As the captain of team Greece 40k for the past two years i would suggest something like this:

a)ETC format: Points 1850 to 1999+1, all allies (including parent/supplement combo), all codices and basic rules, usage of clarifications on already existing rules (e.g. Death from the skies FAQing on codex flyers), but no add-ons per se (NO Escalation, Stronghold Assault, Planetstrike, Cities of Death, data slates), tiered missions.
b)Warhammer World format: Points 1500 to 2000 (including dual FOC at 2000), all allies (including parent/supplement combo), all codices and basic rules, yes to all add-ons (YES to Escalation, Stronghold Assault, dataslates), YES to all GW missions.
c)Come the Apocalypse format: Points 2000 to 3000 (including dual FOC), all allies (including parent/supplement combo), all codices and basic rules, yes to all add-ons (YES to Escalation, Stronghold Assault, dataslates), YES to Forgeworld 40K approved, YES to all GW missions.

GW is giving us a super-game that contains everything we need to play games from patrol, to tournaments, to apocalypse and planetary invasion campaigns. It's up to us to decide what to use and where and none of the new releases are mandatory in any case. Releases like escalation have always occurred (planetstrike, cod, death from the skies etc.).

We don't have to ban or cherry pick anything (and yeah i think the screamerstar is TOTALLY weak despite the forumitis) but i think dataslates and all add-ons beyond supplements cannot really fit the scope of hard-core competition especially when events like the ETC have to proof-read and add more FAQs to the mix. We need clean-cut tournament games, not endless rules queries on inconceivable interactions of every dataslate with every single ad-on out there.

Besides we need the option of a tournament format (a) that will allow the minimal documentation for clean play. Now, if others really need to use more add-ons and have "fluffy" tournaments they can go with (b) and (c)

Cheers!

Nope that doesn't work either, apart from the fact that mech loses 1/6 times automatically against flyers (kill points) there is also the fact that a correctly tuned cron-air or chaos-cron will simply kill 5-6 av11 and 15ish MEQs/turn. What you said i also thought and tried repeatedly, no matter how much you move or try to get to corners or under the flyers chins they will come at an angle to hurt you and at most you will avoid 2-3 flyers shooting for a round.

I even tried flat out in the enemy deployment with dozer blades so as to block the maximum shooting from incoming flyers, you have to deploy in a very specific formation in the enemy line and if you have around 12 vehicles (even better with a couple of av 13) you can actually mitigate some firepower. Problem is a) this cannot be done in every deployment, b) it keeps you away from the objectives and the midfield which means that the flyer passengers cap whatever they like c) such a mech list will countered by other more balanced or assault lists and most importantly d) the flyer army can easily maintain some strong ground presence (e.g. wraiths) even if it means that it will include 6-7 aircraft instead of 8-9 in which case mech is simply unable to perform the maneuver required to stay in the game.

Therefore in flyerhammer 40k you either fly or die.

Actually no, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact the only real anti-air in the game is flyers. A 7-8 flyer list will always kill your "anti-air" ground units the turn they come in and even if some survive it is highly unlikely they will cause any real damage to flyers. Even if extremely lucky they will barely be able to down one aircraft.

So yes all changes GW makes just add insult to injury and force us to fly or die, and then again flyerhammer 40k is all about who goes second, even magic the gathering is more strategic than the current monstrosity.

The article is spot on and Tony Kopach does play a good list. Instead of adding separate slots, he emphasizes troops that perform the roles of the other slots while retaining high amounts of av11 on table as well as missiles. He then applies a ton of pressure with 6 scorers that can do decent damage and has a lot of reliable marine bodies, most of them with transports. The gaps are then filled by the rune priest (anti-MC, nobs, psychics, infiltrators). All this of course at the expense of more predictability but hey nothing wrong with that if predictions are on your side anyway.

Bottom line is when designing a list we should start with first knowing ourselves and then our enemy, here's to tzu who can also be used right when we know what to look for. I am very unconventional myself both in play-style and lists and thanks to that i have performed extremely well even with fail armies like Eldar and Orks. I can discuss a ton about this subject and i invite anyone on this thread who is serious about it on skype. My name is the same there, just please inform me that you are 3++ so i can know, cheers! ;)

There is an error in the tau sheet row 2 :p, nice sheet btw keep up the good work!

Nice work by Nikephoros here and it is something i and many others have been doing for a long time without taking the mental effort to turn it into scientific terminology.

A few points i would like to make. First many of the math are wrong, SM devas for example will score 2.47 DMS (signum). Then we must understand that this method provides ONLY averages and only in situations of ideal ATTACK. So for the attack part, i disagree that only attack wins games, defense and denial wins them also, and that is for the most part endurance and/or mobility.

Then for the pure mathematics of it, i strongly believe that along with averages should go confidence intervals with the corresponding graphs to show us the chances of high damage output. Binomial distributions can also clearly show us for example, how many missiles we need to down a daemon prince with 80% chance or more importantly, they can accurately measure chances of vehicle destruction.

For example an AV12 vehicle hit by 3 bs4 missiles has 33% chance of being destroyed, if we triple the amount of missiles to 9 the chance is 69%. Here we also see the reason MSU is better, diminishing returns as the above favor an army that is able to distribute attacks that each have a higher chance of success per number of attacks. Conversely they can allocate risk to more points of failure, thus ensuring staying power despite statistical anomalies.

And i just spilled my coffee laughing...

I may be wrong but 115 points for 2 bs3 lances is not decent in my mind. Anyhow i 'll prepare something nice to sent to both GW and FW containing a link to this discussion.

I second a letter to forgeworld and GW about the Eldar, they just keep on screwing them up no matter what, even in experimental rules where they have so much freedom to test things that may seem OTT at first. But no! god forbid if the Eldar had a manticore equivalent.

I mean at some point it really does seem to be deliberate. Ever since i started playing marines (all kinds) i honestly realized how bad my opponents wielded them when i fielded Eldar. Marines can in almost all lists pack like 20+ str8+ shots, can have almost the same speed (BAs, Shrike, thunderwolf, land raiders which allow 22" assault), they shut down psychic powers about 50% of the time with dirt cheap HQs AND they are still marines.

I used to win against them with Eldar just because most people in Greece have no idea what MSU and suppression is, but still my victories where a bloody mess with last minute denials. When in the last tournament (vs a hobbyist who barely understood what was going on) i had to charge a hunters squad with full kitted banshees and then scorpions with doom and barely managed to kill them off with only the exarch alive, i decided i really had enough!

Then what? They release yet another anti-infantry MBT at HS slot, another “anti-tank” MBT again at HS and a costly small infantry unit again at HS, all suffering from one gun/one shot syndrome. I mean an AV 12 100+ points MBT with one gun, yeah that gun should better be KOW-POW good night target vehicle, to be worth being suppressed/arm-destroyed from turn 2 onwards.

Excuse for the long rant, I guess what I am trying to emphasize is that the studio is in pitch black on xenos and especially Eldar, they are still stuck on the fear of Marine players being displeased and crying about the Eldar like in the days of old. So I really think this should be a collective effort, we should all make a solid suggestion so we can really have their ear.

Fine analysis Kirbs, just another design with the Eldar syndrome, looks pretty does nothing. I am really getting tired of this, Eldar being my first army since 2004 and only really got to shine in the twilight between 4th and 5th.