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.

 Xenomancers wrote:

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.

Assuming Cults don't have multi-damage in droves of course. I'd also be worried on the TAC aspect there.

 Xenomancers wrote:

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

TFC was good. So was wyvern.

Which were good specifically because they hit multiple times and were very cheap compared to things.. And the TFC not counting as a vehicle helped it as well.

Everything else was bad because everyone spaced their models out as far as they could go.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

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

TFC was good. So was wyvern.

Which were good specifically because they hit multiple times and were very cheap compared to things.. And the TFC not counting as a vehicle helped it as well.

Everything else was bad because everyone spaced their models out as far as they could go.

The Wyvern was basically guaranteed four hits with Shred, and TFCs were just super cheap and ignored LOS. Whirlwinds were bad though even with the Large Blast.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

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

TFC was good. So was wyvern.

Which were good specifically because they hit multiple times and were very cheap compared to things.. And the TFC not counting as a vehicle helped it as well.

Everything else was bad because everyone spaced their models out as far as they could go.

If your able to perfectly space your models out at all times across the board you are not using enough terrain. The above rarely happened in my area because a well designed table will have funnel points and other terrain features that don't let you space a squad perfectly

HoundsofDemos wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

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

TFC was good. So was wyvern.

Which were good specifically because they hit multiple times and were very cheap compared to things.. And the TFC not counting as a vehicle helped it as well.

Everything else was bad because everyone spaced their models out as far as they could go.

If your able to perfectly space your models out at all times across the board you are not using enough terrain. The above rarely happened in my area because a well designed table will have funnel points and other terrain features that don't let you space a squad perfectly

Small Blasts were mediocre even when all the models are touching base to base. Proper spacing just made them plain bad in all aspects.

Should I really be taking a weapon on the hope my opponent can't space at all?

The TFC was great because it had 4 shots, could play wound allocation gimmicks, could hurt or destroy light and medium vehicles with some ability, didnt need LoS and was cheap. The Wyvern was likewise cheap, had 4 shots, didnt need LoS, and had rerolls both to hit and wound. Small blasts outside of such units were definitely not generally terribly effective. While sometimes you could be given a great squishy target, most often you were lucky to hit more than a couple models even on a dead on hit with a small blast.

Regardless, the current average for small blasts is (2/3)×(2) - or just over 1 model/round at most. I averaged 2 per small blast in 6/7.

So with a buff bubble, you should be able to squeeze out a little more than 2 hits with frag missiles.

What buff bubble?

Not everyone plays Marines. Of the 5 HQs I use most often, none reroll hits or wounds.

Who else uses frag missiles? IG? Reapers don't have them.

Sliding the topic back slightly, one thing I constantly see derided is how the extra randomness (e.g. Eternal War/Maelstrom missions) are bad and detract from a "balanced" game. Yet GW constantly pushes that those are, in fact, part of the balance to tone down extreme builds. This is a quote for AOS from a WHC article last year where they said they suggested the Realm of Battle rules to be used in tournaments (each realm has its own set of rules, for example, one reduces visibility to 12", one reduces movement, etc.):

The reason is actually quite simple, and it’s that the Pitched Battle Profiles in our publications, and more specifically the points values in the profiles, assume those rules are being used. This means that if they are removed, certain extreme army builds become much more viable. For example, if you don’t use the Realm of Battle rules, which include a chance that visibility in a battle can be greatly reduced, then extreme ‘gunline’ armies can be taken without any risk of fighting a battle that doesn’t allow them to fight at maximum effect.

On the other hand, when the Realm of Battle rules are used, players soon learn that it is in their best interests to leave the more extreme builds at home and take a more balanced force instead. The same principle applies to using all of the 12 matched play battleplans in the 2018 General’s Handbook.

As you can see the idea here is that the "imbalance" of getting a bad realm for your game which everyone hates is actually factored into the points by GW. While this quote is from an article on AOS I would not doubt that they do similar for 40k and price according to the idea you are using Eternal War or Maelstrom Missions (I'd actually love for them to talk about this in an article to find out exactly what they are intending to be used), which lends more credence to the idea that deviating from that (e.g. ITC Missions) is a big part of what allows those "extreme builds" to be taken without "any risk of fighting a battle that doesn't allow them to fight at maximum effort". GW clearly wants people to "leave the more extreme builds at home and take a more balanced force instead" and it seems to me that their missions are designed to encourage that; ignoring them is removing that counterpoint to the extreme builds and letting them run rampant, which is often what we see.

But that is not how it works with table top armies. It can work with games, but not with 700$ + costing armies.
I don't know much about AoS as it isn't really played around here, but if a faction skewed in to shoting exists in AoS then the fact that a mission or realm of battle exists that makes the army auto lose, just means that anyone who bought such an army is a sad panda, and anyone new will never pick up the army. Same happens if there is a melee only army or no magic army, and scenarios exist that require you to do the thing they are bad at or make their only good thing really bad.

It does on the other hand make good armies with a big selection of units more viable, because they can play with a little bit of this and that.

No idea what the AoS eldar are, but am sure that if an army that is super fast, super resilient and with strong psykers exists, then it is doing great under those rules. Specially if it has some type of rules like Inari have that lets them break the rules of the game.


Hard skew rules don't make people play with more balance or varied armies. They kill off all the weaker armies, and buff the really good armies in to high heavens of power.

Serious question, does AoS have a shoting only faction and if yes, how is it doing under the rules? Because am mostly speculating here.

Karol wrote:
But that is not how it works with table top armies. It can work with games, but not with 700$ + costing armies.
I don't know much about AoS as it isn't really played around here, but if a faction skewed in to shoting exists in AoS then the fact that a mission or realm of battle exists that makes the army auto lose, just means that anyone who bought such an army is a sad panda, and anyone new will never pick up the army. Same happens if there is a melee only army or no magic army, and scenarios exist that require you to do the thing they are bad at or make their only good thing really bad.

It does on the other hand make good armies with a big selection of units more viable, because they can play with a little bit of this and that.

No idea what the AoS eldar are, but am sure that if an army that is super fast, super resilient and with strong psykers exists, then it is doing great under those rules. Specially if it has some type of rules like Inari have that lets them break the rules of the game.


Hard skew rules don't make people play with more balance or varied armies. They kill off all the weaker armies, and buff the really good armies in to high heavens of power.

Serious question, does AoS have a shoting only faction and if yes, how is it doing under the rules? Because am mostly speculating here.

Yes it does (Kharadron Overlords) and they are garbage but not for that reason. There are (were?) some crazy shooting heavy builds (think an Ultramarine Gunline). But that seems to be what GW is saying: Those missions/rules that "screw over" the shooting army (I don't think it's "auto lose") is intentional so you don't build an extreme gunline list and can play it without any disadvantage.

That's their entire point. You shoulnd't be able to take and play an extreme (gimmicky/netlist) build without any potential disadvantage to reel it in.

Karol wrote:
I don't know much about AoS as it isn't really played around here, but if a faction skewed in to shoting exists in AoS then the fact that a mission or realm of battle exists that makes the army auto lose, just means that anyone who bought such an army is a sad panda, and anyone new will never pick up the army.

Quick correction here, Karol, as it has been bugging me for a while.

I am going to shoot Peregrine.
Wayniac is shooting at Martel732.
Last week, I was shot in the back by Bharring.

Ok, again I don't know enough about AoS. But to me this sounds strange. I will make a guess the army with the most utility units is the most dominant right?

Am guessing, mostly from the armies I saw skiming WD, that armies like khorn without magic are kind of a bad?
this kind of a means that if someone wants to have a fun and not face those, why even deploy, moments in life you have to not play a build that is not based an army that does everything well.
Unless it has some game breaking gimmick that lets it play solitare.

Also on pure human side of things, it would really suck if the only way to win an army was to get a random roll on a perfect scenario that buff your army and screws the opposing one. Losing is not fun, but winning pre game isn't very fun either, because it changes the whole game in to rolling of dice for 40 min. And again this means any army that is not perfect or mostly perfect would not be picked up, unless the new player gets cheated, or it is an older player and his army was good at some time in the past and now s nerfed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dysartes wrote:


Quick correction here, Karol, as it has been bugging me for a while.

I am going to shoot Peregrine.
Wayniac is shooting at Martel732.
Last week, I was shot in the back by Bharring.

Thanks, I doubt I will remember it though. It is not even that I don't care, I just can't memorise that stuff. You would be suprised but my grammar is actually better in English, then in Polish :( And on forums at least I don't get graded by how I write.

The idea is that over a series of games having the potential of getting a "bad" realm will influence your list and (at least in theory) push you towards an "all-comers" list rather than an extreme skew.

To bring this back around to 40k so we don't get too far off in discussing AOS, this is similar to why I think the Eternal War or even Maelstrom missions are better than the ITC missions. Having that chance you'll get that one mission (or many in Maelstrom I guess, although I personally don't care for those) that can reduce your gimmicky extreme netlist should mean you reel in the extreme builds and go for something more balanced to lessen the blow.

It means things that remove that fact are what empower the extreme builds since there is nothing to give them any potential drawback, and by GW's own admission (at least for AOS) that drawback is specifically there to discourage you from taking an extreme list.

 Dysartes wrote:

[...]
Last week, I was shot in the back by Bharring.

You can't prove anything!

Side note; Karol, if you're from Poland, I assume your primary language is Polish? It doesn't show at all. From your writing, you come across as fully competent at English.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On the skew-happy balance; which is more balanced:
A) A situation where 60% of the games are a coin toss, but break 35/25 in favor of the "stronger" army over the "better" player
B) A situation where 20% of the games are a coin toss, but break 50/30 in favor of the "stronger" army over the "better player?

The first case is less likely to be decided by who has the "stronger" player, even if you factor out the games that come down to a coin toss. But in the second, you're much less likely to lose a game because the dice hate you.

I'm not arguing that 40k is either; I'm wondering about peoples' opinions. (This may be the first non-contrived scenario I've ever gotten to use "peoples'" accurately.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:

[...]
Thanks, I doubt I will remember it though. It is not even that I don't care, I just can't memorise that stuff. You would be suprised but my grammar is actually better in English, then in Polish :( And on forums at least I don't get graded by how I write.

You (and everyone else) *does* get graded by how they write in forum posts. It's just not as formal as in school. A more coherent post gives more weight to the poster's argument.

Good form doesn't make a bad idea good, and bad form doesn't make a good idea bad, but the better form has more authority and does a better job of getting the point across.

If GW wants to restrict extreme buids, maelstrom is not the way to do it.

Martel732 wrote:
If GW wants to restrict extreme buids, maelstrom is not the way to do it.

maelstrom I agree that's a bit too wonky. But I still fail to see the issue with Eternal War, since those potentials of getting the weird twist is exactly what would discourage extreme builds. The fact the ITC crowd is so against it sort of reinforced the point of why it should be the default, because the reason seems to be to PUSH the extreme builds rather than discourage them.

It keeps coming back to undercosted hordes, esp hordes with obj sec. At least for me. CA missions are just miserable vs these lists.

The idea that certain scenario rules - like reduced visibility or reduced movement, or whatever - balances the game is something that was proven incorrect over a decade ago when there was an outbreak of similar rules for scenarios in WH tournaments in an attempt to balance them. What actually happened was neutral, balanced builds ended up being affected by all of the scenarios while extreme builds were often only disadvantaged in one, which they may still be able to win anyway. The problem is that a well-rounded, balanced army suffers whatever penalty the scenario applies to the game, while a skewed army likely won't care except in one specific scenario.

Some pseudo-random element is good for gaming in general and I think the Maelstrom cards are the way to go but the specifics of those cards needs tweaking to avoid unlucky draws determining the winner.

Slipspace wrote:
The idea that certain scenario rules - like reduced visibility or reduced movement, or whatever - balances the game is something that was proven incorrect over a decade ago when there was an outbreak of similar rules for scenarios in WH tournaments in an attempt to balance them. What actually happened was neutral, balanced builds ended up being affected by all of the scenarios while extreme builds were often only disadvantaged in one, which they may still be able to win anyway. The problem is that a well-rounded, balanced army suffers whatever penalty the scenario applies to the game, while a skewed army likely won't care except in one specific scenario.

Some pseudo-random element is good for gaming in general and I think the Maelstrom cards are the way to go but the specifics of those cards needs tweaking to avoid unlucky draws determining the winner.

You mean when everyone just ignored all the scenarios except the basic Pitched Battle because they didn't want to have to divide up their force or whatnot?

Somebody needs to tell GW then because they seem to be designing for the opposite and balancing around it such that NOT doing it is skewing things more and ignoring the fact they are determining points on the assumption that you are doing just that.

Wayniac wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
The idea that certain scenario rules - like reduced visibility or reduced movement, or whatever - balances the game is something that was proven incorrect over a decade ago when there was an outbreak of similar rules for scenarios in WH tournaments in an attempt to balance them. What actually happened was neutral, balanced builds ended up being affected by all of the scenarios while extreme builds were often only disadvantaged in one, which they may still be able to win anyway. The problem is that a well-rounded, balanced army suffers whatever penalty the scenario applies to the game, while a skewed army likely won't care except in one specific scenario.

Some pseudo-random element is good for gaming in general and I think the Maelstrom cards are the way to go but the specifics of those cards needs tweaking to avoid unlucky draws determining the winner.

You mean when everyone just ignored all the scenarios except the basic Pitched Battle because they didn't want to have to divide up their force or whatnot?

Somebody needs to tell GW then because they seem to be designing for the opposite and balancing around it such that NOT doing it is skewing things more and ignoring the fact they are determining points on the assumption that you are doing just that.

I'm talking about specific tournament scenarios that were used around the UK at that time, not the way people generally played (which always struck me as stupid anyway since all the scenarios save Watchtower were fine). I'm not sure I believe GW when it comes to their comments about balancing around various random scenarios and conditions anyway. They've never managed to display much in the way of good judgement when it comes to balance so this plea that we're not doing it right is a bit hard to take seriously.

I have found scenariios have been quite excellent at balancing the game better, simply because if you have random scenarios that cut off the nose of certain types of extreme builds, that if you chose to run an extreme build that that could mean you roll a mission up that you are really not good at.

This has also caused rage and people do not like that.

auticus wrote:
I have found scenariios have been quite excellent at balancing the game better, simply because if you have random scenarios that cut off the nose of certain types of extreme builds, that if you chose to run an extreme build that that could mean you roll a mission up that you are really not good at.

This has also caused rage and people do not like that.

That is exactly the point of contention here. On both points. That seems to be GW's desired approach but people fight against it.

Slipspace wrote:

Some pseudo-random element is good for gaming in general and I think the Maelstrom cards are the way to go but the specifics of those cards needs tweaking to avoid unlucky draws determining the winner.

Chapter Approved tends to do some solid things with the cards like "discard 6 before the game starts".

Wayniac wrote:

auticus wrote:
I have found scenariios have been quite excellent at balancing the game better, simply because if you have random scenarios that cut off the nose of certain types of extreme builds, that if you chose to run an extreme build that that could mean you roll a mission up that you are really not good at.

This has also caused rage and people do not like that.

That is exactly the point of contention here. On both points. That seems to be GW's desired approach but people fight against it.

Unfortunately this has everything to do with how many games people play in a year or during tournaments. If you play once a month then it is only 12 games a year (just 2 repetitions of each Eternal War mission) - you can play that many M:tG games over a single weekend. So statistical balancing out scenarios will always be frowned upon... The workaround for this, at least for tournaments is to have a static set of missions that vary widely between rounds and every table plays the same mission as the rest each round. The top player has to do well in all scenarios, there is no luck factor, so it has to have TAC-enough list. To limit "hacking" set of missions pre-tournament TOs could publish a list of e.g. 24 different scenarios and then randomly choose one for every round just at the opening of the tournament, so you cannot optimize your build against top rounds in advance.

Wayniac wrote:

auticus wrote:
I have found scenariios have been quite excellent at balancing the game better, simply because if you have random scenarios that cut off the nose of certain types of extreme builds, that if you chose to run an extreme build that that could mean you roll a mission up that you are really not good at.

This has also caused rage and people do not like that.

That is exactly the point of contention here. On both points. That seems to be GW's desired approach but people fight against it.

I think gw has the collective iq of a slime mold, so why would i care about their desires?

Martel732 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

auticus wrote:
I have found scenariios have been quite excellent at balancing the game better, simply because if you have random scenarios that cut off the nose of certain types of extreme builds, that if you chose to run an extreme build that that could mean you roll a mission up that you are really not good at.

This has also caused rage and people do not like that.

That is exactly the point of contention here. On both points. That seems to be GW's desired approach but people fight against it.

I think gw has the collective iq of a slime mold, so why would i care about their desires?

Because they produce the game?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

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

TFC was good. So was wyvern.

Which were good specifically because they hit multiple times and were very cheap compared to things.. And the TFC not counting as a vehicle helped it as well.

Everything else was bad because everyone spaced their models out as far as they could go.

The Wyvern was basically guaranteed four hits with Shred, and TFCs were just super cheap and ignored LOS. Whirlwinds were bad though even with the Large Blast.

With the reroll hits and wounds formation - they were pretty incredible. Typically my opponents went after them first.