Imperial Guard in LVO

[Inso]

I am glad I don't game.

 

It looks like the 'gotta win' chaps have extracted all the fun out of the game.

[Feral_80]

As far as I can remember, it's always been like that - this game has *never* been sane at tournament level.

 

But, fortunately, there's also a lot of people who is able to understand what a toy soldier game is and who plays for fun.

[duz_]

Thanks HP!

 

I agree looking to the tournament scene is definitely not the place to be looking for balance. As the top players are generally finding ways to throw that balance in their favour.

 

However it is still worth looking through to see what my change as a result. Remember it was large events like this that saw conscripts and commissars nerfed (if you can call it that). If we can see what they've picked up on now means we can prepare ourselves for what changes may come.

I am glad to see less guard showing up on the top tables and even with their presence limited to soup lists. Lets be honest, in the fluff guard do most the heavy lifting and often support SM's. So seeing us on the table as cheap troops does make sense, I'm ok with that.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if we see mortar teams getting a slight points adjustment. As for infantry squads I don't know... I hope not. My list I've enjoyed since the index has gone from being 1990, 1980 to 2045pts since the index to the drop of CA. 

 

Oh and for those who aren't aware LVO, Las Vegas Open (as some have already pointed out). Is the final major event of the ITC tournament season. This year they opened it up to 512 players to compete in the championships (which did sell out). My understanding is that its the biggest 40k tournament in the world. The whole event is now a giant Con, with friendly, narrative, HH and AoS games going on too. GW have attended this year and last and this is one of the big events in the US that they "watch" and decide about making changes.

[Tirak]

I disagree duz_, the only place real game balance can be found is at the high end tournament level. Trying to balance a game around mediocre and poor players is what leads to exploitable mechanics. By balancing at top tier, everything else slides into place, and when something becomes exploitable, it is only exploitable at the very highest level and has little effect on the lower tiers of gameplay.

 

Also, Guard are badass in fluff. You sell us short by saying that according to fluff we should be second fiddle to the Emperor's Glory Boys. Without us, there is no Imperium.

[Feral_80]

I see a couple of issues here. I'll repeat some stuff that I've already written in a couple other posts, but just to clarify.

 

Most of us seems to agree that tournaments are places for the mental. That's totally ok. At the same time, however, GW obviously relies heavily on tournaments for its balance 'efforts'. So we should all be interested and concerned about what takes place at tournaments, because everybody from there up to casual games will enjoy/suffer their consequences.

 

I don't know if GW's original intention was to create a rock-paper-scissor form of balance among the armies. Perhaps. If that was it, it is obvious that they failed badly, because some armies have plenty of rocks, papers, and scissors at the same time (Eldar), while other definitely don't (Guard). The lists seen so far show that, due to the mess that 8th has already become, the Imperium builds that can effectively field r-p-s are extremely limited, and most of them rely on mixing up Marines/Sisters/Guard. Which is *really* bad, because it is not that obvious that any Imperium player is willing to mix up his models and collections.

 

I, for one, totally hate Sisters and have no love for Marines, except for the occasional model. I like my Guard and I would never mix it up, simply because it's sad. You end up with a diluted soup that has no flavour or character whatsoever, it's just a bunch of guys with four limbs only and eagles here and there. Some standalone armies (including Guard) have been effectively kicked out of the competitive* scene at the moment, because the current game (im)balance makes them almost unplayable: despite what some try to argue, -1 hit army-wide against units that normally hit at 4+ is too brutal a penalty, period.

 

If soup is the way competitive* armies are supposed to be built, I believe I'm totally allowed to be pissed off.

 

 

*competitive <> tournament. Competitive game = try build a balanced list that puts up a good fight and match for your opponent, who does the same. Result = challenging, fun, engaging game. I could not care less for min-maxing, spamming, and the such.

[NatBrannigan]

Well for tournaments I think they should stop allies yes, but I enjoy mixing mine up on occasion. I've modelled and painted my Imperial models to show they come from the same planet / system with a little back story to go with them (Nerd!). My chapter's symbol is a Stag, my rough riders ride stags and I've got some other stagy bits spread about, same bases etc so they go together really well.

 

Now the big difference is that when I add my Marines to my Guard, the army gets noticeably less powerful. No random "Mega Imperial Alpha Hero Force Go!" to see here. I'm not really too concerned with balance unless it gets really stupid (Eldar...) but that's because most people I play with don't want some all conquering auto-win army because they want to play a game to have fun.

 

Lucky me I guess!

[A.T.]

Now the big difference is that when I add my Marines to my Guard, the army gets noticeably less powerful. No random "Mega Imperial Alpha Hero Force Go!" to see here.

 

'Captain Smash' was the marine character that kept appearing in the LVO soup lists.

 

In a pure Blood Angels list it is a compromise to get the CPs to fuel him, but with guardsmen filling out cheap detachments...

[Halfpint100]

By the looks of it, there were 2 captain smashes. One with relic jump pack and one with relic Hammer

[Finkmilkana]

The problem with banning soup is that it effectively bans all the small sub factions (assasins, Inquisition, ministorum, knights, SoS etc) that rely on others to fill the roles they themselves simply can’t. Sure, you could say these are allowed to soup, but then the question is where to stop as there are no guidelines from GW which factions are supposed to stand on their own and which don’t.

[Ranulf]

I am glad I don't game.

 

It looks like the 'gotta win' chaps have extracted all the fun out of the game.

 

This. ^ 

 

I realise tournaments are a different type of gaming, but what ever happened to armies on the tabletop representing armies in the fiction? Granted, I'm a modeler/painter rather than a competitive gamer, but where's the fun in putting down a min/max list that has no relationship what so ever to the fiction of the setting?

 

If your only goal is to beat an opponent at something based on the rules of probability, why not play poker?  Why invest the time and money in painting an army of miniatures?

 

It's something I could never get my head around. I have a fondness for historical wargaming where the emphasis is on narrative gaming rather than this win-at-all-costs, bugger the setting and background mentality.

 

Personally I think if you're the sort of gamer that analyses a Codex to strip out 90% of the units that aren't as effective as the top 10%, then builds an army from that top 10% exclusively (and then builds a soup army with that logic) then you've lost sight of what makes the 40K game and setting so great. 

 

Or maybe I should just stay away from commenting on power-gaming in tournaments. 

[Halfpint100]

It's what I like about the guard. The units are so cheap that you can mix fun and power in the same list and still have some fun stuff

[A.T.]

... what ever happened to armies on the tabletop representing armies in the fiction?

 

Poor overall game balance.

 

It's easier for two players to just take the best they can manage than it is to try and co-operatively weaken/improve fluffy lists pre-game to create a level playing field, especially for pick-up games and tournaments against several different opponents.

[Are Verlo]

If the goal is to reduce the power of soups, one possibility is to make a rule like this for matched play

You can play stratagems from the detatchment that has your warlord’s fraction keyword.

[Finkmilkana]

You can play stratagems from the detatchment that has your warlord’s fraction keyword.

Won’t change anything if the soup is mainly taken to get CP’s and bodies. None of those lists looses much by loosing access to guard stratagems.

You could maybe give a CP penalty depending on how many different detachment keywords you use, but that is a bit messy.

[Are Verlo]

BA captains loose a lot by not being able to use stratagems.

 

I’m ok with using guard to get bodies. Bodies are good. I would love to see more horde armies (both hordes like 30 strong blobs and hordes with 30 5-man units).

 

But as the LVO showed us, many games with non-hordes won’t get past turn 3. Horde armies often take more time to play with and against. And because of that I don’t expect too see a sudden ride in hordes at major tournaments.

[Withershadow]

There is also the issue of transportation. I love my guard but I would not fly with them because they do not fit in carry-on sized bags.

[Kerrigan_khv]

Cadian -> company commander (usual relic of lost cadia)

Uh...

Maybe you can help: how exactly relic of lost cadia was ruled on LVO? Was it one use only or it may be activated every turn?

[Halfpint100]

 

Cadian -> company commander (usual relic of lost cadia)

Uh...

Maybe you can help: how exactly relic of lost cadia was ruled on LVO? Was it one use only or it may be activated every turn?

 

 

I believe it was used as one use only during LVO