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.

the_scotsman wrote:


In my opinion, at least, competitively the problem is with a few key units that interact in wonky-ass ways with the various supplements (Assault Cents for example being able to just show the feth up 9" away from you in new RG, move, and immediately assault you if you didn't get first turn, or Thunderfire Cannons which can now for 2CP halve the movement, advance rolls and charge rolls of 2 of your units automatically, basically gimping several armies that rely on fast units early) and casually a lot of the complaints - fair complaints - are leveled at the whole codex.

Thanks for the explanation.

Having looked at the absolutely astonishing win rates that IH have, it is nice to see it broken down into its components.

I see a lot of competitive players asking GW to move towards online rules and faster edits instead of the current book release schedule.

Odds that ITC moves away from official rules and creates special tournament rules if GW does not get better?

ITC should have done this already.

Grey40k wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:


In my opinion, at least, competitively the problem is with a few key units that interact in wonky-ass ways with the various supplements (Assault Cents for example being able to just show the feth up 9" away from you in new RG, move, and immediately assault you if you didn't get first turn, or Thunderfire Cannons which can now for 2CP halve the movement, advance rolls and charge rolls of 2 of your units automatically, basically gimping several armies that rely on fast units early) and casually a lot of the complaints - fair complaints - are leveled at the whole codex.

Thanks for the explanation.

Having looked at the absolutely astonishing win rates that IH have, it is nice to see it broken down into its components.

I see a lot of competitive players asking GW to move towards online rules and faster edits instead of the current book release schedule.

Odds that ITC moves away from official rules and creates special tournament rules if GW does not get better?

They already do, but since they enjoy notable GW backing atm if anything the opposite is more likely.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Hmm, sure looks like they hit harder in Assault vs. chaff than they do with shooting. Wait a minute, they can do BOTH in the same turn! Perhaps that's even more efficient that merely shooting them!

-Generalists 101

Shh. You'll blow their minds with this advanced combat tactic.

"Hmm, sure looks like they hit harder in Assault vs. chaff than they do with shooting. Wait a minute, they can do BOTH in the same turn! Perhaps that's even more efficient that merely shooting them!

-Generalists 101"

On paper, I would agree with this, but units getting close enough to use assault stats have a tendency to end up back in the carrying bag. Your own lists are designed to make this happen, so I'm not sure why you think assault is truly a consideration. Marines aren't winning with assault. They are winning with crazy shooting and invincible dreads.

Martel732 wrote:
"Hmm, sure looks like they hit harder in Assault vs. chaff than they do with shooting. Wait a minute, they can do BOTH in the same turn! Perhaps that's even more efficient that merely shooting them!

-Generalists 101"

On paper, I would agree with this, but units getting close enough to use assault stats have a tendency to end up back in the carrying bag.

I agree. Which is why it's basically incredible to me that there's a gunline unit that puts fething fire warriors to shame, and everyone is OK with them being able to slam dunk or hold their own against units that are supposed to be dedicated assault troops.

If the pace of 40k is going to be such that a marine army can set up 30" away from an enemy army that just sits there and takes it, and you expect that enemy army to be comfortably tabled by turn 3, then assault units are going to need to be designed to hit turn 2, twice as hard as shooting units.

it just so happens I think that pace/level of lethality is, frankly, horse gak, and boring as all hell to play, but we're clearly at a plce right now where either 1 or 2 turn tablings should be possible with a half to two-thirds strength assault army.

Either that, or we need to reduce the lethality of extremely long range shooting units. Anything that can simply deploy and attack turn 1 needs to be a solid 30% less effective than it is right now in general.

Dudeface wrote:


They already do, but since they enjoy notable GW backing atm if anything the opposite is more likely.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that ITC rules are minimal deviations from regular matched play rules.

I was thinking about more significant changes. After all, it is quite obvious that some factions are vastly superior to others in competitive gameplay and ITC data is very meticulously collected.

This would go for primaris intercessors too, since it is quite obvious to me that they are super point efficient in many fronts for being a simple troop choice.

Martel732 wrote:
"Hmm, sure looks like they hit harder in Assault vs. chaff than they do with shooting. Wait a minute, they can do BOTH in the same turn! Perhaps that's even more efficient that merely shooting them!

-Generalists 101"

On paper, I would agree with this, but units getting close enough to use assault stats have a tendency to end up back in the carrying bag. Your own lists are designed to make this happen, so I'm not sure why you think assault is truly a consideration.

I think it's a consideration because I use it a lot with my Nids. Quite a bit with my marines too, but not to the same extent. My Nids often "hide" in assault by tri-cornering. If I'm lucky I can sometimes smite out the last couple opposing models with Neurothropes and free my units up for shooting and assaulting again. With the Nids I can also tunnel stuff up with Raveners (Jorm) and try to get an advantage that way.

8th is truly reflecting 2nd ed with fast, fast tablings being achievable. I saw multiple one turn tablings in 2nd ed. Sometimes in the same tournament.

I think elite will be difficult to implement faithfully while restricted to a D6 system and with escalating lethality.

Grey40k wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


They already do, but since they enjoy notable GW backing atm if anything the opposite is more likely.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that ITC rules are minimal deviations from regular matched play rules.

I was thinking about more significant changes. After all, it is quite obvious that some factions are vastly superior to others in competitive gameplay and ITC data is very meticulously collected.

This would go for primaris intercessors too, since it is quite obvious to me that they are super point efficient in many fronts for being a simple troop choice.

The "ITC isnt real!!!" rhetoric is a smokescreen. nobody using it had any problem citing it before as a reason why marines were broken underpowered and needed all the buffs, or why Guard/Castellans were broken, or why Eldar were broken.

it pretty much started a little bit when people started really abusing the ITC rules with Tau drones, and when the castellan got nerfed super hard (because they nerfed it too hard because ITC!!!) but it only got super amplified in volume after a few folks figured out they could use it to invalidate the massive volume of evidence that marines are a problem.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"Hmm, sure looks like they hit harder in Assault vs. chaff than they do with shooting. Wait a minute, they can do BOTH in the same turn! Perhaps that's even more efficient that merely shooting them!

-Generalists 101"

On paper, I would agree with this, but units getting close enough to use assault stats have a tendency to end up back in the carrying bag. Your own lists are designed to make this happen, so I'm not sure why you think assault is truly a consideration.

I think it's a consideration because I use it a lot with my Nids. Quite a bit with my marines too, but not to the same extent. My Nids often "hide" in assault by tri-cornering. If I'm lucky I can sometimes smite out the last couple opposing models with Neurothropes and free my units up for shooting and assaulting again. With the Nids I can also tunnel stuff up with Raveners (Jorm) and try to get an advantage that way.

Tri-cornering. I hate it and my opponents usually hate it. But that's where GW has put us.

Martel732 wrote:
8th is truly reflecting 2nd ed with fast, fast tablings being achievable. I saw multiple one turn tablings in 2nd ed. Sometimes in the same tournament.

I think elite will be difficult to implement faithfully while restricted to a D6 system and with escalating lethality.

I really don't know if D6s are really the root of all evil here.

You can have perfectly functional elite armies in AOS, which is D6, and the most elite units are considered unusably bad in Infinity, which is D20.

the_scotsman wrote:

Grey40k wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


They already do, but since they enjoy notable GW backing atm if anything the opposite is more likely.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that ITC rules are minimal deviations from regular matched play rules.

I was thinking about more significant changes. After all, it is quite obvious that some factions are vastly superior to others in competitive gameplay and ITC data is very meticulously collected.

This would go for primaris intercessors too, since it is quite obvious to me that they are super point efficient in many fronts for being a simple troop choice.

The "ITC isnt real!!!" rhetoric is a smokescreen. nobody using it had any problem citing it before as a reason why marines were broken underpowered and needed all the buffs, or why Guard/Castellans were broken, or why Eldar were broken.

it pretty much started a little bit when people started really abusing the ITC rules with Tau drones, and when the castellan got nerfed super hard (because they nerfed it too hard because ITC!!!) but it only got super amplified in volume after a few folks figured out they could use it to invalidate the massive volume of evidence that marines are a problem.

I don't need ITC to tell you that marines, specifically gunline marines, are a problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
8th is truly reflecting 2nd ed with fast, fast tablings being achievable. I saw multiple one turn tablings in 2nd ed. Sometimes in the same tournament.

I think elite will be difficult to implement faithfully while restricted to a D6 system and with escalating lethality.

I really don't know if D6s are really the root of all evil here.

You can have perfectly functional elite armies in AOS, which is D6, and the most elite units are considered unusably bad in Infinity, which is D20.

I've heard that about AoS. I guess there's a lot less shooting. I don't know how to fix 40K when a simple -1 AP halves the effectiveness of a 2+ save.

Martel732 wrote:
Tri-cornering. I hate it and my opponents usually hate it. But that's where GW has put us.

It is what it is. Although tbh with my Warriors it's often just completely surrounding whole units with multiple units of Warriors.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Tri-cornering. I hate it and my opponents usually hate it. But that's where GW has put us.

It is what it is. Although tbh with my Warriors it's often just completely surrounding whole units with multiple units of Warriors.

"It is what it is" lets GW off the hook for writing gak mechanics. Again.

Martel732 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Tri-cornering. I hate it and my opponents usually hate it. But that's where GW has put us.

It is what it is. Although tbh with my Warriors it's often just completely surrounding whole units with multiple units of Warriors.

"It is what it is" lets GW off the hook for writing gak mechanics. Again.

It also wins more competitive games. If you're an assaulting army, and you hate it when your enemies fall-back exposing you to fire, tri-corner or surround the mofos.

Yes, I'm aware. It's just so dumb. And you have to have enough surviving models to do this.

Martel732 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Tri-cornering. I hate it and my opponents usually hate it. But that's where GW has put us.

It is what it is. Although tbh with my Warriors it's often just completely surrounding whole units with multiple units of Warriors.

"It is what it is" lets GW off the hook for writing gak mechanics. Again.

No it is what it is because those are the rules. What do you suggest we do to not let them off the hook?

AP is also far less common in AOS. In the army I play, every ranged weapon is AP-, the glass cannon melee troops are AP-1, and the big shagnasty monsters and glass cannon cavalry are AP-2. I've also got dudes with 3+ saves who totally ignore AP, in case I need to tank up a unit with a nasty AP weapon.

There does seem to be the same mortal wound stupidity though.

The other thing, though, is that being in combat doesn't turn off your ranged attacks. There isn't this constant escalation of units with guns having to be killier and killier to avoid being turned off by a cheap chaff unit. So guns (or rather, bows I guess) can be kept as more of a skirmishing/support tool than as a real means for most armies to kill all the stuff.

Dudeface wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Tri-cornering. I hate it and my opponents usually hate it. But that's where GW has put us.

It is what it is. Although tbh with my Warriors it's often just completely surrounding whole units with multiple units of Warriors.

"It is what it is" lets GW off the hook for writing gak mechanics. Again.

No it is what it is because those are the rules. What do you suggest we do to not let them off the hook?

Ideally, stop using their rules. Practically, nothing.

Martel732 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Tri-cornering. I hate it and my opponents usually hate it. But that's where GW has put us.

It is what it is. Although tbh with my Warriors it's often just completely surrounding whole units with multiple units of Warriors.

"It is what it is" lets GW off the hook for writing gak mechanics. Again.

No it is what it is because those are the rules. What do you suggest we do to not let them off the hook?

Ideally, stop using their rules. Practically, nothing.

At that point it's up to you, either stop or just accept them for what they are and move on. Hopefully they'll make falling back a little more punishing in the next rules shake up, a nice healthy d3 mortals for exposing your back to the enemy wouldn't hurt.

the_scotsman wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
8th is truly reflecting 2nd ed with fast, fast tablings being achievable. I saw multiple one turn tablings in 2nd ed. Sometimes in the same tournament.

I think elite will be difficult to implement faithfully while restricted to a D6 system and with escalating lethality.

I really don't know if D6s are really the root of all evil here.

You can have perfectly functional elite armies in AOS, which is D6, and the most elite units are considered unusably bad in Infinity, which is D20.

I'd point at Konflikt '47 as a game that's achieved a pretty broad distribution of units just with d6s. I know someone's about to come along and tell me that comparing power-armoured WWII riflemen to Space Marines is a futile exercise and even the big six-legged super-heavy walkers are tiny by comparison to an Imperial Knight but the number of distinct tiers of unit (green troops->regular troops->veteran troops->teched veteran troops->power-armoured troops->exotic rift-tech troops->light walkers/armoured cars->tanks->superheavy tanks) is pretty good given the amount of time people spend griping about d6s not giving enough granularity.

Martel732 wrote:

Ideally, stop using their rules. Practically, nothing.

They want to retain power over the rules for obvious reasons. ITC taking a stronger stance might help curtail some of the more abusive practices.

I looked at the recent (6 months results). Does anyone feel that this is a fun and fair competition?

If ITC starts patching, GW might be more cautious to avoid being overruled by ITC.

Maybe this is wishful thinking...

There are a lot of problems with Marines, and like a lot of things, you never quite know how lists will work out when you start pulling on the thread. I think the codex at its base is probably okay - so you could just gut the supplements - but if they are going to be there, you need to nerf the codex.

Intercessors are a perfectly capable melee force. We saw in the LVO Semi Final when some Shining Spears charged an intercessor blob with a Power Hammer Sergeant. Shining Spears sort of fluff the shooting/assault so some survive (although IH defensive buffs possibly backed with transhuman physiology and so on makes this not that unlikely). The Intercessor Sergeant steps up - 4 hits, 4 wounds, 4 failed saves, 4 dead Shining Spears and a dead unit. A game changing moment.

Saying its "only" 16 WS3, S4, AP- attacks is a bit odd. Yes, if you have literally just 5 guys there. The point is you can bundle in with plenty more. You have a dedicated counter-assault force without having to do anything special for it. Combat in 40k is usually down to who charges - but Marines make this a gamble by stacking some of the best defensive buffs. You will fluff charges, fluff assault roles and then its not like you are engaged with some pillow-handed Tau.

And there isn't perhaps anything wrong with Marines having this "power" - the issue however is that other factions don't.

Hell yes they are. But delivery is a big issue.

Martel732 wrote:
Hell yes they are. But delivery is a big issue.

Less so for classic Marines. Rhinos and Pods are great.

The Primaris Transports are either super expensive or just don't carry very many dudes.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I think it's a consideration because I use it a lot with my Nids. Quite a bit with my marines too, but not to the same extent.

Both my BA and my playtest of my Sisters ideas I've used "shooting to assault" to great effect.

 Melissia wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I think it's a consideration because I use it a lot with my Nids. Quite a bit with my marines too, but not to the same extent.

Both my BA and my playtest of my Sisters ideas I've used "shooting to assault" to great effect.

Moar* is Moar!

*dice

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Hell yes they are. But delivery is a big issue.

Less so for classic Marines. Rhinos and Pods are great.

The Primaris Transports are either super expensive or just don't carry very many dudes.

I don't think people care as much about 1W marines getting close. They die so much faster. I know i dont.

Grey40k wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Ideally, stop using their rules. Practically, nothing.

They want to retain power over the rules for obvious reasons. ITC taking a stronger stance might help curtail some of the more abusive practices.

I looked at the recent (6 months results). Does anyone feel that this is a fun and fair competition?

If ITC starts patching, GW might be more cautious to avoid being overruled by ITC.

Maybe this is wishful thinking...

If ITC start patching, GW stops letting them playtest, advertising them, covering their events. Balance for gw games would be wildly different and points adjustments in CA would make no sense in ITC land.