An undefeated Ultramarines list at London GT

[Xerxus]

Going by the reputation this guy has, we can assume that any lessons learned from analyzing his list are void.

[Prot]

Some interesting developments.

 

Turns out the player who piloted this list was a terrible cheater and awful sportsman.

A personal associate of mine has played him at another event shortly after the LGT, and he confirms the attitude was the same.

 

This video talks about this player and his foul attitude. A dark mark against the hobby community:

 

https://youtu.be/ISBKM1a3oiQ

 

 

I have a long winded comment, but I'll try to stay focused!... a lot of things are honest mistakes. 

 

1. I, personally, to this day do not understand Monsters/vehicles getting cover. I ask my opponent before the game what his understanding is. Is it 50% blocked + WHOLLY within cover? Or just tapping a crate, and 50% blocked? 

 

2. I, personally, just had one of these (Youtube video  ) issues. I measured correct range to a model in a targeted squad of Tau Fire Warriors. However I could not see that model. My opponent did not think I should be able to shoot. I didn't want to look it up, and I let it go and said I'd look into it later. (I mean I agreed with my opponent it does not feel intuitive that I could shoot something in this manner).

 

3. This is my problem with ITC, and any highly competitive tournament. People are looking for hard fast rules in a game where there is a LOT of grey area. Man we have FAQ's coming out every couple of months and we still ask questions. This is never going to be chess.  

 

In every one of these tournies I go to, I run into a guy like that. ITC attracts them like crazy. The stories I could tell you guys about my last two events.... in both cases I couldn't give a hoot where I finished but boy does it bug some of these guys shooting for 'points' in a system that really is based on a fictional game.  

 

I have two groups of friends basically. They all play -somewhat- competitively, but one group won't cross what I call the "Theme line". And the other group wants to crush you. Some of these guys ask me a ton about tournaments but stopped going. They will never, ever attend an ITC event.  I still attend, and enjoy them, but I truly don't think in my heart this game was meant, or intended for extreme competition. Not for a second.

 

I think we have to realize when we talk about competitive 40k Ultramarine lists (obviously in this forum), we have to understand you take it all with a grain of salt. EVERY time. 

 

We are a forum that celebrates so many aspects of 40K. Fiction, hobby, background, and of course strategy. I think when you've completely lost focus of all of those except competition, you are moving plastic pieces of rules in ITC events. (Not that every one that attends these events fits that criteria.. .most don't.)

 

Let's keep in mind we are about the entirety of the hobby here, and not just winning.

[Kallas]

1. I, personally, to this day do not understand Monsters/vehicles getting cover. I ask my opponent before the game what his understanding is. Is it 50% blocked + WHOLLY within cover? Or just tapping a crate, and 50% blocked? 

 

Is it touching the terrain piece? Is it 50%+ obscured from the firing unit? If yes to both, then it gets cover.

 

3. This is my problem with ITC, and any highly competitive tournament. People are looking for hard fast rules in a game where there is a LOT of grey area. Man we have FAQ's coming out every couple of months and we still ask questions. This is never going to be chess.  

 

In every one of these tournies I go to, I run into a guy like that. ITC attracts them like crazy. The stories I could tell you guys about my last two events.... in both cases I couldn't give a hoot where I finished but boy does it bug some of these guys shooting for 'points' in a system that really is based on a fictional game.  

 

I have two groups of friends basically. They all play -somewhat- competitively, but one group won't cross what I call the "Theme line". And the other group wants to crush you. Some of these guys ask me a ton about tournaments but stopped going. They will never, ever attend an ITC event.  I still attend, and enjoy them, but I truly don't think in my heart this game was meant, or intended for extreme competition. Not for a second.

 

I don't think that's an issue with ITC. ITC is a solid framework for missions where the objectives are pretty well balanced. It doesn't really do anything to introduce any more grey areas - that's just the base game itself.

 

I don't really understand why people take issue with ITC itself. Sure, it's used as a tournament standard, pretty much, but that's because it's as unambiguous as it can be, whereas the core game sometimes isn't; and while "That Guy" might be attracted to tournament play, and therefore more likely be encountered there, that's still shouldn't be laid at the feet of ITC.

 

I've met players in ITC tournaments that are great, they love thematic armies, they play hard, and they play fair; I've met "That Guy." I've also met both of those kinds of players outside of ITC tournaments, and I've also met "Scrubs" (literally: players that narrow their own viewpoint and expect others to follow the same guidelines, believing their own opinion to be 'right').

[Prot]

I didn't mean to say ITC introduces rules debates. It's just 40k really, under... a different mission set. 

 

ITC does attract a certain crowd. I've met hundreds of players over decades of tournaments. Most, and I do mean most players, are the type of guy you want to play every day. But ITC does attract a certain mind set. Of that I am certain as well. 

 

But I don't want to turn this into an itc conversation. Really it's inconsequential, right? A poor sport, or difficult person isn't unique to a tournament type. 

 

What I am selfishly happy about is that I expect to hear less of this type of attitude with my (our) colours at a tournament. I suspect that certain type of player will gravitate towards a different chapter very soon.

 

I'm guilty of going a bit off track here. We came to the thread to examine what list is undefeated, regardless of the way it was played, I guess we have to admit it still did well. But I do think in 2-3 months (especially after the FAQ) this won't be quite the template we see moving forward competitively. But maybe it will? 

 

My personal belief is it's been a VERY long time since anyone geared up for Marines. The amount of marine players at that tournament was staggering. It will slowly decrease, as every one scratches that power armoured itch, but everyone will be better prepared for the Primaris rush.

 

AdMech Skorpius, the Ork Loota, and stuff like the Whilwind Scorpius will all be probably very regular ingredients in tournaments. (I'm guessing of course.)

Edited September 24, 2019 by Prot

[Lemondish]

 

 

1. I, personally, to this day do not understand Monsters/vehicles getting cover. I ask my opponent before the game what his understanding is. Is it 50% blocked + WHOLLY within cover? Or just tapping a crate, and 50% blocked?

Is it touching the terrain piece? Is it 50%+ obscured from the firing unit? If yes to both, then it gets cover.

3. This is my problem with ITC, and any highly competitive tournament. People are looking for hard fast rules in a game where there is a LOT of grey area. Man we have FAQ's coming out every couple of months and we still ask questions. This is never going to be chess.

 

In every one of these tournies I go to, I run into a guy like that. ITC attracts them like crazy. The stories I could tell you guys about my last two events.... in both cases I couldn't give a hoot where I finished but boy does it bug some of these guys shooting for 'points' in a system that really is based on a fictional game.

 

I have two groups of friends basically. They all play -somewhat- competitively, but one group won't cross what I call the "Theme line". And the other group wants to crush you. Some of these guys ask me a ton about tournaments but stopped going. They will never, ever attend an ITC event. I still attend, and enjoy them, but I truly don't think in my heart this game was meant, or intended for extreme competition. Not for a second.

I don't think that's an issue with ITC. ITC is a solid framework for missions where the objectives are pretty well balanced. It doesn't really do anything to introduce any more grey areas - that's just the base game itself.

 

I don't really understand why people take issue with ITC itself. Sure, it's used as a tournament standard, pretty much, but that's because it's as unambiguous as it can be, whereas the core game sometimes isn't; and while "That Guy" might be attracted to tournament play, and therefore more likely be encountered there, that's still shouldn't be laid at the feet of ITC.

 

I've met players in ITC tournaments that are great, they love thematic armies, they play hard, and they play fair; I've met "That Guy." I've also met both of those kinds of players outside of ITC tournaments, and I've also met "Scrubs" (literally: players that narrow their own viewpoint and expect others to follow the same guidelines, believing their own opinion to be 'right').

ITC really isn't very skill testing as you only need to be able to play one scenario and have an easy to learn mechanic for covering your weaknesses that is baked in to the format (picking secondaries). It's not a good format for testing play skill, it's all about list optimisation skill. I've played it enough (and done well at it) to know it feels like the matchups are more important than the mission and it feels like a low skill version of a normal tournament.

 

But more fundamental, the very basic win/lose conditions are changed in ITC compared to the win/lose conditions presented in the rules/chapter approved. Doesn't get more fundamental than tinkering with the things that decide who gets to win or lose a given game and how they get to win or lose a given game.

 

Both sets of CA missions are pretty skill testing. The newest eternal war ones even managed to get the dynamic of maelstrom games without the luck factor of drawing perfect/terrible cards. 

 

Meanwhile, most of the ITC top players tell you that picking the right secondaries is one of if not the most important thing - something that isn't even part of Warhammer 40k!

[Prot]

Okay let’s stay focused on the list please.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I really hate clocks and how they can be gamed... it really takes away any immersion. As far ITC goes I’ve played these missions a lot. It’s really more about building highly optimized lists and gotchas as opposed to any real skill. The format is basically just a formula and you’re always playing the same mission only the number of objective markers change. Based on my experience it attracts a lot of not fun to play people as well.

[Lemondish]

Okay let’s stay focused on the list please.

 

I apologize for not being clearer. My point above was that ITC lists are fundamentally difficult to weigh because it's a completely different game from 40k, which is the context where this list was used at the LGT. Combined with the fact this player was using Stratagems that don't exist, resetting wound dice, moving a unit far further than it normally can, and a variety of other acts against the gentleman's contract, it doesn't seem possible to actually assess the value of this list whether we're thinking ITCHammer orreal Warhammer. 

 

After all, if ITC is all about effective list building (which it is), then this list would not bring enough solutions to the gatekeepers. But it wasn't at an ITC even as far as I can see. 

 

In Warhammer, though, we know that the skill and ingenuity of the pilot can have a major impact on the efficacy of any given list, but we have worse than no data - we have bad data.

 

I think, all things considered, I wouldn't think folks would have too much issue with this list since all the threats seem to happen in a specific order as they reach their preferred range. Gman isn't much of a threat and likely won't be killing anything in the first couple turns. Same is true with those Aggressors. The Repulsors are the turn 1 threat, though. Once this list hits turn 2, it's far more mobile and that means you need solid target priority and objective minded plays to handle it. 

Edited September 25, 2019 by Lemondish

[Prot]

I agree about Guilliman. But to be fair I haven't really played him much since the new codex. I also agree that lists are substantially different for ITC vs 40K. I play both, and certainly prefer 40K. I mean a perfect example is Tau are still amazing at 40K, but I find playing them a lot more 'fun' in 40K. 

 

A big example I think of which would include this list is around denial. In ITC a denial list can do well, but in 40K potentially it has issues. Objective grabbing is massive in 40K, but is a very static element in ITC. Same with Flyer Spam. Eldar Airshow is cancerous issue largely unique to ITC. In 40K you have a lot more difficulty winning with it. 

 

The last ITC event I was at I had to face 2 of those lists, and they were easily the most boring games I played. 

 

The list we see here is flexible though. Maybe not optimal, but it's got good obsec, and the troops are solid now. At that event a lot of people were probably caught a little off guard by marine strats, and even changes to things like Aggressors. 

 

I'm just guessing here, but I don't put much weight into this list... yet. I just think it's going to change a bit going forward once all the cards on the table. 

[Ishagu]

I do actually agree somewhat with the above sentiments. ITC games are fundamentally different from the official rules of 40k, partly due to custom terrain rules (Magic boxes) but more because of the mission design and the way scoring works.

 

It allows lists to perform, that under GW mission design would not be able to do so. An example of this is the Eldar flyer list, it always scores behind enemy lines and recon, able to rack up points in any game. This list literally cannot score points under some of the CA 2018 conditions. The Chapter Approved missions from the 2018 book are some of the most interesting and best designed missions, and they encourage well rounded and balanced lists!

 

The ITC by comparison are incredibly boring - namely the dull as anything Primary missions! The competitive scene can jump to the 2018 CA mission design quite easily, and it would be healthy for the game.

[Lemondish]

I do actually agree somewhat with the above sentiments. ITC games are fundamentally different from the official rules of 40k, partly due to custom terrain rules (Magic boxes) but more because of the mission design and the way scoring works.

 

It allows lists to perform, that under GW mission design would not be able to do so. An example of this is the Eldar flyer list, it always scores behind enemy lines and recon, able to rack up points in any game. This list literally cannot score points under some of the CA 2018 conditions. The Chapter Approved missions from the 2018 book are some of the most interesting and best designed missions, and they encourage well rounded and balanced lists!

 

The ITC by comparison are incredibly boring - namely the dull as anything Primary missions! The competitive scene can jump to the 2018 CA mission design quite easily, and it would be healthy for the game.

 

I agree. I'm eager to see what CA19 will bring...

 

As far as this list goes - I think it's one of those that can cross over pretty easily, but as Prot mentions...I don't think it's the best indication of what marines can do, or what Ultras can. 

[Captain Idaho]

I agree with that assessment. What I found with ITC format is it promotes broken lists more than the Chapter Approved 2018 do. You HAVE to kill a unit each turn and it's a race to kill units - well that's kill-hammer in action.

 

Folk can obviously choose the other objectives that grant their kill-hammer lists the greatest benefits.

[Ishagu]

The ITC missions were very helpful for the game back in 7th edition but I'm not convinced they were necessary in 8th. Most of the issues with the current game were ironed out by GW themselves over the last two years of FAQs and Erratas, and the missions in CA work as a great balancing factor in list design.

 

What I don't like about the ITC is that it could lead to unit nerfs for model that might not be as overpowering in other ways of play.

[Captain Idaho]

Yeah that is a very important point. I would like to give GW the benefit of the doubt mind; hopefully GW will ensure balance works alongside their own rules.