Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XLI: Secondary Opinions

[Gwynchan'rGwyll]

Counter: it's very fluffy in tactics and what a Drukhari list wants to be doing (just it requires Craftworld units to pull it off).

Fast but squishy units that focus on the objectives that win games rather than just deleting units, with a hard-hitting second group that is a scalpel that deletes threats that can't be avoided. I think it's a list that actually requires skill to play. It requires a good judgement of when to cut-and-run, when to use disposable units, and when to use your offensive powers. It also requires a good judgement of when to give up an objective/quarter in order to better move onto a different objective/quarter.
Works less well when it's a 1x3 Razorflock rather than 3x1 Razorflock, however.

[LansXero]

what good judgement do you need to auto-advance at 4 times the speed your opponent can and exploit lazy ass L shaped terrain to play benny hill with him? Jinx+Doom carries the 'scalpel' without an actual finisher, its just everyone is so tooled up for the Marines boogeyman, they let slip hodgepodges like this.

For the record, I despise lists that dont try to render your opponents army extinct in the early turns. Because those are the only lists that, win or lose, lead to fast games instead of tedious boring grinds that are as fun to watch and play as washing your teeth with drain cleaner.

[Hootman]

I can't help but feel that 100 Boyz and a few Kannons would smash that (D)Eldar list to bits in two turns. At least, assuming you can still do the mass-Turn 1 charges that I used to gun for.

Sure, their Heavy guys and the Wraithseers are probably still alive, but all the forward chaff units should have been swallowed up, and it's just a matter of surrounding and swallowing them up in the green tide.

But no one plays horde in tournaments due to time restrictions, or so I've heard here. Which is weird to me, since they could have those Apocalypse movement trays? It can't be THAT much harder to move two dozen trays than moving two dozen Marines would be. I guess I'm just assuming that any horde player would have to put a bit more money/practice into their transport gear and set-up skills, but that isn't really different from what is already true of them.

Unless they're like me, I guess, who just has bags of units in a giant briefcase because they've never been painted.

[Cheesegear]

It is clear I dont understand the game enough to make heads or tails of it, but I feel confident that blaming 9th for being garbage wont be far off the mark.

It's got two Wraithseers and an Avatar and the Death Guard can't kill Monsters. That's not a disadvantage.

Additionally, similar to certain Space Marine builds, there's also a number of single-model units (some of which don't even take slots) which can be used to hide behind ITC terrain and hold Objectives, that are actually more trouble to deal with than they're worth, since they don't actually deal damage, and there are bigger problems on the board...Like Wraithseers and Avatars that the Death Guard can't deal with.
(And also there may have been some cheating, unintentional or not)

Second, it's the 1% of the playerbase where 'skill' and selecting Secondary Objectives 'depending on the opponent', and 'not rolling 1s' actually comes into play. Because it's at the level of play where one player can't just faceroll the other, because the other one actually knows what they're doing. This is what lets casuals point and say "See! See! The game is good!" ...Even though what's just happened doesn't apply to them or their games.

Reinforcements is a big deal. Army lists don't tell you what units were used to Outflank. Again, back to single-model units that aren't worth anything (so you don't FOMO), but coming onto the board on Turn 3 on your opponent's edge and scoring points, because Melee lists don't stay in their own DZ and tend to free up 9" in their backfield [insert amazing joke here]. So a massive boon here, is simply the match up itself. Which arguably might be by design. If you know that Melee lists gonna Melee. And you know that Death Guard are pretty hot right now, you might build a list of single-model units (...by cheating) that stay off the board that therefore can't be killed, and have them show up late-game to score late points.

Did I mention two Wraithseers and an Avatar? Monsters can shoot whilst in Melee, you know.
...Also maybe cheating.

[LansXero]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXWC4aUwjAA

stream quality is bad but in case anyone feels like watching how it all plays, thats the finals.

[Avaris]

For the record, I despise lists that dont try to render your opponents army extinct in the early turns. Because those are the only lists that, win or lose, lead to fast games instead of tedious boring grinds that are as fun to watch and play as washing your teeth with drain cleaner.

This explains so much.

To be clear, wanting this type of gameplay is perfectly legitimate. But given that’s what you want out of a game, it makes sense that 9th ed, which is trying to take the focus away from just killing things (with varying success) doesn’t appeal to you. By contrast I (and I suspect many others?) favour setups where models last longer, so that I can get use out of them. It’s why I like Apocalypse as well.

Again, what you want is perfectly legitimate, and has definite benefits for tournament games in particular, given the need to get games resolved quickly. But it demonstrates how difficult it is for a game to be all things to all people, which I feel is often what GW tries to do with 40k. It would be better to focus on delivering a particular type of experience.

[Cheesegear]

By contrast I (and I suspect many others?) favour setups where models last longer

Then why aren't you playing in tournaments where that wins games?
If that's the playstyle you like, grab a Death Guard or Iron Hands or Salamanders or Custodes army and just stroll into any tournament in your area and watch as your models don't die and your opponents get frustrated that they aren't achieving anything in a 'competitive' game.

The issue is that it leads to stalemates where nothing happens. This is the main problem with Astartes Banner into Apothecary into Astartes Banner into Apothecary, repeat ad nauseum.
It's not that it isn't a legitimate strategy to leave many units off the board, and deny your opponent Kill Points.
It's not that it isn't a legitimate strategy to bring units that don't kill things, but, instead, have T5, multiple wounds, an Invulnerable save and/or Ignore Wounds and stand around doing nothing all game which allows specifically purpose-built lists to run rings and stall too...

It's that that's what it is...Stalling. You don't really achieve anything, and neither does your opponent. And in a very real way, 'cause nothing's going to die anytime soon, you just math out the Objectives at the 90-minute mark and *skips through the finals match* ...Yeah. That. It's not engaging. It's not fun. That's why those lists can't be played in the casual setting because your opponents wont play you anymore. Not because it's 'too good' and players just get butthurt when they lose. But because it's boring AF to play with and/or against.

This is what players despise. They despise that it takes ~2 hours to declare a winner, when the winner was probably decided back in Turn 1 or 2. This happened all the time in 5th Ed. The game is already decided back in Turns 1 and 2. But because of the win conditions, and Mech is King, the winner couldn't be determined until the bottom of Turn 5. That's why progressive Objectives became popular - because you could declare the winner on Turns 1 and 2, when it's decided. Not decide the game, play for ~2 more hours, then declare the winner.

The kicker that I'm sure Lans doesn't - or didn't - realise, is that that Aeldari list would be near-trash vs. any other list that actually attempted to kill things and wasn't slow AF. The reason why it won is because it was purpose built for beating Death Guard...And hey, it ends in a concession, rather than a victory, because the players at the end just start math-ing out Objectives because killing things is a waste of time because they each know that they can't.

It would be better to focus on delivering a particular type of experience.

But it has to be all things to all people, because delivering a specific experience for specific people loses money, and we can't have that.
Even the tightly-knit Kill Team community is now fractured beyond belief because GW couldn't keep it in their pants.

[LansXero]

The issue is that it leads to stalemates where nothing happens. (...) it's boring AF to play with and/or against.

Sometimes its even decided on list building and you see people praying to the dice god and hoping the oponent messes up, which is far from engaging gameplay. Of course, when its potato vs potato and both just durdle around overextending and trading poorly its 'fun', but then it goes away once you figure out what you're doing.

The kicker that I'm sure Lans doesn't - or didn't - realise, is that that Aeldari list would be near-trash vs. any other list that actually attempted to kill things and wasn't slow AF. The reason why it won is because it was purpose built for beating Death Guard...And hey, it ends in a concession, rather than a victory, because the players at the end just start math-ing out Objectives because killing things is a waste of time because they each know that they can't

.

Thats actually my point. I know the list is trash, Im offended that this pos list won a tournament purely because of 9E awful miserable grind of victory conditions. The meta that has arisen around said wincons is made of stuff that this sort of junk can exploit, making for a degrading gamestate into lamer and lamer matches. Just like the potshot meta at the height of ITC's 8E.

[Avaris]

Then why aren't you playing in tournaments where that wins games?
If that's the playstyle you like, grab a Death Guard or Iron Hands or Salamanders or Custodes army and just stroll into any tournament in your area and watch as your models don't die and your opponents get frustrated that they aren't achieving anything in a 'competitive' game.

The issue is that it leads to stalemates where nothing happens. This is the main problem with Astartes Banner into Apothecary into Astartes Banner into Apothecary, repeat ad nauseum.
It's not that it isn't a legitimate strategy to leave many units off the board, and deny your opponent Kill Points.
It's not that it isn't a legitimate strategy to bring units that don't kill things, but, instead, have T5, multiple wounds, an Invulnerable save and/or Ignore Wounds and stand around doing nothing all game which allows specifically purpose-built lists to run rings and stall too...

It's that that's what it is...Stalling. You don't really achieve anything, and neither does your opponent. And in a very real way, 'cause nothing's going to die anytime soon, you just math out the Objectives at the 90-minute mark and *skips through the finals match* ...Yeah. That. It's not engaging. It's not fun. That's why those lists can't be played in the casual setting because your opponents wont play you anymore. Not because it's 'too good' and players just get butthurt when they lose. But because it's boring AF to play with and/or against.

This is what players despise. They despise that it takes ~2 hours to declare a winner, when the winner was probably decided back in Turn 1 or 2. This happened all the time in 5th Ed. The game is already decided back in Turns 1 and 2. But because of the win conditions, and Mech is King, the winner couldn't be determined until the bottom of Turn 5. That's why progressive Objectives became popular - because you could declare the winner on Turns 1 and 2, when it's decided. Not decide the game, play for ~2 more hours, then declare the winner.

I perhaps explained poorly. Or in any case, I left out the crucial point you often raise: in order for this to be a good experience, you need to have objectives that matter beyond killing things. The objectives make the game.

What I want is a game that I can win through not needing to kill everything, and where the opponent is not trying to ‘make my army extinct as quickly as possible’. That’s not the same as ‘I want my army to last as long as possible.’ I want it to be actually achieving something through its longevity beyond stalling out the game.

Currently 40k has units with longevity, but because that longevity also makes it really difficult for the opponent to achieve things, it makes the games stall out. That’s not a good experience for anyone. And especially not good for tournaments, where you want to resolve things quickly.

Edit: Warhammer Underworlds is a good example of what I want. While it is perfectly possible to kill a model before it does anything, generally speaking that only happens if a player has really designed their warband around killing things, and there are many other alternatives to design your game plan around, including picking your objectives. So your models tend to be in play for longer, without them necessarily being resilient themselves. By contrast, the best way to win 40k is often to simply destroy your opponent, and particularly to do so before they get to use their things. It is likely there will bd models deployed that do nothing except be removed from the table. That’s what I want to avoid.

[Forum Explorer]

I know in 8th I went up against someone who basically was unkillable for my army. So I had to play that sorta avoidy grindy out game just to have a chance of victory. I had to actually stall out until they ran out the clock, so in the last turns I would win by holding more every turn, and pick up a late game kill more. It was a very weird game, but had I just tried to kill him, I would've lost horribly.

But besides that we've finally got a substantial rules preview about Dark Eldar!

You can upgrade everything to a Master version of itself. The Master Archon gets a -1 to hit/5+ FnP relic, +1 Damage in melee warlord trait, and a once per game fight again. But no idea if that's worth it since we can't see the points needed to do that.

You also get a unit of Trueborn which looks interesting though. A unit of Warriors that basically always hits on a 2+. Might cost more though.

We get to see the 'easy' combined detachment thing they were talking about. You need a Succubus, a Homunculus, and an Archon. You also need 1 Warrior unit, 1 Wych unit, and 1 Wrack unit. Your reward? Everything gets a Kabalite Obsession and your Archon's aura now works on everything in the detachment. It also lets you mix and match relics pretty much freely which could be potentially very good.

Poisoned Tongue actually looks worth it now, getting a +1 to their poisoned weapons. Most notably, it's not +1 to wound. So it only works on stuff that the poison would normally work on. Still much much better than the previous reroll 1s to wound with poison weapons. They also get -1 to combat attrition tests, and a redeploy stratagem.

Biggest difference is power from pain:
Turn 1: 6++ instead of 6+ FnP
Turn 2: Advance and Charge rather than reroll charges
Turn 3: +1 to hit in melee and vehicles ignore the penalty for shooting into melee.
Turn 4: 5++ instead of...fearless I think?
Turn 5: Fearless instead of -1 to enemy leadership.

Turn 1 and 2 I think are better with how the game changed, and turn 3 is strictly speaking an upgrade, though only because you can't fall back and shoot freely anymore. Turn 4 and 5 are both really good, but so late in the game they won't matter that much. Well suddenly getting the 5++ might help you etch out some late game points. But being fearless on the final turn? I have a hard time imagining you have enough models left in a unit to worry about morale by that point.


Finally combat drugs can do the roll 2 get both thing, and you can keep picking the same drug for multiple units.

[AdmiralCheez]

Without seeing the point costs to do it all, it sounds like an overall upgrade. I'm not terribly excited about the mixed detachment needing a specific HQ and unit from each subfaction, but it has promise.

[9mm]

I must say I find people who complained that 8th ed was too killy are now complaining that 9th ed isn't killy enough to be ****ing hilarious.

[Renegade Paladin]

You know what's boring AF? Going second and not getting to play the game because your army got blasted off the board.

[Cheesegear]

I must say I find people who complained that 8th ed was too killy are now complaining that 9th ed isn't killy enough to be ****ing hilarious.

That isn't the problem. The problem is evolutionary:

1. 9th Ed. is too killy - way killier than 8th Ed. ever was. The win conditions of the game favour Kill Points more than 8th Ed. ever did. KPs are the name of the game in 99% of games.
2. The meta evolves in such a way, that because killing is so important, the only units that are actually any good, are units that don't get killed.
3. Because the best units, don't die. Units that don't kill things, become even worse. They can't kill normal models, let alone the best models in the game. So, they have to find a different way to win.

That 'different way to win', unfortunately, involves 'not engaging with your opponent.'
It doesn't matter what your opponent runs because you wont be engaging them anyway. The best way to win the game is...Not to engage the game? Is that what people want? Certainly seems like it.

I don't like games where I don't engage my opponent.
My opponents don't like games where they can't stop me from doing things. Banner-Apothecary-Banner-Apothecary-Banner-... makes them really mad for some reason.

Now that we know games can be played in under 90 minutes, with regularity, why TF am I playing games over 2 hours long? When the game was already won back in Turn 3? We could be on the beers already.

You know what's boring AF? Going second and not getting to play the game because your army got blasted off the board.

Guardsmen are the worst army in the game, because they get blasted off the board.
Are you (ab)using the **** out of the way Reinforcements works? You can't be shot off the board, if you're not on the board.
Where's your 30 Bullgryns?

...It sucks because Codex AM really is the worst Faction in the game and there is no advice.

But also putting your entire army on the board only for the game to be over in 45 minutes wouldn't be a problem if the game was simply...Smaller.
*Looks at Kill Team, currently on fire.* ...
*Looks at smaller games being anathema to GW's stock prices.* ...

[Avaris]

*Looks at smaller games being anathema to GW's stock prices.* ...

Citation very much needed on that one.

[Cheesegear]

Citation very much needed on that one.

Buy 500 Points of an army and then never buy anything again?
That ain't right.

[Avaris]

Buy 500 Points of an army and then never buy anything again?
That ain't right.

Necromunda, Underworlds, Warhammer Quest, Blood Bowl and Titanicus all beg to differ? GW is quite clearly able to monetise smaller games just as well as the large ones, otherwise we wouldn’t have recently seen Blood Bowl second edition or Cursed City.

Arguably, they monetise them too much: Underworlds has the problem of needing to buy more sets to keep up, Warhammer Quest has a continual buy in to get the expansions. But Necromnuda, Blood Bowl and Titanicus are all very viable as a ‘buy a few models and done’ proposition. So ‘anathema to GW’s stock prices’ they clearly ain’t!

Edit: I guess you meant smaller games of 40k? 9th ed is notable for having specific scenarios for small games, right down to 500 pts, so it’s not as if GW isn’t thinking about them. It’s just that the competitive circuit is so focused on 2000 pt games. I’ve heard good things about the smaller level of play for 40k.

[Cheesegear]

Necromunda, Underworlds, Warhammer Quest, Blood Bowl and Titanicus all beg to differ?
[...]
Arguably, they monetise them too much: Underworlds has the problem of needing to buy more sets to keep up, Warhammer Quest has a continual buy in to get the expansions.

Classic Avaris. Contradicting your own point.
At least for me, it usually takes me months to contradict myself.

But Necromnuda, Blood Bowl and Titanicus are all very viable as a ‘buy a few models and done’ proposition.

*Checks price tag*
Alright.

Edit: I guess you meant smaller games of 40k? 9th ed is notable for having specific scenarios for small games, right down to 500 pts

It does?
Uhh...I may have missed that release. Like many, I missed a few things in 2020. I don't think I've missed anything in 2021.

I’ve heard good things about the smaller level of play for 40k.

I've only been playing what's in the rulebook.
What are the specific scenarios? Is it Crusade?

[AdmiralCheez]

I've played a majority 500-750 point games and I have to say they are very enjoyable. Much more fun than the 1,000 point game we tried. The larger games are just so long to get through.

[LansXero]

Necromunda, Underworlds, Warhammer Quest, Blood Bowl and Titanicus all beg to differ?

You realize we're about to enter the third run or WHQ, and that the very fact that there is a plethora of them and each has their own bulk of subsets relaunchs and expansions defeats your point of GW actually doing 'buy and done' things, right?

[snowblizz]

Buy 500 Points of an army and then never buy anything again?
That ain't right.

Quite right.

I remember when they killed WH and replaced is it with AoS people went on about how it would allow small armies. I thought "That ain't right". Then looked at GW gaming board where the board and terrain cost more than the combined armies playing on it and thought "Yup, I see what you are trying there GW".

[Squark]

Necromunda, Underworlds, Warhammer Quest, Blood Bowl and Titanicus all beg to differ? GW is quite clearly able to monetise smaller games just as well as the large ones, otherwise we wouldn’t have recently seen Blood Bowl second edition or Cursed City.

Arguably, they monetise them too much: Underworlds has the problem of needing to buy more sets to keep up, Warhammer Quest has a continual buy in to get the expansions. But Necromnuda, Blood Bowl and Titanicus are all very viable as a ‘buy a few models and done’ proposition. So ‘anathema to GW’s stock prices’ they clearly ain’t!

Necromunda requires 2 rulebooks to start, and 3+ in practice*. You can play with a single box of models, sure... In the same way you can play Kill Team with a single box of Tactical marines. It can be done... but you're at a serious disadvantage against anyone who does some converting or buys a FW weapon pack. Not to mention the House Gangs and Enforcers both have 2 boxes , and GSC and Chaos Cultists need to borrow from most of their 40k range while also doing tons of conversions.


*The core Rulebook is mandatory, and Gangs of the Underhive has outdated rules for the 6 house gangs, along with some as yet mandatory stuff like the Trading Post. Infomplete but free official PDFs for GSC and Chaos cults are still online too. But if you want to play Enforcers, Venators, Slave Ogryns, Corpse Grinders or the updated version of a House Gang or the cults, you're going to need a 3rd book, if not a 4th.

[Renegade Paladin]

Guardsmen are the worst army in the game, because they get blasted off the board.
Are you (ab)using the **** out of the way Reinforcements works? You can't be shot off the board, if you're not on the board.
Where's your 30 Bullgryns?

...It sucks because Codex AM really is the worst Faction in the game and there is no advice.

I was thinking more along the lines of the Baneblades sucking. Guardsmen dying like flies is something I expect; it's what they're for. So far nobody's managed to leafblower all the infantry off the table in one turn, but admittedly I haven't played a lot of 9th because pandemic.

It does?
Uhh...I may have missed that release. Like many, I missed a few things in 2020. I don't think I've missed anything in 2021.

Um... That release is the core book. They made kind of a big deal about Combat Patrol and Incursion being a thing (but then proceeded to not support Combat Patrol in the GT packet, go figure).

[Cheesegear]

Um... That release is the core book. They made kind of a big deal about Combat Patrol and Incursion being a thing...

Oh. I'm aware of that. That's just 40K, but smaller. I've played that. It sucks, because it's still the same game.
Then no. Hard disagree. Combat Patrol is arse. It only exists to funnel you into larger games whist you build your collection/army so you actually have something to do.

When Avaris said 'specific scenarios' I thought he meant something different. Combat Patrol does have 'different rules' as per GW's shill marketing. It has the same rules, scaled down. Which means that mathhammer is and list-building is even more better because there's less forgiveness when you screw up and/or roll badly. No. As I've said many times, 'smaller games of 40K' are more broken than larger games, not less. Because the entire game then revolves around re-rolls, and who does - and doesn't - have enough of them.

Kill Team works because it has actual skirmish rules. Not 'small 40K' rules.

[Renegade Paladin]

So I believe I related the shop deciding to go ahead with a "Crusade" league without me organizing, damn the pandemic, except they gutted out the Crusade rules and just tacked its experience system onto a +5 PL per month escalation league, right? Cadia carried the day in the 30 PL round on the strength of tank commanders and Manticores being scary as hell and Tyranid bug carpet not having the tools to deal with them. :P In the 35 PL round I lost to the mission (it was the get your army off the opponent's table edge mission, and I was playing against Marines with bikes) but he couldn't do anything to the tanks and my power fist Company Commander beat up a squad of Assault Intercessors and lived on one wound to tell about it, so I'm taking what I can get.

[Forum Explorer]

Um... That release is the core book. They made kind of a big deal about Combat Patrol and Incursion being a thing (but then proceeded to not support Combat Patrol in the GT packet, go figure).

Well GT is for tournament play. Which is pretty much just 2000 points.

[Cheesegear]

Well GT is for tournament play. Which is pretty much just 2000 points.

Despite the name, it is not for tournaments. It is effectively Day 1 paid-for Errata to the main Missions and to the Secondaries. That's why it baffles me that people don't use it. "Well, we're not playing in a tournament, so we don't need it." except that that's not what it is. It is a more fair version of the Missions.

But for the more specific correction; The book is for 1000-2000 Point games. No less, no more.

[Avaris]

Classic Avaris. Contradicting your own point.
At least for me, it usually takes me months to contradict myself.

Classic Cheesegear, thinking I’m saying something I wasn’t

The point I was making was that ‘small’ games, where you only need a few models, are not ‘anathema to GW’s stock prices’, as there are still ways to monetise them. Whether that is good for us as consumers is an entirely different matter, which is what I ‘contradicted myself’ to highlight!

You realize we're about to enter the third run or WHQ, and that the very fact that there is a plethora of them and each has their own bulk of subsets relaunchs and expansions defeats your point of GW actually doing 'buy and done' things, right?

I wasn’t arguing that GW does ‘buy and done’ games! I was highlighting that GW does do ‘small’ games, which is what Cheesegear claimed were impossible within GW’s profit model.

Expecting anything to be truly ‘buy and done’ is unrealistic, but WHQ is a good example of perhaps the best we could expect. The core game is completely self contained, with expansions functioning as add ons to give new experiences, rather than changing up the base game. If you play the game and want more, expansions are available, but you aren’t forced into that purchase in order to keep up.

...also, I’m really not sure you what point you thought you were making with ‘ah-ha! There have been three editions!’ Yes? Success breeds repetition? Blackstone Fortress ran for several years, then they refreshed the product line with Cursed City. That’s how this works. Keeping any WHQ setting in print eternally was never going to happen, as most people who want it will have already bought it, so the only alternative would be to... stop selling things people want?

Oh. I'm aware of that. That's just 40K, but smaller. I've played that. It sucks, because it's still the same game.
Then no. Hard disagree. Combat Patrol is arse. It only exists to funnel you into larger games whist you build your collection/army so you actually have something to do.

When Avaris said 'specific scenarios' I thought he meant something different. Combat Patrol does have 'different rules' as per GW's shill marketing. It has the same rules, scaled down. Which means that mathhammer is and list-building is even more better because there's less forgiveness when you screw up and/or roll badly. No. As I've said many times, 'smaller games of 40K' are more broken than larger games, not less. Because the entire game then revolves around re-rolls, and who does - and doesn't - have enough of them.

Kill Team works because it has actual skirmish rules. Not 'small 40K' rules.

Fair. I was indeed referring to things like Combat Patrol, which does, as I said, have missions specifically written for that scale of game, rather than in previous editions where it was the same mission pack for every level of game.

It may be worth you having another look at some point though. Not necessarily at Combat Patrol, I was slightly misremembering there, but my impression is that Incursion (1000 pts) may be a bit of a sweet spot for games. Would be quicker to play than the standard 2000 pt games, so even if people bring the really resilient stuff there won’t be so much stalling ability, and at 1000 pts it’s less likely anyone will have the firepower to just be able to wipe someone off the board in turn 1. Flip side though is that it encourages more ‘skew’ lists, so I imagine there’s more of a risk of coming up against something you just can’t win against, although that being based on list choices rather than codex choices.

Obligatory Goonhammer link, reporting on a recent Incursion tournament. T’au came 5th! https://www.goonhammer.com/competiti...d-first-blood/

[LansXero]

The low points meta is way easier to break than 2k, because some factions just dont have the tools to deal with things and survive at the same time.

The only way it works is rounding out your newbies and letting them do 'start collecting + a few kits' jank ass lists that when also piloted by potatos bring the chaotic fun of casual play to a less time demanding enviroment. If you let people with actual collections give actual thought to 'why do I need the apothecaries and HQs part of my 2k list if the shooty part will evaporate 1000 points every game with no issue' it breaks super hard.

[Cheesegear]

The low points meta is way easier to break than 2k, because some factions just dont have the tools to deal with things and survive at the same time.

As I mentioned, the 'Tournament Packet' isn't designed to be used in games under 1000 Points.
Tacitly saying that games under 1000 Points are not - or can't be - competitive.