Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Dudeface wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
The "old problem" being you can't count models under a template? Is that what we're doing here?

To help with your counting I've suggested you take it to the other thread 3 times now.

Let's see. . . your problem couldn't be actual under-template-counting, because you've actually said that Flamer Templates could still have a place. Similarly, I presume you don't have an issue with measuring movement distances, ranges, CC engagement distances, Auras abilities and the like, because it's assumed in 40K that some ability to use a tape measure is part of the basic mechanical vocabulary. And what is a blast marker really, if not a tape measure that measures in 2 dimensions instead of one?

Perhaps it's the "model-spacing" problem issue again? Maximizing distances between models in the movement phase to minimize incoming fire potential? But again you said that flamer templates could have a place, so that doesn't add up either.

So rather than taking it to Proposed Rules I'm happy to declare here that your position looks pretty silly right here!

And on topic, I'll make a prediction! I predict that GW wont implement templates again for 40K because the designers have been co-opted by focus on tournaments and churn-and-burn. So there!

Given the amount of measuring distances from models in modern 40K, I don't see the need for templates. If you have to have non-random Blast rules, use a simple measuring rule.

Blast: Select a model in the target unit that is visible to the attacking model. If the selected model is Infantry or has a Wound Characteristic of 3 or less, make one attack for the selected model and one additional attack for each model within 2" of the selected model. If any of these models are in different units, resolve those attacks as an attack against that model's unit. If the selected model is Infantry or has a Wound Characteristic of 3 or less, make 1 attack for every 3 Wounds (rounded up) on the model profile of the selected model.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Tittliewinks22 wrote:

Apple fox wrote:
Seems to be a GW issue honestly, if units could be out a little wider it’s less a issue probably as well.

The issue has always been the players.

Yes it's the players' fault that Scatterbikes was a thing, and not the fact GW threw Scatterlasers in for each bike in the kit and said all three could take it. It's also the players' fault GW doesn't point things correctly.

How do you beer and pretzels a situation where GW makes Cultists 10 points a model?

Did you read the rest of Tittliewinks' post, or just fly off the handle at the first sentence?

Nothing within the post is valid the moment you blame the players for the gak rules

I could have been a littler more clear, the context is not putting blame on players for bad rules writing, but players for the shift to more competitive elitism which has happend across near every hobby I enjoyed the past 25 years. In the context of templates and scatter dice I never found any issues of angle-shooting meta chasers arguing over 1 extra hit, but then again, the groups I play with tend to not sweat the little things. I no longer can go to a shop and do a pick up game of any of my hobbies now without some netdeck/netlist. The internet broke any game that has a puzzle/build aspect to it and that's undeniable, unfortunetly.

After watching several pages of people trying to bring templates back, and people trying to call them "rules bloat" not too long after watching people kick and scream at the idea of their Chaos Marines going to the Single Codex Multiple Supplement model - when many of them were pushing for just that for loyalist space marines I've come to one conclusion.

We're lucky GW isn't even worse at this than they are.

Tittliewinks22 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Tittliewinks22 wrote:

Apple fox wrote:
Seems to be a GW issue honestly, if units could be out a little wider it’s less a issue probably as well.

The issue has always been the players.

Yes it's the players' fault that Scatterbikes was a thing, and not the fact GW threw Scatterlasers in for each bike in the kit and said all three could take it. It's also the players' fault GW doesn't point things correctly.

How do you beer and pretzels a situation where GW makes Cultists 10 points a model?

Did you read the rest of Tittliewinks' post, or just fly off the handle at the first sentence?

Nothing within the post is valid the moment you blame the players for the gak rules

I could have been a littler more clear, the context is not putting blame on players for bad rules writing, but players for the shift to more competitive elitism which has happend across near every hobby I enjoyed the past 25 years. In the context of templates and scatter dice I never found any issues of angle-shooting meta chasers arguing over 1 extra hit, but then again, the groups I play with tend to not sweat the little things. I no longer can go to a shop and do a pick up game of any of my hobbies now without some netdeck/netlist. The internet broke any game that has a puzzle/build aspect to it and that's undeniable, unfortunetly.

I think this is a good follow up, and a good point.
Bad players can suck the fun out, bad winners, bad losers, and everything in between.
I tend to read more, and look at more net lists in games like 40k.
Did I miss a weird querk in a unit, or is it just bad.
Is there a 12 step guide to make this unit OP that without won’t even function to a level worth taking.

This also comes when “Casual” players suddenly have a lot to say when the new Eldar book comes out and scatter bikes could be Super OP.
No one was playing bikes in the numbers or using all scatter lasers, but they where some of the most nasty comments locally. All from “casual” players.
Players I most enjoy playing with are playing other games, that don’t have these issues. Or foster community’s that are better maintained to work though them.
Rules that feel good to play, reflect the story and narrative that is so important.

GW just sucks at this, but have a position that even huge mistakes for other companies can be brushed aside and won’t even hurt them.

Apple fox wrote:
This also comes when “Casual” players suddenly have a lot to say when the new Eldar book comes out and scatter bikes could be Super OP.
No one was playing bikes in the numbers or using all scatter lasers, but they where some of the most nasty comments locally. All from “casual” players.

Its pretty common.
I mean we saw it recently with say Voidweavers at 90 points. It was clearly broken rules wise.
But... did anyone in a casual setting ever people run 9 of them? Probably not. If you were on the quasi-professional 40k tournament circuit it was probably a rough 5~ weekends - but otherwise it had almost no impact at all. Few casual players play Harlequins. Almost none will have had 9 Voidweavers waiting to go. Maybe you played it once in that month - not exactly the end of the world.

I think the issue with Eldar in 7th - and indeed I'd argue wider 40k from about 5th to 7th - was that the meta was relatively stable. If something was good, it likely stayed good (even if it was perhaps no longer best). So if you played Eldar (often viewed as top faction even before their 7th codex), then in mid-2015 perhaps you didn't have the models to take advantage of scatter bikes being good. Maybe you didn't own a Wraith Knight etc.
But since these things would stay top tier for the following 2 years until 8th edition, you had plenty of opportunity to buy them and boost the power of your army. Buying say a couple of boxes of the new Jetbikes wasn't a major hardship. And therefore this got down to relatively casual players.

But sometimes its silly. I mean does anyone remember Malefic Lords in early 8th edition? Cheap Forgeworld chaos HQ, could cast smite, had a 4++, not sure it ever had an official model. I used to enter threads on here and elsewhere about how busted they were. And in Tournaments you did start to see people running 10~ of them etc. (Alongside lots of other weird early 8th edition stuff, as people quickly looked for holes in the ruleset.) In practice though, I suspect your average FLGS saw almost none. Similar story for people screening whole armies with Culexus Assassins. Or armies of Tau Commanders.

I don't think getting 10 Malefic Lords would be very hard, you could use tonnes of different miniatures for it. That doesn't change that it's GW's fault if lists with 10 Malefic Lords are legal and overpowered and GW haven't told people that their game has garbage balance and needs to be played as such in environments where you don't optimize your list. GW still doesn't tell people that, not even for their broken PL format.

Blaming a player for bringing 10 Malefic Lords is wrong. If you don't want to play against it you're free not to and if you try to pass of your list as anything other than degenerate tournament garbage then you would be scum but 40k does not need to have terrible casual lists and degenerate tournament lists that basically cannot be used against each other and when the game has that, it's GW's fault and any people that have a bad experience with the game aren't at fault.

Drukhari needed a lot of effort to not build broken lists when their codex was updated for 9th, without being sure I'd guess Tau and Custodes were the same. I know AdMech had some real duds and building their strongest lists required some wonky units that weren't legal in the previous version of the codex, so there your argument that "you won't see it in the wild" holds water. But just like the OP lists there are UP lists and GW created that minefield for players to navigate and it's not the players' fault if they despite giving an acceptable effort stumble and have a few terrible games.

 vict0988 wrote:
but 40k does not need to have terrible casual lists and degenerate tournament lists that basically cannot be used against each other and when the game has that, it's GW's fault and any people that have a bad experience with the game aren't at fault.

I guess my argument here is that do any games stop this from happening?

Unfortunately its very hard to balance a game between someone who takes a game seriously, has a degenerate tournament list backed with the knowledge to use it - and someone who perhaps doesn't really care and plays once every 6-12 months with a list drawn from the random bag of minis they bought because they looked cool at some point over the last ten years.

Its bad when one or two codexes are clearly head and shoulders above the rest. DE were not a hammer in a meta full of nails - any more than Custodes were a club in a meta full of seals. They were just busted. This was clearly GW's fault.

But looking at the game today - this seems harder to justify. Last weekend you had 13 different books come out on top of tournaments. Most factions have now had an AoO tournament win (Thousand Sons looking sad.) So if you get stomped, its probably that they were a better/more experienced player than you - and/or you made mistakes.

Tyel wrote:
...looking at the game today - this seems harder to justify.

I agree 100%, to me the external balance of the game seems top notch. I think that's more happenstance than good decision-making that led to this point. I don't think anything has changed in the past couple of years in terms of trying to balance the game, so how have we had both terrible and great external balance? But if we're talking 7th edition, then it absolutely isn't Timmy's fault when his Nobs in Gorkanauts army got smashed by Eric's Wraithknight and scatBike army in 7th, nor did Eric have a responsibility to do anything other than say "I've been winning a lot with this list, beware" if he had been winning a lot or "this is basically a tournament netlist" if he hadn't picked the units by chance. There are games which are balanced out of the box, usually, they're symmetrical, Starcraft is an exception, but it only has 3 factions. I get it 40k is hard to balance, but so often GW doesn't even try. Like at the start of 9th with the idiotic pts-increase algorithms or free wargear in 9th and the lack of points updates and rules support for armies for 5-10 years in previous editions.

Re: balance...

I think you can bring the "meta player with a broken list and tons of knowledge" closer to the "player with 1 game every 6-12 months" by making rules knowledge and army knowledge less relevant to gameplay.

For example, in Chain of Command, things function pretty much as you might expect. Tanks are tanks, infantry are infantry, LMGs and SMGs are distinct, etc.

This means that a player doesn't have to know the detailed intricacies of the mosin-nagant rifle buffed by a Platoon Leader's orders and the Steel-Cored Bullets stratagem. They just have to know tactics.

An example is a recent demo game I did for a player. He was attacking into a well armed and fortified platoon with his own infantry platoon, but had some support points to choose.

He asked me every step of the way what I would do, and I walked him through making an attack - setting up a base of fire, utilizing covering fire, smoke and smoke grenades, etc. And I didn't have to *teach*, mostly just make him think.

"How do you think soldiers in World War 2 advanced against an enemy position?"
"Well, they sent forward scouts to reveal enemy positions, then would lay covering fire on those and suspected positions"
"Okay, so far so good. Do you think they had other tools, too?"
"Smoke pots, maybe"
"Yeah, smoke grenades!"

Etc...

Basically, the player had to think about the situation as a lieutenant in the setting might, rather than think about the situation from a rules perspective (e.g. "smoke templates are 2" but the enemy has the Smoke-B-Gone stratagem so I had better get my Bodyguard unit up front to take the hits for the leader...")

The big issue with that is that warfare in 40k is ironically not that well thought out and is pretty much up to the author.

I mean how the Imperial Guard wages war? sometimes they do it as if they were a WW1, sometimes not even that and throw endless waves of infantry to be butchered (and make someone look good), sometimes they deploy massive armored and artillery assaults and 0.0001% of the time the author actually has some military knowledge so they do something somewhat realistic.

Space Marines have the inherent issue of the lore struggling to justify how a hundred of them can conquer a planet and at the same time still occasionally die to massed infantry fire and artillery.

And at least those get some focus, with Xenos is 99% of the time the author forgets about or ignores their capabilities (usually to make Space Marines look cool).

 Tyran wrote:
The big issue with that is that warfare in 40k is ironically not that well thought out and is pretty much up to the author.

I mean how the Imperial Guard wages war? sometimes they do it as if they were a WW1, sometimes not even that and throw endless waves of infantry to be butchered (and make someone look good), sometimes they deploy massive armored and artillery assaults and 0.0001% of the time the author actually has some military knowledge so they do something somewhat realistic.

Space Marines have the inherent issue of the lore struggling to justify how a hundred of them can conquer a planet and at the same time still occasionally die to massed infantry fire and artillery.

And at least those get some focus, with Xenos is 99% of the time the author forgets about or ignores their capabilities (usually to make Space Marines look cool).

You don't need WWI, to see waves of soldiers charging in and causing the opposit side to retreate, because of ammo use up. Was done in WWII, was done in Korea, Vietnam against the French and in later conflicts too.

The rest, like why marines are good, is impossible to represent on the table top. How to represent under a d6 system, dudes that move at super speed comparing to regular humans, don't sleep for weeks, get info by eating their opponents, spit acide and practicaly immune to pain comparing to regular humans and can function with damage on level regular humans can only consider god like. On top of that they do rapid deployments and move at exeptionaly fast speed. In any climate, enviroment etc I mean how do we represent the fact that some marine chapters have small fleets of servo skulls feeding them with extra ammo, extra data or support them being gun platforms, without breaking the game. Or how to represent the mass infections with mini tyranid organisms happening durning large scale invasions ? That emotions can cause warp rifts to suddenly open etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vict0988 wrote:


Blaming a player for bringing 10 Malefic Lords is wrong. If you don't want to play against it you're free not to and if you try to pass of your list as anything other than degenerate tournament garbage then you would be scum but 40k does not need to have terrible casual lists and degenerate tournament lists that basically cannot be used against each other and when the game has that, it's GW's fault and any people that have a bad experience with the game aren't at fault.

Plus GW clearly wants the sesons to have an impact on investments people do. +1 limit on things that are 0-1 and 6 elite slots, combined with no need for troops are going to cause shifts for armies that like or want to use a lot elites. On the flip side, if an army doesn't have good elites and the seson is elite focused then good luck to that faction players. From how some armies are handled in sesons, I think that GW even plans some armies to be good at some point. They hype up all factions, but the rules, in a void aren't equal for new books. But you can make a seson that take bad or terrible necrons and make them very good. Or give super efficient secondaries to GSC and suddenly they are king. And you don't even have to get in to rules writing or heavy point changes to achive that. A end of edition sm change to rules, or the need for AoC are examples of fail design and the need to save the flagship faction, and it seems to not be very balanced or good. Good marines goot even better, but IF didn't suddenly become great or even good just because they can be in devastator doctrine all game. But if they got GSC or pre omen seson necron secondaries, they would be up their with GSC and DA at the top.

I mean, part of the "old" 40k nostalgia was that it was a saner setting, too. There was no need to have Marines outrunning attack helicopters - power armor was to flak armor what plate armor was to chainmail, as far as protective power. Sure it augmented the user's strength, but not to the point that they could roundhouse kick a Toyota Hilux across the room. I don't recall a time when "100 marines can take a planet" was ever taken seriously until like, 6th or 7th edition.

Nowadays I agree, it is impossible to replicate the lore on the tabletop... and that's because the lore doesn't make sense. How can a Guardsman stand up in combat against a Guardian if a Guardian is faster than a 9th edition Space Marine? Ignore the tabletop - how does that even make sense in the lore?

40k has become memified and flanderized so hard that it's no wonder GW thinks that there is a meaningful difference between a Fragstorm Ironbolt Launcher and an Ironstorm Fragbolt Projector, or that being able to utilize Smoke Launchers is a tactical act of such gravity that it can only be done once per phase.

 Dysartes wrote:
So, for some reason the placings for the "Clutch City GT" are currently hidden on BCP, at least from me, so I can't finish looking at that event today.

Probably to do with the fact that the results are being revised due to evidence of illegal play on the part of the 3rd place finisher.

I read some old BL books and old marine codex. And marine in those are ripping out metal hatches while wearing power armour, some lift Land Raiders, Termintors get stepped on by warlord titants and stand up from it.

w40k lore in general the newer it is the more less it makes sense. IMO it is better to just not think about it. Even if no new lore was created or the lore was frozen, as long as the game is fun to play, people will keep playing. The best lore in the world is not going to make someone want to play with their 27% win rate army, if the wait to fix it can be years or even entire editions. And that is assuming one just cares about faction and not some specific build or unit use.
I don't know what someone would have to tell a Lamenter 3ed company player to make him happy about the future of w40k and his army.
And while I understand that GW would want people to play multiple armies and multiple games, and in the end it worked for me. But I don't think many people stay with a bad or unfun army long enough to make the jump to something else. People sooner just quit, then decide to spend +900$ on a Lumineth Lord army and have actual fun, instead of being stuck with their bad IW army.

Karol wrote:
The best lore in the world is not going to make someone want to play with their 27% win rate army, if the wait to fix it can be years or even entire editions.

That's what it was like for YEARS, even up to a decade for some armies

Multiple editions with the same codex, no updates, no idea if there will be any FAQ/erattas once per edition.

This is why you play the army you love, regardless or how bad the rules might be. If it's the army that makes you happy, then that's all that matters.

 Blndmage wrote:

Karol wrote:
The best lore in the world is not going to make someone want to play with their 27% win rate army, if the wait to fix it can be years or even entire editions.

That's what it was like for YEARS, even up to a decade for some armies

Multiple editions with the same codex, no updates, no idea if there will be any FAQ/erattas once per edition.

This is why you play the army you love, regardless or how bad the rules might be. If it's the army that makes you happy, then that's all that matters.

Agree on playing what you love.

Another important point? Whatever dismal tourney win % is demoralizing you? Snap out of it. Realize that those people's failures are not yours.
They do not neccecarily accurately reflect what happens in YOUR games.
The most you should read into those #s is that some armies might be more difficult to play. Or at least certain builds of that army.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
So, for some reason the placings for the "Clutch City GT" are currently hidden on BCP, at least from me, so I can't finish looking at that event today.

Probably to do with the fact that the results are being revised due to evidence of illegal play on the part of the 3rd place finisher.

Sounds like there's a story here, Platuan - care to share?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I mean, part of the "old" 40k nostalgia was that it was a saner setting, too. There was no need to have Marines outrunning attack helicopters - power armor was to flak armor what plate armor was to chainmail, as far as protective power. Sure it augmented the user's strength, but not to the point that they could roundhouse kick a Toyota Hilux across the room. I don't recall a time when "100 marines can take a planet" was ever taken seriously until like, 6th or 7th edition.

Nowadays I agree, it is impossible to replicate the lore on the tabletop... and that's because the lore doesn't make sense. How can a Guardsman stand up in combat against a Guardian if a Guardian is faster than a 9th edition Space Marine? Ignore the tabletop - how does that even make sense in the lore?

40k has become memified and flanderized so hard that it's no wonder GW thinks that there is a meaningful difference between a Fragstorm Ironbolt Launcher and an Ironstorm Fragbolt Projector, or that being able to utilize Smoke Launchers is a tactical act of such gravity that it can only be done once per phase.

Yeah . . . Older lore is at once crazier in its concepts, but saner in it execution. Like the setting is wierder, but played more straight.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

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.

Your average Ork, Eldar, Nidz, DE player is also a much more seasoned veteran on average compared to your average Marine player. That isn't a knock against Marines mind you, its just a statement that generally, Marines are everyone's first army and then some of us get bored of SPEESE MEHREENS! and venture off to join another faction. Now that statement is very much anecdotal from my own experiences in the game, but from reading these forums for years it seems to be the general rule. Marines, even at their most utterly broken (8th edition Marines 2.0) were still not winning absurd amounts of games because the newer Marine players tended to drag that number down heavily. They were running away on the tournament scene as far as top 4 placement, but the win rates for Marines as a whole still tended to be lower than another factions would be.

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.

Two things can be true at the same time. Marines can be over powered and top tier, and so can Genestealers and Eldar

Iberian Ham Tournament 36 Players:
1: Orkz
2: Blood Angels
3: Guard
4: GSC

Norsehammer Open 2023 38 Players:
1: Deldar
2: Demons
3: Eldar
4: Knights

2. Corsair Open Grand Tournament 43 Players:
1: Eldar
2: Dark Angels
3: Dark Angels
4: Space Dwarves

9th Barrie Bash 66 Players:
1: Blood Angels
2: GSC
3: GSC
4: Custards

Midtcon Grand Tournament 40K 74 Players:
1: Sisters
2: Dark Angels
3: Demons
4: Orkz

Dicehammer Open 40k GT VI 75 Players:
1: Templars
2: Tau
3: Dark Angels
4: Guard

Games of Westeros XIV 86 Players:
1: Chaos Knights
2: Demons
3: Space Marines
4: Custards

Clutch City GT 2023 131 Players:
1: GSC
2: Orkz
3: Custards
4: Demons

8 top 4 placings including winning 2 events out of 8 Events. But ready for this? I can happily admit that GSC are just as big of a problem as Marines.

Marines are currently over powered, but so are GSC, both need a small nerf to keep them more closely inline and for Marines I'll happily admit that only the top 3-4 chapters need that nerf (DA, BA, IH and maybe Templars)

SemperMortis wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

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.

Your average Ork, Eldar, Nidz, DE player is also a much more seasoned veteran on average compared to your average Marine player. That isn't a knock against Marines mind you, its just a statement that generally, Marines are everyone's first army and then some of us get bored of SPEESE MEHREENS! and venture off to join another faction. Now that statement is very much anecdotal from my own experiences in the game, but from reading these forums for years it seems to be the general rule. Marines, even at their most utterly broken (8th edition Marines 2.0) were still not winning absurd amounts of games because the newer Marine players tended to drag that number down heavily. They were running away on the tournament scene as far as top 4 placement, but the win rates for Marines as a whole still tended to be lower than another factions would be.

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.

Two things can be true at the same time. Marines can be over powered and top tier, and so can Genestealers and Eldar

Iberian Ham Tournament 36 Players:
1: Orkz
2: Blood Angels
3: Guard
4: GSC

Norsehammer Open 2023 38 Players:
1: Deldar
2: Demons
3: Eldar
4: Knights

2. Corsair Open Grand Tournament 43 Players:
1: Eldar
2: Dark Angels
3: Dark Angels
4: Space Dwarves

9th Barrie Bash 66 Players:
1: Blood Angels
2: GSC
3: GSC
4: Custards

Midtcon Grand Tournament 40K 74 Players:
1: Sisters
2: Dark Angels
3: Demons
4: Orkz

Dicehammer Open 40k GT VI 75 Players:
1: Templars
2: Tau
3: Dark Angels
4: Guard

Games of Westeros XIV 86 Players:
1: Chaos Knights
2: Demons
3: Space Marines
4: Custards

Clutch City GT 2023 131 Players:
1: GSC
2: Orkz
3: Custards
4: Demons

8 top 4 placings including winning 2 events out of 8 Events. But ready for this? I can happily admit that GSC are just as big of a problem as Marines.

Marines are currently over powered, but so are GSC, both need a small nerf to keep them more closely inline and for Marines I'll happily admit that only the top 3-4 chapters need that nerf (DA, BA, IH and maybe Templars)

As a GSC player, GSC aren't nearly as good as you seem to think they are. They're winning right now because the current meta really favors them, and as an army you generally see (not including myself in this statment) very high skill players play them, or you get filtered out quick. As per the meta favoring us, it's because GSC as an army plays like a dream into pre-AoC Marines. Marines are a Low Model Count (relatively), MEQ statline, Relatively limited mobility army, which is precisely what GSC as a faction loves. GSC were solid, but not broken. Just that the currently broken/meta faction to play is exactly our best match up. The meta changed around us to favor us. Throw us into Eldar or Custodes and we'll crumple like wet tissue paper unless you're a stellar player. The ony thing the recent buff did for GSC is make Webbers halfway worth considering and save about... 10pts-20pts or so off the average Neophyte Squad (depends on how many Special weapons you were running and if you took webbers which were 10pts each instead of 5). Heavy Weapons all still cost the same (besides the Stubber that no one uses) and the only thing that change on acolytes was Bringing the Rock Saw down 5pts.

Is 25% top 4s and 25% top 1s statistically significant for a 20% play rate faction across 8 events? I'm doing a course on this and if people are interested in statistical significances I can try and figure it out, but it seems to me that it isn't worth mentioning.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
So, for some reason the placings for the "Clutch City GT" are currently hidden on BCP, at least from me, so I can't finish looking at that event today.

Probably to do with the fact that the results are being revised due to evidence of illegal play on the part of the 3rd place finisher.

Sounds like there's a story here, Platuan - care to share?

https://www.reddit.com/r/WarhammerCompetitive/comments/11jzetg/comment/jb9f1y7/?context=1

Basically, Dude built a list around as many Sagittarum Custodes as he could fit so he could abuse double shooting in Salvus Katah, conveniently ignores that Sagittarum don't have Auric weapons and thus can't double shoot.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
So, for some reason the placings for the "Clutch City GT" are currently hidden on BCP, at least from me, so I can't finish looking at that event today.

Probably to do with the fact that the results are being revised due to evidence of illegal play on the part of the 3rd place finisher.

Sounds like there's a story here, Platuan - care to share?

https://www.reddit.com/r/WarhammerCompetitive/comments/11jzetg/comment/jb9f1y7/?context=1

Basically, Dude built a list around as many Sagittarum Custodes as he could fit so he could abuse double shooting in Salvus Katah, conveniently ignores that Sagittarum don't have Auric weapons and thus can't double shoot.

This is common knowledge they don't benefit, how did nobody catch this?

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
So, for some reason the placings for the "Clutch City GT" are currently hidden on BCP, at least from me, so I can't finish looking at that event today.

Probably to do with the fact that the results are being revised due to evidence of illegal play on the part of the 3rd place finisher.

Sounds like there's a story here, Platuan - care to share?

https://www.reddit.com/r/WarhammerCompetitive/comments/11jzetg/comment/jb9f1y7/?context=1

Basically, Dude built a list around as many Sagittarum Custodes as he could fit so he could abuse double shooting in Salvus Katah, conveniently ignores that Sagittarum don't have Auric weapons and thus can't double shoot.

This is common knowledge they don't benefit, how did nobody catch this?

From the multiple people chiming in on reddit with 'It happened to me' he had a lucky draw of noob opponents, because apparently nobody:

- knew he was wrong
- was suspicious enough to look it up
- called a judge or TO to verify/clarify

Just giving it all away...

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
So, for some reason the placings for the "Clutch City GT" are currently hidden on BCP, at least from me, so I can't finish looking at that event today.

Probably to do with the fact that the results are being revised due to evidence of illegal play on the part of the 3rd place finisher.

Sounds like there's a story here, Platuan - care to share?

https://www.reddit.com/r/WarhammerCompetitive/comments/11jzetg/comment/jb9f1y7/?context=1

Basically, Dude built a list around as many Sagittarum Custodes as he could fit so he could abuse double shooting in Salvus Katah, conveniently ignores that Sagittarum don't have Auric weapons and thus can't double shoot.

This is common knowledge they don't benefit, how did nobody catch this?

Apparently not as "common knowledge" as you think it is. According to people that attended both, it was happening at LVO on some tables, too.

@Tsagualsa: It's called "social contract", not wasting time, and most people in the Southern US(where Clutch City happens) are considerate enough to take someone's word on something if they're not a jerk about it. Not every player is the WAAC thinks they know everything about every rule in every army kind of player, it's quite common for people to miss these mistakes.

 Platuan4th wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
So, for some reason the placings for the "Clutch City GT" are currently hidden on BCP, at least from me, so I can't finish looking at that event today.

Probably to do with the fact that the results are being revised due to evidence of illegal play on the part of the 3rd place finisher.

Sounds like there's a story here, Platuan - care to share?

https://www.reddit.com/r/WarhammerCompetitive/comments/11jzetg/comment/jb9f1y7/?context=1

Basically, Dude built a list around as many Sagittarum Custodes as he could fit so he could abuse double shooting in Salvus Katah, conveniently ignores that Sagittarum don't have Auric weapons and thus can't double shoot.

This is common knowledge they don't benefit, how did nobody catch this?

Apparently not as "common knowledge" as you think it is. According to people that attended both, it was happening at LVO on some tables, too.

@Tsagualsa: It's called "social contract", not wasting time, and most people in the Southern US(where Clutch City happens) are considerate enough to take someone's word on something if they're not a jerk about it. Not every player is the WAAC thinks they know everything about every rule in every army kind of player, it's quite common for people to miss these mistakes.

I was operating under the assumption that it is indeed 'common knowledge'. If it is not, then you are obviously right: he got by by exploiting peoples tendency to believe the facts as they are presented, and not to kick up a fuzz.

From the guy's local tourney runner and one of the rules judges at Clutch:

can confirm. It was Brian. Saw this and hit him up and Jerry already im contact with him about it. He saw people running it at lvo and copied it.
I played against him in a practice match before the tourney and never knew any better. Hard to know every little nuance about each army.

This is a niche FW unit for an already niche army, not surprised people can be caught out not knowing a single interaction.

Edit: I think it's also important that what we in the online communities think is "Common Knowledge" is so because we interact with said internet communities and to remember that the vast majority of 40K players, even ones going to tournaments, aren't interacting with those online communities. My friend came in 10th at Clutch and occasionally posting on r/Metawatch is the closest he gets to the online 40K communities.

On the topic of GSC;

GSC themselves are not super OP, I don't think that anyone can look at their units and think that they need to be hit with the nerf bat. As stated above, they are just so perfect for the current meta that it makes it super easy to score VPs.The army has a high skill ceiling because it is unlike most armies in that you are not looking to out punch or out survive your enemy, chances are you are going to lose a good portion more of your army than your opponent. What they do excel at is having good secondaries and great board control.

It is hard to deny GSC VPs, Sabotage Critical Locations is super easy with just some minimum sized Jackal squads, Broodswarm is very match up dependant but if I am playing agaist Marines I know that I have at least 10+ VPs easily, the only one that I have some issues with is Ambush because it requires me killing things which is far from guaranteed in the later rounds.

There are so many factors when it comes to why factions are winning, GSC would be hard to nerf in a way that would prevent them from winning without making them dumpster tier.

 Platuan4th wrote:
From the guy's local tourney runner and one of the rules judges at Clutch:

can confirm. It was Brian. Saw this and hit him up and Jerry already im contact with him about it. He saw people running it at lvo and copied it.
I played against him in a practice match before the tourney and never knew any better. Hard to know every little nuance about each army.

This is a niche FW unit for an already niche army, not surprised people can be caught out not knowing a single interaction.

They're not niche, they always pop up in lists.