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.

ERJAK wrote:
Quick question, who elected you the god of gaming terms? What authority do you have that your definition of 'Gunline' is any more valid than anyone elses?

I don't claim to be the god of anything but if you want to make an arguement you should use terminology in the manner most consistent with what it actually means. Watering terms down to mean basically every army that isn't 90% or more melee focused to be a gunline is silly. A gunline in the use of this game takes its name from a military term "gun line" and was likely something that we got from historical wargamers. A military gun line is "the tactical firing position of artillery or naval guns" which describes things like basalisks or whirlwinds camping on the back field to fire on the enemy army, or even LRBT camping around. Heck I'll even say it can be used to loosely describe HWT and Devastators decently if you have enough of them on the table. It however does not describe an army that has pockets of shooting units spread out across the board trying to hold or take objectives as what we see in most shooting based armies in this edition.

Words mean things and watering down what those things mean just makes language less precise and understandable than it can already be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

"Rain hell". Most shooting isn't doing that against anything that isn't MEQ or TEQ due to how AP doesn't hurt lower save units as much as it used to. I feel like people are overstating how strong shooting is when it takes more concentrated shooting with a lot more rerolling than past editions to be even close to as good as it used to be without being buffed.

Points wise the Smash Captains aren't a "small melee portion", but sure use model count to determine how much of an army is being poured into a given unit.

Your comparison to earlier editions is flawed and foolish. I can name editions where melee dominated and was far, far more powerful than it is now. Doesn't mean it was balanced or fun.

Also shooting became more powerful for many units. Twin linked = double shots. Rerolls are given out like candy in the shooting phase.

Points wise smash captains are what, 120ish points? So two is 240. Less than an eighth of a 2k list. I was never talking about model count so enough strange fallacies.

How many points is the Castellan? Does it race up the field upon wings of fire to cause havoc in cqc?

I asked for the tournament lists you've mentioned seeing that don't have a massive ranged component as you claimed. I'm happy to hear them.

114 x2 on Andrews list.
Straken, Priest, Ogryn BG, 18 crusaders, and a sentinel with a heavy flamer don't exactly qualify as gunline either - 494 points.

Then a psyker, and cc for 76 points of support.
165 for 3 sets of scouts is hardly amping up the gunline and I'd call them support, too.

Then you have 240 of Catachan IG, which is gunline...I guess?
90 for ML sentinels.
99 for mortars.
604 for the Castellan.

So 722 melee, 241 support, and 1033 gunline with 240 of that being questionable. 60% of the "gunline" is in one unit.

I'd need to crack open the Guard codex to double check, but in one unit, or one FOC slot? Because outside of taking Conscripts I don't know of any large Guard units without spending CP on blobbing up.
Sorry, thought you were talking about a single unit of Guard for some reason. Shouldn't post and eat at the same time.

And a single knight is a gunline? Why is it camping anywhere unless it's holding a deployment zone objective marker?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
No you don't, re-rolls come in auras, CP's, the vehicles themselves, re-rolls on hits and wound and D. Acting like this isn't an issue for shooting because you have to expend CP's or psychic powers is just silly. Shooting is over-powered without factoring re-rolls, its even worse when you factor in re-rolls.

How are you assuming that people aren't playing CC armies and tackling gun-lines, you'll have to actually explain that. Expound on how you tackle them.

CP batteries aren't spending CP on strats to unlock rerolls. They're using them on the unit they're supporting. Heck, most combos I've seen involve unloading all your buffs into that supported unit and not your CP battery.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
Quick question, who elected you the god of gaming terms? What authority do you have that your definition of 'Gunline' is any more valid than anyone elses?

I don't claim to be the god of anything but if you want to make an arguement you should use terminology in the manner most consistent with what it actually means. Watering terms down to mean basically every army that isn't 90% or more melee focused to be a gunline is silly. A gunline in the use of this game takes its name from a military term "gun line" and was likely something that we got from historical wargamers. A military gun line is "the tactical firing position of artillery or naval guns" which describes things like basalisks or whirlwinds camping on the back field to fire on the enemy army, or even LRBT camping around. Heck I'll even say it can be used to loosely describe HWT and Devastators decently if you have enough of them on the table. It however does not describe an army that has pockets of shooting units spread out across the board trying to hold or take objectives as what we see in most shooting based armies in this edition.

Words mean things and watering down what those things mean just makes language less precise and understandable than it can already be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

"Rain hell". Most shooting isn't doing that against anything that isn't MEQ or TEQ due to how AP doesn't hurt lower save units as much as it used to. I feel like people are overstating how strong shooting is when it takes more concentrated shooting with a lot more rerolling than past editions to be even close to as good as it used to be without being buffed.

Points wise the Smash Captains aren't a "small melee portion", but sure use model count to determine how much of an army is being poured into a given unit.

Your comparison to earlier editions is flawed and foolish. I can name editions where melee dominated and was far, far more powerful than it is now. Doesn't mean it was balanced or fun.

Also shooting became more powerful for many units. Twin linked = double shots. Rerolls are given out like candy in the shooting phase.

Points wise smash captains are what, 120ish points? So two is 240. Less than an eighth of a 2k list. I was never talking about model count so enough strange fallacies.

How many points is the Castellan? Does it race up the field upon wings of fire to cause havoc in cqc?

I asked for the tournament lists you've mentioned seeing that don't have a massive ranged component as you claimed. I'm happy to hear them.

114 x2 on Andrews list.
Straken, Priest, Ogryn BG, 18 crusaders, and a sentinel with a heavy flamer don't exactly qualify as gunline either - 494 points.

Then a psyker, and cc for 76 points of support.
165 for 3 sets of scouts is hardly amping up the gunline and I'd call them support, too.

Then you have 240 of Catachan IG, which is gunline...I guess?
90 for ML sentinels.
99 for mortars.
604 for the Castellan.

So 722 melee, 241 support, and 1033 gunline with 240 of that being questionable. 60% of the "gunline" is in one unit.

I'd need to crack open the Guard codex to double check, but in one unit, or one FOC slot? Because outside of taking Conscripts I don't know of any large Guard units without spending CP on blobbing up.
Sorry, thought you were talking about a single unit of Guard for some reason. Shouldn't post and eat at the same time.

And a single knight is a gunline? Why is it camping anywhere unless it's holding a deployment zone objective marker?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
No you don't, re-rolls come in auras, CP's, the vehicles themselves, re-rolls on hits and wound and D. Acting like this isn't an issue for shooting because you have to expend CP's or psychic powers is just silly. Shooting is over-powered without factoring re-rolls, its even worse when you factor in re-rolls.

How are you assuming that people aren't playing CC armies and tackling gun-lines, you'll have to actually explain that. Expound on how you tackle them.

CP batteries aren't spending CP on strats to unlock rerolls. They're using them on the unit they're supporting. Heck, most combos I've seen involve unloading all your buffs into that supported unit and not your CP battery.

Can you explain combating gun-lines?

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Can you explain combating gun-lines?

You mean beyond target denial forcing the gunline to move to see targets (for those units who can't indirect fire), shooting the offending targets since tank based gun lines have trouble getting cover in this edition, disruption by engaging part or all of the gunline with chaffe or having abilities that weaken the gun line's effects against you (like Raven Guard or that strat for going 2nd)? In past editions using mech builds was also popular (when Rhinos were cheaper) as you could cheaply add protection to your units moving up the board and screen models behind them into cover pretty easily Not to mention vehicle wrecks are excellent cover.

I mean people are already using these things in general, though you have to tailor specific methods to the army you use.

 ClockworkZion wrote:


And a single knight is a gunline? Why is it camping anywhere unless it's holding a deployment zone objective marker?

Sorry if it wasn't clear. I was commenting on the general absurdity of calling Andrew's list a gunline.

A gunline seeks to avoid combat and maximize the number and power of shots. Many of the Nova lists did not do this.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:


And a single knight is a gunline? Why is it camping anywhere unless it's holding a deployment zone objective marker?

Sorry if it wasn't clear. I was commenting on the general absurdity of calling Andrew's list a gunline.

A gunline seeks to avoid combat and maximize the number and power of shots. Many of the Nova lists did not do this.

Ah. Yeah, that's been my main gripe with the claims of all these "gunlines" running around ruining those poor melee only build player's days.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Can you explain combating gun-lines?

You mean beyond target denial forcing the gunline to move to see targets (for those units who can't indirect fire), shooting the offending targets since tank based gun lines have trouble getting cover in this edition, disruption by engaging part or all of the gunline with chaffe or having abilities that weaken the gun line's effects against you (like Raven Guard or that strat for going 2nd)? In past editions using mech builds was also popular (when Rhinos were cheaper) as you could cheaply add protection to your units moving up the board and screen models behind them into cover pretty easily Not to mention vehicle wrecks are excellent cover.

I mean people are already using these things in general, though you have to tailor specific methods to the army you use.

Eh, if you are charging them, then in the vast majority of cases you can't block line of sight. Saying you can engage other units to distract them, yeah only if you have a unit nearby, that is unoccupied. You aren't going to send two units to deal with a cheap gun-line, you are going to waste points rather than make them up attacking a gun-line, even if they are tank gunlines, you are suspending more units than you should who could be tackling other orders, units, objectives etc. Shooting the target... I'm sorry but these aren't useful tactics at all.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Can you explain combating gun-lines?

You mean beyond target denial forcing the gunline to move to see targets (for those units who can't indirect fire), shooting the offending targets since tank based gun lines have trouble getting cover in this edition, disruption by engaging part or all of the gunline with chaffe or having abilities that weaken the gun line's effects against you (like Raven Guard or that strat for going 2nd)? In past editions using mech builds was also popular (when Rhinos were cheaper) as you could cheaply add protection to your units moving up the board and screen models behind them into cover pretty easily Not to mention vehicle wrecks are excellent cover.

I mean people are already using these things in general, though you have to tailor specific methods to the army you use.

Eh, if you are charging them, then in the vast majority of cases you can't block line of sight. Saying you can engage other units to distract them, yeah only if you have a unit nearby you aren't going to send two units to deal with a cheap gun-line, you are going to waste points rather than make them up attacking a gun-line, even if they are tank gunlines, you are suspending more units than you should who could be tackling other orders, units, objectives etc. Shooting the target...

There are a number of melee units that can be given the slingshot treatment to get them within an easy charge range turn 1 and most of these are chaffe units meaning you can put something like a mortar team (or several) on their back foot by getting into combat with them. Even if they walk out of combat that's a turn they're not shooting giving you more time to get the rest of the army into position.

And naturally target priority is a must, but if I've got a couple units of Intercessors and you have a couple HWT teams, I'm going to unload the bolt rifles into the HWT while the grenade launchers are more likely to be aimed at another target (if there is one, like a BA Captain if he's not being screened off) or at them since Krak grenades can kill HWT bases. I'm not going to use them to shoot a Castellan after all, that's what Hellblasters are for.

And other armies have similar set ups too, you have weapons for just about every threat, why point the anti-infantry ones at invalid targets if I can point them at something better? Or are we back to pretending that most people don't take balanced lists designed for taking on as many different kinds of threats as they can?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Can you explain combating gun-lines?

You mean beyond target denial forcing the gunline to move to see targets (for those units who can't indirect fire), shooting the offending targets since tank based gun lines have trouble getting cover in this edition, disruption by engaging part or all of the gunline with chaffe or having abilities that weaken the gun line's effects against you (like Raven Guard or that strat for going 2nd)? In past editions using mech builds was also popular (when Rhinos were cheaper) as you could cheaply add protection to your units moving up the board and screen models behind them into cover pretty easily Not to mention vehicle wrecks are excellent cover.

I mean people are already using these things in general, though you have to tailor specific methods to the army you use.

Eh, if you are charging them, then in the vast majority of cases you can't block line of sight. Saying you can engage other units to distract them, yeah only if you have a unit nearby you aren't going to send two units to deal with a cheap gun-line, you are going to waste points rather than make them up attacking a gun-line, even if they are tank gunlines, you are suspending more units than you should who could be tackling other orders, units, objectives etc. Shooting the target...

There are a number of melee units that can be given the slingshot treatment to get them within an easy charge range turn 1 and most of these are chaffe units meaning you can put something like a mortar team (or several) on their back foot by getting into combat with them. Even if they walk out of combat that's a turn they're not shooting giving you more time to get the rest of the army into position.

And naturally target priority is a must, but if I've got a couple units of Intercessors and you have a couple HWT teams, I'm going to unload the bolt rifles into the HWT while the grenade launchers are more likely to be aimed at another target (if there is one, like a BA Captain if he's not being screened off) or at them since Krak grenades can kill HWT bases. I'm not going to use them to shoot a Castellan after all, that's what Hellblasters are for.

And other armies have similar set ups too, you have weapons for just about every threat, why point the anti-infantry ones at invalid targets if I can point them at something better? Or are we back to pretending that most people don't take balanced lists designed for taking on as many different kinds of threats as they can?

So your tactics for taking on a gunline for CC armies/units is to use shooting units...

You are also acting like all gun-lines are castled in a deployment zone, not the case you can have gunlines in your deployment or on objectives and still have a balanced list that can go up-board etc.

Gunline =/= shooting units.

By definition a Gunline is the classical Imperial Guard army with line after line of infantry protecting artillery, and they don't move in all of the game.

Thats a gunline. A inamovible (Mostly, they could have a couple scout sentinels or something like that), shooting force.
A movile shooting force (Mechaniced infantry, infantry that walks towards the middle of the table while shooting, bikers, etc...) are not gunlines.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
So your tactics for taking on a gunline for CC armies/units is to use shooting units...

No, my tactic is to play a balanced list that has both shooting and melee so I'm not playing the game on hard mode for no reason other than wanting to have AoS in space.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
You are also acting like all gun-lines are castled in a deployment zone, not the case you can have gunlines in your deployment or on objectives and still have a balanced list that can go up-board etc.

Gunlines aren't typically balanced lists. There is a reason we call them gun lines. Hint: it's the heavy skew towards shooting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
Gunline =/= shooting units.

By definition a Gunline is the classical Imperial Guard army with line after line of infantry protecting artillery, and they don't move in all of the game.

Thats a gunline. A inamovible (Mostly, they could have a couple scout sentinels or something like that), shooting force.
A movile shooting force (Mechaniced infantry, infantry that walks towards the middle of the table while shooting, bikers, etc...) are not gunlines.

Thank you. This is the very point I keep trying to make but people refuse to listen to. Glad to see someone else who looks at shooting armies the same way.

 Galas wrote:
Gunline =/= shooting units.

By definition a Gunline is the classical Imperial Guard army with line after line of infantry protecting artillery, and they don't move in all of the game.

Thats a gunline. A inamovible (Mostly, they could have a couple scout sentinels or something like that), shooting force.
A movile shooting force (Mechaniced infantry, infantry that walks towards the middle of the table while shooting, bikers, etc...) are not gunlines.

No, you can set up gun-lines in conflict, they are not immovable and they are not contingent on artillery and not barred from using other units that are not 'gun-lines'. Ever heard of WW1, yeah they moved.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
So your tactics for taking on a gunline for CC armies/units is to use shooting units...

No, my tactic is to play a balanced list that has both shooting and melee so I'm not playing the game on hard mode for no reason other than wanting to have AoS in space.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
You are also acting like all gun-lines are castled in a deployment zone, not the case you can have gunlines in your deployment or on objectives and still have a balanced list that can go up-board etc.

Gunlines aren't typically balanced lists. There is a reason we call them gun lines. Hint: it's the heavy skew towards shooting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
Gunline =/= shooting units.

By definition a Gunline is the classical Imperial Guard army with line after line of infantry protecting artillery, and they don't move in all of the game.

Thats a gunline. A inamovible (Mostly, they could have a couple scout sentinels or something like that), shooting force.
A movile shooting force (Mechaniced infantry, infantry that walks towards the middle of the table while shooting, bikers, etc...) are not gunlines.

Thank you. This is the very point I keep trying to make but people refuse to listen to. Glad to see someone else who looks at shooting armies the same way.

And how do you do that with Khorne Daemons exactly?

Yeah it can be skewed towards shooting and still be out of balance in the game... CC armies are by definition not balanced lol

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Gunline =/= shooting units.

By definition a Gunline is the classical Imperial Guard army with line after line of infantry protecting artillery, and they don't move in all of the game.

Thats a gunline. A inamovible (Mostly, they could have a couple scout sentinels or something like that), shooting force.
A movile shooting force (Mechaniced infantry, infantry that walks towards the middle of the table while shooting, bikers, etc...) are not gunlines.

No, you can set up gun-lines in conflict, they are not immovable and they are not contingent on artillery. Ever heard of WW1, yeah they moved.

They moved miles in war, on the table not so much.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

And how do you do that with Khorne Daemons exactly?

Skullcannons, Soul Grinder and Lord of Skulls come to mind. Brass Scorpions, Renegade Knights, and Chaos Titans too.

But sure, Khorne doesn't have access to shooting units that can be allied in or are available to the codex directly.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Gunline =/= shooting units.

By definition a Gunline is the classical Imperial Guard army with line after line of infantry protecting artillery, and they don't move in all of the game.

Thats a gunline. A inamovible (Mostly, they could have a couple scout sentinels or something like that), shooting force.
A movile shooting force (Mechaniced infantry, infantry that walks towards the middle of the table while shooting, bikers, etc...) are not gunlines.

No, you can set up gun-lines in conflict, they are not immovable and they are not contingent on artillery. Ever heard of WW1, yeah they moved.

They moved miles in war, on the table not so much.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

And how do you do that with Khorne Daemons exactly?

Skullcannons, Soul Grinder and Lord of Skulls come to mind. Brass Scorpions, Renegade Knights, and Chaos Titans too.

But sure, Khorne doesn't have access to shooting units that can be allied in or are available to the codex directly.

You can move them on the table top, very much so. Yeah a handful of units most of which cost gak loads, you gave two viable ones, each not that heavy hitting. Yeah still not balanced in the slightest.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Gunline =/= shooting units.

By definition a Gunline is the classical Imperial Guard army with line after line of infantry protecting artillery, and they don't move in all of the game.

Thats a gunline. A inamovible (Mostly, they could have a couple scout sentinels or something like that), shooting force.
A movile shooting force (Mechaniced infantry, infantry that walks towards the middle of the table while shooting, bikers, etc...) are not gunlines.

No, you can set up gun-lines in conflict, they are not immovable and they are not contingent on artillery. Ever heard of WW1, yeah they moved.

They moved miles in war, on the table not so much.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

And how do you do that with Khorne Daemons exactly?

Skullcannons, Soul Grinder and Lord of Skulls come to mind. Brass Scorpions, Renegade Knights, and Chaos Titans too.

But sure, Khorne doesn't have access to shooting units that can be allied in or are available to the codex directly.

You can move them on the table top, very much so. Yeah a handful of units most of which cost gak loads, you gave two viable ones, each not that heavy hitting. Yeah still not balanced in the slightest.

You asked me how you could take shooting in a Khorne Daemon army to balance it, so I tossed out several shooting units. I don't play Khorne daemons so it's not like I could list the best and most balanced options because I don't have enough experiance to know which ones those are without just looking them up (like you could just as easilly do instead of trying to play this game of trying to rope me into a corner to admitting that there are armies that can't take shooting to support their melee when every codex has shooting options, even if they aren't as strong as shooting options in some of the other codexes (namely Eldar ones which are definitely broken right now)).

Audustum wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

No, the topic was literally "point to an army that did any good", to which Thousand Sons was given as an answer, to which you disagreed with them doing good. Nobody said they were OP yet.

The traditional pull is a representation of who got top 8 or top 16. This is not a representation of every single army that is doing good, and ones that placed multiple times in a top 30 of one of the largest competitive events of the year definitely fit that description by my measure even if they didn't break top 16. You have conflated the two, and for this topic, your limit of "the traditional pull" is entirely arbitrary.

And I'm AGAINST the change, I think it's bad, dumbs down the game, and I do not think that TSons needed a nerf. If that was what you had said I would have agreed. But what you are currently arguing is that they are not doing good, and top 30 multiple times isn't good because it's not top 16, and that's absurd, especially since they won the major just before that.

You're missing heft context. Re-reading the quote chains, it is as clear to me now as it was then that "any good" was referring to top meta performance. You need to be up there to be doing "any good" in this conversation, so no it's not crazy.

That's not at all clear, and if it was the case, I would have agreed with you. Reading back it seemed pretty clear that the people you were responding to were not putting forward an argument at all all about it being OP, just that it was seeing success in a way that was bad game design. Only you took this to mean that they were broken and dominating tournament's. This unwillingness to read what you're actually responding to and arguing about seems like a recurring theme for you.

Audustum wrote:
You want to add in "your measure"? Great. Make an argument for why it's trustworthy, but you weren't the original post I was responding to and your subjective measure isn't what was being discussed.

Argument for why we can include multiple top 30 placings as a factor to whether or not an army is doing good: because it's a high end finish for an army. No other reason and literally no other reason is necessary, the onus is now on you for a valid reason to discount factual information, and arguing "b-b-but it's not top 16!" is not one, as it being 16 is not a necessary condition of it being relevant.

Audustum wrote:
I will say it for a third time and then probably no more because if it doesn't get through after 3 it probably never will: my pull is not arbitrary. It's what is usually compiled and recorded after tournaments so that way we have a verifiela let record to consult that minimizes player error as a factor. It's the only solid data we really have.

And again, I'll explain this to you. Cutting off data at top 16 isn't arbitrary for doing analysis of the 16 strongest armies of that tourney, or a short summary of the lists that won and came closest to it. However, rigidly sticking to this pull for something that is deliberately not limited to this range and deliberately and stubbornly ignoring ALL other evidence, DOES make it a completely arbitrary limitation when it comes to just trying to measure what armies did well. Nowhere in "doing well" is it specified "HAS TO DO TOP 16 AND NOT A SINGLE PLACE BELOW". In fact, most people will say multiple places in a top 30 is doing quite well. To say not to include simply because it didn't hit the magic 16 is YOUR arbitrary limitation on this argument, and the fact that you still haven't gotten this and keep backpedalling and rewriting all your other posts to make things fit, makes me think you have no interest in listening, and more interest in wounded pride and winning some forum argument. If that's the case then fine, but you're still wrong.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Gunline =/= shooting units.

By definition a Gunline is the classical Imperial Guard army with line after line of infantry protecting artillery, and they don't move in all of the game.

Thats a gunline. A inamovible (Mostly, they could have a couple scout sentinels or something like that), shooting force.
A movile shooting force (Mechaniced infantry, infantry that walks towards the middle of the table while shooting, bikers, etc...) are not gunlines.

No, you can set up gun-lines in conflict, they are not immovable and they are not contingent on artillery. Ever heard of WW1, yeah they moved.

They moved miles in war, on the table not so much.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

And how do you do that with Khorne Daemons exactly?

Skullcannons, Soul Grinder and Lord of Skulls come to mind. Brass Scorpions, Renegade Knights, and Chaos Titans too.

But sure, Khorne doesn't have access to shooting units that can be allied in or are available to the codex directly.

You can move them on the table top, very much so. Yeah a handful of units most of which cost gak loads, you gave two viable ones, each not that heavy hitting. Yeah still not balanced in the slightest.

You asked me how you could take shooting in a Khorne Daemon army to balance it, so I tossed out several shooting units. I don't play Khorne daemons so it's not like I could list the best and most balanced options because I don't have enough experiance to know which ones those are without just looking them up (like you could just as easilly do instead of trying to play this game of trying to rope me into a corner to admitting that there are armies that can't take shooting to support their melee when every codex has shooting options, even if they aren't as strong as shooting options in some of the other codexes (namely Eldar ones which are definitely broken right now)).

And the ones you gave are extremely under-powered, all comprised of heavy LOW units and if you are using a IK for instance you are paying all that points expenditure on a single shooting unit, so you have little other options above that, that are cost effective. Soul grinders and Skullcannons (terrible for anti-infantry and gak against anti-tank) are not that great and there is little anti-tank weaponry. Then you have a gunline that can focus on the knight and then when you try and charge them with your other units they get ass-raped by the gun-line as well as multiple overwatch, that's without having to use other units for objectives etc. So 'look I found some shooty units in the army' doesn't cut it, three of which you can't even use in a tournament because they are so expensive.

Renegade Knights aren't at all underpowered. Take them with two gatling cannons and you've got a lot of firepower with good mobility and durability.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
And the ones you gave are extremely under-powered, all comprised of heavy LOW units and if you are using a IK for instance you are paying all that points expenditure on a single shooting unit, so you have little other options above that, that are cost effective. Soul grinders and Skullcannons (terrible for anti-infantry and gak against anti-tank) are not that great and there is little anti-tank weaponry. Then you have a gunline that can focus on the knight and then when you try and charge them with your other units they get ass-raped by the gun-line as well as multiple overwatch, that's without having to use other units for objectives etc. So 'look I found some shooty units in the army' doesn't cut it, three of which you can't even use in a tournament because they are so expensive.

The cannon on a Soul Grinder works just fine as anti-tank weaponry, but I admit the TS do it better with Flickering Flames tossed on top.

I don't know the Skullcannon statline, but S8 was the old strength which was pretty decent in past editions.

Honestly I feel like you're just grasping at straws to try and keep this narrative of "gunlines ruin the melee armies!" going despite the lack of what has been previously defined as a gunline not being an effective build anymore, and the game becoming hard mode for any army that throws whole phases out of the game in its strategy.

meleti wrote:
Renegade Knights aren't at all underpowered. Take them with two gatling cannons and you've got a lot of firepower with good mobility and durability.

I never said they were, I said skullcannons and soul grinders were underpowered in their shooting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
And the ones you gave are extremely under-powered, all comprised of heavy LOW units and if you are using a IK for instance you are paying all that points expenditure on a single shooting unit, so you have little other options above that, that are cost effective. Soul grinders and Skullcannons (terrible for anti-infantry and gak against anti-tank) are not that great and there is little anti-tank weaponry. Then you have a gunline that can focus on the knight and then when you try and charge them with your other units they get ass-raped by the gun-line as well as multiple overwatch, that's without having to use other units for objectives etc. So 'look I found some shooty units in the army' doesn't cut it, three of which you can't even use in a tournament because they are so expensive.

The cannon on a Soul Grinder works just fine as anti-tank weaponry, but I admit the TS do it better with Flickering Flames tossed on top.

I don't know the Skullcannon statline, but S8 was the old strength which was pretty decent in past editions.

Honestly I feel like you're just grasping at straws to try and keep this narrative of "gunlines ruin the melee armies!" going despite the lack of what has been previously defined as a gunline not being an effective build anymore, and the game becoming hard mode for any army that throws whole phases out of the game in its strategy.

Its gak now, not good enough for infantry, not good enough for anti'tank.

You are the one that has failed to explain how to take on gun-lines as easy as you have said. You've said, use shooty units and tactics... You've failed to explain in anyway how CC armies or units can take them down, your explanation was comical in its uselessness. I mean, shoot at it and charge it, is not great advice. How on earth are gun-lines not an effective build anymore?

Also Tactical Reserves hasn't made any exception for summoning.

I mean summoning was already pointless and terrible, but now it's even more pointless and terrible.

So Alpha Legion, all Daemons, raptors, warp talons, terminators, obliterators, and all summoning, was nerfed in this faq.

And out of all of those things... were any of them actually needing a nerf? No.

I mean, only obliterators were even passably good, and to be fair they're probably the unit effected the least by the faq.

So GW nerfed the bad units, and did nothing to the good units. Good job well done 10/10 ign.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

No, the topic was literally "point to an army that did any good", to which Thousand Sons was given as an answer, to which you disagreed with them doing good. Nobody said they were OP yet.

The traditional pull is a representation of who got top 8 or top 16. This is not a representation of every single army that is doing good, and ones that placed multiple times in a top 30 of one of the largest competitive events of the year definitely fit that description by my measure even if they didn't break top 16. You have conflated the two, and for this topic, your limit of "the traditional pull" is entirely arbitrary.

And I'm AGAINST the change, I think it's bad, dumbs down the game, and I do not think that TSons needed a nerf. If that was what you had said I would have agreed. But what you are currently arguing is that they are not doing good, and top 30 multiple times isn't good because it's not top 16, and that's absurd, especially since they won the major just before that.

You're missing heft context. Re-reading the quote chains, it is as clear to me now as it was then that "any good" was referring to top meta performance. You need to be up there to be doing "any good" in this conversation, so no it's not crazy.

That's not at all clear, and if it was the case, I would have agreed with you. Reading back it seemed pretty clear that the people you were responding to were not putting forward an argument at all all about it being OP, just that it was seeing success in a way that was bad game design. Only you took this to mean that they were broken and dominating tournament's. This unwillingness to read what you're actually responding to and arguing about seems like a recurring theme for you.

Audustum wrote:
You want to add in "your measure"? Great. Make an argument for why it's trustworthy, but you weren't the original post I was responding to and your subjective measure isn't what was being discussed.

Argument for why we can include multiple top 30 placings as a factor to whether or not an army is doing good: because it's a high end finish for an army. No other reason and literally no other reason is necessary, the onus is now on you for a valid reason to discount factual information, and arguing "b-b-but it's not top 16!" is not one, as it being 16 is not a necessary condition of it being relevant.

Audustum wrote:
I will say it for a third time and then probably no more because if it doesn't get through after 3 it probably never will: my pull is not arbitrary. It's what is usually compiled and recorded after tournaments so that way we have a verifiela let record to consult that minimizes player error as a factor. It's the only solid data we really have.

And again, I'll explain this to you. Cutting off data at top 16 isn't arbitrary for doing analysis of the 16 strongest armies of that tourney, or a short summary of the lists that won and came closest to it. However, rigidly sticking to this pull for something that is deliberately not limited to this range and deliberately and stubbornly ignoring ALL other evidence, DOES make it a completely arbitrary limitation when it comes to just trying to measure what armies did well. Nowhere in "doing well" is it specified "HAS TO DO TOP 16 AND NOT A SINGLE PLACE BELOW". In fact, most people will say multiple places in a top 30 is doing quite well. To say not to include simply because it didn't hit the magic 16 is YOUR arbitrary limitation on this argument, and the fact that you still haven't gotten this and keep backpedalling and rewriting all your other posts to make things fit, makes me think you have no interest in listening, and more interest in wounded pride and winning some forum argument. If that's the case then fine, but you're still wrong.

I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall, just a little bit and I'm not trying to be too belligerent here but you're throwing out some massive belligerence for no discernable purpose. This is the crux and I will have pointed this out for the fourth time now: you use the top 16 because that's what we have long spanning records on. We use records to look for consistencies to rule out player error. Such records don't exist for top 30 so far as I know. That's why I said you'd have to make one or find someone who did. Top 30 is unreliable because we have no records to minimize player error. That's what you keep missing and is why your argument both fails and repeatedly mischaracterizes my own.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:


And a single knight is a gunline? Why is it camping anywhere unless it's holding a deployment zone objective marker?

Sorry if it wasn't clear. I was commenting on the general absurdity of calling Andrew's list a gunline.

A gunline seeks to avoid combat and maximize the number and power of shots. Many of the Nova lists did not do this.

To many people - a gun line is a list that has mostly shooting units in it. To attack the wordage they are using is a sign of a weak argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Niiru wrote:
Also Tactical Reserves hasn't made any exception for summoning.

I mean summoning was already pointless and terrible, but now it's even more pointless and terrible.

So Alpha Legion, all Daemons, raptors, warp talons, terminators, obliterators, and all summoning, was nerfed in this faq.

And out of all of those things... were any of them actually needing a nerf? No.

I mean, only obliterators were even passably good, and to be fair they're probably the unit effected the least by the faq.

So GW nerfed the bad units, and did nothing to the good units. Good job well done 10/10 ign.

This is a perfect explanation of my feelings. good rules don't weaken bad units.

Disappointed with the FAQ. Doesn't spice the game up at all, potentially made Necrons even worse (Imotekh warlord trait is now garbage, units now take causalities on emergency disembark).

The changes GW have made are the bare minimum, all of it uninspired boring gak that will probably not change anything in the meta and the certain few marine players will still make their posts endlessly on the forums.

 Eonfuzz wrote:
Disappointed with the FAQ. Doesn't spice the game up at all, potentially made Necrons even worse (Imotekh warlord trait is now garbage, units now take causalities on emergency disembark).

The changes GW have made are the bare minimum, all of it uninspired boring gak that will probably not change anything in the meta and the certain few marine players will still make their posts endlessly on the forums.

True - though as a marine fanboy - I would call this a buff to marines. Automatic first turn cover is great for a lot of our units. Ravengaurd got nerfed but Ultras are the strongest anyways - overall it's a buff to Ultramarines.

What is nonsense? Chapter tactics not affecting all units - At this point any FAQ that doesn't include this ruling is completely gak.

GW can't hurt my armies anymore. That is all that this FAQ accomplished.

Though the CP farm nerf is greatly appreciated.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:
Disappointed with the FAQ. Doesn't spice the game up at all, potentially made Necrons even worse (Imotekh warlord trait is now garbage, units now take causalities on emergency disembark).

The changes GW have made are the bare minimum, all of it uninspired boring gak that will probably not change anything in the meta and the certain few marine players will still make their posts endlessly on the forums.

True - though as a marine fanboy - I would call this a buff to marines. Automatic first turn cover is great for a lot of our units. Ravengaurd got nerfed but Ultras are the strongest anyways - overall it's a buff to Ultramarines.

What is nonsense? Chapter tactics not affecting all units - At this point any FAQ that doesn't include this ruling is completely gak.

Not really, all armies really benefit from turn two cover I mean Orks are extremely buffed by that, more so than marines in my opinion.

Agree though, for instance my DG rules to not apply to everything, even some infantry units. I don't know what GW are doing with this idea. Also my SW's don't even have speacial rules, we get speacial rules for being a battalion which the rule is awesome but we have no special rule for all cases and for fluff.

It certainly helps all armies but it helps armies with 3+ saves the most. Plus - marines don't have anything else to spend command points on so - that is another reason. Orks are in the same boat there. All around great for orks.

 Xenomancers wrote:
It certainly helps all armies but it helps armies with 3+ saves the most. Plus - marines don't have anything else to spend command points on so - that is another reason. Orks are in the same boat there. All around great for orks.

Yup my dakka-merchants are happy.

All factions that could be neutered by a good first turn from a gunline (which by the way is not a shooting heavy army) and don't rely on invul saves really love the new stratagem, in particular if they are not really good at long range shooting and usually wait turn 2 for the real damage.

1) Marines (all flavors)
2) Custodes
3) Nids
4) Orks
5) Necrons
6) Wraith heavy CWE builds

Those are the big winners of this change.

Then you have the ones that can get use of it, but will also have it used against them:

1) Guards
2) T'au
3) Mechanicus

They rely on doing a lot of damage turn 1, so anything that reduces that alpha strike is bad. At the same time though they are also more protected by alpha strikes, which they do fear. In general for them the result is about even, maybe just more fun due to being less reliant on winning that initial roll.

And then you have the losers, everyone who is protected by invul saves, which will not be able to gain anything from this:

1) Knights (which are also titanic)
2) Demons
3) DE
4) Many CWE builds

CWE builds did actually receive a lot of nerfs here. No keeping your reapers in deepstrike, no jumping over screens with your bikes, enemies in cover turn 1...

In general this FAQ has killed all top lists, that is for sure.
Now i'm trying to understand which will be the new hotness. Double detachment of guards + castellan will still be good, but much less powerful than the current incarnation. DE + CWE psy support will be good, but without labirinthite cunning they will be really short on CP, they are not going to use Vect more than once every game.

Audustum wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

No, the topic was literally "point to an army that did any good", to which Thousand Sons was given as an answer, to which you disagreed with them doing good. Nobody said they were OP yet.

The traditional pull is a representation of who got top 8 or top 16. This is not a representation of every single army that is doing good, and ones that placed multiple times in a top 30 of one of the largest competitive events of the year definitely fit that description by my measure even if they didn't break top 16. You have conflated the two, and for this topic, your limit of "the traditional pull" is entirely arbitrary.

And I'm AGAINST the change, I think it's bad, dumbs down the game, and I do not think that TSons needed a nerf. If that was what you had said I would have agreed. But what you are currently arguing is that they are not doing good, and top 30 multiple times isn't good because it's not top 16, and that's absurd, especially since they won the major just before that.

You're missing heft context. Re-reading the quote chains, it is as clear to me now as it was then that "any good" was referring to top meta performance. You need to be up there to be doing "any good" in this conversation, so no it's not crazy.

That's not at all clear, and if it was the case, I would have agreed with you. Reading back it seemed pretty clear that the people you were responding to were not putting forward an argument at all all about it being OP, just that it was seeing success in a way that was bad game design. Only you took this to mean that they were broken and dominating tournament's. This unwillingness to read what you're actually responding to and arguing about seems like a recurring theme for you.

Audustum wrote:
You want to add in "your measure"? Great. Make an argument for why it's trustworthy, but you weren't the original post I was responding to and your subjective measure isn't what was being discussed.

Argument for why we can include multiple top 30 placings as a factor to whether or not an army is doing good: because it's a high end finish for an army. No other reason and literally no other reason is necessary, the onus is now on you for a valid reason to discount factual information, and arguing "b-b-but it's not top 16!" is not one, as it being 16 is not a necessary condition of it being relevant.

Audustum wrote:
I will say it for a third time and then probably no more because if it doesn't get through after 3 it probably never will: my pull is not arbitrary. It's what is usually compiled and recorded after tournaments so that way we have a verifiela let record to consult that minimizes player error as a factor. It's the only solid data we really have.

And again, I'll explain this to you. Cutting off data at top 16 isn't arbitrary for doing analysis of the 16 strongest armies of that tourney, or a short summary of the lists that won and came closest to it. However, rigidly sticking to this pull for something that is deliberately not limited to this range and deliberately and stubbornly ignoring ALL other evidence, DOES make it a completely arbitrary limitation when it comes to just trying to measure what armies did well. Nowhere in "doing well" is it specified "HAS TO DO TOP 16 AND NOT A SINGLE PLACE BELOW". In fact, most people will say multiple places in a top 30 is doing quite well. To say not to include simply because it didn't hit the magic 16 is YOUR arbitrary limitation on this argument, and the fact that you still haven't gotten this and keep backpedalling and rewriting all your other posts to make things fit, makes me think you have no interest in listening, and more interest in wounded pride and winning some forum argument. If that's the case then fine, but you're still wrong.

I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall, just a little bit and I'm not trying to be too belligerent here but you're throwing out some massive belligerence for no discernable purpose. This is the crux and I will have pointed this out for the fourth time now: you use the top 16 because that's what we have long spanning records on. We use records to look for consistencies to rule out player error. Such records don't exist for top 30 so far as I know. That's why I said you'd have to make one or find someone who did. Top 30 is unreliable because we have no records to minimize player error. That's what you keep missing and is why your argument both fails and repeatedly mischaracterizes my own.

You started with the snark, so don't act surprised when the person you direct it towards also responds back a bit snarky in return, especially when you're being this bullheaded on a pretty straightforward matter.


What records do you need for top 30? You just look at high placing results lol. Nothing about what you are saying has much clarity to it, it seems like you are trying to latch on to whatever technicality you can reach for to excuse you being wrong about the FACT that Thousand Sons have been competing just fine, and they are an army capable of doing exactly what was described.

If you want to delve deeper into hard statistics we certainly can, and they still support that TSons are not struggling at all at a competitive level, but as it stands people put forth great examples of TSons competing just dandy at a competitive level and you tried to handwave it with "BUT ITS NOT TOP 16 THO". Ok, nobody said it was. You can talk about top 16's all you want, and compare them all you like, but the question wasn't asked how many times has TSon's got top 16. That being said, they were literally ranked #5 at the tournament in question, and then appeared 4-5 MORE times going down the top placings down to 30. That's a great showing at a 250 man tournament, and is definitely a fair example of them doing well. Nobody was asked to provide examples of top 16 only, and if that was a classification on the criteria there would have been a different answer, though it's an unnecessary restriction as again - you do not need to take multiple places in the top 16 of a 250 man tournament just to count as a good army. You've completely shifted the goalposts to something entirely different from what was asked because you didn't like that the answer to the question proved you wrong.

If you want to talk statistics we can do that. You talk so much about them so I'm going to assume you're aware of TSons winrate in the competitive scene right now, right?