EDITED

I apologize there is a misunderstanding, dont blame the unit blame unit selection. I am not saying somehow if you were good enough player you could make poor units like IG techpriest work, I was saying blame your unit selection and tactics. I apologize for the misunderstanding, I changed the title aswell, thanks Godless Mimicry post.



I tend to think that almost nearly every unit can be used. If Phil Kelly or Matt Ward wrote the book its almost a gurantee that every unit can be used. I see post where people compare units from different codexes that have different roles and different support units therefore different combos and overall its unfair to both units to do that.

Why dont my anti-tank unit work as well as a vendetta? Why is it so cheap? Its unfair, well I am going to do the unthinkable and explain why the vendetta is not under priced.

In the iG codex how many excellent anti-tank units do they have? Melta vets, heavy weapon teams, manticores, and hydras just to name a few. So why should an IG codex have to pay alot for an anti-tank unit when they can get anti-tank from nearly every unit in the codex? Its cheap because its just another anti-tank weapon in the IG codex, at the end of the day its a heavy weapon lascannon team that has the free order all the time. Its also an av 12 transport, nearly every unit in the IG codex can take an av 12 transport called the chimera. Its a flyer though? Which is new to this edition and I honestly havent figured out flyers and how they interact with the balance of the game, but my theory is that every army has a flyer. They usually are 150 or lower and have excellent anti-tank weapons the vendetta is no different. In the IG codex it doesnt offer anything special, twin-linked anti-tank weapons can be found in the heavy support section and your infantry can do it to with an order. The only thing that makes it stand out is that its a flyer and a transport besides that its not amazing. If I played IG I would use 2 and a hellhound which offers something unique in the IG codex which is why its the same price!

If you stop thinking like a player and blaming the unit and thinking like Matt Ward and Phil Kelly the designers and deciding why this unit is different and why do I have to pay so much for it when in other codexes something similar is cheaper you might find out how to make it work in your list.

Most people do not see the power in each unit which is a reflection of your skill and knowledge of the game.

Example:
I am one of few people who like the callidus assassin. Only in fun games they say but I use it very competively. One arguement is that it cannot do enough damage, but if you use every rule at its disposal and compliment it you will be surprised.

In one game I came in polymorphined a chosen unit killing 2, flame it killing 2 more than a strike squad killed the rest of the unit with storm bolters. Next turn I flamed a chaos unit killing 3, charged it issued a challenged he had to accept, killed the champion, used hit and run to get away. Next turn he shot at my strike squad instead of the assassin, my turn I moved backed up flame them this time wounding on 4's because champion was gone killing 3, and finished them off in combat while my strike squad was able to shoot at something different. That was 2 units that were killed mainly due to the assassin being used correctly.

In a objective's game I had last turn, and I used psychic communion to keep him from coming in until turn 3. Polymorphine did to much damage to the long fang unit killing 2 of the 5, I did not flame them but instead hid him so that if he wanted to shoot me he would have to move. He ignored the assassin, I charged the small unit of long fang but instead of using the c'tan phase sword, I used the shredder! I issued a challenge he accepted and we remained in combat locked in combat until I decided to use hit and run and move 3d6 closer to an objective when the last turn of the game was next . I than use moved through cover than ran to contest his objective on the last turn he never saw it coming, a tie became a win.

Accept the fact that its not the unit but you, and once you start critizing yourself instead of the unit and thinking about all the possible ways you can make this unit work for you and your list I promise, you will become an excellent player! Atleast it has worked for me!

What do you guys feel about my miniature rant?

 CKO wrote:
If Phil Kelly or Matt Ward wrote the book its almost a gurantee that every unit can be used.

This is a bad assumption. GW openly admit that they don't playtest or balance for competitive gaming, so it's absurd to assume that somehow they magically got that perfect balance and every unit is useful.

Its unfair, well I am going to do the unthinkable and explain why the vendetta is not under priced.

Good luck with that. One of the few things all serious 40k players (even IG players who use Vendettas) can agree on is that the Vendetta is underpriced.

Which is new to this edition and I honestly havent figured out flyers and how they interact with the balance of the game, but my theory is that every army has a flyer.

Perhaps you should wait to post about things like this until after you've spent some time figuring out the new rules? Not every army has a flyer, and of the ones that do not all of them have good flyers.

In the IG codex it doesnt offer anything special

That is absolutely wrong. The Vendetta has insanely efficient firepower that no other unit can match, and the flyer rules give it the mobility to put it anywhere on the table, often with no cover saves.

What do you guys feel about my miniature rant?

It's incredibly idealistic, gets the rules wrong, confuses "better than nothing" with "worth taking", and completely ignores point efficiency in "analyzing" performance. In short, better luck next time?

Have to agree with Peregrine.

However, in the case of the Vendetta, when that book was written, it was only a skimmer, which meant that it wasnt as good at doing its job, but still was useful.

Also, what hes saying is; every unit isnt necessarily competitive, but each unit will have a particular niche it fits into within the army.

 Afrodactyl wrote:
However, in the case of the Vendetta, when that book was written, it was only a skimmer, which meant that it wasnt as good at doing its job, but still was useful.

Also, what hes saying is; every unit isnt necessarily competitive, but each unit will have a particular niche it fits into within the army.

Whilst I'll agree that a lot of people dismiss units because they see them in the wrong way, I have to point out that Mandrakes are just pants. I genuinely cannot find a role for them that is not performed better than another unit in the codex. Sometimes, a unit is just bad.

I am going to ignore the insults and just state my counter to your point of views, because you are simply rude!

 Peregrine wrote:

This is a bad assumption. GW openly admit that they don't playtest or balance for competitive gaming, so it's absurd to assume that somehow they magically got that perfect balance and every unit is useful.

This is a bad assumption I know that GW wants every army to be able to compete with each other, I am sure that balance is is their key objective in their creating process, give competive players what they want on the other hand they can care less about.

 Peregrine wrote:
Good luck with that. One of the few things all serious 40k players (even IG players who use Vendettas) can agree on is that the Vendetta is underpriced.

It is typical for someone to say things like this when they themselves cannot do something and they dislike that someone might be able to do it.

 Peregrine wrote:
Perhaps you should wait to post about things like this until after you've spent some time figuring out the new rules? Not every army has a flyer, and of the ones that do not all of them have good flyers

I am sorry, I did not make it simple. Let me rephrase this quote for you:

 CKO wrote:
Flyers, which is new to this edition and I honestly havent figured out flyers and how they interact with the balance of the game, but my theory is that every army has a flyer. They usually are 150 or lower and have excellent anti-tank weapons the vendetta is no different.

Flyers are new, they usually are cheap and have excellent anti-tank weapons, not every codex has one but they usually fit into that role.

 Peregrine wrote:
That is absolutely wrong. The Vendetta has insanely efficient firepower that no other unit can match, and the flyer rules give it the mobility to put it anywhere on the table, often with no cover saves.

The IG codex is filled with efficient firepower you are missing the point I think and didnt read the entire post. A heavy weapon squad with lascannons given the bring it down order has the exact same fire power, 2 hydras are better at anti-tank, meltavets with the order is better, the list can go on when it comes to anti-tank and the IG codex. It had mobility in 5th edition and it was on the same stand in 5th edition, the flyer rule makes it alot more survivable but it suffers in the movement phase being restricted to moving 18 a turn and having degree limit turn is something you have to manage.

 Peregrine wrote:

It's incredibly idealistic, gets the rules wrong, confuses "better than nothing" with "worth taking", and completely ignores point efficiency in "analyzing" performance. In short, better luck next time?

Your inability to understand the post is a reflection of your knowledge, and your reading comprehension skills you shouldnt make comments like this I feel sorry for you. I have recently started being very active on this forum and you have constantly made post with a mean streak I pray that you realize its just a game.

I DO agree that points matter more comparing within an army, not without. An army's playstyle could mean that one unit - of which there are similar types in other armies, is more of an advantage to this army, thus more expensive than it's companions from other factions.

However, I am unconvinced about your argument in regards to why the Vendetta is justifiably low-cost. In general, above and beyond what it itself can do, it's a unit that's very difficult for many other factions to deal with, particularly considering that they are often taken in multiples. While it's weapons are part of an already large smorgasbord of anti-vehicle, it's capability overall sets it far apart from anything else in the IG codex.

The Vendetta was clearly costed based on 5th edition rules, so I don't think it's "unfairly" priced - I think it just received a considerable boost in 6th that takes its usability far above its initial pricing.

 CKO wrote:
This is a bad assumption I know that GW wants every army to be able to compete with each other, I am sure that balance is is their key objective in their creating process, give competive players what they want on the other hand they can care less about.

You can't have balance without giving competitive players what they want, since what competitive players want is balance.

And GW has openly admitted that they don't put a high priority on ensuring balance, since 40k is meant to be a "beer and pretzels" game played casually between friends who never try too hard to win.

It is typical for someone to say things like this when they themselves cannot do something and they dislike that someone might be able to do it.

Err, what? I play IG and I use Vendettas and Vultures. And guess what: they're significantly undercosted.

Flyers are new, they usually are cheap and have excellent anti-tank weapons, not every codex has one but they usually fit into that role.

That's not "rephrasing", that's completely changing what you said. It's fine if you want to change it, but at least admit that you're wrong and don't pretend that it was just some kind of typo.

A heavy weapon squad with lascannons given the bring it down order has the exact same fire power

And it's a static unit so it can't outflank into side armor, it dies horribly to anything STR 6 or better (or any decent amount of weaker shooting), can't carry troops, and costs more than a Vendetta once you include the CCS to get BiD. If you look at only the pure firepower numbers and ignore everything else, sure, it's a true statement, but it's an absurd comparison to make.

2 hydras are better at anti-tank

This is another "read the rules before writing strategy articles" mistake. Since Hydras got Skyfire in 6th they are garbage at anti-tank.

meltavets with the order is better

6" range vs. 48" range, and the veterans still need a Chimera or Vendetta to haul them around.

Also, you can't give BiD to a veteran squad inside a Chimera (and every veteran squad that doesn't get a Vendetta gets a Chimera).

It had mobility in 5th edition and it was on the same stand in 5th edition, the flyer rule makes it alot more survivable but it suffers in the movement phase being restricted to moving 18 a turn and having degree limit turn is something you have to manage.

Until you realize that you can drop into hover mode and have the old 5th edition Vendetta back, except now with a free 5+ cover save. Oh yeah, and you can still move as a flyer if you want.

 Kharrak wrote:

However, I am unconvinced about your argument in regards to why the Vendetta is justifiably low-cost. In general, above and beyond what it itself can do, it's a unit that's very difficult for many other factions to deal with, particularly considering that they are often taken in multiples. While it's weapons are part of an already large smorgasbord of anti-vehicle, it's capability overall sets it far apart from anything else in the IG codex.

Why do you feel this way? I have seen them get shot down by a single night scythe, which is cheaper. When I think of all the options available to IG generals its one of their best options but I would only use 2.

 Kharrak wrote:
The Vendetta was clearly costed based on 5th edition rules, so I don't think it's "unfairly" priced - I think it just received a considerable boost in 6th that takes its usability far above its initial pricing.

I agree but flyers with the exception of the stormraen and doom scythe are relatively cheap. I think its because their damage output is limited due to reserves and movement restrictions, I would love for someone to compare the vendetta and the storm talon with twin-linked assault cannon and twin-linked lascannon at bs 4. I know the vendetta is vastly superior in durability but from a damage point of view I am intigue to know that answer.

 Peregrine wrote:

This is another "read the rules before writing strategy articles" mistake. Since Hydras got Skyfire in 6th they are garbage at anti-tank.

I admit that I do not know the rules like I should but I know more than enough, you present excellent advise in a horrible way and that is why I will not respond to your post unless it is in an approtiate manner in which you show more respect. The first sentence is unneccessary and this is not an article this is a thread, what are you talking about?

RELAX

 CKO wrote:
I have seen them get shot down by a single night scythe, which is cheaper.

So what? That just means that the Necron player rolled above average. You can't just look at one set of shooting dice and assume it's a representative sample, or that "unit X can sometimes kill unit Y" is a conclusive answer on whether unit Y is good or not. Just like it would be ridiculous to say that a Vendetta's low cost is justified because once I saw a sergeant throw a krak grenade and explode a Vendetta, or that terminators are bad because I once saw them lose combat to a single gun drone.

This is the consistent problem with your posts here, you're basing everything off an intuitive understanding how things "feel" and how single games turn out instead of looking at math and point efficiency and long-term performance.

I would love for someone to compare the vendetta and the storm talon with twin-linked assault cannon and twin-linked lascannon at bs 4.

So why not do it? The math is easy.

The first sentence is unneccessary and this is not an article this is a thread, what are you talking about?

Ah yes, demand respect and then nitpick the precise definition of "article". Perhaps showing a lack of respect is not the best way to earn respect?

And yes, the first sentence is necessary, because the whole point is that you're writing like you have conclusive arguments about how things are, but you don't really understand what you're writing about.

I cannot take any discusion serius when they say the vendetta is not undercosted. It's like discusing with someone who is into conspiracy theories but has no source critesism. Anything you say will not matter because the other person is not rational.

AV12
Transport capasety
43, points for a lascannon with 75% chanche to hit and rarly get a coversave because of the flyer base.
They are not restricted by unit capasety because you can take 9 of them. If you play at 2000 points you can take 18 of them.

I se no reason not to take 6 of them in 3x2 squadrons for 780 points. Unless your oponent is footslogging it is autowinn.

Why would you open a thread backing up your argument with your view on rules that you openly admit you don't understand and then have a pop at someone because they don't agree with you?

Would you rather me do something like this?

I am right because I go to Grand tournaments and place in the top 10 every time

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/150/418653.page

yeah my name is chad knight i came in 5th

I am simply justifying the cost of a unit, I did not know I would get this much tongue about it. However I seem to be under attack which is fine I can handle it but can we please stay on topic and attack my original post and explain to me why what I posted is incorrect in a debateable fashion which will not lead to petite arguements. Simply saying I cannot anaylze the information because "if you believe that the vendetta is average than all of your ideas are flawed" is not helpful. I said that I do not know the rules aswell as I should, that doesnt mean I do not know the rules. When did it become bad to admit that you are not perfect?

If it looks like a troll and smells like a troll ...

To paraphrase - Vendetta is properly priced and to show that all units are balanced I will use the Grey Knights codex as my example as that has no history of ridiciulously priced units in it!

When did anyone blame taking vendettas as a reason for losing, which is the implication from the title of the thread. I played GK with an assassin and won and IG with vendettas and won therefore all units in the game are playable is spurious logic at best.

Give me examples of when Old One Eye and pyrovores in the Nids codex is a good choice, or mandrakes in a DE army, swap that vendetta for ogryns and a techpriest in the IG codex, maybe a swooping hawk eldar army.

 ruminator wrote:

Give me examples of when Old One Eye and pyrovores in the Nids codex is a good choice, or mandrakes in a DE army, swap that vendetta for ogryns and a techpriest in the IG codex, maybe a swooping hawk eldar army.

If I try will this undeserved animosity towards me in this thread stop? I will attempt to find a purpose for those units let me look at them and think about it.

 ruminator wrote:
If it looks like a troll and smells like a troll ...

To paraphrase - Vendetta is properly priced and to show that all units are balanced I will use the Grey Knights codex as my example as that has no history of ridiciulously priced units in it!

When did anyone blame taking vendettas as a reason for losing, which is the implication from the title of the thread. I played GK with an assassin and won and IG with vendettas and won therefore all units in the game are playable is spurious logic at best.

Give me examples of when Old One Eye and pyrovores in the Nids codex is a good choice, or mandrakes in a DE army, swap that vendetta for ogryns and a techpriest in the IG codex, maybe a swooping hawk eldar army.

Ruminator, it would not matter if the original poster is trolling or not. Trolls come to this thread like sharks to blood.

Is it possible to troll on your own thread? The only person that I have truly debated against is peregrine, everyone else I have asked for there opinion. However it seems that somehow I am rubbing off on people the wrong way because I am asking them to question their tactics, something I do all the time. I critique myself constantly I tend to blame myself before I put blame on others I do the same with my units that I choose to play with.

 ruminator wrote:

Give me examples of when Old One Eye and pyrovores in the Nids codex is a good choice, or mandrakes in a DE army, swap that vendetta for ogryns and a techpriest in the IG codex, maybe a swooping hawk eldar army.

I looked at the techpriest first because I thought it had a 2+ save but it doesnt, however take 2 servitors with one bringing the price up to 75 points and put it in a vendetta. You can ride around in an av 12 flyer with the ability to restore hull points or weapon destroyed results on a 3+. The total cost is 205 the same as a Grey Knight Stormraven base. Not much but with it being a flyer and av 12 and the ability to restore hull points that unit will be really durable. Not amazing but thats what I can think of in this short period of time. If this doesnt show that I am not trying to troll but simply want to exchange ideas I dont know what will?

I have to admit that I stopped reading after you considered the Vendetta being priced fairly or even being worse than comparable choices...it's the most overpowered unit in the game right now...by a long shot.

The logic that you are right because you place in tournaments is incredibly flawed, an extension of that would be that only the best footballers in the world are allowed to discusss tactics of the game or that people on all A's are the only ones allowed pass judgement on an education system

I am not saying that its not good, its a great unit I am saying its reasonably priced. 2 lascannon hits per turn first one is most likely going to be on the side coming in on turn 2 around 10 lascannon hits throughout the course of the game if its not shaken or destroyed is not game changing. It doesnt have daemonic posseion or living metal it cant hurt infantry like the night scythe can, I assume at this point everyone is partially reading you all just stop at vendetta reasonably priced, lol I feel like I am saying the world is round not flat.

Whats worse is that the thread isnt even about the Vendetta its about people blaming their units instead of their tactics.

 CKO wrote:
I assume at this point everyone is partially reading you all just stop at vendetta reasonably priced, lol I feel like I am saying the world is round not flat.

It's the exact opposite here...you argue that the world's flat. Arguing that the Vendetta is reasonably priced comes from two different positions:

a) You are a IG player who spams Vendettas.

b) You got no clue about balance.

You try to back up your points by saying you took part in a tournament yet at the same time, fail to realize that actual strength of key units in 6th...that's my point. What point is there in discussing "tactics" with someone who does not recognize / acknowledge actual balance problems?

Not to mention that the OP hardly tangents tactics at all...

CKO - Welcome to the party. A couple years ago I made a thread talking about looking at your dex in a different way, and to use different units that "suck" and finding out when used correctly they are very potent. I went on to use FlashGits as my example. No matter how hard you try to prove otherwise, most people will say "Well why arnt they in tourny army lists?" and then discredit what youre trying to do. I commend you though, I love seeing people trying and succeeding in using other units that arnt normally used.

 CKO wrote:

 Kharrak wrote:

However, I am unconvinced about your argument in regards to why the Vendetta is justifiably low-cost. In general, above and beyond what it itself can do, it's a unit that's very difficult for many other factions to deal with, particularly considering that they are often taken in multiples. While it's weapons are part of an already large smorgasbord of anti-vehicle, it's capability overall sets it far apart from anything else in the IG codex.

Why do you feel this way? I have seen them get shot down by a single night scythe, which is cheaper. When I think of all the options available to IG generals its one of their best options but I would only use 2.

 Kharrak wrote:
The Vendetta was clearly costed based on 5th edition rules, so I don't think it's "unfairly" priced - I think it just received a considerable boost in 6th that takes its usability far above its initial pricing.

I agree but flyers with the exception of the stormraen and doom scythe are relatively cheap. I think its because their damage output is limited due to reserves and movement restrictions, I would love for someone to compare the vendetta and the storm talon with twin-linked assault cannon and twin-linked lascannon at bs 4. I know the vendetta is vastly superior in durability but from a damage point of view I am intigue to know that answer.

1) An interesting comparison - note though that the Night Scythe is armour 11 (armour difference being a big thing for flyers), can't hover, and its attacks are not ap2 - while the vendetta gets that +1 on the damage chart. Note that while the Night Scythe will on average get a glance and a penetrate on the Vendetta, the Vendetta in turn will likely get two penetrates on the Night Scythe (with that +1 on the damage chart, again) This example isn't helped by the fact that the Night Scythe is the OTHER horribly undercosted flyer in the game that people are upset about

2) You also have to remember that flyers are only hit on 6's by the majority of firepower in the current game - thus making them notably difficult to deal with. This is also why the Vendetta in turn is arguably the best air-superiority fighter in the game. It has the most potent anti-flier armaments in the game, and has a better chance of killing a single vehicle than any other flyer, and is serious competition for many other anti-vehicle units in the game in general.

 Kharrak wrote:


1) An interesting comparison - note though that the Night Scythe is armour 11 (armour difference being a big thing for flyers), can't hover, and its attacks are not ap2 - while the vendetta gets that +1 on the damage chart. Note that while the Night Scythe will on average get a glance and a penetrate on the Vendetta, the Vendetta in turn will likely get two penetrates on the Night Scythe (with that +1 on the damage chart, again) This example isn't helped by the fact that the Night Scythe is the OTHER horribly undercosted flyer in the game that people are upset about

First I must think you for discussing tactics and not participating in that nonsense. This is partially my fault because I compared it to the night scythe first, I know you can do this when you look in the IG codex if you wanted to could you build an IG list without a vendetta and not worry about your anti-tank. The answer is yes, because you have so many other ways you can do it and that is why its cheap. Now if it were in the space marine codex it would be totally different it would cost 170-200 because nothing in that codex would be able to do what a vendetta does. Thats all I was trying to say.

 Kharrak wrote:
2) You also have to remember that flyers are only hit on 6's by the majority of firepower in the current game - thus making them notably difficult to deal with. This is also why the Vendetta in turn is arguably the best air-superiority fighter in the game. It has the most potent anti-flier armaments in the game, and has a better chance of killing a single vehicle than any other flyer, and is serious competition for many other anti-vehicle units in the game in general.

I didnt consider that kharrak I think its the best anti-air weapon that IG have, but they also have hydras to compete for that spot but I get where you are going.

I think players would have a better understanding of the game if they had tunnel vision and just truly focus on their codex, worry about how to stop or prevent a other codex units stop thinking about how many points it cost them and how much easier life would be if you had it in your codex. I just want people to look at their codex and themselves and make the best list and they would be better and the game will become simple. Its like the 1st step to becoming a great player, I am telling anyone that is listening (which is also another step) the first step to winning the majority of your games is looking at yourself and making changes, not the codex or units.

Sometimes it's not just about blaming the unit, some units just suck. Try playing lychguard and you'll see : they cost a fortune in points, lack punch (2A and WS4 and now ap3 is just a joke), move slow, aren't as tough as they're made out to be AND run off whenever they're beaten in combat and get caught and wiped out because of I2.

True, it's not the unit's fault if you lose, it's your fault for taking such a gakky unit.

Look, the very fact that Warhammer have so many models in it, a really odd sett of rules where old codexes get crammed into new editions and rarly updated and there are objectives in each game that you do not need to reach in any one spesefic game means very mutch that this is a game of emergence.

The designers makes the mechanics, and the game is the dynamics that come out of that game. Of course you will be awared to think creativaly. Also, as with most things, you are looking for the tactics that are best, not the once that are pupular. If all the best tactics where the most popular once then everybody would have the best army lists. On top of that you can add induvidual skill and preferences to playstyles.

It is quite clear that warhammer is an emergent game where GW do not know what will happen and neather do the people on the internett have omniperspective tactics. On top of this you can add things like rock paper scissor and cyclical balance. Playing warhammer can be as different as squig models. I think you will find that we are thinking critical. The problem is that GW is not a game with a lott of depth in it once you figure out that chimeras should not allow 5 people to fire out of it, veterans are very good and vendettas are undercosted. The same with the crosant flying bakery list that necrons can do. Since all of it is flying your oponent cannot interact with your army. Purifyers get acess to a whole lott of cheap odly costed weapons. That is just flawed game design. Or game design that pushes you in a direction of figuring what units are better then others and rewarding the better player for spotting it. However, it is fearly badly hidden in some codexes. And these codexes usualy perform very well.

 CKO wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Good luck with that. One of the few things all serious 40k players (even IG players who use Vendettas) can agree on is that the Vendetta is underpriced.

It is typical for someone to say things like this when they themselves cannot do something and they dislike that someone might be able to do it.

How about you stop with the generalizations, please? I CAN do that something. I CAN take a vendetta with allies. I CAN fill that vendetta with a squad of those melta or plama vets you were touting in your first post.

However, that doesn't make them properly priced in 6th edition. In 5th edition, they were fine. I could pop one with a missile launcher Devastator squad and not thing twice about it. In 6th edition, the flier rule makes them hard to hit without skyfire, and the ability to move 18+ inches and still fire 3 twin-linked lascannons is hard to ignore.

I'm afraid your argument is not going to convince anyone otherwise, but thanks for the interesting discussion.

 CKO wrote:

 ruminator wrote:

Give me examples of when Old One Eye and pyrovores in the Nids codex is a good choice, or mandrakes in a DE army, swap that vendetta for ogryns and a techpriest in the IG codex, maybe a swooping hawk eldar army.

I looked at the techpriest first because I thought it had a 2+ save but it doesnt, however take 2 servitors with one bringing the price up to 75 points and put it in a vendetta. You can ride around in an av 12 flyer with the ability to restore hull points or weapon destroyed results on a 3+. The total cost is 205 the same as a Grey Knight Stormraven base. Not much but with it being a flyer and av 12 and the ability to restore hull points that unit will be really durable. Not amazing but thats what I can think of in this short period of time. If this doesnt show that I am not trying to troll but simply want to exchange ideas I dont know what will?

Come up with ideas for Old One Eye and the Pyrovore.

If your argument is that every model can be used in a competitive environment you need to show more than the potential to repair something that either doesn't take damage or dies in one turn.

Well, he is correct though.

You can use everything in a competitive environment.

You can use FO, monoliths and the Pyrovore in a compeitive environment.

You will utterly lose against actual competitive lists...yet you *can* field them.

 Sigvatr wrote:

You can use everything in a competitive environment.

You can use FO, monoliths and the Pyrovore in a compeitive environment.

You will utterly lose against actual competitive lists...yet you *can* field them.

True.

Well, he is correct though.

No, his point was that you can make those units competitive.

I always blame the unit.

While I feel that each and every unit has a role, the truth is that 40K is just inherently unbalanced. Some units are just much, much better at a particular role than others. That's why you see people flocking to these units. You can try to cook a turkey by campfire, but wouldn't it be better to just pop that sucker into the oven/microwave? You can ride your bicycle to work everyday, but wouldn't it be faster and easier to just hop onto a motorcycle or car?

Every codex has efficient (good) and non-efficient (bad) units. Sure you can try to make the inefficient units work, but why bother when there are just better options out there? Take for example, the hive guard versus the tyrannofex. If you are looking at AT, the t-fex can threaten AV14 and shoot from 48" away....but the hive guards will out-perform it almost every single game. Why? Because they are much, much cheaper, shoot much more reliably (and with more shots given a unit of 3 hive guards) and the majority of tanks out there are still AV10-13. That doesn't mean the t-fex is bad. It is still a monstrous creature with a 2+ save and he does have a niche (AV13-14). However, the hive guards are just more efficient in the role that both performs.

Another example, the pyrovore. It's main role is anti-horde as it is one of the very few units in the tyranid codex with template weapons. Some people have considered putting them (unit of 3) in a mycetic spore to drop and flame the enemy units. However, almost everything in the tyranid army is better at killing infrantry and more survivable than those pyrovores with the exception of termagants. However, termagants are more necessary because they are scoring units and the best screening units for the bug army. Also, when buffed up by tervigons, termagants can perform just as well as pyrovores.

Now not every unit in every codex has a specific role. Some units are fairly unique - Marbo, Callidus, Doom of Ma'lantai, Deathleper, etc. It's true that sometimes players don't really know how to best use these units. Once you figure out how these units work best, you can usually get some mileage out of them. In the same sense, they can be very good units because your opponents may not know how to play against them either. However, these units are usually exceptions to the norm and they can be very good because they are actually force-multiplier units. But in most cases, people just don't use certain units because there are just better units around. Why try to get drunk on beer when whiskey would get you there much faster (if your goal is trying to get drunk the fastest)?

Regardless of the OP's position, he's stated multiple times he doesn't know the rules. Therefore, any ideas he has on the subject are as valid as any ideas he has on quantum theory. His argument cannot be grounded in the rules that govern the rest of our realities.

There's plenty of 'useless' units.
HOWEVER, They CAN be made good. It just basically never worth the effort, because there's invaribly something else that will do the job better, without dedicating resource to making a terrible or subpar unit into something reasonably killy.

Take Mandrakes for example, they're terrible, too many points for what they do, no options to speak of and they're a shooty unit that needs to kill something in assault before they can fire - however, you CAN make them reasonable, but you need to put a lot of effort into it.
You need to either walk them up the field with a Haemy, or rush a Haem up the field to join them so they can do something turn 1.
Alternatively you need to dedicate a portion of your army to killing a unit just enough to let your Mandrakes kill a unit using their basic Str4 CCW, without getting wrecked due to being T3 with a 5+* save, and you might get a decent run out of them turn 2-3 onwards.

Alternatively just take any other DE Elites option which can stand on its own and is invaribly cheaper!

I honestly can't tell If your joking or serious , but I'm going to assume the former


With all that AT you listed , Vets require a transport and can't take orders while in a transport , and in order to get that AT you want you have to be 6' away from enemy armour . With heavy weapons squads 5+ save and insta killed by st 6 is crap. , lascannons are hard presses to pen '. 14 front armour . Now for Vendettas yes they are underpriced , but there are things that everyone hates and thinks is. OP. Grey knight Dakka dreds , Necron. Air Force , demon flamer spams ,

Simple develop better tactics

Strongly disagree. With the changing of the game you often see shifts that invalidate a unit almost entirely. What may have been balanced in one edition or in a meta defined by one codex may be UP or worthless in another.

Take the eldar codex. Guardians are worthless. DA are just better with the removal of 4+ cover saves. Warp spiders are just better than Hawks, Harlequins are just better than banshees, and the pheonix lords are almost universally useless in competitive settings (Maugan ra and Fuegan have minor uses, but the rest....).

Tyranids were taken from one of the lowest rungs and nerfed into dead last with 6th.

GK are just all around better than DA.

ect.

Codexes get outdated with power creep. More and more optimal units are needed to deal with shifting meta changes. Simply a fact of the game

Can a unit be more useful than expected? This is a dice game, so yes. Poor opponent target priority can yield unexpected results. I had a 5 man warrior squad with prime run through over 800 points of terminators and marines before going down. However, that was an isolated incident and more of a mistake on the opponent's part than a success of the unit.

Saying "all units are good" is like saying "everything tastes good". Im sure some people like liver and onion and could argue for it, but i dont think you can find many who like the taste of dirt, smelling salts, or oil. There are dirt bad units in this game.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

You can use everything in a competitive environment.

You can use FO, monoliths and the Pyrovore in a compeitive environment.

You will utterly lose against actual competitive lists...yet you *can* field them.

True.

Well, he is correct though.

No, his point was that you can make those units competitive.

Put my quotes in the right order and you may notice the subtle humor

I killed a vendetta with a thrown haywire grenade once.

Clearly they are underpowered.

I don't know if you're serious, trolling or socketpuppeting :/

 Niiai wrote:
I cannot take any discusion serius when they say the vendetta is not undercosted. It's like discusing with someone who is into conspiracy theories but has no source critesism. Anything you say will not matter because the other person is not rational.

AV12
Transport capasety
43, points for a lascannon with 75% chanche to hit and rarly get a coversave because of the flyer base.
They are not restricted by unit capasety because you can take 9 of them. If you play at 2000 points you can take 18 of them.

I se no reason not to take 6 of them in 3x2 squadrons for 780 points. Unless your oponent is footslogging it is autowinn.

I wouldn't want to run that combination for three reasons:

1. It makes you a complete waac douche
2. It limits your army tactically, being dependent on reserve flyers will end badly quite often
3. That costs over $500 to build, no thanks.

 Stormrider wrote:
1. It makes you a complete waac douche

So it's an extremely effective build then?

2. It limits your army tactically, being dependent on reserve flyers will end badly quite often

On average you'll get 4 of the 6 in on turn 2. That's not too bad.

3. That costs over $500 to build, no thanks.

Has no bearing on effectiveness of the build. 18 Pyrovores costs that much and is still essentially useless. (and amusingly costs more than 6 Vendettas in points as well)

 Lokas wrote:
I killed a vendetta with a thrown haywire grenade once.

Clearly they are underpowered.

6
6
6

 Stormrider wrote:

 Niiai wrote:
I cannot take any discusion serius when they say the vendetta is not undercosted. It's like discusing with someone who is into conspiracy theories but has no source critesism. Anything you say will not matter because the other person is not rational.

AV12
Transport capasety
43, points for a lascannon with 75% chanche to hit and rarly get a coversave because of the flyer base.
They are not restricted by unit capasety because you can take 9 of them. If you play at 2000 points you can take 18 of them.

I se no reason not to take 6 of them in 3x2 squadrons for 780 points. Unless your oponent is footslogging it is autowinn.

I wouldn't want to run that combination for three reasons:

1. It makes you a complete waac douche
2. It limits your army tactically, being dependent on reserve flyers will end badly quite often
3. That costs over $500 to build, no thanks.

I would not run such a build but not because it is WAAC. It actually isn't. What it is is an unbalanced army. Face the right opponent and you will crush him. Face the wrong army and you will get crushed. I prefer a much more balanced army instead.

First time I outright agree with peregrine.

The vendetta is horribly underpriced-not only because it packs good guns, good mobility AND good defense for a low cost, ut because it is a flier, and flier status changes alot.

Of the top of my head, the following armies have not a single flyer, nor a single skyfire unit: Tau, Orks, Eldar, Sisters, DA, BT and SW.
Thoes are 7 armies (out of 16) that got NOTHING that can realistically deal with multiple fliers even if they want to gear their entire army list for it, plus they got no option to use such units themselves (outside of allying with others or using forgeworld, if you take allies just for power reasons you might as well switch codex and FW is not allowed everywhere.)

Now, moving toward the armies that DO have a filer/skyfire.
How many, have exacly 1 flier/skyfire?
Almost all of them. so you take 1 specific unit-or you are screwed if the enemy masses filers.

"take fortifications then"? so you are forced to have a static, defensive unit, and you only have 1-against some of the most mobile units in the game, who at times out-range you? not only is this far from foolproof-it again forces you to play differently then you would have wanted to.

Give it an extra year, when we have a ~3 new codecies, and at least 1 more flier wave, and fliers wont be as strong-as there will be many more answers to them around, but as the situation is now-its just too good to not to spam fliers, just because it is untouchable in about a third of your games, and still a great unit in any game where the opponent actually has answers.

The only situation where flyier spam is bad, is if you face hydra spam. but who on earth will run a list designed to beat one spesific unit type, and do worthless against anything else?

Hydras aren't useless against DE, Eldar, Tau, any other list with a bunch of skimmers.

DE loves hydras like a blue whale loves a fall from orbit next to a tulip pot.

Forgot hydras work on skimmers too there, but its still only useful against fliers, and 4 armies (necrons, tau, DE and eldar, these are the only to have proper skimmer access)-so it will not be truly spammed.

 Exergy wrote:

 Lokas wrote:
I killed a vendetta with a thrown haywire grenade once.

Clearly they are underpowered.

6
6
6

I had not thought of it that way.

New conclusion:

Clearly, I am satan.

Ok... Am I the only one who noticed that when the OP tried to explain how a Techpriest could be useful, he just threw it in a Vendetta?

Why has nobody brought this up?!

This post was amazing and I think you for it!

 jy2 wrote:

I always blame the unit.

I am not saying take the bad unit and make it work I am saying take the average unit or the units that might be overlooked and see if it has potential.

 jy2 wrote:
While I feel that each and every unit has a role, the truth is that 40K is just inherently unbalanced. Some units are just much, much better at a particular role than others. That's why you see people flocking to these units. You can try to cook a turkey by campfire, but wouldn't it be better to just pop that sucker into the oven/microwave? You can ride your bicycle to work everyday, but wouldn't it be faster and easier to just hop onto a motorcycle or car?

Nicely said.

 jy2 wrote:
Every codex has efficient (good) and non-efficient (bad) units. Sure you can try to make the inefficient units work, but why bother when there are just better options out there? Take for example, the hive guard versus the tyrannofex. If you are looking at AT, the t-fex can threaten AV14 and shoot from 48" away....but the hive guards will out-perform it almost every single game. Why? Because they are much, much cheaper, shoot much more reliably (and with more shots given a unit of 3 hive guards) and the majority of tanks out there are still AV10-13. That doesn't mean the t-fex is bad. It is still a monstrous creature with a 2+ save and he does have a niche (AV13-14). However, the hive guards are just more efficient in the role that both performs.

I agree with you completely, because you are comparing tyranid units with tyranid units, your not comparing a tyranid anti-tank unit with an Ig anti-tank unit and coming to the conclusion that the tyranid unit is bad. That type of analysis is flawed! You analyze the units that were in your codex and selected the more efficient and better choice. If you were to take the t-fex and it sucks in the game do you blame the t-fex or yourself for choosing it over the hive guard?

 jy2 wrote:
Another example, the pyrovore. It's main role is anti-horde as it is one of the very few units in the tyranid codex with template weapons. Some people have considered putting them (unit of 3) in a mycetic spore to drop and flame the enemy units. However, almost everything in the tyranid army is better at killing infrantry and more survivable than those pyrovores with the exception of termagants. However, termagants are more necessary because they are scoring units and the best screening units for the bug army. Also, when buffed up by tervigons, termagants can perform just as well as pyrovores.

Excellent point template weapons are at a premium perhaps we should bring the unit you mention earlier back into the equation! The tyranofex with acid spray is the cost of a land raider and you just told us why. You can have the tyranofex with its str 6 ap 4 torrent handling horde duties give it cluster spines and it has two templates not amazing, but with a 2+ save giving it immunity against missile launchers it can be effective if used correctly. How did I come to this conclusion after looking at the facts that jy2 presented to me and thinking outside the box.

 jy2 wrote:
Now not every unit in every codex has a specific role. Some units are fairly unique - Marbo, Callidus, Doom of Ma'lantai, Deathleper, etc. It's true that sometimes players don't really know how to best use these units. Once you figure out how these units work best, you can usually get some mileage out of them. In the same sense, they can be very good units because your opponents may not know how to play against them either.

BINGO! I place high in tournaments because opponents immediately disregard units they wouldnt use. I came in 5th using a simple combo, I put zahn in a nighscythe it moved flat out up to 36 in 5th edition pratically anywhere I wanted on the first turn (with stealth giving it a 3+ sv), I used obyron a unit of lychguard (4+ inv followed by 4+ reanimation protocol) with one re-roll cryptek, necron lord with orb and anrakyr the traveler and that unit got in your face turn one. It simply caught everyone off guard and when you get hit with str 6 power weapons the next turn due to furious charge I was decimating people. Simply thinking outside the box!

 jy2 wrote:
However, these units are usually exceptions to the norm and they can be very good because they are actually force-multiplier units. But in most cases, people just don't use certain units because there are just better units around. Why try to get drunk on beer when whiskey would get you there much faster (if your goal is trying to get drunk the fastest)?

I love to get typsy first!

I just love finding use for units and using them and I wanted to challenge people to try to understand codexes better.

SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT: This thread is not about the cost of the vendetta it was used as an example!

 Niiai wrote:
DE loves hydras like a blue whale loves a fall from orbit next to a tulip pot.

Some may question your right to drop whales from orbit. Those who understand know that you have no right to let them swim. EXTERMINATUS WHALUS

 CKO wrote:
Would you rather me do something like this?

I am right because I go to Grand tournaments and place in the top 10 every time

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/150/418653.page

yeah my name is chad knight i came in 5th

Can't help but notice that you scored the lowest of all those players for sportsmanship and you were the first to resort to name-calling and insulting other users intelligence in this thread.

MarsNZ wrote:

 CKO wrote:
Would you rather me do something like this?

I am right because I go to Grand tournaments and place in the top 10 every time

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/150/418653.page

yeah my name is chad knight i came in 5th

Can't help but notice that you scored the lowest of all those players for sportsmanship and you were the first to resort to name-calling and insulting other users intelligence in this thread.

Yes, I am glad that you notice this I need to work on my sporstsmanship scores if I ever want to win but I have one major thing going against me when it comes to sportsmanship if you saw me you would know immediately what it is. Who did I resort to name calling with and insulting others intelligence I will apologize immediately to them, I did it unknowingly I was simply giving my opinion I would never intentionally do that to someone. I admit I did Peregrine wrong but look at his post and how they simply insulted me, I should have been patient I apologize.

 CKO wrote:
I am not saying take the bad unit and make it work I am saying take the average unit or the units that might be overlooked and see if it has potential.

That might have been a good policy back in 1990. Now that we have the internet and dozens of forums/blogs/etc within a week of a new codex being released it's been analyzed in detail and all of the good and bad units have been identified. Now which is more likely: that all of these people, who are all trying very hard to maximize their chances of winning, have missed something and the "overlooked" unit is really a good one, or that you're just wrong and the overlooked unit is overlooked because it's garbage?

I think that is where the dicotomy problem is coming from. It is either the best or garbage. people cant see the sexy shades of grey inbetween when it is broken down like that.

I don't think that's true. There's plenty of tactics threads where people talk about a variety of units as being "ok but not great" or "worth it's points".

So there is definitely shades of grey - it's just that people like the OP want to pretend that obviously bad units should be used in competitive lists too.

Niiai wrote:DE loves hydras like a blue whale loves a fall from orbit next to a tulip pot.

I don't understand you Norwegians at all.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Niiai wrote:DE loves hydras like a blue whale loves a fall from orbit next to a tulip pot.

I don't understand you Norwegians at all.

Sounds like someone doesn't understand the reference.

 Doomhunter wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Niiai wrote:DE loves hydras like a blue whale loves a fall from orbit next to a tulip pot.

I don't understand you Norwegians at all.

Sounds like someone doesn't understand the reference.

Was that Hitchhikers?

Yup.

 CKO wrote:
I tend to think that almost nearly every unit can be used. If Phil Kelly or Matt Ward wrote the book its almost a gurantee that every unit can be used.

That's great that you think that, but it doesn't make you right, and the second sentence above kind of proves that, because neither of these authors (Kelly in particular) have a clue about balance. Kelly makes some choices way too obviously superior to other choices within the same book, whereas Matt Ward writes such outrageous books as to destroy the external balance of the game making some choices in other books useless. These are simple facts about the game. I'm also curious as to why you would use Phil Kelly and Matt Ward as examples and then use a book that neither of them wrote as a further example.

You say it is unjust animosity toward you,bu when you insistently argue a point you clearly don't know much about against a group of people who do understand and then tell them they don't understand or are narrow-minded, then that's what happens. Furthermore you have gotten narky at most of the people who disagreed with you (which so far as been all but one poster who made one post with no argument at all within it).

As for your overall argument, I'm not sure you entirely are sure about what you are saying given that you have contradicted or 'changed' your points several times over; a very good example is when you said something along the lines of you 'want people to look at their Codex and themselves and make the best list', yet the whole point of your OP was advocating the opposite of this and telling people not to make the best list, because apparently we should take bad choices and try make them good, because apparently we all suck. So if you want to convince anyone, I suggest you first convince yourself.

But you are right in that it isn't the unit's fault, because as someone above said already, it's the player's fault for taking a bad unit in the first place.

So I'm wondering if this counts as blaming a unit. The other week I was in a 1250 game Tau (me) vs IG.

I should have deep struck a couple suit squads, but I thought he had too many autocannons to risk him focusing on a few suits I couldn't hide and destroying the few units I would have deployed.

So turn 2 he gets all three of his Vendettas and drops plasma vets right next to my suits and completely decimates my army. I'm left with maybe 6 firewarriors, 1 broadside, and 3 crisis suits. My turn rolls around and I'm completely unable to even take down a single Vendetta. So instead of going further I just condeded.

Can I blame the unit? Do I blame my older codex or do I blame the codex that gets an outflanking flier with three powerful guns that can deny me cover because of outflank? Do I blame the BS4 troops that got deployed right next to my units with three special weapons?

That is some lucky scatter if he was able to deploy them safely and still have LOS with his vendettas, cause they cant still fire if they hover mode on/deploy since they need to move over 6 to get on the table(their length).

I think the OP was saying that just because it is not the best does not mean that it is bad. Like being the dumbest guy in mensa. However sometimes these units have other qualities that can shine in a different list or under a different general. For example I am stuck between plague marines and MON marines in my epi list. Although plague marines are good and in some cases better, in my experience I have found that most of them get killed before the tally can kick in. Also even after the tally kicks in they dont have as many numbers to benefit from the increased offensive output. Its a difference between 24 bolters and 6 plasmaguns or 12 bolters and 8 plasma guns. Different variables like this can make a difference in how a unit is perceived. What if I didnt want to take a nurgle lord? Now the MON CSM are better because that mandatory slot is now open. So in this case a sub optimal unit can be better than the more optimal one because of the content of the rest of the list. I am most likely going to go with a hybrid approach of two units of plague, one unit of CSM, and a zombies(with typhus) or another unit of CSM if not.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Doomhunter wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Niiai wrote:DE loves hydras like a blue whale loves a fall from orbit next to a tulip pot.

I don't understand you Norwegians at all.

Sounds like someone doesn't understand the reference.

Was that Hitchhikers?

Shameful confession: never read it.

nothing more to see here; back on topic now.

I am sorry. It apears that I might be the inintended troll in this thread. But if the DE loves the hydras, would not flyers hate them pasionetly as the bane of their existences with all their hearts, like mentioned tulip pot?

Even withouth the skimmers, the re-rolls would mean that the hydra is "just" two BS 4 atutocannons for 75 points (and a heavy bolter?) It is super cheap.

One of my main oponenets at 1250 points during 5th edition used to run 3 veterans in 3 chimeras, backed up by two hydras and something else. It was hard to beat, in fact I think I never did. I always crashed and burned. It really is a bit undercosted.

 Niiai wrote:
Even withouth the skimmers, the re-rolls would mean that the hydra is "just" two BS 4 atutocannons for 75 points (and a heavy bolter?) It is super cheap.

Not in 6th. Now the Hydra has Skyfire but not Interceptor, so against everything but flyers and skimmers it is shooting at BS 1. So it's still a good AA unit, but against everything else it's garbage.

[geek]

Wasn't it actually a sperm whale?

[/geek]

Peregrine: I still has the rerolls (on the autocannons, not the heavy bolter) so it is like a BS 2 autocannon. Not that bad actualy. 75 points is not so expensivem but a bargein when the skyfire can be used.

Hedhehog: The norwegian translation at the time it was translated did not diferemsiate so mutch one the whale. (Or I remember badly.)

Please re-read the 1st post, there is a misunderstanding!

So... Shame on me for not power gaming?

Well, back on topic:

"I apologize there is a misunderstanding, dont blame the unit blame unit selection. I am not saying somehow if you were good enough player you could make poor units like IG techpriest work, I was saying blame your unit selection and tactics. I apologize for the misunderstanding, I changed the title aswell, thanks Godless Mimicry post. " As CKO has adjusted his post.

OK, sooo...I do not know how to attack this. This is the fundamental problem with this game. Let me see if I can sum my thoughts up in a 2 dimensial string from a to å (or a to z as moast of you would say.)

[... blame your unit selection and tactics. Does this mean I should blame my unit selection and tactic? Well...if I do not winn these are the two factors I could take into acount. Unit selection (this would be armylist) and tactics (this would be how I play.)

How I play: Well, as with moast things. I can alwasy improve, always.

Armylist, AKA, unit selection: I find this harder. Should you be playing with the best posible units? Let us asume yes. This would lead to strong competetive lists. However, as a long time tyranid player during the current codex I am not feeling the love. I feel quite confident in my current list (Tervigons, gaunts, gargoyles, ravaners, zoanthropes and tyrant guard.) I try to have an awser to everything and I am an all commer list. (IMHO) I could go for a narrower list. I never did try the 60 genestealer lists in 5th edition, but as long as you do not meet too many flyers I would think it could still be viable. (Give some infiltrating genestealers feel no pain and get them into melle.) Let us just asume that we are searching and searching, thinking new, thinking inovative for ways to make a good army list. Perhaps there are things there that we have not seen. This is after all what the CKO is ecuraging us to do in my opinion.

But if we zoom out, we see that the tyranid codex is not so good. Not a) in having a good codex of witch to chose units (a good codex in general) or b) in making the best list there possible is!

In the widened horison with ouer intension to build better lists we have the top tiers. Space Wolves with undercosted Grey Hunters and Long Fangs, Grey Knights with some wholesome funnbags. The necrons with a very strong codex and the imperial guard.

The imperial guard list would be good. The Chimera, Veterans, Vendetta are all low priced so they would be a good place to start building your list. Also the hydra stil seems good. Marbo is a good trick. With the imperial guard codex you can build better lists then a tyranid player. It is a better codex. The same can be sead for the Necron Codex.

As for building the best army lists: Well, as long as you cannot kill all his models and have the first gameturn, there is very little that can beat the flying french crossant necron list. How does it winn? Cheap scoring units and superior firepower. Since it has some 5-10 (depending on point level) flyers in it it removes your oponents abilaty to interact with it.

The last tournament we had at 1750 points in my local play aria in 5th edition was wonn by a dark angels list: Loads of predators, terminators with rocket launchers and landspeeders. A good list from a bad codex. I would play one of these 2 lisst if I was going for the best choise possible.

This senario will also lead to the metagame that if you do not play very hard lists then you loose.

If we are choosing best unit based on how cool it is the metagame would not be so hard. Not only that, but it would be easier to reqruit new players (enshuring a long living healthy hobby) and you could play untradisonaly tactics. And it would be more funn for all parties involved.

If I wanted to play something competative I would not be playing warhammer. This game is poorly balanced. If the competision is to choose 2> over >1, then what we are really competing in is being dicks. Warhammer is not a good enough game that we should be playing it compettivaly to winn. We could play it competativaly to have funn. That this game is very good at. It has a lott of flavor. When people are complaing that the oponents units are undercosted what they are really complaining is that the opponent is using a mutch better codex then him. Not that the opponent is better then him. This is not a case of cyclical imbalance done right. This is an example of matt ward, phill kelly and what's theyr name doing a gakky baøancing job on the fact that they are not playing the same game as the rest of the competeteive players. They are playing the funn game amongst the casual players. It is funn to winn games, but it is more funn to have an opponent who wants to play you again some other time.

I am not blaming the unit. I am blaming my opponent.

At first, reading the title, I was thinking "Okay, this makes sense. I can agree."

But OP, you're refusing to see reason, don't know your rules, are being defensive, and arguing the point. It's kindof ridiculous.

Shame too, coulda been a good thread.

Am I allowed to blame other peoples units? Sometimes they are really good and do stuff that mine have a hard time compensating for in the way they were built for and then I'm all like, well I guess the game has moved on and my using this unit in this way isn't going to cut it, so then I sorta think my blaming the unit is kinda justified because I didn't decide to be super cut throat in my play and my army building because I didn't understand this situation would come up and there are a lot of times when you realize your gakky answer doesn't do it's job at the efficiency you need to given POWACREEP.

So yeah, it's my fault for falling into the trap, but that still means there are traps out dere innit.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
So turn 2 he gets all three of his Vendettas

I stopped reading here.

Sure, if you complain about Vendettas you're blaming the unit. But in the case of the Vendetta, almost every complaint you can think of is justified.

Did opposite day arrive without anyone telling me?

Saying the Vendetta is underpriced is like saying Firewarriors are good in assault.

 Niiai wrote:

Armylist, AKA, unit selection: I find this harder. Should you be playing with the best posible units? Let us asume yes. This would lead to strong competetive lists. However, as a long time tyranid player during the current codex I am not feeling the love. I feel quite confident in my current list (Tervigons, gaunts, gargoyles, ravaners, zoanthropes and tyrant guard.) I try to have an awser to everything and I am an all commer list. (IMHO) I could go for a narrower list. I never did try the 60 genestealer lists in 5th edition, but as long as you do not meet too many flyers I would think it could still be viable. (Give some infiltrating genestealers feel no pain and get them into melle.) Let us just asume that we are searching and searching, thinking new, thinking inovative for ways to make a good army list. Perhaps there are things there that we have not seen. This is after all what the CKO is ecuraging us to do in my opinion.

I have a hard time communicating because I am unique and sometimes people just dont understand me and it leads to low sportsmanship scores. Thats why I continued to just bang my head against the wall but eventually the wall gives! Niiai you did what I could not do and explain my point of view and I thank you for it, and I agree sometimes your codex is to blame if you have studied the book and are using the best units and its just not able to compete with the newer codexes there is little player skill can do for you.

However at that point you have to ask yourself how bad do I want to win? If you want to win that badly (like me) you get one of the newer codexes or one that you know you can win with and use that one. The game is not unbalanced, the game is exatcly the way it should be it is design to make you have to go buy the newer stuff to win! GW goal is not balance its profit and if you have to buy new stuff to win than GW's formula is perfect, at the end of the day its a buisness and the only balance they care about is on the balance sheet. Is there something wrong with them making money?

If you do decide that you want to win that bad and use one of the newer codexes or one that you believe you can win with and you dont win, its no longer GW's fault its your fault as a player. You should have studied the codex examine the units and determined if this codex can get the job done for you. I pretend like I am the boss and the codex is trying to get a job! Sounds crazy but let me explain by using the new Chaos codex as an example.

Do you as my new codex have the units I need to be able to win?

You should be able to use your player knowledge and look through that codex and see if it does.

What do you have over the other codexes or canidates?

You should notice an av 12 flyer with a 5+ inv save, 5+ hull point renewal that can vector strike and have an ap 3 torrent. That type stuff is obvious but, did you notice that obliterators can now have t 5 and not instant die to lascannons. They now are immune to most instant death meaning there 6 wounds are actually 6 wounds and did you notice they gave them an assault cannon aswell. Ok, I get 6 wounds for 210 thats 35 points per wound before the upgrades, thats cheaper than a terminator and I get all that fire power and they added an assault cannon and I can make them toughness five, but I cant fire the same weapon twice, can I manage that during a game if so how? This is how deep I get into analyzing each unit.

I notice your best unit is the helldrake, what units can I take to make it even better?

The helldrake is good against infantry it needs help cracking open vehicles to torrent the squad inside, what can do that. Havocs with 4 autocannons can open any vehicle up. I can have rhinos full of melta and plasma flat out first turn than blowup vehicles on the second turn which is the same turn that the drakes should come in.

What about that chessy spam flyer list, how do you beat it?

Helldrakes can vector strike a flyer per turn, also the torrent is perfect against their scarabs. They may blow up the rhinos easy but if we have plague marines in those rhinos than they will have a hard time killing them. I also have blob units if you want to see if ignoring them is a possibility.

I really like IG why should I pick you over IG and there vendettas?

(Pretending that the codex is speaking)
The IG codex has been out for a while now and people have played against it and already have effective strategies to deal with them. I am new, which means new tactics to beat me. I am going to be frank with you sir most players are to lazy to figure out how to beat new tactics. They want it to be given to them by the internet or divine intervention you can use that to your advantage. If you give me a chance we can get together and see if we can get that early knockout combo going with blowing up transports and helldrakes killing infantry. Anti-tank covered, anti-infantry covered, and I have a flyer please give me the job.

(Back to CKO)

Yes, some codexes are not as good as others but its your decision! You know that the codex you are using is not as powerful but you use it anyway in my mind you have given up your right to complain. You know that the codex that you picked and bought figs for can not handle the extreme competitive environment, so you are putting yourself in a position to where you have to blame the unit. You pick the codex, you pick the units, you execute the tactics, so why is GW to blame? You have so much control over everything that you really cant blame gw or the unit.

I dont give anyone control over me, I pick the codex, I buy the minature, I put it in my list, I use tactics and make it work, and I won that game or I lost that game. I have complete control and its up to me and when something goes wrong its my fault, and I cant blame anyone but myself.

 CKO wrote:
The game is not unbalanced

Yes, some codexes are not as good as others but its your decision! You know that the codex you are using is not as powerful but you use it anyway in my mind you have given up your right to complain. You know that the codex that you picked and bought figs for can not handle the extreme competitive environment

Can we close this thread already? OP is clearly trying to flamebait.

To CKO and everybpdy else I am calling quits on this thread. I have spend a lott of time playing games and looking at game balances. I have also been playing GW for a while now. While i am in no way an expert I think we all can see that as a game warhammer 40k and fantasy are very bad games. However they are a funn hobby. I do not belive this kind of competeteive play encuraged in this thread is good for your local hobby.

If the goal of playing GW is to winn at tpurnaments it means sacrefiaing to mutch of what i like about the hobby. I'd rather start playing chess or buy a rubix cube because pitching a codex that has good chances of winning on an optimaly tuned list vs a rubbish codex is a lott like beating up little hildren and feeling good about myself.

 CKO wrote:

 Niiai wrote:

Armylist, AKA, unit selection: I find this harder. Should you be playing with the best posible units? Let us asume yes. This would lead to strong competetive lists. However, as a long time tyranid player during the current codex I am not feeling the love. I feel quite confident in my current list (Tervigons, gaunts, gargoyles, ravaners, zoanthropes and tyrant guard.) I try to have an awser to everything and I am an all commer list. (IMHO) I could go for a narrower list. I never did try the 60 genestealer lists in 5th edition, but as long as you do not meet too many flyers I would think it could still be viable. (Give some infiltrating genestealers feel no pain and get them into melle.) Let us just asume that we are searching and searching, thinking new, thinking inovative for ways to make a good army list. Perhaps there are things there that we have not seen. This is after all what the CKO is ecuraging us to do in my opinion.

I have a hard time communicating because I am unique and sometimes people just dont understand me and it leads to low sportsmanship scores. Thats why I continued to just bang my head against the wall but eventually the wall gives! Niiai you did what I could not do and explain my point of view and I thank you for it, and I agree sometimes your codex is to blame if you have studied the book and are using the best units and its just not able to compete with the newer codexes there is little player skill can do for you.

However at that point you have to ask yourself how bad do I want to win? If you want to win that badly (like me) you get one of the newer codexes or one that you know you can win with and use that one. The game is not unbalanced, the game is exatcly the way it should be it is design to make you have to go buy the newer stuff to win! GW goal is not balance its profit and if you have to buy new stuff to win than GW's formula is perfect, at the end of the day its a buisness and the only balance they care about is on the balance sheet. Is there something wrong with them making money?

If you do decide that you want to win that bad and use one of the newer codexes or one that you believe you can win with and you dont win, its no longer GW's fault its your fault as a player. You should have studied the codex examine the units and determined if this codex can get the job done for you. I pretend like I am the boss and the codex is trying to get a job! Sounds crazy but let me explain by using the new Chaos codex as an example.

Do you as my new codex have the units I need to be able to win?

You should be able to use your player knowledge and look through that codex and see if it does.

What do you have over the other codexes or canidates?

You should notice an av 12 flyer with a 5+ inv save, 5+ hull point renewal that can vector strike and have an ap 3 torrent. That type stuff is obvious but, did you notice that obliterators can now have t 5 and not instant die to lascannons. They now are immune to most instant death meaning there 6 wounds are actually 6 wounds and did you notice they gave them an assault cannon aswell. Ok, I get 6 wounds for 210 thats 35 points per wound before the upgrades, thats cheaper than a terminator and I get all that fire power and they added an assault cannon and I can make them toughness five, but I cant fire the same weapon twice, can I manage that during a game if so how? This is how deep I get into analyzing each unit.

I notice your best unit is the helldrake, what units can I take to make it even better?

The helldrake is good against infantry it needs help cracking open vehicles to torrent the squad inside, what can do that. Havocs with 4 autocannons can open any vehicle up. I can have rhinos full of melta and plasma flat out first turn than blowup vehicles on the second turn which is the same turn that the drakes should come in.

What about that chessy spam flyer list, how do you beat it?

Helldrakes can vector strike a flyer per turn, also the torrent is perfect against their scarabs. They may blow up the rhinos easy but if we have plague marines in those rhinos than they will have a hard time killing them. I also have blob units if you want to see if ignoring them is a possibility.

I really like IG why should I pick you over IG and there vendettas?

(Pretending that the codex is speaking)
The IG codex has been out for a while now and people have played against it and already have effective strategies to deal with them. I am new, which means new tactics to beat me. I am going to be frank with you sir most players are to lazy to figure out how to beat new tactics. They want it to be given to them by the internet or divine intervention you can use that to your advantage. If you give me a chance we can get together and see if we can get that early knockout combo going with blowing up transports and helldrakes killing infantry. Anti-tank covered, anti-infantry covered, and I have a flyer please give me the job.

(Back to CKO)

Yes, some codexes are not as good as others but its your decision! You know that the codex you are using is not as powerful but you use it anyway in my mind you have given up your right to complain. You know that the codex that you picked and bought figs for can not handle the extreme competitive environment, so you are putting yourself in a position to where you have to blame the unit. You pick the codex, you pick the units, you execute the tactics, so why is GW to blame? You have so much control over everything that you really cant blame gw or the unit.

I dont give anyone control over me, I pick the codex, I buy the minature, I put it in my list, I use tactics and make it work, and I won that game or I lost that game. I have complete control and its up to me and when something goes wrong its my fault, and I cant blame anyone but myself.

What does any of this have to do with your original claim that any unit can be good? It sounds like you just admitted that your entire premise was incorrect.

Indeed, you go from saying that the game is not unbalanced to admitting that it is unbalanced within the span of a single paragraph.

Moreover, are you seriously suggesting that anyone who wants to be competitive should have to spend $500 every year codex-hopping?

Power creep is an unavoidable part of the game. GW needs to sell models to stay in business. This does not, however, translate to "only 3 or 4 codexes should be competitive at any given time".

But if we're going to be ridiculous here, all right. How about I come play you someday and put a 24" by 24" piece of paper labelled "lethal terrain" in your deployment zone (fully legal within the rules), thereby causing you to instantly lose because you die at deployment? If we're going to agree that GW should never be blamed for bad rules, then there shouldn't be anything wrong with tactics such as the one I just described (which effectively reduce the game to "roll a D6 to see if you win").

If abusing terrain rules to win games at deployment sounds like the wrong way to play to you, then congratulations; you have undermined your own argument yet again.

reaper with no name wrote:

What does any of this have to do with your original claim that any unit can be good? It sounds like you just admitted that your entire premise was incorrect.

If I am not in an tournament environment and me and my friends are just goofing off, I can make a unit of IG ogyrns good in a friendly game.

reaper with no name wrote:

Indeed, you go from saying that the game is not unbalanced to admitting that it is unbalanced within the span of a single paragraph.

What is your definition of balance? I think we have a misunderstanding.

reaper with no name wrote:

Moreover, are you seriously suggesting that anyone who wants to be competitive should have to spend $500 every year codex-hopping?

Yes! If I play magic the gathering or any card game can I compete at a high level if I stop buying cards? Why do you think warhammer 40k is different?

reaper with no name wrote:

Power creep is an unavoidable part of the game. GW needs to sell models to stay in business. This does not, however, translate to "only 3 or 4 codexes should be competitive at any given time".

Power creep is unavoidable, GW needs to sell models this results in 3- 4 codexes being competitive. Is it good for the players no, is it good business yes.

reaper with no name wrote:

If we're going to agree that GW should never be blamed for bad rules, then there shouldn't be anything wrong with tactics such as the one I just described (which effectively reduce the game to "roll a D6 to see if you win").

I have a different opinion I dont think the rules are bad.

reaper with no name wrote:

If abusing terrain rules to win games at deployment sounds like the wrong way to play to you, then congratulations; you have undermined your own argument yet again.

I did not understand the terrain comments at all, will you please attempt to explain it to me again so we can understand each other.

Wow, this has made the post much better and now I see what you are talking about. I for one will forget about the threads "bad" vibe in the near past. (In regards to the change of title)

 CKO wrote:

reaper with no name wrote:

What does any of this have to do with your original claim that any unit can be good? It sounds like you just admitted that your entire premise was incorrect.

If I am not in an tournament environment and me and my friends are just goofing off, I can make a unit of IG ogyrns good in a friendly game.

reaper with no name wrote:

Indeed, you go from saying that the game is not unbalanced to admitting that it is unbalanced within the span of a single paragraph.

What is your definition of balance? I think we have a misunderstanding.

reaper with no name wrote:

Moreover, are you seriously suggesting that anyone who wants to be competitive should have to spend $500 every year codex-hopping?

Yes! If I play magic the gathering or any card game can I compete at a high level if I stop buying cards? Why do you think warhammer 40k is different?

reaper with no name wrote:

Power creep is an unavoidable part of the game. GW needs to sell models to stay in business. This does not, however, translate to "only 3 or 4 codexes should be competitive at any given time".

Power creep is unavoidable, GW needs to sell models this results in 3- 4 codexes being competitive. Is it good for the players no, is it good business yes.

reaper with no name wrote:

If we're going to agree that GW should never be blamed for bad rules, then there shouldn't be anything wrong with tactics such as the one I just described (which effectively reduce the game to "roll a D6 to see if you win").

I have a different opinion I dont think the rules are bad.

reaper with no name wrote:

If abusing terrain rules to win games at deployment sounds like the wrong way to play to you, then congratulations; you have undermined your own argument yet again.

I did not understand the terrain comments at all, will you please attempt to explain it to me again so we can understand each other.

Balance means that the rules do not significantly favor one side over the other. This is not feasible within the game. However, it is possible for the game to be closer to balance than it is now. And it should be.

There is a vast gulf between needing to buy a few new models every year to stay competitive and needing to start a whole new army every year. One is healthy, the other is not.

If only 3-4 codexes are ever competitive why bother having more than that? Once again, there is a big difference between some codexes being better than others and some codexes being so bad they cannot compete. Power creep does not necessitate only 3-4 worthwhile codexes. It is entirely possible to have each new codex stronger than the last, yet have the gap small enough for the weakest codexes to still be competitive.

If we play the game just as the rules are written, with no concerns for fairness, only exploiting what the rules themselves allow, there is no game, because every game would devolve into the following:

The player who wins first terrain placement puts a 24" by 24" piece of lethal terrain over the other player's deployment zone. Since the second player's army will die on deployment, the game is effectively over.

In other words, if we take the competitive douchebag philosophy you are advertising to heart and exploit the rules as much as possible, all games would end at deployment, because one player (or both!) would cover the other's deployment zone with lethal terrain. If you think the game should not be played the way I described, then you have admitted that the rules should not be exploited to the utmost potential, which would contradict your assertion that we should embrace the lack of balance and poor rules in the game.

Now I'm really confused.

You're actually applauding the mentality that the company could/should make every codex more powerful than the last to the point where only that newer and stronger codex can compete. To add to that, because I don't want to be a codex-hopper it's now my fault and I'm a bad player because I am playing an army that gets outdated and left forgotten on the wayside?

1.) Why would you suggest that a game with 14 armies be reduced to ~5?
2.) That sounds so boring to face the same army all the time because that's what the choices would limit.
3.) There is a difference between playing to win and playing to win at all cost. I play Tau and I play to win, because it wouldn't be fair to either player if I didn't try to win the game. But grabbing the latest codex and an armful of flyers just so I can make sure I win? That's just ruining the point of the game.

This thread has really devolved into madness.

Anyone who labors under the idea that all units are balanced is clearly delusional. It isn't just the fault of GW-- it happens in all games. Are all of the guns in Call of Duty balanced? All of the characters in Super Smash Brothers? Even in games in which the host company creates frequent updates, there will always be some things that are comparatively better than others. Such is the nature of any game.

What I think the OP was originally trying to argue is that players should put more original thought into their lists. Which may or may not be true. 6th edition (which it seems he doesn't have great experience in), is full of new combinations. List building can now be more original than ever, which is awesome. However, as much as it can be cool to run something different, there are pitfalls.

The main problem people run into is thinking that because X unit is now better, X unit is now worth taking. That simply is not the case. I would argue that most units gained utility in 6th edition. That doesn't mean that they are good, especially because other competing units got better as well. Necron Praetorians are "better" in 6th. Necron Praetorians still should not be considered "good" or "competitive" because almost everything else in the Cron Dex also got "better", some things exponentially so. Thus, it is important to make this distinction.

I have a hard time communicating because I am unique and sometimes people just dont understand me

Try chess?

I'm sorry, that's not what you wanted to hear?Ok, how about this.

Yes, your clever use of Lychguard which netted you a 5th place finish should be viewed as nothing less than a stroke of genius. Nobody else is able to make bad units good quite like you. I hereby propose we officially change this day to Chad Knight Day in order to honour your unique and special place in competitive 40k lore.

Happy now? Can we be done with this thread yet?

CKO wrote:I have a hard time communicating because I am unique and sometimes people just dont understand me and it leads to low sportsmanship scores.

Sorry, but if by unique you mean what I think you mean, I am calling shenanigans. I highly doubt any player, even TFG, is going to give someone a low sportsmanship score because a medical issue they have.

CKO wrote:What is your definition of balance? I think we have a misunderstanding.

Is this what you are going to say every time you realise you are wrong? It's getting old. As Peregrine said before, there's nothing wrong with admitting you were wrong, just so as long as you man up and say it; pussyfooting around it just makes things look bad.

I know a lot of us are starting to sound outright rude, but this thread is ridiculous no matter what way you look at it. You post one thing, then say that's not what you meant and change it slightly, and then you do a complete 180 and change what you are saying to the exact opposite of what the original post said, all the while contradicting yourself every second sentence.

Is there a purpose to all this? Really? Because this certainly isn't a rational discussion about Warhammer anymore.

I think we are being a little rough on the guy he just wanted to get us thinking... granted he does need to learn the rules and things arent balanced

but in a pure friendly game which im sure about 80 percent of the people who are on dakka play I suppose we can find a use for any model or any army list and have fun with it.

Either that or that we have to go out and buy a flying croissant army, allied with flamers and screamers or we arent worth our salt as 40k players

 CIAbugguy wrote:
I think we are being a little rough on the guy he just wanted to get us thinking... granted he does need to learn the rules and things arent balanced

The subject isn't the issue people are having, it is the way it has been presented.

 CIAbugguy wrote:
Either that or that we have to go out and buy a flying croissant army, allied with flamers and screamers or we arent worth our salt as 40k players

Hyperbole doesn't make a point, it ruins it.

 Peregrine wrote:
That might have been a good policy back in 1990. Now that we have the internet and dozens of forums/blogs/etc within a week of a new codex being released it's been analyzed in detail and all of the good and bad units have been identified. Now which is more likely: that all of these people, who are all trying very hard to maximize their chances of winning, have missed something and the "overlooked" unit is really a good one, or that you're just wrong and the overlooked unit is overlooked because it's garbage?

The Internet community is much less unified and competent than you think. "Knowing what's good" is a very high-level skill and most people don't have it. Your statement might be true for Magic: the Gathering but it certainly isn't true for 40k-- most people still think Tyranids are bad! Most people don't know what's good in Codex: Chaos yet! The existence of this thread and the serious debate about whether Vendettas (IMO an objectively great unit) are worth it is evidence that there is not the kind of consensus and knowledge that you claim.

Are we more advanced than 1990? Sure. But we're nowhere near the level that serious competitive games like Magic: the Gathering or Starcraft enjoy-- and even in those games, advanced players often develop builds with unexpected techniques long after the metagame has been largely hashed out.

The OP is great and more people need to think like this in the 40k community.

Also in my experience most people won't play with models they dont like, no matter how good they are. Also rule of cool kicks in, and that is just a hard thing to overcome. Half of the time I know there are 1-2 units that I want in my list before I even see the rules. Is that a handicap? sure it can be, but I think that a majority of players are like that. I think also that a majority of players know they are not going to be in those top 10 spots at events like adepticon, I know I will never be. So when I go to events like that I bring the units I want to play.

 Kingsley wrote:
"Knowing what's good" is a very high-level skill and most people don't have it.

Really? I think anyone with half a brain can tell the difference between good, useable, and bad units. It doesn't take much skill to see the difference between terminators, tactical marines, and Legion of the Damned.

The types of armies that I frequently see indicate that it's harder than one might think. Further, many people only know what's good because they were convinced by others, who in turn may have been convinced by yet still others. There are also units that look good but aren't, units that look bad but aren't, etc. Actually determining what's good in the absence of other resources is quite challenging for most people.

We are talking about the minute differences and having a deep understanding of the core rules and unit interactions. Having the ability to visualize how they will interact before actual playtesting. That is a skill

I like how people keep talking about units that are no good. but if you look really hard and think now they are good... but yet no one has put a name to those units its always referred to as the "units"

To be honest, the OP has a rather good point about each unit in the codex being worthy of being played. Honestly, the guys that spend their time writing fluff and working on these codexes had a plan, and even though some of us turn our heads to the side in confusion, these units have value. Personally, as a Tyranid player, I have been proxying every single unit from the codex in nice little battles, finding the niches in each monster, and I have to say, all of them have incredible value that wouldn't of been discovered if I hadn't tested them. I of course mean my beloved ripper swarms and all their neglected big brothers. Cute little devils. Sure, you always have those dependables that make up your competetive lists, but there is nothing wrong with having all those fun games made up of units you wouldn't bring to utterly stomp your opponent. If you keeping jumping up and down, tearing your hair out because you just can't figure out how you should be using the unit, try again and again until you do. Also, buy hair implants. I would say to each person, as a personal challenge, Take every single unit you would never play with in your codex because it is not the best, and make an army out of them. Have your buddy do the same with his codex, and watch the entertainment. You'll be surprised how quick you start to see how they should be played.

 Kingsley wrote:
The existence of this thread and the serious debate about whether Vendettas (IMO an objectively great unit) are worth it is evidence that there is not the kind of consensus and knowledge that you claim.

Consensus doesn't mean 100% agreement. You can still have 90% agreement on something among skilled players, but have plenty of threads arguing about it with newbies or bad players claiming otherwise. And that's exactly what we have here: there's strong consensus that the Vendetta is a powerful unit, and the only real disagreement is about whether it's overpowered, or just at the upper limit of what is acceptable. While it's theoretically possible that all of these people arguing and playtesting over and over again have all made a mistake, the more likely explanation is that the person arguing that the Vendetta is weak is just wrong.

and even in those games, advanced players often develop builds with unexpected techniques long after the metagame has been largely hashed out.

That's not really true at all. Those metagame shifts involve one (or both) of two things:

1) A card that was originally judged to be good, but only if the right deck shows up to make use of it, finds that necessary other component to make it work. These aren't draft commons or casual gamer cards that are suddenly getting a complete re-evaluation, they're cards that everyone saw and recognized as potentially useful tools, but didn't have an immediate use for. For example, lightning bolt is obviously powerful, but if there aren't many other good red cards in the format then it isn't going to be played. But when the next set includes a good base of red cards and suddenly lightning bolts are everywhere nobody is surprised, because they already knew the potential.

or

2) The metagame shifts and card values change. Again, these aren't terrible cards that are suddenly becoming awesome, they're second-tier stuff moving up to top-tier. For example, there could be a powerful graveyard-based deck that can't win effectively because anti-graveyard cards are common in the metagame. But then someone figures out a new "best deck", everyone reacts to counter it and the anti-graveyard cards go away, and suddenly the graveyard deck rises in power again.

In both cases the common theme is that very soon after the set is released competitive players quickly reach a pretty solid consensus about which cards are powerful, which have potential, and which are junk. There's still plenty of disagreement about the fine points of which cards and decks are the absolute best, but you aren't going to see top players arguing about whether a card is complete garbage or a pro tour winner.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unyielding Hunger wrote:
Sure, you always have those dependables that make up your competetive lists, but there is nothing wrong with having all those fun games made up of units you wouldn't bring to utterly stomp your opponent.

The problem is that "fun" is a subjective concept, unlike winning. Everyone has their own definition of what is fun, so arguing that trying every unit in the codex can be fun isn't even close to the same thing as proving that all of them can be useful for winning.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:
The existence of this thread and the serious debate about whether Vendettas (IMO an objectively great unit) are worth it is evidence that there is not the kind of consensus and knowledge that you claim.

Consensus doesn't mean 100% agreement. You can still have 90% agreement on something among skilled players, but have plenty of threads arguing about it with newbies or bad players claiming otherwise. And that's exactly what we have here: there's strong consensus that the Vendetta is a powerful unit, and the only real disagreement is about whether it's overpowered, or just at the upper limit of what is acceptable. While it's theoretically possible that all of these people arguing and playtesting over and over again have all made a mistake, the more likely explanation is that the person arguing that the Vendetta is weak is just wrong.

Right, but a new player, not knowing who to listen to and who not to, could easily be misled. In Magic good decklists are pretty easily obtainable. In 40k, not so much.

 Peregrine wrote:

and even in those games, advanced players often develop builds with unexpected techniques long after the metagame has been largely hashed out.

That's not really true at all...

In both cases the common theme is that very soon after the set is released competitive players quickly reach a pretty solid consensus about which cards are powerful, which have potential, and which are junk. There's still plenty of disagreement about the fine points of which cards and decks are the absolute best, but you aren't going to see top players arguing about whether a card is complete garbage or a pro tour winner.

I'm less familiar with Magic, but in Starcraft this sort of thing is not particularly uncommon. In original Starcraft the Reaver was considered mediocre until Zileas invented Reaver drops, at which point it was nigh-universally agreed to be broken (and indeed got nerfed several times in a row). In Starcraft II beta, Siege Tanks were initially considered too expensive to be worth building, but then people realized that they were actually quite powerful and they had to be nerfed repeatedly once proper tactics for using them were known. It's not that uncommon for a build or tactic used at a high level by pro gamers to suddenly become popular across the game, as with TLO's 1/1/1 build.

That said, Starcraft has two big advantages over 40k. First, the community is much larger. Second, games are much more quickly resolved. Third, people just aren't as competitive-- 40k is a hobby, not a sport, and there isn't money on the line like their is with Magic or Starcraft? How many people play dozens of test games of 40k prior to attending major tournaments (focused test games, not just "games with the appropriate list")? I suspect the number is less than one hundred. Magic or Starcraft players are much more sophisticated in this respect.

 Kingsley wrote:
Right, but a new player, not knowing who to listen to and who not to, could easily be misled. In Magic good decklists are pretty easily obtainable. In 40k, not so much.

We aren't talking about newbies here. The OP was confident enough in their knowledge of the game to make a nice long post telling us how we're all wrong.

I'm less familiar with Magic, but in Starcraft this sort of thing is not particularly uncommon.

Yeah, I have no idea about Starcraft, since I absolutely despise it. But in MTG new sets are analyzed pretty quickly and "new" deck ideas are most frequently based around stuff everyone knew had potential and was just waiting for someone to figure out how to make it work and/or a change in the game/metagame that gave it an opportunity, not consensus garbage cards that turned out to be powerful despite everyone agreeing initially that they sucked*.


*This excludes cases where the card DID suck at the time, and some later card interacted with it well and made it powerful, since it's a game change and new circumstances, not the initial judgement being wrong.

That said, Starcraft has two big advantages over 40k. First, the community is much larger. Second, games are much more quickly resolved. Third, people just aren't as competitive-- 40k is a hobby, not a sport, and there isn't money on the line like their is with Magic or Starcraft? How many people play dozens of test games of 40k prior to attending major tournaments (focused test games, not just "games with the appropriate list")? I suspect the number is less than one hundred. Magic or Starcraft players are much more sophisticated in this respect.

Sure, but we're not talking about fine-tuning the difference between, say, whether it's better to take a LR Demolisher or LR Executioner to support an infantry-heavy IG army. We're talking about units that are safely on the "weak" end of the power scale, that people have analyzed and tested and found to be lacking.

 Peregrine wrote:

 CKO wrote:
I am not saying take the bad unit and make it work I am saying take the average unit or the units that might be overlooked and see if it has potential.

That might have been a good policy back in 1990. Now that we have the internet and dozens of forums/blogs/etc within a week of a new codex being released it's been analyzed in detail and all of the good and bad units have been identified. ?

To turn your own statement on to you.

This is an absurd thing to say. Look back to Alex Fennels Necron army from last years Adepticon where he won consistently with Necron units the Internet said were no good. In fact it would be Alex Fennels Necrons that prove parts of the OP's modified claim that consensus average units can be manipulated and perform well championship caliber army list.

I get the feeling that the Internet echo chamber has little effect on the evolution of tactics and army lists. It allows people to copy and paste from the loudest voices, but innovation occurs on the fringe and is only brought to light infrequently. Even then it can be dismissed or even forgotten, as in the case of Alex's Necrons.

Greg Sparks walking Eldar are another example of this. Here's a list from 5th that abdicated almost all vehicles for Wraithguard and Dire Avengers on foot! A pariah according to the Internet echo chamber yet a consistent top performer at Cons and a winner at the ETC for several years.

Oh most certainly there's plenty of units that either through cost or being forgotten / ignored that are good.
But there are also things that stand out above the rest, and others that are quite obviously, terrible.

Personally, I'm going to have things like Dark Reapers in my Eldar, I use Grotesques regularly, and I enjoy using large numbers of Fire Warriors.

Kingsley wrote:The types of armies that I frequently see indicate that it's harder than one might think.

Actually the more likely reality is that the types of armies you see frequently indicate that players in your area find it hard to determine what's good, not people everywhere. If you made the point on somewhere like Warseer it might stand, but I find at least half of the people that I see posting on Dakka know what they are talking about and know the game very well including what makes a competitive list.

DarthDiggler wrote:
Look back to Alex Fennels Necron army from last years Adepticon where he won consistently with Necron units the Internet said were no good. In fact it would be Alex Fennels Necrons that prove parts of the OP's modified claim that consensus average units can be manipulated and perform well championship caliber army list.

Ever hear of the exception that proves the rule? The argument that because a handful of people can achieve this makes it valid is flawed, as they are still a minority. In a game with so many dice, it takes incredible skill to excel past the bar to the point where you can field whatever you want and still consistently perform. And nobody has denied that these players exist. But they are still few and far between and their presence doesn't mean that every player should be able to play like they do.

It should be noted also that performing consistently well within the one tournament doesn't say much either, as their performance is dependant on match-up, dice, and what the other players were using. In an event as large as Adepticon it is quit easy to face sub-par lists even on the higher tables, due to the high attendance rating.

Ovion wrote:Personally, I'm going to have things like Dark Reapers in my Eldar, I use Grotesques regularly, and I enjoy using large numbers of Fire Warriors.

Not sure what point you are trying to make here given that Dark Reapers and Fire Warriors are pretty good within their respective armies (and Fire Warriors are Troops so essential also).

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:

Ovion wrote:Personally, I'm going to have things like Dark Reapers in my Eldar, I use Grotesques regularly, and I enjoy using large numbers of Fire Warriors.

Not sure what point you are trying to make here given that Dark Reapers and Fire Warriors are pretty good within their respective armies (and Fire Warriors are Troops so essential also).

I constantly see Firewarriors badmouthed as terrible. Slightly less in 6th, but it's the same complaints - They're fragile, they're slow, they can't hit things, and you should generally take the minimum required and max out on suits and broadsides, blablabla.

As for Dark Reapers - every time I mentioned them I've been told how they're expensive, outclassed by pretty much every other Eldar HS option and I shouldn't take them.
Just my experience.

 Ovion wrote:

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:

Ovion wrote:Personally, I'm going to have things like Dark Reapers in my Eldar, I use Grotesques regularly, and I enjoy using large numbers of Fire Warriors.

Not sure what point you are trying to make here given that Dark Reapers and Fire Warriors are pretty good within their respective armies (and Fire Warriors are Troops so essential also).

I constantly see Firewarriors badmouthed as terrible. Slightly less in 6th, but it's the same complaints - They're fragile, they're slow, they can't hit things, and you should generally take the minimum required and max out on suits and broadsides, blablabla.

As for Dark Reapers - every time I mentioned them I've been told how they're expensive, outclassed by pretty much every other Eldar HS option and I shouldn't take them.
Just my experience.

Taking minimum Troops is always a bad decision IMO. And I think Fire Warriors aren't that bad; they aren't extraordinary but mass S5 shooting cannot be scoffed at, even at BS3. Yes take as many suits as you can, but without gimping yourself for objectives.

As for Reapers, they are outclassed by War Walkers, but that doesn't make them bad. The game is all about infantry now, and Marines are still prevalent, and they just happen to kill Marines well. I've seen them used to good effect with the right list at tournaments a few times now.

HERETIC!!! How dare you lump Phil Kelly and he-who-must-not-be-allowed-to-defile-another-codex-by-smurf-worship in the same mold? Sure, they both work for Games Workshop but even you must have seen the difference in quality between the Smurfs and the DE!?!

Anyway, back to topic. Every general has their preferences. Some prefer out right infantry with few vehicles. Others (insert General Patton) are exceptionally good with tank warfare. Its up to the player to find the army who's fluff suits him best and then find the right unit combinations to excel in said army's deployment.

It all comes down to style and dice rolls anyway.

 CIAbugguy wrote:
I like how people keep talking about units that are no good. but if you look really hard and think now they are good... but yet no one has put a name to those units its always referred to as the "units"

Storm Troopers. The Internet wisdom in 5th was "hurr durr they suck Vets are better!!!11!!". Then the Internet stopped being silly and realised they aren't the same and perform different roles.

enooNaMI wrote:
HERETIC!!! How dare you lump Phil Kelly and he-who-must-not-be-allowed-to-defile-another-codex-by-smurf-worship in the same mold? Sure, they both work for Games Workshop but even you must have seen the difference in quality between the Smurfs and the DE!?!

One is a Codex with pretty good internal balance that has aged well, the other has a lot of pointless filler units, hasn't aged well despite being half as old than the other and gave rise to one of the most dull lists ever. You're right though, DE shouldn't be compared to C:SM.