Whiners about Astra Militarum

[Feral_80]

My gaming group has a couple of guys (notably, people who tended to play the strongest armies in 7th  ) who apparently lost their mind whining about how overpowered AM is. The fact that two 'undefeated' AM armies ranked top at the Bay Area open tournament seems to be their main supporting evidence.

 

My opinion is that Conscripts, which I've always hated, can be abused (and I find particularly sad that most Imperial armies use them now), and so can Harker, and that plasma (not Scions) probably needs to receive a slight pts increase. I'm perfectly fine with having these fixed by the codex (although I would also like to see some improvement to the LRs, on the other hand).

That's about it. The rest can be strong, but clearly not nearly as absurdly cheesy as some other 7th ed armies. AM is still a difficult and potentially fragile army to play.

 

So have you met any guys like these? How do you deal with them, and what do you reply (if you really must - sometimes I feel like I can't stand their whining and they deserve a good verbal beating). Just curious 

 

 

 

 

PS: for purely karmic reasons, it would be only fair if AM was now by far stronger than the majority of other armies, and especially if Tau, Demons and Eldar ranked at the bottom. But that is not what I wish, it's just a reflection about a cosmic balance of some old injustices 

Edited August 4, 2017 by Feral_80

[Brother Captain Sirus]

In these situations its better just to play against a different person, obviously this doesnt apply if your taking part in a tournament, but if its just pick up games at your local avoid them as best you can.

 

Everyone has had those moments where a local player or friend says something is overpowered or that a certain unit is ridiculous, but never consider what they themselves field on a regular basis.

 

Long story short try to play against people who are fun to play against and let the easily grumped players fight among themselves

[Feral_80]

I certainly do, but sometimes we just meet after a game for a beer and - in a theoretically friendly way - we tease each other about this kind of stuff. Which is fine. But when the whine-train takes over it's not so fun anymore, and you just wish to reply that they are simply talking nonsense.

[Tirak]

Are you legitimately a better player than them? If so it's simple. You tell them to knock up an AM list, and you make an Eldar list and beat them.

 

The problems these players are having is their super awesome elite lists of death aren't great now. Still strong, but quantity vs quality and all that. They need to break their older style thinking, and once they do, they'll have fun again.

[WarriorFish]

Don't worry yourself with the opinions of people like this. After ruling the roost for so long their opinion is suspect, and hysterics over a perceived advantage is silly at best. At worst; sour grapes from selfish plebs. No prizes for guessing where my money goes (both?) :lol:

 

Guard are stronger in 8th that is true, but it's far too early for any shrill cries about being unbeatable or even the best. How much is it the relative improvement I wonder? Are these petty players merely upset that the Guard they used to stomp with ease are now fighting back on par? I suspect much of it is simply down to how potent numbers are in 8th and while I wouldn't be surprised to see this addressed somehow in the future (even if it's the dull affair of hiking points for Guard) it is well overdue. Horde armies have suffered long enough so what's wrong with a boost?

 

If I were you I would take this chance to fill my jars and get some shiny new ones - all these tears are wasted just splashing on the floor

[duz_]

That's unfortunate, however there's always those who need to complain about something. 

I would ignore them, I doubt you can convince them otherwise anyhow.

 

There's no doubt Guard got a boost, so did others too.

The edition is EXTREMELY new, only 1 codex has been released thus far (people were crying about the Raven Guard tactics being OP too..). Things will change Conscript spam will be a thing of the past in 3-6 months time. 

[Mitchverr]

I've had people complain about my kriegers in 7th edition and even using 6th edition rules more recently (the guy didnt like doing 7th so i went fine). You get used to it, some people just complain because they refuse to adapt with the changes and refuse to learn the way their enemy works.

 

Guard players have not had to change how they do things by much if at all really, and we know the good and bad of most our opponents, simply as said above, ignore, offer to use their army if they want or if they are actually a decent person/friend, offer to show them HOW to improve their game, this is a biggie to me, people wont stop complaining until they learn how to defeat something they dont think is fair.

 

Every army has the ability to crush us, people simply dont seem to notice the units they should be using to do it and dont seem to care to read about how our armies work (i mean this especially for the specialist orders and regiments eg elysian/krieg, so many people I faced with krieg didnt realise that they dont run from gunfire and will happily move forwards to the last man till its too late and they have 30-40 guys on top of them because they focused other stuff, and for elysians i saw many people completely ignore the advantage elysians have in mobility and air support in the past).

 

Ignoring these people is easy to do, if you want to make/keep friends, i suggest you try to teach them the new ways of 40k :)

[olcottr]

Conscripts are perfect examples of AM's 'living tide' strategy. I don't see anything wrong with "spamming" them. Think Chenkov and the Tundra Wolves.

[Prot]

I'm not saying I disagree with the advice above, but I'm going to play devil's advocate here....

 

Pull out one of your other armies (if you have, if not ask to borrow one for a game with a list of your own design) and play against someone using one of these lists. Check out the actual experience from the other side of the table.

 

The only reason I say this is because I've played darn near every army in the game through various editions since 2nd-3rd Edition and on, and IG has had many ups and downs.

 

Right now I find them one of the least 'fun' opponents to play against. But this is largely dependent on scenario. I can go into greater detail but the point I'm trying to make is something I actually do myself. As an example in 7th edition I forced myself to face my typical Necron set up. I did it a few times, and that was an army I really enjoyed since the metals when they only had about 3 models.

 

This was an awakening for me. I felt bad enough that I sold the entire army off because no matter how much I turned it down, it was a bland, difficult experience for my opponents while keeping the lists somewhat entertaining for myself.

 

I'm not saying YOU have to do this, but it's what I did.

 

Another thing I'll mention is playing Maelstrom. We do this almost exclusively. Another thing... Frontline Gaming is definitely right about one thing... put a larger LOS blocking piece of terrain in the middle of the table. Otherwise (contrary to GW's claims) the games can be shooting galleries that are extremely non-interactive.

 

Those are work arounds to keep it fun for everyone. The Astra stuff is just very good all around, and even playing Maelstrom the IG armies are still mobile enough, or have enough indirect fire capabilities that it's really strong.

 

Facing overwatch from 200 flashlights really does suck. Not only that but you're just sitting there watching your partner roll fist full after fist full of dice... if you ever reach him, they simply back up, and use Get Back in the Fight, first rank/second rank on the rest, those aura's are extremely capable.

 

If you're on the receiving end of that, perhaps it would change your opinion? Maybe not? If you're playing ultra competitive, then just disregard. :)

[Withershadow]

Harker has an easy solution. If Novamarines can't bring Calgar, you can't bring Harker if you have anything other than Catachans. Like 3 people on the planet have that many Catachans.

 

Conscripts are annoying but not as bad as Razorflocks. And it's questionable how well these swarms will work against stuff like World Eaters who are swinging a literal 12 times per model.

 

Scions probably will get more expensive or have the cost of plasma increased for the whole army.

Edited August 3, 2017 by Withershadow

[olcottr]

You mean there are others?!?

[olcottr]

Harker has an easy solution. If Novamarines can't bring Calgar, you can't bring Harker if you have anything other than Catachans. Like 3 people on the planet have that many Catachans.

You mean there are others?!?

[Withershadow]

Yes, exactly two others! :P

[Brother Captain Sirus]

Prot does raise a good point, and with internet forums and list building asvice being readily available for many additions now armies can become 'optimised' to the point that its not a fun experience to play against.

 

For example, i have had the great displeasure of facing an ork horde that had two 30 boy units that managed to reach close combat with my front line, now this wouldnt have been an issue except the units trailed across half the table to be buffed by 2 painboys and all the other ork characters were encircled by these two 30 man units, so my units that were free to shoot couldnt shoot past the units in combat, or the characters as they werent the closest unit, so the game in itself was frustrating but by all means the army was fair and used a strategy to defend itself.

 

However it does seem like a cheap tactic.

 

On the flip side of that when i ran some aggressors and nearly tabled the same player (my rolls were hot this game, 7 kills to overwatch alone on one squad of boyz) they had a full meltdown about how overpowered aggressors were.

 

So at the end of the day its just a situation thats exsists within the hobby and you either dont play against them or let them rant (if they're a friend) and then if they are willing to accept pointers explain how they could counter said unit/army and not ruin the entire game.

 

The real problem is some people just cant handle losing, but thats their issue to deal with at the end of the day, so just enjoy seeing your units on the tabletop whether they claim victory or get blown to bits along the way.

[WarriorFish]

Guard have never had a top tier codex until now. Never. Most of the people here have been playing and slogging through GW's lack of interest and worse lack of a clue for years. When some don't like the fact Guard are coming out on top for once I can only laugh and despair.

 

We don't need telling what's good - we've been seeing it on the other side of the table since our first game.

 

If those players used to being at the top are finding themselves upset that the boot is on the other foot: I say good. They are the ones that need this perspective not the likes of Guard, Ork and the other long suffering armies.

[Shamansky]

When they got ynnari with three shooting phases per turn for thos Str D man-barbies, that was OK and must be accepted. Now they just must shut up and feel His Wrath or shut up and go buy new dress for their dolls.

[Altasmurf]

I put my vote in for don't play people that wine. Also though the gaming experience does need to include 2 sides. My opponents won't play Lord of war versus me because it's a style of game I don't enjoy. As such i dont use conscripts and limit scions. Thus we both enjoy the game. But I have a consistent gaming group, this type of discussion isn't possible with pick up games.

 

As for it being our turn to be top dog. Eh... I'd rather the armies just be balanced better.

[Dr_Ruminahui]

Given that my army is based around conscripts (it was begun as a thought experiment in 4th ed. as to the most models one could fit into 1700 points) I'm somewhat bummed that they are now the "flavour of the day" and people are liable to think I'm jumping on the band wagon.

 

That said, no scions at all, so maybe that will forestall the nay-sayers.

 

That said, I can understand why some people might criticize / borrow our units.  After all, the commissar has the best leadership mitigating ability in the game at the moment, so I can understand why some people might think its broken.  I imagine that should change if more armies get reliable ways of sniping characters.  And scions are probably the best unit, point-for-point, at what they do (which is drop in and nuke things, then die).  Finally, orders are very potent, and most other armies have to spend command points to do anything similar, or more likely have no similar mechanism as all.

 

It will be interesting to see how long our time in the limelight lasts - other armies are likely to improve as their codexes are released, and many of the above may change when we get our own codex.

 

Personally, as an IG and Sisters player, with the indexes its like I wandered into an alternate universe where bad is suddenly good. :)

 

Inquisitor Psychologis Ruminahui

[Withershadow]

Guard have never had a top tier codex until now. Never. Most of the people here have been playing and slogging through GW's lack of interest and worse lack of a clue for years. When some don't like the fact Guard are coming out on top for once I can only laugh and despair.

 

We don't need telling what's good - we've been seeing it on the other side of the table since our first game.

 

If those players used to being at the top are finding themselves upset that the boot is on the other foot: I say good. They are the ones that need this perspective not the likes of Guard, Ork and the other long suffering armies.

Guard were top tier in 5th edition, lets tone down the histrionics.

 

Also you seem to be both admitting that you think Imperial Guard is overpowered, and that you are somehow owed recompense for all the editions when they weren't. Your personal feelings should not dictate the health of the game.

 

I find that attitude even more abhorrent than whining, premature or otherwise. Nor do I want my successes diminished because I happen to play the new Craftworld Eldar. Nothing positive is gained from injecting victimhood strata into a game.

Edited August 4, 2017 by Withershadow

[Truesight]

Lets get some hard numbers for perspective on this:

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2017/08/03/the-state-of-the-meta-v1-1/

The collated tournament results show quite an even spread across the indexes, even accounting for the large numbers of AM players. 

This leads to two conclusions:

-The indexes are somewhat balanced

-Individual player skill is a large factor

 

Regarding the BAO, it should be noted that the winner Brandon Grant won the previous year, furthering the individual player skill argument.  

 

Given that AM players have been working with a sub-par codex for a while, I think that 'weight training' of making do without great units has left us with an advantage in game mechanics regard. 

I also think that this edition rewards balanced armies, and combined arms has always been one of our strengths. 

 

Grant in particular built his list as a 'beta strike' list.

Players at the moment have been loading up heavily on an alpha strike, which can go horribly, horribly wrong in non-optimal circumstances in a tournament setting (especially when two such lists meet), getting a perfect score with such a list is down to chance. Grant instead built an army that was designed to withstand these attacks and play for the late game, as well as exploit later game opportunities. 

 

I think as people begin to focus less on an initial deathblow we will see other armies play to their strengths as well.

[Shamansky]

I do agree that the Guard is 'overpowered' mostly by the Guard players, who were searching for non-conventional ways to win during some years. Those who whine now are used to winning by including overpowered units which now are balanced and not perform as godlike as in previous edition. They should change the way of thinking.

[WarriorFish]

 

Guard have never had a top tier codex until now. Never. Most of the people here have been playing and slogging through GW's lack of interest and worse lack of a clue for years. When some don't like the fact Guard are coming out on top for once I can only laugh and despair.

 

We don't need telling what's good - we've been seeing it on the other side of the table since our first game.

 

If those players used to being at the top are finding themselves upset that the boot is on the other foot: I say good. They are the ones that need this perspective not the likes of Guard, Ork and the other long suffering armies.

Guard were top tier in 5th edition, lets tone down the histrionics.

 

Also you seem to be both admitting that you think Imperial Guard is overpowered, and that you are somehow owed recompense for all the editions when they weren't. Your personal feelings should not dictate the health of the game.

 

I find that attitude even more abhorrent than whining, premature or otherwise. Nor do I want my successes diminished because I happen to play the new Craftworld Eldar. Nothing positive is gained from injecting victimhood strata into a game.

None of these things I said. In the future please be sure to read what people say, and leave accusations of histrionics behind lest you further undermine your point or worse.

[Withershadow]

That's exactly what you said, though. "Guard are coming out on top" "we've never been top tier" "they should know what it feels like" "if others have crappy rules, good, they need a taste of our suffering!" I am just saying that kind of attitude is petty and unproductive. If you meant something different that "further" undermines my point, by all means enlighten me. *shrug*

[Toxichobbit]

Lets get some hard numbers for perspective on this:

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2017/08/03/the-state-of-the-meta-v1-1/

 

The collated tournament results show quite an even spread across the indexes, even accounting for the large numbers of AM players. 

This leads to two conclusions:

-The indexes are somewhat balanced

-Individual player skill is a large factor

 

Regarding the BAO, it should be noted that the winner Brandon Grant won the previous year, furthering the individual player skill argument.  

 

Given that AM players have been working with a sub-par codex for a while, I think that 'weight training' of making do without great units has left us with an advantage in game mechanics regard. 

I also think that this edition rewards balanced armies, and combined arms has always been one of our strengths. 

 

Grant in particular built his list as a 'beta strike' list.

Players at the moment have been loading up heavily on an alpha strike, which can go horribly, horribly wrong in non-optimal circumstances in a tournament setting (especially when two such lists meet), getting a perfect score with such a list is down to chance. Grant instead built an army that was designed to withstand these attacks and play for the late game, as well as exploit later game opportunities. 

 

I think as people begin to focus less on an initial deathblow we will see other armies play to their strengths as well.

 

But is that a case of player skill dictating what is good, or what is good dictating what skilled players use? I propose it's some of both. While someone winning multiple times is proof that they are a good player, which army they use is an indication of how powerful a faction is. As a rule of thumb, good players don't take bad armies to tournaments that they want to win (unless they are attempting to dark horse the meta). Did this fellow use AM last year? Because if he didn't then I'd suggest that he's switched, at least in part, to AM because they are good.

 

I mean no disrespect to any tournament players, there's nothing wrong with switching armies to give yourself the best chance of performing well as after all, that's the main reason to go to a tournament. I don't disagree that skill plays an major part. However, I think it's an important caveat to recognise that a good player will gravitate to good factions. It's the combination of both a powerful list and a skilled player that wins events.

[Feral_80]

I think Grant used Dark Angels (with some Ravenwing) last year, which was widely regarded as not particularly strong as a codex. I believe he is a good proof that skill matter more than the army, and that he is not obsessed with performance in his choice.

It would be good to hear from him anyway in regards to his selection of armies 

 

I am happy my thread stimulated quite a lot of discussion. Apparently, the problem is widespread. 

 

With a few generally healthy exceptions, including this forum, the more time I spend dealing with wargamers (not just online), the more I become convinced that we have a concerning amount of people who only do one or more of the following: post memes that are not funny at all, whine about other armies being overpowered, and generally just criticizing without having much of a clue of what they are talking about. I wonder what's wrong with people, but I'm probably sliding towards societal challenges here.