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.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
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.

Just because they water a term down to mean basically any army in 40k since the entire game is built around armies having access to shooting doesn't make them right, it makes their arguement meaningless. "My melee only army can't compete in a game with guns because someone might bring them to my knife fight!" is not the game's fault. It's a feature, not a bug in 40k that someone might shoot your crazed axe wielding nutjob as he screams up the table.

Agreed.

Arguing about melee armies Vs shooting armies is silly. Bring a bit of both!

The only people who are justified in making that kind of complaint are Daemon and Tau players. In that case it's really an issue of faction balance, not melee or shooting being over or under powered.

If you've built an army that hinges on a single mechanic to work, in a game that changes basic mechanics at whim; that's on nobody but you.

- A Slaanesh Daemons player.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 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.

I didn't use the word "gunline" once in any of my posts gentlemen. Don't put words in my mouth.

I want clarification on all these tournament lists that run a mix of melee and shooting, according to Zion, because THE list is clearly predominantly a shooting force.

"Mixed arms"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

happy_inquisitor wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Why are we talking about gunlines at all?

My position is pretty simple and unrelated; I would suggest that the current edition favours primarily shooting units way more than primarily melee units. This has been the case for a few editions now but it has not changed. I feel like Zion is suggesting otherwise despite the de facto 'best list' having a relatively small (points and model-wise) melee contingent.

That's not to say there aren't any "good" melee units, but they tend to be expendable (because enemies can now leave combat at will), characters (so they are protected as they trundle up the field or when units leave combat) or extremely mobile through deep strike, movement stratagems or simply strong base movement.[/quote

The Best List (IK/BA/AM) seems to me more built around how best to leverage advantage from unlimited CP than anything. They do have an assault element and it varies from player to player, the version of the list with Knight Gallants is pretty assault-heavy. I am not sure it tells us that much, after all the previous Best Lists that stood out in my mind were infinite poxwalkers which was an assault/psychic list and flyrant spam with a 50/50 mix of shooting and assault upgrades and inherent psychic power. If we take too short a snapshot of the Best List we can see just the outcome of the previous FAQ rules tweak and think that is characteristic of 8th whereas really what is characteristic of 8th is the tall poppy syndrome where whatever is best will be cut down to size. More durable top lists like Ynnari are a mix of units that work in every phase - the last version of Nick Nanavati's Ynnari list I saw had 500 points of assault units to 650 points of shooting units in it with 450 points of psykers for support..

The top lists have almost always got a balance of shooting and assault, they need to operate in as many phases of the game as possible. If I had to hazard and estimate at the ideal balance I would guess at 60:40 shooting to assault but top players will keep tuning their lists and against a changing background of releases we should never see that question "solved". What is true is that one-dimensional pure assault armies are less functional than one-dimensional pure shooting armies. If you choose to cripple a Khorne list by not taking the shooting options available it will really struggle more than a comparable AM or Tau player who takes no assault - none of those are currently likely to win many tournaments but the mono-shooting lists would tend to win more games. Of course if you go out of your way to ignore the Khorne shooting options (see http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2018/08/khorne-army-goes-4-1-at-the-hammer-of-wrath-gt.html for example) then you have simply chosen to take a gimped one-dimensional army, wear your fluff bunny shirt with pride and take your losses with a smile.

I wish I could exalt more than once. Thank you for saying it better than I have been trying to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
That's why I love my DKK, nothing better than killing your enemy with a shovel.

To be fair, shovels can be quite deadly (see Shovel Knight).

 SHUPPET wrote:
You're right, I'm afraid I wasn't really paying attention to the context of this one, but I just wanted to be clear that I think the top list right now is much more than a static gunline if anyone is trying to describe it as such

100%. A static gunline army has not been seen much competitively as far as I'm aware since the early days of the Guard codex release. Even then it was short lived? A mobile aspect to any army is key, which is one of the reasons for the brief dominance of flyers (as in actual flyers, not keyword <FLY> units ).

Leafblower was short lived for 5th, but we've seen a dozen meta changes in the time it lived for in this edition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 rollawaythestone wrote:
Ynnari will be able to game this more than others - they'll be able to make use of their full Fly movement in any phase.

GW didn't have an issue with moving with Fly, they mentioned in the community post that the change was to kill things like "0 inch charges".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
If you've built an army that hinges on a single mechanic to work, in a game that changes basic mechanics at whim; that's on nobody but you.

- A Slaanesh Daemons player.

Yup. Gimmick lists are simply that: gimmicks. If your list can't function without that gimmick it's not a balanced list, it's a gimmick list.

Yup. Gimmick lists are simply that: gimmicks. If your list can't function without that gimmick it's not a balanced list, it's a gimmick list.

What of those armies that were only given a gimmik lists by GW, or which GW clearly steared in to some sort of builds? A BA player can't suddenly decide that is now going to play without jumppacks and walk or ride bikes around post FAQ.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
If you've built an army that hinges on a single mechanic to work, in a game that changes basic mechanics at whim; that's on nobody but you.

- A Slaanesh Daemons player.

I think GK players felt the same when GW decided to remove deep strike from them.They pay for the option. Have no replacments for it build in to their book, and the change was put in effect to stop people from droping in and charging, something GK couldn't do in the first place. Deep strike was GK version of infiltration and getting units in to close range, only unlike sternguard or DW, GK didn't have any special weapons or plasma or special ammo for free.

Blood Angels have plenty of access to guns.

The issue is that the Codexes are not balanced at all. Some armies, such as Daemons and Grey Knights, do one thing very well and need to be able to do it. The vast majority of changes make it harder to do what they are good at, forcing them to rely on their generally weaker elements to pull through.

If the Codexes were balanced or DS past turn 1 was better, it may help. As it is? No.

Spoletta wrote:
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.

I disagree about Orkz being the "Big Winners" or even being in the "big Winners" category for one simple reason.....it doesn't help. If I was losing 30 boyz on turn 1 now I am only losing 25, so spending those 2 CP saves me 30pts. How exactly is that a huge benefit to me?

The only true winners of this are those who have 3+ and 4+ saves because their models are more expensive and the benefits to their save is actually fairly significant. A SM's casualties just got cut in half. To put that in perspective and to keep with the Ork/SM thing. 10 Space Marines = 130pts ish 22 Orkz = 132pts. If I got hit with 18 Wounds before the buff on turn 1 my Orkz were losing 15 models, after this "Buff" they are now losing 12, so 3 more boyz saved for a grand total of 18pts. Those 10 Space Marines getting hit with 18 wounds were losing 6 Marines, Now they are losing 3, a grand total of 39pts. To put it another way, that is a net gain of 21 more pts then an ork saves, again, more then 100% more then the ork gets.

So, while it is a benefit to us....its not really that useful, I would lump it in with Dakka Dakka Dakka as far as usefulness, while technically a gain, it isn't that great. I would actually consider Tau and IG to benefit from it a lot more then orkz.

Vis a vi the Prepared Positions Strategem: Again, it is only available to the second player in the first battle round. In order to benefit from it, you have to go after your opponent. Smaller elite armies with 3+/2+ are, in a general sense, far more likely to go first and not have access to the strategem.

Horde armies that are more likely to go second. They are the ones therefore who are more likely to have access to it, and the CP to spend on it. As a Guard player, the idea of giving my already super cost efficient army extra survivability is intensely fantastic.

Any discussion of who benefits from the strategem has to start with who is more likely to go first or second. Mathammering the benefits of a 3+ going to a 2+, a 2+ basically ignoring AP-1, is all well and good. But you'll see 5+ becoming 4+ more commonly, and you'll see it on a tremendous scale.

This is a big buff to horde, especially Guard, and far more so than elite armies.

ShaneMarsh wrote:
Vis a vi the Prepared Positions Strategem: Again, it is only available to the second player in the first battle round. In order to benefit from it, you have to go after your opponent. Smaller elite armies with 3+/2+ are, in a general sense, far more likely to go first and not have access to the strategem.

Horde armies that are more likely to go second. They are the ones therefore who are more likely to have access to it, and the CP to spend on it. As a Guard player, the idea of giving my already super cost efficient army extra survivability is intensely fantastic.

Any discussion of who benefits from the strategem has to start with who is more likely to go first or second. Mathammering the benefits of a 3+ going to a 2+, a 2+ basically ignoring AP-1, is all well and good. But you'll see 5+ becoming 4+ more commonly, and you'll see it on a tremendous scale.

This is a big buff to horde, especially Guard, and far more so than elite armies.

Which would be a great change to the rules, if horde armies were currently weak in 8th edition.

Unfortunately hordes are by far the most powerful option in most (if not all) armies, so making them even stronger is yet another reason why these faq changes are terrible.

Niiru wrote:

ShaneMarsh wrote:
Vis a vi the Prepared Positions Strategem: Again, it is only available to the second player in the first battle round. In order to benefit from it, you have to go after your opponent. Smaller elite armies with 3+/2+ are, in a general sense, far more likely to go first and not have access to the strategem.

Horde armies that are more likely to go second. They are the ones therefore who are more likely to have access to it, and the CP to spend on it. As a Guard player, the idea of giving my already super cost efficient army extra survivability is intensely fantastic.

Any discussion of who benefits from the strategem has to start with who is more likely to go first or second. Mathammering the benefits of a 3+ going to a 2+, a 2+ basically ignoring AP-1, is all well and good. But you'll see 5+ becoming 4+ more commonly, and you'll see it on a tremendous scale.

This is a big buff to horde, especially Guard, and far more so than elite armies.

Which would be a great change to the rules, if horde armies were currently weak in 8th edition.

Unfortunately hordes are by far the most powerful option in most (if not all) armies, so making them even stronger is yet another reason why these faq changes are terrible.

Agreed on all points.

Choose to go second then?

Niiru wrote:

ShaneMarsh wrote:
Vis a vi the Prepared Positions Strategem: Again, it is only available to the second player in the first battle round. In order to benefit from it, you have to go after your opponent. Smaller elite armies with 3+/2+ are, in a general sense, far more likely to go first and not have access to the strategem.

Horde armies that are more likely to go second. They are the ones therefore who are more likely to have access to it, and the CP to spend on it. As a Guard player, the idea of giving my already super cost efficient army extra survivability is intensely fantastic.

Any discussion of who benefits from the strategem has to start with who is more likely to go first or second. Mathammering the benefits of a 3+ going to a 2+, a 2+ basically ignoring AP-1, is all well and good. But you'll see 5+ becoming 4+ more commonly, and you'll see it on a tremendous scale.

This is a big buff to horde, especially Guard, and far more so than elite armies.

Which would be a great change to the rules, if horde armies were currently weak in 8th edition.

Unfortunately hordes are by far the most powerful option in most (if not all) armies, so making them even stronger is yet another reason why these faq changes are terrible.

Which is why Horde armies are winning all the tournaments right? Ohh wait, they aren't winning any Try again.

Regardless, to the point that Horde armies are more likely to benefit from this simply because they usually go 2nd? well if you are a horde player you are at a -1 to go first but you still get Seize the Initiative so yeah its more like a 60/40 split at best. So 2/5ths of the time when the Horde army goes first he won't be inflicting as much damage to the elite army because the +1 to their save benefits them a lot more then it does a Horde player fielding 6+ saves.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Choose to go second then?

Go first at all costs.
Suppose the enemy take 2 rounds to reach your front ranks.
Then going first means that the army that goes first has 2 shooting rounds.
Cover is not bad but is no saviour.

SemperMortis wrote:

Niiru wrote:

ShaneMarsh wrote:
Vis a vi the Prepared Positions Strategem: Again, it is only available to the second player in the first battle round. In order to benefit from it, you have to go after your opponent. Smaller elite armies with 3+/2+ are, in a general sense, far more likely to go first and not have access to the strategem.

Horde armies that are more likely to go second. They are the ones therefore who are more likely to have access to it, and the CP to spend on it. As a Guard player, the idea of giving my already super cost efficient army extra survivability is intensely fantastic.

Any discussion of who benefits from the strategem has to start with who is more likely to go first or second. Mathammering the benefits of a 3+ going to a 2+, a 2+ basically ignoring AP-1, is all well and good. But you'll see 5+ becoming 4+ more commonly, and you'll see it on a tremendous scale.

This is a big buff to horde, especially Guard, and far more so than elite armies.

Which would be a great change to the rules, if horde armies were currently weak in 8th edition.

Unfortunately hordes are by far the most powerful option in most (if not all) armies, so making them even stronger is yet another reason why these faq changes are terrible.

Which is why Horde armies are winning all the tournaments right? Ohh wait, they aren't winning any Try again.

Regardless, to the point that Horde armies are more likely to benefit from this simply because they usually go 2nd? well if you are a horde player you are at a -1 to go first but you still get Seize the Initiative so yeah its more like a 60/40 split at best. So 2/5ths of the time when the Horde army goes first he won't be inflicting as much damage to the elite army because the +1 to their save benefits them a lot more then it does a Horde player fielding 6+ saves.

Poorly worded on my part, I was more referring to units comparison, not the definition of a 'horde army'.

Conscripts or Space marines?
Cultists or ...well, Space marines?
Bloodletters or Bloodcrushers?
Horrors or Flamers?

There's a lot of other examples, but the basic rule for 8th is "big blobs of cheap units are cheaper, tougher to kill and more damaging than small squads of elite units".

This may not be universally true... but it's true a lot more often than not. I can't think of any examples of the contrary offhand (but I'm sure you'll come back with some, and I'm sure nobody will care). And it's stupid, because elite powerful units should be tougher / more powerful than a bunch of weak nobodies.

Well said, Niiru

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Choose to go second then?

Exactly! Remember that winning the roll off allows you to choose who goes first. If you are playing a variable mission length maelstrom game with a lengthways style deployment... the 1st player's turn might be moving and firing 2 or 3 guns. Choose to go 2nd if you are confident your army will not be destroyed.

Niiru wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

Niiru wrote:

ShaneMarsh wrote:
Vis a vi the Prepared Positions Strategem: Again, it is only available to the second player in the first battle round. In order to benefit from it, you have to go after your opponent. Smaller elite armies with 3+/2+ are, in a general sense, far more likely to go first and not have access to the strategem.

Horde armies that are more likely to go second. They are the ones therefore who are more likely to have access to it, and the CP to spend on it. As a Guard player, the idea of giving my already super cost efficient army extra survivability is intensely fantastic.

Any discussion of who benefits from the strategem has to start with who is more likely to go first or second. Mathammering the benefits of a 3+ going to a 2+, a 2+ basically ignoring AP-1, is all well and good. But you'll see 5+ becoming 4+ more commonly, and you'll see it on a tremendous scale.

This is a big buff to horde, especially Guard, and far more so than elite armies.

Which would be a great change to the rules, if horde armies were currently weak in 8th edition.

Unfortunately hordes are by far the most powerful option in most (if not all) armies, so making them even stronger is yet another reason why these faq changes are terrible.

Which is why Horde armies are winning all the tournaments right? Ohh wait, they aren't winning any Try again.

Regardless, to the point that Horde armies are more likely to benefit from this simply because they usually go 2nd? well if you are a horde player you are at a -1 to go first but you still get Seize the Initiative so yeah its more like a 60/40 split at best. So 2/5ths of the time when the Horde army goes first he won't be inflicting as much damage to the elite army because the +1 to their save benefits them a lot more then it does a Horde player fielding 6+ saves.

Poorly worded on my part, I was more referring to units comparison, not the definition of a 'horde army'.

Conscripts or Space marines?
Cultists or ...well, Space marines?
Bloodletters or Bloodcrushers?
Horrors or Flamers?

There's a lot of other examples, but the basic rule for 8th is "big blobs of cheap units are cheaper, tougher to kill and more damaging than small squads of elite units".

This may not be universally true... but it's true a lot more often than not. I can't think of any examples of the contrary offhand (but I'm sure you'll come back with some, and I'm sure nobody will care). And it's stupid, because elite powerful units should be tougher / more powerful than a bunch of weak nobodies.

Again, if that is the case why aren't pure horde armies winning events? ironically it is the super elite lists that are dominating. NOVA proved that with all the knights/smash captains. People took minimum units of Guard as CP batteries for their elite units and used those cheap infantry to hold objectives and screen. So again, all the evidence says its the super elite winning not the hordes.

For a heavy deepstrike list like genestealer cult, going second is probably going to be the best option. You hunker down in fortifications or vehicles for a turn, then everything in reserve comes in turn 2.

I'm personally underwhelmed.

Yes, some of the changes are appreciated. They're in the right direction, but they're just not as far as I would have liked. That said, they do say right up front that any points changes will be in Chapter Approved, so I think that this FAQ + Chapter Approved 2018 will help put everything into a better balance.

The CP generation thing is good. Making popular/broken/silly strats more expensive and more restrictive is good. Giving 2nd turn players a chance to spend 2 cp to give their entire army cover is pretty great, especially when cover is so hard to get in this edition. It's just not super strong against some of the strong alpha strike lists out there that spam lascannons, knights with high AP weapons, and other things like that. It's... a drop in the bucket, so I don't honestly see it changing things up much.

We'll see what happens. I'm sure the big players are already pouring over the results, but I think that whatever wisdom we may glean from them will be short-lived because of points changes coming in Chapter Approved and the coming Ork and Genestealer Cult Codexes.

Also, Space Marines really didn't need another nerf in the form of the Raven Guard strat nerf... ffs.

Not sure how how I feel. My IG army will only deploy as 7 units, so, do I want to win the roll-off?

generally feel a bit blah about it. Only issue I keep hearing about is that Fly units cant jump over a screen in a charge because FLY only works in the Movement phase now.

Oh and Monolith is even more useless now. As if that could be a thing

SemperMortis wrote:


Which is why Horde armies are winning all the tournaments right? Ohh wait, they aren't winning

Again, if that is the case why aren't pure horde armies winning events? ironically it is the super elite lists that are dominating. NOVA proved that with all the knights/smash captains. People took minimum units of Guard as CP batteries for their elite units and used those cheap infantry to hold objectives and screen. So again, all the evidence says its the super elite winning not the hordes.

Well the winning list was 1k points guard, 600 knight and 400 ba, with 95 bodies of guard in a brigade, I think that is a clear horde and calling it bare minimum is a bit of a stretch don’t you think?

Yeah. It’s not min battalion guard. It’s a brigade.

Karol wrote:

Yup. Gimmick lists are simply that: gimmicks. If your list can't function without that gimmick it's not a balanced list, it's a gimmick list.

What of those armies that were only given a gimmik lists by GW, or which GW clearly steared in to some sort of builds? A BA player can't suddenly decide that is now going to play without jumppacks and walk or ride bikes around post FAQ.

That depends upon your collection/wallet/ingenuity. I suggest these things called magnets....

 SHUPPET wrote:


Holy gak there is so many subquotes in this that I think I would have preferred if you just presented a wall of text with no paragraphs or punctuations. What a formatting nightmare.

Yeah, when I'm forced to take apart everything you said almost line-by-line it can take up a lot of room. Welcome to internet forum debating since, like, the 90's, when this became common.

I'm just going to respond in rough order of your nonsense, or at least what can be responded to.

And now the great backtracking begins.

I'm not the one adding caveats here - yet that's literally all you are doing. I'm not sure how you can lack this much self awareness.

We can reference people's placings in the tournament scene, especially since most of us who play this game competitively, and choose to talk about competitive placings, also have the app that tells us competitive placings... because you know, it just makes sense... But you're right, you don't have to believe anything OR check for yourself, and you can continue on living in willful ignorance. But TSons did get the placings that was stated. Telling us you don't believe it while refusing to check for yourself is beyond immature.

Sixth time. I said Thousand Sons were doing fine competitively. The debate was, always, about the Tzaangoer bomb and whether it was a critical component of the list. That's your original sin you keep tangling yourself up over. Maybe 7th time will be the charm.

The TSons list did make it to the finals. It was neck and neck with the winning list until the final round, and after losing that final round, dropped down to 5th on points. So once again, you're factually and objectively wrong.

Hey, guess how NOVA does rankings? For a 'competitive player' you might want to actually read the primer. NOVA doesn't care what order your W/L are, but how many followed by battle points to split up people with same W/L..

You did post that. But it was not the original question, that as you so blatantly spelled out was asked by a different poster, was a question to which the statistics were not a necessary answer as you have been arguing so far, and this is what we have been disagreeing about. Your request for statistics is not necessary to answer the original question as you claimed it is, so stop trying to conflate the two. The original question is answered just fine by pointing out examples of them doing well, and if the original question had have been for statistics they would have been provided, as I choose to do just now to demonstrate.

The question started off asking for examples of assaulty TSons performing well, and examples were provided. It wasn't until you started dismissing these examples because they "weren't top 16" that I stepped in with an opinion to express disagreement of this statement, and I notice you deliberately decided to leave this part out of your recap lol.

I left it out because it wasn't relevant in that post AND it isn't how you remember it. Back down memory lane we go!

Danny Slag Wrote

Like what? Point to an alpha striking deep strike melee army that did any good other than blood Angel's. The ones everyone mentions, genestealers and berserkers dont deep strike and instead run up the board.

Sunny Side Up Wrote

Alpha Legion. Raven Guard. Alpha Legion. Electro Priests. Alpha Legion. Alpha Legion. Alpha Legion.

ClockworkZion Wrote

Also Thousand Sons and the Tzaangor bomb.

Audustum Wrote

Thousand Sons were working as a Smite spam army, not a major assault army.

Tzaangor bombs had a little success, so I guess if you wanted to smash 1/10 of the top lists; mission accomplished.

Notice how I didn't say Thousand Sons had little success but that, specifically, Tzaangoer Bombs did? In later posts, I then expanded on that point by pointing to the high placing NOVA list and saying the Tzaangoers in it were not an essential component. Your problem is repeatedly conflating Tzaangoers and Thousand Sons as the same thing when you were the only person in the topic to do so.

And as I said before, we do need some type of verifiable stat to say something 'did good'. You have an opinion on what's good, but considering all you've offered is a blank Google Doc (well, it had 19 Death Guard entries?) you've got about as much supporting leg as a fart in the wind.

That aside, it's pretty apparent you barged into the middle of a thread, hurled out a ton of bluster without realizing what we were talking about and now must fight it to the death for internet pride. It's O.K., try and be a relaxed keyboardist rather than a flame warrior.

At this point you know you are wrong and all the backpedalling, post-statement quantifiers, arbitrary exclusions and whatever else are is compounding it.

I'm glad you're finally recognizing your position. Crossing my fingers on attempt 7!

Automatically Appended Next Post:
also lol @ the statistics you requested of TSons win-rate still not being proof enough

examples of them placing well wasn't enough either

You're just setting ridiculous expectations towards any possible outcome that could prove you wrong, while speaking from a self-admitted place of total ignorance concerning the placings of the army you are debating the success of.

I like how "Hey, the link you provided is blank" equates to "isn't proof enough". The content of your posts repeatedly indicates that you are either not actually reading what people write or under some type of delusion.

I think this is the most absurd debate I've ever had on this forum, but I guess you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

That's probably because you don't really debate so much as hurl vitriol and then act completely incapable of handling any pushback in return.

 Stux wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
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.

Just because they water a term down to mean basically any army in 40k since the entire game is built around armies having access to shooting doesn't make them right, it makes their arguement meaningless. "My melee only army can't compete in a game with guns because someone might bring them to my knife fight!" is not the game's fault. It's a feature, not a bug in 40k that someone might shoot your crazed axe wielding nutjob as he screams up the table.

Agreed.

Arguing about melee armies Vs shooting armies is silly. Bring a bit of both!

The only people who are justified in making that kind of complaint are Daemon and Tau players. In that case it's really an issue of faction balance, not melee or shooting being over or under powered.

Realized I wasn't actually that invested in the discussion after hitting enter. Ignore this.

It's just occurred to me that melee Tau took a hit with the FAQ too...

 Insectum7 wrote:
Blood Angels have plenty of access to guns.

Too bad GW started handing these snowflake rules depending on chapter. +1 to wound in h2h is going to make BA gunline equal to DA gunline with reroll 1's to hit or raven guard with -1 to hit them or ultramarines with their reroll everything Guillimann...

If you want guns you don't take blood angels but other chapter. BA you take for h2h part of the army.

Audustum wrote:

The TSons list did make it to the finals. It was neck and neck with the winning list until the final round, and after losing that final round, dropped down to 5th on points. So once again, you're factually and objectively wrong.

Hey, guess how NOVA does rankings? For a 'competitive player' you might want to actually read the primer. NOVA doesn't care what order your W/L are, but how many followed by battle points to split up people with same W/L..

I'm sorry, at what point did a single thing I say conflict with this? YOU said TSons didn't make it to the finals, when they did. The entire point about battlepoints supports my stance... not yours lol.

Audustum wrote:

Sixth time. I said Thousand Sons were doing fine competitively. The debate was, always, about the Tzaangoer bomb and whether it was a critical component of the list. That's your original sin you keep tangling yourself up over. Maybe 7th time will be the charm.

Except the post I responded to you was claiming that a Tzaangor bomb making it to the finals, and multiple other places of that same unit composition in the top 30, DID NOT COUNT as examples of this build doing good, in direct response to it being said that they had. I disagreed with this, at which point your point start to slide, and you built a strawman that said, and I quote, "the topic was whether they were breaking the game, OP, in need of a fix, however you want to phrase it. Just because something is successful doesn't mean it should be nerfed. Only when it is unreasonably successful", when it was quite clear that no, nobody had said that at all. Your stance has slowly warped and adjusted to the backpedaling you've made over the course of your ranting, but make no mistake, your initial post absolutely disputed the claim that TSons, or the Tzaangor bomb specifically, has done any good in the tournament scene, and to do this you discounted the evidence of it's placing that were given. Don't confuse your backpedalling with my stance, which has remained static this entire time - the Tzaangor bomb is a good strategy, has been shown to be quite good in the tournament, but not overpowered, nor do I think it deserved a nerf. At all stages I have been referring to these claims. If your argument has somehow come around to mirror my own over the course of your misdirection based arguments, then I can see how that may have happened, but don't begin to confuse your own arguments starting to trip over themselves with my own.

Audustum wrote:

also lol @ the statistics you requested of TSons win-rate still not being proof enough

examples of them placing well wasn't enough either

You're just setting ridiculous expectations towards any possible outcome that could prove you wrong, while speaking from a self-admitted place of total ignorance concerning the placings of the army you are debating the success of.

I like how "Hey, the link you provided is blank" equates to "isn't proof enough". The content of your posts repeatedly indicates that you are either not actually reading what people write or under some type of delusion.

You literally discounted the statistics you requested before even reading them. It was after you had discounted them that you then added "BTW it's also blank". I didn't miss that you hadn't read them, it was the FACT that you hadn't read them and still discounted them that I was laughing at. Try to keep up.


The data is all there. Click the download button and boot it in Excel, as you have to do with many google drive docs. Have fun!

Audustum wrote:

I think this is the most absurd debate I've ever had on this forum, but I guess you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

That's probably because you don't really debate so much as hurl vitriol and then act completely incapable of handling any pushback in return.

Actually everyone single one of my posts has been based heavily on logic and reason. I'd suspect the actual reason that this is the most absurd, illogical debate is because you long stopped arguing for the sake of what is right, and instead are just arguing to try to win, as I've seen you done numerous times before on here.

I think the big winners in this FAQ is melee horde armies like Orks & Nids. Often going 2nd anyway due to having larger amount of units and units being too big to be placed in cover, +1 save will mean you can just deploy your swarms right up against the front of your deployment zone in the open and get the benefit of cover. Massive. your large squads now being a more effective screen to protect your buff characters or support units etc is also pretty big.

Increase CP costs for select stratagems is a great move however the "only generate 1CP per round" is yet another nerf for mono guard that they did not need.

Am I also the only one intensely frustrated that the Battle Brothers rule completely breaks Inquisition units? Moving half their stuff to the Ministorium faction was one thing, but when you cant take those units any more in the same detachment as an inquisitor that was sold in the same damn box, that's a bit much.