ap attacks.

I have deleted units too... doesnt ment that unit is OP, MVP? Sure, OP? No.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Here's how you effortlessly game the clock.

Your opponent is carefully moving on the other side of the table.

You hit the switch.

GG

Why is your opponent carefully moving on your time in the first place?

I dunno. Pile in / consolidation? Maybe swap out moving for measuring? Maybe swap out moving for literally anything else, maybe he's saying hi to someone else.

People already cheat in 40k games at tournaments.

Implement the clock and the 60% of people who don't already play Eldar will just play Eldar. I need an army that is bonkers fast to play because it's got ridiculous shooting in a unit i spam to the maxxx

I'd rather points be drop to 1500 for tournaments than a clock.

I would rather see Reapers adjusted than Shinning Spears. Reapers just seem to be a unit that allows no interaction in the game. I will be honest, I like seeing Ynarri SS’s do their thing. I am a strict SM player FWIW.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
I'd rather points be drop to 1500 for tournaments than a clock.

I'd rather slowplay rules be enforced than a points drop or a clock.

Maybe then we can get an accurate picture of how long 8th ed games actually take, and can decide what is necessary.

Based on GW's stream, games will come to their natural conclusion in the allotted time. GW chooses good looking armies from among the tournament goers and don't necessarily focus on the top tables.

Based on FLG's stream, games will end turn 3 or even turn 2 when time is called. FLG focuses on the tournament fights at the top table, and doesn't really dip into the vast majority of 'regular players'.

This tells me that slowplaying may be a WAACy or at least tournament-winning (if illegal) tactic, and that most 'regular' games are finishing fairly reasonably. This also coincides with my own experience as a 4-4 middle-of-the-pack player at NOVA, where all of my games finished naturally before time was called.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
I'd rather points be drop to 1500 for tournaments than a clock.

I'd rather slowplay rules be enforced than a points drop or a clock.

Maybe then we can get an accurate picture of how long 8th ed games actually take, and can decide what is necessary.

Based on GW's stream, games will come to their natural conclusion in the allotted time. GW chooses good looking armies from among the tournament goers and don't necessarily focus on the top tables.

Based on FLG's stream, games will end turn 3 or even turn 2 when time is called. FLG focuses on the tournament fights at the top table, and doesn't really dip into the vast majority of 'regular players'.

This tells me that slowplaying may be a WAACy or at least tournament-winning (if illegal) tactic, and that most 'regular' games are finishing fairly reasonably. This also coincides with my own experience as a 4-4 middle-of-the-pack player at NOVA, where all of my games finished naturally before time was called.

Ive had 5 turn 2k games go 2hrs, others 6hrs, its highly dependent on plyaers knowing the rules not just for BRB, but their army and their opponents. Combine with model count. I have played 30 model armies and 130 model count ones.

Lowering the points no matter what will lower the time per turn. OR allow for a "Movement partnet: for armies with 100+ models

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
I'd rather points be drop to 1500 for tournaments than a clock.

I'd rather slowplay rules be enforced than a points drop or a clock.

Maybe then we can get an accurate picture of how long 8th ed games actually take, and can decide what is necessary.

Based on GW's stream, games will come to their natural conclusion in the allotted time. GW chooses good looking armies from among the tournament goers and don't necessarily focus on the top tables.

Based on FLG's stream, games will end turn 3 or even turn 2 when time is called. FLG focuses on the tournament fights at the top table, and doesn't really dip into the vast majority of 'regular players'.

This tells me that slowplaying may be a WAACy or at least tournament-winning (if illegal) tactic, and that most 'regular' games are finishing fairly reasonably. This also coincides with my own experience as a 4-4 middle-of-the-pack player at NOVA, where all of my games finished naturally before time was called.

Ive had 5 turn 2k games go 2hrs, others 6hrs, its highly dependent on plyaers knowing the rules not just for BRB, but their army and their opponents. Combine with model count. I have played 30 model armies and 130 model count ones.

Lowering the points no matter what will lower the time per turn. OR allow for a "Movement partnet: for armies with 100+ models

Right, it varies, that's my point.

2k might fit into 2.5 hours for the vast majority of games. Or it might not, we'll never ever know until slow-playing is reined in somewhat.

1500 in 2.5 hours sounds boring to me, because I could finish it in an hour and then have an hour and a half to... idk. Play a pickup game?

Dropping the game to 1500 points would be a mistake. 2000 is the right number.

Enforcing slow play rules is just the best way to do it.

People obey the speed limit, by in large, because every now and then someone gets a ticket. They see someone getting pulled over and will keep their behavior in line. It's the same thing, really.

My English isnt as good, i think i miss understand slow play.. If you play slow the games will be 5hrs long....

 Amishprn86 wrote:
My English isnt as good, i think i miss understand slow play.. If you play slow the games will be 5hrs long....

It would, but in tournaments the game ends when time is up, whether its over or not. Slow play is intentionally taking too long so the game ends in your favor.

Wait why would 1500 be a mistake? It makes choices more valuable as you have less points to fill In with the strong stuff

 LunarSol wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
My English isnt as good, i think i miss understand slow play.. If you play slow the games will be 5hrs long....

It would, but in tournaments the game ends when time is up, whether its over or not. Slow play is intentionally taking too long so the game ends in your favor.

I think i mean what you mean now, you dont "want slow play" you want "To stop slow play"

When you say, Enforce Slow play, i read it as you want players to play slow lol. I was like "WTF??!?!?!?"

But i still think we should lower the points. Yes a few armies are at a disadvantage, but they are now anyways.

bananathug wrote:
LOL. Nice try twin-pole. The guy who won the tourney said that the SS were his MVP unit in every game he played. Not the reapers, not the other crap but the SS.

Check the tape if you can, post game interview with Nick. Gushes over how they deleted some enemies entire armies.

Fair enough, I stand corrected. I still don't get it, but hey, maybe it's the armies I play where I'm way more worried about Reapers than I am about SS. My LVO list would have welcomed SS and feared Reapers.

I tend to think perspective plays into things a bit.

 Desubot wrote:
Wait why would 1500 be a mistake? It makes choices more valuable as you have less points to fill In with the strong stuff

Choices are always valuable at all points because you and your opponent play the same amount and thus are equally in a bind (unless your Codices are not balanced, in which case you can jam in more OP stuff and your opponent can't or vice-versa).

Creating some fictional hypothetical to back-up your dubious claim (a unit performing better than a recognized OP unit isn't OP) doesn't do anything to rebut that the best player with the best army thinks Ynarri shining spears are more valuable than dark reapers to his winning army.

I really hope he gets interviewed and can explain exactly why he thinks they are so valuable but when a unit is declared across the board OP and then a veteran player says a unit in his army was more valuable for killing things than that unit it should probably be taken with a grain of salt.

He may be wrong in his thinking, which is totally up for debate, but I tend to believe the guy who has proven his knowledge/skill at 40k (not only did he win the LVO but the ITC circuit as well). At least until someone puts some pretty strong numbers in front of me.

Maybe the synergy of dark reapers and shining spears makes them a really good combo or they fill a role that reapers can't but it seems to me they are used to kill things and do that as well as if not better per point than reapers do.

He obviously wouldn't replace that unit with more reapers (but wouldn't replace all the reapers with spears either) so they are probably at least nearly as powerful as an admitted OP unit. He used them in a very similar way (to kill things, not board control, objective camping, chaff, detachment filler or some other army role).

Dismissing the experience of the tournament winner (and the guy who designed BOTH lists in the final) seems a bit of a reach to defend a unit that seems to be very powerful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I'm way more worried about Reapers than I am about SS. My LVO list would have welcomed SS and feared Reapers.

I tend to think perspective plays into things a bit.

This could be the secret sauce to how powerful they are. Not in a vacuum but due to the threat of reapers the SS are able to perform so well. If that's the case and reapers can bend an entire meta then their gravity is waaaaayyyy too strong and need more of the nerf katana than the bat.

bananathug wrote:
I really hope he gets interviewed and can explain exactly why he thinks they are so valuable but when a unit is declared across the board OP and then a veteran player says a unit in his army was more valuable for killing things than that unit it should probably be taken with a grain of salt.

Did a bit more research, I think he was maximizing their potential using the Ynnari Soulburst abilities, which makes sense since they're mobile enough that they can easily be within 7" of a unit that's being destroyed by the rest of the firepower in the army. This was probably allowing him to pull off the extra move/shoot/assault/fight necessary to really make them perform at an extremely high level. For that purpose, SS are definitely the tool you want to use as they are relatively tough and can operate effectively in any phase, and fly out of any real trouble they get into as a result.

I doubt he'd be lauding them as MVPs without Soulburst though.

I'm not sure that this points to SS being OP (I agree they are probably a bit undercosted) or if it points to Soulburst being a problematic force multiplier (that costs nothing), but it's already been through one round of nerfs, so who knows.

bananathug wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I'm way more worried about Reapers than I am about SS. My LVO list would have welcomed SS and feared Reapers.

I tend to think perspective plays into things a bit.

This could be the secret sauce to how powerful they are. Not in a vacuum but due to the threat of reapers the SS are able to perform so well. If that's the case and reapers can bend an entire meta then their gravity is waaaaayyyy too strong and need more of the nerf katana than the bat.

This is something that needs to be looked at. AND dont forget he is using 300pts of HQ's to help SS and Dark Reapers. He was using powers to buff/debuff and Ynnari (with that HQ) to make sure they get 2 Phases in 1 phase

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

torblind wrote:
Hitting the clock for whatever reason is no problem even at 288 times for 6 turns. Tell the guy he has 10 wounds ap-2 and hit the clock and let he take his time rolling saves, FNPs and removing models.

Hitting the thing is pure muscle memory after the first 2 times you try it. Just look at chess tournaments.

For rules discussions or things not related to moving models and rolling dice,just stop both clocks and duke it out.

For your points 1 and 2, I'm going to bring this up in my next few games to see how cumbersome it is.

For your point 3: how does this help rounds end on time, if the clocks aren't expired yet?

3) it doesn't, you'd need a time buffer for that. For substantial delays I imagine TO would get involved regardless, to settle smaller blood feuds.

 Desubot wrote:
Wait why would 1500 be a mistake? It makes choices more valuable as you have less points to fill In with the strong stuff

Because some armies scale *incredibly* well at 1500 and others absolutely do not. Aside from a few problem units and abilities (Alaitoc, Reapers, Guardsmen, Artillery) 8th edition is fairly balanced.

Additionally alpha shooting hurts way more at 1500 points, because you can't tolerate the level of damage as with 2000. Every loss is a bigger percentage of your army, and you're still going to lose a lot of models.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Wait why would 1500 be a mistake? It makes choices more valuable as you have less points to fill In with the strong stuff

Because some armies scale *incredibly* well at 1500 and others absolutely do not. Aside from a few problem units and abilities (Alaitoc, Reapers, Guardsmen, Artillery) 8th edition is fairly balanced.

Additionally alpha shooting hurts way more at 1500 points, because you can't tolerate the level of damage as with 2000. Every loss is a bigger percentage of your army, and you're still going to lose a lot of models.

Well the first point yeah. i guess thats kind of the case. it would lock out a few armies from taking some of the bigger things or what not. but it would also condense down a lot of the more problematic units in the game making them easier to spot then deal with next nerf round. but ultimately its not like they were not being taken in mass regardless of what points level. Also what armies specifically scale good/bad/ugly between 1500/2k? can only really think of like GKs

second point. i dont understand. 500 less points is still 500 points less in alpha shooting as well. it would scale no? outside of some fringe cases i cant think of.

better question would be what would a 1500 point tourny list look like compared to a 2k list.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Wait why would 1500 be a mistake? It makes choices more valuable as you have less points to fill In with the strong stuff

Because some armies scale *incredibly* well at 1500 and others absolutely do not. Aside from a few problem units and abilities (Alaitoc, Reapers, Guardsmen, Artillery) 8th edition is fairly balanced.

Additionally alpha shooting hurts way more at 1500 points, because you can't tolerate the level of damage as with 2000. Every loss is a bigger percentage of your army, and you're still going to lose a lot of models.

And some armies scale incredibly well at 2000 and others absolutely do not. 8th edition is meant to function more or less the same at all points levels; if it's balanced at 2000, it should still be relatively as well balanced at 1500.

Alpha strikes may hurt "more" at 1500, but you're failing to account for the fact at an alpha strike at 2000 is going to consist of 500 more points shooting at you/assaulting you. The main difference between a match at 1500 and 2000 is the amount of time it takes and how many big toys you can put on the field. At the end of the day, they will be balanced relatively the same. Different armies, lists, and list building styles may dominate 1500 compared to what we have now at 2000, but that is not a bad thing.

what was the space wolves army list that placed at this tournie?

Why not drop it to 1000? or 500?

All of your arguments apply.

Certain units are simply not balanced for smaller games.

Have you ever played in smaller point tournaments? It sucks. You see the same meta lists that you see now, except they're more efficient relative to the field. That's the thing about spamming things. It fits in at any point level, and people who can't spam, and need a variety of units to cope with spam, can't hang.

1500pts was the standard suggested general game size for many editions. It is the standard GW held to as their design paradigm for two decades until they just let everyone take whatever whenever and however they wanted.

Playing at 1500pts lets you build and create an effective and thematic army that plays nicely on a 6x4 table. 2k or 1850 lets you fit in all the toys you want, but the idea that its better balanced has no data behind it as far as I can find. Big scary powerful units will be a bit beefier at 1500, cheese reliant on weight of numbers or things like CP abuse will do a bit worse, but probably not in any earth shattering way.

My preferred level is 2k, just because thats what I like to build to, and it lets me field all my cool toys. That said, 1500 isn't a bad level to play at, and and it is dramatically closer in tabletop look and feel, and tactical capabaility, to a 2k game than it is to a 1k or 500pt game. There is nothing wrong with 1500pts for tournaments. Especially given that current 1500pt armies are often equivalent to 1850-2250pt forces from editions like 4E.

Fun. I actually LOVE Combat Patrol back in 5th. Players like to play with their toys, at 400-1k points they cant.

 Marmatag wrote:
Why not drop it to 1000? or 500?

All of your arguments apply.

Certain units are simply not balanced for smaller games.

Have you ever played in smaller point tournaments? It sucks. You see the same meta lists that you see now, except they're more efficient relative to the field. That's the thing about spamming things. It fits in at any point level, and people who can't spam, and need a variety of units to cope with spam, can't hang.

Like what units?