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.

 Asmodai wrote:

IIRC, the ITC missions also specify where objectives go.

Right. This is why the insights of these tournament players are of questionable value. They play a heavily houseruled version of the game.

 Crimson wrote:
I'm listening the Q&A now. He says that filled floors being unassaultable is not a big deal because people don't put objectives in upper floors of ruins... I almost always do that and I've seen plenty of other people doing it too. I don't follow his reasoning.

We've always played objectives as having infinite height. Didn't know that was a house rule.

 EnTyme wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
I'm listening the Q&A now. He says that filled floors being unassaultable is not a big deal because people don't put objectives in upper floors of ruins... I almost always do that and I've seen plenty of other people doing it too. I don't follow his reasoning.

We've always played objectives as having infinite height. Didn't know that was a house rule.

He also said to shoot one guy off of the upper floor and off you go. It isn't a big deal because at the end of the day it is 1 little thing in a much bigger pond. If you lose to that 1 little thing... I'm sure there were a dozen other little things that led you to that point. And if not... congratulate your opponent for a savvy play.

 EnTyme wrote:

We've always played objectives as having infinite height. Didn't know that was a house rule.

Well, it is.

Everyone plays with house rules since the game demands that they do. There are too many gaps and conflicts within the BRB for people to do anything other than make house rules if they want to play the game. Anyone who claims that they don't use any house rules is either lying or deluding themselves.

Just for examples of problems check out BaconCatBug's sig.

 Grimgold wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
With exceptions like marmatag who thinks the game should only last three turns (or less), I would think most people enjoy competitive games that go the distance as opposed to one sided blowouts,

1. I have said 4 turns is enough for a good game, and that getting to turn 5+ is not a prerequisite for a good game.
2. I have said most games have a clear winner by turn 2, or 3. Doesn't mean the game is over, it just means one person won't be able to generate enough points to come back.
3. Never have I said I enjoy 1 sided blowouts.

If you're going to mention my name, can you at least make an effort not to be a total tool, and represent me with even a modicum of good faith? Thanks

1.) In a game designed to go six turns, a turn 2 victory is a blow out.
2.) If the game only has one possible outcome it's over from a competitive sense.
3.) you have to do some pretty interesting mental contortions to call a game over at turn two a "Good game".

As for good faith, you'll get some when you display some.

Hey look, you're trying to recreate an argument that begins with a purposeful misrepresentation of what I have said in OTHER THREADS. Congratulations on being "that guy" on the forums. I'll put you on my ignore list now, so when you attempt to drag my name through the mud without even being prompted (Seriously. Where in this thread did the number of turns come up with my name associated with it?) , I won't have to see it. Cheers, hopefully you run out of chainaxes to grind.

 techsoldaten wrote:
Nick is doing a Q&A on Facebook right now.

https://www.facebook.com/143252259677237/videos/160019664667163/

Did he explain why the armies will stop trying to shoot hard? Because it kinda underpins his entire point.

 EnTyme wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
I'm listening the Q&A now. He says that filled floors being unassaultable is not a big deal because people don't put objectives in upper floors of ruins... I almost always do that and I've seen plenty of other people doing it too. I don't follow his reasoning.

We've always played objectives as having infinite height. Didn't know that was a house rule.

i use'd to play it that way too. Now I just try to place my 3 objectives on the ground. If my opponent places theirs up in ruins thats fine. I have some troops to jump up.

Building a balanced list is important. If you have an entire army of tanks and all the objectives are up in ruins hopefully you get lucky objectives or table your opponent...

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

Uhhh - all these erratas and FAQ are the literally the rule book. Yes "Beta rules" aren't actually rules yet - but judging by the last beta rules - they will be.

Judging by the last beta rules things will be adjusted if they're not working - like smite nerf for Grey Knights and Tzeentch.

Smite nerf was not necessary - every psyker in the game went up points basically - or was already overcosted. Nerfing smite by number of smites is kind of like reducing your chance to hit with a las cannon for every 4 shots you take with one. If you can - explain to me how it's different. Then I will literally destroy your argument with math - to prove it's no different.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

Uhhh - all these erratas and FAQ are the literally the rule book. Yes "Beta rules" aren't actually rules yet - but judging by the last beta rules - they will be.

Judging by the last beta rules things will be adjusted if they're not working - like smite nerf for Grey Knights and Tzeentch.

Smite nerf was not necessary - every psyker in the game went up points basically - or was already overcosted. Nerfing smite by number of smites is kind of like reducing your chance to hit with a las cannon for every 4 shots you take with one. If you can - explain to me how it's different. Then I will literally destroy your argument with math - to prove it's no different.

The troll responce would where can I get an invulnerable save against mortal wounds?
What I find more annoying is the worst offenders of MW psychic spam TS got a get out of jail free card for this nerf.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Xenomancer- You're the person who is saying he only plays by the book rules (kind of like BaconCatBug). If you are going to be so "pure" then that means you can't really ever play a game. The rules are full of gaps and contradictions and the only mechanism that the book allows for resolution is either both players agree or they roll dice. However, the book does not allow you to consult other sources for those rule clarifications so you must dice off a lot or spend a lot of time disucssing things with your opponent.

Which is exactly why the game is not meant to have a time limit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

Uhhh - all these erratas and FAQ are the literally the rule book. Yes "Beta rules" aren't actually rules yet - but judging by the last beta rules - they will be.

Judging by the last beta rules things will be adjusted if they're not working - like smite nerf for Grey Knights and Tzeentch.

Smite nerf was not necessary - every psyker in the game went up points basically - or was already overcosted. Nerfing smite by number of smites is kind of like reducing your chance to hit with a las cannon for every 4 shots you take with one. If you can - explain to me how it's different. Then I will literally destroy your argument with math - to prove it's no different.

The troll responce would where can I get an invulnerable save against mortal wounds?
What I find more annoying is the worst offenders of MW psychic spam TS got a get out of jail free card for this nerf.

With their massive 1 damage smite? Plus this GK? Please. Smite has an average damage - so does a las cannon. Both have special saves that you can take against them. People are just cry babies that they don't get to take saves. It's totally okay for plasma guns and blasters to wreck space marines with no saves though.

The smite nerf was a good adjustment. As someone who was impacted by it, it's healthier for the game.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Everyone plays with house rules since the game demands that they do. There are too many gaps and conflicts within the BRB for people to do anything other than make house rules if they want to play the game. Anyone who claims that they don't use any house rules is either lying or deluding themselves.

Just for examples of problems check out BaconCatBug's sig.

The one house rule we play with is vehicles and monsters can gain a cover save by being 50% obstructed - because that's the way it has always been. If someone says they don't want to use that rule we have no problem playing by the actual rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:
The smite nerf was a good adjustment. As someone who was impacted by it, it's healthier for the game.

Spamming scion transports though...that is okay why? It's also perfectly legal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 rhinoceraids wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
I'm listening the Q&A now. He says that filled floors being unassaultable is not a big deal because people don't put objectives in upper floors of ruins... I almost always do that and I've seen plenty of other people doing it too. I don't follow his reasoning.

We've always played objectives as having infinite height. Didn't know that was a house rule.

i use'd to play it that way too. Now I just try to place my 3 objectives on the ground. If my opponent places theirs up in ruins thats fine. I have some troops to jump up.

Building a balanced list is important. If you have an entire army of tanks and all the objectives are up in ruins hopefully you get lucky objectives or table your opponent...

I always place objectives out in the open. It avoids silly interactions and allows me to destroy enemy units easier.

Just to be clear I was calling it out as a troll responce as it wasn't ment to be taken seriously.

But its not just baby smite its all TS are except from the smite nerf even magnus and ahriman. I understood brotherhood of psyker effects every TS psyker in a batteforged detachment.

Ice_can wrote:
Just to be clear I was calling it out as a troll responce as it wasn't ment to be taken seriously.

But its not just baby smite its all TS are except from the smite nerf even magnus and ahriman. I understood brotherhood of psyker effects every TS psyker in a batteforged detachment.

Correct. All Psykers in a TS detachment gain Brotherhood of Sorcerers,

Funny enough if you have any others Psykers who want to Smite you need to cast them last because they will increase the warp value for your TS/GK's.

Ice_can wrote:
Just to be clear I was calling it out as a troll responce as it wasn't ment to be taken seriously.

But its not just baby smite its all TS are except from the smite nerf even magnus and ahriman. I understood brotherhood of psyker effects every TS psyker in a batteforged detachment.

I know - I wasn't trying to be rude if you thought I was. 1 damage smite sucks - I play GK and TS. I'd actually prefer a plasma gun.

 Ordana wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
Nick is doing a Q&A on Facebook right now.

https://www.facebook.com/143252259677237/videos/160019664667163/

Did he explain why the armies will stop trying to shoot hard? Because it kinda underpins his entire point.

GSC and other super fast on-table assaulters in addition to people transitioning to more durable on table lists - like stuff in rhinos.

If you're facing 9 Basilisks they can kill a couple rhinos OR they can kill a couple predators. If you don't do the rhinos they're going to pope smoke and be on you. If you didn't get first turn they'll pop smoke. If you do kill the rhinos the troops are still coming and the predators are shooting.

In general anyways.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
Nick is doing a Q&A on Facebook right now.

https://www.facebook.com/143252259677237/videos/160019664667163/

Did he explain why the armies will stop trying to shoot hard? Because it kinda underpins his entire point.

GSC and other super fast on-table assaulters in addition to people transitioning to more durable on table lists - like stuff in rhinos.

If you're facing 9 Basilisks they can kill a couple rhinos OR they can kill a couple predators. If you don't do the rhinos they're going to pope smoke and be on you. If you didn't get first turn they'll pop smoke. If you do kill the rhinos the troops are still coming and the predators are shooting.

In general anyways.

Ahh yes - the auto lose stratagy of trying to ride trasnports to gun lines. Attempting to win the game on objectives without even attacking your opponent. IDK why anyone thinks this is the way the game should be - though there are some people that like that I guess. Again - it would only work in a tournament with a 2 1/2 hour time limit. If you played that against me in a pickup game using the same rules without a time limit - I'd table the army in 5 turn and probably have lost next to nothing.

I heard he is suggesting spamming serpents now.

 Primark G wrote:
I heard he is suggesting spamming serpents now.

No, he went against that.

It was discussed.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Just to be clear I was calling it out as a troll responce as it wasn't ment to be taken seriously.

But its not just baby smite its all TS are except from the smite nerf even magnus and ahriman. I understood brotherhood of psyker effects every TS psyker in a batteforged detachment.

I know - I wasn't trying to be rude if you thought I was. 1 damage smite sucks - I play GK and TS. I'd actually prefer a plasma gun.

Nah just wanted to make sure as tone on the internet is hard to convey.

 Primark G wrote:
It was discussed.

I'll watch it again, but his point was that it's durable, but will sacrifice too much damage.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
Nick is doing a Q&A on Facebook right now.

https://www.facebook.com/143252259677237/videos/160019664667163/

Did he explain why the armies will stop trying to shoot hard? Because it kinda underpins his entire point.

GSC and other super fast on-table assaulters in addition to people transitioning to more durable on table lists - like stuff in rhinos.

If you're facing 9 Basilisks they can kill a couple rhinos OR they can kill a couple predators. If you don't do the rhinos they're going to pope smoke and be on you. If you didn't get first turn they'll pop smoke. If you do kill the rhinos the troops are still coming and the predators are shooting.

In general anyways.

A yes shoot predators at the what 2/3 Basilisics you can draw line of sight to and do exactly what when turn two rolls round and they rofl stomp your predators.
Playing on open tables favours IG over anything but Alitoc or maybe tau. Playing on heavy terrain and IG still rofl stomp.
This is 40k IG eddition at this point.

Ice_can wrote:

A yes shoot predators at the what 2/3 Basilisics you can draw line of sight to and do exactly what when turn two rolls round and they rofl stomp your predators.
Playing on open tables favours IG over anything but Alitoc or maybe tau. Playing on heavy terrain and IG still rofl stomp.
This is 40k IG eddition at this point.

You can hide Basilisks. You can't easily hide the fabled 9 that people say will show up. Any damage to them is a strong reduction in the IG's shooting power since they'd be 1300 points of the list.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Primark G wrote:
It was discussed.

I'll watch it again, but his point was that it's durable, but will sacrifice too much damage.

It depends on the rest of one's list. Lawrence from TTT played Eldar in a tournament with a farseer, 3x Hemlocks, and 5x Wave Serpents in order to spam Mortal Wounds. He won the event while playing no dark reapers of shining spears...

Yeah it is strong and takes no brain power just chuck the dice.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

A yes shoot predators at the what 2/3 Basilisics you can draw line of sight to and do exactly what when turn two rolls round and they rofl stomp your predators.
Playing on open tables favours IG over anything but Alitoc or maybe tau. Playing on heavy terrain and IG still rofl stomp.
This is 40k IG eddition at this point.

You can hide Basilisks. You can't easily hide the fabled 9 that people say will show up. Any damage to them is a strong reduction in the IG's shooting power since they'd be 1300 points of the list.

Also you only have to worry about hiding the ones in range Removing 2 maybe 3 out of 9 isnt really going to swing it though. That 216 to 324 points for 2 and 3 respectivly
Removing 2 predators a turn is between 300 to 380 points gone.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
I know Nick Nanavati is a better player than me, and I would bet real money he's a better player than you, Marm. If you're not going to trust someone who's consistently put up results as a top player to understand the fundamentals of the game, who can you trust?

I know I don't trust his opinion on spam since he came out against it in his blog, but every list he has taken to major events that I can recall has been nothing but spam. He is definitely a good player (I have played him once and he stomped me), but I wonder how much of his ability is tied to how well he can come up with broken combos better than other people. Just a thought anyway...

 silashand wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
I know Nick Nanavati is a better player than me, and I would bet real money he's a better player than you, Marm. If you're not going to trust someone who's consistently put up results as a top player to understand the fundamentals of the game, who can you trust?

I know I don't trust his opinion on spam since he came out against it in his blog, but every list he has taken to major events that I can recall has been nothing but spam. He is definitely a good player (I have played him once and he stomped me), but I wonder how much of his ability is tied to how well he can come up with broken combos better than other people. Just a thought anyway...

List building is probably the most important skill in 40k - and most games where there are comparable choices to be made. To some extent this is about the meta but first comes maths.

Other than that I would say you have remembering stats & calculating probabilities - in order to determine target priority.
Remembering rules - which you kind of should have if you are playing the game seriously and regularly attending tournaments. You need to know your army, their army, the mission etc.
Finally being able to do the above while under the pressure of a game (and you might say games should be pressure - but in a big tournament it is obviously there.)

Good players are usually defined by the last 3, because having a good list in an internet age is more or less a given. I think however its a fantasy that top players could turn up with a garbage list (i.e. math it out and it sucks) and then win every game. They would just get shot off the table.