Post Nephilim Black Templars - State of the Chapter 2022

[Tokugawa]

https://www.goonhammer.com/competitive-innovations-nephilim-mid-season-review-and-tier-list/

 

"Tougher" marines(mass aoc 2+ units like Deathwing, BA san spam, or mass -1d IH) are OK now. BT is struggling but not unplayable.

BT exclusive secondaries need rewrite urgently.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

2 hours ago, Tokugawa said:

https://www.goonhammer.com/competitive-innovations-nephilim-mid-season-review-and-tier-list/

 

"Tougher" marines(mass aoc 2+ units like Deathwing, BA san spam, or mass -1d IH) are OK now. BT is struggling but not unplayable.

BT exclusive secondaries need rewrite urgently.

Do you play this faction ? Mind sharing your army list ?

[Blade of Sigismund]

20 hours ago, Tokugawa said:

https://www.goonhammer.com/competitive-innovations-nephilim-mid-season-review-and-tier-list/

 

"Tougher" marines(mass aoc 2+ units like Deathwing, BA san spam, or mass -1d IH) are OK now. BT is struggling but not unplayable.

BT exclusive secondaries need rewrite urgently.

I played deathwing last week and tabled them.

Assuming you are writing in good faith, I think you are falling in to a logical trap. It goes something like ' X faction has better listed tournament stats' and ' tournament stats dictate army effectiveness ' therfore I can't win if my army doesn't have the best stats.

This isn't true. You don't fight against stats, you fight against players, and each player is different.

Each army will have strengths and weaknesses. Being good at this game is looking at a list, seeing its weakness, and determining your best way to beat them. 

Constantly worrying about who has the best arbitrary numbers only works if you plan on buying whichever army has the best published stats that month. If you want to play BT, then you need to focus on learning what BT do well and how to apply it.

[Medjugorje]

1 hour ago, Blade of Sigismund said:

I played deathwing last week and tabled them.

Assuming you are writing in good faith, I think you are falling in to a logical trap. It goes something like ' X faction has better listed tournament stats' and ' tournament stats dictate army effectiveness ' therfore I can't win if my army doesn't have the best stats.

This isn't true. You don't fight against stats, you fight against players, and each player is different.

Each army will have strengths and weaknesses. Being good at this game is looking at a list, seeing its weakness, and determining your best way to beat them. 

Constantly worrying about who has the best arbitrary numbers only works if you plan on buying whichever army has the best published stats that month. If you want to play BT, then you need to focus on learning what BT do well and how to apply it.

And some armies (or better saying lists) dont have any weakness you can play out.  And often you can write an anti-list against it and this special list is so bad against 95% of all other lists. For example one of my best friends started with Drukhari and I lost each game with any BT list against him although we playing against each other often and I never had this amount of (really really) hard loosings. And therefore I know Drukhari because its my 2nd faction I playing since 3rd edition. Drazhar + Incubi is the worst thing for each Marine player as long the drukhari player knows how to use it. Honestly - most players which are not on the same competitve level I will win against but thats not the matches I count if a faction is strong or not. 

 

In my opinion BT are absolutley fine on mid tier matches but when it comes to cempetitve level they are really bad - too predictible. You can only win if you have really good luck in parinings on a GT - forget Major events!! ( we ´ve seen absolutely NO Black Templars on WTC although we can opitmize against special armies I think). Or lets say the tournaments dont have that high number of incredible strong players in that areas.  

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I agree with what Blade of Sigismund said. It is easy to fall into the trap explaining why you lose. BT have all the tools to do well. Austin Wingfield recently won a GT with BT so it can be done. Learning how to play the faction well takes time and dedication. Sure we can keep complaining why it’s too tough will never get you there either.

Edited August 25, 2022 by Black Blow Fly

[Blade of Sigismund]

2 hours ago, Medjugorje said:

And some armies (or better saying lists) dont have any weakness you can play out.  And often you can write an anti-list against it and this special list is so bad against 95% of all other lists. For example one of my best friends started with Drukhari and I lost each game with any BT list against him although we playing against each other often and I never had this amount of (really really) hard loosings. And therefore I know Drukhari because its my 2nd faction I playing since 3rd edition. Drazhar + Incubi is the worst thing for each Marine player as long the drukhari player knows how to use it. Honestly - most players which are not on the same competitve level I will win against but thats not the matches I count if a faction is strong or not. 

 

In my opinion BT are absolutley fine on mid tier matches but when it comes to cempetitve level they are really bad - too predictible. You can only win if you have really good luck in parinings on a GT - forget Major events!! ( we ´ve seen absolutely NO Black Templars on WTC although we can opitmize against special armies I think). Or lets say the tournaments dont have that high number of incredible strong players in that areas.  

So what happens if you don't play the same predictable lists?

Also, I'm curious: what makes the cut for  you when you say competitive.  I'd there a specific event you're preparing for, or is it based on number of players?

Edited August 25, 2022 by Blade of Sigismund

[Medjugorje]

I forgot to say it makes a huge difference when in your tournament environment are differences like WTC vs. ITC scoring and when you have to put the terrain on the table or its fixed terrain. And still we have 3 more BT players in our club and i never lost to them with my Drukhari while I always lost with my BT against Drukhari... 

 

@BoS - if I say competitive player then I mean the level to win GT´s.  i would say the top of them + 1 tier under that - so Art of War level and one or maybe two levels behind them.

 

We had an ELO ranking back then in 6th edition in my country and I often participated with bad armies (Orks considered to be unplayable back in end of 6th and 7th edition) on RTTs. I always won against low and mid tier ELO rankings even they had the best OP Tau and Eldar lists. But against competitve player in the top 50 ranking, it was soo important to have a good list. I think the gap between mid tier and top level players in last two edition is smaller then in older editions but i am sure that experienced player vs experienced player is not compareble to match where a experienced player play against average games-workshop-store player.

[Blade of Sigismund]

Well stated. I think I understand your points better now.

If a game has 100 iterations, and who wins is determined by something besides the game (ie. Faction), then it seems like the game is no longer about the players, simply decided by which faction you chose. If that is truly your assessment of 40k, it's hard to understand why you would consider the game worth playing. The outcome would be the same by paying GW $500-$1000 every time a codex dropped and calling it a day.

If that is not the case, and what you do on the table truly matters, then there is something to discuss.

In your specific example, using drukhari, I too have played both sides. Game mechanics between drukhari and marines revolve around two things: mass and tempo.

- mass/or critical mass, is when you have sufficient pieces with sufficient durability that the enemy can not remove you fast enough to achieve their objectives, and you have sufficient pieces remaining to achieve yours.

- tempo is determined by committing plays before the enemy has the ability to counter, allowing freedom of action and forcing the enemy to react.

 

Marine players tend to love mass in the form of armor saves, invuln saves, high toughness, etc. These are easily understood and represented in the rules. Tempo, however, is never expressly stated. It's available from things like strategic reserve, teleport strike, jump packs, etc. Any ability that allows you to start from outside of the enemies range (weapon range, out of line of sight, or off table) then come in and attack immediately, force enemy actions in their turn (zoning out/speed bump) or, to attack out of phase (overwatch/interrupt), is a tool that can dictate tempo.

When a marine player commits to mass only against drukhari, they run in to a problem: drukhari weapons are designed to kill marines. They kill us fast, which means we lose both mass and tempo by being static. This leaves you in a situation where you lack pieces to play and are unable to regain the initiative.

If you focus on tempo, and use it to remove key weapons from the enemy, then you can create situations where you can achieve mass. For example, killing transports leaving close combat units out of position and exposed to fire. That's the only way I've found success against drukhari.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Well said brother ! Well said.

[Medjugorje]

@ Blade of Sigismund - it depends. I can always have fun in "fungames" but when I come to a forum and discuss our chapter - its always from a competitve POV. 

 

My view on the drukhari vs Tempars thing is not just my view... Its a simple view on our competitve view. funny thing is that Drukhari have that problems with other factions like Monster-bug spam ... But honestly - its a 40k problem in general not just for BT. I dont like the fact that our close combat does not work against every other REAL close combat army.

[Blade of Sigismund]

I can understand that.

I don't draw my views from the tournament community. Most of my talking points are US Doctrinal Publications being applied to the 40k game.

Paper-rock-scissors is indeed an aspect of the game; but in my view it likely should be. If one thing worked against everyone it wouldn't be much of a game.

I seek to compensate for this by bringing lists that have varied tool sets. This leaves me with choices when confronted with different matchups. The same things do not work against drukhari, custodes, or nidz, nor should they. So instead of leaning in to purely close combat, as it is our reputed strength,  I build lists around:

- anti infantry mass fires

- heavy fires (usually tanks)

- heavy assault units

- board control / tempo control 

The tournament lists I've looked at usually revolve around picking one element that is considered the strongest, and taking as much of that thing as possible. They seek to overwhelm the enemy ability to counter that element, or take advantage of a temporarily broken mechanic. Though this can work in certain settings, it has a couple main problems.

First, when you only bring a hammer, you're screwed if the enemy isn't a nail. All your eggs are in having the right matchup that doesn't counter your mechanic.

Second, my theory is GW specifically writes rules to exploit this. It is suspect to me that the most successful table top company in the world doesn't understand the sales tendencies of their own players. Almost all new codexes have mechanics that give a decisive edge in tournament mechanics. This is present on release, then walked back to bring the faction mostly in line within 3 months, coincidentally the amount of time those sales are driving quarterly earnings. Many of these mechanics end up changed or removed entirely. The successive changes go a long way to achieving longer term balance.

If you are constantly trying to ride a wave that only lasts a few months by design, you fall in to the trap of always needing the newest faction to be competitive. If you expect GW not to release rules that drive their own sales, I believe you are mistaken.

 

[Medjugorje]

It would be okay to have a game against the whole army. But their main concept is so perfectly made against marines that just very very few conecepts ( dread spam with 6+ dreads) could work but even then its a game not your scissor against his paper^^.

 

I finally want to point out that thing. If you look into rankings of Germany last year - my club member Stefan Härle had absolutely crazy success with his Admech. He was most time place 1 on TTT rankings (our tournament webside ranking)  and now in 2022 with same army he has large problems. That shows how important a good faction (and even more) a good list is and will improve your success that strong.

https://www.tabletopturniere.de/t3_ntr_show.php?action=show&id=64382373

(and thats just one ranking system - there are others like ITC, TTM where he showed how good he is. We even had an Elo ranking which is the best you can have imo)

Edited August 28, 2022 by Medjugorje

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

My advice is play another faction and leave us alone. Being a constant Debbie Downer is not healthy for this forum.

[Blade of Sigismund]

@medjugorje I concur. Also note that once his army was out of season it ceased to perform in the same way. I am not stating that army and list doesn't matter, I'm stating that it's not the only thing that matters. It's also my position that you can out-play a person that just happens to have the newest book.

I've stated my rational in my last two posts.

 

Edited August 28, 2022 by Blade of Sigismund

[Blade of Sigismund]

1 hour ago, Medjugorje said:

It would be okay to have a game against the whole army. But their main concept is so perfectly made against marines that just very very few conecepts ( dread spam with 6+ dreads) could work but even then its a game not your scissor against his paper^^.

 

I finally want to point out that thing. If you look into rankings of Germany last year - my club member Stefan Härle had absolutely crazy success with his Admech. He was most time place 1 on TTT rankings (our tournament webside ranking)  and now in 2022 with same army he has large problems. That shows how important a good faction (and even more) a good list is and will improve your success that strong.

https://www.tabletopturniere.de/t3_ntr_show.php?action=show&id=64382373

(and thats just one ranking system - there are others like ITC, TTM where he showed how good he is. We even had an Elo ranking which is the best you can have imo)

Do you believe 6 dreadnoughts is the only way because you've tried all the other approaches, or because someone else is telling you this?

6 dreadnoughts is a very one dimensional concept, and only works if your enemy isn't good at taking out dreadnoughts.

They also have a very small footprint and no native obsec, so you're leaving yourself gapped on ways to control objectives and/or commit actions.

[Medjugorje]

I always look from a perspective where each player has the same abiliy (at least close).

 

@BBF - I should leave because why? I am not your opinion? Thats very democratic. If you cannot stand my points then discuss then bring some arguments - dont blame me - bring facts.

Edited August 28, 2022 by Medjugorje

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I have in the past but you dismiss them. Really at this point your posts here are spam since you have added nothing new. Everybody here knows you don’t like the codex and thinks it’s not competitive. Doesn’t seem like a healthy thing to dwell upon.

[Medjugorje]

honestly I am very negative. But my arguements have value if you see it from a competitve perspective.

 

The main problem could be that I just want an army which can win big tournaments without just having luck in pairings. If you say you want to win in a GW store tourney then maybe you look from another perspective - and thats okay. But then we should mention that.  And even in competitve areas it can change everything when tournaments have rules where players have to set up terrain - which i dont have any experience with and lot of US tournaments use that way. But then we should talk about that the same way. 

 

Usually it should be positive to have players from certain areas and completely differnet background. Some are fungames, some are competitive - some of us are even now successful, although our winrate shows not. Sometimes i may be a bit arrogant - sorry when It comes this way. I play BT on a competitve level since mid 5th edition. I played more then 100 tournaments so far. Some of them international against the great teams in europe. 

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Austin Wingfield recently won a large GT with BT. You can’t dispute that either.

[Urkh]

17 minutes ago, Black Blow Fly said:

 Everybody here knows you don’t like the codex and thinks it’s not competitive. Doesn’t seem like a healthy thing to dwell upon.

The issue I see here is that this thread is ABOUT the state of black templars. Medj is having a civil conversation with other members (even though they aren't seeing eye to eye, the conversation is still respectful). Why should he leave just because you think he's a downer? He is actively contributing to the thread with ideas and opinions. Just because most of us know where he's going with it, maybe the OP doesn't? Please don't assume everyone has the same feelings towards medj as you. And if we're not really having a problem with medj, but you are, then maybe you are the problem, and you should leave, cool off, and try to see a viewpoint outside yourself. 

With that said, I do appreciate how your posts recently have not been so full of vitriol and hate. I hope one day you will become a kind, patient, and caring person.

 

On topic: with the new assault squad rules, has anyone been playing with them much? I have a 10 man squad from the old box, and wanted another 10 man from the new box to make non-veteran versions squads Raven and Dorcas. I know they're not great, but even "maybe playable is still better."

[Medjugorje]

I tried them in a few games. They are great. 2 falmers for free and a strat which gives you 12 shots for them, 12" movment + rerollable advance which can be buffed to 15 + d3 with grimaldus - you can give them obsec because they are core. And dont forget our new secoundary which gives you 2 points for each marker you get. Even in the games i lost hard- they performed very well. 

 

Dont forget that a lot of armies have infiltrating units - like mandrakes, if they are on a marker then you can grab a lot of points in your first round

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Urkh seriously repeating the same thing over and over just amounts to spamming the thread. I would be surprised if the OP isn’t aware tbh. I know for a fact there are other fraters that feel the same. Here is some positive advice - your if you can’t make a faction work for you the way you want then try something different. For example if you like to advance and charge White Scars could be your thing… it’s all good really and to me I’d rather play an army I enjoy rather than not having much fun.

Believe me when I say there are many things I’m not happy about in general regarding SM but I’d rather use my energy being positive and I’m not a Pollyanna either. So I hope you will respect my right to express my feelings here. :)

Edited August 29, 2022 by Black Blow Fly

[BayOkuz]

On 8/25/2022 at 11:04 PM, Blade of Sigismund said:

I played deathwing last week and tabled them.

Assuming you are writing in good faith, I think you are falling in to a logical trap. It goes something like ' X faction has better listed tournament stats' and ' tournament stats dictate army effectiveness ' therfore I can't win if my army doesn't have the best stats.

This isn't true. You don't fight against stats, you fight against players, and each player is different.

Each army will have strengths and weaknesses. Being good at this game is looking at a list, seeing its weakness, and determining your best way to beat them. 

Constantly worrying about who has the best arbitrary numbers only works if you plan on buying whichever army has the best published stats that month. If you want to play BT, then you need to focus on learning what BT do well and how to apply it.

So I played 6 games since Nephilim and I got tabled to eldar and Custodes.

Lack Deployment skills. And Do you think we should field 2x Eliminator 2x redemptor and 1x Eradicator to fully function with Range support?

Because I have a List that basicaly have 20 vang Vet with chainsw and Claw with 10x TH SS Terminator. But as the slowness takes me, I cannot even manage to sit on midrange as starting second. Eldar just hit me hard. Tabled at the end of 4th

I need some insight. It seems I forgot what was our strong side. And I need to learn deployment

 

PS: What is the NEW assault squad rules?

Edited September 1, 2022 by BayOkuz

[Marshal Mattias]

=I=

@Medjugorje and @Black Blow Fly

This really does need to stop, for the benefit of all your fellow Black Templars in this section.

The most tiresome thing in this subforum is the inevitable degeneration of every thread into a back & forth between you two with your axes to grind.

Medjugorje, we have discussed before that not everyone views "competitive" to the same extremes, and that overselling your feelings on this *does* begin to frustrate people who are looking for every-day competitive advice, not necessarily a mathematical breakdown of the top 10 players in the world.

 

Black Blow Fly, we have also discussed the need to take a step back and remain respectful when discussing these topics. I'm tired of seeing these sniping posts that contribute nothing to the discussion. Frustration may be the reason behind them, but it is not an excuse.

 

While the two of you may never see eye-to-eye on this, neither one can actually *win* in a difference of opinion rather than fact. You are both welcome to be here, but only so long as you keep posting within the rules.

I don't expect to have to say anything else on this matter, let's move on.

 

=I=

 

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Will do !!