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:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Why do you want to kill soup? Soup is a good thing. Your suggestion would absolutely murder so many fluffy lists you'd have to dig them all a mass grave.

Soup is absolutely not a good thing. Do you know why people make soup? Because it's easy and you're just heating water and throwing crap into it.

Soup isn't necessary to have "fluffy lists". We have Auxiliary Support Detachments for making fluffy lists. We have the ability to make Detachments using faction keywords like "Imperium" or "Chaos".

Nobody uses any of those options for a reason as well; why would they penalize themselves when they can just make soup?

Auxiliary support detachments don't make for fluffy lists. You can't bring an Inquisitor, an Interrogator (2nd Inquisitor), and his acolytes in an Inquisitorial Land Raider Prometheus just through Auxiliary detachments. You'd have -1CP and have exceeded your detachment limit at 2k by 1, having spent ~500-600 points. That's not a good thing.

Detachment limits are a tournament specific suggested thing. Don't bring that weak argument here.

If you want to play a points game and bring that stuff in, nobody would give a crap. Because you'd actively be penalizing yourself. The whole flipping reason we're seeing Detachment limitations and Datasheet limitations now is because of the fact that people just bring the most number-crunched nonsense imaginable--which is fine for tournaments.

You also can't make Detachments using faction keywords like "Imperium" or "Chaos" anymore. That's explicitly forbidden by the new FAQ.

Big FAQ wrote:
BATTLE BROTHERS
The beta version of Battle Brothers is a brand new matched play rule we’d like to test.

Both your points on how you could continue to make fluffy lists are delusional.

And your objections are based upon Matched Play beta rules and a suggestion for tournament organizers.

 Kanluwen wrote:
And your objections are based upon Matched Play beta rules and a suggestion for tournament organizers.

...which is how everyone I knows plays, even the narrative people. My local club is running a narrative campaign and using matched play and beta rules. To deny that most people play using those suggestions is disingenuous or ignorant.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
And your objections are based upon Matched Play beta rules and a suggestion for tournament organizers.

...which is how everyone I knows plays, even the narrative people. My local club is running a narrative campaign and using matched play and beta rules. To deny that most people play using those suggestions is disingenuous or ignorant.

That's your problem, not mine. You people chose to use Matched Play tournament rules(page 214 and the popout box there IS SUGGESTED FOR TOURNAMENTS) and you people chose to use beta rules.

My local group had people trying to force others into that before it was made abundantly clear that:
1) You have to inform someone beforehand if you're wanting to use beta rules
2) A Matched Play game != a Tournament Game. If you want to use the suggestions for tournaments for the game? Awesome! Tell the other person in advance. Don't just spring that gak on them day of.

The "AM" list that won that event had about 700 points of guard in it.

It was a BA/Custodes/AM list with something like 27 CP (brigade, battalion, battalion).

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
And your objections are based upon Matched Play beta rules and a suggestion for tournament organizers.

...which is how everyone I knows plays, even the narrative people. My local club is running a narrative campaign and using matched play and beta rules. To deny that most people play using those suggestions is disingenuous or ignorant.

That's your problem, not mine. You people chose to use Matched Play tournament rules(page 214 and the popout box there IS SUGGESTED FOR TOURNAMENTS) and you people chose to use beta rules.

My local group had people trying to force others into that before it was made abundantly clear that:
1) You have to inform someone beforehand if you're wanting to use beta rules
2) A Matched Play game != a Tournament Game. If you want to use the suggestions for tournaments for the game? Awesome! Tell the other person in advance. Don't just spring that gak on them day of.

It is my problem, to be sure, but "feth you, got mine" isn't how we should go about writing rules. It is a problem, and not one that can be handwaved away by saying "well, we follow different rules so we'll just change yours while you're at it."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:
The "AM" list that won that event had about 700 points of guard in it.

It was a BA/Custodes/AM list with something like 27 CP (brigade, battalion, battalion).

Which is about what I suspected when I said as much to Marmatag. Can I ask where you found the list?

Why not just do what AoS did, limit the amount of allies you can take based on point level.

At 2k you can't take more then 400 points or allies.

So if your main faction is daemons, you can only take 400 points or CSM

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Why not just do what AoS did, limit the amount of allies you can take based on point level.

At 2k you can't take more then 400 points or allies.

So if your main faction is daemons, you can only take 400 points or CSM

This would have worked, but it appears to me that GW's 8th Edition design philosophy included soup as a core component.

 Marmatag wrote:
Every list that is IMPERIUM, CHAOS, or ELDAR will have soup.

You're inconsistent though here.

When Guard are a part of winning lists declared as another faction, you say "hey look other factions are winning, the fact that they soup doesn't matter!"

When Guard win, and there is no evidence of soup, you say "hey Guard won but there's probably soup, and that matters."

Pick a stance...

Because I would bet that every Imperium list that won a major event since the raven nerf had Guard in it.

In any case, you asked for if Guard won anything. They're the only army that won a GT after the FAQ so far. Does that change your opinion? Of course not. You asked for data that might, and you're ignoring it. Dakka is a place where people argue their bias, nothing more.

Actually, again looking at my big ol' pool of 300 pages of GT lists, that statement doesn't exactly pan out.

It's 100% true for Chaos - less than 10% of chaos lists entering the tournament pulled from only a single army book.

it's mostly true for Imperium, with two notable exceptions: Space Marines from the codex (which were mostly pure, single subfaction lists, predominantly ultras but with Raven Guard, Imp Fists, and Salamanders also in attendance. The only lists souping in codex marines were aux'ing in Guilliman, and only 2-3 lists did that.)

Also, Guard. Pure (again, over 1500pts) guard lists were entirely Astra Militarum over half the time. If you only looked at 100% Space Marine and 100% Astra Militarum armies vs all other armies appearing in the tournament, they would be the fourth and fifth most common faction in attendance, and this is even counting them against the small allied detachments of other factions.

And at this point the "soup is all" statement is almost entirely UNtrue for nids and fairly untrue for Eldar.

2/3 of aeldari lists in attendance at the tournament were either pure craftworld (all but one being pure Alaitoc) or pure Drukhari, with Drukhari majorly pulling the weight there with fifteen out of nineteen lists containing drukhari only, no Ynnari, Harlequin or Craftworld allies. tyranids only brought any allies at all in 2 out of 19 lists, despite having access to everybody's soupy darling the Astra Militarum by way of GSC.

What soup options do Nids have? i excluded them for a reason. And yes you will see pure AM, but over the course of the full year even lists that were very close to pure AM featured Celestine. In any case, you are right. There were periods of time where pure AM dominated over all soup. We might be getting back to that.

 Marmatag wrote:
What soup options do Nids have? i excluded them for a reason. And yes you will see pure AM, but over the course of the full year even lists that were very close to pure AM featured Celestine. In any case, you are right. There were periods of time where pure AM dominated over all soup. We might be getting back to that.

Or we will not. As the_scotsman said, it remains to be seen.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
What soup options do Nids have? i excluded them for a reason. And yes you will see pure AM, but over the course of the full year even lists that were very close to pure AM featured Celestine. In any case, you are right. There were periods of time where pure AM dominated over all soup. We might be getting back to that.

Or we will not. As the_scotsman said, it remains to be seen.

All we've seen so far is that AM is top of the heap in the only data point we have. It's small and you can't draw a true conclusion, but it does mesh with expectations.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
What soup options do Nids have? i excluded them for a reason. And yes you will see pure AM, but over the course of the full year even lists that were very close to pure AM featured Celestine. In any case, you are right. There were periods of time where pure AM dominated over all soup. We might be getting back to that.

Or we will not. As the_scotsman said, it remains to be seen.

All we've seen so far is that AM is top of the heap in the only data point we have. It's small and you can't draw a true conclusion, but it does mesh with expectations.

That list has 700 points of guard, and is not a refutation of the claim that "pure guard isn't OP"

Well the Grey Knights lists that did well were 1000 points of Guard, and you said these were shining examples of Grey Knights success. So, inconsistency is showing.

Either this list is Guard, or it isn't, and Grey Knights have never finished in the top 3-10 in any event since 8th started.

Soup is here to stay. It's an AM list.

 Marmatag wrote:
What soup options do Nids have? i excluded them for a reason. And yes you will see pure AM, but over the course of the full year even lists that were very close to pure AM featured Celestine. In any case, you are right. There were periods of time where pure AM dominated over all soup. We might be getting back to that.

Nids have the same number of soup ally options that eldar have, three. GSC, and by way of GSC, imperial guard. You could see nid lists running the very same guard ally detachment that all the imperium lists are running - honestly, the fact that we didn't see that among the tournament lists surprised the heck out of me. GSC are certainly limited as all index factions are, but a patrol gets you one single highly efficient turn 1 anti tank deep strike unit in a 10-man squad of acolytes with 4 saws and a Primus. And then you can take a guard detachment.

There were two lists that did something like that (both of them went for a Shadowsword as their guard detachment) but most nid lists opted to go pure nids.

And, like I said, so did most aeldari lists, picking either drukhari or craftworlds. Craftworlds more commonly mixed CWE and Ynnari (mostly just to get a soulbursting unit of Shining Spears and/or dark reapers) but about 1/3 were pure alaitoc CWE. Drukhari was more like 3/4 pure Drukhari - mostly IMO because if you want to play the whole Drukhari codex you're cozying up to that detachment limit.

Regardless, it is incredibly evident to me that by removing the ability to take pure Ynnari, Aeldari, Imperium etc factions, GW actually did heavily reduce the attractiveness of soup in a competitive setting. Common mainstays like Celestine, Assassins, etc are now much harder to fit in because you have to commit to a full detachment to get them, giving up 1 of your 3.

There is one other post-FAQ Major with results in BCP. That was the Alamo GT won by Dark Eldar this past weekend.
https://www.bestcoastpairings.com/r/90dheaux

There are a couple other post-FAQ events that meet the ITC GT standard (28+ players, 5+ rounds). They were won by Thousand Sons and Eldar.
https://www.bestcoastpairings.com/r/qwqu5mhp
https://www.bestcoastpairings.com/r/655bm6kk

I am not including the Broadside Bash results as I believe they did not use the FAQ/Beta Rules. Technically it was a major after the FAQ release date though and was won by Ynnari.

So no IG is certainly not dominating every known post-FAQ GT/Major.

 Marmatag wrote:
Well the Grey Knights lists that did well were 1000 points of Guard, and you said these were shining examples of Grey Knights success. So, inconsistency is showing.

Either this list is Guard, or it isn't, and Grey Knights have never finished in the top 3-10 in any event since 8th started.

Soup is here to stay. It's an AM list.

That's completely disingenuous. 700/2000 points of guard and suddenly its a guard army? Your bias is showing.

The definition of a "pure" army is debatable, but when points are roughly comparable between two different detachments you have to call it a "soup" force or a "hybrid" army out of fairness.

Grey knight lists don't do well, Grey Knight/Guard hybrid lists do alright because the grey knights cover the weaknesses of the guard and vice versa.

Is it just me, or is the diversity of the top 10 in each of the 3 tournies Alpharius posted really exciting?

Bharring wrote:
Is it just me, or is the diversity of the top 10 in each of the 3 tournies Alpharius posted really exciting?

I'm not as optimistic about this as i should be. The game just received a major shake, all those factions competing with each other on equal terms could only be a temporary thing before the new "broken" thing is found.

At least we can say that there is nothing obviously OP out there.

wow..... another thread that's devolved into OMG GUARD ARE BROKEN!!!!!
there is a reason you don't see pure guard lists winning GT after GT. My friend at the Alamo sent me the results right after and of course space elves were tearing it up again yet we get more and more guard are OP threads. The fact is guard are fine alone. The only issue in guard is that they can generate CP too efficiently for factions that were never meant to have tons of CP. Simply remove the ability to spend CP on detachments that don't generate it so we can get threads about something other then the mythical broken guard that never seem to win something.

Asmodios wrote:
wow..... another thread that's devolved into OMG GUARD ARE BROKEN!!!!!
there is a reason you don't see pure guard lists winning GT after GT. My friend at the Alamo sent me the results right after and of course space elves were tearing it up again yet we get more and more guard are OP threads. The fact is guard are fine alone. The only issue in guard is that they can generate CP too efficiently for factions that were never meant to have tons of CP. Simply remove the ability to spend CP on detachments that don't generate it so we can get threads about something other then the mythical broken guard that never seem to win something.

Seems like a really even spread at all the tournaments, honestly. Looking at all three, you can't pick a single faction or even "grand alliance" that seems to be dominating. Theres what, 2 dark eldar, 1 Eldar and 1 ynnari (which is usually all CWE+1 Ynnari model at this point) in the top 10? 3 chaos, 2 imperium, 1 tau, 4 eldar seems a relatively balanced showing.

...I want to know what the 8th place iron hands list from that third tournament is, lol.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
And your objections are based upon Matched Play beta rules and a suggestion for tournament organizers.

...which is how everyone I knows plays, even the narrative people. My local club is running a narrative campaign and using matched play and beta rules. To deny that most people play using those suggestions is disingenuous or ignorant.

That's your problem, not mine. You people chose to use Matched Play tournament rules(page 214 and the popout box there IS SUGGESTED FOR TOURNAMENTS) and you people chose to use beta rules.

My local group had people trying to force others into that before it was made abundantly clear that:
1) You have to inform someone beforehand if you're wanting to use beta rules
2) A Matched Play game != a Tournament Game. If you want to use the suggestions for tournaments for the game? Awesome! Tell the other person in advance. Don't just spring that gak on them day of.

It is my problem, to be sure, but "feth you, got mine" isn't how we should go about writing rules. It is a problem, and not one that can be handwaved away by saying "well, we follow different rules so we'll just change yours while you're at it."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:
The "AM" list that won that event had about 700 points of guard in it.

It was a BA/Custodes/AM list with something like 27 CP (brigade, battalion, battalion).

Which is about what I suspected when I said as much to Marmatag. Can I ask where you found the list?

Finally found it https://diceshot.com/2018/04/30/imperium-m-walshs-list/

Thank you for finding the list. So unless I missed something the player made a data entry error and their army should be Blood Angels as that is the largest detachment by points (728 BA, 665 IG, 607 Custodes). Per the ITC language:

"Your ITC faction is determined as follows: find the the most specific Faction Keyword (which is typically the last Faction Keyword listed on each unit's’ datasheet) shared by every model in the detachment with the most points in it in your army."

As Blood Angels have now won half of the majors in this young post-FAQ meta clearly a nerf is in order. /sarcasm

 Fafnir wrote:
But Imperial Guard is the problem army. Imperial lists can't be competitive without them, they themselves encourage boring and one-sided styles of play, and are frontloaded with so much firepower that designing factions to deal with them only causes problems with the game's core to escalate.

Do you seriously think Guard are not an overly powerful army?

The Guard are a success story based on them being the perfect army for the 8th edition ruleset. 8th is all about chucking as many dice as possible as many times as you can. Guard are lot of cheap units who can throw a lot of dice. However...

Guard are a 'problem' because of the way 8th is designed, but taken by their lonesome they're by no means broken and you see this a lot when people talk about dreading facing their mate's pure Imperial Guard army only to come away having a good, but by no means lopsided game. Imperial lists need Guard to be CP batteries. Other than the Detachment filling, how many Guard units do you generally see in 'Astra Militarum Lists'? Two Company Commanders and three naked Infantry Squads? Then the rest of the 1800pts are filled up by Astartes/Custodes. Just because they stick Astra Militarum on their list's name rarely means it's actually that.

CP generation is broken, not the Guard. The Guard are absolutely a powerful army right now, but they're not the powerhouse a lot of people make them out to be and better units can and are plucked out from other armies to fill roles other than Troops.

Alpharius Walks wrote:
Thank you for finding the list. So unless I missed something the player made a data entry error and their army should be Blood Angels as that is the largest detachment by points (728 BA, 665 IG, 607 Custodes). Per the ITC language:

"Your ITC faction is determined as follows: find the the most specific Faction Keyword (which is typically the last Faction Keyword listed on each unit's’ datasheet) shared by every model in the detachment with the most points in it in your army."

As Blood Angels have now won half of the majors in this young post-FAQ meta clearly a nerf is in order. /sarcasm

Wait, so would the <Regiment> keyword count? Am I playing Faction: 2nd Concordian Independent Super Heavy Tank Armoured Regiment?

In a way Unit but that is not a recognized faction for ITC scoring purposes so you would need to select Astra Militarum as the closest of the available options. All of the different <regiment> options are selectable for the regiments with doctrines but for faction rankings they are all grouped under Astra Militarum.

Alpharius Walks wrote:
In a way Unit but that is not a recognized faction for ITC scoring purposes so you would need to select Astra Militarum as the closest of the available options. All of the different <regiment> options are selectable for the regiments with doctrines but for faction rankings they are all grouped under Astra Militarum.

Seems like they should reword the rule, then. No wonder it's confusing. I'd probably get "Best Faction Player" for the 2nd Concordian Independent Super Heavy Tank Armoured Regiment, and that's my faction by the rules.

(I know it's pedantic, but it's hilarious when people hate on GW for writing unclear rules and then hold up ITC as a bastion of light in the darkness... with unclear rules.)

Out of curiosity do you actually use a custom regiment tag and give up the unique regiment stratagem when playing competitively? I imagine that would be ok with some but brutal with say Vostroyan.

Anyway their consolidation down to Astra Militarum for ITC factions regardless of regiment makes sense as you do not want a couple hundred players running around with custom regiments to get themselves best of faction honors.

Alpharius Walks wrote:
Out of curiosity do you actually use a custom regiment tag and give up the unique regiment stratagem when playing competitively? I imagine that would be ok with some but brutal with say Vostroyan.

Anyway their consolidation down to Astra Militarum for ITC factions regardless of regiment makes sense as you do not want a couple hundred players running around with custom regiments to get themselves best of faction honors.

Yes - though it depends on context. I do ask my opponent if my warlord can have the Vostroyan Warlord Trait when I run Katerina Malinenko. It's (kinda regrettably) rare that she sees the field though, as she tends to direct the regiment from behind the front. And it makes sense, but presumably you would need to reward the rule to prevent the same thing not just for AM but for custom CSM, Space Marines, Craftworlds, etc...

All of the factions are like that for ranking purposes, as far as I am aware there is no faction that can select a custom regiment as their ITC faction for an event.

The list of ITC factions is available here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16p0r1w3IHR2xGrIGpWREMhs9Amnqzbti6TGG8-xiSyE/edit#gid=0

Alpharius Walks wrote:
All of the factions are like that for ranking purposes, as far as I am aware there is no faction that can select a custom regiment as their ITC faction for an event.

The list of ITC factions is available here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16p0r1w3IHR2xGrIGpWREMhs9Amnqzbti6TGG8-xiSyE/edit#gid=0

OOHH I didn't know they had custom factions, I assumed they used GW's faction keyword system. (Interestingly enough, Adepta Sororitas is in both Imperial Agents and Adepta Sororitas, while Adeptus Ministorum is just in the Adepta Sororitas ITC faction, lol).