Psychic Awakening N&R

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.

**Platuan4th**

WhiteDog wrote:
Sunny Side Up wrote:
WhiteDog wrote:

At the competitive level who played marine aside from soup pre codex 2.0 for real ? Maybe blood angels ? In almost all the list I remember SM were reduced to a bunch of characters (smash captains and librarians).

LVO in January 2019 had a mono-Ultramarines army in the top 12, narrowly missing the top 8 finals in the shadowround (e.g. roughly the expected result any given Codex out of 15-16 competing for 12 to 8 spots in a top tournament should have). Mono-Codex-Marine lists were about 8-10% of "the Meta" at the time. Ultramarines also won a GT or two in March.

Admittedly, Marines 1.0 pre Shock Assault, Bolter Discipline, etc.. was somewhat Ultramarine-biased, but the overall the results it got where just about where any given Codex out of a total of 15 or so should be. Smack-on in the middle and about as perfectly balanced as one could hope.

At ETC all the SM armies were soup list I believe. For exemple, I only remember players taking Dark Angels characters, especially librarians for the interromancy discipline during the last ETC.

It's almost like different house rules encourage different build styles.

**Sunny Side Up**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Sunny Side Up wrote:
WhiteDog wrote:

At the competitive level who played marine aside from soup pre codex 2.0 for real ? Maybe blood angels ? In almost all the list I remember SM were reduced to a bunch of characters (smash captains and librarians).

LVO in January 2019 had a mono-Ultramarines army in the top 12, narrowly missing the top 8 finals in the shadowround (e.g. roughly the expected result any given Codex out of 15-16 competing for 12 to 8 spots in a top tournament should have). Mono-Codex-Marine lists were about 8-10% of "the Meta" at the time. Ultramarines also won a GT or two in March.

Admittedly, Marines 1.0 pre Shock Assault, Bolter Discipline, etc.. was somewhat Ultramarine-biased, but the overall the results it got where just about where any given Codex out of a total of 15 or so should be. Smack-on in the middle and about as perfectly balanced as one could hope.

You could've made that same argument for the 6th edition Tyranid codex is the issue. Nobody would say that codex was good whatsoever. However, Flyrants carried the day and they had consistent showings. It's really just people mad that Marines get the most attention.

No. It's people got mad that GW destroyed a reasonably balanced game pre-Codex 2.0 and turned arguably one of the better balanced editions into the worst balance-nightmare the game has seen in it's almost 40 year history, lol.

It did, however, have the upside of making past slip-ups like Flyrant spam, Ynnari, Maelific Lords, TauDar, 5th Ed. Grey Knights, whatever look a lot more tame and overblown in comparison

#

Automatically Appended Next Post:

WhiteDog wrote:

At ETC all the SM armies were soup list I believe. For exemple, I only remember players taking Dark Angels characters, especially librarians for the interromancy discipline during the last ETC.

Not true.

There're plenty of teams (incl. Canada, which did very well) that fielded Repulsor lists. Russia had a pretty innovative Stalker list. Etc...

**Slayer-Fan123**

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Sunny Side Up wrote:
WhiteDog wrote:

At the competitive level who played marine aside from soup pre codex 2.0 for real ? Maybe blood angels ? In almost all the list I remember SM were reduced to a bunch of characters (smash captains and librarians).

LVO in January 2019 had a mono-Ultramarines army in the top 12, narrowly missing the top 8 finals in the shadowround (e.g. roughly the expected result any given Codex out of 15-16 competing for 12 to 8 spots in a top tournament should have). Mono-Codex-Marine lists were about 8-10% of "the Meta" at the time. Ultramarines also won a GT or two in March.

Admittedly, Marines 1.0 pre Shock Assault, Bolter Discipline, etc.. was somewhat Ultramarine-biased, but the overall the results it got where just about where any given Codex out of a total of 15 or so should be. Smack-on in the middle and about as perfectly balanced as one could hope.

You could've made that same argument for the 6th edition Tyranid codex is the issue. Nobody would say that codex was good whatsoever. However, Flyrants carried the day and they had consistent showings. It's really just people mad that Marines get the most attention.

No. It's people got mad that GW destroyed a reasonably balanced game pre-Codex 2.0 and turned arguably one of the better balanced editions into the worst balance-nightmare the game has seen in it's almost 40 year history, lol.

It did, however, have the upside of making past slip-ups like Flyrant spam, Ynnari, Maelific Lords, TauDar, 5th Ed. Grey Knights, whatever look a lot more tame and overblown in comparison #

LOL there was nothing "reasonably balanced" even with Chapter Approved existing. Games of hodgepodge armies that have no synergy are not great for determining balance like some people here would like to believe. What we saw at tournaments was a constant reminder that GW has no clue what's going on with their own game.

**WhiteDog**

Platuan4th wrote:
WhiteDog wrote:
Sunny Side Up wrote:
WhiteDog wrote:

At the competitive level who played marine aside from soup pre codex 2.0 for real ? Maybe blood angels ? In almost all the list I remember SM were reduced to a bunch of characters (smash captains and librarians).

LVO in January 2019 had a mono-Ultramarines army in the top 12, narrowly missing the top 8 finals in the shadowround (e.g. roughly the expected result any given Codex out of 15-16 competing for 12 to 8 spots in a top tournament should have). Mono-Codex-Marine lists were about 8-10% of "the Meta" at the time. Ultramarines also won a GT or two in March.

Admittedly, Marines 1.0 pre Shock Assault, Bolter Discipline, etc.. was somewhat Ultramarine-biased, but the overall the results it got where just about where any given Codex out of a total of 15 or so should be. Smack-on in the middle and about as perfectly balanced as one could hope.

At ETC all the SM armies were soup list I believe. For exemple, I only remember players taking Dark Angels characters, especially librarians for the interromancy discipline during the last ETC.

It's almost like different house rules encourage different build styles.

ETC push teams into finding the most efficient list for the team. For the LVO, since it's an individual competition and not a team championship, there are various people that still attend to the competition with a subpar competitive army because they like that specific army, even if they know it's not going to give them the win. To me all the SM in ETC are soup because it was the most efficient way to use SM.

And I'm really baffled at the idea that one top 12 at LVO somehow is sufficient to argue that SM pre 2.0 were balanced. They just sucked.

**Sunny Side Up**

WhiteDog wrote:

ETC push teams into finding the most efficient list for the team. For the LVO, since it's an individual competition and not a team championship, there are various people that still attend to the competition with a subpar competitive army because they like that specific army, even if they know it's not going to give them the win. To me all the SM in ETC are soup because it was the most efficient way to use SM.

And I'm really baffled at the idea that one top 12 at LVO somehow is sufficient to argue that SM pre 2.0 were balanced. They just sucked.

Sure. LVO isn't everything, but at least I am not misquoting my evidence. Lol.

Plenty people ran mono Marines at the ETC (e.g. Jeff Brown).

Trying to make your point by faking to facts to suit your bias seems dodgy at best, lol.

**WhiteDog**

Sunny Side Up wrote:
WhiteDog wrote:

ETC push teams into finding the most efficient list for the team. For the LVO, since it's an individual competition and not a team championship, there are various people that still attend to the competition with a subpar competitive army because they like that specific army, even if they know it's not going to give them the win. To me all the SM in ETC are soup because it was the most efficient way to use SM.

And I'm really baffled at the idea that one top 12 at LVO somehow is sufficient to argue that SM pre 2.0 were balanced. They just sucked.

Sure. LVO isn't everything, but at least I am not misquoting my evidence. Lol.

Plenty people ran mono Marines at the ETC (e.g. Jeff Brown).

Trying to make your point by faking to facts to suit your bias seems dodgy at best, lol.

Don't be a douche and go back watching the ETC lists. Okay you had a repulsor list in the canadian team : it's not a marine list, it's a Roboute Gulliman list. You call that "balanced" monofaction ? Come on. As for the Russian, it had two soup : one Space Marines; Adeptus Mechanicus; Blood Angels list AND a Space Wolves, Grey Knights, Dark Angels list.
I stand by what I said : most SM units were taken in a soup, and mostly blood angels characters. SM monofaction was not competitive at all.

**Sunny Side Up**

WhiteDog wrote:
SM monofaction was not competitive at all.

Except for all the successful competitive mono-faction Marine lists in high profile singles (e.g. LVO) and team (e.g. ETC) events, not to mention thousands of other tournaments "below those" that you willfully choose to ignore so you can stand by your mistaken point? Got it.

**Benionin**

While Pariah technically means outcast, I feel like between the pariah gene (aka what makes people blanks) and the old Necron Pariah unit, the word has too much baggage to just be used to describe outcast characters.

Besides, it's Psychic Awakening. The only thing that would be on-theme for the Necrons is Pariahs.

Also, while their use will definitely be contingent upon their rules, I imagine it would also depend on how psychic the meta becomes--and between Chaos, Grey Knights, and Eldar I imagine having anti-psyker in your army could be quite useful. Though if the T'au suddenly take over the meta, they'll be useless

**WhiteDog**

Sunny Side Up wrote:
WhiteDog wrote:
SM monofaction was not competitive at all.

Except for all the successful competitive mono-faction Marine lists in high profile singles (e.g. LVO) and team (e.g. ETC) events, not to mention thousands of other tournaments "below those" that you willfully choose to ignore so you can stand by your mistaken point? Got it.

You only quoted one top 12 LVO and that's it ? That's sufficient to make monofaction SM list "competitive" ?
Are you telling me DA, BA, SW had any competitive monofaction build pre 2.0 ? That any SM list without pre 2.0 Roboute could be "competitive" ?

**reds8n**

I think we'd be best to take this discussion elsewhere from now on, I know we're back in the void between books for the moment , but let's not clutter the thread with too much off topic chatter. Ta.

**Necronmaniac05**

My theory is that Pariah (a social outcast) refers to the Silent King who has been awake far longer than any other Necrons and has been in self imposed exile since before the fall of the old necron empire. He is very much a pariah in that he is on the outskirts of necron society. I think we MIGHT also see a return of Pariahs as a Necron unit for a Pariah 2 for 1!

**alextroy**

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Mr Morden wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
And the whole fething point of the auxiliary detachments is to allow for things like Assassins and Inquisition to exist.

Ynnari are supposed to be a whole faction in and of themselves, but the mechanisms just keep failing to accomplish it.

That and they don;t add in the newer lore characters or make them a proper army with new unit options etc.

Well, they kinda do, but don't follow through on the rules.

They literally made the entire new Banshee box with options to build them without masks, which allegedly was to be a Ynnari-version, though still haven't released any rules to play Banshees without masks (Ynnari or otherwise). Similarly, about half of the plot (not to mention the story / narrative missions) in the first Psychic Awakening were about Jain Zar (and Lelith) more or less reluctantly joining the Ynnari cause, building up to a big fight against all the new Slaansh Daemons, yet to this day it's, RAW, impossible to use either of those models in a Ynnari army, even in narrative games. It's essentially impossible to play the narrative missions in that book to match the lore.

Spoiler:

I'm guessing you haven't looked closely at those helmet less Banshee heads. They still have the two 'speakers' framing the head for the Banshee Howl, which is why the function exactly the same as 'normal' Banshees.

**Hellebore**

alextroy wrote:
Sunny Side Up wrote:
Mr Morden wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
And the whole fething point of the auxiliary detachments is to allow for things like Assassins and Inquisition to exist.

Ynnari are supposed to be a whole faction in and of themselves, but the mechanisms just keep failing to accomplish it.

That and they don;t add in the newer lore characters or make them a proper army with new unit options etc.

Well, they kinda do, but don't follow through on the rules.

They literally made the entire new Banshee box with options to build them without masks, which allegedly was to be a Ynnari-version, though still haven't released any rules to play Banshees without masks (Ynnari or otherwise). Similarly, about half of the plot (not to mention the story / narrative missions) in the first Psychic Awakening were about Jain Zar (and Lelith) more or less reluctantly joining the Ynnari cause, building up to a big fight against all the new Slaansh Daemons, yet to this day it's, RAW, impossible to use either of those models in a Ynnari army, even in narrative games. It's essentially impossible to play the narrative missions in that book to match the lore.

Spoiler:

I'm guessing you haven't looked closely at those helmet less Banshee heads. They still have the two 'speakers' framing the head for the Banshee Howl, which is why the function exactly the same as 'normal' Banshees.

Which is pretty pathetic really.

If this had been a a marine unit, they'd have 4 different head types that all scream slightly differently, and every item hanging on their belts would get it's own rule and there would be lots of random things on the sprue they could add that would give them extra rules.

Instead we got a $90Aud 5 man box of t3 models, while 10 primaris intercessors cost $98aud

**BrianDavion**

meanwhile space marines pay 115 auzzie dollars for 5 terminators, or 84 auzzie dollars for 3 Agressors.

funny no one makes that comparison

**Gadzilla666**

Elites cost more per model irregardless of whether they're actually bigger or have more options than regular troops.

Makes me have second thoughts on wanting a Chosen kit.

**Hellebore**

BrianDavion wrote:
meanwhile space marines pay 115 auzzie dollars for 5 terminators, or 84 auzzie dollars for 3 Agressors.

funny no one makes that comparison

That's ridiculous too, but by comparison not so much Because terminators are expensive and powerful? And jetbikes are $70 for three as well, making them literally a dollar a point (23pts for a jetbike) adding on shuricannon changes that ratio obviously.

Banshees are so far outside the value curve it's ridiculous. They are the worst value unit in 40k, when you're looking at what to purchase.

**BrianDavion**

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Elites cost more per model irregardless of whether they're actually bigger or have more options than regular troops.

Makes me have second thoughts on wanting a Chosen kit.

which was subtly my point, troops tend to be a better deal then elites, units like say, reavers which have the same cost per model as basic troops are quite frankly rare.

**Gadzilla666**

BrianDavion wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
Elites cost more per model irregardless of whether they're actually bigger or have more options than regular troops.

Makes me have second thoughts on wanting a Chosen kit.

which was subtly my point, troops tend to be a better deal then elites, units like say, reavers which have the same cost per model as basic troops are quite frankly rare.

Yeah, I was "subtly" agreeing with you.

Apparently.

**Nightlord1987**

Sure. Give Imperials even more game breaking abilities,

They should also ignore rule of 3 and detachment limits.

**H.B.M.C.**

Nightlord1987 wrote:
Sure. Give Imperials even more game breaking abilities

Why is it ok for Inquisitors to get this rule and not Assassins? Just curious.

Nightlord1987 wrote:
They should also ignore rule of 3 and detachment limits.

There's no such thing as the 'Rule of 3'.

**Sunny Side Up**

Nightlord1987 wrote:
Sure. Give Imperials even more game breaking abilities,

They should also ignore rule of 3 and detachment limits.

There is no rule of three and no detachment limits in matched play.

It's just one of the ideas suggested by GW on how people can tweak the game. And the fact that a lot of people have for some reason adopted it as a quasi-rule hurts Xenos more than Imperium (e.g. the ability of Drukhari to gain extra CP for 6 and 9 Patrol-Detachment armies, etc..).

**Dysartes**

Hellebore wrote:
Banshees are so far outside the value curve it's ridiculous. They are the worst value unit in 40k, when you're looking at what to purchase.

How do they compare to the Ork Mek Gun?

**Not Online!!!**

Dysartes wrote:
Hellebore wrote:
Banshees are so far outside the value curve it's ridiculous. They are the worst value unit in 40k, when you're looking at what to purchase.

How do they compare to the Ork Mek Gun?

Probably on the same scale as Eliminators? (the new primaris sniers) but worse because an eliminator is how many banshees exactly?

**Agamemnon2**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Nightlord1987 wrote:
Sure. Give Imperials even more game breaking abilities
Why is it ok for Inquisitors to get this rule and not Assassins? Just curious.

An obvious answer would be that it wasn't okay for Inquisitors either, and their example shouldn't be emulated. Especially since Assassins probably have more ingame utility as the largely irrelevant inquisitors in the current edition.

**Jidmah**

Not Online!!! wrote:
Dysartes wrote:
Hellebore wrote:
Banshees are so far outside the value curve it's ridiculous. They are the worst value unit in 40k, when you're looking at what to purchase.

How do they compare to the Ork Mek Gun?

Probably on the same scale as Eliminators? (the new primaris sniers) but worse because an eliminator is how many banshees exactly?

Eliminators are $50 for 61-99 points, though the cheapest configuration can be gotten cheaper than from that box.
Banshees are $55 for 55-58 points.
Mek guns are $50 for 33-60, with the cheapest configuration being the one you need for competitive play.

**Not Online!!!**

Jidmah wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Dysartes wrote:
Hellebore wrote:
Banshees are so far outside the value curve it's ridiculous. They are the worst value unit in 40k, when you're looking at what to purchase.

How do they compare to the Ork Mek Gun?

Probably on the same scale as Eliminators? (the new primaris sniers) but worse because an eliminator is how many banshees exactly?

Eliminators are $50 for 61-99 points, though the cheapest configuration can be gotten cheaper than from that box.
Banshees are $55 for 55-58 points.
Mek guns are $50 for 33-60, with the cheapest configuration being the one you need for competitive play.

So mekgun are still king off the empty wallet, whilest banshees earn a solid second place.

Yikes.

**tneva82**

Agamemnon2 wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
Nightlord1987 wrote:
Sure. Give Imperials even more game breaking abilities
Why is it ok for Inquisitors to get this rule and not Assassins? Just curious.

An obvious answer would be that it wasn't okay for Inquisitors either, and their example shouldn't be emulated. Especially since Assassins probably have more ingame utility as the largely irrelevant inquisitors in the current edition.

Eh you just gave good reason(apart from fluff) why it's okay for inquisitors and not for assasins

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Jidmah wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Dysartes wrote:
Hellebore wrote:
Banshees are so far outside the value curve it's ridiculous. They are the worst value unit in 40k, when you're looking at what to purchase.

How do they compare to the Ork Mek Gun?

Probably on the same scale as Eliminators? (the new primaris sniers) but worse because an eliminator is how many banshees exactly?

Eliminators are $50 for 61-99 points, though the cheapest configuration can be gotten cheaper than from that box.
Banshees are $55 for 55-58 points.
Mek guns are $50 for 33-60, with the cheapest configuration being the one you need for competitive play.

So mekgun are still king off the empty wallet, whilest banshees earn a solid second place.

Yikes.

Though making more mek guns than 1 is pretty ridiculously easy. Add trukk and you get 4 for price of less than 2

**H.B.M.C.**

So it's ok for Inquisitors because they aren't very good?

Well that's not a very good reason.

**Not Online!!!**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
So it's ok for Inquisitors because they aren't very good?

Well that's not a very good reason.

by far not the only exemple, see fallen and Faboulus.

However the later is a Merc, with payment in knowledge and obsessed with beating the big E at his own game.
Whilest the former are a bunch of random dark angel murder hobos for all i can gather.

Shame they never gave us the warp ghosts as such a subgroup, what with them beeing the ferryman of chaos-

**Jidmah**

tneva82 wrote:
Though making more mek guns than 1 is pretty ridiculously easy. Add trukk and you get 4 for price of less than 2

You can also get the old banshee sculpts for cheap of ebay, but that's not the point, is it?