Lessons Learned at the LVO - A Call for Common Sense Within Our Community

[gory_v]

(I originally posted this under tactics, but decided that I'd rather post it here since the tactics folder has army tactics above posts made to general 40k tactics posts and I wanted it to be seen. Please remove the post from tactics if you see fit, I would've done it myself, but I'm ignorant as how to do so. Thanks!)

First off, let me introduce myself as humbly as I can, since I need to somehow convey my background while also not coming off as delusional or pretentious whatsoever. I have no intentions or aspirations other than to share my experiences and realizations after analyzing those experiences. I played 40k from the age of 12 to about 15 which consisted of playing games with my cousins to pass the time. I found the game again in the spring of 2013, went to my first big event at the Feast of Blades open later that year, have gone to the local GTs in my city (Genghis Con and Tacticon in Denver) and participated in the most recent Feast of Blades invitational and this weekend's LVO where my performance was not much to speak of. In my past I've been competitive at very high levels of hockey and golf, kickball (to a much lesser and serious extent), and did a brief stint as a competitive Guild Wars player in its inaugural year. It is my opinion that these experiences, along with the people that have tutored me along the way, have given me a very strict definition of what 'competitive' means and have recently been comparing it to my experiences with the 40k community as a whole. While the greater plan is to write a series of editorials and commentary regarding these topics, I thought I'd keep it simple to begin with in this first attempt.

Let me preface this by saying that I have a stubborn belief that no core rule should be changed within the game and Reece can attest to how much hell I gave him when the invisibility nerf was approved. I play daemons and while I already knew that running a list based on invis with Belakor was foolish, it didn't sway me in the belief that watering it down was the wrong way to go because it removes a tool from the possibilities of this game.

In a jaded attempt to bring my own big toy to the party, I painted up the dreamforge knight that had been collecting dust on the shelf as a counts as Castigator, and painted it to the theme of Dorothy (thanks for posting her on the site, Larry!) from the Wizard of Oz in an attempt at cleverness as a commentary on the state of 40k in comparison to the same exact time one year previous. What I then discovered this weekend was that Dorothy was actually more of a handicap than tool, since she ended up giving my opponent's first blood in 4 out of 6 games, I only ever got to stomp once, and I found myself on more than one occasion, playing her very conservatively against players who didn't bring a super heavy, for fear that they would feel blighted or cheated from her inclusion in my list. In the end, I would've been better off competitively if I had left Dorothy behind, but she was definitely an ice breaker with my opponents and brought a smile to many players over the weekend, for which I have no regrets.

At the end of the qualification rounds, while looking over the lists that performed well within the event and hashing it out with my friends, I went through the motions of analyzing what I could've done better at the event. I was sick with a cold this entire weekend and found myself blaming that for my first day performance (1-2) and while it may have played some part in keeping my concentration, I was brutally honest with myself and made my colleagues laugh when I looked at them and said, "I just need to stop being a bad 40k player."

While many people have reacted to the top lists with surprise and shock, I used to run very similar MSU type lists in 6th ed (aka death star 40k ed) and while I didn't blow anyone away, I always made my opponent have to grind and work for the win, something I still do today, a trait that I picked up from when I was competitive in other arenas outside of 40k. The truth of the matter is that those two players deserved to be at the top table because they outplayed everyone, period. They played incredibly tight, left as little to chance as possible (a feat in and of itself in a dice game), and brought lists that could out maneuver, out play, and out wit their opponent's throughout the entire weekend.

On the final day, after the final table had been decided, I was surprised to hear a few others sarcastically say that super heavies and forgeworld are SO OP, and while I did agree with some of their sentiment, I was turned off by how judgmental they were of their peers and still feel like super heavies and forgeworld have some serious cons when included in the competitive meta, but we'll leave that for another post. Anyways, if anything, we can all learn a lot from the top performers at LVO this weekend and it isn't anything new. KNOW YOUR ARMY.

40k is an interesting community from a sociological perspective to say the least with no help in part from GW itself. I've heard stories about the "good ol' days" where the release schedule was gradual and so predictable that it allowed players to truly identify the strongest army and list out there, resulting in a tournament scene where a lot of people ended up having the exact same list. While this is surely beneficial from a financial point of view, it didn't do a whole lot to grow the tournament attendance and actually had the problem of turning more people away who didn't want to face the same thing over and over again.

Now that the release schedule has gone in the polar opposite direction, it's amusing to still see complaints, possibly even more complaints than before. What the truly competitive players generally come to a consensus over, hasn't seemed to trickle down to the community as hoped, but here it is spelled out in black and white, THIS IS ONE OF THE BEST EDITIONS AND TIMES TO BE A COMPETITIVE 40K PLAYER.

So far we have had 7 army updates in 7th ed, with Nids, Knights, and Guard possibly being considered as "7th ed compliant" with the proximity of their releases to the release of 7th ed. It can generally be agreed that while these codices are watered down in comparison to Eldar, Tau, Daemons, etc, when put up against each other, this game is incredibly balanced. The amount of choices we all have in army organization through supplements, detachments, and allies is truly unprecedented and the amount of variety in armies brought to LVO supports this train of thought. While you may have seen a lot of the same combinations of allies, the units, upgrades, and play styles truly set everyone apart from one another which was very apparent in all 6 of my opponents, though one could argue that my experiences don't hold a lot of water since I finished 2-4 for the weekend, you can make your own judgment, I guess.

Which brings me to my next point. Don't smoke crack. (Waterboy anyone?)
All joking aside, the point I want to discuss is that we should STOP NET LISTING and become better players for the betterment of ourselves and the hobby; because continually chasing the meta during this rapid release schedule of GW's is a surefire way to lose money on models from playing the eBay shuffle, and inevitably losing interest in the game as a whole due to the ups and downs of the rat race. The top lists show that despite popular opinon, units are that are generally perceived as bad, have their uses when utilized creatively in the hands of someone who knows that they're doing when put into a list with well thought out purpose, in preparation for a particular format with terrain that makes that format work. End of story.

Rather than listen to the talking heads and jaded opinions of what a good list should consist of, DO YOUR OWN THING, bring something counter to the meta, be practiced and methodical in its implementation, and prove those detractors wrong. This may not hold a lot of water for some of you, but to be perfectly honest, you'll garner more respect by beating someone in your own way than a predictable method that you cut and pasted. It'll lessen the stress on your patience and wallet every time you feel tempted to buy into the next new OP perceived model or army list.

My roommate this weekend went 2nd overall Nids using 3 Flyrants (standard but not SUPER spammy), 2 squads of 10 Hormagaunts, 3 squads of 3 rippers with DS, 2 squads of 3 zoanthropes with neurothrope upgrades, 1 malanthrope, 1 dimachaeron, 1 exocrine, and 1 squad of 3 biovores in a CAD and hive fleet detachment. He told me he was considering including some lictors in the next amalgamation of his list and I cut him off, told him that he's a good player, and to play his own list. The top 2 nid primary lists at the LVO set a limit on 3 flyrants and neither had a barbed hierodule. Stop depriving yourself of learning to become better players by taking those perceived OP units because if we approach this game honestly, those units are crutches. I'm never going to judge someone across from me from bringing a super heavy or spamming in their army list (I've done it too, we all have), but I will say that in life, there IS such thing as too much of a good thing. Approach 40k like you approach other aspects in your life where balance is found through moderation and restraint.

That being said, let's punch each other in the face with good sportsmanship and realistic, honest break downs on how things could have gone better if we made a different choice, two, or in my case 20 choices within a game.

I'll be posting more about other things I've come to realize after this weekend which will probably be just as long winded and filled with tangents and opinions, so if you made it this far and like what you read, please stay tuned and wait patiently. Real life has to take priority over my plastic toys sometimes.

PS I seem to have left out that I sent an email to Reece thanking him for putting on a fantastic event and apologizing to him for my lack of faith that he knew what he was doing when he nerfed invis. The format and terrain made it to where even my unbuffed units had a chance to survive and it just kept me honest when I had to space my models appropriately to diminish the effect of template, blast, and large blast weapons. I'll always admit when I've been proven wrong. I would've edited this somewhere earlier in the post, but was at a loss as to where it should be inserted.

[DrBored]

Great article. Glad to hear this from someone experienced not just in 40k but in competition in general.

I've seen players that bring lists that would be torn apart by those jaded netlisters, and yet the players consistently win with things like CSM Defilers and Thousand Sons, and others that bring Ork units that consistently were listed as awful.

I personally really want to bring mech back, with more tanks than anyone else, yet every time I post a list, it's broken apart, people tell me Rhinos are garbage and to take Drop Pods instead. Well, I'm going to bring those Rhinos, those Land Raiders, and those Predators and I intend to prove them wrong by playing a better tank commander than my opponent.

[gory_v]

Thanks! My brain is currently reeling from LVO about things I learned about myself, larger GTs, and this community as a whole. Rather than just stew about them and obsess while I'm trying to focus on other things in my life, I decided to use some of my down time to put pen to paper and see if I can do my part in contributing to the community. I was very pleased to see your article this morning and have only grown in my commitment to put my thoughts and observations out there, knowing that there are reasonable, practical people who share a lot of the same intentions.

While I'm not super familiar with all of the nuances in the CSM dex (who can really claim to know everything about every army in 40k nowadays, right?) my only advice would be to play to the mission you're playing, experiment with different strategies, and don't be afraid to try something different. It's not like real lives are on the line here unless you've somehow found a way to make your minis come to life, haha. Have fun and best of luck in your attempts to make it work!

[Houghten]

In a jaded attempt to bring my own big toy to the party, I painted up the dreamforge knight that had been collecting dust on the shelf as a counts as Castigator, and painted it to the theme of Dorothy (thanks for posting her on the site, Larry!) from the Wizard of Oz in an attempt at cleverness as a commentary on the state of 40k in comparison to the same exact time one year previous.

...I don't get it.

[gory_v]

We're not in Kansas anymore.

One year previous, there was very little consensus over the inclusion of forgeworld, stronghold, escalation, dataslates, formations, etc. Now, it's pretty much all kosher, though there are certainly exceptions.

[DrBored]

Honestly, I'm a bit appalled at some of the lists. I weep for the number of dollars spent on Imperial Knights and Sicaran tanks and Fire Raptors. Even Chaos lists had them.

I mean, I'm not a competitive player to begin with, but seeing that... it makes me just cry inside. The only thing that makes me happy out of all of this is that all those Knights didn't even win.

[lantzkev]

We're not in Kansas anymore.

One year previous, there was very little consensus over the inclusion of forgeworld, stronghold, escalation, dataslates, formations, etc. Now, it's pretty much all kosher, though there are certainly exceptions.

Yeap, there's enough ways to win without forgeworld, all forgeworld does now it *** different options, the balance is there, but you gotta be ready to face something new you haven't seen (most likely)

[Popsical]

Honestly, I'm a bit appalled at some of the lists. I weep for the number of dollars spent on Imperial Knights and Sicaran tanks and Fire Raptors. Even Chaos lists had them.

I mean, I'm not a competitive player to begin with, but seeing that... it makes me just cry inside. The only thing that makes me happy out of all of this is that all those Knights didn't even win.

+1 to this.
Demons with an inquisitor
Demons with nids
Necrons with assassins
Demons with knights
Nids with knights

These are lists that make me realize why i don't do tournaments anymore, the fluffy part of me just cant visualize the game.
Personal taste it is. We can all find our own fluffy reasons i suppose, but they smack of "i wanna win" to me.

[Houghten]

Demons with an inquisitor
Eisenhorn.


Demons with nids
An experimental super-Zoanthrope taps into the power of the Warp as well as the Hive Mind, summoning and binding what it finds there.


Necrons with assassins
Mindshackle scarabs.


Demons with knights
House Devine.


Nids with knights
...I got nothin'.

[Bahkara]

...I got nothin'.

Knight household subverted by a genestealer cult

[Popsical]

As i said, personal taste. I still remain adamant thats GW should produce the "turd of nurgle" give it 10s for every stat and a 2+ ++ troop choice and cost it at 1pt. This model must be just a turd in appearance nothing more nothing less. I reckon it would sell out and be at every tournament.
It would say an awful lot about an awful lot.

[Dave Mcturk]

the eldar list that came third - looks interesting - but i thought the IC with highest leadership had to be warlord ?

[Charon]

What makes you think so?
Every model can be WL, it just have to be a (C). If you don't have any (C) in your army, you can nominate any model to be your WL, but you do not get WL traits.

[ShadowcatX]

I'm getting pretty jaded of people taking specific lines and not reading the whole of the article.

Then you should probably not read comments. I'm not going to spend 30 minutes commenting on someone's rambling when it has nothing really to do with their point.


Honestly, I'm a bit appalled at some of the lists. I weep for the number of dollars spent on Imperial Knights and Sicaran tanks and Fire Raptors. Even Chaos lists had them.

I mean, I'm not a competitive player to begin with, but seeing that... it makes me just cry inside. The only thing that makes me happy out of all of this is that all those Knights didn't even win.

So you're sad that people bought beautiful models and enjoyed playing with them? How sad that someone else's pleasure makes you cry inside.

[shiwan8]

Great article. Unfortunately the actual problems in 40k are still there. Codices are not equal or even semi close to it and CC is dead unless you play eldar or necron lists. Unless these are corrected, no amount of skill will make a useless unit good. The lictorshame list works because there are many of those. The real comparison can be done only by putting things on equal footing before comparing. This means that each codex only gets one foc to play with and only their codex to choose units from. If after that there is a good balance, then we can say there is one.

Make no mistake, as long as the tau, eldar, daemons and now necrons are so far above the level of other codices, there is no balance between factions. As long as there are things like maleceptors and war talons, there is no internal balance within a faction. No balance means that the game is unplayable.

This not about skill or net lists. It's about GW not doing it's job.

[Cactus]

the eldar list that came third - looks interesting - but i thought the IC with highest leadership had to be warlord ?

Old rule. You can nominate a squad sergeant to be your "Warlord" if you want but typically it's a model likely to survive the battle and not concede warlord kill victory points.

[shiwan8]

I'll make this short. The message here was essentially "LTP noob" and "be a list hipster". Compare DA to eldar and see how relevant learning to play and not following net lists actually is.

[gory_v]

Agreed about FW. Definitely not nearly as scary though I do plan on addressing both bigger kits and FW inclusion on another post where I admit their balance, but talk about the cons of including them in competitive play. (e.g. creating perceived wealth gaps in an already cost prohibitive hobby, allowing the possibility of one player cheating another to increase when their opponent is ignorant of their unit's rules, etc.) We'll see what it looks like when I finally sit down to write it and after the whole editing process. I hardly edited this one, can you tell? :P

[ShadowcatX]

Great article. Unfortunately the actual problems in 40k are still there. Codices are not equal or even semi close to it and CC is dead unless you play eldar or necron lists. Unless these are corrected, no amount of skill will make a useless unit good. The lictorshame list works because there are many of those. The real comparison can be done only by putting things on equal footing before comparing. This means that each codex only gets one foc to play with and only their codex to choose units from. If after that there is a good balance, then we can say there is one.

Make no mistake, as long as the tau, eldar, daemons and now necrons are so far above the level of other codices, there is no balance between factions. As long as there are things like maleceptors and war talons, there is no internal balance within a faction. No balance means that the game is unplayable.

This not about skill or net lists. It's about GW not doing it's job.

I love how of the top armies you list, none of them won the LVO, and at least 2 didn't break the top 8, and Eldar only had one list in top 8. LVO, along with the other tournaments have proven that eldar and tau are not busted the way bad players keep saying they are. Good, yes, but not a level above everything else.

[JMichael]

the eldar list that came third - looks interesting - but i thought the IC with highest leadership had to be warlord ?

p124 of the rulebook. Your Warlord must be a Character model (unless your army does not have any). It doesn't mention Ld or even Independant Character.
Seems like you could just make a Tactical Squad Sergeant your Warlord even if you have HQ choices.

- - - Updated - - -


I love how of the top armies you list, none of them won the LVO, and at least 2 didn't break the top 8, and Eldar only had one list in top 8. LVO, along with the other tournaments have proven that eldar and tau are not busted the way bad players keep saying they are. Good, yes, but not a level above everything else.

^ This!

[DrBored]

So you're sad that people bought beautiful models and enjoyed playing with them? How sad that someone else's pleasure makes you cry inside.

I could be really sassy, but I'm just going to leave with this.

It makes me sad that the state of the game is in such a point of bandwagoning that so many people are using the same units, such that armies almost look identical if it weren't for different paint jobs.

The competitive scene seems to slowly be crawling back towards Knights versus Knights, and that's rather appalling, when there's so much depth to the 40k verse.

But then, that's why I'm not a competitive player. The more something is hyped and overused, the less I like it.

I'll just be over here having a blast with my Land Raider Redeemers, Lightning Claw Terminators, and other things that people would supposedly never ever in a million years use in a list because they're 'garbage'.

I think, ShadowcatX, that you're being a bit venomous and negative. Sorry if that's taken as an insult, but your tone just seems really sharp and borderline offensive, like you're really eager to find something that'll set someone off.

[gory_v]

It's unfortunately an issue on forums where an honest and respectful discussion can devolve into assumptions about other poster's opinions and name calling. There's no reason whatsoever that we can't be civil and talk about our differences with the coming ground in mind that we all love 40k. We may never agree about how we think the game should be played, but we can at least try to see each other's points of view when discussing the issues that are resulting in the shrinking of our beloved hobby.

[ShadowcatX]

It makes me sad that the state of the game is in such a point of bandwagoning that so many people are using the same units, such that armies almost look identical if it weren't for different paint jobs.

The competitive scene seems to slowly be crawling back towards Knights versus Knights, and that's rather appalling, when there's so much depth to the 40k verse.

Have you actually seen the results of the LVO, only one person playing knights cracked the top 8. No knight on knight action in the top seats. In fact, the top 8 was incredibly diverse with 11 different armies making it to the top 8 (between primaries and allies). Competitive play, when examined, does not show the results you are insisting it does.

[Popsical]

Dr bored, you can fight my chaos marine chosen and helbrute with your non competitive guys if you like.
In tournaments people play to win the whole gig so stacking the list in their favour is normal.
I try not to look at army lists online anymore because even if they are fluffy and asking for tactical advice, the replies tend to be "replace unit a with unit cheese". Oh and as monty python said "spam, spam, spam".

[gory_v]

Have you actually seen the results of the LVO, only one person playing knights cracked the top 8. No knight on knight action in the top seats. In fact, the top 8 was incredibly diverse with 11 different armies making it to the top 8 (between primaries and allies). Competitive play, when examined, does not show the results you are insisting it does.

While the top 8 and top finishers in general are what inspired me to write this, he's not completely wrong about the rest of the players who were in the middle of the pack. There was a lot of diversity within the entire field, but in the early going there were a lot of tau formations, Knights, serpents, super heavies, and super fortifications in play at the end of day 1 before the cream rose to the top and those players were knocked out of contention.

[DrBored]

Dr bored, you can fight my chaos marine chosen and helbrute with your non competitive guys if you like.
In tournaments people play to win the whole gig so stacking the list in their favour is normal.
I try not to look at army lists online anymore because even if they are fluffy and asking for tactical advice, the replies tend to be "replace unit a with unit cheese". Oh and as monty python said "spam, spam, spam".

Man, I'd totally take you up on that battle.

And yeah, online advice just turns every potential list into a net-list. What bites is that the guys that post their lists have already, in most cases, bought the models for that list, so to have some internet guy tell them they need to go junk half their army and buy 200 dollars of more stuff to make it 'good'... it's just a shame.

40k is one hobby that perhaps suffers from the existence of the Internet... at least in some regards.

[gory_v]

I could be really sassy, but I'm just going to leave with this.

It makes me sad that the state of the game is in such a point of bandwagoning that so many people are using the same units, such that armies almost look identical if it weren't for different paint jobs.

The competitive scene seems to slowly be crawling back towards Knights versus Knights, and that's rather appalling, when there's so much depth to the 40k verse.

But then, that's why I'm not a competitive player. The more something is hyped and overused, the less I like it.

I'll just be over here having a blast with my Land Raider Redeemers, Lightning Claw Terminators, and other things that people would supposedly never ever in a million years use in a list because they're 'garbage'.

I think, ShadowcatX, that you're being a bit venomous and negative. Sorry if that's taken as an insult, but your tone just seems really sharp and borderline offensive, like you're really eager to find something that'll set someone off.

I think the definition of 'competitive' in this hobby is inherently flawed. If you're learning a little bit more from your mistakes each game and becoming a better player for it, then don't sell yourself short. Competitive players aren't the ones who win all the time whatsoever and those who think winning is everything will generally get burned out when it doesn't always go the way they were expecting when they approach the game so linearly. Not a swipe at anyone here, but you have to challenge yourself if you want to be good or even proficient at anything in life. FACT.

[ShadowcatX]

While the top 8 and top finishers in general are what inspired me to write this, he's not completely wrong about the rest of the players who were in the middle of the pack. There was a lot of diversity within the entire field, but in the early going there were a lot of tau formations, Knights, serpents, super heavies, and super fortifications in play at the end of day 1 before the cream rose to the top and those players were knocked out of contention.

Of course there were, but 1) there were far more people than armies so there had to be over lap and 2) people playing what they perceived to be powerful within what they had access to. That happens in every tournament for every game from Magic the Gathering to Infinity to 40K. Very few people pay to enter tournamemts with the intention of not trying to do well.

But the reality is at the upper levels of competition multiple armies are doing quite well. It is not Eldar and Tau roflstomping poor little space marines and knight on knight violence, it is a plethora of options in the hands of highly skilled players. That is a healthy environment, regardless of what the naysayers might proclaim. This is a good time to be playing 40k.

[gory_v]

Of course there were, but 1) there were far more people than armies so there had to be over lap and 2) people playing what they perceived to be powerful within what they had access to. That happens in every tournament for every game from Magic the Gathering to Infinity to 40K. Very few people pay to enter tournamemts with the intention of not trying to do well.

But the reality is at the upper levels of competition multiple armies are doing quite well. It is not Eldar and Tau roflstomping poor little space marines and knight on knight violence, it is a plethora of options in the hands of highly skilled players. That is a healthy environment, regardless of what the naysayers might proclaim. This is a good time to be playing 40k.

Which is why you should be considerate of what DrBored identifies as competitive. I'm assuming a lot here, but odds are that locally, he may not have the type of players at his LGS or in his local community that fit the same mold as those who made it to the top. His perception of competitive is what he sees locally which may be a lot of min/maxing and player taking advantage of the currently perceived most broke combinations, units, and army lists out there. While the lack of variety may not hold water at the highest echelons, the matter of fact is that your local meta will generally consist of those you saw in the middle of the pack at LVO. This isn't an assumption or swipe at anyone who occupied those places, (hell, I was there myself), but rather connection of the dots from our earlier back and forth.

[shiwan8]

I love how of the top armies you list, none of them won the LVO, and at least 2 didn't break the top 8, and Eldar only had one list in top 8. LVO, along with the other tournaments have proven that eldar and tau are not busted the way bad players keep saying they are. Good, yes, but not a level above everything else.

We seem to see this thing from very different angles. I personally look at a codex as a whole and I think your angle is is one that defines the power level of a codex solely by looking at it's tournament standing even if that standing was achieved by spamming just one unit. In my mind, if a codex has 1 good unit and 1 unit that is the best of the bad units that you just have to suffer to actually get a game going, the codex is bad no matter what the tournament standings are. The different levels are clear when the game is casual. Actually you just need to compare units from each codex to another codex unit that has the same role.

For example: Tank buster in nid dex is the carnifex, eldar equivalent is WK. Sure, carnifex is 90p cheaper. It also hurts tanks only in cc, moves 6+d6 per turn vs. 12 that WK moves, has less wounds, lower toughnes, no antitank weaponry and hits on charge as much as WK hits when charged, has low init and WS.
Another example would be raveners vs. wraiths. Wraiths are in every single way at least equal to raveners + they do not need a babysitter. The cost for 5 is about equal.

After these comparisons you see if each codex has something that compensates it's handicaps through advantage on some other field. It's really easy to see that nids get their butts handed to them in every area when you look at the overal power level of the 3 codices.

Really, the actual standings in tournaments mean nothing when you are not comparing individual lists.The overal balance of the game is so far from what the bare minimum is that it's not even funny.

[ShadowcatX]

We seem to see this thing from very different angles. I personally look at a codex as a whole and I think your angle is is one that defines the power level of a codex solely by looking at it's tournament standing even if that standing was achieved by spamming just one unit. In my mind, if a codex has 1 good unit and 1 unit that is the best of the bad units that you just have to suffer to actually get a game going, the codex is bad no matter what the tournament standings are. The different levels are clear when the game is casual. Actually you just need to compare units from each codex to another codex unit that has the same role.

For example: Tank buster in nid dex is the carnifex, eldar equivalent is WK. Sure, carnifex is 90p cheaper. It also hurts tanks only in cc, moves 6+d6 per turn vs. 12 that WK moves, has less wounds, lower toughnes, no antitank weaponry and hits on charge as much as WK hits when charged, has low init and WS.
Another example would be raveners vs. wraiths. Wraiths are in every single way at least equal to raveners + they do not need a babysitter. The cost for 5 is about equal.

After these comparisons you see if each codex has something that compensates it's handicaps through advantage on some other field. It's really easy to see that nids get their butts handed to them in every area when you look at the overal power level of the 3 codices.

Really, the actual standings in tournaments mean nothing when you are not comparing individual lists.The overal balance of the game is so far from what the bare minimum is that it's not even funny.

Balance is not "every unit is exactly the same" and it shouldn't be. Nor is it even every unit is good. That is a pipe dream, it doesn't happen. Not in table top games, card games, role playing games not in any other game where players make choices. If you want that type of balance play checkers.

Balance is that a variety of armies can compete. And they can. At all levels. This has been proven. And yes, in the hands of generals of the same calibur, a highly competitive list will beat a non-competitive one, but again, that happens in every game, it is not unique to table top wargames or to 40k in particular.

- - - Updated - - -


Which is why you should be considerate of what DrBored identifies as competitive. I'm assuming a lot here, but odds are that locally, he may not have the type of players at his LGS or in his local community that fit the same mold as those who made it to the top. His perception of competitive is what he sees locally which may be a lot of min/maxing and player taking advantage of the currently perceived most broke combinations, units, and army lists out there. While the lack of variety may not hold water at the highest echelons, the matter of fact is that your local meta will generally consist of those you saw in the middle of the pack at LVO. This isn't an assumption or swipe at anyone who occupied those places, (hell, I was there myself), but rather connection of the dots from our earlier back and forth.

If he would like to discuss his local meta and the competitiveness or lack there of, then that should be in its own thread. This thread is specifically discussing 40k at LVO, which was a healthy environment. Even if we widen the topic to tournaments in general, the data we have supports a diverse meta at the top of the charts, not 1 or 2 armies (or 4) destroying everyone else.

[lantzkev]

it's hard to look at the standings and not realize that alot of assumptions about codexes were incorrect, and that some assumptions about the strength of knights was incorrect.

[Charon]

Man, I'd totally take you up on that battle.

And yeah, online advice just turns every potential list into a net-list. What bites is that the guys that post their lists have already, in most cases, bought the models for that list, so to have some internet guy tell them they need to go junk half their army and buy 200 dollars of more stuff to make it 'good'... it's just a shame.

40k is one hobby that perhaps suffers from the existence of the Internet... at least in some regards.

Im not too sure about the intent.
I make a list, I buy my army and then I post it on a webpage and ask the community if it is working and what I coud do better.
And if I receive answers, I go full retard and blame everyone of WAAC and powergaming.
Why do I even bother to post my list and ask for critic and help when I actually only want to hear that I have done a very good job?

Likewise people who come to a webpage and ask "Here I have this all hellions list and I keep losing every game.. what can I do"
The natural answer is: "Don't play only hellions, they suck."
"But I love Hellions! Im not gonna change this! What Can I do?"
"Keep losing..."
"So you beasically say my opponent is a douchbag for bringing better units and this WAAC dip**** should change HIS army to meet my needs, because I will not change mine?"
"Erm.... no..."
"Thanks... I will tell him! :) "

Which is basically what the whole competitive vs "everything else" is all about. It is always "competitive people are wrong, the do not play for fun like me and they should change their attitude because only the way I have fun is the right way to have fun"


it's hard to look at the standings and not realize that alot of assumptions about codexes were incorrect, and that some assumptions about the strength of knights was incorrect.

Which in particular? I do not see a list that deviates completely from any assumption. Also the strength of SINGLE Knights was never an issue, multiples are hard to deal with.

[Popsical]

When most people ask for advice using a list or units which they own they are looking for people to give them their knowledge of using the units to their best, eg. tactics of said unit and best application thereof.
What we get on the interwebz 99 times out of 100 is "replace said unit".
There is a fundamental difference.
Whereas you may find the unit useless, another may have found cunning ways of making it work.
The people that can find nothing better to say than "its crap don't use it" should let others offer constructive advice.


On a side note, it is a real shame that there will probably never be a tournament scene for players who dont want to field spam and cheese filled lists with trickshot allies. There will always be at least one prize numpty who turns up to crush the spirit from the event so he/she can go home and brag that "i came, i saw, i conquered, aint i great!".

[lantzkev]

Which in particular? I do not see a list that deviates completely from any assumption. Also the strength of SINGLE Knights was never an issue, multiples are hard to deal with.

Odd universally I saw that the strength of a single knight was the main focus for most folks. Taking the formation left you dangerously low in abilities to secure objectives and do much else. IE adamantium lance formation, while on paper seems strong, it's not as op as you think.

And there were a few knight armies (13) that ran at least 3 knights. Rank 44 was the highest any of them got. Top 8 had an ally knight (ie just one) and three others between top 8 and and rank 44 had an ally.

That tells me that multiples are the exact opposite of "hard to deal with" and more an issue of eggs in one single basket.

[Vince Weibert]

formation is not entirely correct. Your friend actually tied for second best tyranid with a list that ran four flyrants and a Hierodule (mine). while I agree with your points that it is important to know your list and know how to run it rather than following the latest net hotness I disagree with your premise that those lists aren't solid choices.

[ShadowcatX]

When most people ask for advice using a list or units which they own they are looking for people to give them their knowledge of using the units to their best, eg. tactics of said unit and best application thereof.
What we get on the interwebz 99 times out of 100 is "replace said unit".
There is a fundamental difference.
Whereas you may find the unit useless, another may have found cunning ways of making it work.
The people that can find nothing better to say than "its crap don't use it" should let others offer constructive advice.

You do realize that 40k isn't the most tactically deep game in the world, right? And that also tactics, especially in depth tactics, are hard to give in an abstract? If you want sound tactical advice, don't post an army list, post a battle report and discuss your tactics in it.

[Mr Mystery]

An all Knight army is a risky proposition.

Against infantry Orks, or anyone who has neglected their anti-armour capability say in favour of copious amounts of Plasma, you have quite the advantage.

But if someone has a Lascannon fetish, the advantage is not yours.

Yes they're not particularly easy to bring down, as other than whittling away those hull points you're not actually doing any damage (yay Super Heavies!), the loss of just one is a huge chunk of your army taken away. If you're unlucky enough to lose one in the first turn (very possible!) then you're really fighting on the back foot, particularly if your opponent went first.

[Popsical]

You do realize that 40k isn't the most tactically deep game in the world, right? And that also tactics, especially in depth tactics, are hard to give in an abstract? If you want sound tactical advice, don't post an army list, post a battle report and discuss your tactics in it.

Im sure people would post "please re-write my list as its poor" if thats the response they want.
I personally post very clearly that i dont want a re-write on the rare occassions that i post a list.
To be honest there could almost be a sticky on some forums of the uber builds which the "advisors" could just refer them too.

[ShadowcatX]

Im sure people would post "please re-write my list as its poor" if thats the response they want.
I personally post very clearly that i dont want a re-write on the rare occassions that i post a list.
To be honest there could almost be a sticky on some forums of the uber builds which the "advisors" could just refer them too.

So its too much trouble for you to show people your tactics and have them critique them, instead you want to show people your army list and have them guess at your tactics and then critique those tactics? And you don't see a problem with that?

If you post an army list, your army list will get critiqued, and yes, that will include dropping bad units for good ones. If you want your tactics critiqued post them instead.

[Popsical]

You miss my point entirely. Easy to do online. Lets leave it there shall we.

[Veteran Sergeant]

formation is not entirely correct. Your friend actually tied for second best tyranid with a list that ran four flyrants and a Hierodule (mine). while I agree with your points that it is important to know your list and know how to run it rather than following the latest net hotness I disagree with your premise that those lists aren't solid choices.
And this is modern 40K. A unit that was originally intended to be the centerpiece of the Tyranid army is now instead the spammy auto-selection.


Not in Kansas anymore indeed. The problem is instead of Kansas, it just drunkenly stumbled into rural Missouri.

[Kelshin]

I would even say things like the A-Lance are becoming a gamble; even when you're talking about even a 3 game event, let alone a 6+ one. There are more and more things in the game to keep Knights and some other super-heavies and gargantuans honest; Harlequins being the latest. They can be scary and people see them as a crutch; but we'll see what happens at ADC this year. If it ends up being like the LVO results I think you're going to find them gradually disappear, certainly become less common as people realize putting 400-1200 points into 1-3 moderately sturdy models that are reasonably killy isnt the end all-be all.

[gory_v]

formation is not entirely correct. Your friend actually tied for second best tyranid with a list that ran four flyrants and a Hierodule (mine). while I agree with your points that it is important to know your list and know how to run it rather than following the latest net hotness I disagree with your premise that those lists aren't solid choices.

My mistake re: the missing of him tying for 2nd, congrats! Didn't mean to sell you short whatsoever. This was my first attempt at writing to the community so I do apologize if my message comes off too strongly, something I now know to convey better since my intent was to learn from the feedback I received. I plan on addressing this on my next post, but I'm not saying net lists aren't solid choices, I'm just saying that my observation is that they're bad for the community in many waya for which I'll explain my reasoning later. Net discussion is very good for the community if it's healthy. In its most common form though, you'll see a lot more negative effects on our hobby as a whole. (Somethjng I also plan to address.)

[Charon]

When most people ask for advice using a list or units which they own they are looking for people to give them their knowledge of using the units to their best, eg. tactics of said unit and best application thereof.
What we get on the interwebz 99 times out of 100 is "replace said unit".
There is a fundamental difference.
Whereas you may find the unit useless, another may have found cunning ways of making it work.
The people that can find nothing better to say than "its crap don't use it" should let others offer constructive advice.


You can't comment on tactics if you do not know how the person is playing and what tactics he is applying.
The only thing you will ever see is their army list... kinda like this:

*************** 1 HQ ***************

Terminator-Captain
+ - 1 x Thunderhammer, Shield Eternal
- - - > 195
*************** 2 Elites ***************
Assault Terminators
10 Terminatoren
- 10 x Thunderhammer und Stormshield
- - - > 450

Vanguard
10 Vets
- 9 x Thunderhammer, Stormshield
- Jump Packs
- - - > 580

*************** 2 Standards ***************

Tactical
10 Space Marines
- Melter
- Multimelter
- - - > 160
Tactical
10 Space Marines
- Melter
- Multimelter
- - - > 160


*************** 1 Heavy ***************

Devastor
10 Space Marines
- 1 x Multimelter
- 1 x Missile Launcher
- 1 x Plasmacannon
- 1 x Lascannon
- - - > 200 Punkte


Space Marines : 1745

I keep losing every game... what do I do wrong????!?

And now please give tactical advice without mentioning his list at all according to the information given.
And if you look up the tactics section, it is full of these "requests".

Figuring out units is not very hard. The game itself is not really complicated. If you have 2 different units for the same task where one unit is just plain better than the other without any drawbacks (compare Reavers and Hellions for example) there is no way ever to make the first unit perform as good as the other one.
I actively "work" with people in talking how to make some specific units actually work and what conditions we would need to get certain units to work properly. Most of the time it's just creating very unlikely scenarios where the unit could possibly shine but still performs worse than another (staple) unit.
So these talks do happen but most of the time they are pointless. Look at Pyrovores and Mutilators for example.


On a side note, it is a real shame that there will probably never be a tournament scene for players who dont want to field spam and cheese filled lists with trickshot allies. There will always be at least one prize numpty who turns up to crush the spirit from the event so he/she can go home and brag that "i came, i saw, i conquered, aint i great!".

There could be. It is just that there is not a lot of audience for this scene. This could be EASILY achieved. If you are TO you have the say about restrictions and the acceptance of army lists. NOTHING is preventing you from acting as you please and force that "prize numty" to change his list ot a less spammy one if you organize such an event.
But you probably won't because of time and money and family and whatever yadda yadda yadda. Complaining about one person is easier after all.

[shiwan8]

Balance is not "every unit is exactly the same" and it shouldn't be. Nor is it even every unit is good. That is a pipe dream, it doesn't happen. Not in table top games, card games, role playing games not in any other game where players make choices. If you want that type of balance play checkers.

Balance is that a variety of armies can compete. And they can. At all levels. This has been proven. And yes, in the hands of generals of the same calibur, a highly competitive list will beat a non-competitive one, but again, that happens in every game, it is not unique to table top wargames or to 40k in particular.

You are perfectly entitled to have an opinion. However, balance can be that every unit is the same. It most certainly is that every unit is close to as good as the other. It is not impossible. It just needs adjustmet, not a total overhaul. This is where GW goes wrong. It does not understand that it's benefit is that the rules and armies are balanced. GW has few ways to achieve this. Easiest would be just to adjust the point costs. They could easily just look at similar units with same roles and balance them out with each other. Then look at the codices as a whole and compare them. Once there are not deathstars and the "tools" are equal to eachother in point for point comparison, balance has been achieved reasonably well. Now we have raveners that cost more than decurion wraiths while being worse in every way other than having marginally more attacks. That's not even a extreme example.

Like I said, you and I look at this differently. If a codex has 30 units, all but 1 or 2 are not in par within reason and those 1 or 2 units are enough for that codex to compete on top level, you see it as balanced and I do not. I expect the devs to at least try to balance things out OR letting the community do that for them. They think they sell miniatures with rules so they might just as well make the rules and codices playtested by the community before they release them.


And this is modern 40K. A unit that was originally intended to be the centerpiece of the Tyranid army is now instead the spammy auto-selection.


That is also the thing that makes the game bad.

[lantzkev]

Once there are not deathstars and the "tools" are equal to eachother in point for point comparison, balance has been achieved reasonably well. .

ah, so there's one aspect of the game you don't like and you want to get rid of. You think deathstars are an unbalanced aspect of the game that makes the game uneven and shouldn't be present.

The game is very mutli-dimensional, and meant to appeal to a wide array of tastes. It will never appeal completely in all aspects to any one person most likely. But to muddy things and make everything exactly equal and get rid of the unique things like deathstars, strong units, weak units, everything in between, is to make a bland mush no one likes.

[DarkLink]

Eliminating deathstars completely has nothing to do with balance. Deathstars have weaknesses, and there was only I think one real deathstar in the top 8 at the LVO.

[DrBored]

Eliminating deathstars completely has nothing to do with balance. Deathstars have weaknesses, and there was only I think one real deathstar in the top 8 at the LVO.

Indeed, I have to agree. Dealing with Deathstars is simply part of the meta you have to prepare for, just like dealing with fliers and dealing with Imperial Knights and Drop Pods. If you can't deal with them, you need to reevaluate your list, or else you'll be stomped by them.

Deathstars can be neutered simply by throwing small sacrifices their way. Preparing Combat-squaded Tactical Marines, Conscripts, Cultists, or Gaunts and throwing them in the way of a charging Deathstar is a great way to make sure they don't make their points back or target the really juicy stuff of your army. Blocking their advance with LOS-blocking Rhinos also slows them down considerably. While they have the benefit of survivability and offensive power, only a couple have any measure of mobility. They also eat up a lot of points, and part of their tactic is to MAKE YOU SHOOT AT THEM. If you don't shoot at them, Death Stars aren't doing their job, so focus your attention on the rest of their army, since chances are, that Death Star doesn't have Objective Secured.

[lantzkev]

this edition and all that has been released over the past two years has really changed alot of dynamics, and opened up the possibilities well beyond what the game was except maybe in 2nd edition and prior... although with alot less herohammer

[SnakeChisler]

We're not in Kansas anymore.

One year previous, there was very little consensus over the inclusion of forgeworld, stronghold, escalation, dataslates, formations, etc. Now, it's pretty much all kosher, though there are certainly exceptions.

That's just accepted by a certain faction in the Tournament scene

Most of us used to enter the local 40k event but the numbers dwindled that much due to the allies shenanigans and forge world escalation units being included to the point its been canned for this year which just leaves the national ones.

Social play is picking up though 7th if treated as a set of tools rather than everything in its an excellent edition to craft the game experience you want with your friends and most of us still treat Super Heavies & large fortifications as something more suited to Apoc or Mini-Apoc rather than smaller 1500/1750 games.

[lantzkev]

That's just accepted by a certain faction in the Tournament scene

Most of us used to enter the local 40k event but the numbers dwindled that much due to the allies shenanigans and forge world escalation units being included to the point its been canned for this year which just leaves the national ones.

Social play is picking up though 7th if treated as a set of tools rather than everything in its an excellent edition to craft the game experience you want with your friends and most of us still treat Super Heavies & large fortifications as something more suited to Apoc or Mini-Apoc rather than smaller 1500/1750 games.

Your experience may vary, our local hobby town has seen way more 40k players than I can recall playing in the past 8 years.... and some new faces and quite a few old faces.

[Erik Setzer]

I love how of the top armies you list, none of them won the LVO, and at least 2 didn't break the top 8, and Eldar only had one list in top 8. LVO, along with the other tournaments have proven that eldar and tau are not busted the way bad players keep saying they are. Good, yes, but not a level above everything else.

They are if you limit people to a CAD and maybe one Allied Detachment. Open things up with allies of any kind, formations, stuff like that, and it gets insane. Heard about someone playing a Tyranid army at Crucible with four Flying Hive Tyrants, four Hive Crones, a Malanthrope, and some Gaunts (though likely other stuff, but that's what he remembered most). In a group discussion on Facebook, people had to figure out how the heck you could even build such an army with detachments and formations, and it took a Tyranid player who works for GW to crack how it *might* have been done. That's how confusing the mess of stuff can get, and with all those digital dataslates and all, I can't imagine the expense of being a tournament organizer, because you need pretty much every book and dataslate to know all these possible permutations of armies and how they might be built, especially if you want to verify an army's legality on the spot.

And everyone agreed that would be a horrible army to use in a game that isn't some "beat your opponent in the face and who cares if they like it" kind of tournament setting.

[lantzkev]

That's how confusing the mess of stuff can get, and with all those digital dataslates and all, I can't imagine the expense of being a tournament organizer, because you need pretty much every book and dataslate to know all these possible permutations of armies and how they might be built, especially if you want to verify an army's legality on the spot.

If you want to restrict and insist that somethings GW has published is legal and something aren't. If you let it all go and play with the rules as they are.... you don't have to know anything but the rules.

[Houghten]

Read it again. What Erik's saying is there are so many rules you can either spend a bucketload on knowing them all, or restrict them.

[lantzkev]

Read it again. What Erik's saying is there are so many rules you can either spend a bucketload on knowing them all, or restrict them.

read what I said again... you as a TO don't have to own jack but a core rule book. You put the onus on the players to bring the source material for what they are bringing, and just state anything GW is good to go.

Every dataslate/supplement/etc is pretty easy to understand.

[Houghten]

What, and just trust the players to bring legal lists? Pfft.

[Popsical]

What, and just trust the players to bring legal lists? Pfft.

Lmfao! I just envisioned a few nerds putting their hands up and saying "sir, he's cheating", before later getting together and spitting internet venom with their keyboards.

[lantzkev]

What, and just trust the players to bring legal lists? Pfft.

it's amazing how just requiring them to submit their lists in advance and running it through army builder can do for you... in half an hour I could crunch about 15-20 lists.

Then there's the whole factor of their opponents looking at their lists etc... any cheating and you're DQ and your opponent gets full points... pretty straight forward and easy.

[Mr Mystery]

This is what puts me off tournament play entirely.

99.9% of attendees will likely be looking for the same as I - a weekend of gaming against new and interesting opponents, with a chance to secure extra bragging rights by placing highly when all is done and dusted.

But then.....then comes the 0/1%. Those who take it all far, far too seriously. Those who have set out to win, and don't really care about anything else.

Beardy armies are one thing - some folk just have a knack for not only writing really hard armies, but knowing how to use them (I am one of these). But when you face a Beardy army fielded by someone who tries to bend the rules and other wise goon their way to victory - what's the point? If your opponent cares not one iota about whether or not you enjoy the game as well, what is the point in playing against them? Why not save both sides the bother, award them a total victory, and nip off for a quiet pint or cup of tea.

I've only been to a few tournament type things, and in all instances the goon squad were there. First one I was actually working for GW, and was there in a professional capacity, taking in the scores. As that left me with a fair amount of time to wander the hall whilst the results were being determined by the clatter of those uncaring dice, I came across a god awful player. He was playing Nids, and had maxed out on his monstrous creatures, with compulsory troops as Ripper Swarms, minimum sized. Can't remember when this was precisely, but I can tell you the Mumak was just coming out for LotR, so probably...erm....2002, 2003? Worst part of that player was he gloated at his opponents, and would not leave me alone. I'd be there at my wee desk, collecting in the slips of around 400 eager players, checking to make sure each one tallied against it's counterpart, and that they had been filled out fully. And I all I got from that goon was 'where am I placed, am I winning, where am I placed, am I winning'. All. Day. If I had my way, he'd have been disqualified for bringing the hobby into disreputre, and for using horribly painted diecast Minis as Rippers 'because it's funny'.

Another one? Local stores headed up to Warhammer World for a Tournament between us. Must have been the tail end of 5th Ed, as I was fielding my spangly new Necrons. I won all my games by a comfortable margin, thanks to a certain amount of sheer luck (besting 5 Terminators with 10 Necron Warriors for no losses kind of luck!). But one of the gamers from my store was fielding his Sisters of Battle. He knew what he was doing, but still lost his last game. Not because he was out played, but because his opponent, who went first, spun out what would end up being his final game to the point where poor old Andy never got his half of the turn, preventing him from contesting the objectives his opponent has seized.

Had Goon not played like a Richard, Andy would have won the game - having secured his 'home' objective early on, and successfully cleansed his opponent's home objective (the one in your deployment zone) of all scoring units, and placing his units in such a way as he could contest all the others. But no. Mr Goon just had to cheat his way to victory by denying an entire turn of stuff to Andy.

Worst bit of that whole affair? Our store should have won the whole tournament. Top 10 players (out of about 50) were part of the Tunbridge Wells Massive. Except we were short on numbers, being the smallest town out of those competing. So what did Maidstone and Canterbury do? Sack off all their NooBs onto our side....because yeah, that's fair.

Then you read the horror stories on the internet. And it's not just the horror stories of people cheating and schemeing, but the endless whining of those who got beat, and claim it's all unfair, blaming everyone but themselves.

So overall, the behaviour of a minority of tournament gamers has left me seriously asking 'do I want to spend £XXX to get there, get a room and food and that, just to have my weekend's enjoyment ruined by someone who is a cheating, beardy idiot?' The answer, sadly, is usually 'good lord no. I'll just go down the shop then up the pub'

[Popsical]

My best mate got exactly the kind of "richard" you refer to MM. Whilst playing in a tournie he was beaten by an orc horde player who realizing he was going to lose, decided to measure every figures movement in every squad and cadged a draw because my buddy didnt get his turn half.
Worst part was, the orc guy was so friggin pungent that neither my mate nor I (i was observing as id finished my game quick) could speak to him much for fear of getting a mouthful of BO!

[Mr Mystery]

And it's a shame when that happens.

Obnoxious players can of course be met in store - but at least there it's pretty easy to avoid them (you just decline their offer to ply), and when it's really unavoidable (perhaps just the two of you), you can bring a little peer pressure to bear, explaining the issue. And if all else fails, it's just an evening or afternoon squandered on a hopeless task.

I have enjoyed the majority of tournament type games I've taken part in. Us players tend to be a pretty pleasant bunch on the whole, so I'd love to do more. But those bad apples really have ruined the barrel for me.

Even if I organised my own tournament, and discouraged powergaming type stuff, there'd still be someone out to ruin it.

[Auticus]

You can't avoid running into that kind of player in an event where you don't have any say who your opponent is.

A big reason I stopped playing in tournaments.

Cheese ball spam lists don't bother me at tournaments because thats what i expect to face. But having to face just one "that guy" will ruin the entire weekend for me.

[Popsical]

Im not sure anyone has tried to run a "no questionable social skills or poor personal hygiene" tournament yet.
My mate now flat out refuses to attend anymore tournaments, as he feels outsiders might think that because he hangs out with these kind of people they might think hes like that too.
My final tournament experience included getting evil looks from a guy in brown corduroy trousers (which were 3 inches too short at least) because i'd tabled his mate in 4 turns (it was his dice rolling which was appalling that did for him). It was hilarious, like being threatened by Dwayne Dibbly lol. You could see him lurking in the corner spitting venom to his friend. Very funny but kind of sad.

[shiwan8]

ah, so there's one aspect of the game you don't like and you want to get rid of. You think deathstars are an unbalanced aspect of the game that makes the game uneven and shouldn't be present.

The game is very mutli-dimensional, and meant to appeal to a wide array of tastes. It will never appeal completely in all aspects to any one person most likely. But to muddy things and make everything exactly equal and get rid of the unique things like deathstars, strong units, weak units, everything in between, is to make a bland mush no one likes.

You missed my point. Things do not need to be equally powerful, only equally cost effective. The problem relly is not the deathstar nor is it the ever popular spamming. The problem is that considering their cost, there are many useless units and many op units.

[Mr Mystery]

Much of OP or 'garbage' claims are entirely too subjective.

Lets take Player A.

Player A has read on the interwebs that a Deathstar made up of Unit X, Character Y and Character Z is unbeatable. Player A takes this to a Tournament.

Player B has taken a Knight in his list. Player B's Knight promptly tapdances all over Player A's unbeatable Deathstar, causing him to take a pretty severe loss on his score sheet.

Player A declares Knights OP.

Player B next comes up against Player C. Player C has rounded out his army, with a mix of different specialist units. He capitalises on poor positioning on Player B's behalf, and drops the Knight (that big, expensive Knight) in a single turn with the judicious application of two melta guns on bikes, and an Assault Marine Sarge with a Meltabomb blowing it's girly little legs off. Player B can't understand it. Everyone knows Assault Marines are crap. Clearly there can be but a single answer. Knights are underpowered and nerfed and zomg'd and that.

And so the cycle continues.

When you lose a game, you should be looking not at what you took, or what your opponent took, but how each of you used what you had.

[Charon]

Things do not need to be equally powerful, only equally cost effective.

Not really possible. Just look at the flamer and the plasma gun.
If my opponent happens to play Deathwing Terminators, the flamer is next to useless while the plasma gun is an overpowered weapon.
Next round is against Imperial conscripts and the plasma gun does not much better than your bolter... but boy the flamer.... amazing weapon.

Instead of this, you need to give your units/equipment a niche where they can shine and where they are not bullied out by an obviously superior choice.
Also points for weapon upgrades should reflect their use to the bearer. That an imperial guard Sergeant has to pay the same points for a power weapon as an space marine chapter master is just lazy design.

[lantzkev]

Not really possible. Just look at the flamer and the plasma gun.
If my opponent happens to play Deathwing Terminators, the flamer is next to useless while the plasma gun is an overpowered weapon.
Next round is against Imperial conscripts and the plasma gun does not much better than your bolter... but boy the flamer.... amazing weapon.

Instead of this, you need to give your units/equipment a niche where they can shine and where they are not bullied out by an obviously superior choice.
Also points for weapon upgrades should reflect their use to the bearer. That an imperial guard Sergeant has to pay the same points for a power weapon as an space marine chapter master is just lazy design.

This more than anything.

I won an immense number of games with my grey knights, not running "draigo star" (I'm talking prior version of grey knights) but with three hundred point dreadknights (I thought they were over costed, and it seems the teleporter was brought to a reasonable point price finally)... But I won with a unit everyone said was equiped like garbage and ran with too many points in it. IE psilencer and teleport, and h. incinerator and sword...

Iin 5th edition when I played tau, I ran with 120+ troops and won hard... but back then if you didn't run alot of crisis suits with specific configurations you were "terrible" because kroot and firewarriors weren't op...

you can't put an exact label on units and say they are utter garbage and others are utterly op. All the op drek at the time didn't do anything to my list because I ran zero vehicles. The only unit I would and still consider "garbage" is the vespids, and they aren't garbage so much as just over costed, I could use them and still be effective with them if I wanted to, there are enough specific targets they are perfect for removing.

[clively]

Much of OP or 'garbage' claims are entirely too subjective.

When you lose a game, you should be looking not at what you took, or what your opponent took, but how each of you used what you had.

A thousand times Yes. The "generals" count for far more than any of the models they put on the table.

If people would just sit down and try to understand the various missions then build their armies towards accomplishing those goals then they'd be way ahead of the majority of players out there. Throw in a bit of time learning how other armies function and you might just have a winner.

I used to lose a LOT and I complained: "Oh poor me. My army is crap. I hope the next codex fixes it. blah blah blah." Even after playing a hundred games or so I still couldn't tell you the order to set up a game without looking through the BRB. I barely knew what the max number of Troops I could take without using a list building program - heck, I couldn't have even told you if something was *wrong* with said list building program. Worst part: most players I've met are like this.

Then one day I decided that I was going to take control and actually learn how to play. I sat down and read (*gasp*) the book. I walked through the various missions and spent time *thinking* about what tools I needed to accomplish them. Even things like when going first or second was in my best interest and why... Then I play tested. I ran different units in actual games and took notes - what were they good against, what should they run from, what did my opponent focus on and why. What did I focus on (and why). How did each turn go. What part of the game was I still having a problem with and why. Eventually I figured out how my army actually worked and I've been a FAR better player. Heck, the number of times that questions about formations comes up in various forums just irritates the crap out of me because it's actually spelled out pretty damn well in the BRB and just shows those players were like me: reading failures.

So maybe the real issue is just that people don't read and the details and nuances are lost on them. For those there really is very little hope - unfortunately there are a LOT of them and it's far easier to complain than it is to do what's necessary.



you can't put an exact label on units and say they are utter garbage and others are utterly op.

Very true. This is what bugs me about a lot of the "codex" reviews. Units are evaluated (and I use that term lightly) with no thought to actual utility or how they should be used in an army. Instead it's boiled down to "You can take this character with a powerfirst for only 45 points!! It's fantastic!" Rather than, "this HQ works in armies that take X or Y." I think the fundamental problem is that doing a proper analysis is complicated and takes time. Usually far more time than bloggers and podcasts are willing to put into it in their rush to get their "perspective" out there. Oh, that and people wouldn't read it anyway.

After all, what's easier - having some random internet stranger tell you to use Captain X 'cause he's awesome sauce or reading that Captain X's strength lies in going second, hides near objectives and tanks hits for Super Buddies then deciding if that fits in with your army idea.

With the formations I think GW has an opportunity to produce actual plug and play army components. They just need to provide a bit more detail like saying, formation X is great for controlling the center of a board; or formation Y is a great for putting pressure on a side objectives mid game; or even formation Z is perfect to hold in reserve and swoop in on T5 to contest/claim. The formations are a way to give a set of prepackaged tools to the players - if done right. Of course, when they do formations that are all about selling a particular model (tomb blades) with no real cohesion then there is a problem.

Either way, that's how I think codex reviews ought to be done. Put a few units together that support each other and show how effective they are at certain tasks. After all I wouldn't try to have a Talos try and take an objective deep in my opponents DZ when a couple units of Reavers are purpose built for that. At the same time I wouldn't have Reavers sit in the middle soaking up enemy fire when this is exactly what a Talos is for. Different tools, different purposes and there is zero way to compare them.

[lantzkev]

People try to hard to declare absolutes on the internets...

then we watch the LVO confirm what most of us knew already, which was alot fo "crap units" are useful for various reason.

[Scabs]

With such a long and successful history competing in a variety of sports and games it must have come as a shock not to win LVO.

I wonder if you had come first would you have written this 'article'.