Is there a 'don't be that guy' list yet?

[Valkyrion]

I don't play enough to follow the meta, but because I'm only collecting one legion now I will end up in a position where I can pick from a large roster, instead of building a 3000 point themed list.

Last edition it was the Ancients list that was problematic, which is a shame because dreadnoughts are super cool and thematic, but the rules were the rules.

Has anything cropped up yet?

 

 

[Agramar_The_Luna_Wolf]

I didn't see anything yet, but maybe is still too soon to know it. In my own case,at least for now, I'm not as much interested in making list or what kind of are others making as in the previous edition. I'm more interesting in painting and miniatures

Edited 2 hours ago by Agramar_The_Luna_Wolf

[MARK0SIAN]

It’s only been out about six weeks and it takes about that long to write a list under the new system so people haven’t had time to come up with many 
 

On a more serious note though, nothing seems to be overly problematic at the minute. There’s a couple of things that would probably be really unfun if they were spammed like seekers and I think if it turns out they add a more reliable way to bring flyers on then I wouldn’t be surprised if they became a problem. Mainly because opponents can’t really interact with them outside of a reaction so if someone was able to reliably spam flyers then they would definitely become ‘That Guy’ I think.

[Razorblade]

Custodes, as a faction, as every edition, because GW can't stop themselves from writing juvenile fanfic rules for them. 

Other than that, spamming singular defensive profiles will always reduce the number of enemy units that can meaningfully participate, which may lead to feels-bad games.

They did absolutely nothing at all to fix shooting reactions, so big don't-touch-me-or-die-from-return-fire units should be every bit as "fun" as last edition, with Rapiers (who got reactions and increased unit size) being the first candidate that comes to my mind.

Conversely, I think the much maligned Seekers are just fine really, and get worse the more you take. They are oppressive into tacticals but that is pretty much it.

[Pacific81]

12 hours ago, Agramar_The_Luna_Wolf said:

I didn't see anything yet, but maybe is still too soon to know it. In my own case,st least for now, I'm not as much interested in making list or what kind of are others making as in the previous edition. I'm more interesting in painting and miniatures

 

This is where I am as well. I think the Heresy community as a whole seems to prioritise themed armies and interesting miniature combinations over math-hammer and trying to break the game with 'that guy' lists (which is probably part of the reason it is popular).

[de Selby]

Someone in another thread said something like 'just take as many tacticals in rhinos as you can and you'll win' which I thought was fascinating.

 

Obviously if everyone settled on this then win rates would be 50 percent but I'm interested in the idea of a game dominated by the most commonplace soldiery being the optimal way to score victory points, with different legions/players adding other things to get an edge (like seekers).   I have no idea if it's true, I suspect there are a few very shooty units that might win lots of games leafblower-style, but tactical marines being a near optimal choice would be good for the game I think.

[MARK0SIAN]

2 hours ago, de Selby said:

Someone in another thread said something like 'just take as many tacticals in rhinos as you can and you'll win' which I thought was fascinating.

 

Obviously if everyone settled on this then win rates would be 50 percent but I'm interested in the idea of a game dominated by the most commonplace soldiery being the optimal way to score victory points, with different legions/players adding other things to get an edge (like seekers).   I have no idea if it's true, I suspect there are a few very shooty units that might win lots of games leafblower-style, but tactical marines being a near optimal choice would be good for the game I think.

If you go first and can get a lot of tacticals onto objectives quickly then you can very easily build a big lead in terms of VP, in some cases an insurmountable one if your opponent hasn’t got similar tools. It’s this ability to turbo charge your scoring that makes them good. A single squad sitting on a home objective doing nothing all game can net you 16 VP in some missions.  It seems to be more effective in smaller games though as the opponent generally doesn’t have enough killing power.

 

Its also a gamble, if the tacticals can’t claim points early or you skimped on the tools to dislodge more fearsome opposition in order to claim objectives then you’re going to struggle. 

[Razorblade]

4 hours ago, de Selby said:

Someone in another thread said something like 'just take as many tacticals in rhinos as you can and you'll win' which I thought was fascinating.

 

Obviously if everyone settled on this then win rates would be 50 percent but I'm interested in the idea of a game dominated by the most commonplace soldiery being the optimal way to score victory points, with different legions/players adding other things to get an edge (like seekers).   I have no idea if it's true, I suspect there are a few very shooty units that might win lots of games leafblower-style, but tactical marines being a near optimal choice would be good for the game I think.

That is most definitely untrue for the Core Missions. Generally speaking you are going to get half of the objectives which amounts to 1-2. Without some heavy duty firepower and Melee units to clear the way, you're tacticals aren't getting near the other half. They're also not going to do much about your opponents scoring. Meanwhile if you invested in 2-3 Line 2 Units, you're scoring the same amount of victory points from "your" objectives, while having the points to bring Vanguard (which should be easy enough to farm in this scenario) and units that can actually clear and score opposing objectives

Edited yesterday at 03:22 PM by Razorblade
spelling

[Galron]

Whats odd is I have been watching some youtubers talk about this game and they have this weird philosophy of all vanguard or all line. I would think a mix of both would be the more efficient combination especially if you dont know exactly what you are playing against. I mean I know you are supposed to roll the mission and then pick your force but realistically, no one is going to do that. I can see an artillery heavy force being very oppressive vs a tactical line force. I know in my game I only had three artillery type units(scorpius, arquitor, quad mortar) and they were pretty deadly firing from behind terrain out of LOS when he had none.

[Pacific81]

The other thing to consider here: how many Heresy events have people played that are just win/lose results? Usually there is a strong sportsmanship and army painting, presentation element as well; an army comprised entirely of tactical & assault marines is unlikely to do well there. 

Also, who really is 'winning' if you have spent months of your life and £hundreds painting an army that could have been replicated with one box of Legion Imperialis epic miniatures, and can barely fit onto the board? Other than GW shareholders of course!

[Gorgoff]

At the event qe made this weekeend two mechanicum armies fought each other and their tanks just wouldn't die. We talked about that afterwards and think that you can build terrible effective mechanicum tank walls which just won't die and be very annoying to play against. Some armies can spam a lot of different status which also seem to be very very effective. I can't judge if that is broken thought but at least it will be a pain in the ass to play against.

 

[Xenith]

16 hours ago, MARK0SIAN said:

Its also a gamble, if the tacticals can’t claim points early or you skimped on the tools to dislodge more fearsome opposition in order to claim objectives then you’re going to struggle. 

 

The thing is line (2) models like tactical count as 3 models each for objectives, so your rhino tacs can take an objective from pretty much any non-line unit from 19" away, and if they can all get onto an objective containing enemy tacticals, you just have to kill 1 of them to claim the objective. That seems better and more reliable than vanguard to me.

[Xenith]

18 hours ago, de Selby said:

Someone in another thread said something like 'just take as many tacticals in rhinos as you can and you'll win' which I thought was fascinating.

 

Obviously if everyone settled on this then win rates would be 50 percent but I'm interested in the idea of a game dominated by the most commonplace soldiery being the optimal way to score victory points, with different legions/players adding other things to get an edge (like seekers).   I have no idea if it's true, I suspect there are a few very shooty units that might win lots of games leafblower-style, but tactical marines being a near optimal choice would be good for the game I think.

Agree, but you run the risk of stalemates with just tacs. I think maybe whoever gets a tactical squad onto an enemy objective wins, and then you need vanguard units to clear them off (or more of your own tacticals).

[Brofist]

Ok here goes:

• Tactical spam in rhinos as discussed here. Line (2) was probably a mistake.
• MSU spam, as two squads are now almost always better than one.
• Kratos with the melta. The tank is overtuned and that melta gun is super strong (though possibly a typo)
• Thousand Sons rending autocannon squads. Super strong. Take more than one and you're gonna be that guy.
• AV14 spam, especially if its paired with demolisher cannons. Bonus TG energy if you do this with dracosons stuffed with scoring aux.
• Over-abusing the allies system

Like always, done in moderation these aren't necessarily bad

[Razorblade]

42 minutes ago, Xenith said:

 

The thing is line (2) models like tactical count as 3 models each for objectives, so your rhino tacs can take an objective from pretty much any non-line unit from 19" away, and if they can all get onto an objective containing enemy tacticals, you just have to kill 1 of them to claim the objective. That seems better and more reliable than vanguard to me.

This can be easily countered by 1. Deploying your objectives in a way that will keep them outside of 22" of the enemy deployment zone. 2. Moving your unit to create a 3" bubble around the objective

[Gorgoff]

1 hour ago, Razorblade said:

This can be easily countered by 1. Deploying your objectives in a way that will keep them outside of 22" of the enemy deployment zone. 

Objectives are deployed before you roll to see which kind of deployment zones are used in the game so that isn't an option unfortunately. 

[Razorblade]

21 minutes ago, Gorgoff said:

Objectives are deployed before you roll to see which kind of deployment zones are used in the game so that isn't an option unfortunately. 

You can deploy objectives in a way that will guarantee they are in a deployment zone for any of the missions were you only place 2.

You can place them in a way so that all 4 objectives will be in deployment zones unless you roll quarters deployment for the final one.

Granted you only deploy half, but deploying in such a way essentially forces the opponent to either mirror your deployment or gamble the game on a single roll-off. 

Did I mention that the mission Design is atrocious?

[Gorgoff]

Especially mission three where the objectives vanish. 

[N1SB]

2 hours ago, Brofist said:

Ok here goes:

• Tactical spam in rhinos as discussed here. Line (2) was probably a mistake.
• MSU spam, as two squads are now almost always better than one.
• Kratos with the melta. The tank is overtuned and that melta gun is super strong (though possibly a typo)
• Thousand Sons rending autocannon squads. Super strong. Take more than one and you're gonna be that guy.
• AV14 spam, especially if its paired with demolisher cannons. Bonus TG energy if you do this with dracosons stuffed with scoring aux.
• Over-abusing the allies system

Like always, done in moderation these aren't necessarily bad

 

Brother Fist, thank you for preparing my army list.  I will now return to the Allies For 3.0 for the last point.

[Pacific81]

Just reading about how you have to move models which are casualties off the battlefield, and you can't draw line of sight to them.. it has given me a nosebleed.

 

Where is that One Page Rules download again..?? 

Edited 13 hours ago by Pacific81

[Razorblade]

1 hour ago, Gorgoff said:

Especially mission three where the objectives vanish. 

That one in particular. If you don't hide the objectives deep in the deployment zones, whoever goes first just instantly wins

[Brofist]

9 hours ago, Pacific81 said:

Just reading about how you have to move models which are casualties off the battlefield, and you can't draw line of sight to them.. it has given me a nosebleed.

 

Where is that One Page Rules download again..?? 

 

Agreed. Recommend you play with 2.0s LOS and model removal rules for that more tactile feel.

[Valkyrion]

10 hours ago, Pacific81 said:

Just reading about how you have to move models which are casualties off the battlefield, and you can't draw line of sight to them.. it has given me a nosebleed.

 

Where is that One Page Rules download again..?? 

 

Are you telling me there's a page in the rulebook that says you can't draw line of sight to dead models?!

[Pacific81]

2 hours ago, Valkyrion said:

 

Are you telling me there's a page in the rulebook that says you can't draw line of sight to dead models?!

Yup 

 

I am actually surprised at this point they didn't include a section reminding you to breathe in and then out, otherwise tables would be surrounded by dead heresy players.