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.

No chess clocks at Adepticon (couldn't even request one as far as I know). So one of the natural checks on hordes was removed. I don't think max points per game were as important as just winning all of your games, didn't all undefeated players make day 2?

Knights don't do well getting to objectives early game and just sitting on them (best, like other's have said controlling 1 and killing more/getting ITC secondaries). A lot of the points in Adepticon are scored by being on objectives at the beginning of turn 2 and staying on them as long as possible. Also it seems like knights bleed a lot of the specialized secondaries.

Hordes are the rock to the knight scissors. GSC and Orks are very good armies, eldar, DE and Yanarri are great regardless of the format. Match-ups matter.

Players placing the terrain is an interesting wrinkle which I think would impact ITC a fair amount. Not sure how you make it "fair" but something I think would help my my tourney games more dynamic.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I don't see how as a Deathwatch player I can build a PL list and NOT be overpowered. Everyone, pick up a storm shield and a combi plasma. Then, everyone take a Inferno pistol as the pistol option.

Vanguard vets for 5 points with SS/HTH? YES PLEASE.

Captains with Terminator armor, double melta powerfists? Sure.

This is why PL is situational, and should be regarded with caution.

The PL on Vets is pretty crazy fwiw. It feels like they're costed with 4 frag cannons as is.

 LunarSol wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I don't see how as a Deathwatch player I can build a PL list and NOT be overpowered. Everyone, pick up a storm shield and a combi plasma. Then, everyone take a Inferno pistol as the pistol option.

Vanguard vets for 5 points with SS/HTH? YES PLEASE.

Captains with Terminator armor, double melta powerfists? Sure.

This is why PL is situational, and should be regarded with caution.

The PL on Vets is pretty crazy fwiw. It feels like they're costed with 4 frag cannons as is.

Which is a core issue with how PL is designed.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
On the other hand, im not sure i like adepticon meta any better.

Is there anything about the game that you do like, at present?

Marines.

God, no. They're awful. I probably hate them the most for being conceptual failures.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dysartes wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
On the other hand, im not sure i like adepticon meta any better.

Is there anything about the game that you do like, at present?

The release schedule is pretty nice. I like the vanguard marines conceptually, but they just don't fit into the game they've created.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I don't see how as a Deathwatch player I can build a PL list and NOT be overpowered. Everyone, pick up a storm shield and a combi plasma. Then, everyone take a Inferno pistol as the pistol option.

Vanguard vets for 5 points with SS/HTH? YES PLEASE.

Captains with Terminator armor, double melta powerfists? Sure.

This is why PL is situational, and should be regarded with caution.

The PL on Vets is pretty crazy fwiw. It feels like they're costed with 4 frag cannons as is.

Which is a core issue with how PL is designed.

I don't disagree, but given some additional restrictions on unit composition, I don't think its unworkable is all. I'd be very curious to see how kit limited would work out.

 LunarSol wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I don't see how as a Deathwatch player I can build a PL list and NOT be overpowered. Everyone, pick up a storm shield and a combi plasma. Then, everyone take a Inferno pistol as the pistol option.

Vanguard vets for 5 points with SS/HTH? YES PLEASE.

Captains with Terminator armor, double melta powerfists? Sure.

This is why PL is situational, and should be regarded with caution.

The PL on Vets is pretty crazy fwiw. It feels like they're costed with 4 frag cannons as is.

Which is a core issue with how PL is designed.

I don't disagree, but given some additional restrictions on unit composition, I don't think its unworkable is all. I'd be very curious to see how kit limited would work out.

Well, then you are admitting the PL version is flawed, because something so simplistic can't possibly be made fair when applied to something so complex as 40k. The fact is, Powerlevel is designed for people who don't know how to maths to be able to still play 40k. It's 40k for Goku, when 40k was designed for Gohan.

 LunarSol wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I don't see how as a Deathwatch player I can build a PL list and NOT be overpowered. Everyone, pick up a storm shield and a combi plasma. Then, everyone take a Inferno pistol as the pistol option.

Vanguard vets for 5 points with SS/HTH? YES PLEASE.

Captains with Terminator armor, double melta powerfists? Sure.

This is why PL is situational, and should be regarded with caution.

The PL on Vets is pretty crazy fwiw. It feels like they're costed with 4 frag cannons as is.

Which is a core issue with how PL is designed.

I don't disagree, but given some additional restrictions on unit composition, I don't think its unworkable is all. I'd be very curious to see how kit limited would work out.

Might be an improvement for points too. The codecies seem almost designed with this in mind!

 LunarSol wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
On the other hand, im not sure i like adepticon meta any better.

I'd be curious to see how informing one with the other would turn out. Adepticon always seems to let the problem of objectives being ruled by number of models without any sense of quality reach its natural conclusion. Changing it to PL seems like an interesting experiment. I'm curious if anyone has bothered to run a major event simply using the latest CA missions and see how that meta turns out.

Just use the CA 2018 missions and see what happens? Thats simple. Every GW Heat since its release and the GW Finals have just used the CA missions.
You know what the meta looks like by just looking at the Warhammer World finals.

nareik 773029 10401610 wrote:

I don't disagree, but given some additional restrictions on unit composition, I don't think its unworkable is all. I'd be very curious to see how kit limited would work out.

Might be an improvement for points too. The codecies seem almost designed with this in mind!

I'm afraid I didn't understand your point.

What does GK's PL woes got to do with applying the bits limitations imposed by kit boxes onto the points system?

Someone explained to me that the PL cost of units is done by some alegorithm that checks the unit costs with full upgrades and a non upgraded unit, then it gets divided by something and you get the PL cost of a unit.

The problems with such system start, when A your units have no upgrades or worse B they have a ton of upgrades that hike the PL cost of your units, but you would never want to take them in the first place, so you are over paying even more then you would with normal points.

Karol,
Originally, PL were *roughly* 1/20th or their Points - but only roughly. For instance, 5 naked Dire Avengers were 85 (!) points minimum, but were 3 PL, where 5 Banshees were ~65 points, but were 3 PL.

Then, points have changed many times - Codex, CA, eratta, etc. PL didn't change so much. So they further diverged.

@Nareik,
I know it's not, but please tell me this rash of "Please limit options to what's in-box!" was an April's Fools joke? I get that it would probably be a little more balanced, but at what cost?

Bharring wrote:
Karol,
Originally, PL were *roughly* 1/20th or their Points - but only roughly. For instance, 5 naked Dire Avengers were 85 (!) points minimum, but were 3 PL, where 5 Banshees were ~65 points, but were 3 PL.

Then, points have changed many times - Codex, CA, eratta, etc. PL didn't change so much. So they further diverged.

@Nareik,
I know it's not, but please tell me this rash of "Please limit options to what's in-box!" was an April's Fools joke? I get that it would probably be a little more balanced, but at what cost?

I think the reason behind that is to prevent this gak where people need to buy multiple boxes or get 3rd party. Also, this is how AOS handles it.

But you also cut down on the kitbash potential immensely. They basically dropped 90% of Corsairs models from the game already. Autarchs are about as customizable as IoM Sarges now. And Havoks need to be remodelled/replaced.

I begrudgingly accept that argument as rational, but I'm afraid of all that I'll lose. I'd even need to resquad many of my Tac Marine heavies!

I think this may be a perfect example of where balance and freedom become a tradeoff. I'd rather have the freedom, but I understand those who would rather have the balance.

Well they aren't doing a very good job at it then considering you need to buy 4 boxs of havocks to have one units of rottor dudes, and you want 2-3 units of them.

What would be nice though is if the option in the box were actually good the way they are. That would be cool. Kind of a strange when GW tells you to be happy about a flamer and meltagun, when all is ever used are plasmas, or something like that.

Yeah, I don't think it's overall a good idea but it would also cut down on the amount of blatant min/maxing you see where its like oh this new kit came out, we mathed out that X weapon is the best choice, so go and kitbash/buy 3rd party to make a full squad of that. And potentially be easier to balance (see how AOS has very limited options).

I personally think the better idea would be to sell a weapon upgrade pack that has the additional options. So if the box came with let's say 1 Chainaxe ( ) the upgrade pack would have 4 additional Chainaxes as well as a few other weapons to round out the contents of the kit. It would certainly be better for GW than what happens now where they put out a kit with limited options, piss everyone off and business gets shifted to 3rd party to make up for it.

"Yeah, I don't think it's overall a good idea but it would also cut down on the amount of blatant min/maxing you see where its like oh this new kit came out, we mathed out that X weapon is the best choice, so go and kitbash/buy 3rd party to make a full squad of that. And potentially be easier to balance (see how AOS has very limited options)."
One thing that always felt somewhat beardy to me, but reasonable enough (especially since it was so important in 6E/7E not to mix squads) - not having a variety of Heavies in Dev squads. I don't want every squad to be exactly the same 4 Heavies, and I'd like 4 LCs/whatevers to be acceptable, but I'd also like to see more of a mix. But when I built my Devs (6E), that was such a terrible idea, that I didn't mix them.

I think I might resquad my Devs, due to this conversation. I've got enough Heavies, and it's not a major change.

But how to do you incentivise variance between forces? Make things closely balanced, so the points you pay are a reasonable tradeoff for each is one way. Another way is to make it so having at least one of any given weapon is more of an improvement than having a second one - but that's really hard to do ruleswise without basically dictating loadouts.

It's a hard question. But, somehow, GW seems to be doing reasonable-ish at it; mixed-weapon Dev squads are fairly common in 8th (relative to non-mixed Dev squads) - although mostly due to Signum/Cherub/Strat.

No mixed is really a holdover of previous editions where you couldn't split fire. Now that you can, it's less of an issue to have a squad with mixed weapons as long as the weapons complement each other, which usually means they have similar range and deal with similar targets.

For example, Autocannons and Missile Launchers work decently together and have similar roles (light anti-tank and some anti-infantry). Same potentially with Heavy Bolters and Autocannons (more anti-infantry focused). But like, you would probably not want to mix Heavy Bolters and Lascannons together as you're doing two different and unrelated roles.

That's my thought anyway. I honestly would not mind if they did go to fixed loadouts based on the contents of the kit. It would help them balance if they knew you could never take, for example, 4 lascannon in one squad but only 2.

Except the ML is one of those bad weapons.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Except the ML is one of those bad weapons.

It is, sadly, due to Frag being nerfed to gak.

Frag is actually better.

Martel732 wrote:
Frag is actually better.

Got some math to back that up? Every math I've seen lists frag as being worse because d6 hits doesn't accurately reflect what blast markers used to do.

Small blasts were terrible. Often, only one model was hit.

Martel732 wrote:
Small blasts were terrible. Often, only one model was hit.

TFC was good. So was wyvern.

Plasma Grenades, Plasma Cannons, Haywire Cannons, Fire Prisms, Void Prisms, Mortars, and so on.

Frag Grenades were bad. Small Blasts weren't amazing, but they were better than they are now.

Bharring wrote:
Plasma Grenades, Plasma Cannons, Haywire Cannons, Fire Prisms, Void Prisms, Mortars, and so on.

Frag Grenades were bad. Small Blasts weren't amazing, but they were better than they are now.

Literally all those were bad besides Haywire Cannons (which honestly only had the benefit of a low HP on most vehicles)

You didn't help the argument whatsoever.

 Xenomancers wrote:
We see a lot of the same names finishing top tier with the same armies. Nick is there with orks (same ole list). Sean with Ynnari (same ole list). There is only 1 castellan list in the top 10 which is kind of surprising. However - with practically nothing worth shooting at showing up in the top 10. No surprise really.

Also. GSC who are also broken BTW. Have combos that 1 shot any model in the game with mortal wounds if they pass a psychic test and can get within 18" of you. Also the democharge stratagem is officially busted. 10 d6 str 8 ap-2 d3 damage shots hitting on likely 2's but for sure 3's. Yeah sorry...5 LR command tanks worth of firepower for 200ish points shouldn't even be possible.

I agree on the GSC points. THey are broken. But I think they will get some hits as Vanguard proliferate. Omni scramblers screw over blips real good, you can stop the Mental take over with a couple of well placed models to make it not do to much.

Reemule wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
We see a lot of the same names finishing top tier with the same armies. Nick is there with orks (same ole list). Sean with Ynnari (same ole list). There is only 1 castellan list in the top 10 which is kind of surprising. However - with practically nothing worth shooting at showing up in the top 10. No surprise really.

Also. GSC who are also broken BTW. Have combos that 1 shot any model in the game with mortal wounds if they pass a psychic test and can get within 18" of you. Also the democharge stratagem is officially busted. 10 d6 str 8 ap-2 d3 damage shots hitting on likely 2's but for sure 3's. Yeah sorry...5 LR command tanks worth of firepower for 200ish points shouldn't even be possible.

I agree on the GSC points. THey are broken. But I think they will get some hits as Vanguard proliferate. Omni scramblers screw over blips real good, you can stop the Mental take over with a couple of well placed models to make it not do to much.

I did murder GSC in ETC practice with ultra marines but that list is designed to do that. 3 units of infiltrators basically shuts GSC down. However - they are so expensive they really can't be taken in a competitive army outside of ETC. Like there is no way you can reasonably take them in a soup army.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Reemule wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
We see a lot of the same names finishing top tier with the same armies. Nick is there with orks (same ole list). Sean with Ynnari (same ole list). There is only 1 castellan list in the top 10 which is kind of surprising. However - with practically nothing worth shooting at showing up in the top 10. No surprise really.

Also. GSC who are also broken BTW. Have combos that 1 shot any model in the game with mortal wounds if they pass a psychic test and can get within 18" of you. Also the democharge stratagem is officially busted. 10 d6 str 8 ap-2 d3 damage shots hitting on likely 2's but for sure 3's. Yeah sorry...5 LR command tanks worth of firepower for 200ish points shouldn't even be possible.

I agree on the GSC points. THey are broken. But I think they will get some hits as Vanguard proliferate. Omni scramblers screw over blips real good, you can stop the Mental take over with a couple of well placed models to make it not do to much.

I did murder GSC in ETC practice with ultra marines but that list is designed to do that. 3 units of infiltrators basically shuts GSC down. However - they are so expensive they really can't be taken in a competitive army outside of ETC. Like there is no way you can reasonably take them in a soup army.

I know you're going strictly Primaris but Scouts could do the same job, though they will get charged and die

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Reemule wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
We see a lot of the same names finishing top tier with the same armies. Nick is there with orks (same ole list). Sean with Ynnari (same ole list). There is only 1 castellan list in the top 10 which is kind of surprising. However - with practically nothing worth shooting at showing up in the top 10. No surprise really.

Also. GSC who are also broken BTW. Have combos that 1 shot any model in the game with mortal wounds if they pass a psychic test and can get within 18" of you. Also the democharge stratagem is officially busted. 10 d6 str 8 ap-2 d3 damage shots hitting on likely 2's but for sure 3's. Yeah sorry...5 LR command tanks worth of firepower for 200ish points shouldn't even be possible.

I agree on the GSC points. THey are broken. But I think they will get some hits as Vanguard proliferate. Omni scramblers screw over blips real good, you can stop the Mental take over with a couple of well placed models to make it not do to much.

I did murder GSC in ETC practice with ultra marines but that list is designed to do that. 3 units of infiltrators basically shuts GSC down. However - they are so expensive they really can't be taken in a competitive army outside of ETC. Like there is no way you can reasonably take them in a soup army.

I know you're going strictly Primaris but Scouts could do the same job, though they will get charged and die

The big difference is the infiltrators just rule out the possibility of the charge in certain areas. Plus they are much more likely to survive a round of shooting.