Friday roll’s around and it’s time to pack the van and head to Chicago. Some 11 hours (damn northern Indiana traffic  ) and we’re there. I managed to snag a room within spitting distance of the Battle Bunker and we stop by to check it out. It was pretty impressive, the tables were already set up for the next day. After a fitful night’s sleep it was on to the tournie!
My list again:
HQ

Archon – punisher, tormentor helm, combat drugs, shadow field, plasma grenades, animus vitae, trophy rack (rides with a wyche squad)

Dracite – agonizer, plasma grenades
7 wyche retinue – succubus w/agonizer, w.w., plasma grenades, x2 blasters, goblet of spite
Raider – nightshields, horrofex, torture amp

Elite

3x 8 Wyches - succubus w/agonizer, w.w., plasma grenades x2 blasters
Raider – nightshields, horrofex, torture amp

Troops

3x 7 warriors – sybarite w/poison blades, terrofex, blaster, splinter cannon
Raider – nightshields, horrofex

2x 5 warriors – dark lance
Raider– nightshields, horrofex

10 warriors – 2 dark lances

Heavy

3x Ravagers – x3 disintegrators, nightshields

Game 1

The first mission would be Annihilation with HQs being worth 3kps and troops 1kp, everything else was 2kp. Terrain was kind of light as it was on most of the boards.

My opponents list:

Daemon Prince – wings, MoN, Nurgles Rot
Summoned Greater Deamon
9 plague marines in rhino (havoc launcher) – champ w/ fist, x2 meltaguns
9 plague marines in rhino – champ w/ fist, x2 meltaguns
X4 10 chaos glory space marines x2 rhinos
X2 landraiders w/ demonic possession
Defiler

So yay, not a lot of stuff to worry about.
The battle consisted mainly of me blowing his transports and then either killing the occupants with either disintegrator fire from the ravagers or in h-t-h with the wyches/archon. The high point was my archon +wyches charging the demon prince and killing it, then being charged by the greater demon and killing it before it swung. At the end of the game I had lost 2 wyche squads an 3 raiders, he had a stripped rhino and an immobilized defiler left.

He was a nice guy and took it very well.

Massacer+4 points=24pts

Game 2

5 objectives against a dual lash chaos with oblit cult. If I can silence the oblits early on this should be a cakewalk right? But then again I am playing on table #1 in the ‘Ard Boyz finals…

My opponents List

x2 Daemon Prince – wings, Lash, MoS
x3 Dreadnoughts – x2 cc arms
x4 9 man Plague marine squads in rhinos
x3 3 man oblit squads

I get first turn and take it. I maneuver my archon+wyches and dracite to take on 2 oblit squads. My shooting sees 1 prince lose 2 wounds and 1 rhino destroyed. Not a lot there. In his turn he destroys a ravager and a wyche raider (wyches are pinned).

Turn 2 sees the archon and dracite charge 2 different oblit squads. A unit of wyches charges a daemon prince after I shoot it down to 2 wounds. The rest of my shooting does nothing but blow the gun of a rhino….In CC 4 of the 6 oblits die and the wyches put a wound on the prince, who then wounds twice…I fail both saves….and fail my leadership test and am run down! Dammit Murphy…

To summarize that signals a change in fortunes. I manage to finish off both oblit squads, but not before a dread locks down the dracites squad. The archon and crew go on to take out 2 plague marine squads, but the good news ends there, as my lances are unable to damage any vehicles further (even with rear armor shots…) and it takes me forever to finally finish of the princes. His last unit of Oblits are on fire, destroying a vehicle every turn, with the ravagers being the first to go… Going into the last turn I am able to contest all the objectives and hold one, but he gets a unit of plague marines over to that one and for some reason the 2 DE warriors holding it, don’t survive .

Minor loss + 1BP for killing both his HQs.

Third Round

Ok so I go from table 1 to table 7 but if I can massacre this opponent with full points I can still make top 5..I think. Then I see the mission, you can only get a massacre by holding BOTH objectives and having more killpoints….and its spearhead. But my opponent is marines, hopefully a Vulcan list….nope, it turns out to be pure DE killing power courtesy of Dakka’s Darth Diggler…gak.

Darth’s list

Librarian – Termie armour, storm shield, null zone, vortex of doom
5 Th+Ss Termies
Land Raider Redeemer – multi-melta
x2 Dreadnought
x4 10 marines w/4 lascannons +melta
x2 Razorback w/ assault cannons
3 attack bikes
3 multi-melta attack bikes
Landspeeder typhoon
10 devastators – 4 missile launchers
Predator Destructor
Thunderfire cannon

He wins the roll to go first and after seeing his deployment and the scarcity of cover I get the idea that this will not go well. And it doesn’t his opening salvo kills 3 raiders and a ravager…. This will continue on and culminate in one of the worst beatings I have ever received. I end the game with all of 2 dark lance wielding warriors left just off the objective in combat with an attack bike squadron. They turn out to be to far away from the objective so I get massacred.

But it turns out I was right as the full points massacre was enough to get Darth Diggler into 5th place….yay .

Despite some bad luck on my part I had a fabulous time at the finals, and in Chicago in general. I really don’t know why people complain about the type of people that play, out of 9 ‘ard boyz games this year I had 9 great opponents.

Well know that that’s done, its time to start getting ready for the fantasy ‘ard boyz this weekend and start the whole thing over again….

Thanks for the write-up Gardeth! Always great to read about Tournament experiences. Very nasty list you have there. Couldve easily gone better for you. Still, well done. Good to read youve had fun.

Cilithan

Brutal, running into the last standing gunline. You coming down to Phoenix Games in ATL for the Fantasy 'Ardboyz, or is there one closer to home?

40kenthusiast wrote:Brutal, running into the last standing gunline. You coming down to Phoenix Games in ATL for the Fantasy 'Ardboyz, or is there one closer to home?

It happens. My Nid'zilla opponent from the semi's was probably thinking the same thing "Damn, 3 dark eldar players in the US and I had to play one of em here...."

As for Fantasy 'Ard Boyz there are in fact around 5 locations within a 2 hour distance. Not sure as to which semi's I will (hopefully) be going to (as long as its not in memphis like last year, bleeah).

How did that marines list do so well?

Timmah wrote:How did that marines list do so well?

He's a damned good general. He made it to the finals with that list and ended up in 5th place, so it can't be all that bad. And, though I hate to bring it up, it did beat me like it paid for me.

gardeth wrote:though I hate to bring it up, it did beat me like it paid for me.

Seconded. I faced this list right before gardeth did, and I'm still trying to figure out what happened. In the interest of decisive and full turn-length games (not to mention ability to pack into a carry-on for the flight), I had brought 20 Nobz split between 2 battlewagons, a battlewagon of 'ard boyz, 3 trukks of boyz, 30 lootas, warboss, and kff mek rather than my horde list which has served me so well over the past several months. Against Darth, I think I took out one Dreadnought, the Predator, the five terminators, five out of six of the bikes (Side note... Darth, if you're reading this, the bikes didn't all have unique wargear. That's why the wound allocation worked differently than with my Nobz.), and one five man combat squad, plus taking off one of the flamestorms from the Redeemer. In return, he wiped my whole army in its' entirety.

While not all were in range at any given time, there are 25 shots per turn in his list capable of cracking a battlewagon, let alone a trukk: 4 lascannons, 4 meltas, 6 missiles, 7 multimeltas (pretty sure the typhoon had one), 2 assault cannons (Yay rending pens...), and the 2 shots from the autocannon. The missiles and thunderfire made short work of my lootas (with almost zero cover on my side of the table, all I could do was line them up on the table edge and hope he scattered off with those templates). After my Nobz had their rides shot out from under them, torrents of bolter fire ate one squad, and a combined charge by terminators and a dreadnought made short work of the other (lost combat via taking 2 wounds per failed invul save, proceeded to fail leadership twice). Bottom line, that's the worst beating I've ever taken in all the games of warhammer I've ever played. I'm just glad I'm not the only one that he beat!

It's great to hear the first-hand experience of you guys at 'Ard Boyz. To derail the thread a bit, Mal, what was your trustworthy horde list that you left behind in favor of the Wagons/Trukks? It sounds like a lot of marine and IG players built lists premised on anti-armour outright.

olympia wrote:It's great to hear the first-hand experience of you guys at 'Ard Boyz. To derail the thread a bit, Mal, what was your trustworthy horde list that you left behind in favor of the Wagons/Trukks? It sounds like a lot of marine and IG players built lists premised on anti-armour outright.

From the way it sounded, with minimal terrain to go around, a foot slogging horde would have fared even worse.

Ugh, how I hate dark eldar for my nids lol.

That being said, well done! Sucks you had to face the 9 oblit, double lash list... but thus is life

Timmah wrote:How did that marines list do so well?

a good player used the list effectively.

Zid wrote:
That being said, well done! Sucks you had to face the 9 oblit, double lash list... but thus is life

THAT list I was ready for and doing very well against until my dice decided they had had enough an where only willing to give me 1 or 2 pips per roll....

Bummer about your dice, its frustrating when they go sour and by all rights you should be whooping ass.

Nice list, thanks for the write up.

thehod wrote:

Timmah wrote:How did that marines list do so well?

a good player used the list effectively.

I would assume all the people there were good players...

Sorry but that list is just kinda unfocused. I don't doubt the players skill, but I would think this a good indication of how competitive the 40k tournament scene is.

Just because a list is unfocused doesn't mean it lacks the tools to do the job.

In fact, I think the mech guard list that won first place could also be called unfocused. It had three of nothing, and a good handful of single-choice items.

Spamming (if that's what you mean by focused) is a good way to stick yourself into a rock-paper-scissors situation. You end up hoping you get good matchups, because that's what you have the optimal tools to face.

But diversifying, as long as you do so wisely, with every unit not only having a purpose, but also some redundancy with other units, means that you're a lot less susceptible to a bad matchup. In some games, one unit might be less effective, in other games, a different unit is - but a smart player will recognize this and use the less effective units as the bait, or the acceptable losses.

I saw that army at the qualifer and again at the regional. Had the same sort of reaction to the list build as it certainly doesn't look all that great on paper. That said . .Fred got the most out of it .. sweeping both the finals and the regional I do believe. Course he's been one of the best 40k players for over a decade now. ( North of I-80 ) : ) A Thunderfire cannon ... Seriously Fred?

Redbeard wrote:Just because a list is unfocused doesn't mean it lacks the tools to do the job.

In fact, I think the mech guard list that won first place could also be called unfocused. It had three of nothing, and a good handful of single-choice items.

Spamming (if that's what you mean by focused) is a good way to stick yourself into a rock-paper-scissors situation. You end up hoping you get good matchups, because that's what you have the optimal tools to face.

But diversifying, as long as you do so wisely, with every unit not only having a purpose, but also some redundancy with other units, means that you're a lot less susceptible to a bad matchup. In some games, one unit might be less effective, in other games, a different unit is - but a smart player will recognize this and use the less effective units as the bait, or the acceptable losses.

Very well said Redbeard. There is nothing I can say that will express that sentiment better than you already have.

muwhe wrote:A Thunderfire cannon ... Seriously Fred?

Thunderfire is a dark horse in the codex, but can be a royal pain in the right situation. It fits well with his 'no focus' thing, as a str 6 template is good at almost everything, but best at none.

olympia wrote:Mal, what was your trustworthy horde list that you left behind in favor of the Wagons/Trukks? It sounds like a lot of marine and IG players built lists premised on anti-armour outright.

Wasn't full out horde, had to speed things up a little bit to get games finished.

Preliminaries:
Warboss with PK/'Eavy, Cybork
Mek with KFF
10 Nobz, 8 'eavy armor, Painboy, 2 PK, Bosspole, Waaagh Banner, trukk
30 Shoota Boyz, Nob with PK/Bosspole
2x 30 Slugga Boyz, Nob with PK/Bosspole
20 Slugga Boyz, Nob with PK/Bosspole
12 warbikers, Nob with PK/Bosspole
Snikrot + 11 Kommandos (2x burnas)
2x 3 Killa Kan (2 shootas, 1 skorcha)
Results: Solid first place

Semi-finals:
Warboss with PK, Cybork
Mek with KFF
30 Shoota Boyz, Nob with PK/Bosspole
30 Slugga Boyz, Nob with PK/Bosspole
29 Slugga Boyz, Nob with PK/Bosspole
2x (10 Nobz, 8 'eavy armor, Painboy, 2 PK, Bosspole, trukk) -- troop one had Waaagh Banner
Snikrot + 11 Kommandos (2x burnas)
Zagstrukk + 15 stormboyz
12 warbikers, Nob with PK/Bosspole
Results: Faced off against a Kan wall in the first game, had no answer to them except outmaneuver for a tie. Ended up sling-shotting into 3rd anway.

Now then, this thread is more to discuss experiences at the finals, especially those of Gardeth, than it is to debate finer points of people's lists. olympia, if you wish to discuss my selections in greater detail, PM me and I'll either respond to a direct question, or create a thread for discussion. Sorry for the temporary derailment.

Redbeard wrote:Just because a list is unfocused doesn't mean it lacks the tools to do the job.

In fact, I think the mech guard list that won first place could also be called unfocused. It had three of nothing, and a good handful of single-choice items.

Spamming (if that's what you mean by focused) is a good way to stick yourself into a rock-paper-scissors situation. You end up hoping you get good matchups, because that's what you have the optimal tools to face.

But diversifying, as long as you do so wisely, with every unit not only having a purpose, but also some redundancy with other units, means that you're a lot less susceptible to a bad matchup. In some games, one unit might be less effective, in other games, a different unit is - but a smart player will recognize this and use the less effective units as the bait, or the acceptable losses.

Very well said. I've had many situations where 1 defilers been better than 2, mostly because if they fail to kill it anyway it takes a lot more pewpew! Also losing 1 defiler doesn't hurt the list because it doesn't "rely" on it completely, like some lists (like lash/oblit spam)

Redbeard wrote:Just because a list is unfocused doesn't mean it lacks the tools to do the job.

In fact, I think the mech guard list that won first place could also be called unfocused. It had three of nothing, and a good handful of single-choice items.

Spamming (if that's what you mean by focused) is a good way to stick yourself into a rock-paper-scissors situation. You end up hoping you get good matchups, because that's what you have the optimal tools to face.

But diversifying, as long as you do so wisely, with every unit not only having a purpose, but also some redundancy with other units, means that you're a lot less susceptible to a bad matchup. In some games, one unit might be less effective, in other games, a different unit is - but a smart player will recognize this and use the less effective units as the bait, or the acceptable losses.

Quoted for the Truth! Excellent point

Redbeard wrote:Just because a list is unfocused doesn't mean it lacks the tools to do the job.

In fact, I think the mech guard list that won first place could also be called unfocused. It had three of nothing, and a good handful of single-choice items.

Spamming (if that's what you mean by focused) is a good way to stick yourself into a rock-paper-scissors situation. You end up hoping you get good matchups, because that's what you have the optimal tools to face.

But diversifying, as long as you do so wisely, with every unit not only having a purpose, but also some redundancy with other units, means that you're a lot less susceptible to a bad matchup. In some games, one unit might be less effective, in other games, a different unit is - but a smart player will recognize this and use the less effective units as the bait, or the acceptable losses.

Spamming is not what I am talking about. But most people agree that taking 1 landraider to even a 1850 pt tournament is stupid because its going to get blown out of the water so fast. 5 TH/SS terminators is too few to have at 1850 pts. How is it suppose to survive at 2500.

With the bikers and marines on foot, he has a ton of foot sloggers that are going to get blown up by any mech list. I really don't see how this army has a chance against Lash Chaos.

And by the way spamming can be a good thing. Especially when the unit your spamming has a dual purpose. For example with SM, Dakka preds, HF/MM speeders, Typhoon speeders ect.

And really? a thunderfire cannon? One glance on it and its gone. That'll take all of one round of shooting.

Also, I do not have a high opinion of the winning army either. But I am sure that will bring even more hate towards me.

Gardeth: Thanks for the report. Very interesting read. How did you feel about the missions for the finals?

Timmah: Not bringing more heat on you, but there seems to be a trend to put down those who are winning in big tourneys. Take a gander at YTTH report regarding the winning tourney army and how many of the following posts pretty much parrot the original writer. It's pretty much the same drivel: 'your army sucks and I'd crush it, but I don't show up to any big tourneys as they all suck. Not constructive, rather destructive as it is creating a lot of ill will. It really seems that folks put all their faith into the army list and really don't want to give a player credit for really knowing how to play the game. Could it be possible that the Marine player simply outplayed his opponents?



Overall, I'm really glad to read that there was no real drama at this year's finals. This type of tourney had been developing a reputation for poor play. My second round experience this year really soured my feelings about it. We'll see what comes up next year.

Sarigar wrote:Gardeth: Thanks for the report. Very interesting read. How did you feel about the missions for the finals?

Timmah: Not bringing more heat on you, but there seems to be a trend to put down those who are winning in big tourneys. Take a gander at YTTH report regarding the winning tourney army and how many of the following posts pretty much parrot the original writer. It's pretty much the same drivel: 'your army sucks and I'd crush it, but I don't show up to any big tourneys as they all suck. Not constructive, rather destructive as it is creating a lot of ill will. It really seems that folks put all their faith into the army list and really don't want to give a player credit for really knowing how to play the game. Could it be possible that the Marine player simply outplayed his opponents?

Overall, I'm really glad to read that there was no real drama at this year's finals. This type of tourney had been developing a reputation for poor play. My second round experience this year really soured my feelings about it. We'll see what comes up next year.

It doesn't matter the hobby, people winning tournaments or placing high always have their skill, lists ect challenged, discussed. I see no problem with doing that in 40k also. Look at any other hobby. MTG, most video game competitions ect. People are very critical of the top people. Its the only way to innovate and get better. If all we do is talk about the people who finished poor and how their lists could be better, then people only improve up to the level of competition.

By questioning/being critical of the best people, that is how you push competition forward. That is how you innovate and become even better.

I see nothing wrong with discussing/being critical of the top lists. Sure you guys can praise them endlessly and say how amazing they are, but you know what? They already know that! They just won (or placed high) at ard boyz!
Why does it matter if I point out how good his list is (it isn't imo)? He should already know its good since he won/placed high. The real question is where does he go from here? How does he get better? I think most of these top players would be the first to agree that they can definitely get better from where they are.

Sarigar wrote:Gardeth: Thanks for the report. Very interesting read. How did you feel about the missions for the finals?

Timmah: Not bringing more heat on you, but there seems to be a trend to put down those who are winning in big tourneys. Take a gander at YTTH report regarding the winning tourney army and how many of the following posts pretty much parrot the original writer. It's pretty much the same drivel: 'your army sucks and I'd crush it, but I don't show up to any big tourneys as they all suck. Not constructive, rather destructive as it is creating a lot of ill will. It really seems that folks put all their faith into the army list and really don't want to give a player credit for really knowing how to play the game. Could it be possible that the Marine player simply outplayed his opponents?

Sorry to go OT for a whille, but could someone point me to this report? My search-fu has failed me yet again...

Timmah: You last post clarified what you are looking for. Your previous comments (which did not) made implications that lists in general were not competitive, which is why the Marine and IG players placed so high. I'm getting the feeling that this uber competitive enviornment that is so highly regarded exists solely on the internet since no Indy GT, GT or Ard Boyz seems to have any competitive armies. Your previous posts were pretty much written in a similar fashion to what has been going around for the past year or so. IE: the person only won b/c the tourney was not really a competitive tourney.

Rather than implying a Thunderfire simply sucks, how about asking why the player chose that piece and how effective it was in play. Worth the points or no? I, too, am at a loss as to the effectiveness of a Thunderfire (RE: Thudd Gun). I just think there are better ways to communicate your intent.

Timmah wrote:
It doesn't matter the hobby, people winning tournaments or placing high always have their skill, lists ect challenged, discussed. I see no problem with doing that in 40k also. Look at any other hobby. MTG, most video game competitions ect. People are very critical of the top people. Its the only way to innovate and get better. If all we do is talk about the people who finished poor and how their lists could be better, then people only improve up to the level of competition.

By questioning/being critical of the best people, that is how you push competition forward. That is how you innovate and become even better.

I see nothing wrong with discussing/being critical of the top lists. Sure you guys can praise them endlessly and say how amazing they are, but you know what? They already know that! They just won (or placed high) at ard boyz!

I'm with you so far.

Why does it matter if I point out how good his list is (it isn't imo)? ... The real question is where does he go from here? How does he get better?

This is where you lose me. So far, the only comment you've made about his list is saying it's "unfocused". That's not worthwhile criticism. That's not going to help him get better. That's not going to help anyone else get better, and it's not going to "push competition forward". You made no objective observations about any specific part of his list, all you did is drop one very vague comment.

One very vague comment, I may add, that I've already commented on. But rather than take my analysis of why unfocused may be good, and continue that interesting topic, your refutation simply said, "he's got too many footsloggers, he'll lose to mech"... Seeing as how he didn't lose to mech, there must be something going on with his list that you're not getting.

A Thunderfire Cannon? Yes, all it takes is one good hit to waste it. But you have to randomize what you hit between the cannon and the techmarine (with a 2+ save) and the techmarine can also reinforce one piece of cover, so he may easily be sitting in 3+ terrain. With a larger operating range than most weapons, the Thunderfire can sit in a corner, and since everyone competitive is running either mech, or meltas to kill mech, what are they going to shoot it with, without investing specific resources to do so.

Meanwhile, it adds good matchups versus several different lists, including guard and orks. So, why not take a thunderfire?

Looking at Darth's list, every single choice has a good matchup against a popular list.

Librarian - null zone trumps daemons. Vortex does something useful in case you're not playing daemons.
TH/SS termies - good all-around unit.
Redeemer - gets termies where they need to be, has multimelta vs. mech
Dreadnoughts - good versus nob bikers and bloodcrushers
Lascannon/melta marines - scoring choices, but lascannons have game against mech, as do meltas
MM attack bikes - deals with mech
Landspeeder typhoon - fast unit, multiple missiles, good vs horde, or mech
Devs - missile launchers are both cheap, decent against mech, and blasts versus hordes
Pred - lots of dakka, good all around, cheap.
Thunderfire - as above

It looks unfocused, but nearly every single unit has tools to deal with mechanized lists, which were expected in abundance. It has key pieces to handle specific builds (dreads & null zone vs fatecrusher, for example).

So, your turn Timmah - you want to make this 'better' - what would you change? What do you cut, what advantage do you get by cutting it, and what extra weakness do you invite by doing the same?

The Sea of goo marine list has served me well for quite some time. It is the Millinieum Falcon of lists. It doesn't look like much but it's got it where it counts. I think the best thing about the list is that I can lose anything in it in any given game and not hurt the army. There is no linchpin that holds everything together. It's like a swirling mass of stuff each designed to counter a certain list archtype out there. Redbeard has hit most of it on the head. Most people have trouble identifying the units in the list which will hurt them most and there is redundency built in everywhere. It's gotten me to 2 top 10 finishes in the Ard Boyz finals. I like it for what it's worth.

Redbeard wrote:
So, your turn Timmah - you want to make this 'better' - what would you change? What do you cut, what advantage do you get by cutting it, and what extra weakness do you invite by doing the same?

Alright, so first off, please don't take this the wrong way, I am not saying his current list isn't good/doesn't work. I'm just saying it could get better.

Librarian – Termie armour, storm shield, null zone, vortex of doom
5 Th+Ss Termies
Land Raider Redeemer – multi-melta
x2 Dreadnought
x4 10 marines w/4 lascannons +melta
x2 Razorback w/ assault cannons
3 attack bikes
3 multi-melta attack bikes
Landspeeder typhoon
10 devastators – 4 missile launchers
Predator Destructor
Thunderfire cannon

First step would be to add TH/SS Termies

10x TH/SS terminators (now they can actually threaten the big units instead of getting charged by something and killed before they can attack.
Give them a Landraider as a dedicated transport and then pick up a 2nd one so that you can combat squad the terminators. And you actually have more than 1 heavy armor that your opponent needs to fire at.

LRC vs LRR this has been done to death. I still prefer the LRC because if it gets immobilized its still useful. You can interchange them if you want.

2x dreadnoughts, still solid, they help supplement the terminators

4 (10x marines, 2x razorbacks)
We had this discussion on dakka a little while ago whether its worth it to go razorback over rhino. The conclusion was that the razorback really doesn't add enough make leaving the other marines behind. Unless you like paying 110ish pts for 1 lascannon shot a turn. (I don't think most people do.

So by switching this to 3 (10x marines w/MM, MG + rhino) We have a lot more threatening shots at close range. This ofc loses us 4 lascannon shots a turn. Options are, deal with this in heavy support, fast attack or change up your current dread config.

I would say, deal with it in fast attack mainly. And here we have the typhoon. 90 pts for ML attacks and it can move 12" a turn. I'd cut all the attack bikes, since these do the job better when at longer range. Attack bikes are good, but with everything else you have being in a tank, you don't want to give your opponent something to shoot at. So 6x Typhoon speeders set up in units of 2.

Predator destructor vs thunderfire. I have a real problem with the thunderfire. Sure its good at killing xenos but its just too fragile. I would say just add the 2nd destructor cause its going to kill close to the same number of xenos each turn. (unless you have a lash of submission.

So

Librarian w/ terminator armor
10x TH/SS Terminators w/LRC
3x (10x marines w/MM, MG, Rhino)
2x Dreadnough MM,CCW
6x Typhoon
2x Predator destructor
1x LRC

Spend the last 110ish pts however you want. You can even use it to make your predators into the las cannon variety thus making up for all the ones you lost. Also then some typhoons can be dropped if you think you really need the attack bikes.

See in this list, everything is the best (close to the best) at doing its job and you have redundancy. If you kill one thing, more are there to replace it. With the previous list, all you need to do is identify the things that hurt you the most and deal with those first.

As Darth said himself, people sometimes have a hard time doing that. But personally I would rather built a list that wins on its own strength instead of one that capitalizes if an opponent makes a mistake.

Let me also say that Gardeth and Malecus are great players. In both cases I got a bunch of advantages in going first and deploying on the side with terrain, especially in Gardeths case. If his Raiders are on my side then he has better cover and more 4+ saves. In Malecus's case I got to shoot the Lootas first before they shot the T-fire and that made a huge difference. It would have been easy for the game to swing the other way if they got to choose sides and go first. In the Ard Boyz finals there is more than just the lists, there are a bunch of small dice rolls that can make all the difference.

Timmah if you think my list is bunk that is fine by me. I would actually prefer that people pay it no mind and think it's something they could role right over. If that's your opinion I'm ok with that.

DarthDiggler wrote:

Timmah if you think my list is bunk that is fine by me. I would actually prefer that people pay it no mind and think it's something they could role right over. If that's your opinion I'm ok with that.

Not even close to what I said.

Timmah wrote:

Librarian w/ terminator armor
10x TH/SS Terminators w/LRC
3x (10x marines w/MM, MG, Rhino)
2x Dreadnough MM,CCW
6x Typhoon
2x Predator destructor
1x LRC

Oh god, if only he had run this list instead, my butt wouldn't still be hurting. The biggest problem I see with this list is it does what Darth was trying to avoid, it concentrates his units, not to mention limiting his range. Against this list I would only have had to wory about the 2 predators and the Typhoons, things that are not that hard to get rid of, especially when compared to marines spread 2" apart in terrain on the other side of the table with LC and ML.

This list is still effective but would be MUCH easier prey for my dark eldar.

Typhoons and predators are not hard to get rid of? Ok...
Switching from his list to my list, he loses very little firepower. If he switches the preds to triple las cannon then he pretty much has more, that is harder to get rid of.

Again, he is paying 110 pts for 1 lascannon shot. Or 440 pts for 4. Does this not seem like a huge waste of points? I can almost buy 2 godhammer raiders for that.

True maybe DE would have an easier time with said list posted, but 2 things.

1. The list I posted is much better against a wide variety of armies.

2. I managed to pull it off the top of my head with no codex and about 15 mins of thinking.


Now think, if people (him included) actually wanted to work on his list and discuss choices ect. Instead of just saying, "you placed high at a tournament, your list must be amazing."

gardeth wrote:My opponents List

x2 Daemon Prince – wings, Lash, MoS
x3 Dreadnoughts – x2 cc arms
x4 9 man Plague marine squads in rhinos
x3 3 man oblit squads

*shakes head*

And yet people still try to convince us that the current Chaos Codex is more versatile and offers more variety than the old one...

Hrm, interesting.

I think that there were several marine lists present that looked closer to Timmah's version than they did to Darth's - and yet they didn't finish nearly as well. Obviously player skill has something to do with this (most of it, IMHO), but I just see the cookie cutter lists as asking for matchup problems.

While there were no monoliths present at the finals, there were at least a few 3-monolith armies in the semis. Would you rather face them with 4 lascannons or 3 multimeltas? That draw didn't happen - but it could have.

Adding more TH/SS termies doesn't help this list, it removes synergy. The small unit of TH guys is there to serve as a counter-assault element, not a rush element (though if matchups required, they could rush). It's a shoot-first list. You're recommending cutting more of the list's strength (shooting) for more assault, but doesn't that weaken the main strategy? Likewise, the redeemer is considerably better against a horde-rush army. It has better synergy with the terminators used in a counter-assault role, than the crusader does, which, as you point out, is probably the better rush vehicle.

I think synergy is something that people often discount. They run the numbers once and say A is better than B - and that's the end of their thinking. But, in some roles, B ends up being a better choice.

The razorbacks vs rhinos are another good example of this. In a list that's trying to pack as many guns as possible, the razorback is clearly superior, even at the cost of leaving half the squad behind. In an objective mission, you only need half a squad to get there anyway, and in a KP mission, it's harder to kill the marines who are standing back firing lascannons than it is to kill the marines who needed to close with you to fire their meltas.


One thing to remember is that the metagame in 40k is not even remotely as defined as it is in MtG. Depending on which cycle MtG is running, the metagame has consisted of as few as two deck archetypes. 40k has so many outliers that can win that it is impossible to make your choices based on the expectation that you'll only face one or two different lists.

timmah wrote:
Now think, if people (him included) actually wanted to work on his list and discuss choices ect. Instead of just saying, "you placed high at a tournament, your list must be amazing."

That's what we're doing... although you seem more interested is tooting your own superior list building skills than actually discussing the merits of what he took.

Redbeard wrote:

timmah wrote:
Now think, if people (him included) actually wanted to work on his list and discuss choices ect. Instead of just saying, "you placed high at a tournament, your list must be amazing."

That's what we're doing... although you seem more interested is tooting your own superior list building skills than actually discussing the merits of what he took.

Sorry if I came across that way. But when I mentioned that I didn't think the list was strong, I got jumped all over, for discounting his list. I then got called out, by you to make something better. So I ran through a quick list that would do close to what his list could currently do, but be more resilient and for less points.

No one besides me in this thread has mentioned that his list could be improved, so don't say "that's what we're doing" when you obviously aren't.

I'm not touting my list building skills, I am just saying that his list isn't as good as a 2500 pt marine list could be.

Also on the LRR w/Terminators

So Terminators are for counter charging, yet the LRR needs to rush forward to be effective...
Unless you are playing a non mech horde army that is charging you. Even then the Crusader has the potential to kill just as many troops.

See what I'm getting at? A vehicle that needs to charge forward to be effective with a unit in it that you want to sit with the bulk of your army. (Not to go into the problems of running a list with only 1 AV 14 target.)

I don't usually chrage forward with the Redeemer. When it counter charges, it's counter charging on my side of the table. I'm outshooting most everything else so they need to charge me. The Redeemer is here to countercharge in my deployment zone or near it if I pop the rushing transport at the halfway mark. The MM and assault cannon are the main shooting elements. In a crusader I feel I would be wasting Bolter rounds shooting at what I really want the MM and assault cannon shooting at. I thought I would save the points by taking a Redeemer. The Redeemer flame cannons also give me a shot at taking down Warlock bikers. If I can get through their armor 3+ and into their invulnerable save, then the Null Zone has the ability to hurt that unit where hurricane bolters can not.

I don't like Predators over the T-Fire because of what they both can shoot at. Predators have shorter range and can not fire back at Lootas like the T-fire can. Also most Ork Horde lists have a KFF which will mitigate the Predators fire while the T-Fire gets around that. I also don't like Pathfinders sitting on an objective in the enemy deployment zone and the T-Fire solves that problem.

I understand the firepower of 6 speeders, but the footpring they leave makes survivability an issue. That and I love the versatility of the Attack Bikes. Taking 6 gives me 12 Marine wounds that can get across the board to shoot or assault when needed. I would not have won the game against Gardeth if I didn't have AB's to assault his Warrior unit off of the objective. They pulled that unit away from contesting and got me the win. It would have been very tough for speeders to do that. The Attack Bikes also saved me from a lose in the first game when they shot the rear of a wave Serpent and then multi-charged the Serpent and 2 Dire Avenger squads. It was a KP mission and those Dire Avengers were heading away from the fight post haste. Finally I can't play marines without MM attack bikes. They are like the fighter escort for the Land raider. To many lists have their own LR'sd as the MM anti-enemy LR firepower. If I've got a unit of MM attack bikes I can use them as an advanced screen for my LR if I need my LR to deliver something somewhere.

But as Redbeard has said. This is a shooting first army. I don't need to get the Termies or LR anywhere if I don't need to. Sometimes the LR just holds a 5-man troop squad and the Librarian and it acts as a big Null Zone radius. Interestingly enough the Redeemer didn't die in any Ard Boyz game this past weekend. Not against Mech Eldar, Orks or Dark Eldar. In fact I think it blew up in only one of my 9 games and that was the all nightfight game in the Semi's. I think that very early on people realize it is not the threat they perceive and concentrate on more immediate threats the army posses.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That being said I wouldn't remove it from the list. It protects the lower armored unit from the enemy 1st turn if I don'[t get it. Such as Lootas. And it can deliver the Termies into a Bloodthirster who would normally rampage through my list.

Timmah wrote:
Sorry if I came across that way. But when I mentioned that I didn't think the list was strong, I got jumped all over, for discounting his list. I then got called out, by you to make something better. So I ran through a quick list that would do close to what his list could currently do, but be more resilient and for less points.

Except that it wasn't - it was actually over points, and I doubt that it was more resilient. As Gardeth mentioned, his army would have a much easier time against the list you posted. And it's not the only build that would.

No one besides me in this thread has mentioned that his list could be improved, so don't say "that's what we're doing" when you obviously aren't.

That's what we're doing - in regards to discussing changes, not necessarily advocating them. I like Darth's list. It's like the speed freak list I ran at the adepticon gladiator in 2007 in that it has a little bit of everything, but nothing wasted. I don't believe that focus is necessary, as long as you maintain overall redundancy.

Also on the LRR w/Terminators

So Terminators are for counter charging, yet the LRR needs to rush forward to be effective...

...

See what I'm getting at? A vehicle that needs to charge forward to be effective with a unit in it that you want to sit with the bulk of your army. (Not to go into the problems of running a list with only 1 AV 14 target.)

This depends on how you define effective. There's a concept in naval warfare known as Fleet In Being. This concept states that a fleet that remains safely in port can be more valuable than one that actively engages the enemy.

I didn't watch Darth's games, but holding a redeemer back to deter an opponent's moves, to block crucial lines of fire, or even to serve as a decoy, drawing fire, are all effective uses. It's a 2500 point game, using 10% of your (non-scoring) points as a decoy is not ineffective if it allows your other units to operate and recoup the loss. And even then, the assault cannon and multimelta have decent enough range to engage some targets.

Again, it comes down to the matchup you face. One AV14 vehicle can wreck havoc on armies like orks or necrons, who have relatively few options to deal with it. Adding more AV14 vehicles doesn't necessarily improve your game against those armies, but weakens it against the armies that have good options for dealing with such things, like the mech DE and E lists that were in (relative) abundance at 'ard boyz.

At the end of the day that list just has to many things to deal with, and thats what got me. Before the game started I had the tools to do it, but after the first round of shooting...well I didn't. There are quit a few things in this list that would be sub-optimal in most other lists, but they generate a weird sort of synergy used with the other units and with his strategy. Could he improve on this, probably, but I'm not sure how.

I like Darth's army. It brings a full toolbox to the table. And I can imagine it makes players a little indecisive with their prioritization. Meanwhile, Darth -- thanks to lots of experience with the army -- knows exactly what he's going to do. That's a recipe for victory.

Bringing a list that bases its strength off how many mistakes your opponent makes is not a recipe for victory.

By doing this, you make your army very weak against anyone who knows what they are doing.

Timmah wrote:Bringing a list that bases its strength off how many mistakes your opponent makes is not a recipe for victory.

By doing this, you make your army very weak against anyone who knows what they are doing.

I disagree with this generality too. If you can bring something no one expects, then you can catch people making mistakes, and this is a good way to score some wins. But, saying that it makes your army weak against people who know what they're doing does not logically follow from that. An army can be made both strong against people who know what they're doing, and also able to get easy wins against people who do not.

There's also the difference between hoping your opponent makes mistakes, and forcing them into making mistakes. By presenting complicated situations, you increase the chances that your opponent will make mistakes - this is good strategy.

And again, inference to the default arguement that a person won b/c their opponent didn't know what they were doing. Deja vu, sadly.

Sarigar wrote:And again, inference to the default arguement that a person won b/c their opponent didn't know what they were doing. Deja vu, sadly.

Seriously, I have never said this. I have said that he is a good player and his list is good. Stop pretending like I am ripping on him for being bad or something like that.

Timmah wrote:By doing this, you make your army very weak against anyone who knows what they are doing.

You mean like the people who placed in the top 3 in two previous qualifiers?

I get what you're trying to say about fighting on your own terms and trying to win the battle on your own strengths. I think his list still does that in a way by just blowing the crap out of the opponent at range. His opponents possibly having a hard time prioritizing what is going to kill them the fastest is just a secondary benefit. And it's one that I think cannot be totally discounted... knowing how to play against a list partially comes from experience and having seen that list in action before. Common cookie-cutter lists are just that: common and likely most players know how to play against them. A final point: It's one thing to question his choices and ask why he thinks they were the best choices for his army. However, offering up an unsolicited army list comes across as kinda pushy and I think causes some of the negative reactions you're seeing. Just a thought.

Darth: One question I have about the TFC though... how do you manage to use it in DoW missions?

Since I'm rather new to the game and have not attended any tournaments yet, I don't really think my view on Darth Diggler's army is competent enough to try to improve it - so I just say that I like it for its diversity.

One thing though: Timmah, you were of the opinion that the Tac-Squads in Razorbacks with LC as heavy weapon are improvable, because he's paying 110pts per squad for one lascannon shot per round. You proposed a Predator Annihilator to improve this.

I just wanted to state that I disagree with this view. He isn't paying 110pts for one LC shot, he's paying 110pts for five Marines that form a scoring unit in his backfield and - important thing - are harder to kill than a Predator Annihilator. A TL-LC/2xLC Predator is enough of a threat to many mech armies that they'll want to take it out ASAP. There is enough weaponry out there that can wreck a pred in one turn and it is *very* possible that it will get shaken. Now you can't fire with any lascannon.

With a couple of combat squads with LCs, you have the same power, but it is scattered all over the field, making it harder for the opponent to kill it. There are ablative wounds on every LC, so you really need some heavy fire concentration to kill this LC in one turn of shooting - and there are other threats to deal with. And even if one LC dies, the others won't die with it, like they would if they were mounted on a Predator.

Therefore, I really like the marine combat squads with long-range heavy AT lascannons. Cool choice. Even without the Predator as a direct comparison, nice for reliable, resilient AT.

Gornall wrote:A final point: It's one thing to question his choices and ask why he thinks they were the best choices for his army. However, offering up an unsolicited army list comes across as kinda pushy and I think causes some of the negative reactions you're seeing. Just a thought.

Funny, cause that's what I did initially. Saying that I thought certain inclusions were just not very good. To which I got told that I should post what I thought would be better. So don't blame me for that.

as far as the 4 LC's in squads vs 1 predator annihilator.

440 ish pts vs 140ish pts

Practically the same amount of fire power. Yes, one dies faster to anti tank fire. But thats why I added other stuff. Like another 1 and some typhoons who have 2 str 8 shots each and can also switch to anti infantry duty.

Redbeard wrote:There's also the difference between hoping your opponent makes mistakes, and forcing them into making mistakes. By presenting complicated situations, you increase the chances that your opponent will make mistakes - this is good strategy.

QFT.

It's a lot easier facing an army with a flash card you've seen before (i.e. against this build I should do A, B and C) than something a little different.

Theoryhammer too often ignores that you play against a person and not just an army list. And I don't know that there's a player in the world that can't point an example in which they got carried away and spent too much time focusing on one threat when they should have been concerned about another.

And the point remains that his army list can pump out a lot of firepower.

gorgon wrote:

Redbeard wrote:There's also the difference between hoping your opponent makes mistakes, and forcing them into making mistakes. By presenting complicated situations, you increase the chances that your opponent will make mistakes - this is good strategy.

QFT.

It's a lot easier facing an army with a flash card you've seen before (i.e. against this build I should do A, B and C) than something a little different.

Theoryhammer too often ignores that you play against a person and not just an army list. And I don't know that there's a player in the world that can't point an example in which they got carried away and spent too much time focusing on one threat when they should have been concerned about another.

And the point remains that his army list can pump out a lot of firepower.

Very true, but both situations still rely on having an opponent that makes mistakes. And while one is a better strategy, it still gets worse as the quality of players get better.

Well against me, it didn't depend on me making a mistake as much as not giving me any good choices to make.

gardeth wrote:Well against me, it didn't depend on me making a mistake as much as not giving me any good choices to make.

You could argue that both equate to the same thing.

whitedragon wrote:

gardeth wrote:Well against me, it didn't depend on me making a mistake as much as not giving me any good choices to make.

You could argue that both equate to the same thing.

No my way makes it sound like it wasn't my fault, which, for the purposes of denial, is a VERY important distinction.

Timmah wrote:

gorgon wrote:

Redbeard wrote:There's also the difference between hoping your opponent makes mistakes, and forcing them into making mistakes. By presenting complicated situations, you increase the chances that your opponent will make mistakes - this is good strategy.

QFT.

It's a lot easier facing an army with a flash card you've seen before (i.e. against this build I should do A, B and C) than something a little different.

Theoryhammer too often ignores that you play against a person and not just an army list. And I don't know that there's a player in the world that can't point an example in which they got carried away and spent too much time focusing on one threat when they should have been concerned about another.

And the point remains that his army list can pump out a lot of firepower.

Very true, but both situations still rely on having an opponent that makes mistakes. And while one is a better strategy, it still gets worse as the quality of players get better.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't all the players here have to battle their way through 2 previous qualifiers all across the statees In which case, they would all be be players of a exceptionally high calibre?

And I'll be damned if I'm mistaken, but against aforementioned players of high calibre, didn't he place 5th?

So where this idea that his list would do worse and worse against good players comes from I'm not too sure. Based on the facts I just gave above, could you please explain it to me?

Pardon me for asking, but why do you veteran, hard-boiled players validate timmah's posts by engaging and arguing with him?

Ketara wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't all the players here have to battle their way through 2 previous qualifiers all across the statees In which case, they would all be be players of a exceptionally high calibre?

And I'll be damned if I'm mistaken, but against aforementioned players of high caliber, didn't he place 5th?

So where this idea that his list would do worse and worse against good players comes from I'm not too sure. Based on the facts I just gave above, could you please explain it to me?

Well thats one conclusion you could draw. The other is that maybe they aren't are exceptionally skilled. Not saying one is right. But both conclusions can be drawn.

With a 3 tournament system it is possible to be bad, and just have lucky draws each round. Its easy enough to sneak through the first round with the right match ups even if you are a bad player. If enough of these people sneak through, then more can sneak into the next set and so on.

Again, not saying this was what happened. But claiming there is only one conclusion to come from using the previous statements is kinda ridiculous.

Double post, please delete.

I don't agree.
'Why not? I hear you say. 'Looking at the odds, it is statistically possible. A bad player could draw 6 favourable games in which he is up against a worse player than him, or a list that he is ill matched to beat. Therefore in a case such as this, it is more than possible, nay, even likely, that an absolutely terrible player or list could reach round 3! (although perish the though that I could ever be suggesting that this could be the case when referring to the army list about which we are currently conversing)

My logic for denying this otherwise flawless piece of reasoning is this(in bullet point format)

-The same argument could be used for any tournament in anything anywhere.
-In fact, it could be said that the overall winner of the entire thing was nothing more than a fluke, as the nine games he played were against people who just managed to 'sneak' in to all 3 rounds, and all these people had absolutely no discernible skill, and the worst possible matchup against him.
-Therefore, any tournament proves absolutely nothing, as theoretically speaking, the overall winner could have just won on chance in the matchup, rather than skill.

This argument I find, is similar to solipsism. It's a viewpoint that can theoretically be taken, but is at the end of the day, so absurd, that no person would willingly take it.
Even if you choose to disregard what I've said above, I have one other piece of reasoning which leads to my disagreeing.

Okay, assume that we have an average player. He enters the first tier. He must do well in three games to win through to the next round. Now it's just about feasible to consider that he could come up against 3 dull-witted people with terrible army lists. However, think about it. How many people of this kind enter tournaments? Seriously? I would say just about enough that it's feasible an average player could win through to the next round. The odds are heavily stacked against him, but I suppose he could manage it.

So now we're on round two, which would be on more of a regional level, than a local level. Not a tremendous number of players, one would think. And of those people there, all of them must have attained a certain level of skill. 99% of them would all be of the 'average' quality at least. Anyone of worse quality would simply have not made it this far. The really bad players would not win against the average, good, or exceptional players.

So let's take this hypothesis further. Imagine there's 30 people in this 'regional' level game. There won't be 'exceptional' level players at all local levels. In a very few, there won't even be players of the 'good' quality. I would say that out of these 30 people, perhaps 5 are exceptional, 20 are good, and 5 are average. Now it's concievable that one of those average players could best 3 other average players. But I doubt they would be able to do it to such an extent that they would pass to the next round. They might manage ties, or minor wins against each other, but they are, on the whole, people of a similar skill level and will not manage massacres. The good players, and exceptional players will tear through them. Odds are, if a good/exceptional player gets 3 matchups against those average players, they will make it to the next round.

But wait! You have the table system, to ensure that players face other players of a suitable calibre! So assume 5 of these exceptional/good players wail on average opponents. They will now be paired up, and the exceptional players will probably win. Alternativeky, let's assume that an average player somehow managed to face another average player, and by some fluke of army matchup, got a massacre. That one average player will now be paired against a good/exceptional player, who is infinitely more likely to win.

Even if, by some mischance (a combination of exceptional dice rolling, favourable mission, and good army matchup) an average player succeeds in beating the good/exceptional player, they will now be paired up with an exceptional/good player at the top table. What now are the chances of them repeating the excellent fortune of last game? Slim indeed. Odds are, they'll suffer a sound thrashing at the hands of the more skilled player, and be sent plummeting in points, with very little chance of passing to the next round.

Okay, so let's continue with the theory, that somehow, through some kind of miraculous intervention, the average player made it through to the third round, a tournament on a national scale. Let's assume thirty players again. Odds are, the makeup will be even harder, for example, 19 exceptional players, 10 good players, and our one little average player. What are the odds our average player can repeat this same lucky streak three times in a row? Or even twice to place relatively high? If he does it once, he will almost certainly be paired with an exceptional player. Very few good players will be occupying the top tiers at the end of the 2nd round, and next to none by the third. The odds of our average player triumphing, or even placing well are infinitesimally small.

However, your assumption is that not just 1 average player will make it through to this stage, but many. The initial thought is that only 4 average players need make it this far to have an average player stand a chance at winning, but wait! The table system means that all 4 of those players will need to experice that same degree of extraordinary luck. Otherwise, our initial average player, having luckily massacred his opponent of equal skill in the first game, will again require another opponent of equally average skill to also have had the good fortune to massacre their opponent! But if we're going to have the average player win, we really need even more average players at the top table! Which means even more people need to have beaten those odds in the earlier round!

In other words, (if you couldn't be bothered to read the reasoning here), whilst it's just about mathematically conceivable that such an event could occur, the odds against it are so astronomical, as to be absurd. Instead, I'd rather just assume that the player mentioned above is of good to exceptional skill, suffered some good luck, and some bad luck, and things roughly balanced out. Rather than sitting down and defending to the death this reasoning that he- I mean someone(of course, not the person we're actually discussing) could technically acquire the position due to sheer dumb luck and beating the odds to the kind of extent that would see me win the lottery four weeks running.

The difference between 3 sets of 3 games and just 9 straight games is a huge difference. 9 straight games weeds out bad players better because your score never resets.

3 sets of 3 games is easier on decent players because their scores reset each set. You can get a bad player first round and massacre, get a good matchup 2nd round for another massacre and then just draw the third game to continue on.

With 3 sets of 3 games, when you finally would start playing the good players, the set is over.

I think one of the reasons he did so well was because his army is an oddball. Most people see marines in tournaments and they think of mech melta gun spam. Orks are either nob bikes or horde. Chaos is lash and oblit spam. So his army had an excellent diffusion of power throughout the list. And it is not in standard tournament meta.

This isnt to discount his skill as a player of course, just that an oddball army can do well, especially if the general knows what they are doing.

Timmah, I hate to ask, are you being obtuse on purpose or is it just your nature? Because this isnt the first thread that you have managed to create an arguement simply by never giving in.

The fact of the matter is that a well-rounded army, capable of both FORCING mistakes, and TAKING ADVANTAGE of mistakes, placed well. In fact, several of these armies placed well.

I do not believe that the IG player, nor our Dandy Darth Diggler, went into the tournaments with the thought process of:

"Gosh, I'll win only if my opponent makes mistakes!"

No, it is clear that they made excellent lists, and then practiced with those lists.

Finally, as mentioned previously, they gained an interesting advantage by NOT being a cookie-cutter list, thus giving their opponents a bit of a harder time, as their opponents could not go:

"Gosh, a Lash/Lash 9 Oblit Army, I know how to defeat that." Etc.

Well played, Darth.

--B.

Timmah wrote:Bringing a list that bases its strength off how many mistakes your opponent makes is not a recipe for victory.

By doing this, you make your army very weak against anyone who knows what they are doing.

Great idea, Timmah. How'd you do in Chicago? Against those who know what they're doing. You must have gotten at least 3rd to have it all so much more figured out than the rest of us.....

A few quick points….

#1. When 2 very good players play each other, the one who makes a mistake loses. It may be a small mistake, but that will be what determines the winner.

#2. The lists that you find on the top tables are normally very different that what people think are the most optimized. The reason why is that the top players have different play styles, and they tailor their army to compliment these play styles. Net list X might be strong, but a tweaked list that compliments a player’s play style will be better. That is why net lists are good for bad to mediocre players, but not for the top players.



To generalize there are 2 kinds of armies. Those that Act, and those that Re-act.

Those that Act: Orks and Demons are examples of armies that Act (most armies fit into this category because it they are easier to play). They have one “trick” or strategy, and they do it well and it is very hard to stop. They are the armies though that are the most susceptible to the “Rock, Paper, Scissors” army match ups. If you have one trick (like running into combat as fast as you can and hacking you opponent to pieces) when you are unable to do this, you will lose.

Those that Re-act: Darth’s army is a good example of a good take-all-comers list that has a lot of redundancy and options. They are much harder to play, and it requires a lot of knowledge about other armies, and what they are going to try to do and how to counter them, but in the hand of someone who knows what they are doing, they can be some of the top armies.

Nurgleboy77 wrote:

Timmah wrote:Bringing a list that bases its strength off how many mistakes your opponent makes is not a recipe for victory.

By doing this, you make your army very weak against anyone who knows what they are doing.

Great idea, Timmah. How'd you do in Chicago? Against those who know what they're doing. You must have gotten at least 3rd to have it all so much more figured out than the rest of us.....

You're right I wasn't at chicago. Nothing I say is valid because of this. Because every great player is a great list builder and vice versa, same goes for terrible players and terrible list builders.

Why do you guys get all bent out of shape when someone critiques a list? It happens in tons of other competitive environments. Its ridiculous. I'll reference the obvious MTG (that I use to play so much). If you play with a crappy list and win, you're going to get called on it. Yea people will take a 2nd look at your list and see why it won, why it did well. But they aren't going to sugar coat it and claim its the best list ever. I would know, I won/placed high in multiple tournaments using a Tier 3 deck.

People didn't give tell me how awesome the deck was at the end. They knew it wasn't, I knew it wasn't.

Why does everyone on here get so angry if you criticize someones list? You won/placed high because you played well. That doesn't mean your list is amazing and above criticism.

Timmah wrote:
You're right I wasn't at chicago. Nothing I say is valid because of this. Because every great player is a great list builder and vice versa, same goes for terrible players and terrible list builders.

Why does everyone on here get so angry if you criticize someones list? You won/placed high because you played well. That doesn't mean your list is amazing and above criticism.

To criticize a winning list you have to be undeniably right. The success of the list is proof of how good it is, and to say you can make it better is generally wrong.

As far as not being an “optimal list”, all lists have trade-offs. I saw that someone say about the winning list of the “Ard Boyz what they can do to improve the list. Things like "give all of the tanks camo netting", etc. Everything comes at a cost though, and you would have to make trade-offs that the winner chose not to make, and the fact that he won proves that he made the right choices.

Oh, and your list is much worse than Darth's.

In timmah's defence...at least he is taking the time to write reasonable reply's once called out.

I like his ethos about there being a point to trying to improve etc.

To timmah: Don't worry about the people jumping all over you. You'll notice that the reasonable people answer all of the questions (Redbeard, Darth and Gardeth) eloquently and still leave options open within their statements to "improve upon".

To the statement of why these hard boiled gamers are bothering to reply, I guess it speaks well of their character to take timmah's efforts at face value as he stated and try to educate (not just him) on how to respond better, as well as furthering the discussion and adding depth.

Anyway thanks to those who've added reasonable discussion.

I too would like to follow up a great question that hasn't been answered about the TFC in dawn of war missions. How does the army play out in dawn of war missions generally? Is this one of those times that the few key dice rolls really affect the armies performance?

Blackmoor wrote:

Timmah wrote:
You're right I wasn't at chicago. Nothing I say is valid because of this. Because every great player is a great list builder and vice versa, same goes for terrible players and terrible list builders.

Why does everyone on here get so angry if you criticize someones list? You won/placed high because you played well. That doesn't mean your list is amazing and above criticism.

To criticize a winning list you have to be undeniably right. The success of the list is proof of how good it is, and to say you can make it better is generally wrong.

Not at all. If I was undeniably right, there would be nothing to argue about. Winning/placing high at a couple events does not automatically make a list good and it is not proof. 3 events is not really a good statistical reference for claiming whether something is competitive or not.

My list was a spur of the moment thing that I did without a codex and just kinda threw together. Plus it had more firepower and more mobility. Either way, I was more pointing out some of the flaws in his list than anything.


Also, I am happy for the people who are actually giving good responses and discussing things with me. (Redbeard, Darth and Gardeth)
And I hope Darth doesn't feel like I am calling him out here since he never really said his list was all that.

One thing about DarthDiggler's and Timmah's lists I noticed:

Timmah improved DarthDiggler's list mainly by identifying the "good" units - TH/SS/LC terminators, dakkapreds (for their price), LS typhoons - and then taking more of them. (Correct me if I'm wrong on this.) Because taking more good units instead of bad units makes a list better.

However, what I like about Warhammer 40,000 is the fact that it's not that easy to determine which units are good or bad, especially in an army context. Otherwise there wouldn't be huge discussions in the tactics forums about this or that weapon for this or that unit. DarthDiggler obviously did something right in not maximizing on units that are generally considered "good" (without a closer look at the rest of the army), but by taking units that are generally considered "not so good" (without a closer look at the rest of the army). However, it seems that by doing this, he creates a synergy for his army that equals or surpasses taking as many "good" units as possible. And this is something that a) can not be learned by looking at unit discussion on the interwebz and b) is something harder to look through for the opponent, which is a bonus point, too.

@Timmah: I was never heavily involved in MTG, but I heard that there were times where there were only two or three viable top-tier lists. When one steers away from the "tournaments apparently are played at a low skill level" viewpoint, one might see that there are more than two viable builds for winning tournaments in Wh40k, due to a wider range of possibilites in choosing an army, making a list, playing the game.
What I want to say is, saying DarthDiggler's list is "not as good as it could be" or "very improvable" etc. pp. because he didnt' maximize on units that are considered "good" in a vacuum might be a wrong way of thought.

And about "3 sets of 3 games is not enough for determining if a list is really competitive": I bet DarthDiggler played many, many games with friends and opponents at his LGS with this list, tweaking here and there, before he decided to use it for 'ard boyz. This list probably won a lot of games before 'ard boyz, otherwise he would not have taken it. (And these testgames might have been quite hard, probably, because the opponent knew what he was going to face in many cases.)

Timmah wrote:
Not at all. If I was undeniably right, there would be nothing to argue about. Winning/placing high at a couple events does not automatically make a list good and it is not proof. 3 events is not really a good statistical reference for claiming whether something is competitive or not.

How do we measure a list other than by winning tournaments? By sitting around and thinking that other lists are better?

My list was a spur of the moment thing that I did without a codex and just kinda threw together. Plus it had more firepower and more mobility. Either way, I was more pointing out some of the flaws in his list than anything.

More firepower? No. You do have some speed, but you lost a lot of durability.

Also, I am happy for the people who are actually giving good responses and discussing things with me. (Redbeard, Darth and Gardeth)

Ask, and you shall receive!

I was not going to criticize Timmah’s list without comment. I never make statements that I can’t back up. I was going put up a long post in 40K discussion forum of why Darth’s list was better, but I do not have the time, and I lost the will.

But I will say a few things:

Darth’s
Librarian – Termie armour, storm shield, null zone, vortex of doom
5 Th+Ss Termies
Land Raider Redeemer – multi-melta
x2 Dreadnought
x4 10 marines w/4 lascannons +melta
x2 Razorback w/ assault cannons
3 attack bikes
3 multi-melta attack bikes
Landspeeder typhoon
10 devastators – 4 missile launchers
Predator Destructor
Thunderfire cannon

Timmah’s
Librarian w/ terminator armor
10x TH/SS Terminators w/LRC
3x (10x marines w/MM, MG, Rhino)
2x Dreadnought MM,CCW
6x Typhoon
2x Predator destructor
1x LRC

#1. 10x TH/SS Terminators vs. 5 Th+Ss Termies
In these armies, 5 are much better than 10. The reason why is that the army is a shooting army. When you take 10 terminators you are wrapping up a ton of points in a non-shooting unit that does not add anything to the army. The unit is made for a counter assault unit, and for that role you only need 5. Also an army has to be flexible. What happens if your army can’t out-shoot your opponent? Then what do you do? 10 Termies can deep strike which is always a bad idea, and then gets shot, and just moved away from, or they can slowly march across the field. With 5 Terminators you can fit them in the LRR and they can drive across the board. Also it is much easier to get the counter assault where you need it when you can assault 12”+2”+6”=20”

#2. Range
Darth’s army has a lot of weapons that can reach out and touch Mech armies. He has the range to get in a fire-fight with them. Timmah will be in a world of hurt if he ever faces a Mech army because with his horrible range of 24”. I see this all the time where people just load up on Melta, but they have to cross the board to use it. Do you always expect your opponent to drive on up to you to assault you? If you cross the board and you are getting shot to pieces, the Meltas will be useless for a long time. I see lots of people take Multi-Meltas in tac squads and you can never use them if your opponent will not close with you. Also, it is hard to stop Darth’s shooting. 40 Tac Marines and 10 Devastators are a lot harder to kill, then 6 Land Speeder. Did you see the list that won the ‘Ard Boys? Several Chimeras and a few Hydras will ruin their day. Heck, you just need to stun an AV10 vehicle to keep them from firing. Then what are you going to do? Mech Eldar and IG (2 Top-Tier lists that you should expect to face at the ‘Ard Boyz finals) will drop the Land Speeders without a problem, and then pick your army apart.

#3. You can't even beat the list that you are suppose to be better than.
Darth's army will blow Timmah's off the table. At 48" Darth has a lot more firepower and a lot more durability. Timmah will have to cross the table under several rounds of shooting to do what exactly? Unless you think that your Typhoons will win that shooting match (which they will not).


I could go on, but I think I made my point.

Timmah, refer back to Ketara's excellent post on why 'everyone in the final are mediocre, unlike me' is not a valid complaint.

BeefyG wrote:
I too would like to follow up a great question that hasn't been answered about the TFC in dawn of war missions. How does the army play out in dawn of war missions generally? Is this one of those times that the few key dice rolls really affect the armies performance?

I had sent the answer to the poster in a PM. This is Gardeths post and we've seemed to have taken it over for something else. I hope he doesn't mind, but that was why I sent it privately. Here is what I sent in regards to the T-Fire in DOW.

You mean when I have to walk it on? Either it walks on in the top of turn 1 and sets up to fire turn 2 or it walks on in the bottom, after seeing where the enemy is, and picks a nice safe spot to shoot from. I can protect it with the LR if I think it will be a big help or I can leave it on it's own if I think it might be marginally effective for that game. The games I need it it can almost with the game on it's own (spearhead deployments usually) and the games I don't need it as much it still puts out lots of wound on models or makes enemy vehicles take dangerous terrain checks to move. I'll take that trade off for what it can do vs. Daemons, Orks and Pathfinders.

I will add:

Round 1 DOW scenarios is moved on bottom of turn 1 and sat behind a LR in the far corner of the board. I knew it was valuable that game because I was playing against Eldar with 2 pathfinder units in ruins. It did the job getting those pathfinders. Round 2 DOW was all nightfight. I think it shot once. That game was against Black Templars and it turned into an assault battle. Round 3 DOW was against Mech Eldar. The T-Fire moved on top of turn 1 near cover. The Eldar moved on in mass in front of it, but out of range for nightfight. I forced a few dangerous terrain checks on Serpents until a Dire Avenger squad dropped out of a wrecked serpent across the board and I was able to hammer that killpoint.

I have been playing this list for quite a while and it's evolved over the years to match the metagame when I can. It's purely designed to take on armor 12 armies and still have counters to other major archtypes I would expect to see at a tournament. I am a big believer in the range war and 48" lascannons are the cats meow for me. A version of this list got me the top 10 (I can't remember excactly) two years ago in the Ard Boyz finals. An Adepticon Team Tourney version of this was the only list to beat our Adepticon Team armies this past year (5th place). And I used another version to playest some Adepticon Gladiator lists/Missions this past year and it faired pretty well. My style is how Blackmoor described (I think I played Alan in round 1 of the Ard Boyz finals 2 years ago). I want to outshoot the enemy and force them to assault me. If I can't outshoot you I want to still be able to move across the table and assault the enemy. Timmahs list is good (and off the top of his head), but doesn't fit my style. I've run into problems in the past trying to play an obvious good list which is against my style. I break out these white marines (they are white consuls) only for Ard Boyz games and big Gladiators.

Every list can be beat. This is a dice game still and good players can still win the game and still lose most of their army. Gardeth had the game at a draw until the very last turn despite losing lots of units. He never gave up and was thisclose to pulling out 10 battle points. Malecus also played until the very end and worked hard to deny me as many Battlepoints as possible right up to the very end. Those are the true signs of a top General, not the list they bring. It would have been easy to just say "you win take all the points" instead of playing it out and making your opponent earn everything they get.

Timmah wrote:The difference between 3 sets of 3 games and just 9 straight games is a huge difference. 9 straight games weeds out bad players better because your score never resets.

3 sets of 3 games is easier on decent players because their scores reset each set. You can get a bad player first round and massacre, get a good matchup 2nd round for another massacre and then just draw the third game to continue on.

With 3 sets of 3 games, when you finally would start playing the good players, the set is over.

Did you actually read my reasoning? I laid it out logically and mathematically. It was a bit of a text wall, I'll admit, but I tried to break it up.
Please note that at this stage, I never said that Darth's list could not be improved on, and I'm not having a go at you for thinking you could do better.

The only sentences I have issue with are the claims that, 'Darth's list would do worse against better players', and that, 'someone with very little skill could win 'ard boyz through pure luck, as opposed to skill'.

I'm not too sure how too lay this out more simply, but I shall try again, as you clearly don't seem to understand the odds involved here.

We have our player of distinctly mediocre talent. He goes to 'Ard Boyz. I conceded that winning the first round would be within the realms of the possible, as some 'bad' players would no doubt be in attendance for him to draw really lucky massacre and cruise through.

He goes to the second round. Competition is much harder, and there won't be a single player there of less than average/mediocre skill. In other words, every other player there is at least as good as him. Whilst he may massacre his first round due to a lucky matchup, due to the tabling system, his second round will almost certainly (95%) pitch him against a player of superior skill, who will be much harder to defeat through pure luck. That is, to the extent that he requires in order to be able to get through to the next round.

The third game of this round, and the whole third round itself is a continuation of this logic. In other words, the further in the tournament you get, the more and more the odds are stacked against you.

Timmah wrote:The difference between 3 sets of 3 games and just 9 straight games is a huge difference. 9 straight games weeds out bad players better because your score never resets.

No, because of the qualifying system. Unless you do well in one round, you will not make it through to the next round. This means that the further in you get, the higher the calibre of player will be involved, as the worse players are not included and sent packing.

Timmah wrote:3 sets of 3 games is easier on decent players because their scores reset each set. You can get a bad player first round and massacre, get a good matchup 2nd round for another massacre and then just draw the third game to continue on.

With 3 sets of 3 games, when you finally would start playing the good players, the set is over.

Negative again, but as I've already explained, due to the qualifying system, and the tabling system. Whilst this can be feasible enough to propel an average player into the second round, the odds of him getting any further are astronomically against him.

There's also one other flaw with that statement. You claim that 'I can get a bad player first round and massacre', but at the same time, that 'when you would finally start playing the good players, the set is over'. I could be wrong on my understanding of the tabling system here I guess, but as far as I can surmise, if you get a massacre, you're placed on a top table, with someone of supposedly comparative or higher skill. Because good/exceptional players are more likely to achieve the scores necessary, they will be the ones at the top table, and you should definitely begin to encounter them by the second game of the second round. Therefore the two points you've made are pretty much mutually exclusive.

To conclude:-It is within the realms of mathematical possibility that a player could win the whole thing even though they're incompetent. But it's also mathematically possible I could win the lottery four weeks running. Both have infinitesimally small odds however, and are not really worth discussing.

So when you bring up such a piffling and irrelevant possibility in a discussion over a players list doing exceedingly well, people begin to wonder what your motives are for doing so. Critiquing a list is one thing. Mentioning the possibility someone could have done as well as them based on luck alone, and have been completely incompetent on the other hand......well, I guess the questionw ould be, why?

This possibility exists in any kind of tournament. It's taken for granted. However, due to the impossible odds, people don't mention it. Why did you feel the need to? You seem to feel that people are attacking you, and are playing the injured martyr, but what on earth possessed you to bring up this obscure possibility in the first place?

Witzkatz wrote:One thing about DarthDiggler's and Timmah's lists I noticed:

Timmah improved DarthDiggler's list mainly by identifying the "good" units - TH/SS/LC terminators, dakkapreds (for their price), LS typhoons - and then taking more of them. (Correct me if I'm wrong on this.) Because taking more good units instead of bad units makes a list better.

However, what I like about Warhammer 40,000 is the fact that it's not that easy to determine which units are good or bad, especially in an army context. Otherwise there wouldn't be huge discussions in the tactics forums about this or that weapon for this or that unit. DarthDiggler obviously did something right in not maximizing on units that are generally considered "good" (without a closer look at the rest of the army), but by taking units that are generally considered "not so good" (without a closer look at the rest of the army). However, it seems that by doing this, he creates a synergy for his army that equals or surpasses taking as many "good" units as possible. And this is something that a) can not be learned by looking at unit discussion on the interwebz

Noes! Teh interwebz is unmistakeable! <o>

Witzkatz wrote:
@Timmah: I was never heavily involved in MTG, but I heard that there were times where there were only two or three viable top-tier lists. When one steers away from the "tournaments apparently are played at a low skill level" viewpoint, one might see that there are more than two viable builds for winning tournaments in Wh40k, due to a wider range of possibilites in choosing an army, making a list, playing the game.
What I want to say is, saying DarthDiggler's list is "not as good as it could be" or "very improvable" etc. pp. because he didnt' maximize on units that are considered "good" in a vacuum might be a wrong way of thought.

I like the MtG analogy. I'd like to take it a little further. Competition in MtG tournaments is very tough, and decks need to extremely 'lean' to be able to compete. This means that whilst an MtG deck builder might have, say, a thousand cards which from to select the cards for his deck, only about, say, 150 of them are actually such that they MIGHT have a place in tournament deck. In Type 1 (or whatever it is called nowadays) where you have access to nearly all published MtG cards ever, the % is much lower, I'd say that only 1% of all the cards ever made qualify for a tournament deck. Now, this had a side effect on many Magic players, notably that they took what they considered "good" cards, and discarded rest as rubbish. After all, if you have two similar cards but one has a cheaper casting cost, why choose a worse one? This, as such, was not incorrect but it tended to 'railroad' players thoughts so you could only build a good deck from 'good' cards. In fact, this was not true, you could build a very powerful decks from common, "crappy" cards if you knew what you were doing and how to maintain the card advantage (which was, in reality, far more important than casting cost advantage, but at least when I played, few people realized it). They would not win big tournaments, but they WOULD trash most of the opponents who were playing with their 'uber' cards.

Where you saw this in effect was Sealed deck tournaments - lots of players who had learned from the almighty Interweb what were good cards and powerful builds, were totally at lost when they had to use cards which they had never used because they were so "crappy".

Basically, what you said about 40k units is true about MtG too. While one may be correct identifying what units are powerful, it does not necessarily mean one is able to understand WHY they are powerful. A Black Lotus is said to be most powerful MtG card made, but in itself it is totally useless. In fact, putting it into a deck which does not utilize its advantages to the maximum, might even be detrimental.

Backfire wrote:

I like the MtG analogy. I'd like to take it a little further. Competition in MtG tournaments is very tough, and decks need to extremely 'lean' to be able to compete. This means that whilst an MtG deck builder might have, say, a thousand cards which from to select the cards for his deck, only about, say, 150 of them are actually such that they MIGHT have a place in tournament deck. In Type 1 (or whatever it is called nowadays) where you have access to nearly all published MtG cards ever, the % is much lower, I'd say that only 1% of all the cards ever made qualify for a tournament deck. Now, this had a side effect on many Magic players, notably that they took what they considered "good" cards, and discarded rest as rubbish. After all, if you have two similar cards but one has a cheaper casting cost, why choose a worse one? This, as such, was not incorrect but it tended to 'railroad' players thoughts so you could only build a good deck from 'good' cards. In fact, this was not true, you could build a very powerful decks from common, "crappy" cards if you knew what you were doing and how to maintain the card advantage (which was, in reality, far more important than casting cost advantage, but at least when I played, few people realized it). They would not win big tournaments, but they WOULD trash most of the opponents who were playing with their 'uber' cards.

Where you saw this in effect was Sealed deck tournaments - lots of players who had learned from the almighty Interweb what were good cards and powerful builds, were totally at lost when they had to use cards which they had never used because they were so "crappy".

Basically, what you said about 40k units is true about MtG too. While one may be correct identifying what units are powerful, it does not necessarily mean one is able to understand WHY they are powerful. A Black Lotus is said to be most powerful MtG card made, but in itself it is totally useless. In fact, putting it into a deck which does not utilize its advantages to the maximum, might even be detrimental.

Very true to all of this. I will say one thing. If you were not playing the replacement cards for some of the best cards you were not going to compete at the highest levels. In fact a lot of the top decks only worked because of the efficiency of the best cards.

Also, in most formats there have always been multiple top tier decks as well as a ton of tier 2/3 decks that can easily win any given match depending on player skill/matchups.

Again at my list, it was more of a rough draft list than anything. Its not the actually 2500 pt list I would use with marines at this point level. I was merely trying to point out the benefits of maximizing your good/all around units.
Like if you get against a horde army with no vehicles, you are going to have spent 400 pts on 4 lascannons that you are not going be able to use effectively.
In my list every unit has a dual purpose. Which is one of the main reasons I do not like said list. A lot of his stuff, depending on his opponent, can lose a lot of usefulness.

DarthDiggler wrote:
This is Gardeths post and we've seemed to have taken it over for something else. I hope he doesn't mind, but that was why I sent it privately.

I have NO problem with this. I am actually enjoying this discussion as it is kind of playing out the conversation that played out in my head during and after our game Saturday (wow it seems like forever ago now.) My initial response to seeing your army was WTF?!?! Is this a relic from 4th ed? But the suprise turned into despair as I took in the seperate peices and brought them together as a whole and realized what was probably about to happen. Now I think if the mission had been Dawn of War or I had gotten to go first the game might have been a bit different, but still would have been a very tough matchup, BUT that didnt happen and I ate hot laser....

Now to speak to the level of competition. I consider myself a pretty damned good player. I have won my fair share of tournaments, not the least of which was my 'Ard Boyz Semi's, during which I drew some pretty bad matchups for me (Night fight all game vs Tau with all Blacksun filters WTF!) and still came out on top, and my dice weren't even that hot. Now in the 2nd round of the finals as you can see in my batrep, I was doing very well into the 2nd turn, however my dice turned on me. I can and have won games with bad dice before, BUT my opponent was a damn fine player with impeccable target priority and who kept the pressure on me in all the right places. As such I got a minor loss, where against a less skilled player, I would have very likely walked away with a win of some sort.

From my games and the games that I saw, I am willing to attest to the talent lvl of the people that where there.

gardeth wrote:

DarthDiggler wrote:
This is Gardeths post and we've seemed to have taken it over for something else. I hope he doesn't mind, but that was why I sent it privately.

I My initial response to seeing your army was WTF?!?! Is this a relic from 4th ed? But the suprise turned into despair as I took in the seperate peices and brought them together as a whole and realized what was probably about to happen.

What I like about the list isn't necessarily the amount of heavy weapons, but the amount of units that can fire them. Against armor 10 (DE) I have 16 different units that can fire at 16 different armor 10 vehicles to destroy them all at a range of 30" or more (razorbacks move 6" and fire 24"). That helps when a string of 1-2's come up. Against armor 12 the number drops to 14 different units that can shoot to kill armor 12. I see lists that take 9 Oblits and claim to have 9 lascannons. Most of the time I would take 9 different units with a lascannon than 3 units with 3. It increases the damage potential tremendously and helps to mitigate an enemy first turn depleting my own return fire. In my own IW list I find it hard not to take 5-man chosen squads with a lascannon just for this reason. I want more units that can shoot tanks as opposed to more anti-tank weapons. Does that make sense?

The versatility of having those tank hunting units on different platforms also is a plus. I have some that can more 12" and fire (or turboboost to get another shot next turn). Some on tanks and some on troops. I would be worried if all the anti-tank came from either all troops or all tanks. The rock-paper-scissors thing would rear it's ugly head. This way if someone takes predominately anti-tank weapons my troop will shoot almost every turn. If someone takes mostly anti-troop weapons my tanks live all game.

Wow, after everybody finally got off bashing Timmah, (which admittedly isn't hard to do, given the source I guess....) we finally have some good tactical discussion! Now people can actually benefit from reading this battle report and following the 'Ard Boyz tourney experience rather than just high fiving the winners!

whitedragon wrote:Wow, after everybody finally got off bashing Timmah, (which admittedly isn't hard to do, given the source I guess....) we finally have some good tactical discussion! Now people can actually benefit from reading this battle report and following the 'Ard Boyz tourney experience rather than just high fiving the winners!

I need to learn to not come across so angry in my first post in a thread.

Timmah wrote:

whitedragon wrote:Wow, after everybody finally got off bashing Timmah, (which admittedly isn't hard to do, given the source I guess....) we finally have some good tactical discussion! Now people can actually benefit from reading this battle report and following the 'Ard Boyz tourney experience rather than just high fiving the winners!

I need to learn to not come across so angry in my first post in a thread.

Won't help, we'll still all hate you

Mod:
That's out of line, Gardeth.

I think that was fairly tongue-in-cheek.

Thanks for the reply Darth,

I forgot to add to my question to keep it on topic (and Gardeth has already talked about it too) How do you think you would have faired specifically against Gardeth's DE in the Dawn of War set up?

The number of units missing a turn would have been a factor yes?

BeefyG wrote:Thanks for the reply Darth,

I forgot to add to my question to keep it on topic (and Gardeth has already talked about it too) How do you think you would have faired specifically against Gardeth's DE in the Dawn of War set up?

The number of units missing a turn would have been a factor yes?

I figure if I go first, then I'll get the first turn shooting with the lights on in daylight. I probably wouldn't have suffered much damage in the bottom of 1 because there are no searchlights in the webway. If I go second then I get to see where the DE deploy. He might deploy together in one spot or he might deploy spread out. If he's together I might deploy far away and force him to move again instead of shooting me in mass. If he spreads out I might concentrate in one spot against part of his army. It's really hard to say what would happen. There are lots of variables with terrain, mission, etc... I suspect everyone would miss a turn of shooting because of the nightfight, but we would start fresh on turn 2. Remember it is hard for the DE to shoot back at me on turn 1 because of the nightfight. If he starts with something on the board then he could be in range of my mobile heavy weapons when I come on board. Who knows what would have happened.


I should add that if none of this made sense, I blame the pregame party before the South Caroline/Old Miss game for that. Go Cocks!

So who DID win the finals, what army? I've been looking around the net and can't find it.

Go look at BoLS - I think they go into it all there.

Redbeard wrote:Go look at BoLS - I think they go into it all there.

Redbeard didn't post it so some jerk wouldn't complain about it.

Darkwynn and his IG army....mechdar was 2nd place, and space marines 3rd I believe..

Timmah wrote:
You're right I wasn't at chicago. Nothing I say is valid because of this. Because every great player is a great list builder and vice versa, same goes for terrible players and terrible list builders.

Why does everyone on here get so angry if you criticize someones list? You won/placed high because you played well. That doesn't mean your list is amazing and above criticism.

But why would you criticise it, if he wanted criticism he would have asked for it, and as there is othing terribly wrong with it, such as not taking extra armour with 10 pts left, there is no reason to go out of the way and voice your opinion. This was a batrep, and you turned it into a list discussion

MarkoftheRings wrote:

Timmah wrote:
You're right I wasn't at chicago. Nothing I say is valid because of this. Because every great player is a great list builder and vice versa, same goes for terrible players and terrible list builders.

Why does everyone on here get so angry if you criticize someones list? You won/placed high because you played well. That doesn't mean your list is amazing and above criticism.

But why would you criticise it, if he wanted criticism he would have asked for it, and as there is othing terribly wrong with it, such as not taking extra armour with 10 pts left, there is no reason to go out of the way and voice your opinion. This was a batrep, and you turned it into a list discussion

Different backgrounds. As I said I come from a different tournament gamer background. In any kind of post game discussion from games like MTG, lists and such are always scrutinized and commented on and discussed. It leads to better list building and such. I'm not really going to change who I am or how I handle tournament results just because I picked up a new game. Especially since I still see nothing wrong with it. (As I said, I do need to not come off as angry in my first posts. In case your wondering I'm never angry)

I already said that I find it odd that 40kers get kinda upset over doing this. In most games people are happy for an outside opinion of their own designs. They may not agree with said opinions but a 2nd look by an outside party is usually welcome.

@Timmah: I think your general idea of critizing the list to improve things whenever possible is a sound one, however, in this case...
(I don't write this in anger or some other negative mood, simply take it as a try to explain why you might have received some harsh return fire in this thread!)

...in this case we have a guy here who took fifth place in one of the hardest competitions available for 40k. He's actually in the thread. And you, from who (no offense!) we don't know anything about how he fares in tournaments, starts criticizing hist lists rather directly (maybe sounding angry, as you said).

You see, criticizing the top players in any kind of competitive sport or game has a long tradition. Take soccer fans. Here in Germany we like our soccer. In America maybe you can compare it to baseball or football from a popularity POV. Now, soccer fans gather around the TV, watch the game and meanwhile and after the game there's a lot of "Damn, if he just had flanked..." or "...little, TINY bit more speed there..." or "...should have just..." from these soccer fans. Who probably are mediocre at best at this sport, while a greater percentage might be unathletic beer-drinking armchair soccer managers.

Now, this behaviour is completely normal. However, if one of the top soccer players of the world cup would be present... I'm not sure these soccer fans would start their "This could've be done better" and "Look where you run your idiot" around this guy. Because they know, wow, this guy is a top ten player from the league...he probably knows what he does, he just won the cup game, while we were sitting there and just watching it.

Now, this was a bit longbreathed. What I wanted to say is, DarthDigglers made fifth place, with this list, that's a great reference for a) building good lists and b) being a good general. From you, we don't know how you fare in tournaments and what your references for being a good list builder and being a good general are. You just start arguing that his list could be vastly improved and that he would've lost against better opponents, and so on. This might be a reason why your efforts were taken with some sharp responses.

Keep in mind, I don't have any bad feelings towards you, I'm just trying to explain how I see the situation.

Postscriptum: I'm not saying you are a bad list builder or bad general. Maybe you are great at both. However, we don't know it, since we don't know if you won any tournaments or competitions.

+ 1 to above

MarkoftheRings wrote:+ 1 to above

-1 to above.

I think Timmah's criticism is more than fair, and I think that if the majority of posters here would stop leg-humping the winners, and if the 'Ard Boyz participants would maybe talk a little shop about what choices they made, it would easily explain why the list was so powerful and maybe why they won, or what tactics they used, kind of like an after action report. Then everybody benefits, because some of us can go to our local clubs and try some of this stuff out, or maybe just learn and become better players ourselves, and maybe catch a glimpse as to what makes a high caliber tournament player and dispel some of the rumors about "Net Decks".

I think we could all gain from such a discussion, much more than just posting, "Well he won, so it's magic!"

Of course he was a winner, that's the whole point, but what value is there in saying, "Well, DarthDiggler's list is really the best it can ever be, so there's no need to discuss it, dissect it, or even play it anymore, because it will never get any better or worse, and if you can't see that then you're dumb."

whitedragon wrote:

MarkoftheRings wrote:+ 1 to above

-1 to above.

I think Timmah's criticism is more than fair, and I think that if the majority of posters here would stop leg-humping the winners, and if the 'Ard Boyz participants would maybe talk a little shop about what choices they made, it would easily explain why the list was so powerful and maybe why they won, or what tactics they used, kind of like an after action report. Then everybody benefits, because some of us can go to our local clubs and try some of this stuff out, or maybe just learn and become better players ourselves, and maybe catch a glimpse as to what makes a high caliber tournament player and dispel some of the rumors about "Net Decks".

I think we could all gain from such a discussion, much more than just posting, "Well he won, so it's magic!"

Of course he was a winner, that's the whole point, but what value is there in saying, "Well, DarthDiggler's list is really the best it can ever be, so there's no need to discuss it, dissect it, or even play it anymore, because it will never get any better or worse, and if you can't see that then you're dumb."

Exactly. In 40k it really seems like people do this a lot. Saying, well he won, it must be good.

In hobbies like MTG that doesn't happen at all. People want to know why it won, and if its really good or just a good meta game call. Analyzing a list in MTG is never really saw as disrespect because its kinda assumed if the player got that high in a tournament that they are very good.

That being said, I do understand why people got a little angry over my discussion because it is a bit odd for this hobby at the moment. But that doesn't mean I am going to stop doing it.

I'm not at all angry about your discussion, Timmah. I just think that your critique was wrong.

That's not saying Darth's list is perfect. It is saying that the changes you proposed do not make it a better list, they make it a worse list.

Maybe they make it a better list for an unskilled player to use, as there is more repetition. Your list certainly takes less skill to play (oh, push the crusaders and assault terminators forwards...).

But to say it is a better list is wrong. And I've gone into why. You want to pack more of the same stuff into the list; stuff that is strong in many situations, but weak in some. And at an all-comers tournament, being weak against something invites the risk that you pull that opponent and go home with nothing.

This isn't MtG. In MtG you can predict what 90% of the field will be playing at any given tournament. You can even predict what sorts of decks you'll see in a draft tournament. You don't have that luxury in 40k. Therefore, loading up on stuff that's good against the top armies means that when (and I mean when, not if) you hit the weaker armies, you're left without the tools to deal with them.

Case-in-point - analyze what would have happened if you took your list, instead of Darth's, against Gardeth's Dark Eldar. You have less long-range shooting, so you don't get the early jump on him. You have more targets that are vulnerable to his dark lances. Gardeth is also an excellent player, he's going to take advantage of these things.

You could say, "well, that's just a bad draw" - but that's scrub mentality. Saying, 'I would have won if only I didn't have to play Dark Eldar' is blaming luck, instead of your own decisions, for not doing well. Darth has chosen not to do that. He's got a list that doesn't have a specifically bad matchup. And that's a strength too, one that you seem to be discounting.

I'm not going to say it's a perfect list. Maybe it can be improved. But it has synergy. It has resiliency. And, it doesn't fall apart when it has to face an army that's not known as top-tier. Perhaps improvements can be made - but for all this talk of post-game analysis, no one has yet made a suggestion that actually improves it...

That's not leg-humping. I'm not saying it's good cause he won. It's good because it has varied tools in it to deal with whatever army he may end up facing. Any improvements have to keep that in mind.

For the record, my list actually had more long range shooting in it. In my list (cause I added wrong because again, threw it together in 15 mins) with 2 predators with lascannon sponsons you get.

4 lascannon shots
12 missile shots (2 each from typhoons)
4 autocannon shots (8 more if you switch to rifleman dreads, which I would, but I didn't want to change his list too much)

vs

4 lascannon shots
6 missile shots
2 autocannon shots

How are you getting that it has more long range shooting again?

Again, I don't want to get into who's list is better. Mine was thrown together in 15 mins to show that I feel redundancy is good. So I really don't want to get into a discussion on which is better. I would much rather discuss the points I tried to bring up.

Especially since in a vacuum he made a couple of choices that most 40k players would say is wrong. (like only taking 1 land raider. Generally considered a bad idea)


Btw, Darklance shooting at AV 10 in cover has about a 10% chance of doing something.

Also, what if he came up against an army with a ton of anti infantry firepower. Obviously he is going to be more weak against that.

Timmah wrote:For the record, my list actually had more long range shooting in it.

Well skin me and run me up the mountain! Your list has more long range shooting?! Then clearly it is the best list! What an incredible list writing philosophy you have pioneered--take as much long-range shooting as possible.

Yes more shots, but at fewer targets, and, as I can personally attest to, its HARD to get skimmers into cover....

Looking back at that game, the only thing I could have really done different that might have given me a chance would have been to hold the majority of my army in reserve. That way as it came on I would have been closer to part of his fire base. But even, half of his army would have been beyond my reach and free to take my objective. My army is never going to beat Darth's in the shooting game but rather in hand to hand, which of course means I have to get rid of the dreads and transports rather quickly....and the damned Null Zone librarian so my wyches don't just die in cc... Dammit Darth....

@Timmah and whitedragon: There is a difference between leg-humping and acknowledging that DarthDiggler's list has some very nice points.

And there is a difference between criticizing a list with "X might work better" and "Y could give you advantages against Z, which might have been a problem before" and "for mission D, some F units would be nice" ...

...and saying "This list could be improved, here, I show you how it's done, this is better because I and internet theoryhammer say so."

Just to underline my point, no hard feelings.

olympia wrote:

Timmah wrote:For the record, my list actually had more long range shooting in it.

Well skin me and run me up the mountain! Your list has more long range shooting?! Then clearly it is the best list! What an incredible list writing philosophy you have pioneered--take as much long-range shooting as possible.

Thanks for coming into the thread, reading the last post and making a comment that doesn't really mean anything.

Timmah -

When I consider long range firepower I don't count the number of weapons, I count the number of units that can fire those wepons. It is better, IMO, to have 9 different units with lascannons that 3 units with 3. That way I can shoot at 9 different targets and it mitigates my opponents ability to block LOS to the anti-tank weapons since there are more of them.

By turn 2-3 the dreads, LR, razorbacks and attack bikes are now threatening tanks at range with MM's and assault cannons. This increases the anti-tank firepower from 8 different units to 14. The number of anti-tank weapons doesn't matter as much as the number of units which can employ them.

Take your list. I don't mean to single it out because you put it together quickly, but I've seen those typhoon configurations before. 3 enemy units with multiple shots, say Oblits, Dev's Warwalkers, etc.. Just 3 of them could cripple the Typhoon squadrons in one volley of fire. 3 enemy units could eliminate 12 missile shots and 60% of your long range anti-tank fire. I prefer to the peace of mind knowing that losing 3 units in my list will not cripple my anti-tank firepower. That is a huge advantage built into the list.

I also subscribe to the 40k tenant that anti-tank should be in troops (dev's to) and anti-troop should be on tanks. Anti-tank in troops help keep the armor killing weapons alive long enough to take down their targets. Anti-troop weapons on tanks give me the mobility to keep out of range of assaults as I pepper the troops with weapons. This is not a hard fast rule, but just something to consider.

As for an enemy army with lots of anti-troop shooting, I do have 6 vehicles (not counting the one speeder) which can shield or act with impunity if that is the case. I imagine you are talking about a list with lots of sonic weapons or Eldar with Dire Avengers + Warp Spiders.

Very true Darth. Good points in there.

I guess I just don't like how marines do anti tank in infantry. Its usually more expensive that way. 90 points for 1 lascannon isn't all that good when I can get a twin linked lascannon on a pred for the same price.

Yes vehicles can and sometimes do get unlucky and your opponent just rolls way too good.

My ideas obviously use movement to deny cover instead of mass of units in different areas to deny cover from some shots.

I also still have a lot of the close range fire, albeit not in assault cannons. But in marines with MM's, typhoons still have HB's. The lone landraider. And the dreads.

I still have a solid amount of shooting options. 5 options and each one should at least do something to its target. Yes, with each of your anti tank weapons all firing independently, you can get lucky and get to fire more into a different unit. But in all reality how many times does that happen?

My guess would be that you end up shooting 2-3 of those squads at the same thing anyways.

Timmah wrote:
Yes, with each of your anti tank weapons all firing independently, you can get lucky and get to fire more into a different unit. But in all reality how many times does that happen?

1 too many times for my liking.....

Timmah wrote:
I guess I just don't like how marines do anti tank in infantry. Its usually more expensive that way. 90 points for 1 lascannon isn't all that good when I can get a twin linked lascannon on a pred for the same price.

But it's not 90 points for 1 lascannon. It's 90 points for a 5 man scoring unit that happen to have a lascannon with them, but that also have 5 wounds and 4 bolters, and that, in KP missions, can be rolled together with another 5 man unit to deny opponents a KP.

The whole concept of the tactical squad is that they're given the equipment to handle all sorts of situations. Those predators you're buying don't help you a great deal against an ork mob. They can give up an easy KP to anything with an anti-tank gun.

I think that synergy and tactical flexibility are ignored, far too often, in discussions like this, in favour of raw number crunching that looks at each element separately. And maybe that's because the average player derives little benefit from them. Far too often I've seen average players combat-squad guys in KP missions, or not combat-squad them in objective missions. I've seen people hang back with a full squad of 10 men to get a lascannon shot on a tank when they could have advanced and used their bolters to devastate a unit that is going to assault them the next turn, because the player locks into the mindset of 'I have a lascannon, I should fire it at something'.

Yes, with each of your anti tank weapons all firing independently, you can get lucky and get to fire more into a different unit. But in all reality how many times does that happen?

My guess would be that you end up shooting 2-3 of those squads at the same thing anyways.

A good general puts himself in position to get lucky. It's like the old joke, where the guy asks god to let him win the lottery week after week, until finally God says, 'help me out a little, at least buy a ticket'. If you're not giving yourself the opportunity to have things go your way, then they never will.

Well if you consider the marines will only get a lascannon shot off first turn, single shots next turn and rapid fire shots on the 3rd turn against and ork horde. They actually do less damage to said horde than a predator with autocannon and lascannon x2.

Now, if we get a dakka pred or dakka pred w/TL auto cannon. We now have a unit that functions better against both.

They both have their advantages/weaknesses against certain units obviously. And with new wound allocation rules, if your squad takes 5 wounds from shooting, easy enough to do, you have a 33% chance of losing your lascannon.

Yes, your squad can score, but in 1 mission its actually bad to combat squad, and in 1 its not really all that necessary.

I also feel the order you take your shots is very important. This goes hand in hand with having as mant different units to shoot with as possible. I always try to shoot with units that have only one shot or only one target to shoot at. I don't want to blow up that tank and have a unit not be able to shoot anything so I pick the units that have one shot first. Sometimes I don't need to blow something up, sometimes just stunning it or immobilising it is good enough for that turn. If I can have as many units as possible to fire with I can then spread out the damage over more of my enemy. I might not want to do that every time though as a squadron wold suffer more if one unit with multiple weapons were to shoot at it than 4 units with one weapon. The 4-missile Dev's and the MM attack bikes give me that option.

I also agree with Redbeard. I don't look at it as 90pts for one lascannon. There are some games were the Lascannon won't do anything and for those games I have bolters, krak grenades and close combat attacks. I'm not always looking for the best possible unit to do the job, I'm looking for the unit(s) that can do the most jobs. Just give me a chance vs. anything. That's what I want my units to be able to do, give me a chance vs. anything. I don't need something that is superior in one aspect of the game, but can't do anything else. Jack of all trades, master of none. That's the key to victory in the long term, IMO.

You're right about a lot of those points.

But you see where I'm going with this. Every change you make is a trade-off. And, none of the units Darth took were trash - they all did something specific. I mean, it's not like we're saying he should cut his vanguard, right? Trading out attack bikes for typhoons cuts out the opportunity to assault with an attack bike.

Your list has 10 less scoring models than Darth's. That's a trade-off. You may believe that 30 marines are enough scoring models in 2500 point army - but if that change prevents you from getting a massacre (because a mission requires you to hold two more objectives than your opponent, or something), then that trade-off was not wise.

Each change needs to be justified - and before long, you've made so many changes that it no long even remotely looks like the original, as you're constantly tweaking something else to address the deficiency introduced by the last tweak.




BTW: The list you posted (which, by your own admission was a quickly thrown-together one) was 25 points over, and didn't include lascannon sponsons, so you need to cut something else from that list to get those four lascannons in it. Again, another trade-off.

Timmah wrote:
Yes, your squad can score, but in 1 mission its actually bad to combat squad, and in 1 its not really all that necessary.

Ahhh.. this is a regional thing. Around Chicago we have been playing the 3-tiered objectives for battle points for a long time. We even add in 2-4 battle point modifiers with it. These objectives can be all sorts of things and you must be prepared for lot of stuff to happen. I will admit this has always been a strong influence on list making. Anyone familiar with Adepticon scenarios will know about the 3-tiers objective scoring system with BP modifiers.

Well the thing is with even 30 marines. That should still be enough to claim objectives because you can still combat squad if necessary.

I just feel that marines (as well as most troops) not in transports get shot up really really fast. I would be interested to see how well your list would do against a min/maxed IG list. I think the way you have built your list, you do really have good matchups against stuff like armies that function like DE. Armies that need to get their armies close in using transports.

I would guess you would also have a good shot against any elite style army like most Lash chaos lists or any list build specifically against mech.

Where I think you would have trouble would be against any very balanced mech list, that can either throw out a ton of anti tank or anti infantry. Also, I am not going to jump to conclusions, but I am guessing you would have trouble with a lot of orks lists as well.

Timmah wrote:but I am guessing you would have trouble with a lot of orks lists as well.

I'm looking over his list trying to figure this out, and I'm imagining the quantity of assault cannons in there...

Granted, rending is a little wasted on ork boyz, however, 4 shots from each razorback, 4 more shots from the land raider (these are all twin linked) four frag missiles, and then the predator, and I haven't even added in the thunderfire cannon yet!

IIRC, the TFC can make a unit move as if through difficult terrain, so that's great for slowing down horde orks or the infamous nob biker gang. (and for nob bikers, there's enough lascannons in there to make any nob cringe. Edit: oh right, and krak missiles )

Timmah wrote:In hobbies like MTG that doesn't happen at all. People want to know why it won, and if its really good or just a good meta game call. Analyzing a list in MTG is never really saw as disrespect because its kinda assumed if the player got that high in a tournament that they are very good.

That being said, I do understand why people got a little angry over my discussion because it is a bit odd for this hobby at the moment. But that doesn't mean I am going to stop doing it.

Although this comment is a bit late in the thread (since I have not been actively reading this week) I will mention what I feel is the key difference between tournament play in something like Magic and most, if not all, Miniature games. I will note, I used to be a tournament MTG player ages ago, and have followed the game, but not actively played up through M10 because frankly, I prefer spending my money on my minis!

Now in both games (lets speak specifically of 40K vs MTG here) you have several decks/lists which you can expect and will see at any major tournament. They are well known builds which have circulated via the lovely tool of the internet. Sure, I will admit 40K has a bit more variance rather than 8 clones of the same deck in one tourney, but think a bit more broad reaching for now. Here is the key: MTG is essentially a game of a win condition. "If I draw combo X by turn Y I will win." Most tournament decks work in this fashion, there is not much jockeying for that last minute contest or kill, most games come down to which deck gets it's appropriate win condition first. Great examples are the age old Channel/Fireball, Juzam Djinn and similar well known or more recent, practically legendary tournament decks.

In 40K there is rarely the true "win condition." Most well balanced, truly upper tier tournament armies are amazing, but can and will be beat if the player does not also execute sound strategy. Aside from being really dumb like not untapping lands or some such, its hard to truly see that in MTG, but in 40K its far more common to make mistakes which can/will cost you a game. I've made plenty of them in the 14 years I played this game, I am sure everyone has.

Now, this being an aside, what you do not see in MTG, but you will see far more often in 40K and similar mini games is the use of a list which on the outside may not seem amazing, but is still solid, up until you see the player actually run said list. Many players find their appropriate synergy with a list and play style that makes a list which may be less known, far more effective as it fits them.

I agree with Timmah to a point that finding the tactica behind many tournament successful lists is intriguing as it improves the play of many people across the world that play 40K. Regardless, kudos to Darth for his win, its a shame GW dropped the prize support ball this year, but heavy congratulations are in order for making the far less expected army to win 'Ard Boyz pull it off. I frankly had my money on one of the DE builds as I have seen their power and the WA state semi-final winner has been playing them for ages. He was the guy who got hosed on table 1, 3rd round of last year's 'Ard Boyz because of that whole Chaos Demons being deployed fiasco.

My two centavos there, take it how you like and keep rolling dice folks.

Bentley wrote:
Although this comment is a bit late in the thread (since I have not been actively reading this week) I will mention what I feel is the key difference between tournament play in something like Magic and most, if not all, Miniature games. I will note, I used to be a tournament MTG player ages ago, and have followed the game, but not actively played up through M10 because frankly, I prefer spending my money on my minis!

Now in both games (lets speak specifically of 40K vs MTG here) you have several decks/lists which you can expect and will see at any major tournament. They are well known builds which have circulated via the lovely tool of the internet. Sure, I will admit 40K has a bit more variance rather than 8 clones of the same deck in one tourney, but think a bit more broad reaching for now. Here is the key: MTG is essentially a game of a win condition. "If I draw combo X by turn Y I will win." Most tournament decks work in this fashion, there is not much jockeying for that last minute contest or kill, most games come down to which deck gets it's appropriate win condition first. Great examples are the age old Channel/Fireball, Juzam Djinn and similar well known or more recent, practically legendary tournament decks.

In 40K there is rarely the true "win condition." Most well balanced, truly upper tier tournament armies are amazing, but can and will be beat if the player does not also execute sound strategy. Aside from being really dumb like not untapping lands or some such, its hard to truly see that in MTG, but in 40K its far more common to make mistakes which can/will cost you a game. I've made plenty of them in the 14 years I played this game, I am sure everyone has.

Now, this being an aside, what you do not see in MTG, but you will see far more often in 40K and similar mini games is the use of a list which on the outside may not seem amazing, but is still solid, up until you see the player actually run said list. Many players find their appropriate synergy with a list and play style that makes a list which may be less known, far more effective as it fits them.

Sorry but I have to disagree with most of it. In MTG there is a ton of jockeying for position especially in the late game. You don't just find a card that says "I win" and play it. The game has evolved a lot since you have played I would guess and it is a lot different than the old channel/fireball tactics of old.

There are also a ton of mistakes that you can make in MTG, it isn't just draw my cards, play my spells anymore. Much like 40k, mistakes usually aren't very evident. Which is why the community breaks things down after the fact. So that you do see what you did wrong and how to improve. Most of the time, when you lose at any game, it always involves mistakes. Many of these might be very subtle but they are there. (obviously somethings are beyond your control, like terrible draws, matchups, your opponents rolling 6's 90% of the time)

MTG is the same way as 40k. You find a deck/army list that fits your playstyle and play the heck out of it. I should know, I played, what was considered, a barely passable tier 3 deck that pretty much never showed up at tournaments. I knew it was a bad decklist, but I knew it inside and out and knew what I needed to do to win against any other deck. And because it fit my playstyle I was able to do very well with it, winning/placing high in a large amount of events.

At least Timmah has provoked several posts about the why of units in listbuilding, and some about actual in-game tactics. Normally a newbie like me doesn't get to see so much usefull info, all in one thread.

Nivoglibina wrote:At least Timmah has provoked several posts about the why of units in listbuilding, and some about actual in-game tactics. Normally a newbie like me doesn't get to see so much usefull info, all in one thread.

Yes he does deserve credit for that. I'm not sure if that was his ultimate plan or not, but he got me to talk about my list for the first time in years. Normally I never say anything about my own top lists for national security reasons. IMO if people start taking a longer look at versatility, flexibility and synergy in their lists (which has to come from playtesting and not numbers crunching) I think there will be much better lists for the next Ard Boyz. For selfish reasons I'm not interested in seeing better lists until round 3, of course. The next Ard Boyz tournament is in springtime so it will be here before you know it.

I see the merits in Timmah's use of preds and Redbeard's use of tacticals.

I agree with Darth that it is a regional thing as I have been to Chicago and played in Adepticon 3 years and with the multi-objective missions, they force an army to balance between troops and non-troops as well as adding mobility.

But I do understand the philosophy of Timmah's list. His style is one of blast the enemy and mop up later with scoring units or go for tabling your opponent. I dont know the mission sets that Timmah has to play so I cannot comment further on his army selection.

@ Timmah, alot of posters on dakka dont usually take advice lightly from people they dont know at first and I hate to say it but winning a few GTs or placing in the top 10 in multiple national events helps in building credibility with many posters here on dakka.

Oh man, I would just like to thank Timmeh for his stirring up of useful discussion no matter what I or anyone else may think of his reasoning.

first post on DakkaDakka, this thread was worth signing up for.

MTG: Many of my good friends are top tier MTG pros at this point, we do much playtesting/drafting ect. I run a store, and events, but I have given up putting the effort into seriously traveling/buying card for magic, so I'm not on that circuit. The MTG referances are widely off base, but their core point remains valid. Magic is in no way a game about combo, there hasn't been a successful combo deck in many years (TEPS had one tournament and failed to perform for the remainder of a season...but I digress).

-Magic decks are 60 cards, they are comprised of 2 primary elements. Reducing randomness (mana base/redundancy), and having the most general power in forcing your game on your opponent. The sideboard is for targeted options. In 40k we do not play 2/3 with 500 points of list that can be swapped out.

So as competitive games go, obviously having more power, and keeping it longer is to your advantage. As is reducing randomness in a game with lots of dice. If you play a large number of games, bad things will happen, dice will go sour ect. good things will also happen, minimizing the first and maximizing the 2nd are primary elements to quality play/list building.

On these elements lets point out armor VS wounds.
10% is the stated chance to kill armor 10 in cover with a dark lance. lets math this out quickly.
Chance to hit: 66%, Chance to save 50%, chance to pen 66%, chance to glance 16.6%.
Chance to roll on the damage table = 33%, chance to pen = 21.78%, so we have a 7.19% chance to destroy the vehicle, a 3.62% chance of immobilizing. 3.62% chance of destroying a weapon and and 7.19%% chance of negating the next turn of shooting. 14.38% chance of preventing a turn of shooting out of that vehicle

that same dark lance against a 5-man tact squad has a 27.5% chance of killing a marine in cover, and 0% chance of removing the las-cannon or preventing it's shot on the next turn. this is a perfect example of minimizing randomness. while tanks maximize it (also, you lose more shots when the tank dies.)

Precurser: @timmeh, make a list, make it legal, make your changes. outline in detail all of them, I think this thread warrants the effort.
Goals in tournament lists
- Reduction of randomness
- ability to maintain your full power as long as possible.

Darth's List:
Pros: Lots of versatile weaponry, multi-targeting options (more units), more wounds.
Cons: Less armor, less total tank-busting shots, smaller units (wound allocation can be a bitch)
This list has versatility, and it's fairly difficult to remove shots from the "big guns" this is what Gardeth was having difficulties with, it's extremely difficult to take out all those marines and get rid of the las-cannons/missile launchers, basically making it nearly impossible to "get lucky" and get back in a game from a disadvantageous position buy hitting those 10% outs on a couple tanks.

Darth's list also has the double-edged sword of small units. Small units are excellent against units like dire avengers or anything with flamers, because the massive fire-power of those units is often going to be over-kill and thus "wasted" points/shots for the other army. however if 5 wounds are done to a 5-man tact squad and you fail the wrong couple saves, you have 2-3 under whelming marines that are not much of a threat by themselves.

Darth has fewer shots than some of the mathematically "better" options, his termie squad is also less resilient and less scary (shear volume of attacks is more and more powerful against fewer termies, but 2 termies aren't scary to a lot of armies, they simply don't do enough damage so that unit is much more easily weakened/negated)

maximizing advantages. we have discussed how well darth's army prevents lucky lasers from ruining him, not lets discuss what his lucky lasers are capable of. Dice get hot it happens, it's part of statistics, reduction to the mean will happen, but abnormalities WILL occur, especially over 18 turns of rolling multiple dice . Darth's list does an excellent job of having the ability to target more units in case the dice are on fire.

Timmeh's List:
Pros: Excellent redundancy, lots of weapons for the points, statistically harder to finish off his targets. Minimizes bad dice by having superior shots.
Cons: More randomness (tanks can get unluckily exploded), more focus'd fire, takes less advantage of "hot rolls"

Timmeh's list works differently, it has harder to remove/negate units (getting the KP for the tanks is harder than keeping them from shooting), a large/resilient power unit (in the 10-man termies), but suffers more from your opponent "getting lucky", or simply having enough good anti-tank shots to keep timmeh's tanks from squeezing off some big lasers.

Without more information on timmeh's list, IE it being legal I can't really go into much more detail.

Armies reduce randomness in different ways, gardeth's list simply had near infinite redundancy so he was pretty much always guaranteed to have the same options available which is important for dark eldar, because they are squishy.

I don't think that we should automatically accept a list as "good" simply because it did well, but I think we should take ourselves out of our paradigms, think about the list, consider the problems it can cause, consider options in dealing with it and probably even test it a couple games (played as and against) before declaring anything about it.

-I have played a ton of CCGs seen a ton of decklists ect.

Play the list in its original form, understand it a little before making changes, cards/units you may not like on paper may just work in that list

- Riz

Now that thats all said and done...any comments on my list??

Certainly.

Not a huge DE player so not entirely positive.

Things that strike me as odd.

No shredders.
Warrior squad on foot. (seems like you would want to max out on raiders)
No slave snares.

Maybe you could list your reasons for some of these.
Also it seems like DE don't really scale all that well to 2500. Since all you can really do is add troops to your squads, since you can max out on raiders at 2k pts.

DE scale best around 1500-1750 anything more and its extra troops and wargear.

Btw I can fit in 14-16 lance weapons in 1500

Timmah wrote:Warrior squad on foot. (seems like you would want to max out on raiders)

Just speculating, but a local player uses a warrior squad on foot because they can take more weapons, 2x Dark Lances and 2x Blasters, vice a raider squad. He then takes a 5 man raider squad with a dark lance, and sits the unit in cover with the dark lance, and then first turn has the regular warrior squad mount up in the raider.

The validity of such a tactic escapes me, since I would think you'd want everybody to start mounted, but I could be wrong.

Timmah wrote:Certainly.

Not a huge DE player so not entirely positive.

Things that strike me as odd.

No shredders.
Warrior squad on foot. (seems like you would want to max out on raiders)
No slave snares.

Maybe you could list your reasons for some of these.
Also it seems like DE don't really scale all that well to 2500. Since all you can really do is add troops to your squads, since you can max out on raiders at 2k pts.

Well I ran out of raiders :( (though they have done an amazing job of holding objectives and baiting units). But in my experience shredders are not worth their points when I have that many wyches out there, and with all my ravagers have tri-dissies I need the extra anti-armor of the blasters. Slave snares are total hookum, it forces you to put your raiders where they have not business going, instead of staying alive and perserving killpoints or threatening objectives.

And your are dead on about DE not scaling well at 2500 points I run 1 less vehicle at 1850. I really wish we had some good fast attack options. But then again, its why I love running Dark Eldar, they are a real challange to run and you have to do alot of things right to win at a competitive level.

Darth, what place were you in at the Hard Boy?

EDIT: and what was your record?

Augustus wrote:Darth, what place were you in at the Hard Boy?

EDIT: and what was your record?

I finished 5th this year and went 2-0-1 at the finals. My tie against you in the opening round sent us both to the middle of the pack. You finished 10th right?

Ahh, I figured you were the paper storm shield guy! I'm a little surprised to see you in a post talking this army up, so I had to jump in.

...if you think my list is bunk that is fine by me. I would actually prefer that people pay it no mind and think it's something they could role right over. If that's your opinion I'm ok with that.

I am glad I get to burst this bubble. I took a Mechdar list (similar to the one that got second) and I rolled over this list.

I'm surprised you're list got that far. I agree with Timmah, that list isn't very focused. It's also just another directionless vanilla marine list.

Lets be honest, I had more KP than you did in round one and without the Hardboy "day of" KP changes (2 for HS, E, and FA and 3 for HQs), you would have gone to the bottom of the pack, not the middle. Why? Because that unfocused list didn't out shoot or outfight Eldar with a massive KP handicap. By the core rules, you lost game one too, not tied, and with fewer KP in the list even by hardboy rules.

This is a judgement on the list, not the player here.

Augustus wrote:Ahh, I figured you were the paper storm shield guy! I'm a little surprised to see you in a post talking this army up, so I had to jump in.

...if you think my list is bunk that is fine by me. I would actually prefer that people pay it no mind and think it's something they could role right over. If that's your opinion I'm ok with that.

I am glad I get to burst this bubble. I took a Mechdar list (similar to the one that got second) and I rolled over this list.

I'm surprised you're list got that far. I agree with Timmah, that list isn't very focused. It's also just another directionless vanilla marine list.

Lets be honest, I had more KP than you did in round one and without the Hardboy "day of" KP changes (2 for HS, E, and FA and 3 for HQs), you would have gone to the bottom of the pack, not the middle. Why? Because that unfocused list didn't out shoot or outfight Eldar with a massive KP handicap. By the core rules, you lost game one too, not tied, and with fewer KP in the list even by hardboy rules.

This is a judgement on the list, not the player here.

Its also coming off as quite bitter.

Hey! I'm the only one allowed to be bitter in this thread!

Dammit did we just start over again??

OK, how about a redirect?

...DE not scaling well at 2500 points I run 1 less vehicle at 1850. I really wish we had some good fast attack options. But then again, its why I love running Dark Eldar, they are a real challange to run and you have to do alot of things right to win at a competitive level.

I was surprised to even see DE at the finals. I was certain they would be relegated to Necron like status along with Tyranids, and possibly Tau as well.

How anyone made it to the finals with armies with such obvious issues in their outdated codex amazes me.

I do have some signifcant respect for the darklance, and for DE assault ranges, but they are so morale vulnerable, and squishy, and honestly in trouble in strait up fights...

Were you the only DE player in Chicago?

Augustus, I already made fun of Darth's list. :p

We moved onto discussing Gardeth's list (the DE one)


Btw, DE are actually a very strong army in the hands of the right person. But they do scale horribly up to 2500.
I really am not that surprised to see one that high.

Think so?

I don't think DE are strong at all.

I actually think they are pretty similar to Mech Eldar. Essentially what you trade is the transports ability for the infantry close combat power, and it just plays out pretty poorly.

Here's why DE are not strong:

(1) No morale solution
(2) No tanks
(3) Paper thin infantry
(4) Paper thin vehicles

I also think their presence and performance at the finals is in line with this view.

EDIT:

(5) To many obvious stinkers in the codex

Augustus wrote: I took a Mechdar list (similar to the one that got second) and I rolled over this list.

I'm surprised you're list got that far.

The rolling you speak of was 11 battle points for me and only 10 battle points for you. If you think 'technically' losing to me by 1pt a rolling for you, then you rolled me.

If you read this thread I never wanted to get into it about my army. I stayed quiet for quite a long time. I told everyone if they don't like my list then pay it no mind. I hope you do wonder how it works and you shouldn't give it a second thought. In our game I managed to put 4 penetrating hits on the Seer Council Wave Serpent which resulted in 4 rolls of 1. The serpent got into my lines, what could I do. It's a dice game. In my 3rd game against Gardeth all those penetrating hits turned into 5's and 6's. By game 3 my rolls had turned, that's the nature of the beast.

...

DarthDiggler wrote:

BeefyG wrote:
I too would like to follow up a great question that hasn't been answered about the TFC in dawn of war missions. How does the army play out in dawn of war missions generally? Is this one of those times that the few key dice rolls really affect the armies performance?

I had sent the answer to the poster in a PM. This is Gardeths post and we've seemed to have taken it over for something else. I hope he doesn't mind, but that was why I sent it privately.

So I'm thread jacking to talk up my own list huh? Did you miss this? Did you miss the 16 posts about my army before I said anything and there were 40+ posts from other people about my list before I even got a chance to say the words I typed above. Once again I hope you feel the list is bunk. I hope, I wish, I plead on my knees please think this list is weak and I only lucked out to get as far as I did. In fact I agree with you Augustus. It's no good and I just had some strings of hit dice rolling over a few months. I don't really care what people think about it. I did find your rantings about having to have painted models in the Ard Boyz amusing though. You didn't start that in our game until after it appeared you weren't going to walk all over me.

Augustus wrote:Think so?

I don't think DE are strong at all.

I actually think they are pretty similar to Mech Eldar. Essentially what you trade is the transports ability for the infantry close combat power, and it just plays out pretty poorly.

Here's why DE are not strong:

(1) No morale solution
(2) No tanks
(3) Paper thin infantry
(4) Paper thin vehicles

I also think their presence and performance at the finals is in line with this view.

EDIT:

(5) To many obvious stinkers in the codex

Tell that to the DE guy who almost won ard boyz last year or to Stelek. Its a mechdar army that sacrifices survivability for killing power.

Augustus wrote:
Here's why DE are not strong:

(1) No morale solution
(2) No tanks
(3) Paper thin infantry
(4) Paper thin vehicles
...
(5) To many obvious stinkers in the codex

I disagree. While these are valid points, many armies have these problems, but they have ways around them.

Dark Eldar Raider squads stay in their raiders until they jump out, and most of the time this gives them the ability to jump on week enemies where they are likely to win combat and run them down. Its a decent answer to the leadership question (however it does still cause problems, like that critical rundown in the battle report itself )

Points 2,3, and 4 are related, and the solution for DE is to field LOTS of paper thin vehicles, and each vehicle comes with a lance weapon, and each squad inside carries a lance weapon (which they can shoot out). As one of my friends told me once "They are Glass Sledgehammers, if you can get them to live long enough they will massacre their enemy....but they break easy" But most armies have a huge problem trying to gun down that many raiders....not all though. (lots of hydras and (as was exemplified) lots of lascannons or a trio of Rifleman dreads could probably knock down a Dark Eldar list pretty well)

.....and which obvious stinkers do you mean?

I mean:

Skyboard Riders (?)
Warp Beasts and Handlers
Talos
Shadow Skin guys
Grotesques
Scourges


Automatically Appended Next Post:

thehod wrote:Its a mechdar army that sacrifices survivability for killing power.

Indeed, and that's a bad call when you need your troop choices to stay alive. I still think DE are in the bottom.

Also a raider is nigh un hideable in TLOS land (especially at the Hardboy where terrain was light) and it leads to od discussions of what fins are hulls...

thehod wrote:

Tell that to the DE guy who almost won ard boyz last year or to Stelek. Its a mechdar army that sacrifices survivability for killing power.

agreed...

but it is more about the player.

frgsinwntr wrote:

but it is more about the player.

It is always about the player. I cant agree with you more.

Sorry for the high-jacking, on to Gardeth's list. I like this list quite a bit.
Lots of redundancy, but for "paper" units that is important, as some of them will die. not much you can do about it, they are a dying race because they haven't figured out how to make good armor.

Ok so Gardeth has tons of lances, and extreme maneuverability, wyches are excellent combat troops, and that's part of the plan, gotta throw someone in there.

My only problem with the list is a lack of Drug dispensers, at least on the Dracon, the bonuses you can get are worth the risk, and sometimes you need it to get there. if you need 3 drugs to win that turn you just have to hope, but getting to choose the drug every turn is totally worth it weight in gold IMO.

My experience is fairly limited with dark eldar, so beyond that I can't really say much. Your list has all the elements of a tournament quality list, nothing majorly lacking, frankly it's pretty much the one list style that works with DE, which is the primary problem with the army, people just know how to beat it nowadays. it's been the same army for 15 years...people know what to expect.

Sick 'im, Bri! lol

Riz wrote:
My only problem with the list is a lack of Drug dispensers, at least on the Dracon, the bonuses you can get are worth the risk, and sometimes you need it to get there. if you need 3 drugs to win that turn you just have to hope, but getting to choose the drug every turn is totally worth it weight in gold IMO.

Ug i honestly hate taking drug dispensers on any model without 3 wounds. Mainly because after you take 1 wound you can really only take a single drug going forward, and 25 points is alot to pay for 1 drug option a round.

#1. Augustus, you have made your thoughts known about Dark Eldar for a while. Do we need to set up another grudge match with Xtapl?

#2. Yes, most of the units in the Dark Eldar Codex are crap. That is why no one uses them and only uses the good stuff.

#3. The army that won in my regional’s (Phoenix) were Dark Eldar as well. There were other DE armies that qualified, but you are just seeing the people that made it to Chicago. I think that if you break down the entrants by the army, I think that you will find that the DE did the best on a percentage basis.

#4. I like Darth’s army because he uses my play style which is a shooting army that can counter almost any army. To put it into boxing terms, it is a counter-puncher. It does not go out there and dominate one phase of the game, but it is able to counter the top builds. When I played similar armies against Mechdar in the ‘Ard Boys finals it’s just a matter of luck of whether or not you can get the rolls to knock down wave serpents (I always roll bad against tanks…it is my curse).

but it's 2 drugs until you roll doubles, and that is worth it all the time. I'm not saying throw it on Succy's, but I like it on the Dracon...but you have a lot more experience with the army

I'm pretty sure the main issue with your list is that you were 500 points above where the army shines, and you ran out of raiders :-/.

I'm on the fence on web-way portals, I feel like you always want to have everything going asap, and you're fast enough to not need the portals, but many good players disagree with me and say that 1-2 portals is essential to the army.

To add fuel to the fire, DE came in 3rd in Florida's Semi-finals.

Riz wrote:but it's 2 drugs until you roll doubles, and that is worth it all the time. I'm not saying throw it on Succy's, but I like it on the Dracon...but you have a lot more experience with the army

I'm pretty sure the main issue with your list is that you were 500 points above where the army shines, and you ran out of raiders :-/.

I'm on the fence on web-way portals, I feel like you always want to have everything going asap, and you're fast enough to not need the portals, but many good players disagree with me and say that 1-2 portals is essential to the army.

Honestly, the more I think about it, the more I am inclined to try giving the dracite a drug dispenser, just need to be more conservative then I am with my archon.

As far as Webway Portals go, they are dead and gone. I used them with great success in 4th ed. The only time they really work anymore is if your opponent doesn't know what they are/do. Its just to hard to hid the portal carriers and not to mention the fact that you could potentially have 1 less round to get things done after the portal goes down.

Blackmoor wrote:#1. Augustus, you have made your thoughts known about Dark Eldar for a while. Do we need to set up another grudge match with Xtapl?

So I can win again?

Blackmoor wrote:#2. Yes, most of the units in the Dark Eldar Codex are crap. That is why no one uses them and only uses the good stuff.

Of course, it needs a redux, lets hope. Obviously no one rushed to defend those units.

Blackmoor wrote:#3. The army that won in my regional’s (Phoenix) were Dark Eldar as well. There were other DE armies that qualified, but you are just seeing the people that made it to Chicago. I think that if you break down the entrants by the army, I think that you will find that the DE did the best on a percentage basis.

Really? How many people were at your regional? That seems pretty impressive, but then, DE didn't do so well at finals did they?

Blackmoor wrote:#4. I like Darth’s army because he uses my play style which is a shooting army that can counter almost any army. To put it into boxing terms, it is a counter-puncher. It does not go out there and dominate one phase of the game, but it is able to counter the top builds. When I played similar armies against Mechdar in the ‘Ard Boys finals it’s just a matter of luck of whether or not you can get the rolls to knock down wave serpents (I always roll bad against tanks…it is my curse).

Augustus wrote:Well Opinions vary. OK, IMO its a collection of misc. Marine stuff with no theme or plan. Essentially the idea behind that army is:

"Take lots of marine stuff because it is all good."

Well that's very useful, but I think everyone already knows that, as half the armies in the game are marines. Oh and the other idea:

"I don't care if people think this army isn't good because they'll never see it coming and don't understand the super secret reason it is actually good"

Doesn't really make any sense.

I'm not trying to be adversarial here. But I'd like to point out to you how you are being perceived by others...

A guy with a marine list that you don't particularly think is good, played you in a tournament and you tied. that took you out of contention for winning the tournament. You were angry and frustrated. When you got home you made it your mission to tell this person that his list wasn't good in a public forum. It was important to you that he knew how little you thought of his list.

Ok, well for a list that "wasn't any good" it sure halted your tournament progress. It wasn't like the space marine armies that danced around in your head, therefore you didn't know how to beat it, then guess what... you didn't beat it.

You had a severe case of trophy fever, and that is unfortunate. Well, I hope it clears up soon.

As to Darth's comment about his list. It makes perfect sense to me. Not many people play a list like that. This works out to his advantage. Because when he faces players who expect to be playing marines "the way they should be played", he has an advantage over them. They don't know what his list is about to do, and are taken out of their comfort zone. Like you. He doesn't want anyone to think its good, because he doesn't want it to become an internet sensation and have it copied and learned. Then he'll lose that advantage. the advantage that helped him get a tie against you, and a win against gardeth.

Shep, if ard boyz was really competitive and all the best players were there, shouldn't they know how to handle a non typical list?

I mean, we are supposedly talking about the best of the best. They should have beat crappy/unfocused/non "best of" lists like this all the time especially at the first round of ard boyz.

I still don't believe Darth's list is that good. However, since he never really claimed it to be amazing, i have shut up about it. However it speaks about the players there when a list can actually take them out of their comfort zone and force them into making play mistakes.

Shep wrote:I'm not trying to be adversarial here.

Really because you're doing a great job of it.

Shep wrote:But I'd like to point out to you how you are being perceived by others...

Well I'm glad you speak for everyone now Shep.

Shep wrote:A guy with a marine list that you don't particularly think is good, played you in a tournament...

and got online to defend his list when someone else said it lacked direction. I agreed, from 1st hand experience, in a list discussion, and you tried to shoot it all down as sour grapesing. ?

Shep wrote:You had a severe case of trophy fever, and that is unfortunate. Well, I hope it clears up soon.

Personal attacks are against forum rules Shep. I don't have trophy fever, I can't, because darth didn't win one either. I think its fair to say a directionless list didn't do well because I was there and I played it. Were you there?

Shep wrote:As to Darth's comment about his list. It makes perfect sense to me. Not many people play a list like that.

Really? So in my 3 games at the Hardboy, from first hand, personal experience, you know how many army lists I faced had:

A Null Zone librarian with a Stromshield?
An assault Terminator squad with Thunder Hammers?
A Landraider?
At least one unit of attack bikes?
2 10 man Tac squads
A predator
2 Dreadnoughts

All 3 Shep.

It's not a unique list, it's a collection of good marine units with no over arching theme or plan, it's really close to the horde of Vanilla Marine lists out there and it lacks direction just like previous posters said and I agreed with, after having played it at a KP disadvantage round one Hard Boy finals.

EDIT for formats

DarthDiggler wrote: ...I did find your rantings about having to have painted models in the Ard Boyz amusing though.

Hijack! Not much of a tournament player here but I do enjoy a good internet argument so I've been following along. Your minis don't need to be painted to enter 'Ard Boyz? I'm a hobby snob myself but I'm not judging anyone poorly. I'm just surprised that's all.

...or did I misunderstand?

@Shep: I don't think it was due to any suprise factor at what I faced that had me lose against darth's list, more that I just didn't have what it took to get the job done given the scenario while he was setup up to pick me apart like so much spikey armor 10 cotton candy.

@Augustus: I think your view on Dark Eldar is abit harsh. While I do lament the crappitude of over half our units :.( , what we do have works well in the right hands. In the finals I got a full point massacre in my first round and was on my way to at least a solid win when my dice ground to a halt and refused to roll above a 2 for anything but morale checks...It happens. And that unfortunately lead me into the waiting jaws of a list+scenario that was at best an upcliff battle...

Of course if I had beaten my 2nd round opponent and had to fight that damn IG list not sure how I would have done, but against orks or vulcan marines, that would have been great..provided I had ok dice, which I probably wouldn't. (I think my dice hate chicago....)

Timmah wrote:Shep, if ard boyz was really competitive and all the best players were there, shouldn't they know how to handle a non typical list?

I mean, we are supposedly talking about the best of the best. They should have beat crappy/unfocused/non "best of" lists like this all the time especially at the first round of ard boyz.

I still don't believe Darth's list is that good. However, since he never really claimed it to be amazing, i have shut up about it. However it speaks about the players there when a list can actually take them out of their comfort zone and force them into making play mistakes.

Yeah, that discussion is really robust. I'm on YTTH too, and I can totally see points on both sides. On the one hand, there is the "scoreboard" crowd. The guys saying that the best 40k player always wins the tournament by merit of him being the one who competed, and the one who was victorious. They back up their argument with data. Its a powerful position to argue from. You have a built in argument killer with "ok then, take your list to the toruney and do better then." I don't think that is an argument winner, I say its an argument killer, because it really suffocates the discourse.

On the other side of the argument, you have people arguing for more focused list design. they usually present lists that focus on a particular power unit, maxing it out, and then taking units that serve to support the main power unit. Making it as easy as possible for that unit to do its job. I can easily see the draw and the logic to this side of the argument. I do a lot of list designing on a day to day basis, and my lists tend to be much more theoretically inspired than inspired by in game events. However, players who consistently win tournaments, for some reason, aren't wired like you and I. They don't build lists based around concept. I think the guys who win tournaments do so primarily because they are constantly traveling to tournaments and get in more competitive games with a much broader meta-game, then the theorists. They tend to build lists based off of enemy units rather than units in their own codex. I have watched a lot of grizzled tourney vets do this. And it is at times confusing. Blackmoor is a good example of this. To him, a unit isn't defined by the statline of its raw output, but rather by what popular units it counters well.

These types of players win often, and they often use units or combinations of units that are unfocused. The real question is... Could these players win 'more' with a list constructed by a theorist and not a tourney vet? Honestly, I don't know. Naturally, i tend to think that my lists are more powerful than others, because I'd clearly rework them if I found an idea i wanted to incorporate that I hadn't thought of. And my lists tend toward focus, synergy, mission, and concept. So I believe that good tourney players can make better lists than they use currently, and win more games as a result. Unfortunately, my position here can not be verified, and is a pretty hopeless argument. The best we can hope for would be for the list theorists to get their act together enough to travel to these tournaments and participate. The more they (we) participate, the mosre torunament experience we receive, then either our lists prove themselves superior, or we change our lists away from focus and one-dimensionality, either out of boredom or some other natural force played on us by attending countless tournaments.

I win lots of tourney games with my lists, but I am relatively new to the tourney scene. The games i don't win are against the guys you see at every tournament. Experience and treachery trump list design every time it seems.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gardeth wrote:@Shep: I don't think it was due to any suprise factor at what I faced that had me lose against darth's list, more that I just didn't have what it took to get the job done given the scenario while he was setup up to pick me apart like so much spikey armor 10 cotton candy.

By including your name in that earlier post, I implied that your lack of experience with the list was what lost you the game. That wasn't my intention.

Which mission it is, who's going first, and terrain density can have a major impact on dark eldar. Your list made a whole lot of sense to me, you had the tools to win that particular game, but the problem with some of those dark eldar tools is that sometimes someone comes into your garage and breaks all of your tools before you get to use them

I have been running some serious paper tigers recently with IG. And we are talking about armor 12 paper, haha. So I more than sympathize with the matchup/go-first needs of your list. Well done making it to the finals, thanks for the tourney report and here's to hoping you face off against a max range 24" land raider vulkan army next time you pull space marines.

Augustus wrote:
Really? So in my 3 games at the Hardboy, from first hand, personal experience, you know how many army lists I faced had:

A Null Zone librarian with a Stromshield?
An assault Terminator squad with Thunder Hammers?
A Landraider?
At least one unit of attack bikes?
2 10 man Tac squads
A predator
2 Dreadnoughts

All 3...

It's not a unique list, it's a collection of good marine units with no over arching theme or plan, it's really close to the horde of Vanilla Marine lists out there and it lacks direction just like previous posters said and I agreed with, after having played it at a KP disadvantage round one Hard Boy finals.

Let's not get into an aside with the personal attacks - I think this discussion has value and wouldn't like to see it shut down.

That said, perhaps the point of such a list is that marines shouldn't have a plan.

As has been said by others, the biggest problem with the marine army is that it's good at everything and great at nothing. Therefore, a marine player has to take a list that allow it to play off whatever weakness exists in the army it is facing, not try to force through its own strategy.

A marine list that concentrates on one strategy is SOL when it runs into the list that does that same strategy, only better. Marines can be shooty, but their are shootier armies out there. If all you can do is shoot, then when you hit the shootier army, what do you do? In Darth's list, the inclusion of attack bikes over speeders means that when he faces a shootier army, he has some fast, resilient units that can assault.

Likewise, you can tool up the marine TH/SS assault army of doom, but you're going to lose combats if you end up facing bloodcrushers or fiends, or a handful of other things that can whup on even those guys.

A marine army cannot be mono-faceted, because whatever aspect of the game they pick to excel at, someone else does it better. Marines need to be flexible, they need the assorted elements that will allow them to win the phase of the game that their opponent hasn't chosen to concentrate on.

Shep wrote:I think the guys who win tournaments do so primarily because they are constantly traveling to tournaments and get in more competitive games with a much broader meta-game, then the theorists. They tend to build lists based off of enemy units rather than units in their own codex. I have watched a lot of grizzled tourney vets do this. And it is at times confusing.

That's a very interesting method!

EDIT:

Like a second layer of Metagame for tournament players. Perhaps this is what drives people to intentionally seek out fringe armies and obscure codices, was this true for you Gardeth?

I would like to agree with shep 100%.

I as well, very much so got into the theory behind list building before I actually started gaming. (same as with MTG <3 )

Anyways, I am starting to get into the tournament scene and I will agree on the point that experience trumps list design.

However the other thing I will say, is that I can run toe to toe with a lot of these "grizzled veterans" mainly due to my lists strengths. I have beaten or played quality games against many good tournament players who have years of experience on me.


Also, nothing whoops on Thundershield terminators.

Timmah wrote:
Also, nothing whoops on Thundershield terminators.

Both Fiends and Bloodcrushers whoop on Thundershield terminators. Run the numbers, see for yourself.

Dark Eldar are often percieved as a 'weak army' because unless played by someone who knows what they're doing, they get annihilated easily.

However, teir killing power is second to none. A ravager kitted out with 3 disentegrators blows away infantry with ease, and a Raider squad with a lance on the raider and in the squad can bust a tank relatively quickly, especially if taken in multiples. The trick of the army is to prioritize and eradicate enemy units swiftly and efficently. Because of their killpower, they tend to do this with a more certainty and accuracy than most other armies. Not only that, their ability to relocate and night shields mean that they can control what in the enemy army is capable of firing back, and neutralize or postpone the threat of enemy units, thus allowing themselves to quickly gang up on and take down a specific flank or set of units.

I can see why this could be seen as a major weakness in a competitive tournie, as they have little staying power in terms of armour, but if you manage to start rolling over your opponent, odds are you'll crush them. It's the little rocks that lead to the avalanche. If you can't take out the Dark Eldar before they render your return fire ineffectual, or minimal, you'll lose.

Augustus wrote:Like a second layer of Metagame for tournament players. Perhaps this is what drives people to intentionally seek out fringe armies and obscure codices

I think you confused "metagame" with "boredom" You don't have to be far into the tournament scene to get bored of your current army and want to start a new one. Or to want to try new tactics out.

Augustus wrote:

Blackmoor wrote:#1. Augustus, you have made your thoughts known about Dark Eldar for a while. Do we need to set up another grudge match with Xtapl?

So I can win again?

If I remember correctly, during that grudge match you took a bunch of mortars that were A) at the time, virtually unseen in any Guard list trying to be competitive, and B) incredibly powerful against a Dark Eldar list.

Mosg wrote:

Augustus wrote:

Blackmoor wrote:#1. Augustus, you have made your thoughts known about Dark Eldar for a while. Do we need to set up another grudge match with Xtapl?

So I can win again?

If I remember correctly, during that grudge match you took a bunch of mortars that were A) at the time, virtually unseen in any Guard list trying to be competitive, and B) incredibly powerful against a Dark Eldar list.

I was about to bring that up and I am surprised someone else remembers those posts. If I remember correctly, there was a switching of armies, and the IG army was tooled up to beat Dark Eldar.

Augustus wrote:

Shep wrote:I think the guys who win tournaments do so primarily because they are constantly traveling to tournaments and get in more competitive games with a much broader meta-game, then the theorists. They tend to build lists based off of enemy units rather than units in their own codex. I have watched a lot of grizzled tourney vets do this. And it is at times confusing.

That's a very interesting method!

That is an interesting idea that I have never thought about before. You do describe how I build my armies. I do not build my armies to beat certain armies, but I need to counter specific units that you see at the top tables. To give you an example, I do not build my army to beat Demonhunters, but I do build it to be able to beat Land Raiders. I feel that if I take out the Land Raiders, everything else will work itself out.

To give more examples, when I build an army I ask myself if I can counter units, and not armies. I need to have counters to things like Nob Bikers, Massed Ork Boyz, Wave Serpents, Seer Councils, Blood Crushers, Fateweaver, Monoliths, Obilts, etc.


People say that Darth’s army had no focus or purpose, but I think it does. It is not a random assortment of units like some people think. All of his units have a purpose and a reason for being there. They counter the other players focus and purpose. If you can stop your opponent from doing what they want to do you are half way to winning.

A lot of people wondered why he took a Thunderfire Cannon. You can see the anti-unit build concept where he is trying to counter other units with the TFC. His army works for the most part by castling up and outshooting the opponent. The problem is that there are a lot of units that can thwart this plan. Darth explained why he took it was to counter units that hang out on the other side of the board that he could not kill by shooting. Examples of these units are Lootas, Rangers/Pathfinders, Scouts with camo cloaks, Kroots in woods, etc, (A whirlwind could also fill this role) but you see why he took it. His army had a problem and he took the TFC to solve it.

Blackmoor wrote:
That is an interesting idea that I have never thought about before. You do describe how I build my armies. I do not build my armies to beat certain armies, but I need to counter specific units that you see at the top tables. To give you an example, I do not build my army to beat Demonhunters, but I do build it to be able to beat Land Raiders. I feel that if I take out the Land Raiders, everything else will work itself out.

To give more examples, when I build an army I ask myself if I can counter units, and not armies. I need to have counters to things like Nob Bikers, Massed Ork Boyz, Wave Serpents, Seer Councils, Blood Crushers, Fateweaver, Monoliths, Obilts, etc.

Blackmoor you have hit it on the head. That is excactly how I think when I build my best armies. I'll take an army here or there that I want to challenge myself with, but when I want to do well in a tournament I go through the same thought process you described and at 2500pts the marines solve most of my problems. You are also correct that with the marines I love to react to my opponent. I'll dictate the terms in a game when the opportunity arises, but if my opponent wants to overload on some aspect of the game I will have the ability to react to that threat and beat the army in another phase of the game, Jack of all trades, master of none. That is the essence of my marine style. Outshoot me if you can or out assault me, but you can't do both and I'll need to do the opposite of what you do in order to beat you. Most of the time I run into lists that out assault me so I sit back and shoot away, but that's not always the case and the best lists I have can adapt to that circumstance.

I guess it's a different way of looking at list building and it comes from a certain style of play. I'm not saying it's superior to anything else and it's probably not the best idea for everyone. Some people will be more successful playing a list that tries to dictate the course of the game in one way each and every game and that way might be best for them. That's fine to. There is more than one way to skin a cat and there is more than one way to build and play successful 40k army lists.

Mosg wrote:

Augustus wrote:

Blackmoor wrote:#1. Augustus, you have made your thoughts known about Dark Eldar for a while. Do we need to set up another grudge match with Xtapl?

So I can win again?

If I remember correctly, during that grudge match you took a bunch of mortars that were A) at the time, virtually unseen in any Guard list trying to be competitive, and B) incredibly powerful against a Dark Eldar list.

Yes tooled up to beat Dark Eldar with IG mortars and Ogryns, the most powerful IG units in 4th edition...

Boy do you guys have it wrong.

Augustus wrote:

Mosg wrote:

Augustus wrote:

Blackmoor wrote:#1. Augustus, you have made your thoughts known about Dark Eldar for a while. Do we need to set up another grudge match with Xtapl?

So I can win again?

If I remember correctly, during that grudge match you took a bunch of mortars that were A) at the time, virtually unseen in any Guard list trying to be competitive, and B) incredibly powerful against a Dark Eldar list.

Yes tooled up to beat Dark Eldar with IG mortars and Ogryns, the most powerful IG units in 4th edition...

Boy do you guys have it wrong.

Mortars *were* the most effective tool in the codex at the time to deal with Dark Eldar taking into account units available and the 4E rules... So yeah, you were tooled up to kill him.

Blackmoor wrote:

That is an interesting idea that I have never thought about before. You do describe how I build my armies. I do not build my armies to beat certain armies, but I need to counter specific units that you see at the top tables. To give you an example, I do not build my army to beat Demonhunters, but I do build it to be able to beat Land Raiders. I feel that if I take out the Land Raiders, everything else will work itself out.

To give more examples, when I build an army I ask myself if I can counter units, and not armies. I need to have counters to things like Nob Bikers, Massed Ork Boyz, Wave Serpents, Seer Councils, Blood Crushers, Fateweaver, Monoliths, Obilts, etc.


People say that Darth’s army had no focus or purpose, but I think it does. It is not a random assortment of units like some people think. All of his units have a purpose and a reason for being there. They counter the other players focus and purpose. If you can stop your opponent from doing what they want to do you are half way to winning.

A lot of people wondered why he took a Thunderfire Cannon. You can see the anti-unit build concept where he is trying to counter other units with the TFC. His army works for the most part by castling up and outshooting the opponent. The problem is that there are a lot of units that can thwart this plan. Darth explained why he took it was to counter units that hang out on the other side of the board that he could not kill by shooting. Examples of these units are Lootas, Rangers/Pathfinders, Scouts with camo cloaks, Kroots in woods, etc, (A whirlwind could also fill this role) but you see why he took it. His army had a problem and he took the TFC to solve it.

I usually build about 75% of my list, with the units that I feel give me the most "power and diversity of power" then go through all the units in the game that are a problem. "how do I kill land raiders, ahh this does it, check....how about a 10-man termie squad, ok...how about multiple transports ect..."

a little more broad than just land raiders, but commonly used units/concepts, you are unlikely to play 2 identical armies, but you are going to play against space elves in transports with lance weapons, and IG shooting out of chimeras, and big nasty tanks, if you're lucky they are the tau versions :-p

Augustus wrote:
Personal attacks are against forum rules Shep. I don't have trophy fever, I can't, because darth didn't win one either. I think its fair to say a directionless list didn't do well because I was there and I played it.

Didn't he place higher than you? So perhaps it was YOUR list which 'lacked direction' and 'didn't do well'?

Augustus wrote:
It's not a unique list, it's a collection of good marine units with no over arching theme or plan, it's really close to the horde of Vanilla Marine lists out there and it lacks direction just like previous posters said and I agreed with, after having played it at a KP disadvantage round one Hard Boy finals.

'Tis funny, given that Timmah originally criticized that list for NOT having enough "good marine units".

Backfire wrote:
'Tis funny, given that Timmah originally criticized that list for NOT having enough "good marine units".

Tis funny that you take what Timmah says at face value to the exclusion of everyone else? Not sure what you're trying to say here.

whitedragon wrote:

Backfire wrote:
'Tis funny, given that Timmah originally criticized that list for NOT having enough "good marine units".

Tis funny that you take what Timmah says at face value to the exclusion of everyone else? Not sure what you're trying to say here.

I'm totally at loss what YOU are trying to say here. As I recall, I don't remember mentioning "everyone else", so I'm not sure what you were trying to read there.

Backfire wrote:

Augustus wrote:
Personal attacks are against forum rules Shep. I don't have trophy fever, I can't, because darth didn't win one either. I think its fair to say a directionless list didn't do well because I was there and I played it.

Didn't he place higher than you? So perhaps it was YOUR list which 'lacked direction' and 'didn't do well'?

Augustus wrote:
It's not a unique list, it's a collection of good marine units with no over arching theme or plan, it's really close to the horde of Vanilla Marine lists out there and it lacks direction just like previous posters said and I agreed with, after having played it at a KP disadvantage round one Hard Boy finals.

'Tis funny, given that Timmah originally criticized that list for NOT having enough "good marine units".

Backfire wrote:

whitedragon wrote:

Backfire wrote:
'Tis funny, given that Timmah originally criticized that list for NOT having enough "good marine units".

Tis funny that you take what Timmah says at face value to the exclusion of everyone else? Not sure what you're trying to say here.

I'm totally at loss what YOU are trying to say here. As I recall, I don't remember mentioning "everyone else", so I'm not sure what you were trying to read there.

So....you're not attacking Augustus' or Timmah's view of Darth Diggler's army? Then why even post?

I think he was just pointing out the irony that one person criticized Darth’s list for not taking the good marine units, and the other for just taking a collection of the best marine units.

Mosg wrote:Mortars *were* the most effective tool in the codex at the time to deal with Dark Eldar taking into account units available and the 4E rules... So yeah, you were tooled up to kill him.

OK mosg, lets set the record strait here.

For the studio audience we are talking about a several year old 4th ed. game that turned into a batrep, IG vs DE. Im writing this in response to modg obvious attacks and outright malicious evaluation of the game.

The army choice I made in the V4 game included 3 big units I took, because they were the biggest stinkers in the IG dex:

A Heavy company of Mortars
An Ogryn Squad
A 20 man conscript unit

I took these on purpose, because the other choices I had at the time were even better. In fact my opponent had warned me before hand the game would be moot if I put down 12 heavy bolters, which I had the figures for. The other choices would have been:

A heavy company of Heavy Bolters
Another Basilisk
Drop Veterans
Drop Sentinels
More platoons

So I actually played the softest list I could for the "grudge match" and the DE couldn't even beat that. It was so bad that DE die hard fan people cried foul about mortars, they were a bolter with a blast and all game they killed a few warriors, that's it. They died in melee and weren't even a factor, details mosg is just completely leaving out. What beat the DE in that game? It was really the auto pin, and squad wounds 4th ed rules for getting out of wrecks and the basilisk and long range missile fire which dropped all the paper thin vehicles. Something I contend is still an issue even in 5th.

If the DE couldn't beat that list it just cemented my point even better then and now.

Augustus wrote:

Mosg wrote:Mortars *were* the most effective tool in the codex at the time to deal with Dark Eldar taking into account units available and the 4E rules... So yeah, you were tooled up to kill him.

OK mosg, lets set the record strait here.

For the studio audience we are talking about a several year old 4th ed. game that turned into a batrep, IG vs DE. Im writing this in response to modg obvious attacks and outright malicious evaluation of the game.

The army choice I made in the V4 game included 3 big units I took, because they were the biggest stinkers in the IG dex:

A Heavy company of Mortars
An Ogryn Squad
A 20 man conscript unit

I took these on purpose, because the other choices I had at the time were even better. In fact my opponent had warned me before hand the game would be moot if I put down 12 heavy bolters, which I had the figures for. The other choices would have been:

A heavy company of Heavy Bolters
Another Basilisk
Drop Veterans
Drop Sentinels
More platoons

So I actually played the softest list I could for the "grudge match" and the DE couldn't even beat that. It was so bad that DE die hard fan people cried foul about mortars, they were a bolter with a blast and all game they killed a few warriors, that's it. They died in melee and weren't even a factor, details mosg is just completely leaving out. What beat the DE in that game? It was really the auto pin, and squad wounds 4th ed rules for getting out of wrecks and the basilisk and long range missile fire which dropped all the paper thin vehicles. Something I contend is still an issue even in 5th.

If the DE couldn't beat that list it just cemented my point even better then and now.

>.> If I remember right, you cried like a little girl when everyone made fun of you for bringing such a crappy uncompetitive list. Winning is no fun if you cry afterwards.

Honkeybro, that kind of statement is deliberately inflammatory and insulting, in violation of Rule 1. This is a warning. -The Mgmt.

Augustus wrote:Lets be honest, I had more KP than you did in round one and without the Hardboy "day of" KP changes (2 for HS, E, and FA and 3 for HQs), you would have gone to the bottom of the pack, not the middle. Why? Because that unfocused list didn't out shoot or outfight Eldar with a massive KP handicap. By the core rules, you lost game one too, not tied, and with fewer KP in the list even by hardboy rules.

Augustus, this seems unnecessarily aggressive, and I don't think I agree with your argument, either. Please note that by the rules of the scenario the two of you played, you got a draw. Stating what the outcome would have been if you had been playing a DIFFERENT scenario is speculative, given that he might well have deployed and played differently in said different scenario.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Augustus wrote:

Shep wrote:I think the guys who win tournaments do so primarily because they are constantly traveling to tournaments and get in more competitive games with a much broader meta-game, then the theorists. They tend to build lists based off of enemy units rather than units in their own codex. I have watched a lot of grizzled tourney vets do this. And it is at times confusing.

That's a very interesting method!

EDIT:

Like a second layer of Metagame for tournament players. Perhaps this is what drives people to intentionally seek out fringe armies and obscure codices, was this true for you Gardeth?

Good discussion. I tend to concur. And with the boredom argument.

Augustus wrote:Im writing this in response to modg obvious attacks and outright malicious evaluation of the game.

My intent is not malicious and I'm not attacking you at all.

Augustus wrote:So I actually played the softest list I could for the "grudge match" and the DE couldn't even beat that. It was so bad that DE die hard fan people cried foul about mortars, they were a bolter with a blast and all game they killed a few warriors, that's it. They died in melee and weren't even a factor, details mosg is just completely leaving out. What beat the DE in that game? It was really the auto pin, and squad wounds 4th ed rules for getting out of wrecks and the basilisk and long range missile fire which dropped all the paper thin vehicles. Something I contend is still an issue even in 5th.

If the DE couldn't beat that list it just cemented my point even better then and now.

I believe that the issue was one of deployment--The mortars may not have actually killed a great deal of points but if I remember correctly they really complicated Xtapl's placement of Raiders.

I'm not trying to flame you, but if my memory serves almost everyone who read the battle report agreed that your list was pretty well tooled to deal with Dark Eldar--Whether you could have made a more competitive list or not with the models you had available to you is not really relevant. What is relevant is that most people agreed your list included a lot of uncommon units that ALSO happened to be the nuts against Dark Eldar.

Yes taking mortars and ogryn against the one army they are really effective against seemed a bit like tooling to me at the time. Hell taking IG over marines is pretty much tooling against DE. Not antagonistic and in the end I agree xaptl still didn't beat you. But like any dakka dakka grudge match they don't prove anything, they just provide drama and entertainment. But that is a big digression from the more interesting topic.

The discussion here has been interesting and varied. Lotsa food for thought and has had me rethinking my own marines. Wish there were more topics that were as interesting.

Mosg wrote:

Augustus wrote:Im writing this in response to modg obvious attacks and outright malicious evaluation of the game.

My intent is not malicious and I'm not attacking you at all.

Augustus wrote:So I actually played the softest list I could for the "grudge match" and the DE couldn't even beat that. It was so bad that DE die hard fan people cried foul about mortars, they were a bolter with a blast and all game they killed a few warriors, that's it. They died in melee and weren't even a factor, details mosg is just completely leaving out. What beat the DE in that game? It was really the auto pin, and squad wounds 4th ed rules for getting out of wrecks and the basilisk and long range missile fire which dropped all the paper thin vehicles. Something I contend is still an issue even in 5th.

If the DE couldn't beat that list it just cemented my point even better then and now.

I believe that the issue was one of deployment--The mortars may not have actually killed a great deal of points but if I remember correctly they really complicated Xtapl's placement of Raiders.

I'm not trying to flame you, but if my memory serves almost everyone who read the battle report agreed that your list was pretty well tooled to deal with Dark Eldar--Whether you could have made a more competitive list or not with the models you had available to you is not really relevant. What is relevant is that most people agreed your list included a lot of uncommon units that ALSO happened to be the nuts against Dark Eldar.

You mean this batrep?

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/395.page

Of course Xtapl took that list to a tournament a few months later and went 2-0-1 and Augustus did not understand how he did so well.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/35240.page

Nice pull there, Blackmoor

This list not focus

Librarian – Termie armour, storm shield, null zone, vortex of doom
5 Th+Ss Termies
Land Raider Redeemer – multi-melta
x2 Dreadnought (assuming multi-melta)
x4 10 marines w/4 lascannons +melta
x2 Razorback w/ assault cannons
3 attack bikes
3 multi-melta attack bikes(assuming 2 and 1)
Landspeeder typhoon
10 devastators – 4 missile launchers
Predator Destructor
Thunderfire cannon


Lets see 4 seperate lascannon targets, 3 seperate 2 missle launcher targets, and the predator for long range.

Five multimelta targets, three twin-linked assault cannon targets, and the 2 meltaguns inside the razorbacks for midrange.

Focus list have easy targets, lash and landraider spam you know what to destroy, with darth list it doesnt matter what you destroy he maintains the same threats. Its simple when you think about it, I take out a landraider I remove the threat of termies charging 20 inches, I take out a dreadnaught in darth list I just killed one of five multimelta platforms.

Darth won his games by killing/immobilizing the biggest threat to his midrange elements with his long range parts. He then could overwhelm his opponent with attack bikes, dreadnaughts, razorback, and his single landraider with midrange, eventhough his longrange elements are still there.

His list is focus it is either longe range anti-tank or midrange assault cannons or mobile meltas, and it is spread out so he will maintain his two strengths even with casualties.

Do you know why darth took the thunder fire cannon? Sure its great for orks but really its for bolster defense its a cheap way to get a 3+ save, which helps his marines.

The redeemer is a counter charge unit, that could take advantage of machine spirit and shoot twin-linked assault cannons(underated weapon when twin-linked) at one thing and the melta at something else. However because it has a librarian in it aswell this was most likely for seer council.

A really good list, but like timmah said it could be improved. How can this list be improved only ytth knows, but how can this list win more games only darth knows.

The reasons why I believe only darth can improve his list?
1.Target priority-We dont know the units that he fears the most. The main threat will most likely be slowed down, but the second/third threat is the thing that gets through and can hurt him.

2.Re-read 1

3.Aggression level-Is he as aggressive with his bikes with chimeras/rhinos as he is with landraiders? He has multiple threats how much does he care about the lost of one?

This list has many weaknesses the only cc unit is the raiders with termies, the midrange threats are easily eliminated, only one weapon can take out multiple meqs and its a flamer.

I wanna know what that eldar guy who placed second was running.

Considering how this thread has been hijacked a dozen times already I have no qualms about asking another off topic question, directed at you more experienced generals, but in relation to Dath's list.

It appears that this army list offers a really interesting blend of threats that each perform their jobs adequately with out been traditional killer-units or what may be considered more dangerous units, and I get the feeling that this blob of death where everything in the army can threaten a multitude of units offers an interesting new way to build lists rather than the builds were everything is specialized and focused (a increasing trend I have noticed not just on the net by the way, but in my local area too).

My question is, do you think this approach of spreading damage potential across different units could function for other armies as well as it does for marines? I ask this because it seems like the marines with their many generalist units are suited to the task. I suppose an example of this spreading of damage potential is fielding meltavets with democharges for MEQ killing too, or loading up on Wraithlords as they can fulfill a variety of roles in the same game.

Foldalot wrote:Considering how this thread has been hijacked a dozen times already I have no qualms about asking another off topic question, directed at you more experienced generals, but in relation to Dath's list.

It appears that this army list offers a really interesting blend of threats that each perform their jobs adequately with out been traditional killer-units or what may be considered more dangerous units, and I get the feeling that this blob of death where everything in the army can threaten a multitude of units offers an interesting new way to build lists rather than the builds were everything is specialized and focused (a increasing trend I have noticed not just on the net by the way, but in my local area too).

My question is, do you think this approach of spreading damage potential across different units could function for other armies as well as it does for marines? I ask this because it seems like the marines with their many generalist units are suited to the task. I suppose an example of this spreading of damage potential is fielding meltavets with democharges for MEQ killing too, or loading up on Wraithlords as they can fulfill a variety of roles in the same game.

A friend of mine refers to my lists as problems solvers. It's not the be-all, end-all of list building, just my style and let me say it might be no better than anyone elses. I try to include at least one thing that solves some problem on the battlefield whether it is an enemy unit I might face or a scenario I expect to see. The army as a whole should have a unit(s) that collectively can solve the problems I can expect to face in a game. I try and do the same thing for other armies, but the Marinies do it so well. They have a full force org chart to draw from. Good units in each slot. I've made good chaos lists, but nothing that solves all the problems marines can. Chaos is just missing something in the FA slots, IMO. Nothing too expensive and something that can fire long range weapons would be nice(hello attack bikes). I've got an Eldar list that can do it at 1500pts a little bit, but going up in points it starts to struggle (and you are right it has 3 Wraithlords with heavy weapons and double hand flamers). I've got a dozen guard lists and I'm confident I can get the guard to become problem solvers. The only problem I haven't solved is what to do with a rampaging Bloodthirster. Darkwyn's Ard Boyz HQ loadout gave me a good starting point and I'm going to try that. Then the problem of a rampaging Bloodthirster with Fateweaver on the table is another matter and I don't think I'll be able to solve that problem with guard and keep the list at under 2000pts.

I would just like to point out that I have seen lots of army lists that rely on low ap weaponry to do the job, almost to the exclusion of anything else. I have tended to go more for saturation of fire to deal with low armor save targets instead of low ap weapons. Don't get me wrong, low ap weapons have their place and I would still take a few as they can solve some problems, but if I wanted to take out a low armor save unit I would tend to go for something that can put 10-12 armor saves on the unit and wait for the dice to do their magic. Yes I know termies taking 12 saves will miss 2 on average, but that's an average and failing 2 saves out of 12 is the average of the extrememes, not always what the roll is going to be. This tactic allows me to not worry as much about my opponent in cover or if they have an invulnerable save. Some units, like Pathfinders, will just be placed on the board in such a way that getting a lot of armor saves on them won't happen with regularity. For that problem you have the T-fire.

Eidolon wrote:I wanna know what that eldar guy who placed second was running.

Eldrad
2 units of 6 fire dragons in W.serpent with ML
1 unit of 5 fire dragons in W.seperent with ML
5-6 units of 5 dire avengers in W.serpents with a mix of ML and BL
3 Fire Prisms

DarthDiggler wrote: I try and do the same thing for other armies, but the Marinies do it so well. They have a full force org chart to draw from. Good units in each slot. I've made good chaos lists, but nothing that solves all the problems marines can. Chaos is just missing something in the FA slots, IMO. Nothing too expensive and something that can fire long range weapons would be nice(hello attack bikes). I've got an Eldar list that can do it at 1500pts a little bit, but going up in points it starts to struggle (and you are right it has 3 Wraithlords with heavy weapons and double hand flamers). I've got a dozen guard lists and I'm confident I can get the guard to become problem solvers. The only problem I haven't solved is what to do with a rampaging Bloodthirster. Darkwyn's Ard Boyz HQ loadout gave me a good starting point and I'm going to try that. Then the problem of a rampaging Bloodthirster with Fateweaver on the table is another matter and I don't think I'll be able to solve that problem with guard and keep the list at under 2000pts.

Oh buddy guard does it alot better, I am surprise you found away to do it with marines, I never considered combat squads.

CKO wrote:
Oh buddy guard does it alot better, I am surprise you found away to do it with marines, I never considered combat squads.

Marines do it best. They have a lot of options and other units (Null field, combat squads) that make them the best.

There are other armies that you can do this with as well, but the Marines do it the best.

There are a lot of builds that IG will have trouble will that they have no answer for.

There is no way marines can outshoot guard, and the midrange game is not as simple as most people think.

CKO wrote:There is no way marines can outshoot guard, and the midrange game is not as simple as most people think.

I never said that they could.

Blackmoor wrote:

CKO wrote:There is no way marines can outshoot guard, and the midrange game is not as simple as most people think.

I never said that they could.

If your getting outshot by Guard then you need to get to them quick to assault. Let the marine and Guard shooting elements trade fire back and forth. Marines can lose that firefight against certain Guard lists, however Guard will need to redirect fire to the incoming attack bikes (3+ cover save from turbo boosting) or risk getting assaulted. Even Guard tanks can be taken down with krak grenades to the rear armor. Krak grenades to the rear can be effective as the wrecked tank might be able to provide LOS blocking terrain for the bikes on the next turn. Now with attack bikes in their lines the Guard return fire to the marine guns across the board will start to dwindle as they turn to deal with the more immediate threat and the marine shooting can start to take a toll.

It's not foolproof, but it can work.

Attack bikes wrecking havoc highly unlikely, chimeltas will take out attack bikes easy, but I get what you are saying.

I demand that this thread take me to Cuba!

(apparently jumping into this thread requires one to hijack it at least a bit)

That being said, the list is solid. I too have stumbled upon the secret of the SM codex - play to their strengths. Their strengths are being better than what the other guy is bad at.

It seems counterintuitive that an all comers list would do really well, but that has been my experience with them so I am not at all surprised that the person did so well with that list. As for thunderfire cannons, I am all atwitter for them - I have 3 in my current list! They are really good, and the techmarines are a great PITA if the cannon gets destroyed - they are 2+ with both a flamer and plasma and powerfists to boot. There have been games that I wanted the cannon to die so my techmarine could go rambo.

I tried out the cannon after seeing this. Works great. I love dropping that stupid tremors round on bunched up tanks. After a slight revamping of my old marine army, I am doing much better with a newer more rounded list. I basically took my old one and made the squads more versatile. Thanks darhtdiggler, youve helped a marine player tactically, instead of providing a cookie cutter forum army list. Thats something to be proud of.

oh crap, this thread just helped make smurf players stronger? THAT WAS NOT THE GOAL!

Honestly I think timmeh deserves much the credit here also, as he was the one who created the discussion.

Ha! This is Darth's worst nightmare lol

I was going to do a Chaos version of Darth’s list for the Wild West Shootout in a couple of weeks, but I needed a few models to make it work, but I did not have the time to paint them.

I might do it over the winter for Adepticon, but I might not have the time.

Blackmoor wrote:I was going to do a Chaos version of Darth’s list for the Wild West Shootout in a couple of weeks, but I needed a few models to make it work, but I did not have the time to paint them.

I might do it over the winter for Adepticon, but I might not have the time.

I have been trying to make a chaos version for a long time and in my mind I keep coming up short. I'd love to see what you've got.

I too had an idea for a pretty cool chaos shooty army. One i feel would be unique, something nobody else would have thought of or fielded. It would look like this
2 lash princes
9 obliterators
as many plague marines as i can fit into the army, 2 meltas, combi melta, power fist and rhino in each squad.
I wont share with you how i play on using it though, thats a secret.

Eidolon wrote:I too had an idea for a pretty cool chaos shooty army. One i feel would be unique, something nobody else would have thought of or fielded. It would look like this
2 lash princes
9 obliterators
as many plague marines as i can fit into the army, 2 meltas, combi melta, power fist and rhino in each squad.
I wont share with you how i play on using it though, thats a secret.