Battle of the broken (2018 vs 2020)

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.

**kingheff**

So this is a very long video but I still found it very interesting. 2018 Ynarri run by Nick Nanavati who won the LVO with his list vs Richard Siegler and his Iron Hands list that won LVO 2020 to see whose broken army would win, they were using the rules as they stood at the time so the Ynarri could deepstrike turn one, for example.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_zWXb68eVM

Spoiler:

**Siegfriedfr**

Really put a dent into the whole "it's the player not the army that win/lose a game" argument.

**Grimtuff**

Siegfriedfr wrote:
Really put a dent into the whole "it's the player not the army that win/lose a game" argument.

Good. Now we can also put to bed people gushing over these "pro" 40k players as if they're something special too.

**hotsauceman1**

Grimtuff wrote:
Siegfriedfr wrote:
Really put a dent into the whole "it's the player not the army that win/lose a game" argument.

Good. Now we can also put to bed people gushing over these "pro" 40k players as if they're something special too.

Dude, there is a reason why they are still top all the time across editions/events, because they are good.
Dont be so jelous.

**Siegfriedfr**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
Grimtuff wrote:
Siegfriedfr wrote:
Really put a dent into the whole "it's the player not the army that win/lose a game" argument.

Good. Now we can also put to bed people gushing over these "pro" 40k players as if they're something special too.

Dude, there is a reason why they are still top all the time across editions/events, because they are good.
Dont be so jelous.

Wrong, they are just rich (which is not a bad thing) boys who can switch armies and models at will to win with whatever is FOTM.

**Bosskelot**

A lot of the hyper-competitive successful players actually do a lot of model swaps and trades, or just straight up borrow stuff from other people.

**Sim-Life**

Siegfriedfr wrote:
Really put a dent into the whole "it's the player not the army that win/lose a game" argument.

Only at the highest levels of competitive play. i.e the worst way to play the game.

**kingheff**

Grimtuff wrote:
Siegfriedfr wrote:
Really put a dent into the whole "it's the player not the army that win/lose a game" argument.

Good. Now we can also put to bed people gushing over these "pro" 40k players as if they're something special too.

Did either of you guys watch the video? There's some extremely tactical stuff going on and, if nothing else, it shows just how well they understand the game. They may not be Napoleon but their skills and knowledge put them far above most players.

**Bosskelot**

Yeah saying Nick and Rich are bad or average players who only get by because they take OP armies is stupidly reductive. There's a reason they consistently place highly at events, often times using unique and off-meta lists, because they have a very deep, fundamental understanding of the game and its systems. You've also got tons of other very strong competitive players who explicitly take weaker or off-meta lists consistently as a matter of principle and still place highly or often win events with them. Lawrence Baker being the best example here.

Haven't watched the whole video yet but it doesn't surprise me who won. IH and new Marines are absolutely a bigger problem than old-Ynnari ever was just in terms of sheer numbers. Plus, on the flipside of what I said above, you had formerly low-ranked ITC players getting top 3 finishes with IH armies because the army is/was so braindead and oppressively powerful that anyone could pick up and play and stomp 95% of other lists in the game with it. You never saw that happening with Ynnari.

**Grimtuff**

And the usual defences trot out...

"No, guys. 40k is a for realsies sport. It's a career choice that I can make a living off of! It's going to be in the Olympics one day for sure! Please put us on Twitch as an eSport!"

Never going to happen. Stop putting these people on a pedestal as if using the most broken army in a relatively poorly written game and doing well is some kind of achievement. Come back when you win against that IH list with GKs.

**Bosskelot**

Grimtuff wrote:
And the usual defences trot out...

"No, guys. 40k is a for realsies sport. It's a career choice that I can make a living off of! It's going to be in the Olympics one day for sure! Please put us on Twitch as an eSport!"

Nobody said this.

**Ishagu**

Lol what's with all the negativity? It's just a fun game between two players with a novel idea.

There's a lot of anger on these board. You guys should do something about it.

**Turnip Jedi**

Ishagu wrote:
Lol what's with all the negativity? It's just a fun game between two players with a novel idea.

There's a lot of anger on these board. You guys should do something about it.

but but they are doing the fun wrong

and doing secondary school level sums

and thinking more than I do

worst people ever

**Grimtuff**

Bosskelot wrote:
Grimtuff wrote:
And the usual defences trot out...

"No, guys. 40k is a for realsies sport. It's a career choice that I can make a living off of! It's going to be in the Olympics one day for sure! Please put us on Twitch as an eSport!"

Nobody said this.

Subtext is a thing. If you lot can imply I'm apparently "jealous" then I can infer the above from opposing posts.

**Bosskelot**

Grimtuff wrote:
Bosskelot wrote:
Grimtuff wrote:
And the usual defences trot out...

"No, guys. 40k is a for realsies sport. It's a career choice that I can make a living off of! It's going to be in the Olympics one day for sure! Please put us on Twitch as an eSport!"

Nobody said this.

Subtext is a thing. If you lot can imply I'm apparently "jealous" then I can infer the above from opposing posts.

Subtext is a thing, but not here. You're just conjuring nonsense and assigning viewpoints and opinions to people that they don't have while also being completely ignorant of the subject matter.

**kingheff**

Could debates on the ability of pro players and the games merits as an esport be kept out of this thread please?
I made the thread because I thought it was interesting comparison for two tournament winning lists not for discussions about competitive play generally.

**ERJAK**

Siegfriedfr wrote:
Really put a dent into the whole "it's the player not the army that win/lose a game" argument.

How? A list run by one really great player beat another list run by a really great player. That same list played by some schlub would have been toasted by Nanavati's Ynnari.

At best it's an argument for nerfing that IH list because of what it can do in the hands of a good player, which already happened.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

kingheff wrote:
Could debates on the ability of pro players and the games merits as an esport be kept out of this thread please?
I made the thread because I thought it was interesting comparison for two tournament winning lists not for discussions about competitive play generally.

So you made a thread discussing competitive play but not for discussing competitive play?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grimtuff wrote:
Bosskelot wrote:
Grimtuff wrote:
And the usual defences trot out...

"No, guys. 40k is a for realsies sport. It's a career choice that I can make a living off of! It's going to be in the Olympics one day for sure! Please put us on Twitch as an eSport!"

Nobody said this.

Subtext is a thing. If you lot can imply I'm apparently "jealous" then I can infer the above from opposing posts.

There's never been that subtext. Some people would like to see 40k as an esport, but that's mostly because that would mean more people like a thing they also like. No one is under any illusion that you could actually make a living off of it.

**kingheff**

ERJAK wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

kingheff wrote:
Could debates on the ability of pro players and the games merits as an esport be kept out of this thread please?
I made the thread because I thought it was interesting comparison for two tournament winning lists not for discussions about competitive play generally.

So you made a thread discussing competitive play but not for discussing competitive play?

No, I was hoping to stop the thread from derailing into a debate how pro players aren't good and that the game sucks as an esport. Seems I fell at the first hurdle!

**ERJAK**

Ishagu wrote:
Lol what's with all the negativity? It's just a fun game between two players with a novel idea.

There's a lot of anger on these board. You guys should do something about it.

Didn't you spend like 2 solid months raging at people for using ITC missions instead of CA missions?

**Karol**

Sim-Life wrote:
Siegfriedfr wrote:
Really put a dent into the whole "it's the player not the army that win/lose a game" argument.

Only at the highest levels of competitive play. i.e the worst way to play the game.

A guy at my store who played an army build out of 2 dark empires, turned in to a WAAC in other peoples eyes, when codex IH came out. Before the codex came out, he was considered a painter and made fun on everyone for not playing a good black army eg RG. When IH codex came, he had no leviathans, no normal dreads, 2 ETB primaris dreads, no tanks. The collective at the store decided that he is part of the people that are "killing" w40k, and some people no longer wanted to play against him. So I think the army matters more then a player. Even the best and smartest player in the world is not going to be winning events with a really bad army.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ishagu wrote:
Lol what's with all the negativity? It's just a fun game between two players with a novel idea.

There's a lot of anger on these board. You guys should do something about it.

Stuff cost too much for people to not take the game serious here. If your a kid and invest 2-3 years of money in to an army, you do not want it to be bad. Specialy when your friends spending the same money get good armies.

**Grey40k**

There is a reason why good players gravitate towards good factions; at least the ones who want to win tournaments.

LB was praised for winning a tourney with GK, but that only happened after GK got updated.

NN won LVO 2018 using Ynnari.

BG won LVO 2019 using what he defined as "meta"; his Knight and guard.

RS won LVO 2020 using IH.

The ITC leader is a self confessed meta chaser (IH, possessed bomb, etc.).

This are not anecdotes, warhammer stats has a full list of tourneys and this is what happens time and again.

Players matter, but armies matter a great deal; they are not a minor factor. Lack of balance hurts the competitive side because it discourages the hobby within it (armies are disposable, chase the meta). It also hurts the more casual side because it makes the game less fun for those who play "bad" armies.

For a game this old, GW should be doing much better. Instead, they just swing the pendulum wildly.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Don't take it from me, read what NN has to say about how he became a winner:

https://spikeybits.com/2018/02/the-road-to-becoming-itc-champ.html

Towards the end of the ITC 2016 season, I realized I was nowhere near contention for winning the whole thing. That seemed silly considering I already attend a lot of the major high point events and there was a very enticing cash prize at the end of the tunnel (not to mention the accolades). But upon about 30 seconds of self-reflection, I realized it was because I didn’t take it seriously. I would drop from events as soon as I lost, or I would bring silly armies to potential high point tournaments because I felt like messing around. While those may have seemed like good ideas at the time (I mean who doesn’t want to sleep in through round 4 of a GT after losing round 3), at the end of the year when all your friends are competing for the championship title and you’re sitting at 364th calculating if there’s any way to win a faction award it feels bad. So I made the conscious decision to take the 2017 ITC circuit seriously.

Fast forward a few months and we’re at Adepticon 2017, the first major points opportunity of the year. I brought with me some prime 7th edition BS in the form of splitting obsec horrors everywhere. Honestly, this was one of my most unfair and poorly balanced things to ever exist in 40k and I just broke the game all the way to the finals where I even

tually won. I won’t bore you with the ins and outs of a 7th edition army because that seems like a bigger waste of time than me trying to enter a Crystal Brush contest. So with that, I was able to take a commanding lead on the circuit early on.

**kingheff**

I do wonder if eliminators need looking at after watching this game. Sniping from out of line of sight isn't exactly a fun experience for the other player, especially at 36".

**Siegfriedfr**

kingheff wrote:
I do wonder if eliminators need looking at after watching this game. Sniping from out of line of sight isn't exactly a fun experience for the other player, especially at 36".

No LOS nees to be removed from the game entirely for anything not artillery.

**Ice_can**

kingheff wrote:
I do wonder if eliminators need looking at after watching this game. Sniping from out of line of sight isn't exactly a fun experience for the other player, especially at 36".

About 90% of marines 2.0 needs looking at, the only thing draging their avarage win percentage down is that they are no longer 1 factions they are now 8 plus the out of codex ones so they are massively weighting their avarages down to 50%50 with marines vrs marines, irons hands vrs the non marines are all positive except vrs GSC and Yannari like thats not balanced similar results with most of the other Marine factions once you remove the mirrors they are 60% or more.

**tneva82**

Grimtuff wrote:
Siegfriedfr wrote:
Really put a dent into the whole "it's the player not the army that win/lose a game" argument.

Good. Now we can also put to bed people gushing over these "pro" 40k players as if they're something special too.

So you think richard is bad player?

**Grey40k**

tneva82 wrote:
Grimtuff wrote:
Siegfriedfr wrote:
Really put a dent into the whole "it's the player not the army that win/lose a game" argument.

Good. Now we can also put to bed people gushing over these "pro" 40k players as if they're something special too.

So you think richard is bad player?

No, most likely he does no. But there is a difference between a good player and a tourney winning player and it’s that the latter is willing to use the most broken stuff to win. It is not me saying it, read the text from NN I quoted.

The fact that it is possible to win such and edge by exploiting bad rules is prove that they game is not well balanced and that players don’t win only based on skill.

Personally, I’d rather lose than turn to a broken anti fun army to win. But as evidenced by NNs honest text, that’s because my desire to win is not strong enough.

At the end of the day, though, a good game doesn’t not require players to play conscious suboptimal for everyone to have fun.

**kingheff**

Ice_can wrote:
kingheff wrote:
I do wonder if eliminators need looking at after watching this game. Sniping from out of line of sight isn't exactly a fun experience for the other player, especially at 36".

About 90% of marines 2.0 needs looking at, the only thing draging their avarage win percentage down is that they are no longer 1 factions they are now 8 plus the out of codex ones so they are massively weighting their avarages down to 50%50 with marines vrs marines, irons hands vrs the non marines are all positive except vrs GSC and Yannari like thats not balanced similar results with most of the other Marine factions once you remove the mirrors they are 60% or more.

I think a lot of it can be tweaked points wise but snipers that can hide behind a wall just feels blatantly unfair to me. Even without the ingore LOS shooting they're still very strong but with it?

**hotsauceman1**

Grimtuff wrote:
And the usual defences trot out...

"No, guys. 40k is a for realsies sport. It's a career choice that I can make a living off of! It's going to be in the Olympics one day for sure! Please put us on Twitch as an eSport!"

Never going to happen. Stop putting these people on a pedestal as if using the most broken army in a relatively poorly written game and doing well is some kind of achievement. Come back when you win against that IH list with GKs.

You do see how there are massive twitch battles and people do come in to watch?
Like cmon man, The game growing is good for EVERYONE.
What is the saying? Rising tide rises all boats?

**Amishprn86**

Can we PLEASE just talk about the power level and the video, and not about what is a pro in 40k? FFS stay on the topic.

**hotsauceman1**

How is this not on topic? this is a video about two high lvl players and armies.
Talking about what is and isnt good 40k is on topic