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.

 vict0988 wrote:
too bad you don't get as much support as 40k because 30k is trash and you have to rely entirely on books.

The + side of that is that they aren't constantly F it up.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Breton wrote:
Too low - certainly if they fix ObSec - the basic First Born body is 18ish points.

I made them very cheap on purpose to illustrate the point. Even if you're saving 8ppm it's still unlikely that the extra bodies will be a large factor in optimized list building. Which I suppose means there's not that much reason not to do it even if there is some risk that it makes combat squad too good in very specific metas.

We're already being pushed into MSU instead of taking the full 10+. Regardless of faction - and the extra five guys shouldn't be a cheaper slightly worse Tac MSU. Even the so called "horde" armies are being pushed MSU. They need to make it just as viable to do 3x10 (or 3x20 or 3x30 etc) as they do 6x5.

I'm not advocating for this change. I'm pointing out that even with an absurd points cut people likely wouldn't want 5 extra bodies unless having them breaks something.

There likely isn't a good solution for fixing this in the current 40k ruleset. Blast is stupid, doesn't fix what it tries to fix, and punishes certain armies just for daring to show up. Even with objectives being more important than ever killing the other guy's dudes as fast as possible is still a very good strategy and you can hold the objective better with two units of 5 than with one unit of 10. I could go on...

I wouldn't go that far, BLAST does make logical sense, but it's only half finished. There's no benefit to risking blast anymore than you have to. I'd probably try something like: "Buying squads in multiples of 5, Blast works off of how many multiples of 5 you have. Blast only affects more than 10 with X + Y shots per extra 5 or part thereof - and as a seperate rule units more than 10 get X rule that makes them better." For Marines, I'd say buy in multiples of 5, you unlock the Sgt and his upgrades at 5, special and heavies (where appropriate) at 10. At 10 you also unlock the Veteran Squad Leader who is a Sergeant in all but name (thus missing out on Strats like Honoured Sgt), but still opens up the Sgt Upgrades. Marines have way too much pushing them into MSU. The "free" Sgt but only for the first five. Getting a special or a heavy in the Tac Squads, there's no reason to take the 10, because you can take two five's to get the 10 and still get the Sgt.

SemperMortis wrote:
The irony of this post is now apparent The first of the major GTs that people track has results come in and Marines swept 1st - 3rd and people are still trying to argue that this is the correct amount of wins Marines should have Again, i'll happily admit we are still very early into AoO but the initial results from the larger GTs and now one of the biggest of the year is indicating that they were over tuned to the point where they are the top faction. Apparently me stating an opinion which is now corroborated by evidence is me "hating Space Marines".

If a ~52% win rate at that event is evidence that "they were over tuned to the point where they are the top faction", then the game is the healthiest it has been in years.

Things that may explain why people think this thread is still you "hating Space Marines"
- Attempting to roll a faction with a different core Codex into Space Marines group, despite a number of posters pointing out you were wrong to do so.
- Continually trying to use the top 10 as a data point, despite it being too large for some events and not large enough for the most recent one.
- Only concentrating on the placing of players at the top of the event, rather than looking at the event as a whole.
- Not taking faction participation rates into account when looking at events. SM taking 31% of top 16 spots when they make up 21% of entrants is them over-performing, sure - but so is LoV or Necrons achieving 12.5% of those spots while being 4-5% of participation each, and by a much larger %.
- Cherry-picking what you report - for example, you're shouting here about SM sweeping the top 3 (after the cut-to-top-8 games were included), yet you made no mention in your initial report about the previous batch of events that the IG had swept the top 3 at one of them.

I'm sure others can add reasons to that.

For me, the core problem is you've got a narrative you want to tell - "This latest balance slate/MFM overtuned Space Marines" - and you're looking for data to support that narrative, while excluding anything that doesn't fit with it. Someone who was being responsible about how they were reporting would be looking at the data to see what stories it would tell them, without going in with preconceptions.

Dark Angels and Iron Hands are definitely overtuned, but the rest of the Space Marine factions seem somewhat fine, some melee Space Marines are even weak.

 Tyran wrote:
Dark Angels and Iron Hands are definitely overtuned, but the rest of the Space Marine factions seem somewhat fine, some melee Space Marines are even weak.

How do you fix this? Is reverting the change to Combat Doctrines so the codex actually has the right rule and that Secondary that rewards being in the Devastator Doctrine a crazy idea from a casual that would cause 3 issues without fixing anything or would it solve a lot of issues without actually breaking anything or would it just be a nothing burger? Do you fix Dark Angels by nerfing Terminators? That seems unfair since Dark Angels are the only ones running Terminators right? Do you add a couple of points to the corvus hammers of the Ravenwing guys? Those hammers seemed popular in the lists I had a look at.

Messing with doctrines is probably how you fix Iron Hands. Maybe not a complete reversion, maybe something like:

Turn 1: Devastator.
Turn 2: Devastator or Tactical.
Turn 3: Tactical or Assault.
Turn 4: Assault.

As for Dark Angels, it would likely require changes to the Inner Circle rules.
Maybe nerf their transhuman to 1-2 always fail or a S8+ exception.

The problem from determining balance based on results is tahat pro-players are not going to run say Imperial Fists when there are better options of running marines.

I think nerfing IH/DA would be sensible. But I suspect you could get "better" performance from the other chapters if top players who are currently running IH/DA moved over to say WS/RG/Salamanders etc.

 Tyran wrote:
Messing with doctrines is probably how you fix Iron Hands. Maybe not a complete reversion, maybe something like:

Turn 1: Devastator.
Turn 2: Devastator or Tactical.
Turn 3: Tactical or Assault.
Turn 4: Assault.

As for Dark Angels, it would likely require changes to the Inner Circle rules.
Maybe nerf their transhuman to 1-2 always fail or a S8+ exception.

OR Dark Angels don't need silly rules on top of rules for their Terminators.

Doctrines as you started there would be a fine fix.

 Dysartes wrote:

If a ~52% win rate at that event is evidence that "they were over tuned to the point where they are the top faction", then the game is the healthiest it has been in years.

Ah yes, Win Loss rate, the only way to judge how powerful a faction is. Just ignore the Top placings and focus on the one that is directly impacted by the plethora of Marine players who show up with fluffy lists or who are first time attendees to tournaments and as such get swept. I mean, when IH were ridiculously over powered to the point where they were sweeping tournaments marines still had a sub 50% win loss ratio so they were still fine right?

 Dysartes wrote:
- Attempting to roll a faction with a different core Codex into Space Marines group, despite a number of posters pointing out you were wrong to do so.

You mean the different core codex which relies on almost the exact same statline, same power armor, huge number of same vehicles/weapons/stats/abilities/rolls/names. You mean that core codex? The one that got the EXACT same treatment as Codex: SM, IE Massive point reductions and free gear on a host of units? I know what kind of lunatic would lump them in, I mean...its not like they are exactly the same in almost every single way except "Oooo! Psykers".

 Dysartes wrote:
- Continually trying to use the top 10 as a data point, despite it being too large for some events and not large enough for the most recent one.

You can switch between top 10, top 4, top 6 or top 8, if the data shows that Marines are winning a huge percentage of tournaments then they were too over tuned to compensate for losing AoC. But yeah, totally my trying to play with numbers as opposed to others trying to disguise the fact that Marines SWEPT the top 3 at the Cherokee Open which is billeted as one of the biggest events of the entire year and the first since AoO came out.

 Dysartes wrote:
- Only concentrating on the placing of players at the top of the event, rather than looking at the event as a whole.

I mean...yes, because Joe Smuckatelli who shows up to an event with a half painted force of UltraSmurfs, all of whom have substandard equipment isn't a fair representation of how well a faction can do in a competitive meta...in fact its actually the opposite, its bad data points. The top placings are how you determine how competitive a faction can be. My first GT I walked into an event with a badly written Ork list, should Orkz therefore be judged by how well my n00b butt did? Or should they have been judged by the fact that a week later an Ork player almost won a Major GT?

 Dysartes wrote:
- Not taking faction participation rates into account when looking at events. SM taking 31% of top 16 spots when they make up 21% of entrants is them over-performing, sure - but so is LoV or Necrons achieving 12.5% of those spots while being 4-5% of participation each, and by a much larger %.

The blatant misrepresentation of facts in this specific part of your post is astounding. Marines Swept 1st - 3rd. They made up 5 of the top 16 spots INCLUDING 1st through 3rd. As opposed to the Necrons getting 12.5 which is how many spots? Oh yeah...1 Faction participation is USELESS as a stat since it incorporates muppets who show up to an event with lists they know which will get steamrolled. It includes newbies, it includes that guy who brought his girlfriend for her first ever competitive game not against her boyfriend (yeah i've seen that happen) The only accurate way to measure if a faction is over tuned is not win/loss, its not participation, its how often they appear on the podium at events, and specifically bigger events.

 Dysartes wrote:
- Cherry-picking what you report - for example, you're shouting here about SM sweeping the top 3 (after the cut-to-top-8 games were included), yet you made no mention in your initial report about the previous batch of events that the IG had swept the top 3 at one of them.

Numerous posts I went through and grabbed all recent tournaments, I reported participation rate and top 10 placement across the board in all those events. Thats cherry picking now is it? Or is it that you don't like it when the facts go against what you want. But lets take a closer look into your complaint about IG taking top 3 in a significantly smaller event compared to cherokee and see how they've done compared to Marines since then and who the problems are.

Heroic Scale Gamers Houston Open: 80 players;
1st Place: IG, 2nd Place: IG 3rd Place: IG 4th Place: Chaos Marines

Wheat City Open 2023: 52 Players
1st Place: Demons, 2nd Place: IG, 3rd Place: Black Templars, 4th Place: Black Templars

Dice ARCADE gt: 80 Players
1st Place: Ad Mech, 2nd Place Dark Angels, 3rd Place: Orkz, 4th Place IG

Frontline Gaming Cherokee Open 40K Champs: 257 Players
1st Place: Dark Angels, 2nd Place: Space Wolves, 3rd Place Iron Hands, 4th Place: IG

Capital Clash Winter '23 Grand Tournament: 38 Players
1st Place: Iron Warriors, 2nd Place: World Eaters, 3rd Place: IG 4th Place Dark Angels

MTC Winter GT: 38 Players
1st Place: Orkz, 2nd Place: Custards, 3rd Place: Space Elves, 4th Place Space Dwarves

BrewHammer GT 3: 38 Players
1st Place: Wolves, 2nd Place: Necrons, 3rd Place: Knights, 4th Place Necrons

Winter Ruin Grand tournament: 42 Players
1st Place: Chaos Marines, 2nd Place: IG, 3rd Place Dark Angels, 4th Place: Black Templars

PCG Hosts the Lightly Salted Winter GT: 42 Players
1st Place: Wolves, 2nd Place, Knights, 3rd Place: World Eaters, 4th place Custards

HWP Salty Classic GT February 42 Players
1st Place: Nidz, 2nd Place: IG, 3rd Place: Orkz, 4th Place: Eldar

Broadsword Wargaming 40K ITC Winter Major II: 56 Players
1st Place: Custards, 2nd Place: Eldar, 3rd Place: Eldar, 4th Place: Orkz

Milwaukee GT: 70 Players
1st Place: Dark Angels, 2nd Place: Black Templars, 3rd Place: Iron Hands, 4th Place: Grey Knights

Scheunenkloppen Open - War Zone Erkelenz: GT: 133 Players
1st Place: Eldar, 2nd Place: Dark Angels, 3rd Place: IG, 4th Place: Eldar

Scorched Earth Open: 60 Players
1st Place: Tau, 2nd Place: Death Guard, 3rd Place: world eaters, 4th Place: Eldar

So the IG have scored 9 top 4 placements out of 56 spots as reported by 40kstats. Marines, Including Grey Knights because we are talking about the problem of free gear teamed with sweeping points cuts and since Grey Knights are literally just Marines +1 I'm including them, deal with it. Marines recorded 17 top 4 Placements out of 56, including 5 1st place finishes to the IG's 1. Only other faction doing really well in tournament placings is Space Elves with 7 placings. So here is the best part about my argument, it doesn't have to be an either or scenario. I still think, especially in light of recent data that Marines are the #1 faction in the game right now, but that doesn't mean that IG and Space Elves aren't over powered at the moment as well.

 Dysartes wrote:

For me, the core problem is you've got a narrative you want to tell - "This latest balance slate/MFM overtuned Space Marines" - and you're looking for data to support that narrative, while excluding anything that doesn't fit with it. Someone who was being responsible about how they were reporting would be looking at the data to see what stories it would tell them, without going in with preconceptions.

I just lumped in all Data since the IG swept the top 3 of a smaller GT, there was no cherry picking, I grabbed the data right off 40kstats and presented it, I didn't have to "look for data" to support my narrative, Its just blatantly there. The problem we are having is that you guys are looking for BS excuses for why Marines deserve to win that often at GTs. "Oh but the win/loss ratio is still low" or your new claim "they make up X% of the meta so therefore...". Space Marines got over tuned, IG are currently over tuned, Eldar are still over tuned. OMG! Look at that, I must hate IG and Eldar now as well right? Or I could be making an opinion based upon data as opposed to feelings.

Taking some other context out:

5 of the 14 have no space marines in that top 4.

Another 5 only have 1 marine placement. Of these 5, they won 2 of them.

What does this tell us?

That 4 events account for 11 out of 16 marine placements following the somewhat incorrect inclusion of GK.

So the better question now in my mind, is why are marines able to hammer the gak out of 4 events so heavily to create a skew like that. Does the fact they racked up so many top 4 places in 4 events get balanced out by their total absence in 5 and at best "reasonable" representation in 5 more.

In honesty Semper I still don't think the evidence is there, they've overperformed in 4 events and if they were a dominating top meta force, I wouldn't expect them to simply not appear in a third of events.

Not really sure I'm contributing much - but I think the evidence is there. Marines are doing very well on a reasonably neutral basis. Dysartes and others have shown they are winning tournaments on a better basis than you would expect on their player %. (Which is itself a bit skewed, because "good" factions tend to attract players over "bad" ones.)

I mean its the line that's be dropped for Custodes & Tau, Harlequins and Tyranids. (And I don't think Marines are as far ahead of the pack as these were in their era). How many tournament wins do SM have to get to be considered an issue?

Because - and I realise this is a dated reference - there are echos of "Eldar are fine in late 7th". They don't win all the tournaments - but they win a lot. But when about 30% of tournament attendees run Eldar, arguably they should win 30%+ of tournaments and its fine right? I'm sure Eldar rules have no relation to the fact there's such a disproportionate number of people running Eldar - and in turn their performance.

Another thing is that Space Marines aren't the only arguably overpowered factions.

Tzeentchian daemons are another definitely problematic army, Genestealer Cults are also considerably overperforming although they still have a small player pop. And World Eaters had a notably strong early performance although admittedly it is still to early to tell in their case. Eldar are also overperforming at the top tables although their win rate is fineish.

Space Marines aren't the only issue around, just the most notable one thanks to their massive player pop.

 vict0988 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

vict0988 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Or you could just remove "buffs", and strategems, entirely.

And we could all play Space Marines and pretend GW knows what they're doing and that the ruleset you play isn't trash.

I'll tell all of the Mechanicum, Solar Auxilia, Custodes, Sisters of Silence, Cults and Militia, and Daemons of the Ruinstorm players that they don't exist (at least on your planet). As for your "trash" comment, I can't really figure out how to respond when your entire explanation is simply:

vict0988 wrote:Because it's not what I like.

I guess you're so attached to the board game/CCG amalgam that is 8th/9th edition that you dislike everything else to the point that you don't even understand what you dislike, or why?

I don't like units being immune to damage from most units like what the old Toughness and Armour Value systems do. I hate the old assault rules with a passion that will continue burning until the heat death of the universe. I like CP re-rolls and Necrons. I like plenty of games, I've recently gotten really into Spirit Island, it has a wonderful mix of board game and deck-building elements.

8th/9th don't have CCG elements, they have a resource system and play aides. Scary-scary play aides, too bad you don't get as much support as 40k because 30k is trash and you have to rely entirely on books.

Yes, if you don't like those things, then HH isn't for you. But that doesn't make the rules "trash", it just makes them "something that Vict0988 doesn't like". And what do you mean by "play aids"? The cards? Because gw released cards for HH, and I had the same response to them as in 40k: I didn't buy them. I also, personally, like books. So no problem there, for me, at least (also: what ccs said).

But what does any of this "anti-HH" tirade have to do with my suggestion that buffs and strategems be removed from 9th edition 40k? I suggested no changes to the wounding table, or Assault Phase. I guess it would leave you without your "do over" CP reroll, but beyond that? What does it have to do with HH? Other than just attacking my preferred set of rules instead of actually addressing the statement?

How are you going to get an objective definition of which games are and aren't trash? By listening to me

I made a tirade because you were confused by me saying "HH is trash". I said HH is trash because you suggested removing things that are in 9th and are not in HH and because I thought I remembered you playing HH.

 vict0988 wrote:
How are you going to get an objective definition of which games are and aren't trash? By listening to me

I made a tirade because you were confused by me saying "HH is trash". I said HH is trash because you suggested removing things that are in 9th and are not in HH and because I thought I remembered you playing HH.

??????

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
How are you going to get an objective definition of which games are and aren't trash? By listening to me

I made a tirade because you were confused by me saying "HH is trash". I said HH is trash because you suggested removing things that are in 9th and are not in HH and because I thought I remembered you playing HH.

??????

Just me and Gadzilla's tangent.

Breton wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Breton wrote:
Too low - certainly if they fix ObSec - the basic First Born body is 18ish points.

I made them very cheap on purpose to illustrate the point. Even if you're saving 8ppm it's still unlikely that the extra bodies will be a large factor in optimized list building. Which I suppose means there's not that much reason not to do it even if there is some risk that it makes combat squad too good in very specific metas.

We're already being pushed into MSU instead of taking the full 10+. Regardless of faction - and the extra five guys shouldn't be a cheaper slightly worse Tac MSU. Even the so called "horde" armies are being pushed MSU. They need to make it just as viable to do 3x10 (or 3x20 or 3x30 etc) as they do 6x5.

I'm not advocating for this change. I'm pointing out that even with an absurd points cut people likely wouldn't want 5 extra bodies unless having them breaks something.

There likely isn't a good solution for fixing this in the current 40k ruleset. Blast is stupid, doesn't fix what it tries to fix, and punishes certain armies just for daring to show up. Even with objectives being more important than ever killing the other guy's dudes as fast as possible is still a very good strategy and you can hold the objective better with two units of 5 than with one unit of 10. I could go on...

I wouldn't go that far, BLAST does make logical sense, but it's only half finished. There's no benefit to risking blast anymore than you have to. I'd probably try something like: "Buying squads in multiples of 5, Blast works off of how many multiples of 5 you have. Blast only affects more than 10 with X + Y shots per extra 5 or part thereof - and as a seperate rule units more than 10 get X rule that makes them better." For Marines, I'd say buy in multiples of 5, you unlock the Sgt and his upgrades at 5, special and heavies (where appropriate) at 10. At 10 you also unlock the Veteran Squad Leader who is a Sergeant in all but name (thus missing out on Strats like Honoured Sgt), but still opens up the Sgt Upgrades. Marines have way too much pushing them into MSU. The "free" Sgt but only for the first five. Getting a special or a heavy in the Tac Squads, there's no reason to take the 10, because you can take two five's to get the 10 and still get the Sgt.

realistically blast rule should have like exploding 6s at half S

 Tyran wrote:
Genestealer Cults are also considerably overperforming although they still have a small player pop.

The rise and rise of GSC is perhaps the biggest surprise to me. I don't think anyone really expected them to do this well.

Tyel wrote:
Not really sure I'm contributing much - but I think the evidence is there. Marines are doing very well on a reasonably neutral basis. Dysartes and others have shown they are winning tournaments on a better basis than you would expect on their player %. (Which is itself a bit skewed, because "good" factions tend to attract players over "bad" ones.)

I mean its the line that's be dropped for Custodes & Tau, Harlequins and Tyranids. (And I don't think Marines are as far ahead of the pack as these were in their era). How many tournament wins do SM have to get to be considered an issue?

Because - and I realise this is a dated reference - there are echos of "Eldar are fine in late 7th". They don't win all the tournaments - but they win a lot. But when about 30% of tournament attendees run Eldar, arguably they should win 30%+ of tournaments and its fine right? I'm sure Eldar rules have no relation to the fact there's such a disproportionate number of people running Eldar - and in turn their performance.

this comparison isn't particularly accurate.
marines have always been the most popular faction. eldar not so much. if an unpopular faction is suddenly surging in popularity after a new rules update, then that's likely a red flag all on it's own.

however the new hotness will always attract the metachasers who have to make up for their short comings by having the best toys in the game, who have memorized every rule and interaction, which itself will skew the results as well.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tyran wrote:
Another thing is that Space Marines aren't the only arguably overpowered factions.

Tzeentchian daemons are another definitely problematic army, Genestealer Cults are also considerably overperforming although they still have a small player pop. And World Eaters had a notably strong early performance although admittedly it is still to early to tell in their case. Eldar are also overperforming at the top tables although their win rate is fineish.

Space Marines aren't the only issue around, just the most notable one thanks to their massive player pop.

the question i guess to me is, can you claim marines are overpowered when there are so many other factions out stripping their population of players for tournament wins and top 5s?

if GSC is 5% of the player base but winning 15-20% of tournaments, meanwhile marines are 30% of the player base winning 35-40% of tournaments i'd say the marines are not the problem on the scene.

 Tyran wrote:

Tzeentchian daemons are another definitely problematic army

God, flamers piss me off so much :( The army feels so boring and unfluffy to play yet its doing great because Flamers have such good output.

The followers of the god of magic only having acces to 6 spells means that after 2 Characters, you're already maxed out on your casts

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

Tzeentchian daemons are another definitely problematic army

God, flamers piss me off so much :( The army feels so boring and unfluffy to play yet its doing great because Flamers have such good output.

The followers of the god of magic only having acces to 6 spells means that after 2 Characters, you're already maxed out on your casts

They're put in their place pretty well since the latest update.

The 5-1 at Clutch City was :

Enrapturess
Kairos
Shalaxi
Tranceweaver

2x10 Daemonettes
2x3 Nurglings
3x5 Fiends
3 Flamers
5 Hounds

Exalted Chariot
2x Skull Cannon

In fact most daemon lists are now multi-god.

I'm just irked that a kitted-out Lord of Change is more durable than a kitted-out GUO.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

the question i guess to me is, can you claim marines are overpowered when there are so many other factions out stripping their population of players for tournament wins and top 5s?

if GSC is 5% of the player base but winning 15-20% of tournaments, meanwhile marines are 30% of the player base winning 35-40% of tournaments i'd say the marines are not the problem on the scene.

Define "many other". The other factions with notable overrepresentation at the top tables are Craftwolrd Eldar, Chaos Daemons, Orks, World Eaters and Genestealer Cults.

Meanwhile Dark Eldar, Harlequins, both flavors of Knights, Chaos Spaces Marines, Thousand Sons, Death Guard, Tyranids, Admech, LoV and Sisters are suffering underrepresentation.

Definitely there are problems. Space Marines are not the entirety of the problems, but they are a problem.

And here are the winners from this past weekend :

GSC
CK
BT
Sisters
BA
DG
Ynnari
Black Legion
DE
Orks
Custodes
Votann
Iron Hands

Have you ever seen a list like that in a weekend?

Ynnari and GSC seem like the "problem" armies. The next tier is probably DA, IH, Guard, and Custodes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I'm just irked that a kitted-out Lord of Change is more durable than a kitted-out GUO.

For sure. He should be slow and absurdly hard to kill.

Tzeentch can do his manipulation shenanigans and Nurgle should just take it on the chin and laugh. Don't ask me how to make that happen or how to balance it though.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

Tzeentchian daemons are another definitely problematic army

God, flamers piss me off so much :( The army feels so boring and unfluffy to play yet its doing great because Flamers have such good output.

The followers of the god of magic only having acces to 6 spells means that after 2 Characters, you're already maxed out on your casts

You also have Smite and psychic actions. I don't think the answer to stat creep of casts available to Tzeentch units is giving Tzeentch more powers, it's too much mental load for opponents to learn 18 powers.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

And here are the winners from this past weekend :

GSC
CK
BT
Sisters
BA
DG
Ynnari
Black Legion
DE
Orks
Custodes
Votann
Iron Hands

Have you ever seen a list like that in a weekend?

Pre-SM2.0. But the meta seems very healthy and I don't really have to give a gak about SM internal balance, having free upgrades on a handful of Necrons units isn't the worst thing in the world even if it is stupid and unnecessary.

 vict0988 wrote:
having free upgrades on a handful of Necrons units isn't the worst thing in the world even if it is stupid and unnecessary.

It's been really interesting to see this unfold. I expected free upgrades to do a whole lot of shenanigans at first. If someone would have suggested 6 months ago that you could make the changes they did and it would come out "okay-ish" I probably would have thought it was pretty foolish.

Overall I think it's the mission system that underpins all of this. GSC is probably mediocre without their pretty strong objectives. Same thing with Codex Warfare. I'm not sure about Ynnari since I haven't played them recently.

Thousand Sons are suffering with Flamers getting knocked on top of losing AoC. AP2 bolters are at full effect, but not enough to balance out the ( comparatively ) more difficult to achieve secondaries.

I

 vict0988 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

Tzeentchian daemons are another definitely problematic army

God, flamers piss me off so much :( The army feels so boring and unfluffy to play yet its doing great because Flamers have such good output.

The followers of the god of magic only having acces to 6 spells means that after 2 Characters, you're already maxed out on your casts

You also have Smite and psychic actions. I don't think the answer to stat creep of casts available to Tzeentch units is giving Tzeentch more powers, it's too much mental load for opponents to learn 18 powers.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

And here are the winners from this past weekend :

GSC
CK
BT
Sisters
BA
DG
Ynnari
Black Legion
DE
Orks
Custodes
Votann
Iron Hands

Have you ever seen a list like that in a weekend?

Pre-SM2.0. But the meta seems very healthy and I don't really have to give a gak about SM internal balance, having free upgrades on a handful of Necrons units isn't the worst thing in the world even if it is stupid and unnecessary.

Necrons have so little in the way of options that most of those are kinda sidegrades

 Daedalus81 wrote:

And here are the winners from this past weekend :

GSC
CK
BT
Sisters
BA
DG
Ynnari
Black Legion
DE
Orks
Custodes
Votann
Iron Hands

3/13 doesn't seem terrible - do you have a list of the events, Daed, so I can run through them? I'm assuming the Iron Hands one is the bit GT I already looked at.

 Dysartes wrote:
3/13 doesn't seem terrible - do you have a list of the events, Daed, so I can run through them? I'm assuming the Iron Hands one is the bit GT I already looked at.

Clutch City GT. Houston, TX
Game of Westeros XIV. Vastmanlands, Sweden
Dicehammer Open. Irvine, CA
Midtcon GT. Viborg, Denmark
9th Barrie Bash. Barrie, Canada
CAGBASH XVI. Hamilton, OH
Corsair Open GT. Munchen, Germany
Winter Ruin GT. Coplay, PA
Norsehammer Open 2023. Bjodnabeen, Norway
Iberian Ham Tournament. Sant Joan Despi, Spain
Drop Assault On Coast Con. Biloxi, MS
Scottish Take Over GT. Scotland
Talvisota- Winter Assualt. Hesinki, Finland

Ah, so the Iron Hands one wasn't the same event? Fair enough.

Guess I know what I'm doing outside of work hours for the next couple of days...