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.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 DominayTrix wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Someone please explain this idea that having more psychic powers/warlord traits/relics than someone else is inherently broken from a game-balance perspective.

An extreme example:

You have 48 different stratagems, 24 warlord traits, and 12 relics.

I have 6 stratagems, 3 warlord traits, and 1 relic.

My relic says that "When a model in your army destroys an enemy model, you win the game". How much influence is the fact that you have eight times as many stratagems as I going to have?

Realistically most armies only use a handful of the strategems, WL traits, and relic choices available to them since a significant chunk will be bad or not relevant so let's assume 25% of each are actually usable. They have 12 strategems, 6 warlord traits and 3 relics to choose from and build a list around. You have 2 strategems, 1 warlord trait and maybe a useful relic to build with. Your opponent is more likely to be able to assemble a strong synergistic list than you are. If you want to test this, try playing an army that didn't have a codex yet using only the strategems, WL traits, and relic available in CA 2017 against armies with access to their full codex. Its possible, but it will be a lot harder and you will notice that your opponent will more frequently have something to use CP on than you do.

Now let's test this with an extreme example that actually involves playing out the game since an instant "I win, the game is over" doesn't actually test anything. Using only the CA 2017 options or a non-marine codex, play against a marine list that is allowed to use every single supplement/PA strategem, WL trait, and relic available as if they were every chapter at the same time, but still only using units from 1 chapter. Iron Hands smash captains, overwatch that hits on 5+ and can use the ultramarine bootleg FTGG, self sacrifice iron hand intercessors protecting your choice of aggressors/centurions of any flavor that were infiltrated into position via raven guard strats. Even if its only 1 or 2 extra strategems total from each supplement being used, you can see how broken combos start to really pile on.

But, again, that is due to the quality of the stratagems, not the quantity. The CA2017 options were pretty poor, whereas some of the stratagems in Codex: Space Marines are really good. Take Imperial Guard pre-Vigilus as an example. They have a bunch of stratagems that aren't all that great. A single powerful stratagem on its own can warp the game much harder than a billion useless ones.

When I play choas 100% of my stratagem points are paid into units shooting twice with +1 to wound and command rerolls on failed spells and damage. I honestly don't even need to know what the other stratagems do (sometimes ill do +1 attack for a black legion unit). Nothing comes close to how effective these stratagems are. For marines too. You ether take a special unit like grav devs/cents and utilize the "use this stratagem for grav cannons stratagem" or you don't use grav cannons or the stratagem. 1/2 damage for dreads is literally the only straagem outside of warlord trait and relic ones that I use with any regularity. Out of 48 stratems lol. Most stratagems are cookie cutter for a particular unit. Number of stratagems also has nothing to do with quality. For example the AD mech servitor maniple (or whatever the one that buffs destroyers is) Literally all those stratagems are better than anything in the admech codex if you build your army around it.

In all truthfulness - space marine stratagems are middle of the ground. Choas and imperial knights have the best stratagems IMO. Reasoning - IK stratagems give you the most powerful relic weapons in the game...do stuff like buff 500 point models/ bring 500-600 point modles back to life. (also look at all the knight lists running tyranis these days....uh OFC resurrecting knights and fighting at full power next urn is OP AF) Plus the Slannesh (OMG it might as well have 0 requirements) shoot twice with any infantry unit and +1 to wound for 3 CP...(clearly the best stratagem combo in the whole game (also can fight twice with +1 to wound for the the same CP). For some reason it costs me 2 CP to shoot twice with a 10 man intercessor squad with no ability to get +1 to wound...Can't use it on dev cents or dev squads...has to be intercessors. I would trade all my stragems for the ability to shoot twice at +1 to wound with a unit for marines in a heartbeat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

bananathug wrote:

Yoyoyo wrote:

bananathug wrote:
The fact that a lot of you don't understand how strong guard shooting/board presence is just means you have never played against someone like Brandon Grant who leverages the footprint and speed of guard units to dictate where you can land, what you can fight while controlling the initiative of the first turn or two to put you on the back foot and make your decisions that much harder for you. Shield drones do a very similar thing for Richard Siegler with the added problem that you can't wrap them and the make his shooting pretty much invincible until turn 3 (I've played both, they are way better than I am and could probably beat me with grey knights but whatever).

These are good points but where do we put skill in this equation? People who have a better understanding of the game will be at an advantage no matter what army they play.

My point is that marines 2.0 are so OP that they take skill out of the game. Maybe not totally but to the point where only a very large skill gap has any impact on the outcome of the game (like those guys vs me ). And that's when two armies are designed to be as cutthroat as possible, if both sides are not squeezing the most efficiencies out of their lists the imbalances are such that skill (or call it in game decisions) hardly impacts the outcome at all (a problem a lot of people have with a lot of IH lists).

When armies are so imbalanced AND you have such bad internal balance, you have a situation where a reasonably constructed army (not 100 assault marines) can have a nearly impossible matchup vs a different reasonably constructed army (IF vs GSC). This is more of a problem for pick-up games (not cutthroat tourny list or narrative lists between friends) but I think it turns a lot of people off to the game and creates a lot of feels bad moments. Feeling like you were going to lose regardless of your decisions is one of the most frustrating experiences I've had on the table top (my space wolves vs nu-marines) and is an issue that GW should balance around. The extreme ends will figure themselves out but the middle is kind of at the mercy of GW.

I think it is time you realize the skill in this game is mostly list building and rolling the dice to go first. There are skills like maximizing tie up for assault and just knowing how all the rules work and not making mistakes but the skill ceiling is very low with a reasonably high skill floor.

Build army correctly
Deploy army correctly
Minimize damage from enemy assaults
Don't forget to shoot your units at the right targets

You are now a pro player. It also REALLY helps when you roll way above average.

This has nothing to do with what army you play.

You are now a pro player.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 DominayTrix wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Someone please explain this idea that having more psychic powers/warlord traits/relics than someone else is inherently broken from a game-balance perspective.

An extreme example:

You have 48 different stratagems, 24 warlord traits, and 12 relics.

I have 6 stratagems, 3 warlord traits, and 1 relic.

My relic says that "When a model in your army destroys an enemy model, you win the game". How much influence is the fact that you have eight times as many stratagems as I going to have?

Realistically most armies only use a handful of the strategems, WL traits, and relic choices available to them since a significant chunk will be bad or not relevant so let's assume 25% of each are actually usable. They have 12 strategems, 6 warlord traits and 3 relics to choose from and build a list around. You have 2 strategems, 1 warlord trait and maybe a useful relic to build with. Your opponent is more likely to be able to assemble a strong synergistic list than you are. If you want to test this, try playing an army that didn't have a codex yet using only the strategems, WL traits, and relic available in CA 2017 against armies with access to their full codex. Its possible, but it will be a lot harder and you will notice that your opponent will more frequently have something to use CP on than you do.

Now let's test this with an extreme example that actually involves playing out the game since an instant "I win, the game is over" doesn't actually test anything. Using only the CA 2017 options or a non-marine codex, play against a marine list that is allowed to use every single supplement/PA strategem, WL trait, and relic available as if they were every chapter at the same time, but still only using units from 1 chapter. Iron Hands smash captains, overwatch that hits on 5+ and can use the ultramarine bootleg FTGG, self sacrifice iron hand intercessors protecting your choice of aggressors/centurions of any flavor that were infiltrated into position via raven guard strats. Even if its only 1 or 2 extra strategems total from each supplement being used, you can see how broken combos start to really pile on.

But, again, that is due to the quality of the stratagems, not the quantity. The CA2017 options were pretty poor, whereas some of the stratagems in Codex: Space Marines are really good. Take Imperial Guard pre-Vigilus as an example. They have a bunch of stratagems that aren't all that great. A single powerful stratagem on its own can warp the game much harder than a billion useless ones.

Quantity is what leads to quality. Notice how I said the vast majority were useless and MAYBE 25% will get used. The more options available the more likely there are going to be good ones. The more good ones available the better the combinations get. Pre-Vigilus guard are actually a fantastic way of proving this. They had a bunch of garbage strategems, but none of that matters because they had Kurov's Aquila and Grand Strategist. You take the loyal 32 for your cp farm and then proceed to fill the rest of the list with your choice of soup while never having to touch a single guard strategem. Every time a different piece was nerfed the list would simply swap out the pieces for the most efficient one. Didn't matter if it was a crucial strategem nerfed, point costs adjusted, or anything else. As long as there was a huge pile of options then it was simply a matter of time before the new netlist was found. Notice marines had to have their special snowflake doctrines to keep them from souping. They would absolutely take loyal 32 if they could keep doctrines.

Klickor wrote:
A pure codex astartes list can,only counting supplements and not vigilus or PA, have 80 or so stratagems, choose between 30 warlord traits, 36 psychic powers and more relics than i care to count and use up to 7 chapter tactics across their 3 detachments each gaining what is most suitable for the units inside it. Sure they lose the super doctrine but its not like every option available is bad. Even if most of the options arent that good its hard for even GW to make all of them bad and even though quite a few are situational with so many available you will propably have something good for each situation.

And quite a few relics, traits and stratagems have already been nerfed. IH, RG and Salamanders have all had some nerfs to these options but they still have many powerful left.

One of the real strength of all these options are that you dont have to commit many of them until you actually see your opponents list and what mission you are playing. Might not matter if you only have 2 relevant warlord traits but for marines who can get a warlord trait extra on a non warlord mdoel and 2, from a host of good ones, on the warlord it can definetly change things. Same with the librarians and the chaplains.

Lets say you have a RG detachment and have an infantry squad (that isnt centurions since if it were you would do it anyway) you usally put in reserve but against certain lists you might want to deploy them forward, then you can use honor the chappter on a hq and Master of Ambush that unit instead. But against close combat armies you keep it in reserve instead and use the stratagem.

You can do lots of things like that with astartes soup and its hard for other players to know what can be done or not since the options for marines are so insanely many that you can surprise people and get an advantage just because of that.

Maybe. You don't get access to nearly that much stuff. Marine players are not souping much. CP is an upper limit as well, but look at this list...

These are the top 25 most common detachment configs Sep though Dec (all types) with win rate and frequency of appearance. Pick out the souped marines and their performance. There are clearly factions that don't care about super docs and push through in other areas and are apparently very successful - more than Iron Hands.

Are they flukes? Or hitting the meta hard?

 Xenomancers wrote:
It also REALLY helps when you roll way above average.

You are now a pro player.

That's your argument?

Nobody in any kind of probability-based activity is going to count on "rolling well".

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Klickor wrote:
A pure codex astartes list can,only counting supplements and not vigilus or PA, have 80 or so stratagems, choose between 30 warlord traits, 36 psychic powers and more relics than i care to count and use up to 7 chapter tactics across their 3 detachments each gaining what is most suitable for the units inside it. Sure they lose the super doctrine but its not like every option available is bad. Even if most of the options arent that good its hard for even GW to make all of them bad and even though quite a few are situational with so many available you will propably have something good for each situation.

And quite a few relics, traits and stratagems have already been nerfed. IH, RG and Salamanders have all had some nerfs to these options but they still have many powerful left.

One of the real strength of all these options are that you dont have to commit many of them until you actually see your opponents list and what mission you are playing. Might not matter if you only have 2 relevant warlord traits but for marines who can get a warlord trait extra on a non warlord mdoel and 2, from a host of good ones, on the warlord it can definetly change things. Same with the librarians and the chaplains.

Lets say you have a RG detachment and have an infantry squad (that isnt centurions since if it were you would do it anyway) you usally put in reserve but against certain lists you might want to deploy them forward, then you can use honor the chappter on a hq and Master of Ambush that unit instead. But against close combat armies you keep it in reserve instead and use the stratagem.

You can do lots of things like that with astartes soup and its hard for other players to know what can be done or not since the options for marines are so insanely many that you can surprise people and get an advantage just because of that.

Maybe. You don't get access to nearly that much stuff. Marine players are not souping much. CP is an upper limit as well, but look at this list...

These are the top 25 most common detachment configs Sep though Dec (all types) with win rate and frequency of appearance. Pick out the souped marines and their performance. There are clearly factions that don't care about super docs and push through in other areas and are apparently very successful - more than Iron Hands.

Are they flukes? Or hitting the meta hard?

I was mostly trying to say quantity is a quality on its own and would propably be used more if it werent the case that IH and IF super doctrines are both busted. But even if they were nerfed you wouldnt lose way too much since instead of going strong on mono IH/IF you could now soup in other chapters and exchange pure power for more flexibility and still stay very strong but not just as strong.

Like centurions in RG dont care about doctrines and artillery in IF mostly care about the -1ap and no cover bonuses and dont lose much by souping together. Same with white scars or blood angels mostly since their doctrines are too slow to really build around. These would probably see more play if the super doctrines got nerfed. I wish our IF player at the club who dont play in tournaments would paint up some TFCs so I could borrow them for the events and play mostly BA with an IF spearhead and a RG/UM successor for my 3 detachments. Way stronger than pure BA I think.

An Actual Englishman wrote:

Spoiler:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I'd nitpick and say that the likelihood of having some strong strats doesn't make having more OP, but overall your explanation is rather reasonable. There's also an argument to be made that the variety of stratagems only applies on a listbuilding level, in that once you see what you're facing you'd be able to know what to do to fight that particular variation. Still, having an advantage in the list-building stage is obviously good.

It's not guaranteed that a faction with more stuff gets the better stuff for sure, just much more likely. Exponentially so when we imagine different combinations that can be combined to create uber combos. The more combos you can make, the more chance some of them are busted.

Cornishman wrote:

Whilst I can see where you are coming from with more options = higher performance. This doesn't automatically make it the case, just look at TV, lots and lots and lots of channels, mostly filled with nothing worth watching.

Isn't being able to provide a variety of lists a sign of something that is (internally) balanced? That there isn't a single optimium solution?

Also as far as not knowing what kind of list you are going to face and thus not knowing how to counter them, how does having different flavours of marines differ from there being entirely different armys... Afterall there are Daemons, Guard, Knights, Nids, Eldar, Ad-Mec, Orks.....

Indeed, it's not an automatic thing. That said the TV comparison isn't that useful. If we imagine a game, say chess for ease of discussion, where one player can use only 2 moves and the other player has 20 different moves to choose from, it is obvious that the player with more options is at a huge advantage. Assuming all stratagems, relics, WL traits etc are equal in their worth - the more options the better.

List variety does indeed mean great internal balance. It's just a shame when that internal balance comes at the cost of every other codex in the game.

Your not comparing apples and apples in your last sentence. Yes there are Orks, Ad Mech, GSC, Nids, Eldar etc. The "problem" we are discussing here is that one faction (Codex Marines) has 3-5 times the number of options than any other faction. This is one of the reasons (not the only one) Codex Marines are so strong competitively. For parity my Evil Sunz Orks (that is to say, my 'Chapter' of Orks) would have the same number of options as Raven Guard, IH etc. I have one unique relic, one unique WL trait and one unique Stratagem. How many do RG, IH, UM have? It's a huge discrepancy. For some reason some people seem to think this is OK too. My sub faction is less important and therefore less worthy of the number of rules interactions as the Codex Marines sub factions. This is bogus

.

But Astartes 'As a Faction' doesn't seem to be doing that well. I don't seem Black Templars nor Salamanders particularily winning events (or even in the Top 10). Sure some Chapters (and custom successors) are, but not all. Thus the issue would seem to be with particular sub-faction rather than with everything and anything out of C:SM.

Would agree that from the greater hobby perspective a single faction getting such love does strike rather bad favouritism. However greater choice of WL Trait, powers and Strategems are soo powerful does this mean following PA: Faith and Fury C:CSM will be zooming up the ratings? After all each of the legions was a choice of WL Trait and a page Strategems. If breadth of options is so valueable then no codex somes close to C:SM in terms of units, the V2 codex didn't change this, yet V1 C:SM wasn't exactly all conquering....

Martel732 wrote:

Spoiler:

Cornishman wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
No, they're not better. 1st floor LoS blockers are critical.

Not the 'base' rules, as in the rules for GW GT which can be found Here

Never played a GW GT, but these rules look okay. But the scoring is still very meh if they are just using CA missions.

Yoyoyo wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
It also REALLY helps when you roll way above average.

You are now a pro player.

That's your argument?

Nobody in any kind of probability-based activity is going to count on "rolling well".

Winning a tournament in a dice game is going to require a little luck is what I am saying. If your opponent rolls insane numbers on 6+ FNP. and you fail to wound a lot more than you should you will lose the game. No amount of tactics is going to save you there. Anything can happen and sure you should plan for that. Having a good sense of probability is essential for this game...but that is not skill...it is basically something anyone which a high-school education should have because statistics and algebra are required.

Selfcontrol wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

Selfcontrol wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Why are people discussing BA specifically in this thread? Go to a tactica discussion if you want ideas on how to beat hordes with BA. Let's also not disregard the fact that Bloody Baals has released relatively recently and has had no chance to impact the competitive meta.

I'm also confused why I've just read pages and pages of ITC vs GW mission set discussion too. The reason GW absolutely should and do balance around the ITC mission set is quite simple - it is by far the most popular way to play 40k competitively. Whether you think it's the best way to play is irrelevant.

It's like people forget that some of the largest events around the globe have their own, specific rule set too. Many massive events don't use pure ITC or pure GW rules, they use a mix and match approach.

And just so we're all on the same page here, regardless of what mission set you play, certain factions are still way over/under performing. Generally the data of which factions perform well and which perform poorly correlate across all mission sets with a few outliers - Tyranids the most common.

Finally - do bear in mind that almost all the detailed statistical analysis we have in this thread relates to one month. The quietest competitive 40k month with the least games played where the stakes are at their lowest. I'd suggest the data sample in and of itself isn't the most useful for any balance discussion.

ITC doesn't exist in my country and in pretty much all Europe.

Last time I heard, the US were not the center of the world.

Thanks, but no thanks.

while ITC is barely a thing in Australia too... I'm still inclined to agree with Englishman. Whats the point in attempting to balance around the RNG of rulebook missions?[u] You cannot really. May as well balance around the working missions. Hopefully now that they have a set of their own, thats what they do. But really GW's balance is so wack I kinda doubt they approach any of it from the perspective of "what missions are we playing".

No one said the game should be balanced around the rulebook missions.

In my country, no competitive tournament uses rulebook missions. They all use CA missions.

CA is a rulebook my friend. I'm referring to GW official missions pre-CA19, not exclusively Big RuleBook missions

Klickor wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Klickor wrote:
A pure codex astartes list can,only counting supplements and not vigilus or PA, have 80 or so stratagems, choose between 30 warlord traits, 36 psychic powers and more relics than i care to count and use up to 7 chapter tactics across their 3 detachments each gaining what is most suitable for the units inside it. Sure they lose the super doctrine but its not like every option available is bad. Even if most of the options arent that good its hard for even GW to make all of them bad and even though quite a few are situational with so many available you will propably have something good for each situation.

And quite a few relics, traits and stratagems have already been nerfed. IH, RG and Salamanders have all had some nerfs to these options but they still have many powerful left.

One of the real strength of all these options are that you dont have to commit many of them until you actually see your opponents list and what mission you are playing. Might not matter if you only have 2 relevant warlord traits but for marines who can get a warlord trait extra on a non warlord mdoel and 2, from a host of good ones, on the warlord it can definetly change things. Same with the librarians and the chaplains.

Lets say you have a RG detachment and have an infantry squad (that isnt centurions since if it were you would do it anyway) you usally put in reserve but against certain lists you might want to deploy them forward, then you can use honor the chappter on a hq and Master of Ambush that unit instead. But against close combat armies you keep it in reserve instead and use the stratagem.

You can do lots of things like that with astartes soup and its hard for other players to know what can be done or not since the options for marines are so insanely many that you can surprise people and get an advantage just because of that.

Maybe. You don't get access to nearly that much stuff. Marine players are not souping much. CP is an upper limit as well, but look at this list...

These are the top 25 most common detachment configs Sep though Dec (all types) with win rate and frequency of appearance. Pick out the souped marines and their performance. There are clearly factions that don't care about super docs and push through in other areas and are apparently very successful - more than Iron Hands.

Are they flukes? Or hitting the meta hard?

I was mostly trying to say quantity is a quality on its own and would propably be used more if it werent the case that IH and IF super doctrines are both busted. But even if they were nerfed you wouldnt lose way too much since instead of going strong on mono IH/IF you could now soup in other chapters and exchange pure power for more flexibility and still stay very strong but not just as strong.

Like centurions in RG dont care about doctrines and artillery in IF mostly care about the -1ap and no cover bonuses and dont lose much by souping together. Same with white scars or blood angels mostly since their doctrines are too slow to really build around. These would probably see more play if the super doctrines got nerfed. I wish our IF player at the club who dont play in tournaments would paint up some TFCs so I could borrow them for the events and play mostly BA with an IF spearhead and a RG/UM successor for my 3 detachments. Way stronger than pure BA I think.

Nah...Cents really like having tactical doctrine. Cents dont care though because being in possition automatic turn 1 for the cost of a warlord trait instead of a 300 point POS LR or storm raven is straight up broken. The WL trait needs to be nerfed shoving 6 assault cents with +3 inch range and +2 to charge into peoples armies is not balanced. It probably should just be changed to a pregame scout move or just deep strike the warlord turn 1. Honestly I'd be happy with every method of turn 1 deep strike being entirely removed. Then maybe a 70 point drop pod might have some value (still probably not - but it would be worth considering).

If you look close - Ultrmarines are ether the first or second highest played marine faction with a sub 50% WR....they have access to lots of WL traits and relics. Ultras can actually take 3 WL trait because ultras have an additional warlord trait stratagem that must be used on Ultramarines. It is pretty clear...though it might be an option you envy. Having all these WL traits is not auto win. It is literally just a few issue that make marines so opressive.
Ironhands super doctrine
IF loaded CT and superdoctrine
RG deepstrike warlord trait

WS do pretty well with near a 55% WR but I am not really sure what is going on there - kind of ignorant to how people build a WS list to be honest.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Having a good sense of probability is essential for this game...but that is not skill...

So high-level poker doesn't take skill either? Come on. It's not chess perhaps, but understanding and managing probability is a skill in itself and it's absolutely respected by most people.

Yeah that's just Xenomancers further revealing his lack of competitive understanding. Understanding probability is one thing, this game is knowing about when to take which risks and when not to, positioning, comprehensive list-building (which doesn't mean "copying what someone else better than you is running"), and adapting it all to the mission and the flow of the game. Becoming a top player by "taking a good list, following simple steps and rolling well" is just such a tertiary understanding of the game that if you feel this way, you just do not understand competitive 40k enough to speak on it.

Yoyoyo wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Having a good sense of probability is essential for this game...but that is not skill...

So high-level poker doesn't take skill either? Come on. It's not chess perhaps, but understanding and managing probability is a skill in itself and it's absolutely respected by most people.

High level poker certainly requires skill. It's not about statistics at that point though. At that point you are talking about mind reading and controlling your own tells. Reading betting patterns. Nothing in 40k comes even remotely close to anything like that. There is some value in being unpredictable but objectives kind of dictate your actions. 40k armies almost drive themselves.

There was Top 8 LVO list with 650pts in summoning. There's some big exceptions to the model you're laying out.

Klickor wrote:


I was mostly trying to say quantity is a quality on its own and would propably be used more if it werent the case that IH and IF super doctrines are both busted. But even if they were nerfed you wouldnt lose way too much since instead of going strong on mono IH/IF you could now soup in other chapters and exchange pure power for more flexibility and still stay very strong but not just as strong.

Like centurions in RG dont care about doctrines and artillery in IF mostly care about the -1ap and no cover bonuses and dont lose much by souping together. Same with white scars or blood angels mostly since their doctrines are too slow to really build around. These would probably see more play if the super doctrines got nerfed. I wish our IF player at the club who dont play in tournaments would paint up some TFCs so I could borrow them for the events and play mostly BA with an IF spearhead and a RG/UM successor for my 3 detachments. Way stronger than pure BA I think.

There is that WS/WS/IH detachment type that is 78%. That's really strong especially when they're sacrificing IH docs already.

It was used in these tournaments:
Atlanta Open,Crucible 8,Socal Open,Coastal Assault,Merry Slaaneshmas,Geekfest,Glasshammer Open,Socal Open,Element Games Grand Slam

By these people:
John Lennon,John Lennon,John Lennon,Lee Harris,Matthew Riley,Nathan Chow,Patrick Fearis,Ruben Fernandez,Tim Smith

I looked up John Lennon at Atlanta Open and got this:

WWWWLW

WS

Cpt JP/SS
Cpt Bike
3x5 Scouts
//Basically just CP

WS

Cpt JP/TH/SS
Librarian
3x5 ABR Intercessors / CS Sarge
2x6 Assault Cents

IH Successor (Master Artisan / Stealthy)

Chaplain w/ +1 to hit
3x3 Eliminators
Mortis TLC
2 TFC

645 points of Iron Hands. Those IH get counted as 5-1 even though they pretty much only exist to make a dreadnought a character.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

WS do pretty well with near a 55% WR but I am not really sure what is going on there - kind of ignorant to how people build a WS list to be honest.

See above.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
Yeah that's just Xenomancers further revealing his lack of competitive understanding. Understanding probability is one thing, this game is knowing about when to take which risks and when not to, positioning, comprehensive list-building (which doesn't mean "copying what someone else better than you is running"), and adapting it all to the mission and the flow of the game. Becoming a top player by "taking a good list, following simple steps and rolling well" is just such a tertiary understanding of the game that if you feel this way, you just do not understand competitive 40k enough to speak on it.

At no point did I suggest you shouldn't practice with your list. Not making mistakes and remember to use all your abilities is a crucial part of the game too. Using your blinker is a huge part of driving your car safely too...forgive me for not bowing down to all the car driving professionals out there.

If you are playing enough 40k to desire to go to a cutthroat ITC tournament. You know how to play the game. ITC adds another element of pregame skill which is part of the list-building process basically - selecting your objectives against an opponents army that becomes trivial after practicing it 3-4 times. It is just baffling how inflated some of you guys egos are. It is not an admission of your own lack of skill to admit that this game doesn't require a lot of skill.

 Xenomancers wrote:
It is not an admission of your own lack of skill to admit that this game doesn't require a lot of skill.

40k is made to be accessible. In fact, most things are.

It's probably a different thing to try and win at top tables against curveballs from the top players in the world though, right? Half the point of going off-meta is to surprise players who think they know it all.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Klickor wrote:


I was mostly trying to say quantity is a quality on its own and would propably be used more if it werent the case that IH and IF super doctrines are both busted. But even if they were nerfed you wouldnt lose way too much since instead of going strong on mono IH/IF you could now soup in other chapters and exchange pure power for more flexibility and still stay very strong but not just as strong.

Like centurions in RG dont care about doctrines and artillery in IF mostly care about the -1ap and no cover bonuses and dont lose much by souping together. Same with white scars or blood angels mostly since their doctrines are too slow to really build around. These would probably see more play if the super doctrines got nerfed. I wish our IF player at the club who dont play in tournaments would paint up some TFCs so I could borrow them for the events and play mostly BA with an IF spearhead and a RG/UM successor for my 3 detachments. Way stronger than pure BA I think.

There is that WS/WS/IH detachment type that is 78%. That's really strong especially when they're sacrificing IH docs already.

It was used in these tournaments:
Atlanta Open,Crucible 8,Socal Open,Coastal Assault,Merry Slaaneshmas,Geekfest,Glasshammer Open,Socal Open,Element Games Grand Slam

By these people:
John Lennon,John Lennon,John Lennon,Lee Harris,Matthew Riley,Nathan Chow,Patrick Fearis,Ruben Fernandez,Tim Smith

I looked up John Lennon at Atlanta Open and got this:

WWWWLW

WS

Cpt JP/SS
Cpt Bike
3x5 Scouts
//Basically just CP

WS

Cpt JP/TH/SS
Librarian
3x5 ABR Intercessors / CS Sarge
2x6 Assault Cents

IH Successor (Master Artisan / Stealthy)

Chaplain w/ +1 to hit
3x3 Eliminators
Mortis TLC
2 TFC

645 points of Iron Hands. Those IH get counted as 5-1 even though they pretty much only exist to make a dreadnought a character.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

WS do pretty well with near a 55% WR but I am not really sure what is going on there - kind of ignorant to how people build a WS list to be honest.

See above.

Okay I had just looked at a few WS lists as well. They typically bring 8-12 cents. I don't have the WS list of stratagems but I assume this is the main reason right here.
Hunter’s Fusillade – 1CP: After a unit advances, Rapid Fire and Heavy Weapons become Assault. Inferior to Born in the Saddle on bikes, but lets everything else get in on the advance and shoot action, albeit at a -1 to hit.

White scars ignore the -1 to hit (nice battle focus on marines). So this allows you to move up cents and still put out reasonable firepower. and WS can advance and charge.

Realistically all this army does is hide from you and shoot you with ILOS weapons and 2 character dreads....I can see how this army does pretty well as it can easily kill 2 units a turn and take 0 damage. Nothing wants to get close to those cents without wiping them out which they can't do because they are inside magic boxes. I tihnk this list doing well demonstrates how important it is to make centurions vehicals. I do believe that would fix any issue with this list. In fact the list is absolutely garbage if you can't hide your cents in magic boxes.

Realistically this list demonstrates pretty well actually how ITC missions are a seriously different type of game...This list gets tabled in 2-3 turns if you can see it...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yoyoyo wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
It is not an admission of your own lack of skill to admit that this game doesn't require a lot of skill.

40k is made to be accessible. In fact, most things are.

It's probably a different thing to try and win at top tables against curveballs from the top players in the world though, right? Half the point of going off-meta is to surprise players who think they know it all.

Yes but wouldn't you admit that is done primarily at the list building phase?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This weekend I am going to make a thread discussing ITC and it's pros and cons. Lets move this thread back to discussing the statistics of 40k stats and such.

 Xenomancers wrote:


Realistically this list demonstrates pretty well actually how ITC missions are a seriously different type of game...This list gets tabled in 2-3 turns if you can see it...

Cents aren't THAT easy to kill. The magical IH Stalker 10 man can kill one a turn. That's 180 points to kill 52.

 Xenomancers wrote:
It is just baffling how inflated some of you guys egos are. It is not an admission of your own lack of skill to admit that this game doesn't require a lot of skill.

Then why is it the same players consistently topping tables? Shouldn't any semi-competent player be able to copy a top players list, as so many people do now, and all have an equal shot of winning? Yet they don't all seem to be able to match that level of success... so is literally everyone bar the very top players, just completely awful at the game? Oh and except for yourself of course (not that you have the results of a top player, but the game is so simple that you just know you could get them if you were to just play as *insert flavor of the month army*?

The fact is that there is clearly something separating these players from a player such as yourself when you pick up their list, practice with it for a while, and enter a tournament. I know what you think, I used to think the same way. That this game is about maths, statistics, and unit efficiency in list building and that's how its won. In hindsight, I was an awful player at that point, who only understood the simplest facet of the game - list building. It's only once I moved past this way of thinking that I was able to start properly competing, and, as a result, it actually also heightened my ability to build a list, as I realised not everything was so black and white as I once thought back when I was as blinkered as you are.

The only thing baffling is how someone so utterly disconnected from how this game is played, can speak with such blind confidence from a position of complete emptiness and tell people at the top of the ladder they are wrong. The first part to improving your skill at this game is recognising that there is skill to be improved, and you're not there yet. I've won large tournaments and I still recognise that I have so many weaknesses as a player - there's nothing egotistical about it, in the grand scheme of things, I'm bad at this game - we all are, it's nowhere near as simple as you think, and even the absolute best players in the game make massive, game deciding play mistakes all the time that dictate the outcome of tournaments.





You are not a competitor. Nothing about your attitude is competitive. You're a low level player who has moved past the point of casual play, but struggles with the mentality so commonly found in low level players. All your wins are list building wins, by your own admission, and luckily for you you play one of the strongest armies in the game right now, but that's simply not enough vs a competent player even with a middle tier army, and thus it leads to you making threads like this, and dictating out stuff you barely, or flat out do not, understand. I think it's time you stopped projecting outwards and took a look inwards.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
It is just baffling how inflated some of you guys egos are. It is not an admission of your own lack of skill to admit that this game doesn't require a lot of skill.

Then why is it the same players consistently topping tables? Shouldn't any semi-competent player be able to copy a top players list, as so many people do now, and all have an equal shot of winning? Yet they don't all seem to be able to match that level of success... so is literally everyone bar the very top players, just completely awful at the game? Oh and except for yourself of course (not that you have the results of a top player, but the game is so simple that you just know you could get them if you were to just play as *insert flavor of the month army*?

The fact is that there is clearly something separating these players from a player such as yourself when you pick up their list, practice with it for a while, and enter a tournament. I know what you think, I used to think the same way. That this game is about maths, statistics, and unit efficiency in list building and that's how its won. In hindsight, I was an awful player at that point, who only understood the simplest facet of the game - list building. It's only once I moved past this way of thinking that I was able to start properly competing, and, as a result, it actually also heightened my ability to build a list, as I realised not everything was so black and white as I once thought back when I was as blinkered as you are.

The only thing baffling is how someone so utterly disconnected from how this game is played, can speak with such blind confidence from a position of complete emptiness and tell people at the top of the ladder they are wrong. The first part to improving your skill at this game is recognising that there is skill to be improved, and you're not there yet. I've won large tournaments and I still recognise that I have so many weaknesses as a player - there's nothing egotistical about it, in the grand scheme of things, I'm bad at this game - we all are, it's nowhere near as simple as you think, and even the absolute best players in the game make massive, game deciding play mistakes all the time that dictate the outcome of tournaments.





You are not a competitor. Nothing about your attitude is competitive. You're a low level player who has moved past the point of casual play, but struggles with the mentality so commonly found in low level players. All your wins are list building wins, by your own admission, and luckily for you you play one of the strongest armies in the game right now, but that's simply not enough vs a competent player even with a middle tier army, and thus it leads to you making threads like this, and dictating out stuff you barely, or flat out do not, understand. I think it's time you stopped projecting outwards and took a look inwards.

LOL hilarious. You have 0 grounds to say anything about my play because you've never seen me play. With the arrogance to say I don't understand what I am talking about when it's obvious to everyone in here that I know what I am talking about.

Why do the same players consistently top events? The answer is simple. They are always playing the best army. IH(or some marine variant) or Eldar at this time...which is completely backed up by statistics AND they are the most serious players that travel around the country playing in the events because they are going for top player. Plenty of good players don't have the means to travel the country for events every weekend. Lots of good players have no desire to do that ether. Not to say that the consistent top players aren't the best - it's just the difference between them and a random ITC player with the same list is very small. It seems I have struck a chord with you. You must think you are a pretty amazing player and need to be recognized for it. I'll concede to you. Your 40k skills are so far ahead of mine I couldn't possibly beat you in a game with an Ironhands list. LOL. Get out of here dude.

You ever seen a poll about what % skill plays in this game?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:


Realistically this list demonstrates pretty well actually how ITC missions are a seriously different type of game...This list gets tabled in 2-3 turns if you can see it...

Cents aren't THAT easy to kill. The magical IH Stalker 10 man can kill one a turn. That's 180 points to kill 52.

Heavy weapons drop cents pretty fast. Mass lascannons murders them. Mass plasma murders them.

40k requiring real skill? That's the funniest thing I've read today. Warhammer is about as shallow a game as they come.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Heavy weapons drop cents pretty fast. Mass lascannons murders them. Mass plasma murders them.

Lascannons are not common in large numbers. Plasma isn't around much either, but at least it doesnt suffer variable damage.

Why compete in tournaments that require no skill then?

Wayniac wrote:
40k requiring real skill? That's the funniest thing I've read today. Warhammer is about as shallow a game as they come.

k

I think that skill is pretty important in 40K. It can sometimes overcome list disadvantage, but not consistently I think

 Xenomancers wrote:
LOL hilarious. You have 0 grounds to say anything about my play because you've never seen me play. With the arrogance to say I don't understand what I am talking about when it's obvious to everyone in here that I know what I am talking about.

It's beyond obvious that you don't, and many people have called that for exactly what it is. At best, you'll find people on this forum with a similar level of expertise who may agree with you, like Peregrine, Wayniac, and other dedicated neg-heads. This isn't a popularity contest in the first place, but even if it was, you wouldn't be winning it, so please stop trying to act like you're the people's champ or something. People are mocking this thread on multiple different sites including reddit and both of the 40k discords. That's actually how I found this thread in the first place, it was linked in open discussion about how 'dakka has truly outdone itself again'. Please call me on this, because I'd love an excuse to screenshot even some of the stuff that was said about this thread. You made it into being a meme even further than this site, which is impressive.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Why do the same players consistently top events? The answer is simple. They are always playing the best army. IH(or some marine variant) or Eldar at this time...which is completely backed up by statistics AND they are the most serious players that travel around the country playing in the events because they are going for top player. Plenty of good players don't have the means to travel the country for events every weekend. Lots of good players have no desire to do that ether. Not to say that the consistent top players aren't the best - it's just the difference between them and a random ITC player with the same list is very small.

So let's use this for an example, a large tournament that wasn't widely publicised, so thus isn't one of the events that made these people recognisable names. Battle for Salvation, one of the first large tournaments after the Iron Hands supplement released. 100 or so players, a feth TON of Aeldari, Iron Hands, and Raven Guard. Very similar lists within many of them. By your reasoning, that's a lot of people all with an equal shot at the throne, nothing is holding them back, they are at the event, they have the top armies, and they are competent players.

Yet, look at the top 4.

Nicholas Rose, Mark Hertel, Andrew Gonyo, and Sean Nayden.

Why was it these very familiar names who were able to place again, and not any of the other 100 players ALL present? It wasn't a travel issue, they were all there. It wasn't a playtime issue, the dex was brand new.


How did Richard Sieglar go undefeated with Tau for literally months, travelling to different GT's weekly, and eventually winning NOVA, while other Tau players couldn't even get close to a 50% win rate? How did Don Hooson win BAO with Death Guard, an army seen as uncompetitive? How come none of the copycats of his Purge builds were ever able to see the success he was able to see with it? How is Sean Nayden consistently able to win at the highest level while using gak like Avatar of Khaine and other stuff? I could rattle off examples for ages.


Just because you aren't at a level where you understand where the skill is, doesn't mean that people who do understand it are "egotistical" and "inventing it". If you had half the competitive understanding you think you do, this thread wouldn't exist.

 Xenomancers wrote:
It seems I have struck a chord with you. You must think you are a pretty amazing player and need to be recognized for it. I'll concede to you. Your 40k skills are so far ahead of mine I couldn't possibly beat you in a game with an Ironhands list. LOL. Get out of here dude.

I literally (not figuratively, not interpretatively, not metaphorically) called myself a bad player at two points in the post you just quoted. I recognise that I have so much room to improve, and that's what I strive to do as a player. Now while I also recognise that it's true you likely are at your peak, that's because your capacity for improvement capped at an extremely low altitude due to your lack of willingness to broaden your understanding of this game, and work out how exactly people are winning consistently. This isn't about "me being good", nothing in my post even implies that, it's about you having the least competitive attitude possible.

 Xenomancers wrote:
You ever seen a poll about what % skill plays in this game?

Why would I... give a gak? You ever collected people who actually understand the game at the highest level rather than the lowest, and polled them? Chess grandmasters say the game requires skill, but you took a poll of the playground and your whole class believes otherwise. Good for you.




Please stop using these 'majority rules' argument, it's so stereotypically obtuse that it hurts to read.

If you have dice rolling as a skill, the only reason to be in Warhammer is because the casinos won't let you in, aside from the hobby aspects, anyway.

And yes, many of the factors in poker can be used in wargames as well. One of the key aspects of high level poker is that you don't play cards, because you have little control over them, you play the players.

A person needs to control themselves to not let their emotions control their decisions, but also be flexible enough that being grounded limits their options. Also, they need to be careful not to let their emotions tell their opponent when they are getting in to advantageous position (either against or for them).

While I agree with that, in part, I'd also say such is much harder in Warhammer. As any reasonably skilled player will see when you're getting into an advantageous position. If you can't understand that, you hardly need to be playing mind games against them.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Why compete in tournaments that require no skill then?

Prizes, points for yearly over all league, beating people up who are weaker then you and not being at home when you would have to technicly have to help with stuff.
This is the stuff for me, although not for w40k tournaments. There is also obligatory events you have to do as being part of a sports class in a sports school, but I don't now how this could translate. Maybe team tournaments and not wanting to let your buddies down?

40k isn't that complicated expressed theoretically but the idea there isn't skill involved is wrong. I'm suspect that it "isn't" about probability - as a dice game the outcome inevitably largely is. The point is that by taking the right list, deploying correctly, moving and positioning correctly, targeting correctly etc you stack the odds in your favour. So yes, sometimes the dice may abandon you - but they will do so less often than someone who isn't doing all these things and you will win more games.

The challenge is doing the things discussed consistently - always being "on". It requires a huge amount of knowledge, game sense/probability and discipline.

Just deploying correctly/optimally on a range of differently set up tables against a range of different opponents and missions requires a lot of knowledge. You can say target priority is simple, "just shoot your lascannons at tanks, and anti-infantry guns at infantry" but the point is to conduct the game (factoring in your movement, expected losses from your opponent etc), such that about 80%~ of the time based on dice rolled, you will be able to do so turn after turn (while grabbing the other relevant objectives). Meanwhile you have a plan of what to do in that 20% of games where the dice skew against you for a turn or two. You can't just say "oh its obvious". Its not straightforward - you learn by experience, and its why people take time to "learn" new armies, beyond "oh yeah, this unit can reroll 1s". Doing this is a skill.

This is why a relatively small pool of players manage to place consistently - they are doing this every tournament. By contrast many people, even those who are tournament regulars, are just not that serious about it (or are strangely oblivious that they should be doing it.)