Aaaannnd back to the topic
To amplify Karegak’s view, I definitely agree that the problem actually lies with the newer lists rather than the original core. However this thread raises two key questions
- Which units, formations and / or lists do people find overpowered and why? Does the problem lie with the particular units / formation identified, or is it caused by some combination of formations and tactics.
- This thread also implies another question; is the current approval process appropriate?
Part of the issue lies in the newer strategies open to the newer lists, and the problems in testing these against the original lists. For example, the Tau list tends to do well against enemies where it can dictate the timing of conflicts, and consequently Marine air-assaults tend to be extremely dangerous precisely because they defeat the key Tau strategies. Conversely, the Necron armies are if anything even more elusive than Marines making it very difficult for the opponents to plan planetfalling assaults, while the Pylon’s AA range and power makes air-assaults almost suicidal. As such it is an almost perfect foil for Marines lists that rely heavily on air-assaults.
Are either of these examples over or underpowered?
On the face of it, one might be excused for wanting to nerf or even ban the Necron Pylon because of the way that it impacts the key air-assaults. However the other core lists are less impacted and have other strengths. Equally the Tau tend to do better against the IG and especially against Orks, where they can use the firepower and tactics to dictate the battle.
I know that the following is contentious, but IMO the only way to identify problems in the lists objectively is to track their performance in competitive / tournament environments over many games against all other lists, but especially against the original core lists. Once a particular list is demonstrably outperforming the others, the formations used should be reviewed and changes proposed where appropriate. IMO the best mechanism here is the E-UK championship database which has the statistics and all the lists used over many years. I have also suggested in the past that they could be used as a guide for Net-EA lists as they parallel the E-UK lists in most respects.
For example, I have always contended that the Black Legion list was slightly overpowered, which is borne out by the overall stats and especially the stats versus the core lists. Currently over 275 games it enjoys 42% wins against 29% losses across all lists, but 51% wins against 25% losses versus the core lists in 138 games.
(It is worth noting that apart from the BL and Biel Tan with 33 game apiece, none of the other lists have more than 8 games against the BL, and most have only 4 or less.) However this then begs the question, what needs revising in the BL list . . . ?
