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.

Dudeface wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
And so, an empasse. But if the ITC skews too heavy, I'll end up in your camp on the merits. Not the "officialness". Because GW is a bunch of know nothings.

They can be a top performing company world wide, but they'll cry themselves to sleep tonight because Martel believes they're "know nothings". Whilst buying and playing their game.

I don't play. Ishagu said so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:

Tyel wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Also obligatory if without the ITC secondaries hordes will dominate, where is the horde domination of the other events? The top lists posted didn't seem like they were very horde-y.

Why would hordes dominate?
I mean I think hordes would be more viable - but if they became meta dominant, most armies can re-equip to blow them away.

That's always Martel's reasoning why ITC is superior to the CA missions: Because without it "nothing can beat hordes". Yet none of the lists saw a lot of hordes.

Maybe I'm wrong then. But I still really enjoy picking secondaries. And I don't trust GW.

Martel732 wrote:
Maybe I'm wrong then. But I still really enjoy picking secondaries. And I don't trust GW.

Well, the last part I think we all agree on, and I do admit I see the benefit for choosing secondaries. It's nice to be able to plan for that, but I feel it lessens the actual impact of gameplay because nearly everything except terrain can be figured out before the armies even hit the table. Of course you still have to USE it, but you remove a lot of "fog of war" type things which I think is intentional by GW to NOT emphasize what you bring over how you use it.

And I truly don't understand how cheap swarms don't do better in GW mission style. Swarm objectives. Make opponent waste time taking actions for which they get no benefit. Profit. Maybe this works better in the regional meta. I don't know; I've played about five CA missions recently and observed about five others.

Wayniac wrote:

Tyel wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Also obligatory if without the ITC secondaries hordes will dominate, where is the horde domination of the other events? The top lists posted didn't seem like they were very horde-y.

Why would hordes dominate?
I mean I think hordes would be more viable - but if they became meta dominant, most armies can re-equip to blow them away.

That's always Martel's reasoning why ITC is superior to the CA missions: Because without it "nothing can beat hordes". Yet none of the lists saw a lot of hordes.

As someone that occaissonally runs 200-300 model hordes that are abosultely morale immune. Your average SM list will have a field day.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

Tyel wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Also obligatory if without the ITC secondaries hordes will dominate, where is the horde domination of the other events? The top lists posted didn't seem like they were very horde-y.

Why would hordes dominate?
I mean I think hordes would be more viable - but if they became meta dominant, most armies can re-equip to blow them away.

That's always Martel's reasoning why ITC is superior to the CA missions: Because without it "nothing can beat hordes". Yet none of the lists saw a lot of hordes.

As someone that occaissonally runs 200-300 model hordes that are abosultely morale immune. Your average SM list will have a field day.

Can you elaborate? Most of the marine changes didn't help much vs hordes.

Martel732 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

Tyel wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Also obligatory if without the ITC secondaries hordes will dominate, where is the horde domination of the other events? The top lists posted didn't seem like they were very horde-y.

Why would hordes dominate?
I mean I think hordes would be more viable - but if they became meta dominant, most armies can re-equip to blow them away.

That's always Martel's reasoning why ITC is superior to the CA missions: Because without it "nothing can beat hordes". Yet none of the lists saw a lot of hordes.

As someone that occaissonally runs 200-300 model hordes that are abosultely morale immune. Your average SM list will have a field day.

Can you elaborate? Most of the marine changes didn't help much vs hordes.

S4 Ap-1 2 shots, 24 inches. ( or more if primaris.)
nuff said

Wayniac wrote:

Tyel wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Also obligatory if without the ITC secondaries hordes will dominate, where is the horde domination of the other events? The top lists posted didn't seem like they were very horde-y.

Why would hordes dominate?
I mean I think hordes would be more viable - but if they became meta dominant, most armies can re-equip to blow them away.

That's always Martel's reasoning why ITC is superior to the CA missions: Because without it "nothing can beat hordes". Yet none of the lists saw a lot of hordes.

Chess clocks are a thing.

 DominayTrix wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

Tyel wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Also obligatory if without the ITC secondaries hordes will dominate, where is the horde domination of the other events? The top lists posted didn't seem like they were very horde-y.

Why would hordes dominate?
I mean I think hordes would be more viable - but if they became meta dominant, most armies can re-equip to blow them away.

That's always Martel's reasoning why ITC is superior to the CA missions: Because without it "nothing can beat hordes". Yet none of the lists saw a lot of hordes.

Chess clocks are a thing.

Chess clocks are another big problem, but yes they are.

Still nothing new on 40k stats. They are slow on the uptake.

Martel732 wrote:
And I truly don't understand how cheap swarms don't do better in GW mission style. Swarm objectives. Make opponent waste time taking actions for which they get no benefit. Profit. Maybe this works better in the regional meta. I don't know; I've played about five CA missions recently and observed about five others.

Super basic breakdown/theory:

In reality half the objectives are likely to be within close reach of your half the table, the other objectives are likely to be split between midfield and your opponents half.

Your actions are to hold your available territory and remove your opponent or contest the others, either at their end or the mid field in essence.

Yes they may have 150 guardsmen or gaunts, but you can coordinate your efforts into killing that unit to dent your opponents points. It's not wasted effort that you aren't rewarded for it.

Again very basic black/white concept but contesting half the board isn't an impossible task.

Dudeface wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

 Dr. Mills wrote:
Competitive 40k should allow any unit to take part.

ITC rules don't, because the secondary missions mean certain units are not taken. I mean, even Goonhammer states "Don't take too many Pentinent Engines as they give away gang busters too easily". The list goes on, but at the end of the day, GW are at least trying to make a competitive mission set with limiting randomness that is more tactics/decisions on the table than taking a heavily skewed list. The fact that you auto lose if tabled in ITC also irked me, as that rule completely deincentivises objective play further and its all just kill kill kill.

Until ITC drops Secondary missions, it will continue to see skew in data.

Does choosing from a superior pool of Maelstrom missions not also skew the data in Maelstrom missions? Why should a faction's win% be determined by unique missions only that faction gets access to? It seems like you're only picking facts that support your narrative. Penitent Engines don't give away gang busters unless the unit contains more than one so I don't know why Goonhammer would state that, I don't consider 4 to be terribly few Penitent Engines. GW allows you to take a list constructed almost entirely of Penitent Engines, but I'm guessing you like to play with the house rule that you cannot take more than three copies of a unit? Or does it not count as a house rule because GW suggested tournaments use that house rule?

I feel that arguing over a factions specific maelstrom missions is more than clutching at straws here. The rule of 3 is a GW recommended rule for matched play. The same one used by ITC, which as you note are house rules.

How does faction unique maelstrom cards skew the data less than ITC secondaries? I have also posted a couple of ITC events that were not dominated by Marines, I would like something more than a couple tournaments to prove that Marines are bad in Maelstrom and not just sometimes lose to bad mission draws. At least ITC missions don't include special "Necrons suck objectives" into their rules, something I'd argue Maelstrom does and is why it's only useful for casual games IMO. Ro3 is for organized events, unless you call a pick-up game an organized event, then no. What makes the Ro3 house rule okay but ITC homebrew missions not ok?

I don't think it is that far of a stretch to remove the faction specific maelstrom cards to make CA 2019 much more balanced.

I'd like to see more CA 2019 tournaments to actually get a grasp on how ITC is warping the meta. Designing my lists accounting for ITC secondaries is pretty much reflexive at this point and maybe I'm just too conditioned to thinking about 40k as ITC.

The ITC guys do have a hand in creating/balancing the GW missions (at least they did in 2018) maybe the co-lab with GW has finally paid competitive dividends?

But at this point what are we even discussing. Anyone arguing that certain flavors of marines are not OP compared to the rest of the armies (eldar TBD?)? I'd say IH/IF/RG and WS need nerfs (TFC, cents no longer infantry, super docs or regular docs, no siege breaker, MA + stealthy are too powerful together, IH re-roll 1s or no move penalty).

Now maybe GW keeps buffing the rest of the field until they catch up (possessed bomb is stupid and terrible to play against but no doubt powerful) but it still looks like some flavors of marines are outside of the power band.

The GW vs ITC is an interesting topic but without more data I think it is hard to call CA2019 the savior to balance.

If all the other Chapters were nerfed to the level of average armies, all the good players would swap to Ultramarines and Salamanders and those armies win rates would skyrocket. They are not being held back by lack of power.

So, with the sisters' "Doctrine", the Gk's Tides and the Tsons cults rules being previewed, Doctrines are looking more like one of those "Oh shoot we fethed up with that first one we gotta tone the power back down" GW release waves, and not one of those "we'll be real cautious early on and then each successive release will creep the power" release waves.

So, more "Flyers 6E" and "Decurions 7E" than "Codexes and army traits 8E".

the_scotsman wrote:
So, with the sisters' "Doctrine", the Gk's Tides and the Tsons cults rules being previewed, Doctrines are looking more like one of those "Oh shoot we fethed up with that first one we gotta tone the power back down" GW release waves, and not one of those "we'll be real cautious early on and then each successive release will creep the power" release waves.

So, more "Flyers 6E" and "Decurions 7E" than "Codexes and army traits 8E".

*checks sales figures*

We fethed up nothing.

the_scotsman wrote:
So, with the sisters' "Doctrine", the Gk's Tides and the Tsons cults rules being previewed, Doctrines are looking more like one of those "Oh shoot we fethed up with that first one we gotta tone the power back down" GW release waves, and not one of those "we'll be real cautious early on and then each successive release will creep the power" release waves.

So, more "Flyers 6E" and "Decurions 7E" than "Codexes and army traits 8E".

So the standard operating procedure for GW then. Mess up one army and make it crazy OP, then tone it down for everybody else without ever toning down the OP one, therefore resulting in the OP one dominating since now it's the only OP one and never gets toned down to the level they decided to put everyone else at.

bananathug wrote:
(possessed bomb is stupid and terrible to play against but no doubt powerful)

How so? If there aren't any CC units with strong resistance to shooting, you're basically locked into DS assault or units that can make charges on T1.

Not being able to interact with the enemy army leads to a frustrating play experience.

Screening a unit with a -3/4 to hit lord disco (or making it -2/-3 to hit) so I can't interact with it until it hits my lines is about as fun as playing Tau drone spam or eldar planes (with an army that isn't marines 2.0).

The same way the salamanders strat was dumb and broken the possessed bomb is dumb and broken.

True LOS, bad terrain rules, mis-costed units and shooting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>CqC have created a situation where this type of play is necessary for the unit to see the board but it doesn't make it good or fun game design (and that's what we're here for right, to have fun?).

Locking this type of unit into one army is swallowing a spider to catch a fly game design that is another one of GWs game design tenants that is pants on head stupid. If this type of unit was available to more than one army then maybe it wouldn't bother me so much but giving the ability to one army leads to got'cha feelz bad moments and shouldn't be a design goal.

I'm probably just salty that my cqc units can't do any of that (sw/dw/da can't t1 charge or ds assault with a > 50% chance of getting into combat) but untargetable units hidden behind unhittable units seems like bad game design to me and seems like a response to the dumb as hell TFC problem that GW created. I'd rather GW nerf that TFC tremor shell issue than create another problem unit/combo.

GW tried to nerf T1 charges and DS assaults and are now creating all types of work arounds. Either it's part of the game or it isn't. The design inconsistencies are also grating my nerves and seem dishonest or incompetent...

I dont understand why t1 charges are bad but t1 face melting shooting is aokay.

bananathug wrote:

The GW vs ITC is an interesting topic but without more data I think it is hard to call CA2019 the savior to balance.

That's essentially the cyclical issue. It's hard to say how good CA2019 actually is without more data, but without more data no one is willing to trust CA2019 to use it for their events.

It terms of balance, its rather important that models are being designed toward the environment they're being played in. If CA2019 is the environment things are being designed to, its theoretically better, but realistically going to have problems that can only be fixed through playtesting and feedback. CA2019 needs to be played; both so players trust CA2019 and to improve CA2020.

ITC has earned the community's trust because they've done a fantastic job picking up the slack after GW let go of the reigns. I think we're better off in the long run though if its part of GWs design for the game. I'm not sure exactly how to accomplish this, but I'd definitely be happy to see a couple major tournaments use CA each year to see how it really shakes out. Alternatively, ITC could look to incorporate some of CA in the packet. Either way, I think its a bridge worth building.

Martel732 wrote:
I dont understand why t1 charges are bad but t1 face melting shooting is aokay.

I guess historically melee was a lot more powerful than shooting and almost always resulted in a wiped squad. Not so much the case anymore, though. 40k is guns with a splash of melee, AoS is melee with a splash of guns. I'd like something in the middle.

Martel732 wrote:
I dont understand why t1 charges are bad but t1 face melting shooting is aokay.

Personally, i feel like none are, a game of 40k should not be defined in the first turn. A lot of people enjoy mindlessly gunning down their opponent so when their opponent connects in melee with them and prevents them from shooting, they dont like it.

Theres a mental difference between "My unit cant shoot because its dead" and "My unit cant shoot because it fell back this turn"

Martel732 wrote:
I dont understand why t1 charges are bad but t1 face melting shooting is aokay.

T1 somehow charge 5 Marines into a 20man squad. That 20 man squad is done. It's not dead, but it's stuck. It can fall back, but then it gets charged again.

T1 shoot 5 Marines at a 20man squad. That squad is now 19 angry men.

the_scotsman wrote:
So, with the sisters' "Doctrine", the Gk's Tides and the Tsons cults rules being previewed, Doctrines are looking more like one of those "Oh shoot we fethed up with that first one we gotta tone the power back down" GW release waves, and not one of those "we'll be real cautious early on and then each successive release will creep the power" release waves.

So, more "Flyers 6E" and "Decurions 7E" than "Codexes and army traits 8E".

Humm...

MSU spam GK putting out 30+ mortals a turn and blasting away with 24+ psycannons with flat 2 damage and str 8....I'm pretty sure GK are actually more powerful than marines at this point. GK are my original army and I'm really excited about these rules. Even better than -1 AP across the board. The only draw back for the army is nothing cheaper than 17 points to screen with but when that unit is an offensive power house for 85 points...I really don't see that as a disadvantage.

bananathug wrote:
Not being able to interact with the enemy army leads to a frustrating play experience.

Screening a unit with a -3/4 to hit lord disco (or making it -2/-3 to hit) so I can't interact with it until it hits my lines is about as fun as playing Tau drone spam or eldar planes (with an army that isn't marines 2.0).

Isn't the fact 'you can't interact with it' more of an indication you built a list around nothing but min-maxed conventional shooting?

The AL trait only applies outside 12", Benediction of Darkness is only applicable in the shooting phase, Miasma can be denied. You also have autohitting weapons, mortal wounds, your own rerolls and bonuses to hit, sniping or assaulting the support HQs, etc.

If your only tool is a hammer, do you complain vociferously to GW when you encounter a tactical challenge that isn't a nail?

Bharring wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I dont understand why t1 charges are bad but t1 face melting shooting is aokay.

T1 somehow charge 5 Marines into a 20man squad. That 20 man squad is done. It's not dead, but it's stuck. It can fall back, but then it gets charged again.

T1 shoot 5 Marines at a 20man squad. That squad is now 19 angry men.

But it doesnt get charged again. The rest of the army that was physically protected by the 20 models wipes the marines. Shooting chooses what dies whereas the defender always chooses what is charged. Im still not sure if gw realizes how weak assault is in 8th.

Turn 1 charges were never winning in 8th. It was turn 1 deep strike shooting that got turn 1 assault nerfed.

Martel732 wrote:

Bharring wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I dont understand why t1 charges are bad but t1 face melting shooting is aokay.

T1 somehow charge 5 Marines into a 20man squad. That 20 man squad is done. It's not dead, but it's stuck. It can fall back, but then it gets charged again.

T1 shoot 5 Marines at a 20man squad. That squad is now 19 angry men.

But it doesn't get charged again. The rest of the army that was physically protected by the 20 models wipes the marines. Shooting chooses what dies whereas the defender always chooses what is charged. Im still not sure if gw realizes how weak assault is in 8th.

Turn 1 charge wouldn't be a problem if ignore over-watch didn't exist. 1 Unit tying up a whole army automatically because it can't be over-watched is just straight up dumb. It is effectively unlimited ranged shooting attacks which also prevent every unit you touch from shooting back - you can melee back ofc...but plenty of units have little chance to kill owed up melee squads.

Turn 1 charge still isnt a problem. Ignore overwatch is pretty rare. Chaff basically turns off smash capt. As do invulns.

Martel732 wrote:
I dont understand why t1 charges are bad but t1 face melting shooting is aokay.

It isn't. I prefer Apoc, where T1 charges and T1 shooting is greatly reduced in effectiveness relative to short ranged shooting and slow melee.

Not really so in 8th, where a weapon with range = board is almost as powerful for the same cost as a weapon with range = 12".

Martel732 wrote:
Turn 1 charge still isnt a problem. Ignore overwatch is pretty rare. Chaff basically turns off smash capt. As do invulns.

Ignore overwatch isn't THAT rare.

Have you tried bringing 30 intercessors and just blowing all the chaff up turn 1 with 90 auto-bolt guns shots? What chaff is really bothering you?