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.

To reinforce that point, last game I played I had a unit of Spears and a unit of Reapers...

I even Quickened the Spears. And Doomed every turn.

I was even playing against a primarily-SM army!

The Spears had Quicken fail the one round they were alive to get it. Even with a CP reroll. They did manage a T1 charge into chaff, which of course could back away and then the reapers got shot off the board (shot off by chaff).

The Reapers did a lot better. They 5 Aggressors and put 3 wounds on a Dread! Yay?

I wound up only eliminating one HQ and one 10-man chaff squad the *entire* game (went 6 rounds, but I played the objectives and won 12-6 despite having just 2 Spider Aspect Warriors and my HQs left out of a 2k list.)

My point is you see very different armies, and they play very differently, when not at tournies.

what I find so funny about this is that you're saying that "Narrative gaming" is somehow this rich person's pastime but the meta you constantly describe is by far a much, much more expensive game than a casual meta where everyone brings collections they've had for ages.

If everyone's playing Eldar with tons of shining spears and dark reapers, Drukhari, Custode bike spam, imperial soup with castellans and loyal 32, what that's telling me is that every single person at the place you play must have bought their entire army within the last year and a half, dropping thousands of dollars (or euros or whatever) collectively just to play their little tournament-level meta, because every single thing in all those lists was straight garbage tier or didn't exist before 8th edition.

I've played in several places where every person in attendance had started collecting their army over 5 years ago. Half your stuff inevitably becomes good, or bad, depending on the changing tides of the game edition, and it doesn't matter, you play it anyway because you spent hours painting it a decade ago and you can't be bothered to spend 60$ or whatever the kids these days are paying for a single box of dudes.

I would say that 90% of all people playing are playing for multiple editions, I don't think they buy much new stuff other then knights or some new units. The rest is some new people, out of which most are siblings or children of people that play for a long time. the people I play the most, are playing eldar or IG soups. There were some people that played BA and one guy played DW. The BA guys quit, and the DW army guy, who started as primaris marines, then he bought knight and custodes. Wish he didn't he was the only one against whom I had decent games.
Were GK good 5 years ago? Serious question, because from what I have been told, GK were good for like a few months at the very end of a single edition and then got stright up nerfed, and before that they were very bad.

My point is you see very different armies, and they play very differently, when not at tournies.

Good for you. But if you main eldar, your expiriance of playing w40k is drasticly different from someone who played an army that maybe never was good. Or was good 20 years ago.

To understand Narrative Play, you need to understand its roots in historical wargaming in the days of yore. When you would decide to refight Waterloo, or the Invasion of Normandy, or Agincourt, or any other historical battle, and either decide to refight it as it was and see if you could do better/worse than history, or often a "what if" scenario where you explored what might have happened if an army that came late turned up in time, or if a maneuver was made across a different area or attacking a different area than what really happened.

Wouldn't that require buying multiple armies to be able to play ? If you can't have one optimal list, you would need a separate list for Lipsk, separate for Waterloo, separate for Austerlitz etc. If someone tried playing w40k like that the investment would be crazy for some armies. One person could have a super flexible list out of a few thousand points collection, why someone playing would have the same list they have now. And the lists are bad.

A squad of purifires is a bad no matter if it is a ITC top table, some store game or someone playing narrative. I mean, when my opponent was sm primaris, and both of us were noobs, his army was still kicking my butt. To a degree we are probably both playing narrative lists. He had 3 units of intercesors, gulliman and some mini characters, 2 units of hellblasters and agressors. No scouts, no razorbacks, no FW.

When was the last time Dark Reapers were good?
When was the last time Shining Spears were good?
When was the last time Rangers were good?

What are the Eldar players doing with all their DAVU DAs?
What are the Eldar players doing with all their Scatter Bikes?
What are the Eldar players doing with all their Warp Spiders?
What are the Eldar players doing with their Seer Councils?
What are the Eldar players doing with their Wraithknights?
What are the Eldar players doing with all their Scytheguard?

Believe it or not, Tac Marines - a rather bad unit - has been better than any one CWE troop choice for most of the past 3 editions. CWE may be consistently on top, but the actual units use tend to fare poorly over wider timespans.

So Eldar being good 5 years ago means that if you had an army then, you have one or two of the units you need for a modern netlist.

My poor seer council and dire avengers stomped by Rangers. :(

Bharring wrote:
When was the last time Dark Reapers were good?
When was the last time Shining Spears were good?
When was the last time Rangers were good?

What are the Eldar players doing with all their DAVU DAs?
What are the Eldar players doing with all their Scatter Bikes?
What are the Eldar players doing with all their Warp Spiders?
What are the Eldar players doing with their Seer Councils?
What are the Eldar players doing with their Wraithknights?
What are the Eldar players doing with all their Scytheguard?

Believe it or not, Tac Marines - a rather bad unit - has been better than any one CWE troop choice for most of the past 3 editions. CWE may be consistently on top, but the actual units use tend to fare poorly over wider timespans.

So Eldar being good 5 years ago means that if you had an army then, you have one or two of the units you need for a modern netlist.

Dude, scatterbikes are highly competitive now with the special detachment, they put out insane dakka with some rend now.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
When was the last time Dark Reapers were good?
When was the last time Shining Spears were good?
When was the last time Rangers were good?

What are the Eldar players doing with all their DAVU DAs?
What are the Eldar players doing with all their Scatter Bikes?
What are the Eldar players doing with all their Warp Spiders?
What are the Eldar players doing with their Seer Councils?
What are the Eldar players doing with their Wraithknights?
What are the Eldar players doing with all their Scytheguard?

Believe it or not, Tac Marines - a rather bad unit - has been better than any one CWE troop choice for most of the past 3 editions. CWE may be consistently on top, but the actual units use tend to fare poorly over wider timespans.

So Eldar being good 5 years ago means that if you had an army then, you have one or two of the units you need for a modern netlist.

Dude, scatterbikes are highly competitive now with the special detachment, they put out insane dakka with some rend now.

I think thats the point of the post hahaha. Scatterbikes are only used in Saim Hann Lists with the special detachment which means... Ynnari won't use it.

And, in theory, most currently-competitive are Blue & Yellow, or maybe Black & Bone or even Green & White. But not Red, or Yellow & Blue.

I bring this up because, unlike some of the other top-shelf CWE options (Reapers, Spears), BIkes are supposed to sport Craftworld colors.

Bharring wrote:


So Eldar being good 5 years ago means that if you had an army then, you have one or two of the units you need for a modern netlist.

Ok, but I play GK not marines. From what I understand, and my knowladge is based on what people told me, so I could be wrong, GK were good under one codex that came out just at the very end of an edition. I dont know if it was 4th or 5th, and then next edition come and they were bad, and another and they were bad again, and they stayed ever since. And that before the good codex, they were suppose to be horrible too. So maybe the good every 2-3 years is true only for some armies.

also eldar bad is not really bad. I played vs a an army of almost all jetbikes, s spears and some DA in s serpents, it worked great. I understand it maybe ain't the list to kill a IG soup, but it is not unplayable. If you tried to play with the non optimal GK units you would know that their bad is just bad, and eldar bad is just worse then the best other armies have.

There's CWE meh and then there's CWE bad. Although CA fixed most of the CA bad.

CWE meh will of course stomp GK. GK is in a terrible place. This is true of almost every non-GK book - no different from how GK would fare facing meh options from Necrons or Nids or AdMech or whatever.

CWE bad isn't Jetbikes, Spears, and DAs in Serpents. Spears are great. Serpents went from great to good. DAs are still meh. Unsure where Windriders are right now.

You also have to remember you're dealing with lists that drop 3 units in via WWP and other sorts of not-actually-the-rules shenanigans. It's hard to say things like Storm Guardians are better than GK when you don't play by the rules, becuase there's no rules to base it on.

Finally, GK are in a special place. They aren't the only army in that place, but they're the only army with a Codex in that place. For whatever reason, GW hasn't given GK rules that compete with any faction. Shouting about how OP CWE is because they crush GK when just about any other book out there does that too is silly. Replace CWE with almost any other book in such posts, and nothing else changes - aside from not channeling the hatred against the Knife Ears (well deserved hatred).

As an addendum, GK are not the worst-off army. It was Corsairs until the summer FAQ. I'm not sure who it is now, but Corsairs still have it worse than GK. And as an aside, Corsairs are knife-ears too.

Actually Grey Knights have had more tournament success in 2018 than Space Wolves.

Like it or not, GK had a viable build for a brief period in 2018. Which is more than can be said for Wolves. SW players spent much of 2018 waiting for a codex, only to receive a codex that is (a) horrible and (b) didn't even have correct warlord traits, and requires a printed FAQ supplement.

Also, like everyone else, Grey Knights could spam storm ravens when storm ravens were good.

Lastly, with the rule of 3 in place, Storm Ravens should be re-pointed. Change my mind.

Bharring wrote:
There's CWE meh and then there's CWE bad. Although CA fixed most of the CA bad.

CWE meh will of course stomp GK. GK is in a terrible place. This is true of almost every non-GK book - no different from how GK would fare facing meh options from Necrons or Nids or AdMech or whatever.

CWE bad isn't Jetbikes, Spears, and DAs in Serpents. Spears are great. Serpents went from great to good. DAs are still meh. Unsure where Windriders are right now.

You also have to remember you're dealing with lists that drop 3 units in via WWP and other sorts of not-actually-the-rules shenanigans. It's hard to say things like Storm Guardians are better than GK when you don't play by the rules, becuase there's no rules to base it on.

Finally, GK are in a special place. They aren't the only army in that place, but they're the only army with a Codex in that place. For whatever reason, GW hasn't given GK rules that compete with any faction. Shouting about how OP CWE is because they crush GK when just about any other book out there does that too is silly. Replace CWE with almost any other book in such posts, and nothing else changes - aside from not channeling the hatred against the Knife Ears (well deserved hatred).

As an addendum, GK are not the worst-off army. It was Corsairs until the summer FAQ. I'm not sure who it is now, but Corsairs still have it worse than GK. And as an aside, Corsairs are knife-ears too.

I miss bladestorm for DA and Hunter traits for scorpions

i do think it is funny that the exarchs for eldar have +1 wound +1 attack on base, and yet space marine sarges have only +1 attack




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:
Actually Grey Knights have had more tournament success in 2018 than Space Wolves.

Like it or not, GK had a viable build for a brief period in 2018. Which is more than can be said for Wolves. SW players spent much of 2018 waiting for a codex, only to receive a codex that is (a) horrible and (b) didn't even have correct warlord traits, and requires a printed FAQ supplement.

Thats like a dwarf claiming he's the tallest dwarf.

"i do think it is funny that the exarchs for eldar have +1 wound +1 attack on base, and yet space marine sarges have only +1 attack"

SM Sarges have +1A and +1Ld. So they have the same number of stat improvements!

More seriously, SM Sarges and CWE Exarchs aren't the same thing. I'm glad Exarchs have better stats than their Squaddies. I just wish they paid for it. I miss my WS/BS 2+ Exarchs.

Bharring wrote:
"i do think it is funny that the exarchs for eldar have +1 wound +1 attack on base, and yet space marine sarges have only +1 attack"

SM Sarges have +1A and +1Ld. So they have the same number of stat improvements!

More seriously, SM Sarges and CWE Exarchs aren't the same thing. I'm glad Exarchs have better stats than their Squaddies. I just wish they paid for it. I miss my WS/BS 2+ Exarchs.

Oh of course how could i forget how valuable leadership is over a single sound.

I mean they used to have various different types of armor saves in a single unit. GW squashed alot of complexities which makes certain squads worse. (IE dire avengers)

They also gave the Exarch 2W and WS/BS2+ at the same time they took away the 3+ Exarch Armor. I wouldn't say Dire Avengers got worse for that trade.

On top of that, the Dire Avenger Exarch, with one gun, is 2W 4+ 4++. For 11 points. Clearly undercosted.

 Asherian Command wrote:

Thats like a dwarf claiming he's the tallest dwarf.

People are consistently saying that GK are in a horrible place and they stand alone. It's just not true.

The difference between the haves and the have nots in 8th edition is rather stark.

Less stark than it was in 6e or 7e, though.

The list of real "trash tier" armies is much shorter than it was. And the gap between mid-tier and top-tier isn't as much as it used to be.

 Marmatag wrote:
Actually Grey Knights have had more tournament success in 2018 than Space Wolves.

Like it or not, GK had a viable build for a brief period in 2018. Which is more than can be said for Wolves. SW players spent much of 2018 waiting for a codex, only to receive a codex that is (a) horrible and (b) didn't even have correct warlord traits, and requires a printed FAQ supplement.

Also, like everyone else, Grey Knights could spam storm ravens when storm ravens were good.

Lastly, with the rule of 3 in place, Storm Ravens should be re-pointed. Change my mind.

yeah they won tournaments like an invitational where armies invited were taken in by how cool they look. And one dude won with a soup, am not sure 3 units of interceptors and a ton of IG and SoB is a GK list. Yet another was won by a guy in a single detachment tournament with a ton of highlander rules etc. Oddly enough the army was not legal. that is the type of tournaments GK won.

As the SR comment. Yes GK could take them, still can. But if everyone can do it, and everyone does it better then you, it doesn't mean that your suddenly doing good.
also the changes to ravens and razorbacks hit GK the most, because unlike other marines they didn't have cheap scouts or equivalents to run them with after the points hike. And the points hike happened only because one list with gulliman was deemed too good.

I don't care about SW, but from what I heard their armies have at least characterful stuff in it. GK aren't characterful. They should be master psykers, that use magic. they suck at it. They should be great at killing demons. And they are the worse army to use vs demons. In fact fielding a GK ally vs demons makes the demon army better.
In fluff they have superior gear and training, and each one of them is on the power level of a normal marines librarian. They have no rules like that, GK librarians are worse then other armies librarians, they have fewer gear options then other marines. termintors supposed fix was 2pts SS. great GK can't take those. Primaris are suppose to be the future of marines. GW say GK won't get them. all the good FW units, all marines can take them, but not GK.

GK have their own knights and titans and a whole FW of their own. Yet their weapons are worse then those of normal marines, for more points. They don't have plasma, they cost like marine or DW vets, but get worse version of special ammo only if they spend CP.

I mean they used to have various different types of armor saves in a single unit.

Isn't it one of the things that makes DW vets an ok unit. Along side stormbolter and plasma armed vets, you can also take one or two termintors to tank the small weapon fire. Doesn't make them a portable castellan, but it seems to work good enough in non top table tournament games.

All flavors of marine pale in comparison to deathwatch, except Ultramarines. So there's that.

When I say GK had viable builds i mean ITC. I know you guys don't play that in Europe, but Imperial Guard + Grey Knights was solid for a while, with GMNDK spam. Any competitive Grey Knights list featured 1000 points of Imperial Guard.

Of course they fell by the wayside pretty hard as codexes got released.

Honestly we should get rid of deathwatch *cough* They are the only codex i think shouldn't exist. Great for RPG games but not for tabletop.

 Dysartes wrote:
Would this be the one on WHC that talks about Black Legion and infers more new Slaanesh stuff?

First, the Slaanesh stuff is for AoS and it's a model refresh, it does nothing to improve what is objectively the worst daemon faction in the game. I don't need new models that won't see the table. Yes, I know there is a new herald, no, I do not have high hopes for it, certainly not high enough to consider building a detachment of the worst daemon faction in the game.

Second, the Black Legion stuff will be maybe 1 or 2 new models, probably just a model refresh on Abaddon beyond what we've already seen. So, yeah, if they're offering me an Abaddon model refresh and a trash heap Raptor lord, I'll pass, honestly, Abaddon is the only reason to field Black Legion, and I've had that model fully painted for 25+ years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dysartes wrote:
Prioritising things differently to you is not the same as being idiots.

I agree, but then don't promote a competitive paradigm if you're clearly either not capable or not interested in doing it.

I find narrative play is best campaign style too. My favourite narrative campaigns involve multiple games at different scales, and the outcome of any battle can have effects on other battles. I played in one ten or so years ago where the imperial player made deployments in 40k based on which Battlefleet Gothic ships made it past the blockade. The armies already on the planet had grown organically after starting as kill teams, back when kill team rules where still in the big rule book.

 Marmatag wrote:
Actually Grey Knights have had more tournament success in 2018 than Space Wolves.

Like it or not, GK had a viable build for a brief period in 2018. Which is more than can be said for Wolves. SW players spent much of 2018 waiting for a codex, only to receive a codex that is (a) horrible and (b) didn't even have correct warlord traits, and requires a printed FAQ supplement.

Also, like everyone else, Grey Knights could spam storm ravens when storm ravens were good.

Lastly, with the rule of 3 in place, Storm Ravens should be re-pointed. Change my mind.

No offense man, I've read a lot of your posts on dakka and you have lots of insightful comments about the game.

But you can always tell what army you're currently playing a lot of because you always take some other army (arguably better in lots of cases) and then talk about how your current army has it worse. Back when you played a lot of Tyranids, you'd post about them being mono-build. Then you switched to DE, and would post about DE getting clobbered by Tyranids every time. I'm guessing now you're playing Space Wolves, because apparently Space Wolves have worse showings than Grey Knights of all things (another army that you dropped). Not to sound like a jerk or a stalker or anything, but I think it takes credibility away from the posts where you make comparisons.

Bharring wrote:
Less stark than it was in 6e or 7e, though.

The list of real "trash tier" armies is much shorter than it was. And the gap between mid-tier and top-tier isn't as much as it used to be.

Uh GKs are far worse off than last edition so I dunno what you're talking about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Honestly we should get rid of deathwatch *cough* They are the only codex i think shouldn't exist. Great for RPG games but not for tabletop.

Deathwatch were easily one of the most requested armies ever. So I don't know why you'd feel that way

Sorry to drag this back to the battle report, but I seem to have missed a couple of rule changes.

This is a CA18 batrep, so what happened to the matched play updates from the last faq? Ie the dark reapers came down turn one, and the captains got to ignore the vertical distance when they charged?

What, did I miss another update?

 AndrewC wrote:
Sorry to drag this back to the battle report, but I seem to have missed a couple of rule changes.

This is a CA18 batrep, so what happened to the matched play updates from the last faq? Ie the dark reapers came down turn one, and the captains got to ignore the vertical distance when they charged?

What, did I miss another update?

No the player posted it was played pre FAQ2, the joys of print media lead times. Esentially always out of date.

But didnt the faq come out before ca18?

 AndrewC wrote:
But didnt the faq come out before ca18?

Yes, but the game was played before the FAQ came out.

 AndrewC wrote:
But didnt the faq come out before ca18?

To the pubic yes, but GW locked down the CA2018 changes in June if the roumers are true(which the evidence supports) again it's print so has to be agreed, translated and then printed overseas then shipped to stores etc. IE stupid long lead time on CA FAQ2 as a PDF much shorter lead time. Like 3/4 month print to 2/3 weaks PDF.

Hi Everyone, I guess 10 pages was enough for me to register an account to comment, especially since the magazine comes out today and I'll be able to read it once I get it.

I'm the guy who played the imperium list in the report.

To answer some quick questions:
We got to write the lists, but we were restricted to what they had. I had to get permission to use my knights specially, but the rest of my army from the event I'd been at the days prior had mostly fallen apart / had too severe conversions for the magazine so we had to make do.

We used the CA18 Points values which were solidified at the time, but we didn't have them in advance, had to wrote lists on the spot, so things like exact points weren't a priority, it was more of getting lists on the table as we had time pressure.

We didn't have the FAQ. I'd like to think some of what we did impacted it. The white dwarf team were generally pretty surprised or amazed at a lot of what we did, I remember them being very impressed with Starweavers and saying they understood why Liam pushed to get as many as possible.

A few of the design team stopped by to watch during the game, and expressed a lot of interest in reading it after the fact.

Overall it was a great experience and a lot of fun. Definitely a unique set up for a white dwarf, but I hope everybody can look past the inherent lack of lore behind my list (which to be honest, I enjoy but don't prioritise. Don't think I've read a 40k book since The Primarchs came out excepting codices) and take the game for what it was, which was an expression of how myself and Liam love to play.

Thanks,
Innes

 Innes wrote:
Hi Everyone, I guess 10 pages was enough for me to register an account to comment, especially since the magazine comes out today and I'll be able to read it once I get it.

I'm the guy who played the imperium list in the report.

To answer some quick questions:
We got to write the lists, but we were restricted to what they had. I had to get permission to use my knights specially, but the rest of my army from the event I'd been at the days prior had mostly fallen apart / had too severe conversions for the magazine so we had to make do.

We used the CA18 Points values which were solidified at the time, but we didn't have them in advance, had to wrote lists on the spot, so things like exact points weren't a priority, it was more of getting lists on the table as we had time pressure.

We didn't have the FAQ. I'd like to think some of what we did impacted it. The white dwarf team were generally pretty surprised or amazed at a lot of what we did, I remember them being very impressed with Starweavers and saying they understood why Liam pushed to get as many as possible.

A few of the design team stopped by to watch during the game, and expressed a lot of interest in reading it after the fact.

Overall it was a great experience and a lot of fun. Definitely a unique set up for a white dwarf, but I hope everybody can look past the inherent lack of lore behind my list (which to be honest, I enjoy but don't prioritise. Don't think I've read a 40k book since The Primarchs came out excepting codices) and take the game for what it was, which was an expression of how myself and Liam love to play.

Thanks,
Innes

Nobody's pissed at you, you did what they asked, you did it well, good job.

Personally, I'm pissed that GW was surprised by what you did, that tells me they don't pay attention and give zero feths about balancing the game or supporting competitive play, it was the most direct demonstration of that fact I have ever seen.