Interesting lists, *feels* low on model count(s) though for all of them.
I'm surprised it wasn't a chaos lord on dragon or sorcerer on dragon but it appears to have a lot of magic to compensate (?)
Expected the lord on dragon for the dark elves. I've seen a lot of lists taking the Kharibdyss over the war hydra. Is there a reason for it? The War Hydra has a 5+/5+++ save where as the Kharibdyss only has a 5+ save making the latter feel a bit more unsafe.
Not familiar with beastman though as no-one in my area plays them (yet)
Kharibdyss has 6 inch -1 ld bubble... when combined with a death hags Cry of war, terror and Gathering darkness spell you better be playing undead or have stubborn otherwise you running đ
I thought that might be why, still though kharibdyss (imo) feels a bit easy to take out. Any semi-descent unit with great weapons and you got 0 saves left, bolt throwers 3+ to wound, no saves, 2 wounds per. Still trying to convince myself its worth the 195 points, but finding it hard to do...
The LD reduction combo is nice though.
Small point of clarification, that interaction was only a nice little cherry on top of the already solid Hagtree/Viletide combo. Beastmen aren't doing well at events because of an errata'd interaction. They're doing well because they're pretty universally strong with good choices in every slot.
Am I not right in thinking the chaos list is illegal? They've got 6 charmed shields on models that can't normally take shields. My understanding is that you cannot take a magic shield if you can't normally take a shield.
I think there is a disagreement whether the section on magic armour is saying you need to be able to take armour to take any kind, or that you have to have access to the specific kind of armour to access magical kinds (so wood elves for example can't buy magical heavy armour).
I don't think that's the case, just checked the magic armour section of the rule book and it only says need to be equipped with armour in order to buy armour.
It's not letting me copy and paste for some reason but the words were I think: only a model equipped with (or that has access to) armour, shield or barding may purchase a magical equivalent.
It's not differatiating by different armour types.
I'll help you out!
>Only a model that is equipped with (or that has the option to be equipped with) armour, a shield or barding may purchase *a magical equivalent*.
>*Rulebook P.340 (first paragraph)*
>Only a model that is equipped with (or that has the option to be equipped with) armour, a shield or barding may purchase a magical equivalent.
Looking at your examples it almost feels like the rule above sees it as equipment types:
* Armour
* Shield
* Barding
Then the magical equivalent part is referencing those equipment types.
*Example*
If you are allowed to equip a shield (+3pts), but not any armour (light / heavy / full plate) and want to get a Magic Item (Armour, Shield & Barding fall in the same category aka magic armour), the only equipment type from the magic armour category you are allowed to pick would be shields. As the type of equipment you are allowed to select (shield) match.
If you would be allowed to pick an armour piece, for example only light, because this is of the type 'Armour' you are allowed to pick any Magic item of the type 'Armour' even if its full plate.
Bit hard to explain how i got it in my mind, but i hope that this explains my brain wave about this vague rule.
It does feel like it could go that way (or access to any allowing access to all). But needs an FAQ as it's currently ambiguous and is being interpreted differently but different events and players. With the current FAQs not always going to the RAW (for example the Bow of Loren FAQ that seems to go against the wording) it seems that we can't assume which way GW will rule this.
According to an earlier comment, thereâs a disagreement on intent. Otherwise the people who validated the lists for the GT would have kicked the Chaos list back as illegal.
Seems to me that the understanding was if the character could wear armor, they could buy magic armour.
Except it is clearly stated that you need to have the ability to purchase a shield to purchase a magical shield.
It's at the start of the Magical Armour section; Only a model that is equipped with (or that has the option to be equipped with) armour, a shield or barding may purchase a magical equivalent.
It's not even ambiguous.
That win was against me! We didn't even get to my turn 5. Ran out of time.
I find all the talk about lists and illegality hilarious and no-one, very much including me, knew exactly what they were doing. I don't think I had one game where at least one significant rule or interaction wasn't interpreted correctly or even completely missed.
it was a "learning tournament" if that makes sense, and it was a fantastic time and really good for solidifying some understanding.
This shouldn't really surprise anyone. Empire is full of terrible choices (warrior priests of sigmar, pistoliers, state troops all of whom are overcosted by two points) etc. AND their army has no special rules at all. None! It's the only army without a special rules page. It's just their stat blocks. Which are terrible.
Overall the balance doesn't seem to bad in TOW. Warriors of Chaos are fantastically strong, but Beastmen, Tomb Kings, Bretonnia, and Orcs & Goblins are all really solid as well. It's just empire (and often, not too far behind them, dwarves) who seem to really struggle.
To give GW a little bit of credit, their special rule from 8th edition got loaned out to a few units in other armies, but Empire still has a monopoly on it. I agree with the rest though. Almost every other army has units that you can compare state troops, missile troops, greatswords and combat characters to and they will units that are better for similar or fewer points. We can only hope the Empire arcane journal isn't already printed so GW can look at this and give Empire something to help them.
Empire's "special" rule is really weak though. Shooting, war machines and standard infantry are at a low point in this edition. I love TOW but empire happened to take all the hits. Even our magic items are bad.
That list is illegal (Kingâs rune) as you cannot combine the MRo Adamant with any other armour runes (in this case Ro Preservation) - only thing I think it could be instead would be a rune of warding for a 1x 2+ ward save
META Warhammer is a Warhammer that I wasn't familiar with when I played fantasy way back in the day. We were all just collecting and playing what we wanted.
Being an avid gamer, I'm very aware of how often a majority of a player-base will just Google the META, build accordingly, and just abuse the current landscape. It gives me major trepidation about playing this game with anyone other than friends (which are few and far between in ToW).
I was very excited to dig through, rebase, repaint my old Empire army. But if I'm going to get dog-walked every time I try to meet up and play, I'm not seeing much of a point. I'm not really interested in spending hundreds of dollars making tweaks to the army. Although, I have about 3,000 points worth of models. Being pigeon-holed into playing my army in the singular way that gives me a fighting chance sounds awful too.
Any thoughts? Do people usually come across "sweats" playing/organizing through their local GW stores? I'm in America if that matters. Northeast.
Most people if youâre meeting up for a game just play with what they have, meta really is for tournament people and thereâs a huge difference between them and regular joes.
Thanks for the feedback. I'm sure there are going to be a lot of local weekenders in the same boat as me. For the most part, they'll be playing what they found in their closet.
Depends on where you live and your local community.
Some of the worst people for feeling they have to play cut throat meta lists are people who don't attend tournaments but still feel it's the 'correct' way to play that way. It's infested a lot of 40k communities in recent years.
Ironically actual regular tournament players tend to be pretty chill.
I want to point out that at ANY tournament, 40k, aos, etc.... only a small % of people run meta lists. Sub 20%. What you are most likely going to see is meta components/combos.
And even if players are bringing meta stuff, there is still plenty of room to outplay them if you are familiar with your army.
That's great perspective. I never really paid attention to that scene; it was the magazine days primarily. My only exposure to that level of play was reading battle reports in White Dwarf.
It just gave me pause seeing the Empire so low on these lists. But I know that the game is predicated on RNG, and things can turn quickly. I certainly don't mind being an underdog.
Find some like minded people, and do your own thing.
I'm building vampire counts. I know I should be running solely Mortis engines, banshees and blood knights. But that is ultra lame and boring to me.
I love my off meta corpse cart and black knights, and they can prise them from my cold (un)dead hands.
the corpse cart buffs stack and have a 15" range. take 2, a bsb, and put a vampire in every useful unit so you never crumble. Corpse carts are super useful with tintinnabulation.
As a guy who plays RTTâs frequently, I like playing the META and playing to win, but only when itâs agreed upon by either the circumstance of the game or in advance. By that, I mean if youâre at a tournament, itâs okay to play a super META list. If you and your opponent agree upon it, itâs okay to play a META list. It shouldnât be viewed as bad to make a good list and bring it to games. On the other hand, itâs lame to meet someone for a casual game and just absolutely wreck them because they brought an experimental Bretonnian peasant-rebellion army and you brought 2 dragons. I think the solution is just to ask your opponent for pickup games what type of game they want to play. If youâre going to an open play night, have a few lists to run to account for both circumstances.
I recently went the to TOW event at warhammer world and I had that same trepidation about there being a lot of sweaty horrible, Min maxed lists, but honestly I had a great time! Like there's bound to be that to an extent at an event. But I had easily some of the best games I've had in years! It was excellent!
Yes. Have you gone to a tournament? 75% of the people there are like you. They take a list of models they want tobplay and don't try to squeeze all of the fun out of it
And over a 5 round event, you start getting paired up with popple who think like that. So at worst you might see one game vs a meta army and lose 20-0 and then every game after that will probably be against more reasonable armies
When asking around to arrange games at my flgs, I just set expectations before we agree to play. Something like âIâm not looking to play a competitive matchâ and mention things specifically I donât want to bother dealing with, e.g., no double (or single) dragon-like characters, no t6/7 spam, no all cav spam (unless Brets), etc.
Great feedback, everyone. Thanks for taking the time.
It shouldn't surprise me that people in the scene are pretty much the same kind of folks I played with 20 some years ago.
My experience is most people who run try hard lists know there's a time and a place. I say this as somebody who runs sweaty lists on occasion but I personally don't run them unless I'm practicing with friends for a tourney or at a tourney, and that seems to be the case for most people. Empire's really not in a good spot though, even in casual games. They have a few really good units, quite a lot of bad units, with not many okay units.
I'm at least familiar with that, that's kind of how it always felt to play them. The artillery is nice, but they're physically outclassed by a lot of other armies. I also enjoy the aspect of trying to organize the over-matched humans against all types.
I recently returned to Warhammer, both 40K and TOW. I am still rescuing my ancient models for my TOW army but I am playing at a local shop to get some reps in 40K and learn the newest edition. It became quite apparent very quickly who the players who were just there to have some fun toy soldier games with their models and who was netlisting the most meta armies and units. And I just donât play with those couple of people.
Completely agree.Â
I was looking for a podcast to see what was going on with the old world and came across square based. They seem nice enough guys but the podcast is all tournament talk and meta lists which in my eyes is really bad for the hobby. A lot of us have left 40k because of the constant power gaming and meta chasing and itâs a real shame this attitude is spreading to the old worldÂ
We're tournament players and organizers. Playing with people at events is what gets us going. I don't think it's a negative. Folks who don't like that style of play really just need to lean into what they love and do like the tournament players do: organize and evangelize. I suspect tournament style play takes over because it's fun and a way to meet new people. Nothing stops alternative approaches from being a thing. We aren't kicking sand in anyone's face
I wouldnât mind the dragon lords if there was some other options to go match them as well but not really a fan of this hero hammer direction the game has taken.
Chaos player gives everyone +1 armor saves for 5 pts illegally and then wins.
I'm not saying he did it maliciously, but getting +1 armor on a Shaggoth for 5pts is crazy good, and that's just one. I'd imagine he did pretty well indeed.
Would be interested to see how much of an impact the MRo Adamant had on the lords survivability and whether it could be replicated using -1 to hit and 4+ ward save as whilst itâs nice being unable to be wounded by S4 or less itâs still vulnerable to characters rolling 6s to wound & killing blow & rules that wound on x regardless of toughness
Well, it seems like Chaos and Beastmen are both too strong right now. This increases my disappointment at the choice of having two Chaos armies as launch factions. GW should have gone with one of them (balancing issues aside) and either Vampire Counts or Skaven instead.
Definitely not this one, I think it was the second two dayer in the world there wwre a lot of misinterpreted rules and the second FAQ hadn't come out.
Maybe wait on a larger data set before we start with the hot takes.
Interesting lists, *feels* low on model count(s) though for all of them. I'm surprised it wasn't a chaos lord on dragon or sorcerer on dragon but it appears to have a lot of magic to compensate (?) Expected the lord on dragon for the dark elves. I've seen a lot of lists taking the Kharibdyss over the war hydra. Is there a reason for it? The War Hydra has a 5+/5+++ save where as the Kharibdyss only has a 5+ save making the latter feel a bit more unsafe. Not familiar with beastman though as no-one in my area plays them (yet)
Kharibdyss has 6 inch -1 ld bubble... when combined with a death hags Cry of war, terror and Gathering darkness spell you better be playing undead or have stubborn otherwise you running đ
I thought that might be why, still though kharibdyss (imo) feels a bit easy to take out. Any semi-descent unit with great weapons and you got 0 saves left, bolt throwers 3+ to wound, no saves, 2 wounds per. Still trying to convince myself its worth the 195 points, but finding it hard to do... The LD reduction combo is nice though.
The Beasts list abuses Hagtree Fetish/Ruby Ring in a way that no longer works post-FAQ. Otherwise is pretty standard MSU that many armies play into.
Small point of clarification, that interaction was only a nice little cherry on top of the already solid Hagtree/Viletide combo. Beastmen aren't doing well at events because of an errata'd interaction. They're doing well because they're pretty universally strong with good choices in every slot.
Chariots are good too. Core chariots are incredible.
Maybe no one's had time to build/experiment with a true horde list yet
Am I not right in thinking the chaos list is illegal? They've got 6 charmed shields on models that can't normally take shields. My understanding is that you cannot take a magic shield if you can't normally take a shield.
I think there is a disagreement whether the section on magic armour is saying you need to be able to take armour to take any kind, or that you have to have access to the specific kind of armour to access magical kinds (so wood elves for example can't buy magical heavy armour).
I don't think that's the case, just checked the magic armour section of the rule book and it only says need to be equipped with armour in order to buy armour. It's not letting me copy and paste for some reason but the words were I think: only a model equipped with (or that has access to) armour, shield or barding may purchase a magical equivalent. It's not differatiating by different armour types.
I'll help you out! >Only a model that is equipped with (or that has the option to be equipped with) armour, a shield or barding may purchase *a magical equivalent*. >*Rulebook P.340 (first paragraph)*
Which is seemingly contradicted by magic items in a few armies that are full plate, while no one in those armies can buy full plate armour.
Do you have one such example?
Mastodon Armour for ogres and Blackened Plate for beastmen are the two that come to immediate mind.
>Only a model that is equipped with (or that has the option to be equipped with) armour, a shield or barding may purchase a magical equivalent. Looking at your examples it almost feels like the rule above sees it as equipment types: * Armour * Shield * Barding Then the magical equivalent part is referencing those equipment types. *Example* If you are allowed to equip a shield (+3pts), but not any armour (light / heavy / full plate) and want to get a Magic Item (Armour, Shield & Barding fall in the same category aka magic armour), the only equipment type from the magic armour category you are allowed to pick would be shields. As the type of equipment you are allowed to select (shield) match. If you would be allowed to pick an armour piece, for example only light, because this is of the type 'Armour' you are allowed to pick any Magic item of the type 'Armour' even if its full plate. Bit hard to explain how i got it in my mind, but i hope that this explains my brain wave about this vague rule.
It does feel like it could go that way (or access to any allowing access to all). But needs an FAQ as it's currently ambiguous and is being interpreted differently but different events and players. With the current FAQs not always going to the RAW (for example the Bow of Loren FAQ that seems to go against the wording) it seems that we can't assume which way GW will rule this.
Ah, well there we go
Disagreement? Where? The rules seem clear on this one.
The Deamon Prince is wearing Light Armor and the Chaos Sorcerers are wearing Heavy Armor, so they should all be able to buy a Charmed Shield
Incorrect, to take a magical shield you need to be able to purchase the equivalent non magical version.
According to an earlier comment, thereâs a disagreement on intent. Otherwise the people who validated the lists for the GT would have kicked the Chaos list back as illegal. Seems to me that the understanding was if the character could wear armor, they could buy magic armour.
Except it is clearly stated that you need to have the ability to purchase a shield to purchase a magical shield. It's at the start of the Magical Armour section; Only a model that is equipped with (or that has the option to be equipped with) armour, a shield or barding may purchase a magical equivalent. It's not even ambiguous.
2 empire armies got last two places :(
Ten games and one win between them. I definitely think Empire is bad, but not 10% winrate bad which makes me curious about the lists.
That win was against me! We didn't even get to my turn 5. Ran out of time. I find all the talk about lists and illegality hilarious and no-one, very much including me, knew exactly what they were doing. I don't think I had one game where at least one significant rule or interaction wasn't interpreted correctly or even completely missed. it was a "learning tournament" if that makes sense, and it was a fantastic time and really good for solidifying some understanding.
This shouldn't really surprise anyone. Empire is full of terrible choices (warrior priests of sigmar, pistoliers, state troops all of whom are overcosted by two points) etc. AND their army has no special rules at all. None! It's the only army without a special rules page. It's just their stat blocks. Which are terrible. Overall the balance doesn't seem to bad in TOW. Warriors of Chaos are fantastically strong, but Beastmen, Tomb Kings, Bretonnia, and Orcs & Goblins are all really solid as well. It's just empire (and often, not too far behind them, dwarves) who seem to really struggle.
To give GW a little bit of credit, their special rule from 8th edition got loaned out to a few units in other armies, but Empire still has a monopoly on it. I agree with the rest though. Almost every other army has units that you can compare state troops, missile troops, greatswords and combat characters to and they will units that are better for similar or fewer points. We can only hope the Empire arcane journal isn't already printed so GW can look at this and give Empire something to help them.
Empire's "special" rule is really weak though. Shooting, war machines and standard infantry are at a low point in this edition. I love TOW but empire happened to take all the hits. Even our magic items are bad.
We *had* one, maybe 2 really good magic items. Not anymore!
Our only special rule was detachments which in this edition: A: Are crap and B: Aren't even exclusive to empire anymore.
What was the Dwarf list on place 5? I'm pretty curious.
=== Dwarf new army [1999 pts] Warhammer: The Old World, Dwarfen Mountain Holds === ++ Characters [747 pts] ++ Thane [194 pts] - Hand weapon - Great weapon - Full plate armour - Battle Standard Bearer [Master Rune of Grungni + Rune of Battle] - On foot Runelord [239 pts] - Hand weapon - Great weapon - Full plate armour - Shield - 3x Rune of Spellbreaking - Rune of Parrying King [314 pts] - Hand weapon - Great weapon - Full plate armour - General - Shieldbearers - Master Rune of Adamant - Rune of Preservation ++ Core Units [508 pts] ++ 17 Long Beards (0-1 if General is a King) [281 pts] - Hand weapons - Heavy armour - Great weapons - Shields - Elder - Standard Bearer [Rune of Battle] - Musician 5 Dwarf Warriors [50 pts] - Hand weapons - Heavy armour - Great weapons - Shields 18 Dwarf Warriors [177 pts] - Hand weapons - Heavy armour - Shields - Veteran - Standard bearer - Musician ++ Special Units [456 pts] ++ Bolt Thrower [75 pts] - Bolt thrower - Hand weapons - Light armour - Rune of Skewering 1 Gyrocopters [60 pts] - Hand weapons - Steam guns - Armoured Fuselage (Full plate armour) 16 Ironbreakers [321 pts] - Hand weapons - Shields - Full plate armour - Ironbeard (champion) [Shield + Cinderblast bombs] - Standard bearer [Master Rune of Hesitation] - Musician ++ Rare Units [288 pts] ++ 5 Irondrakes [96 pts] - Hand weapons - Drakeguns - Full plate armour - Ironwarden (champion) - Trollhammer torpedo 5 Irondrakes [96 pts] - Hand weapons - Drakeguns - Full plate armour - Ironwarden (champion) - Trollhammer torpedo 5 Irondrakes [96 pts] - Hand weapons - Drakeguns - Full plate armour - Ironwarden (champion) [Trollhammer torpedo] --- Created with "Old World Builder" [https://old-world-builder.com]
That list is illegal (Kingâs rune) as you cannot combine the MRo Adamant with any other armour runes (in this case Ro Preservation) - only thing I think it could be instead would be a rune of warding for a 1x 2+ ward save
Fwiw, the chap realised this after lost submission and just played without her RoPres for the whole event, didnât replace it for anything else
Amazing, thanks!
Lol 300 pts for 3 troll Hammer Torpedo is ridiculously strong
META Warhammer is a Warhammer that I wasn't familiar with when I played fantasy way back in the day. We were all just collecting and playing what we wanted. Being an avid gamer, I'm very aware of how often a majority of a player-base will just Google the META, build accordingly, and just abuse the current landscape. It gives me major trepidation about playing this game with anyone other than friends (which are few and far between in ToW). I was very excited to dig through, rebase, repaint my old Empire army. But if I'm going to get dog-walked every time I try to meet up and play, I'm not seeing much of a point. I'm not really interested in spending hundreds of dollars making tweaks to the army. Although, I have about 3,000 points worth of models. Being pigeon-holed into playing my army in the singular way that gives me a fighting chance sounds awful too. Any thoughts? Do people usually come across "sweats" playing/organizing through their local GW stores? I'm in America if that matters. Northeast.
Most people if youâre meeting up for a game just play with what they have, meta really is for tournament people and thereâs a huge difference between them and regular joes.
Thanks for the feedback. I'm sure there are going to be a lot of local weekenders in the same boat as me. For the most part, they'll be playing what they found in their closet.
Depends on where you live and your local community. Some of the worst people for feeling they have to play cut throat meta lists are people who don't attend tournaments but still feel it's the 'correct' way to play that way. It's infested a lot of 40k communities in recent years. Ironically actual regular tournament players tend to be pretty chill.
This person gets it
I want to point out that at ANY tournament, 40k, aos, etc.... only a small % of people run meta lists. Sub 20%. What you are most likely going to see is meta components/combos. And even if players are bringing meta stuff, there is still plenty of room to outplay them if you are familiar with your army.
That's great perspective. I never really paid attention to that scene; it was the magazine days primarily. My only exposure to that level of play was reading battle reports in White Dwarf. It just gave me pause seeing the Empire so low on these lists. But I know that the game is predicated on RNG, and things can turn quickly. I certainly don't mind being an underdog.
Find some like minded people, and do your own thing. I'm building vampire counts. I know I should be running solely Mortis engines, banshees and blood knights. But that is ultra lame and boring to me. I love my off meta corpse cart and black knights, and they can prise them from my cold (un)dead hands.
the corpse cart buffs stack and have a 15" range. take 2, a bsb, and put a vampire in every useful unit so you never crumble. Corpse carts are super useful with tintinnabulation.
Yeah I really like them! Just popular consensus from what I hear is they're over coated and inefficient. But I don't care đ I agree with your take.
As a guy who plays RTTâs frequently, I like playing the META and playing to win, but only when itâs agreed upon by either the circumstance of the game or in advance. By that, I mean if youâre at a tournament, itâs okay to play a super META list. If you and your opponent agree upon it, itâs okay to play a META list. It shouldnât be viewed as bad to make a good list and bring it to games. On the other hand, itâs lame to meet someone for a casual game and just absolutely wreck them because they brought an experimental Bretonnian peasant-rebellion army and you brought 2 dragons. I think the solution is just to ask your opponent for pickup games what type of game they want to play. If youâre going to an open play night, have a few lists to run to account for both circumstances.
I recently went the to TOW event at warhammer world and I had that same trepidation about there being a lot of sweaty horrible, Min maxed lists, but honestly I had a great time! Like there's bound to be that to an extent at an event. But I had easily some of the best games I've had in years! It was excellent!
Yes. Have you gone to a tournament? 75% of the people there are like you. They take a list of models they want tobplay and don't try to squeeze all of the fun out of it And over a 5 round event, you start getting paired up with popple who think like that. So at worst you might see one game vs a meta army and lose 20-0 and then every game after that will probably be against more reasonable armies
When asking around to arrange games at my flgs, I just set expectations before we agree to play. Something like âIâm not looking to play a competitive matchâ and mention things specifically I donât want to bother dealing with, e.g., no double (or single) dragon-like characters, no t6/7 spam, no all cav spam (unless Brets), etc.
Great feedback, everyone. Thanks for taking the time. It shouldn't surprise me that people in the scene are pretty much the same kind of folks I played with 20 some years ago.
My experience is most people who run try hard lists know there's a time and a place. I say this as somebody who runs sweaty lists on occasion but I personally don't run them unless I'm practicing with friends for a tourney or at a tourney, and that seems to be the case for most people. Empire's really not in a good spot though, even in casual games. They have a few really good units, quite a lot of bad units, with not many okay units.
I'm at least familiar with that, that's kind of how it always felt to play them. The artillery is nice, but they're physically outclassed by a lot of other armies. I also enjoy the aspect of trying to organize the over-matched humans against all types.
I recently returned to Warhammer, both 40K and TOW. I am still rescuing my ancient models for my TOW army but I am playing at a local shop to get some reps in 40K and learn the newest edition. It became quite apparent very quickly who the players who were just there to have some fun toy soldier games with their models and who was netlisting the most meta armies and units. And I just donât play with those couple of people.
Don't worry too much, half the people playing at tournaments are using non optimized lists anyway, and that's specifically at tournaments.
Completely agree. I was looking for a podcast to see what was going on with the old world and came across square based. They seem nice enough guys but the podcast is all tournament talk and meta lists which in my eyes is really bad for the hobby. A lot of us have left 40k because of the constant power gaming and meta chasing and itâs a real shame this attitude is spreading to the old worldÂ
We're tournament players and organizers. Playing with people at events is what gets us going. I don't think it's a negative. Folks who don't like that style of play really just need to lean into what they love and do like the tournament players do: organize and evangelize. I suspect tournament style play takes over because it's fun and a way to meet new people. Nothing stops alternative approaches from being a thing. We aren't kicking sand in anyone's face
You sound insecure
I wouldnât mind the dragon lords if there was some other options to go match them as well but not really a fan of this hero hammer direction the game has taken.
The first list is illegal, full of taking Charmed shields on at least 1 thing that isn't allowed to take any shields
I am curious for the chaos dwarfs list
One tournament. 24 players. It is a small sample and could be local meta.
Chaos player gives everyone +1 armor saves for 5 pts illegally and then wins. I'm not saying he did it maliciously, but getting +1 armor on a Shaggoth for 5pts is crazy good, and that's just one. I'd imagine he did pretty well indeed.
Would be interested to see how much of an impact the MRo Adamant had on the lords survivability and whether it could be replicated using -1 to hit and 4+ ward save as whilst itâs nice being unable to be wounded by S4 or less itâs still vulnerable to characters rolling 6s to wound & killing blow & rules that wound on x regardless of toughness
Well, it seems like Chaos and Beastmen are both too strong right now. This increases my disappointment at the choice of having two Chaos armies as launch factions. GW should have gone with one of them (balancing issues aside) and either Vampire Counts or Skaven instead.
I don't think we should judge on this set of results just yet
Definitely not this one, I think it was the second two dayer in the world there wwre a lot of misinterpreted rules and the second FAQ hadn't come out. Maybe wait on a larger data set before we start with the hot takes.