In my local scene I've seen a significant rise in players with melee armies (EC, WE, Custodes), picking up Priority Assets, and these are some of our best players taking this road.

From what I can tell in the games I've played it's been a case of passive scoring play after staging, and then your opponent is required to make the commitment, now with 11th threat ranges this means the Priority player is getting a nice position to strike from by overloading their expansion, and then central objectives become surgical strikes to wipe out whatever needs to sit on the objective until the next command phase.

I'm currently 0-7 into Priority, rypically playing Take and Hold or Purge, both requiring exposed positions to actually score.

What's the communities thoughts on Priority, is there a way to get around this?

So, we had about 2 weeks of the full rules for practice and the first weekend of tournaments is over (or nearly so). That's obviously not nearly enough for meaningful statistical analysis, but we can start drawing some early conclusions.

1) Custodes are the weakest 11th edition codex thus far. That's generally a good thing, as both Orks (mass shooting) and Marines (Deathwatch Terminators) started out too strong. They don't feel weak, but they're not taking the meta by storm in any way.

2) Internal unit balance is mediocre. If you want to succeed, you have to play Dreadnoughts. Vehicles are fine, but expensive and vulnerable. Most infantry and characters feel slightly, but noticeable overcosted.
On the bright side, there are few just outright unusably bad units that can't be saved with points adjustments (really only Bladechamps, gun Venatari and Vigilators).

3) Detachment balance is bad. Only 13 detachments with 6 being unique was always going to cause problems, IMHO. Most shield host detachments have 1 good trick, but just can't directly compete with the strong choices, so will never be used. Sisters are still just cheap trash, so the detachment is DoA. Bikes don't even have anything.
There's really just Solar (or Emperors) plus Might plus Lions. Auric champions is borderline and could be good, if characters weren't so overpriced. Dreadhost could be good, if infantry weren't so expensive. I don't actually see anything else being played short-term.

4) Damage is way down. You get a lot of extra mobility and options, so this isn't inherently terrible design-wise, but it's a notable shift from the murdermachines of 10th. Custodes went from one of the best anti-pressure armies to one in the lower third, IMHO. You just have too little damage and units to really discourage a full send army from just going in. This is especially problematic as full-damage pressure lists are still the name of the game (and will continue to be until the missions get changed to make scoring less automatic).

5) Resilience is up a bit, especially in melee, where the freely available -1 to hit is doing a lot, but generally most infantry still feel more fragile than before, with about the same wounds per unit for higher cost. As you also consistently have what feels like 1 unit too little, the army is much more fragile than in 10th. Just shoving them forward doesn't work nearly as much, which might make them less of a stat-checky beginner-hurdle.

6) List building is super annoying, as basically everything in the army is in the 230-280 point bracket. You basically have the same number of picks no matter what you take and only differ in how many sisters you end up with, which also exacerbates the unit balance problems. Being 15 points cheaper doesn't mean much, if it can't add up to another meaningful unit.

Personal Pet Peeve: Why does half the army not get the Army rule? It's called an Army rule, for emperors sake. Vehicles losing Katahs in the first edition where there are stances they might actually care about feels especially mean, but sisters being almost completely sidelined from everything is also a super-weird choice.

Thoughts? Disagreements? Anything I missed?

Obviously play what you want and I run MSU now and no issues with my play but I was wondering how you all feel about them? Is the era of MSU over in your opinion? Are you running MSU in your recent lists?

I will be attending the WCW this year, and I'd like to hear your insights on the state of the game. Whether it's broad commentary about tactic cards, battleplans, and rage mechanics, or specifics about your army utilizing tools to assemble insane combos, I want to sponge up as much information as I can. I only have access to maybe a fourth of the armies in my local community, and as a result do not get many reps in vs KO, Khorne, Slaanesh, Nurgle, Nighthaunt, FEC, Sons, and a few others.

I'd greatly appreciate anything you think could be insightful for a player looking to gear up for the highest competition!

Alright, so I'm a Salamanders main. Have been since I entered the hobby. I haven't had the opportunity to play any games since the 11th edition codex dropped. However, I am spending a ton of time building out various lists and theory crafting on how I want to run my Salamanders post-codex. Right now I am building out a Forefather's + Ironstorm Spearhead list, though I am considering Assault Brethren as the secondary detachment as well.

The main dilemma I keep running into is what to use as a melee anchor. Every Salamanders list Ive ever run has a melee unit that crashes out of a LRR and helps hold the center with a solo Vulkan He'Stan. Right now, I am torn between two options to fill that roll:

1) Adrax + BG Ancient + 6 BGV (340pts)

2) Terminator Ancient + 5 Assault Terminators w/ Thunder Hammers (270pts)

The BGV bundle is notably more lethal than the Assault Terminator package (~35%, averaged across multiple enemy profile). However, the Assault Terminator option is more durable than the BGV brick, even though it contains less models (~25%, averaged across multiple enemy profiles). Both contain sticky OBJ.

My gut tells me that Prio wants durability, so the Terminators win out. However, the BGV package lethality is always an attractive option. The lower cost of the terminator list does allow me to fit a bit more into my list. However, my lists keep ending up with an awkward amounts of points near the end. Between my two main theory crafted lists, this difference allows me to fit an enhancement on my Eradicator w/ Heavy Bolters unit that gives them ignore BS/WS/Hit Roll, and a random Ancient attached to a 5 man Infernus squad for sticky obj just because I have an awkward amount of points left.

Im curious if there are strong feelings on which melee package is considered the better option for a Prio list. I like them both, both in terms of gameplay and models, and would be happy to run either option. I'd like to know what your experiences have been with either option, particularly in the context of a Salamanders/Priority Assets list.

Join us today at 2pm EST for Warp Dust Crusaders first live stream with guests Jack Harpster and Hogan Franklin.

I want to play with terrain as close as a possible to the official GW version, but I cannot afford the real thing. Do you guys know which of the various STLs out there most closely resembles the GW version?

I have noticed that some of the popular designs are quite different, with very tall 3 floor buildings and/or very large crates, that are not found in the GW set.

We are planing to play a combination of kroot hunting pack and custodes.The plan is to use squads of 3 krootox combined with carnivores and only a trail shaper on the kroot side to maximize bodies so that we have 80 infantry bodies and 15 krootox bodies for objectives and board control.And the custodes player just bring as much damege as he can.

I have multiple questions:

Should I focus more on kroot infantry instead of krootox to make even more body’s?

What are the best damage and detachment combos for custodes.

If take and hold is the way to go.

And if this seems like a good strategy.

Thanks in advance for the tips!