Adepticon Rankings

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.

**Wibe**

Problem with points for killing, is that it makes getting kill points way too good compared to the other ways of getting points. If you kill something you get points, but you also remove a enemy unit, stopping them from doing "anything". Remove quite a lot of the points for killing, since killing enemy units in it self is a good enough reward, making the rest of your objectives easier to get.

**Martel732**

On the other hand, it does provide a downside for msu.

**Amishprn86**

Martel732 wrote:
On the other hand, it does provide a downside for msu.

There already is a downside now with Stratagems and Auras. Try playing 10x5 man Wych units, it doesnt work. Where it used to before 8th. You'll have some with wasted Drugs, not enough special weapons (you get 3 for 10, 1 for 5), you'll need extra Succubus for the Aura, and the strong stratagems like fight twice, double the drugs, etc.. are wasted.

8th already does a lot to make MSU less appealing.

**Inquisitor Lord Katherine**

Amishprn86 wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
On the other hand, it does provide a downside for msu.

There already is a downside now with Stratagems and Auras. Try playing 10x5 man Wych units, it doesnt work. Where it used to before 8th. You'll have some with wasted Drugs, not enough special weapons (you get 3 for 10, 1 for 5), you'll need extra Succubus for the Aura, and the strong stratagems like fight twice, double the drugs, etc.. are wasted.

8th already does a lot to make MSU less appealing.

While buff efficiency is one thing, it's generally still better to be MSU.

MSU units don't run, MSU units fill battalion slots better, and MSU units are better at eating fire since they're frequently overkilled.

If your abilities are auras, it's generally not a problem at all to be MSU. If your abilities are single-target, it comes down to the ability and whether your intend to use it on the unit in question, but most of your army will be MSU with a few larger supporting units.

**Martel732**

Amishprn86 wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
On the other hand, it does provide a downside for msu.

There already is a downside now with Stratagems and Auras. Try playing 10x5 man Wych units, it doesnt work. Where it used to before 8th. You'll have some with wasted Drugs, not enough special weapons (you get 3 for 10, 1 for 5), you'll need extra Succubus for the Aura, and the strong stratagems like fight twice, double the drugs, etc.. are wasted.

8th already does a lot to make MSU less appealing.

But not nearly enough, imo.

**Bharring**

Depends.

CWE, for instance, plays mostly MSU with one (or, rarely, two) Deathstar. The one deathstar lets them maximize their buffs (because CWE's buffs are mostly buff-one-unit, not aura buffs). But even those lists tend to run MSU on most other things.

**Martel732**

ITC style kill points are one of the few ways to reward absolute durability over durability per point.

**Bharring**

Oddly enough, SFD rewards absolute durability over durability per point, too. But you don't embrace *that* as a good rule!

(Neither do I, of course.)

**Martel732**

Sfd?

**Amishprn86**

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Amishprn86 wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
On the other hand, it does provide a downside for msu.

There already is a downside now with Stratagems and Auras. Try playing 10x5 man Wych units, it doesnt work. Where it used to before 8th. You'll have some with wasted Drugs, not enough special weapons (you get 3 for 10, 1 for 5), you'll need extra Succubus for the Aura, and the strong stratagems like fight twice, double the drugs, etc.. are wasted.

8th already does a lot to make MSU less appealing.

While buff efficiency is one thing, it's generally still better to be MSU.

MSU units don't run, MSU units fill battalion slots better, and MSU units are better at eating fire since they're frequently overkilled.

If your abilities are auras, it's generally not a problem at all to be MSU. If your abilities are single-target, it comes down to the ability and whether your intend to use it on the unit in question, but most of your army will be MSU with a few larger supporting units.

But in the traditional sense, you dont see 5-10man Genestealers anymore, you dont see CSM 3 man terminators, you dont see 5man Dev squads (you see 10mans when you do see them) You dont see CWE having 5 units of aspects, you see 1 large unit back by 1 or 2 small ones.

You see a few hyper strong units with back up units and then fill the rest with chaff for CP's

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Sfd?

Ynnari's rule, Strength from Death

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
ITC style kill points are one of the few ways to reward absolute durability over durability per point.

Thats why you see lists like Ynnari/CWE with 7 Flyers, or 2-3 max size Bike units where all but 1 will DS, place in terrain/LoS the other, follow up by massive powers.

If you only have 7 units that can be killed before the game is over you cant get all the secondaries.

Edit: PS, my new favorite, 3 Gallent knights in front of 11 assassins lol

**Lord Clinto**

Any other GSC players find it kind of odd that there wasn't a single, actual Genestealer (not counting the Patriarch) in the 2nd place GSC army list?

What other 40K army doesn't have it's own name-sake normally included in their army lists?

**Daedalus81**

Breng77 wrote:

This math misses out on the issue of overkill on the scouts. There is not a unit of 30 scouts, or 50 Guardsman, nor is there a unit putting out 100 Heavy bolter shots. For an example lets look at Heavy bolter devs who put out 12 shots each, to get 100 shots, that is shooting from those squads ~8 times (96 shots). So each time one of those units shoots it does damage.

12 shots at the scouts kills 3.5 scouts (so 3 or 4), leaving just one scout remaining. To kill the remaining scouts you will need to shoot the squad again with some amount of shots which will likely lead to wasted wounds. 24 shots is 7 wounds meaning you lose 2 kills on average, but likely you won't chance shooting just 1 or 2 heavy bolters trying to fish for wounds all the time.

Conversely those same 12 shots kill 4.4 guardsman so 4-5, but there are still 5 left in the squad, so a second set of 12 shots, does not likely go to waste and morale will finish the squad.

SO if we look at these numbers with 24 shots killing 5 scouts, you end up only killing 20 scouts with 96 shots

where as you likely kill all 10 guardsman with those same 24 shots, and so kill closer to (8.8 per squad pre morale, which auto fails at that point) 40 guardsman when morale is included.

Even if you allow for split firing, you need on average 6 heavy bolters (18 shots) to finish a scout squad. If that works out every time, you kill 25 scouts

Now this is not a great an advantage as it was in older editions thanks to the ability to split fire, you could throw only a portion of shooting at the remaining scouts, but all in all you are much more likely to waste wounds.

It's more complex than this.

5 cloak scouts can find cover. 10 IS can find cover, but I'll bet there will be enough units on the table where I can shoot 10 IS that are out of cover.

12 HB shots kills one scout or 4 to 5 IS or 3 to 4 when in cover. With LD7 there is little chance the IS will lose enough to eliminate the unit through morale.

So we dedicate an additional 12 HB shots. 1 scout dies. The IS are either dead or mostly dead, but then they can possibly blow 1 CP to do D3 for morale and go neener neener.

**the_scotsman**

Lord Clinto wrote:
Any other GSC players find it kind of odd that there wasn't a single, actual Genestealer (not counting the Patriarch) in the 2nd place GSC army list?

What other 40K army doesn't have it's own name-sake normally included in their army lists?

Chaos Space Marines

Space Marines

Thousand Sons

Also, Genestealer Cults' namesake aren't Genestealers. genestealer is being used as an adjective in the name - the distinction is the "Cults" and there were plenty of cultists in those lists.

**Bharring**

For a while after the Codex came out, CWE armies usually ran many more non-Craftworlders (Rangers) than Craftworlders.

**Amishprn86**

Thats bc Rangers could scout/DS before turn 1 and you had to have that to stop alpha DSing on turn 1 against you.

**Argive**

Khalan wrote:
If you want to see more of my army check out my instagram @jimbov_paints

Dang... thats a shame.
I dont bother with social media.

**Ice_can**

The point kinda got lost in people going off the deepend on why x weapon kills more scouts or guardsmen. The point was kill more giving out Victory Points is inherently not good, it means being able to have straight up less units is already a bonus.
Which leads to secondary missions designed to compensate for list design that game's kill more.

Take a pure knights list, it is going to be 5-6 models tops, good luck getting kill more against that list with any army, so FLG introduced multiple secondary missions to compensate for the imbalance in the primary scoring.

The problem is the secondary missions can be designed around by some codex's. Aeldari being the usual suspects here, meaning that those designed to compensate secondary missions actually punish the lists that can't build to avoid them excessively.

Rather than just removing kill more as a primary VP measure, a simpler solution IMHO they took a page out of the GW game design hand book and designed a patch for a patch.

**Tyel**

the_scotsman wrote:
Chaos Space Marines

Space Marines

Thousand Sons

Also, Genestealer Cults' namesake aren't Genestealers. genestealer is being used as an adjective in the name - the distinction is the "Cults" and there were plenty of cultists in those lists.

I guess you can push this - but the fact "Genestealer Genestealers" are worse than Acolytes (or Kraken Stealers) feels like bad design.
I agree with you on tacticals, CSM and Rubrics.

The more the rules have a bias towards troops the more balanced the game becomes (as the maths on a small pool is easier to manage than everything), but at the same time it skews towards good troops and bad troops pay the price.

**Marmatag**

Smirrors wrote:
This wont shut the naysayers that are claiming lack of diversity. Seems pretty good to me. Weren't Orks supposed to be really bad too? I see plenty in the top 25.

Imperium is probably lacking representation based on what I've read on dakka in the last 2 months.

Orks are good in all formats. They just have a higher skill cap as do most melee armies. So bad players can't take a good Ork list and win.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Smirrors wrote:
So players attending Adepticon stated there were plenty of Castellans, they just didnt place very well. And then you have players like Nick N who has a strategy to counter it. I know of even Ultramarine style lists that basically try to nerf Castellans in game.

Is this really just a matter of people complaining of the Castellan without figuring ways to counter it and only now are we seeing it become less competitive.

That said GW is in a hard place as there are so many variations to the way people play 40k that they cannot balance a unit just for ITC.

You don't think it says something at all that armies need to assume they'll face a Castellan and they MUST counter a single model?
That's like saying 7th Ed Scatterbikes were fine because there were counters. Like, no gak there were counters.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
Chaos Space Marines

Space Marines

Thousand Sons

Also, Genestealer Cults' namesake aren't Genestealers. genestealer is being used as an adjective in the name - the distinction is the "Cults" and there were plenty of cultists in those lists.

I guess you can push this - but the fact "Genestealer Genestealers" are worse than Acolytes (or Kraken Stealers) feels like bad design.
I agree with you on tacticals, CSM and Rubrics.

The more the rules have a bias towards troops the more balanced the game becomes (as the maths on a small pool is easier to manage than everything), but at the same time it skews towards good troops and bad troops pay the price.

That's assuming all troops are equal, which is obviously not the case.

**Marin**

Some Adepticon Aeldari data
There were 31 aeldari players from 256 total(over 12% of the players).
2 players manage to get into top 16(12.5%)

Primary detachment fro the 31 players:
11 CWE
9 Ynnari
6 DE
3 Harlequins

Including other detachment 15 players did not use Ynnari.
There were only 4 non soup list. 3 CWE and 1 DE, 2 of the CWE were using wraith army.

2 players brougt copy of Alex Harrison list, both ended with 3/4 record, both lost 1 game vs orc.

1 player used WK and was 3/4, lost 1 game vs orc.
1 player with pure wraith army played single game and lost vs orcs.
2 players used the Yncarne and 1 player used Baharoth.
1 player did not include his dark reapers in Ynnari detachment and he lost all his 4 games.
1 player used dark repaers without having Ynnari and he is 3/4, the interesting part is he played 3 games vs other aeldari players. He won vs 2 aeldar players and 1 orc player and lost vs 3 hemlocks and ynnari spear and reapers list.
1 player brough 8 flyers 4 CWE and 4 DE he won 2 from 4.

RAW calculation shows Ynnari are with 54% WR including the mirror matches, without them they should be around 50% WR.

1 player used illegal list with mixed aeldari brigade and he go 2/4.

**Daedalus81**

Marin wrote:
Some Adepticon Aeldari data
There were 31 aeldari players from 256 total(over 12% of the players).
2 players manage to get into top 16(12.5%)

Primary detachment fro the 31 players:
11 CWE
9 Ynnari
6 DE
3 Harlequins

Including other detachment 15 players did not use Ynnari.
There were only 4 non soup list. 3 CWE and 1 DE, 2 of the CWE were using wraith army.

2 players brougt copy of Alex Harrison list, both ended with 3/4 record, both lost 1 game vs orc.

1 player used WK and was 3/4, lost 1 game vs orc.
1 player with pure wraith army played single game and lost vs orcs.
2 players used the Yncarne and 1 player used Baharoth.
1 player did not include his dark reapers in Ynnari detachment and he lost all his 4 games.
1 player used dark repaers without having Ynnari and he is 3/4, the interesting part is he played 3 games vs other aeldari players. He won vs 2 aeldar players and 1 orc player and lost vs 3 hemlocks and ynnari spear and reapers list.
1 player brough 8 flyers 4 CWE and 4 DE he won 2 from 4.

RAW calculation shows Ynnari are with 54% WR including the mirror matches, without them they should be around 50% WR.

1 player used illegal list with mixed aeldari brigade and he go 2/4.

Awesome - thanks!

Any way to get knight/guard info?

**Bharring**

and 1 player used Baharoth.

Woot!

**Slayer-Fan123**

Who cares about Baharoth? Maugen Ra is where it's at.

**Bharring**

Because
1) Maugen Ra saw a first place finish not that long ago in a major tournament - so not as surprising
2) I love my Baharoth model much more than my Maugen Ra model.

So, for me, Baharoth was was more Woot-worthy than Ra, at this time.

**the_scotsman**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Who cares about Baharoth? Maugen Ra is where it's at.

I GOT SKULLZ ON MY SKULLZ!

**Slayer-Fan123**

Bharring wrote:
Because
1) Maugen Ra saw a first place finish not that long ago in a major tournament - so not as surprising
2) I love my Baharoth model much more than my Maugen Ra model.

So, for me, Baharoth was was more Woot-worthy than Ra, at this time.

Maugen Ra is really the only Phoenix Lord I'm a fan of for the model, fluff, AND rules. Even with the blech iterations I've still always been tempted to have an army starring him.

Probably why I'll ally him in with my Harlequins whenever I actually start that project (him and 3 Death Jesters sounds like a good time). I haven't even completed my current Marine army so...

**Bharring**

He is a great model.

Jain Zar, Fuegen, and the official Baharoth model all need replacements (or kitabashes). But Asurmen, Karrandas, and Maugen Ra have great models.

**Marin**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Who cares about Baharoth? Maugen Ra is where it's at.

Sean Nayden was running Magun RA, but i never saw Baharoth

**Amishprn86**

Maugan Ra is honestly really good. 2+ re-roll 1's cant be modified, with some AP and shoot twice.