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:

Different game scenarios for eternal war missions will favor certain armies as well. Terrain types will also favor certain armies. Like vs tau or IF when facing opponents on heavily terrained boards....it is basically an automatic loss. Heavy LOS blocking vs AM spamming manicores and basilisks...auto lose. There is a lot going into it.

Nothing of this contradicts ITC skewing the results. The game cannot be balance based on someone's houserules, how bloody hard can this be to understand!

 Crimson wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Different game scenarios for eternal war missions will favor certain armies as well. Terrain types will also favor certain armies. Like vs tau or IF when facing opponents on heavily terrained boards....it is basically an automatic loss. Heavy LOS blocking vs AM spamming manicores and basilisks...auto lose. There is a lot going into it.

Nothing of this contradicts ITC skewing the results. The game cannot be balance based on someone's houserules, how bloody hard can this be to understand!

its difficult to understand because you havent explained why not.

Why not?

To be fair, the game isn't balanced via the base rules either. So a more accurate claim would be "the game is not balanced based on any rules, so use the rules you prefer".

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

its difficult to understand because you havent explained why not.

Why not?

JFC, should be pretty self evident!. They're not gonna balance it based my houserules either. ITC creates their own missions and houserules, GW doesn't control what ITC does, GW cannot be held responsible for rules that they did not write themselves. It would be utterly absurd situation if GW had to change the game based on issues caused by someone's houserules. And at any model that third party could issue new houserules and GW had to change the game again. Utter lunacy! GW writes the rules, missions and points. And they're not perfect and that's on GW. But if you alter the game by houserules, then you have no grounds for complaining if there are issues. Like if you buy a new car and it breaks down, you have a valid complaint against the manufacturer. But if the car breaks down after you have first taken it apart and jury rigged and modified with all sorts of parts from dubious sources, then it hardly is the manufacturer's fault if there are problems.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Different game scenarios for eternal war missions will favor certain armies as well. Terrain types will also favor certain armies. Like vs tau or IF when facing opponents on heavily terrained boards....it is basically an automatic loss. Heavy LOS blocking vs AM spamming manicores and basilisks...auto lose. There is a lot going into it.

Nothing of this contradicts ITC skewing the results. The game cannot be balance based on someone's houserules, how bloody hard can this be to understand!

its difficult to understand because you havent explained why not.

Why not?

Because they are house rules that most people don't use?
Do we need another reason?

 flandarz wrote:
To be fair, the game isn't balanced via the base rules either.

It isn't but that's not the point. ITC is not how the game is supposed to be played, it is not GW's fault if the game is not balanced in that format. Now the game not being balanced with CA missions either is GW's fault. GW issues new missions in every CA, and this is part of their balancing efforts. And in every book the missions have been better than in the previous one, so they're doing something right. However, a major tournament organisation promoting their own houserules is an issue, as it makes much more difficult for GW to obtain useful data on the CA missions and know what works and what doesn't. So basically ITC makes balancing the game harder for GW.

 Crimson wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

its difficult to understand because you havent explained why not.

Why not?

JFC, should be pretty self evident!. They're not gonna balance it based my houserules either. ITC creates their own missions and houserules, GW doesn't control what ITC does, GW cannot be held responsible for rules that they did not write themselves. It would be utterly absurd situation if GW had to change the game based on issues caused by someone's houserules. And at any model that third party could issue new houserules and GW had to change the game again. Utter lunacy! GW writes the rules, missions and points. And they're not perfect and that's on GW. But if you alter the game by houserules, then you have no grounds for complaining if there are issues. Like if you buy a new car and it breaks down, you have a valid complaint against the manufacturer. But if the car breaks down after you have first taken it apart and jury rigged and modified with all sorts of parts from dubious sources, then it hardly is the manufacturer's fault if there are problems.

GW sends reps to almost every major ITC event, asking players about their armies and what works well and what doesn't, speaking to top players, and hired half of their ITC staff for their playtest team.

But you just keep telling yourself whatever you need to. It's "pretty self evident" after all.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

its difficult to understand because you havent explained why not.

Why not?

JFC, should be pretty self evident!. They're not gonna balance it based my houserules either. ITC creates their own missions and houserules, GW doesn't control what ITC does, GW cannot be held responsible for rules that they did not write themselves. It would be utterly absurd situation if GW had to change the game based on issues caused by someone's houserules. And at any model that third party could issue new houserules and GW had to change the game again. Utter lunacy! GW writes the rules, missions and points. And they're not perfect and that's on GW. But if you alter the game by houserules, then you have no grounds for complaining if there are issues. Like if you buy a new car and it breaks down, you have a valid complaint against the manufacturer. But if the car breaks down after you have first taken it apart and jury rigged and modified with all sorts of parts from dubious sources, then it hardly is the manufacturer's fault if there are problems.

GW sends reps to almost every major ITC event, asking players about their armies and what works well and what doesn't, speaking to top players, and hired half of their ITC staff for their playtest team.

But you just keep telling yourself whatever you need to. It's "pretty self evident" after all.

It is though, asking itc players for balance is like asking a german for directions in china.

Pointless endeavour .

Tyel wrote:
Its been covered, but ITC is a massive skew on the base game, and I think this is becoming more and more obvious. IMO at least the secondaries need to be changed so the positional ones are more of a rational choice with more armies. Or possibly there needs to be some variation to boost "hold more" over kill more.

I just feel too many games go "I'm going to get hold something, I'm going to get kill something, I'm hopefully going to get kill more and in doing so I'm going to get at least 2 secondaries that are about killing. Then because your stuff is dead, and my units are tough rather than a melange of MSU, you get fewer and fewer points and eventually collapse by turn 3 while I mop up hold more/kills more/everything".

I feel outside ITC - and especially if you include Maelstrom - the game is a lot softer. Not that Marines/Eldar etc are not "good" (killing stuff is almost always better than being killed) - but there is a bit more variance in the game. You can have units which would be horrible in ITC due to giving up secondaries/kill more so easily - but it doesn't matter.

Arguably you might say in Maelstrom - even with the deck building - there is too much variance, as an army that seems to be getting absolutely pasted just ticks through the points while the other guy gets a duff draw. Which you may or may not find fun - but its certainly less "I'm just playing out my statistical superiority, pls remove your models as I coast to victory".

Really though I wouldn't expect GW to take any urgent action until at least summer - possibly beyond. They will want to give the changes in CA a reasonable run out. I have to think Marine nerfs are going to be in CA20 - but then I'd have thought Crimson Hunter Exarchs would be nerfed into oblivion so...

But I want soft, spammable cheap units to have a downside. In CA 2019, there is no downside to these units.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

its difficult to understand because you havent explained why not.

Why not?

JFC, should be pretty self evident!. They're not gonna balance it based my houserules either. ITC creates their own missions and houserules, GW doesn't control what ITC does, GW cannot be held responsible for rules that they did not write themselves. It would be utterly absurd situation if GW had to change the game based on issues caused by someone's houserules. And at any model that third party could issue new houserules and GW had to change the game again. Utter lunacy! GW writes the rules, missions and points. And they're not perfect and that's on GW. But if you alter the game by houserules, then you have no grounds for complaining if there are issues. Like if you buy a new car and it breaks down, you have a valid complaint against the manufacturer. But if the car breaks down after you have first taken it apart and jury rigged and modified with all sorts of parts from dubious sources, then it hardly is the manufacturer's fault if there are problems.

GW sends reps to almost every major ITC event, asking players about their armies and what works well and what doesn't, speaking to top players, and hired half of their ITC staff for their playtest team.

But you just keep telling yourself whatever you need to. It's "pretty self evident" after all.

It is though, asking itc players for balance is like asking a german for directions in china.

Pointless endeavour .

You haven't explained why.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

GW sends reps to almost every major ITC event, asking players about their armies and what works well and what doesn't, speaking to top players, and hired half of their ITC staff for their playtest team.

But you just keep telling yourself whatever you need to. It's "pretty self evident" after all.

They send reps to all major tournaments.

Why isn't it? ITC is a houseruled version of the game, with changes from the base rules. Why is this so hard to understand from the pro-ITC people? You are playing a version of the game that was born out of necessity years ago, but now just fractures the playerbase. Even if we pretend the missions aren't an issue, it's still dividing the playerbase. And yet only for 40k. ITC for AOS doesn't feth around with the missions or add extra rules, they only track scoring.

So why is that good enough for AOS but not 40K?

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

You haven't explained why.

I has been explained, you just have a comprehension problem.

 Crimson wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

GW sends reps to almost every major ITC event, asking players about their armies and what works well and what doesn't, speaking to top players, and hired half of their ITC staff for their playtest team.

But you just keep telling yourself whatever you need to. It's "pretty self evident" after all.

They send reps to all major tournaments.

That's literally what I just said. All major tournaments are either ITC or ETC (another set of houserules for play).

 Crimson wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

You haven't explained why.

I has been explained, you just have a comprehension problem.

You have a critical thinking problem.

All you've explained so far is why you believe games workshop couldn't possibly be balancing with ITC in mind. But they are, and ITC is balancing based on GW's game design, and you insist this can't possibly result in a balance game, so you really need to explain why.

 Blood Hawk wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Different game scenarios for eternal war missions will favor certain armies as well. Terrain types will also favor certain armies. Like vs tau or IF when facing opponents on heavily terrained boards....it is basically an automatic loss. Heavy LOS blocking vs AM spamming manicores and basilisks...auto lose. There is a lot going into it.

Nothing of this contradicts ITC skewing the results. The game cannot be balance based on someone's houserules, how bloody hard can this be to understand!

its difficult to understand because you havent explained why not.

Why not?

Because they are house rules that most people don't use?
Do we need another reason?

Yes, because saying "it cannot be balanced because I don't like it", isn't actually a reason, it just highlights your personal bias in the matter.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
All you've explained so far is why you believe games workshop couldn't possibly be balancing with ITC in mind. But they are, and ITC is balancing based on GW's game design, and you insist this can't possibly result in a balance game, so you really need to explain why.

They can either balance it for their own missions or for the ITC missions. They're too different that they could effectively do them both, at leas to the degree tournament players want. And balancing the game for missions they do not themselves control, would be insane. It would mean poorer balance for missions GW sells people for real money, and it would mean that at any moment ITC can issue a new set of houserules and all GW's work goes out of the window anyway.

Cornishman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Its been covered, but ITC is a massive skew on the base game, and I think this is becoming more and more obvious.

The data presented throughout this thread strongly suggests that this is not true in the slightest.

.

Surely the dramatically different performance of many sub-factions or factions in ITC and non-ITC tournements is a clear indication that a (sub-)factions armies effectiveness may be heavily dependent on whether it is operating in ITC environment or not?

Iron Hands and Custom Craftworlds still dominate. Everyone else is just fighting over scraps.

 Crimson wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
All you've explained so far is why you believe games workshop couldn't possibly be balancing with ITC in mind. But they are, and ITC is balancing based on GW's game design, and you insist this can't possibly result in a balance game, so you really need to explain why.

They can either balance it for their own missions or for the ITC missions. They're too different that they could effectively do them both, at leas to the degree tournament players want. And balancing the game for missions they do not themselves control, would be insane. It would mean poorer balance for missions GW sells people for real money, and it would mean that at any moment ITC can issue a new set of houserules and all GW's work goes out of the window anyway.

Their missions had been an unbalanced, swingy, non-manipulable RNG fest, that you could not effectively balance a game with as many variables as 40k has in regards to. That's why ITC missions exist in the first place. Just making balanced armies is enough for ITC armies to function. There was no balance applied towards GW''s own rules for competitive play, the majority of their rules are clearly marked at casual players, and thus remained unbalanced. The only stylee play that they attempted to apply any balance towards was for competitive play, for which their missions were not intended for and remained completely unbalanced in relation to and did not work for this setting, so it makes sense that balancing around ITC results and hiring ITC staff for the playtest team, was the route that they did choose. Which they objectively did, that's not really an opinion, it's a fact, we know that this happened. How much they actually listened to their balance team is another question, as the sales department comes first, but you know.



Why is it so difficult for you guys to separate your personal bias from your arguments? For what it's worth, I'm massive supporter of the new CA missions. I've been encouraging everywhere I know to pick them up, made multiple large posts promoting them on Reddit, and literally bought a copy of CA for my FLGS to encourage people here to make CA missions the current standard. I'm a big fan of them and hope that ITC missions die.

On Chapter Tactics they've defended their place in the past by stating that they only intend to fill a gap between GW's rules writing and competitive play, that definitely did exist in the past with GW's awful missions. But now I think that's no longer the case and we have official missions that serve that role, so hopefully they stay true to their claim and support that. There's no reason that ITC can't just keep their scoreboard and tournament support running without needing their official missions to be pushed.

So yeah, I'm pretty anti-ITC. But this concept that ITC couldn't possibly be better for balance because "it's homebrew rules!" is just absurdity that needs a better explanation. The difference between ITC missions and the new CA missions is like the least relevant factor towards the outcome of games right now while we have factions like SM going dumb out here. They aren't balanced for any sort of missions, they are just unbalanced, so let's stop pretending that homebrew rules are somehow holding back balance or responsible for that travesty.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
All you've explained so far is why you believe games workshop couldn't possibly be balancing with ITC in mind. But they are, and ITC is balancing based on GW's game design, and you insist this can't possibly result in a balance game, so you really need to explain why.

They can either balance it for their own missions or for the ITC missions. They're too different that they could effectively do them both, at leas to the degree tournament players want. And balancing the game for missions they do not themselves control, would be insane. It would mean poorer balance for missions GW sells people for real money, and it would mean that at any moment ITC can issue a new set of houserules and all GW's work goes out of the window anyway.

Their missions had been an unbalanced, swingy, non-manipulable RNG fest, that you could not effectively balance a game with as many variables as 40k has in regards to. That's why ITC missions exist in the first place. Just making balanced armies is enough for ITC armies to function. There was no balance applied towards GW''s own rules for competitive play, the majority of their rules are clearly marked at casual players, and thus remained unbalanced. The only stylee play that they attempted to apply any balance towards was for competitive play, for which their missions were not intended for and remained completely unbalanced in relation to and did not work for this setting, so it makes sense that balancing around ITC results and hiring ITC staff for the playtest team, was the route that they did choose. Which they objectively did, that's not really an opinion, it's a fact, we know that this happened. How much they actually listened to their balance team is another question, as the sales department comes first, but you know.



Why is it so difficult for you guys to separate your personal bias from your arguments? For what it's worth, I'm massive supporter of the new CA missions. I've been encouraging everywhere I know to pick them up, made multiple large posts promoting them on Reddit, and literally bought a copy of CA for my FLGS to encourage people here to make CA missions the current standard. I'm a big fan of them and hope that ITC missions die.

On Chapter Tactics they've defended their place in the past by stating that they only intend to fill a gap between GW's rules writing and competitive play, that definitely did exist in the past with GW's awful missions. But now I think that's no longer the case and we have official missions that serve that role, so hopefully they stay true to their claim and support that. There's no reason that ITC can't just keep their scoreboard and tournament support running without needing their official missions to be pushed.

The funny thing is they do exactly this for AOS. They don't change missions, it's "Use the General's Handbook". THey should have done the same thing for 40k from the first Chapter Approved.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

Their missions had been an unbalanced, swingy, non-manipulable RNG fest, that you could not effectively balance a game with as many variables as 40k has in regards to. That's why ITC missions exist in the first place. Just making balanced armies is enough for ITC armies to function. There was no balance applied towards GW''s own rules for competitive play, the majority of their rules are clearly marked at casual players, and thus remained unbalanced. The only stylee play that they attempted to apply any balance towards was for competitive play, for which their missions were not intended for and remained completely unbalanced in relation to and did not work for this setting, so it makes sense that balancing around ITC results and hiring ITC staff for the playtest team, was the route that they did choose. Which they objectively did, that's not really an opinion, it's a fact, we know that this happened. How much they actually listened to their balance team is another question, as the sales department comes first, but you know.

Yes, there are ITC people in the playtest team. If they want experienced gamers from the USA, that is pretty much what happens.

Why is it so difficult for you guys to separate your personal bias from your arguments? For what it's worth, I'm massive supporter of the new CA missions. I've been encouraging everywhere I know to pick them up, made multiple large posts promoting them on Reddit, and literally bought a copy of CA for my FLGS to encourage people here to make CA missions the current standard. I'm a big fan of them and hope that ITC missions die.

On Chapter Tactics they've defended their place in the past by stating that they only intend to fill a gap between GW's rules writing and competitive play, that definitely did exist in the past with GW's awful missions. But now I think that's no longer the case and we have official missions that serve that role, so hopefully they stay true to their claim and support that. There's no reason that ITC can't just keep their scoreboard and tournament support running without needing their official missions to be pushed.

So yeah, I'm pretty anti-ITC. But this concept that ITC couldn't possibly be better for balance because "it's homebrew rules!" is just absurdity that needs a better explanation. The difference between ITC missions and the new CA missions is like the least relevant factor towards the outcome of games right now while we have factions like SM going dumb out here. They aren't balanced for any sort of missions, they are just unbalanced, so let's stop pretending that homebrew rules are somehow holding back balance or responsible for that travesty.

You agree with me on what should happen. And I have never said that ITC missions are badly balanced, I say they're differently balanced! But the official missions should be the benchmark. If they're bad, GW should release better ones, and they have.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:
The funny thing is they do exactly this for AOS. They don't change missions, it's "Use the General's Handbook". THey should have done the same thing for 40k from the first Chapter Approved.

Indeed.

I still don't think GW missions are good enough, though. What about that point?

Martel732 wrote:
I still don't think GW missions are good enough, though. What about that point?

Because neither is ITC, you just like being able to pick and choose your secondaries so you can avoid part of the game.

What part of the game? And I like to choose things whenever possible instead of randomizing.

Martel732 wrote:
I still don't think GW missions are good enough, though. What about that point?

Well if that was the general consensus, then they would need to do better in the next CA. And they would need playtest and tournament data to support that. Though because this is you, I am afraid it might be impossible for them to meet your expectations.

Wayniac wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I still don't think GW missions are good enough, though. What about that point?

Because neither is ITC, you just like being able to pick and choose your secondaries so you can avoid part of the game.

You mean like how you can pick and choose your maelstrom deck now and avoid part of the game?

Scotsman is the only person who had a legitimate argument against ITC's learning curve, but the rest of these are just baseless accusations not supported by data.

Martel732 wrote:
What part of the game? And I like to choose things whenever possible instead of randomizing.

Yeah, well maybe you should next skip the die rolls too. Perhaps even the game altogether. Just create a math formula which compares lists and tells which one wins.

 Crimson wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

Their missions had been an unbalanced, swingy, non-manipulable RNG fest, that you could not effectively balance a game with as many variables as 40k has in regards to. That's why ITC missions exist in the first place. Just making balanced armies is enough for ITC armies to function. There was no balance applied towards GW''s own rules for competitive play, the majority of their rules are clearly marked at casual players, and thus remained unbalanced. The only stylee play that they attempted to apply any balance towards was for competitive play, for which their missions were not intended for and remained completely unbalanced in relation to and did not work for this setting, so it makes sense that balancing around ITC results and hiring ITC staff for the playtest team, was the route that they did choose. Which they objectively did, that's not really an opinion, it's a fact, we know that this happened. How much they actually listened to their balance team is another question, as the sales department comes first, but you know.

Yes, there are ITC people in the playtest team. If they want experienced gamers from the USA, that is pretty much what happens.

That's not even remotely true. The ITC staff had like a single top player inside of it, being Geoff Robinson (RIP). Basically any other top player in the game would not have any other involvement in writing the ITC rules. When they selected multiple people from that staff to be employees, it tells you that this is specifically what they were looking for.

 Crimson wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I still don't think GW missions are good enough, though. What about that point?

Well if that was the general consensus, then they would need to do better in the next CA. And they would need playtest and tournament data to support that. Though because this is you, I am afraid it might be impossible for them to meet your expectations.

Or just let ITC handle it because GW can't write or help themselves when it comes to loopholes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
What part of the game? And I like to choose things whenever possible instead of randomizing.

Yeah, well maybe you should next skip the die rolls too. Perhaps even the game altogether. Just create a math formula which compares lists and tells which one wins.

A bit of a slippery slope there, huh?

 Daedalus81 wrote:
You can easily build a durable army that is capable of taking advantage of non-killing based secondaries.

I can't agree I'm afraid.

Of these, Recon is probably the most common - and depending on your army, sure. To some extent I guess all factions (and arguably all armies) can have a crack at this but yeah, some have it easier than others.

But the rest?
I feel Behind Enemy Lines is a trap that you are only getting if you are heavily winning the combat war (at which point you could have taken almost anything that isn't physically impossible to score.)
Ditto but even more on Ground Control (hope you have the units left and the can scatter them around the table before the end of the game - obviously doable if its a walkover, not so much if it isn't.)
King of the Hill is clearly meant to be a sort of alternative take on Recon, but despite notionally requiring 2 units rather than 4, the additional limiting factors make it more annoying to achieve. If you can do this, you could have got Recon... so take that instead? You could go for both, but then you are getting really fiddly on which units need to go where, and your opponent can probably mess with you.
Its a cliche to say Engineers is "hide in a magic box, hope they don't have ignore LOS shooting" - but not by much. If you don't have resilient troops - and many factions don't really - this is a liability you can lose early on (say turn 3) for a fairly small amount of aggression if you can't hide, and against some factions even if you can.

I don't really get Martel's point that "soft spammable units should have a downside". They typically do anyway - as stratagems and buffs often effect units, the bigger the unit the bigger the multiplier. This is to some extent (by accident by design) mitigated by morale, depending on unit/faction.

ITC skews the meta because you have to build lists with an eye to scoring and denying secondaries that do not exist in the base game. I don't really see how this can be argued as inconsequential.
Its undoubtedly true that units which are good in ITC tend to be good in the base game, because they are mathematically superior at doing damage or taking damage (or often both) to other options, but that doesn't remove the above fact. You shouldn't (IMO anyway) look at a list and go "hmm, not sure I should take X or Y, because its an easy gangbusters (etc) for my opponent". That unit may have problems anyway - but they are different problems. This exacerbates faction imbalance.

"They typically do anyway - as stratagems and buffs often effect units, the bigger the unit the bigger the multiplier."

That's not really enough in my experience. ITC evidently feels the same. 150 guardsmen still autowin vs BA in CA 2019.

Tyel wrote:

Its undoubtedly true that units which are good in ITC tend to be good in the base game, because they are mathematically superior at doing damage or taking damage (or often both) to other options, but that doesn't remove the above fact. You shouldn't (IMO anyway) look at a list and go "hmm, not sure I should take X or Y, because its an easy gangbusters (etc) for my opponent". That unit may have problems anyway - but they are different problems. This exacerbates faction imbalance.

This never stopped bullgryns, or large amounts of IS, or many other "vulnerable scoring" units even after they introduced fixes for the "9 man" and so on. The idea that people create these lists that are so impossible to score secondaries against as well as strong as top lists is a bit of a canard.

Now, TJ Lannigan runs Magnus, DPs, PBCs, and PBs. When he faces marines he puts all his troops into deepstrike, because how do you easily score kills against a bunch of T8 5+++ models with S7 or worse shooting? Is that not the sort of intelligent play we would want out of game?

You could make the case that IS are in decline, because marine snipers can remove CCs with ease, but AM have Ogryn Bodyguards, so that's not the whole story there (more that AM players are possibly fleeing to Marines).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

That's not really enough in my experience. ITC evidently feels the same. 150 guardsmen still autowin vs BA in CA 2019.

Do BA not have Eliminators? I literally cannot conceive how BA can't surmount IS spam or how even such a list can survive the very strong horde removal of centurions from other lists.