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.

 Marmatag wrote:
This whole thread assumes a ton of causation from correlation, and has not done anything to prove it.

What is proof supposed to look like, and why aren't we allowed to share our personal experiences?

 Marmatag wrote:
This whole thread assumes a ton of causation from correlation, and has not done anything to prove it. I'll be taking leave.

This whole thread attempts to match observational evidence from tournaments in different meta to a proposed hypothesis. If the results do not match your preconceptions then that is a problem with your preconceptions not the thread, or the idea that observational evidence is a sound way to sort out weak hypotheses from strong ones.

A bit of the thread has been looking at if there might be causal relationships here to underpin the observational evidence. That is - as always on Dakka - the weaker part of the discussion.

I think to sum up the thread so far:
There is little evidence of universally best/worst lists across different meta
Some meta get more stable and stratified than others, or at least do so significantly more quickly
The main driver of these differences appears to be the different rules and mission sets

catbarf wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
This whole thread assumes a ton of causation from correlation, and has not done anything to prove it.

What is proof supposed to look like, and why aren't we allowed to share our personal experiences?

Because they aren't his viewpoints, duh. The pro-ITC people are doing just as much correlation = causation as supposedly the non-ITC people are, potentially more since you usually just see "look at ITC's popularity" as meaning it MUST be better. Everything else is preference and opinion.

I specifically prefer the specific mechanisms that attempt to reign in hordes. GW just ignores the issue.

Martel732 wrote:
I specifically prefer the specific mechanisms that attempt to reign in hordes. GW just ignores the issue.

Remind me again how ITC doesn't? Because you can pick secondary objectives to deal with Hordes (i.e. The Reaping)?

Martel732 wrote:
I specifically prefer the specific mechanisms that attempt to reign in hordes. GW just ignores the issue.

before discussing which rule set reigns in hordes better you would have to prove that hordes are a problem without something to reign them in.
the only times real hordes have been winning was when people only got to turn 2.

Martel732 wrote:
I specifically prefer the specific mechanisms that attempt to reign in hordes. GW just ignores the issue.

What do you consider Horde? I feel the top LVO list was mostly horde with 90 Guardsmen and Bullgryns, nearly 100 IG guys in total (I believe it was just at 100 guys without tanks/knight). Is 100 models a horde? b.c to some people yes to other no.

 Ordana wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I specifically prefer the specific mechanisms that attempt to reign in hordes. GW just ignores the issue.

before discussing which rule set reigns in hordes better you would have to prove that hordes are a problem without something to reign them in.
the only times real hordes have been winning was when people only got to turn 2.

100% this, in the beginning hordes just won because someboduy could fill the board with hormagaunts, boyz, cultists, or or guardsman, take a logn time moving them and have more objectives win on the second of third turn.

with chess clocks in the mix that has been thrashed (and rightfully so) now we have the issue of large amounts of CP for armies GW seems to have balances with low CP, and general points to power ratio being off.

as an example a tac marine at 13 points is just not worth taking, but if they reduced the points to 7 points you would see battalions of power armor on every top table, (really probably they are a 10 point model but that is a topic for another thread) Its the same reason 4 point guardsman are everywhere now, too good for what they cost so they see a ton of play, and those bonus CP get put towards armies never really meant to be flush with CP.

on the ETC vs ITC both have thier issues. the etc is too random. if i get a numbered objective in your deployment several times and you also draw the same one its a steep hill to climb. but in ITC you end up with just he who can damage the other army in the most ways and re positioning is less important... I personally prefer ITC but I think even the creators will acknowledge its not perfect and they keep working to try to improve it.

 Ordana wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I specifically prefer the specific mechanisms that attempt to reign in hordes. GW just ignores the issue.

before discussing which rule set reigns in hordes better you would have to prove that hordes are a problem without something to reign them in.
the only times real hordes have been winning was when people only got to turn 2.

I don't have to prove anything for personal preference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I specifically prefer the specific mechanisms that attempt to reign in hordes. GW just ignores the issue.

What do you consider Horde? I feel the top LVO list was mostly horde with 90 Guardsmen and Bullgryns, nearly 100 IG guys in total (I believe it was just at 100 guys without tanks/knight). Is 100 models a horde? b.c to some people yes to other no.

I agree, but i think that list is even stronger in ca 2018.

Also, i really enjoy the strategy of secondary selection.

Martel732 wrote:


I agree, but i think that list is even stronger in ca 2018.

Do you think that the players going to the GT Heat 4 did not know about that list?

Perhaps, just perhaps, you are mistaken and that list is not stronger in CA18 but is actually less strong. Given its dominance in the LVO and its failure to show on the podium at the last big CA18 missions tournament (or the one before that) I would say that is actually quite a credible interpretation of the facts. Having an opinion is absolutely fine but when the evidence of results goes against that opinion then maybe consider changing it??

happy_inquisitor wrote:

Martel732 wrote:


I agree, but i think that list is even stronger in ca 2018.

Do you think that the players going to the GT Heat 4 did not know about that list?

Perhaps, just perhaps, you are mistaken and that list is not stronger in CA18 but is actually less strong. Given its dominance in the LVO and its failure to show on the podium at the last big CA18 missions tournament (or the one before that) I would say that is actually quite a credible interpretation of the facts. Having an opinion is absolutely fine but when the evidence of results goes against that opinion then maybe consider changing it??

your answer here is rational, makes sense, and deserves an exhaultation... but also this is the internet where people think vaccines cause autism, the world is flat, and that climate change isn't real...

jokes aside though absolutely the top tier players have doen the math (heck mid tier players have done the math... heck even dunces like me can see) that hordes of small units are grea tfor the cp , holding objectives and in the case of guardsman sticking around they lack the ability to make it on thier own. guardsman backed up with russes, manticores, etc sure. Castellan and company doubly so, btu while they are good on thier own (and personally i think undercosted by 1 point) guardsman alone are not singlehandedly winning matches.

Guard lists are great at sitting on their own objectives and shelling the enemy. Which is wonderful when the only thing you care about is having more objectives then the enemy and killing stuff.

Its a lot less powerful when you need to put bodies around the entire board because the infantry rely on critical mass.

60 guard buffed by straken and a priest is scary to approach.
20 guard without backup because those are on the other side holding a different objective is not scary.

 Ordana wrote:
Guard lists are great at sitting on their own objectives and shelling the enemy. Which is wonderful when the only thing you care about is having more objectives then the enemy and killing stuff.

Its a lot less powerful when you need to put bodies around the entire board because the infantry rely on critical mass.

60 guard buffed by straken and a priest is scary to approach.
20 guard without backup because those are on the other side holding a different objective is not scary.

> the only thing you care about is having more objectives then the enemy and killing stuff.
Hmm... and guess what mission type only cares about having more objectives than the enemy and killing stuff

It's not Chapter Approved 2018 since there are twists in most of the missions that change how you get objectives.

Wayniac wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
Guard lists are great at sitting on their own objectives and shelling the enemy. Which is wonderful when the only thing you care about is having more objectives then the enemy and killing stuff.

Its a lot less powerful when you need to put bodies around the entire board because the infantry rely on critical mass.

60 guard buffed by straken and a priest is scary to approach.
20 guard without backup because those are on the other side holding a different objective is not scary.

> the only thing you care about is having more objectives then the enemy and killing stuff.
Hmm... and guess what mission type only cares about having more objectives than the enemy and killing stuff

It's not Chapter Approved 2018 since there are twists in most of the missions that change how you get objectives.

Yes... that is what this topic about and we were discussing why the LVO winning guard list did well in an ITC tournament but appears less dominant in other settings. (but still very good because Guard is just to cost efficient not to be good).

So the Games Workshop GT final has come and gone and the final top table match was between

Eldar flyer spam (similar to the LVO finalist list)
vs
T'au list with 8 Piranha skimmers

Now the T'au list did have some heavy hitters (a riptide and a unit of 3 broadsides) but taking Piranha would probably be regarded as an act of madness in the ITC missions. It turned out to be the stronger list, ground out the victory and finished the tournament 6-0.

So are we all expecting a sudden shift to a Piranha spam meta in ITC or can we agree that different mission sets make different units good?

What do the piranhas do in GW missions that they don't in ITC?

Martel732 wrote:
What do the piranhas do in GW missions that they don't in ITC?

I think the key thing is that they don't bleed loads of VP in secondaries and "kill more" points in CA18 missions. The ITC missions scoring structure makes them a liability.

They are still a decent seeker missile platform and have respectable dakka for clearing chaff. Also fast moving for grabbing objectives. So they do some good things for an OK points cost.

I thought Piranha's were elevated to "good" with the CA points drop and have suggested lists exploring lots of them here and on other places. Glad someone has gone and proven it. Any idea what else was in the list?

I'd agree that a different meta does change things. Secondaries are massive in ITC - they don't exist in regular 40k. This warps list building, how players act, and therefore the quality/value of units.

Hoping some reports will come out talking about the Grand Finals, as there doesn't seem to be much out at the moment. Although admittedly its only been a few hours.

The main thing to me was that the Tau army was filled with units of 2 drones by taking them all on Firewarrior teams ect.
So the Eldar firepower couldn't just unload into 2 units of 5 drones without worrying much about wasting shots.

The flier list simply took way to long to clear out drones so the Riptide/Broadsides didn't die before the planes were shot out of the air.

If you haven't killed all the drones after 2 turns your likely to lose.

 Ordana wrote:
The main thing to me was that the Tau army was filled with units of 2 drones by taking them all on Firewarrior teams ect.
So the Eldar firepower couldn't just unload into 2 units of 5 drones without worrying much about wasting shots.

The flier list simply took way to long to clear out drones so the Riptide/Broadsides didn't die before the planes were shot out of the air.

If you haven't killed all the drones after 2 turns your likely to lose.

Pretty accurate summary of how it went down.

Also the drones dropped from the piranha were coming out 2 at a time as the piranha were incrementally destroyed, forming yet more tiny units which the Eldar player had no efficient way to kill. The voidraven bombers were really struggling to kill worthwhile numbers of drones.

I still like the overall effect of secondaries.

Martel732 wrote:
I still like the overall effect of secondaries.

I don't mind the secondaries, I hate how you can tailor them to what your opponent has, and try to mitigate what you give yourself.

Martel732 wrote:
I still like the overall effect of secondaries.

I liked them the first tournament I played them but after a while I am not so keen on how they affect list design and the overall meta. Still that is just a matter of taste.

I think piranha are points costed correctly since CA18 but I would still be surprised to see anyone tearing up the ITC scene with them. The missions are not ideal for them and the terrain rules put such a strong emphasis on ignore-los shooting rather than the ability to move round to pick a shot - but Piranha can't take SMS.

I don't know how to mitigate the impact of ignore LoS weapons. A good chunk of the posters on here scream about terrain constantly, but are silent when IG just lols. Make the IG ones more expensive, I guess.

Martel732 wrote:
I still like the overall effect of secondaries.

I like the concept of secondary objectives, what I don’t like in the ITC champs missions how well they synergize (or don’t) with the primary. The “objective-based” secondaries are hard to achieve and don’t necessarily overlap with “hold more”, while the “killing-based” secondaries fit right into a strategy focused on “kill more”. Thus if you only focus on killing stuff you can easily achieve 2/3 of the max points in a 6 turn game. That’s without the hyper-easy “hold one”. So you drastically increase vs the BRB/CA missions the focus on killing (1/6 of BRB missions are kill points vs 1/2 of ITC primary is killing) which is ironically the very thing custom tournament rule sets were supposed to prevent with old-style Eternal War missions.

Martel732 wrote:
I specifically prefer the specific mechanisms that attempt to reign in hordes. GW just ignores the issue.

I just wanted to jump back to this one and say that GW do not see an issue and if you look at the top tables of their tournaments there is no issue. If the final top table game is essentially between two mechanised lists (albeit some of the mech on one side being battlesuits) with minimal troops is there a horde problem?

Apparently plague bearers were the most common model at the event - GW collated all the stats and I'm sure the designers have them if they want them. But do the rules need changing to fix something that players believed would be strong but in practice was not?

I agree with liking the concept of secondaries as a way to mitigate bad match-ups, but the way they're implemented in ITC is currently pretty poor.

Taking into account that "hold one single objective that you likely deployed on" is, despite somehow considered a primary objective, neither something that involves any real thought/tactical consideration nor really even in question, two-thirds of the actual primaries (not that "kill a unit" is usually hard, but you can at least attempt some counter play) and eight out of eleven of the secondaries are a version of "kill something". That has some pretty obvious implications as to what is going to be good in that system, which is why you see what you do in ITC events. The almost identical missions only compound this issue, as there's no need to consider other angles or worry about making sure your army can accomplish a wide array of objectives.

I'm not a huge fan of leaving objectives in what is ostensibly a competitive game to be determined by the cards, either. It can lead to games being decided by a bad draw, even with the chance to remove a few cards from the deck (it's definitely a great improvement over the original, nevertheless). That said, at least you do have to consider more than just damage output in a list, so it's probably a better "meta" environment. I'll never understand the ETC's hatred for indexes, though.

We'll have to see how the new CA missions shake out, but I do appreciate the improvements they've made.

 greyknight12 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I still like the overall effect of secondaries.

I like the concept of secondary objectives, what I don’t like in the ITC champs missions how well they synergize (or don’t) with the primary. The “objective-based” secondaries are hard to achieve and don’t necessarily overlap with “hold more”, while the “killing-based” secondaries fit right into a strategy focused on “kill more”. Thus if you only focus on killing stuff you can easily achieve 2/3 of the max points in a 6 turn game. That’s without the hyper-easy “hold one”. So you drastically increase vs the BRB/CA missions the focus on killing (1/6 of BRB missions are kill points vs 1/2 of ITC primary is killing) which is ironically the very thing custom tournament rule sets were supposed to prevent with old-style Eternal War missions.

Fair point. The effect of kill more, I think, is a leg up to elite armies. It's pretty hard to kill my units, but I have less of them. If I go second I can usually know what I need to kill to get kill more (unless there is melee), but if I can't achieve that goal to I try to kill less? Not unless it's a mostly dead unit off an objective anyway.

The real answer to this is a bit more complex.

Martel732 wrote:
I don't know how to mitigate the impact of ignore LoS weapons. A good chunk of the posters on here scream about terrain constantly, but are silent when IG just lols. Make the IG ones more expensive, I guess.

Use a version of the new city fight rules. If hidden AM are at -1 to hit because they can't see the target it balances things out quite a lot. It is far less binary than the ITC approach which always seems rather crude and simplistic to me.

Please keep talking about how broken every Space elf and Knight list is. Because they are what is broken. NOTHING ELSE. They are the armies that are broken, and stole yer jerb.


***Lovingly pets his 5 man, 4 Fragcannon Deathwatch squads which are more broken than two Castellans having Space sex in Space Elf Church on Space Sunday*****