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

[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.