Do we really want *any* action to win a game on T1?
That's a pacing error in design.
aight, but the first shooting phase can allready be in some cases quite decisive.
Also putting the decisive turn into2 (deepstriking units) just pushes that out.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: I'm just now phasing in autobolters. Because they were poo before. 90 bolter shots kills a depressingly low amount of chaff though.
Not Online!!! wrote: aight, but the first shooting phase can allready be in some cases quite decisive.
Also putting the decisive turn into2 (deepstriking units) just pushes that out.
No argument there but I think the goal to aspire to is play-counterplay throughout the entire game.
In those respects, a player deploying chaff to as a screen from assault, and an assault player bringing in volume shooting to target chaff, is how things are supposed to work.
With RR 1's to hit and wound you are looking at 35 dead daemons or GEQ. About 30 if you have to advance to shoot with them. Thats a loyal 32 obliterated to the loyal 2.
Xenomancers wrote: With RR 1's to hit and wound you are looking at 35 dead daemons or GEQ. About 30 if you have to advance to shoot with them. Thats a loyal 32 obliterated to the loyal 2.
All of Martel's opponents field 6.0221409x10^23 guardsmen - they stick to avogadro's number because it still allows them to fit 76 basilisks in a 2,000 point list. Unless you can figure a way to kill a Mole of guardsmen in the first turn, blood angels will always be the worst army in the game.
30 Intercessors with Auto Bolt Rifles, rerolling 1s to hit and wound, in Tactical doctrine, kill an average of 45 Guardsmen per turn, plus morale.
6 Aggressors, double firing, rerolling 1s, Tactical Doctrine, 57 kills on average out to 18", or 23" if you're Ultramarines. Then morale kicks in to mop up any survivors. That unit knocks out more than its cost in chaff in one full round of shooting. At 222pts that's not too hard to squeeze in to a well-rounded list.
Also, against equal points of Guardsmen, even just basic Intercessors (forget the Auto Bolt Rifles and forget the rerolls- just normal Bolt Rifles) still win handily, it just takes a while. They're roughly equally matched within 12", but at 12"-30" the Intercessors can still fire at full effectiveness. That's a huge edge for early-game chaff-clearing.
Bolter Discipline plus Tactical Doctrine gives you so much effective, long-ranged fire on your basic troops that you'll beat any chaff unit in an equal-points shootout; and even if they try to play the objective over killing, it's tough for chaff. I don't know how Marines could be having trouble with hordes right now.
bananathug wrote: Not being able to interact with the enemy army leads to a frustrating play experience.
Screening a unit with a -3/4 to hit lord disco (or making it -2/-3 to hit) so I can't interact with it until it hits my lines is about as fun as playing Tau drone spam or eldar planes (with an army that isn't marines 2.0).
Isn't the fact 'you can't interact with it' more of an indication you built a list around nothing but min-maxed conventional shooting?
The AL trait only applies outside 12", Benediction of Darkness is only applicable in the shooting phase, Miasma can be denied. You also have autohitting weapons, mortal wounds, your own rerolls and bonuses to hit, sniping or assaulting the support HQs, etc.
If your only tool is a hammer, do you complain vociferously to GW when you encounter a tactical challenge that isn't a nail?
If GW gave everyone access to a tool box that can deal with the tactical challenges they present then I'd be okay with it but right now I have a rock (deathwatch, space wolves, dark angels ) I picked up off the side of the road and SM 2.0 have a professional grade 2,000 piece set.
Is your point that possessed bombs are good for the game? That they are balanced against most armies? That they are not powerful? Or that they need to have broken rules because SM 2.0 have broken rules?
SM 2.0 have re-defined the power curve for the game and any army/unit behind that curve is going to have a bad time. I'd rather see the biggest offenders in SM 2.0 brought down to reasonable levels than to require buffing things up to possessed bomb levels of absurdity.
An Actual Englishman wrote: Oh look, a thread supposedly about balance from Xeno. The poster who brought us such gems as "the Stompa is overpowered" and "the Rukkatrukk Squigbuggy is probably the best shooting unit in the game, point for point".
I'll be taking the opinions within this thread and their objectivity with a hefty mountain of salt methinks.
wasn't the "Stompa is OP" thread a tongue in cheek thread about how now that it lost a whole 50 points (it's generally agreed to be a few HUNDRED over pointed) it's now "totally OP"? or was this another post I missed?
Yes, it was my post and it was entirely satirical....though some people like xeno actually tried to defend the stompa saying it wasn't that far off from being OP.
Xenomancers wrote: It probably 100 points to expensive. It scales so hard with stratagems like moore dakka and freebootas that it's just the kind of unit that they couldn't fix if they tried...
at 650 it would be extremely OP.
(It can’t make use of More Dakka strat)
Xeno makes statements without knowledge all the time. He also defends all things Marine to the death. I’d take his posts as tongue in cheek, to be honest.
100 points is a big deal. You know the Castellan going from 600 to 700 made a huge difference. ITT I am arguing for a nerf to marines top factions...
It absolutely can use the strat. The only requirement is being an ORK unit. With Free boota up (which is super easy to trigger with another unit) you are hitting on 4's with 5's generating extra hits. It's really strong when you get the combo off. I've seen a stompa kill its points in a single turn actually. Which is why I find it hilarious it gets complained about so much. Yeah it's not amazing...kind of like how a space marine falchion is not amazing ether 1050 points and doesn't even have an invune. Super heavies that can tripple their damage output for 2 CP are REALLY hard to balance. It really is a factor of like 100-150 which determines useless to OP in this situation.
....this is so bad I had to bring it up and correct it. From the Ork codex, page 124: If your army is battle-forged, all <CLAN> units in Ork Detachments (Excluding those in super-heavy auxiliary detachments) gain a Clan Kulture. So you CAN NOT give it a kulture unless you take it in a super heavy detachment which means you require 3 LOWs. Kill Tanks, Garg Squig and Stompa are your 3 options and guess what? That eats up all but about 270ish points (unless you want to actually arm your kill tanks). Let me know how competitive you really think that list is going to be. BTW, if it doesn't have a kulture you can't make it shoot twice because that requires either badmoons kulture OR the vigilus kulture which requires a fair bit of CP to even gain access to. So you either get basically zero CP to do anything with and 3 super sub par Super heavies OR you can take 1 crappy super heavy and can't give it any Strats anyway.
On AVERAGE a Stompa will hit (excluding modifiers) about 3-4 times with its Deff Kannon, and 3-4 times with its Supa Gatler, which will likely shoot twice so say 7 times to be fair. The Supa Rokkit will invariably miss and all other Dakka on the Stompa is basically useless (Big Shootas for the most part). So please tell me how 3-4 S10 -4 D6 damage shots and 7 S7 -2 1 dmg shots are making back 870pts in a single turn? I mean, even if the Stompa hit twice as often as it actually does it would still have a hard time making back that many points even under optimal circumstances unless your opponent shanked every single save and you made all your rolls for wounds.
Maybe trying to punch with power armor is just dumber than i already thought it was. I can see where vanilla doest care, but chaff still shuts down ba hard. I dont have time to clear while being blown apart. Just shooting back seems 300% better.
Chaff doesn't shut down anything these days. Horde is just bad unless your facing an army which is chock full of D2/Dd6 weapons. Which various builds now are - because Marines - but thats a meta skew, not the game.
About 12 months ago I thought all those Ork players whinging that 90 boys could be cleared a turn were exaggerating. I still, sort of, think they are. But clearing 60~ with most armies really isn't that difficult in a turn, and that's too much to do this hunker down on objectives, be there by the end strategy. By turn three you have nothing left.
For effective hordes I think you are pretty much down to Plaguebearers only (who got nerfed) - and that's because they give you the chance to be lucky. Guardsmen are very cheap - but you can mow them down in droves with very little shooting.
The idea someone showed up with 100+ termagants and you couldn't kill them is hard to credit even with synapse.
They still shut down power armor assault just fine. I understand that vanilla marines are not caring.
I never mentioned termagants. Although 100 would probably do the trick vs most BA lists.
"but you can mow them down in droves with very little shooting."
It still requires a ton of shots to deal with guardsmen. Maybe vanilla lists bring them, but power armor lists that pay for assault elements generally do not.
Martel732 wrote: Maybe trying to punch with power armor is just dumber than i already thought it was. I can see where vanilla doest care, but chaff still shuts down ba hard. I dont have time to clear while being blown apart. Just shooting back seems 300% better.
Speaking from a primary World Eater perspective, a 70/30% of melee to shooting works pretty solid in my experience. Double combi-bolter/havok launcher rhinos cut through blocking chaff pretty well and dual as party bus. I know loyalist dont get dakkafiends, but they kill primaris nicely. And Cerberus rapier batteries do WORK. Conversion beams have always more than paid for themselves in my experience. Especially with its rules to drop 2d6 extra hits if it kills a model in the unit and the units not destroyed.
But I also tend to add shooty terminators with chain axes or lightning claws to double dip and blow away one target and charge another, and I've always had land raiders earn back points by both delivering their payload and tearing wounds away from armor while they do it. And missile havoks just.. seem to work for me.
I dunno.. maybe my meta is a lot more outlier and casual, but I tend to run ranged support to soften up targets before hitting them with stupid good melee. I find it helps to also throw a LOT of threat saturation at people at once. If they have a lot of melee in their face, it's hard to destroy every unit the next turn because I've usually been able to charge some stuff, or clear enough chaff that theres no way I wont get something juicy next turn.
So maybe a list restructuring might help? Doesn't your army get flying psychic dreadnaughts? Or those funky primaris dreads with a dozen guns? You could run a leviathan dread too, right? I'm sort of jealous of just how many guns loyalists get to support their melee. Dont your sangy jump guys also get 2+ armor saves, and can run power weapons? Dont they get thunder hammers? (I'm legit not sure, I just know when my friend first got his bangle codex, a lot of stuff jumped out at me that I wish I had)
An Actual Englishman wrote: Oh look, a thread supposedly about balance from Xeno. The poster who brought us such gems as "the Stompa is overpowered" and "the Rukkatrukk Squigbuggy is probably the best shooting unit in the game, point for point".
I'll be taking the opinions within this thread and their objectivity with a hefty mountain of salt methinks.
wasn't the "Stompa is OP" thread a tongue in cheek thread about how now that it lost a whole 50 points (it's generally agreed to be a few HUNDRED over pointed) it's now "totally OP"? or was this another post I missed?
Yes, it was my post and it was entirely satirical....though some people like xeno actually tried to defend the stompa saying it wasn't that far off from being OP.
Xenomancers wrote: It probably 100 points to expensive. It scales so hard with stratagems like moore dakka and freebootas that it's just the kind of unit that they couldn't fix if they tried...
at 650 it would be extremely OP.
(It can’t make use of More Dakka strat)
Xeno makes statements without knowledge all the time. He also defends all things Marine to the death. I’d take his posts as tongue in cheek, to be honest.
100 points is a big deal. You know the Castellan going from 600 to 700 made a huge difference. ITT I am arguing for a nerf to marines top factions...
It absolutely can use the strat. The only requirement is being an ORK unit. With Free boota up (which is super easy to trigger with another unit) you are hitting on 4's with 5's generating extra hits. It's really strong when you get the combo off. I've seen a stompa kill its points in a single turn actually. Which is why I find it hilarious it gets complained about so much. Yeah it's not amazing...kind of like how a space marine falchion is not amazing ether 1050 points and doesn't even have an invune. Super heavies that can tripple their damage output for 2 CP are REALLY hard to balance. It really is a factor of like 100-150 which determines useless to OP in this situation.
....this is so bad I had to bring it up and correct it. From the Ork codex, page 124: If your army is battle-forged, all <CLAN> units in Ork Detachments (Excluding those in super-heavy auxiliary detachments) gain a Clan Kulture. So you CAN NOT give it a kulture unless you take it in a super heavy detachment which means you require 3 LOWs. Kill Tanks, Garg Squig and Stompa are your 3 options and guess what? That eats up all but about 270ish points (unless you want to actually arm your kill tanks). Let me know how competitive you really think that list is going to be. BTW, if it doesn't have a kulture you can't make it shoot twice because that requires either badmoons kulture OR the vigilus kulture which requires a fair bit of CP to even gain access to. So you either get basically zero CP to do anything with and 3 super sub par Super heavies OR you can take 1 crappy super heavy and can't give it any Strats anyway.
On AVERAGE a Stompa will hit (excluding modifiers) about 3-4 times with its Deff Kannon, and 3-4 times with its Supa Gatler, which will likely shoot twice so say 7 times to be fair. The Supa Rokkit will invariably miss and all other Dakka on the Stompa is basically useless (Big Shootas for the most part). So please tell me how 3-4 S10 -4 D6 damage shots and 7 S7 -2 1 dmg shots are making back 870pts in a single turn? I mean, even if the Stompa hit twice as often as it actually does it would still have a hard time making back that many points even under optimal circumstances unless your opponent shanked every single save and you made all your rolls for wounds.
Thats why you take it in a Sumpreme command detachment - has 1 LOW slot. Then it gains clan culture and it hits on 4's with free bootas with 5's generating extra hits (more dakka). Which is statistically the same as hitting on 3's with the benefit that your good rolls can far exceed the total max number of shots hits. Again I will reiterate it is not amazing for the cost. It is not however useless. Stompa was also dropped in points. It has castellan level firepower with 12 additional wounds and repair up to 3 a turn and the ability to carry 20 dudes (you are probably paying about 100 points for that transport capacity you don't want).
The game I referenced was basically automatic. kills. Def cannon = auto dead repuslor executioner - 330 points - Super rocket easily killed a redemptor with 4 shots turning into 6 hits and 5 wounds....1 made 6 + save and 4d6 damage to do 13 wounds? easy. 160 Good roll on super gatler against and intercessor squad I dont remember precisely the wounds but it killed 8 primaris marines....didn't even use it's melee ability and it killed 650 points already...it charged into a unit of agressors and killed 3 of them. Theres 111 more points. Oh and he had about 26 wounds on him at the time not giving a FCK about it ether. Cause Ork BS doesn't degrade.
It's also asanine to expect units to kill their points value in 1 turn. If that was the case for even 5% of the units in the game the game would be over on turn 1 every game. Reiterating again that I don't think the stompa is amazing but if you build around it can remove 3 targets a turn pretty consistently. Much like a Castellan can. It just pays more for tarnport capacity and has a lot more wounds and self repair and is entirely reliant on free bootas + more dakka...which it turns out it actually can use.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: They still shut down power armor assault just fine. I understand that vanilla marines are not caring.
I never mentioned termagants. Although 100 would probably do the trick vs most BA lists.
"but you can mow them down in droves with very little shooting."
It still requires a ton of shots to deal with guardsmen. Maybe vanilla lists bring them, but power armor lists that pay for assault elements generally do not.
The Ultramarines list I play would literally be in heaven vs a horde of gaurdsmen. Not only do I outrange them - I can outrange them all game and I can easily kill over 100 a turn ESP on turn 2+ - What I can't deal with probably is mass demolisher command tanks with plasma cannons and executioner russ spam (which basically no one takes.)
Martel732 wrote: They still shut down power armor assault just fine. I understand that vanilla marines are not caring.
I never mentioned termagants. Although 100 would probably do the trick vs most BA lists.
"but you can mow them down in droves with very little shooting."
It still requires a ton of shots to deal with guardsmen. Maybe vanilla lists bring them, but power armor lists that pay for assault elements generally do not.
But people have explicitly shown that 3 units of intercessors, your core troops, will clear 30 guardsmen a turn. Unless you're trying really hard to get those into melee, which you shouldn't be, I don't see the issue?
10 incursors get a t1 charge, drop ~16 t3 5+/5++ models in melee alone if you really want to look at it that way.
bananathug wrote: If GW gave everyone access to a tool box that can deal with the tactical challenges they present then I'd be okay with it but right now I have a rock (deathwatch, space wolves, dark angels ) I picked up off the side of the road and SM 2.0 have a professional grade 2,000 piece set.
I don't think the flashy new rules are out for those armies yet!
This thread should likely be locked, have someone arguing that SM is balanced because stompas are good....It's on p21 and there is nothing new to be said that is worthwhile.
Martel732 wrote: They still shut down power armor assault just fine. I understand that vanilla marines are not caring.
I never mentioned termagants. Although 100 would probably do the trick vs most BA lists.
"but you can mow them down in droves with very little shooting."
It still requires a ton of shots to deal with guardsmen. Maybe vanilla lists bring them, but power armor lists that pay for assault elements generally do not.
What does your normal list look like? People have repeatedly pointed out the many ways SM (even BA) have to deal with horde infantry so at this point it just looks like a stubborn refusal to accept advice on your part. Many of those ways involve Troops, which don't vary that much between different Chapters. My last game was against an army with just over 100 gaunts and I did fine - smashed a bunch of them with the DC in T1, shot a whole bunch more to death with Troops and charged the remnants. I think the problem may be you're fixating on trying to kill 100+ models in a turn, which isn't going to happen in most games.
Lol I decided to drop by again and what do I see? Martel talking rubbish once again.
I'm not sure what Marines he's complaining about now? I thought he played Blood Angels? He hasn't seen them win any tournaments yet so he probably thinks they aren't any good lol
Give poor SM players +2 attack and extra -1 AP, since they can`t just stay and roll dice or better make them wound and hit automatically, cuz of reasons.
blaktoof wrote: This thread should likely be locked, have someone arguing that SM is balanced because stompas are good....It's on p21 and there is nothing new to be said that is worthwhile.
I bet if we all work together, we can make it to page 30
Freebooterz ain't a guaranteed +1 to hit. In fact, against the top meta builds, you might proc it once a game, if you're lucky.
If the Stompa has "Castellan level firepower" (which plenty of folks would argue against) you still have to account for the fact that it costs well over twice what a Castellan costs.
The Stompa has no Invuln (and if you put a KFF Mek inside it, it only has a 5++ against shooting), which means any anti-armor firing is going either going to straight up wipe it (say goodbye to half your points in a single firing phase) or damage it to uselessness (as soon as it loses 10 Wounds, it hits on 6s at range).
It's enormous and will have trouble moving on any board with even a passable amount of terrain. And will be near to impossible to put in Cover and actually impossible to hide out of LOS.
Tldr; the Stompa may have firepower, but its durability is abysmal for its points and you'll be lucky to get even a single turn of shooting out of it.
Maybe Martel is playing BA with like nothing but melee troops? So he doesn't have the shooting to cut down chaff, he has to get them in melee which having a ton of dudes prevents from getting to the choice bits/objective/what have you.
That's the only way I can think he's having so many issues with hordes. It would explain why he prefers ITC because with the anti-horde secondary he's at least getting VP for killing the screening chaff while with the CA missions he doesn't get squat for killing 100 guys if they prevent him from getting to an objective or whatnot.
Freebooterz ain't a guaranteed +1 to hit. In fact, against the top meta builds, you might proc it once a game, if you're lucky.
If the Stompa has "Castellan level firepower" (which plenty of folks would argue against) you still have to account for the fact that it costs well over twice what a Castellan costs.
The Stompa has no Invuln (and if you put a KFF Mek inside it, it only has a 5++ against shooting), which means any anti-armor firing is going either going to straight up wipe it (say goodbye to half your points in a single firing phase) or damage it to uselessness (as soon as it loses 10 Wounds, it hits on 6s at range).
It's enormous and will have trouble moving on any board with even a passable amount of terrain. And will be near to impossible to put in Cover and actually impossible to hide out of LOS.
Tldr; the Stompa may have firepower, but its durability is abysmal for its points and you'll be lucky to get even a single turn of shooting out of it.
Not knowing any better here the "well over twice what a castellan costs" is about 1600 points, that seems way off.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wayniac wrote: Maybe Martel is playing BA with like nothing but melee troops? So he doesn't have the shooting to cut down chaff, he has to get them in melee which having a ton of dudes prevents from getting to the choice bits/objective/what have you.
That's the only way I can think he's having so many issues with hordes. It would explain why he prefers ITC because with the anti-horde secondary he's at least getting VP for killing the screening chaff while with the CA missions he doesn't get squat for killing 100 guys if they prevent him from getting to an objective or whatnot.
This is a reasonable assumption but he claims to get his clock cleaned by ranged firepower all the time, so he's not in melee but simultaneously not shooting anything.
Codex: Blood Angels contains very few actual pure melee troops with no ranged weapons, none of them in the Troops slot, and contains vastly more units that have little to no melee capability and are specialised in shooting.
Playing them as pure melee specialists is putting yourself at a purposeful disadvantage. This is the same thing I say to anyone playing orks and insisting that they must use only melee units and nothing else.
Marines work best as generalists, with the possible exception of something like World Eaters, which are as close to being able to do a pure melee setup as any MEQ army.
If I were playing Blood Angels, I would concentrate 30-40% of my points to long ranged turn 1 anti infantry firepower, and the rest to turn 2 melee. That's easy to do with the highly capable long range or infiltrating troops choices the blood angels have. If you're really only willing to look at units that do their damage in melee...well, BA knife scouts return their points value in melee vs GEQ turn 1, so I hope you like knife scouts.
Not knowing any better here the "well over twice what a castellan costs" is about 1600 points, that seems way off.
I was under the impression you could field 3 of these things, with points to spare for a Guard Battalion. Maybe I just misread the gripes about it (back when Castellans were the trendy thing to complain about).
Even still, the Stompa costs more points for "comparable firepower" (only when using a specific Kultur and only if it procs) and significantly worse durability.
the_scotsman wrote: Codex: Blood Angels contains very few actual pure melee troops with no ranged weapons, none of them in the Troops slot, and contains vastly more units that have little to no melee capability and are specialised in shooting.
Playing them as pure melee specialists is putting yourself at a purposeful disadvantage. This is the same thing I say to anyone playing orks and insisting that they must use only melee units and nothing else.
Marines work best as generalists, with the possible exception of something like World Eaters, which are as close to being able to do a pure melee setup as any MEQ army.
If I were playing Blood Angels, I would concentrate 30-40% of my points to long ranged turn 1 anti infantry firepower, and the rest to turn 2 melee. That's easy to do with the highly capable long range or infiltrating troops choices the blood angels have. If you're really only willing to look at units that do their damage in melee...well, BA knife scouts return their points value in melee vs GEQ turn 1, so I hope you like knife scouts.
Well said.
BA are Marines biased towards CC. They are not Grunts In Power Armor. "Red Tide" is not a viable strategy.
You play BA like UltraMarines, except you expect to punch a few more faces, and take a few more jetpacks. You are not Black Tide (not that that does well). You are not Khorne Zerkers. You are Marines who're a little better when it comes to chopping, but still big on shooting.
You need to press in on T1/T2, not break them. If breaking them T1/T2 were viable, BA would be OP.
You keep complaining about the screens falling back then shooting your CC. What's the rest of your list doing while your CC charged? The rest of your list should be softening them up. And their rebuttle has to pick between your CC units (after falling back), or the rest of your list. If their dakka focueses on their skirmishers, your dakka is left unmolested to take the upper hand over theirs. If they focus on their dakka on your backfield, your skirmishers close in. It's supposed to be a tradeoff; neither option should be autowin for either side.
Martel732 wrote: They still shut down power armor assault just fine. I understand that vanilla marines are not caring.
I never mentioned termagants. Although 100 would probably do the trick vs most BA lists.
"but you can mow them down in droves with very little shooting."
It still requires a ton of shots to deal with guardsmen. Maybe vanilla lists bring them, but power armor lists that pay for assault elements generally do not.
What does your normal list look like? People have repeatedly pointed out the many ways SM (even BA) have to deal with horde infantry so at this point it just looks like a stubborn refusal to accept advice on your part. Many of those ways involve Troops, which don't vary that much between different Chapters. My last game was against an army with just over 100 gaunts and I did fine - smashed a bunch of them with the DC in T1, shot a whole bunch more to death with Troops and charged the remnants. I think the problem may be you're fixating on trying to kill 100+ models in a turn, which isn't going to happen in most games.
I don't have a normal list atm. I'm still phasing in a bunch of primaris stuff.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wayniac wrote: Maybe Martel is playing BA with like nothing but melee troops? So he doesn't have the shooting to cut down chaff, he has to get them in melee which having a ton of dudes prevents from getting to the choice bits/objective/what have you.
That's the only way I can think he's having so many issues with hordes. It would explain why he prefers ITC because with the anti-horde secondary he's at least getting VP for killing the screening chaff while with the CA missions he doesn't get squat for killing 100 guys if they prevent him from getting to an objective or whatnot.
I've actually fired the DC permanently because of screens and their fragility. I don't have any autobolter marines put together yet, though.
Bharring wrote: The belief that the Stompa is good isn't even the most bonkers thing about this thread.
The belief that it's not cheating if you use dice someone else loaded is what's blowing my mind.
wasnt that example talking about how using chessex dice meant you were automatically cheating? because at my gamestore theyre the only available dice (or the official, overpriced, GW ones) and i didnt know they had balance issues before coming to dakka. Was i a cheater before? and am i a cheater now?
Bharring wrote: The belief that the Stompa is good isn't even the most bonkers thing about this thread.
The belief that it's not cheating if you use dice someone else loaded is what's blowing my mind.
wasnt that example talking about how using chessex dice meant you were automatically cheating? because at my gamestore theyre the only available dice (or the official, overpriced, GW ones) and i didnt know they had balance issues before coming to dakka. Was i a cheater before? and am i a cheater now?
There is an absolutely wonderful 45 minute video of a crazy man who calls himself "the colonel" or something ranting about the evils of chessex dice somewhere. It's my favorite thing ever.
I love that the internet enables you to find the one guy who cares more about one thing than anyone else on the planet cares about that thing and because it's on a screen you don't have to know what he smells like or dodge his spittle.
Bharring wrote: The belief that the Stompa is good isn't even the most bonkers thing about this thread.
The belief that it's not cheating if you use dice someone else loaded is what's blowing my mind.
wasnt that example talking about how using chessex dice meant you were automatically cheating? because at my gamestore theyre the only available dice (or the official, overpriced, GW ones) and i didnt know they had balance issues before coming to dakka. Was i a cheater before? and am i a cheater now?
There is an absolutely wonderful 45 minute video of a crazy man who calls himself "the colonel" or something ranting about the evils of chessex dice somewhere. It's my favorite thing ever.
Mine must have been loaded wrong, as I I've never rolled well enough with them to be suspected of cheating. Even rolled snake eyes on a hit that would have hit on anything but (no, I didn't say it). Ruined the strategy for the whole turn as I had spent resources for a set up and the delivery afterward was crucial for the resolution.
Bharring wrote: The belief that the Stompa is good isn't even the most bonkers thing about this thread.
The belief that it's not cheating if you use dice someone else loaded is what's blowing my mind.
You are really going to far with this...You mean cheesex...the largest dice manufacturer in the world? There is a big difference between paying someone to load your dice and then using them and buy a brick of dice off the shelf that is supposed to be balanced. I think everyone can acknowledge that unless you are buying casino dice - NONE of them will be perfect. For me it's more of a feeling - I have never tested them. I still roll tons of 1's. If anything they are biased towards 4's. However - I am under no responsibility - morally or competitively to throw away the legal dice I paid for because I think they are lucky. Nether are any of the top players on the ITC tour. The way to handle this is not make people throw away their bought and paid for supposed to be balanced dice. The way to handle it is ITC tournaments should sell bricks of dice you have to use in the tournament and not release the kind of dice they will be using. 10 bucks on top of your entry fee - you can buy more for 10 more bucks and you can keep them! ESP for the really large tournaments. Though - events of 50+ should easy be able to manage this with the entry fee pricing.
Forget dice app. If this game goes the way of dice AP I will straight up quit and spend my money somewhere else. The most fun part about this game is rolling dice.
Bharring wrote: The belief that the Stompa is good isn't even the most bonkers thing about this thread.
The belief that it's not cheating if you use dice someone else loaded is what's blowing my mind.
wasnt that example talking about how using chessex dice meant you were automatically cheating? because at my gamestore theyre the only available dice (or the official, overpriced, GW ones) and i didnt know they had balance issues before coming to dakka. Was i a cheater before? and am i a cheater now?
There is an absolutely wonderful 45 minute video of a crazy man who calls himself "the colonel" or something ranting about the evils of chessex dice somewhere. It's my favorite thing ever.
Mine must have been loaded wrong, as I I've never rolled well enough with them to be suspected of cheating. Even rolled snake eyes on a hit that would have hit on anything but (no, I didn't say it). Ruined the strategy for the whole turn as I had spent resources for a set up and the delivery afterward was crucial for the resolution.
I command reroll 1's into 1's all the time with chessex. I think the real issue is that they might be slightly imperfect - not loaded. So every dice in your brick likely has a bias. This is true for all non casino level dice. However - with chessex the rate of imperfection might be a little higher than others.I just notice that with larger dice rolls of like 20+ there seems to be an awfully lot of 5/6 in there some times - probably more than their should be after 100's of rolls. However - it's not to an absurd degree.
Xenomancers wrote: I think everyone can acknowledge that unless you are buying casino dice - NONE of them will be perfect. For me it's more of a feeling - I have never tested them. I still roll tons of 1's. If anything they are biased towards 4's. However - I am under no responsibility - morally or competitively to throw away the legal dice I paid for because I think they are lucky. Nether are any of the top players on the ITC tour. The way to handle this is not make people throw away their bought and paid for supposed to be balanced dice. The way to handle it is ITC tournaments should sell bricks of dice you have to use in the tournament and not release the kind of dice they will be using.
The way to handle this is to let people just use their own dice because it isn't actually an issue.
Xenomancers wrote: I think everyone can acknowledge that unless you are buying casino dice - NONE of them will be perfect. For me it's more of a feeling - I have never tested them. I still roll tons of 1's. If anything they are biased towards 4's. However - I am under no responsibility - morally or competitively to throw away the legal dice I paid for because I think they are lucky. Nether are any of the top players on the ITC tour. The way to handle this is not make people throw away their bought and paid for supposed to be balanced dice. The way to handle it is ITC tournaments should sell bricks of dice you have to use in the tournament and not release the kind of dice they will be using.
The way to handle this is to let people just use their own dice because it isn't actually an issue.
Prove it. Prove it is not a problem.
add 10 bucks to your tournament buy in? For piece of mind that no one is cheating you and you get to keep the dice? It is a win win. To deny such a good suggestion is actually somewhat fishy...Are you adamant against the proposal that some people you play with likely are cheating you beit unknowingly or in some cases deliberately? Or is it the other reason? In my LGS I can confirm 3 cheaters who were caught with loaded dice and banned from the stores. 2 of them were at local tournaments with 25 dollar prices....what do you think it's like with a 5000$ price?
Unless you're playing some tournament where the TO tells you exactly what dice is and isn't allowed, just use your store bought stuff. They might have slight biases, but unless they're unbalanced to the point where you roll a certain result 1/3rd or more of the time, no one is gonna notice or care.
flandarz wrote: Unless you're playing some tournament where the TO tells you exactly what dice is and isn't allowed, just use your store bought stuff. They might have slight biases, but unless they're unbalanced to the point where you roll a certain result 1/3rd or more of the time, no one is gonna notice or care.
Were not talking FLGS here though. We are talking about big ITC tournaments with money on the line. Also - thank you for helping me out. You are right. People wont notice.
Xenomancers wrote: I think everyone can acknowledge that unless you are buying casino dice - NONE of them will be perfect. For me it's more of a feeling - I have never tested them. I still roll tons of 1's. If anything they are biased towards 4's. However - I am under no responsibility - morally or competitively to throw away the legal dice I paid for because I think they are lucky. Nether are any of the top players on the ITC tour. The way to handle this is not make people throw away their bought and paid for supposed to be balanced dice. The way to handle it is ITC tournaments should sell bricks of dice you have to use in the tournament and not release the kind of dice they will be using.
The way to handle this is to let people just use their own dice because it isn't actually an issue.
Prove it. Prove it is not a problem.
No, that's not how this works. You made a claim (many pages back now) that top ITC players use loaded dice. The burden of proof is on you to back up that claim, not deflect that burden onto others.
Xenomancers wrote: I think everyone can acknowledge that unless you are buying casino dice - NONE of them will be perfect. For me it's more of a feeling - I have never tested them. I still roll tons of 1's. If anything they are biased towards 4's. However - I am under no responsibility - morally or competitively to throw away the legal dice I paid for because I think they are lucky. Nether are any of the top players on the ITC tour. The way to handle this is not make people throw away their bought and paid for supposed to be balanced dice. The way to handle it is ITC tournaments should sell bricks of dice you have to use in the tournament and not release the kind of dice they will be using.
The way to handle this is to let people just use their own dice because it isn't actually an issue.
Prove it. Prove it is not a problem.
No, that's not how this works. You made a claim (many pages back now) that top ITC players use loaded dice. The burden of proof is on you to back up that claim, not deflect that burden onto others.
LOL - all I need to do is prove they are using their own dice (which can all have a bias). That is already proven. They might be cheating and not even know it.
I'm not asking you to prove a negative. That would be impossible. I could show you lots of material that supports my claim that chessex dice aren't very balanced but other dice too. That would be a waste of my time though...this is something we have all see at somepoint in our lives. There were even several post in dakka years back discussing dice and putting them through 1000's of rolls to test them. HInt...none of the dice performed great. Some were near perfect though.
Xenomancers wrote: I think everyone can acknowledge that unless you are buying casino dice - NONE of them will be perfect. For me it's more of a feeling - I have never tested them. I still roll tons of 1's. If anything they are biased towards 4's. However - I am under no responsibility - morally or competitively to throw away the legal dice I paid for because I think they are lucky. Nether are any of the top players on the ITC tour. The way to handle this is not make people throw away their bought and paid for supposed to be balanced dice. The way to handle it is ITC tournaments should sell bricks of dice you have to use in the tournament and not release the kind of dice they will be using.
The way to handle this is to let people just use their own dice because it isn't actually an issue.
Prove it. Prove it is not a problem.
No, that's not how this works. You made a claim (many pages back now) that top ITC players use loaded dice. The burden of proof is on you to back up that claim, not deflect that burden onto others.
LOL - all I need to do is prove they are using their own dice (which can all have a bias). That is already proven. They might be cheating and not even know it.
I'm not asking you to prove a negative. That would be impossible. I could show you lots of material that supports my claim that chessex dice aren't very balanced but other dice too. That would be a waste of my time though...this is something we have all see at somepoint in our lives. There were even several post in dakka years back discussing dice and putting them through 1000's of rolls to test them. HInt...none of the dice performed great. Some were near perfect though.
You directly accused at least one player of cheating, with no proof whatsoever:
Also - I am pretty sure a lot of those really top players are using loaded dice...because they don't control for it. Last year I think Nayden won 46 consecutive games. The only way to do that in a dice game is to cheat.
That's what kicked off this whole tangent about dice. That's not a "oh he's accidentally using biased dice" comment. That's an outright accusation of cheating. You have no proof of this statement yet demand proof of others, proof of a negative no less.
I think most dice that aren't actually loaded are gonna be just fine either at the FLGS or at a tournament. If you get a 6 190 times out of a thousand instead of 166.7, as I said before, no one is gonna notice or care.
Bharring wrote: The belief that the Stompa is good isn't even the most bonkers thing about this thread.
The belief that it's not cheating if you use dice someone else loaded is what's blowing my mind.
You are really going to far with this...You mean cheesex...the largest dice manufacturer in the world? There is a big difference between paying someone to load your dice and then using them and buy a brick of dice off the shelf that is supposed to be balanced. I think everyone can acknowledge that unless you are buying casino dice - NONE of them will be perfect. For me it's more of a feeling - I have never tested them. I still roll tons of 1's. If anything they are biased towards 4's. However - I am under no responsibility - morally or competitively to throw away the legal dice I paid for because I think they are lucky. Nether are any of the top players on the ITC tour. The way to handle this is not make people throw away their bought and paid for supposed to be balanced dice. The way to handle it is ITC tournaments should sell bricks of dice you have to use in the tournament and not release the kind of dice they will be using. 10 bucks on top of your entry fee - you can buy more for 10 more bucks and you can keep them! ESP for the really large tournaments. Though - events of 50+ should easy be able to manage this with the entry fee pricing.
Forget dice app. If this game goes the way of dice AP I will straight up quit and spend my money somewhere else. The most fun part about this game is rolling dice.
Bharring wrote: The belief that the Stompa is good isn't even the most bonkers thing about this thread.
The belief that it's not cheating if you use dice someone else loaded is what's blowing my mind.
wasnt that example talking about how using chessex dice meant you were automatically cheating? because at my gamestore theyre the only available dice (or the official, overpriced, GW ones) and i didnt know they had balance issues before coming to dakka. Was i a cheater before? and am i a cheater now?
There is an absolutely wonderful 45 minute video of a crazy man who calls himself "the colonel" or something ranting about the evils of chessex dice somewhere. It's my favorite thing ever.
Mine must have been loaded wrong, as I I've never rolled well enough with them to be suspected of cheating. Even rolled snake eyes on a hit that would have hit on anything but (no, I didn't say it). Ruined the strategy for the whole turn as I had spent resources for a set up and the delivery afterward was crucial for the resolution.
I command reroll 1's into 1's all the time with chessex. I think the real issue is that they might be slightly imperfect - not loaded. So every dice in your brick likely has a bias. This is true for all non casino level dice. However - with chessex the rate of imperfection might be a little higher than others.I just notice that with larger dice rolls of like 20+ there seems to be an awfully lot of 5/6 in there some times - probably more than their should be after 100's of rolls. However - it's not to an absurd degree.
flandarz wrote: I think most dice that aren't actually loaded are gonna be just fine either at the FLGS or at a tournament. If you get a 6 190 times out of a thousand instead of 166.7, as I said before, no one is gonna notice or care.
Yes you are absolutely right. No one will notice you rolling 14% better than you should. If you are always rolling 14% better you are going to win more games though. All things being equal but ones dice roll statistically better. You will win almost all your games. That is my point. Dice need to be controlled in tournaments. Not sure why this idea gets any resistance. I am sure it is quite puzzling.
flandarz wrote: I think most dice that aren't actually loaded are gonna be just fine either at the FLGS or at a tournament. If you get a 6 190 times out of a thousand instead of 166.7, as I said before, no one is gonna notice or care.
Yes you are absolutely right. No one will notice you rolling 14% better than you should. If you are always rolling 14% better you are going to win more games though. All things being equal but ones dice roll statistically better. You will win almost all your games. That is my point. Dice need to be controlled in tournaments. Not sure why this idea gets any resistance. I am sure it is quite puzzling.
Flip it on it's head. If there is rolling variation between players (because probability) and all other variables are equal, those that happen to roll slightly better are more likely to wind up in top tourney spots.
Edit: Emphasis on all other variables being equal. As though army build and skill aren't a thing.
Rolling 14% better does not result in winning "almost all your games" unless you were already at a significant advantage (skill, list, etc.). Assuming two people of equal skill and using the same exact army list, you can reasonably assume that they would each win 50% of the time. If one person's dice rolled 14% better, the W/L ratio would shift to 57/43. Which is why I said no one is going to notice or care, unless you're using literal cheat dice.
I'd also be surprised if any non-weighted dice had as much as a 14% swing in results.
Edit: if you want to visualize what 14% better rolls look like, here's some math. Assuming 14% better means you roll 4s, 5s, and 6s 14% more often than usual, you'd be looking at rolling each of these 19% of the time you roll the dice. Which means you'd still have a 43% chance to roll a 3, 2, or 1. It's extremely minor.
Bharring wrote: The belief that the Stompa is good isn't even the most bonkers thing about this thread.
The belief that it's not cheating if you use dice someone else loaded is what's blowing my mind.
You are really going to far with this...You mean cheesex...the largest dice manufacturer in the world?
No, I didn't mean Cheesex. I meant anyone. It's possible Cheesex loads their dice. But you're the one claiming they're loading their dice, and the one that believes it. I've made neither claim.
There is a big difference between paying someone to load your dice and then using them and buy a brick of dice off the shelf that is supposed to be balanced.
Of course. In the first case, you believe the dice are unfair, and thus are cheating. In the second case, you likely believe the dice are fair, and thus are not cheating. On the other hand, buying off-the-shelf dice in some way (whether that's from a particular store, a particular brand, or whatever) with the intention to wind up with loaded dice, then using them, certainly is cheating.
The big gap, however, is the difference between "These dice are skewed a little in unknown directions" and "These dice are skewed in a known, desirable direction". The first case is indistinguishable from fair dice; if the skew direction is independent of purpose, then the result is perfectly fairly random, even if the individual dice are not. The second is cheating.
I think everyone can acknowledge that unless you are buying casino dice - NONE of them will be perfect.
Nothing - not even "casino dice" - will ever be perfect. We have to settle, one way or another, from "Insignificantly biased by intent". Which even trash-tier dice with a random skew fulfill.
For me it's more of a feeling - I have never tested them. I still roll tons of 1's. If anything they are biased towards 4's. However - I am under no responsibility - morally or competitively to throw away the legal dice I paid for because I think they are lucky. Nether are any of the top players on the ITC tour. The way to handle this is not make people throw away their bought and paid for supposed to be balanced dice.
Nobody (other than you) is saying otherwise. "Luck" is when things go your way without you causing it to go your way. In other words, "Lucky Dice" are dice you think will roll well, but you have no reason to believe have cause to roll well. Because if you believe they have cause to roll well - whether because you think they're biased, or because you can see the future - it's not luck anymore. It's cheating.
The way to handle it is ITC tournaments should sell bricks of dice you have to use in the tournament and not release the kind of dice they will be using. 10 bucks on top of your entry fee - you can buy more for 10 more bucks and you can keep them! ESP for the really large tournaments. Though - events of 50+ should easy be able to manage this with the entry fee pricing.
Or we can just let most people just use their dice. So they can enjoy their dice. Loaded/biased dice are a potential problem, but can be spot-checked for. Your solution is worse than the problem.
Bharring wrote: The belief that the Stompa is good isn't even the most bonkers thing about this thread.
The belief that it's not cheating if you use dice someone else loaded is what's blowing my mind.
wasnt that example talking about how using chessex dice meant you were automatically cheating? because at my gamestore theyre the only available dice (or the official, overpriced, GW ones) and i didnt know they had balance issues before coming to dakka. Was i a cheater before? and am i a cheater now?
There is an absolutely wonderful 45 minute video of a crazy man who calls himself "the colonel" or something ranting about the evils of chessex dice somewhere. It's my favorite thing ever.
Mine must have been loaded wrong, as I I've never rolled well enough with them to be suspected of cheating. Even rolled snake eyes on a hit that would have hit on anything but (no, I didn't say it). Ruined the strategy for the whole turn as I had spent resources for a set up and the delivery afterward was crucial for the resolution.
I command reroll 1's into 1's all the time with chessex. I think the real issue is that they might be slightly imperfect - not loaded. So every dice in your brick likely has a bias. This is true for all non casino level dice.
No die will be perfect. They're all probably biased. The strength and direction of those biases, though, are sufficiently small and random enough to not regularly align with the user's interests, so it's really not a problem.
However - with chessex the rate of imperfection might be a little higher than others.I just notice that with larger dice rolls of like 20+ there seems to be an awfully lot of 5/6 in there some times - probably more than their should be after 100's of rolls. However - it's not to an absurd degree.
You're arguing a noticeable bias towards 5s and 6s even in batches as small as 20 on Chessex D6s? I'm going to have to call BS on that. Some quick googling shows some reasonable distributions on most Chessex dice, with the one dissenting paper finding a skew towards rolling *1*, not 5 or 6. You're going to have to put up or shut up on this.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, and I'm fairly sure my dice are even more loaded to 1s than yours. I lost Asurmen in 6th to overwatch from 6 Sternguard. Failed 3 of 5 2+ *rerollables*. Clearly my dice are even more loaded!
flandarz wrote: I think most dice that aren't actually loaded are gonna be just fine either at the FLGS or at a tournament. If you get a 6 190 times out of a thousand instead of 166.7, as I said before, no one is gonna notice or care.
Yes you are absolutely right. No one will notice you rolling 14% better than you should. If you are always rolling 14% better you are going to win more games though. All things being equal but ones dice roll statistically better. You will win almost all your games. That is my point. Dice need to be controlled in tournaments. Not sure why this idea gets any resistance. I am sure it is quite puzzling.
Flip it on it's head. If there is rolling variation between players (because probability) and all other variables are equal, those that happen to roll slightly better are more likely to wind up in top tourney spots.
Edit: Emphasis on all other variables being equal. As though army build and skill aren't a thing.
Rule of large numbers and regression to the mean. As the number of dice rolls increase, the variance between how well individual players' rolled (on fair-enough dice) plummets.
I honestly feel that players need to share the dice at the table. I should just roll my saves from your successful attacks and vice versa.
I don't get the strange reluctance to let someone else touch your dice. Would speed up the game and disincentivize any type of dice shenanigans.
No pulling out your special dice for a particular roll. Your dice in a pile (or piles because pre-sorting batches of dice is helpful) and only use dice on the table.
bananathug wrote: I honestly feel that players need to share the dice at the table. I should just roll my saves from your successful attacks and vice versa.
I don't get the strange reluctance to let someone else touch your dice. Would speed up the game and disincentivize any type of dice shenanigans.
No pulling out your special dice for a particular roll. Your dice in a pile (or piles because pre-sorting batches of dice is helpful) and only use dice on the table.
That's crazytalk. Everyone knows it's bad luck to use your opponent's dice.
bananathug wrote: I honestly feel that players need to share the dice at the table. I should just roll my saves from your successful attacks and vice versa.
I don't get the strange reluctance to let someone else touch your dice. Would speed up the game and disincentivize any type of dice shenanigans.
No pulling out your special dice for a particular roll. Your dice in a pile (or piles because pre-sorting batches of dice is helpful) and only use dice on the table.
That's crazytalk. Everyone knows it's bad luck to use your opponent's dice.
bananathug wrote: I honestly feel that players need to share the dice at the table. I should just roll my saves from your successful attacks and vice versa.
I don't get the strange reluctance to let someone else touch your dice. Would speed up the game and disincentivize any type of dice shenanigans.
No pulling out your special dice for a particular roll. Your dice in a pile (or piles because pre-sorting batches of dice is helpful) and only use dice on the table.
That's crazytalk. Everyone knows it's bad luck to use your opponent's dice.
100% True. Can confirm!
No it's fine. You just have to make the appropriate signs and prayers to the Dice Gods first.
Also - I am pretty sure a lot of those really top players are using loaded dice...because they don't control for it. Last year I think Nayden won 46 consecutive games. The only way to do that in a dice game is to cheat.
That's what kicked off this whole tangent about dice. That's not a "oh he's accidentally using biased dice" comment. That's an outright accusation of cheating. You have no proof of this statement yet demand proof of others, proof of a negative no less.
The dice-chat flak screen seems to be working, mind.
sieGermans wrote: What happened to the stats discussion from 8 pages ago?
It will come back. No new tournaments to chew on yet. It will be an ever-evolving debate as the constant influences of new books will be shaping the meta for a very long time.
Wayniac wrote: Maybe Martel is playing BA with like nothing but melee troops? So he doesn't have the shooting to cut down chaff, he has to get them in melee which having a ton of dudes prevents from getting to the choice bits/objective/what have you.
That's the only way I can think he's having so many issues with hordes. It would explain why he prefers ITC because with the anti-horde secondary he's at least getting VP for killing the screening chaff while with the CA missions he doesn't get squat for killing 100 guys if they prevent him from getting to an objective or whatnot.
This is a reasonable assumption but he claims to get his clock cleaned by ranged firepower all the time, so he's not in melee but simultaneously not shooting anything.
This. If he had any real confidence in his own statements, he would share his list. He outright refuses to share what he's actually running, because there's a very real part of him that recognises that the list he has written is NOT competitive and any semi-decent player will instantly be able to identify the holes within.
We only had 4 events over the weekend, and 1300 pts of unplayable BA managed to get 1st place at Critical Hit GT last weekend. Watch the results keep rolling in while the players who've always struggled no matter tier, keep struggling.
I just don't have a set list atm. I realize I probably need autobolters for starters. I also refuse to use leviathan dreads. I've also fired jump pack DC because of the issues I'm having. Sounds like Red Ultramarines are the future.
I don't think BA are unplayable, I just don't think they are that much better off than before match-up wise. They beat what they could beat before PA and lose to what they lost to before PA. Extra attacks for BA looks great on paper until you put it into practice.
I see the winner souped in TFCs. That fixes the issue I'm having, I suppose. Of course, I don't own TFCs because BA have never been able to use them. The rest of the list I would never pick to win anything, to be honest. Especially so many fragile DC.
that's a fair enough response, though I still disagree with you.
And if you havent even landed on a good way to play the army yet I don't think you should be saying where they fit balance wise. Also if you refuse to soup in even a single small detachment for one unit, you aren't playing the army to its fullest. Cause this logic Knights are a bottom tier faction since pure solo knights have no pull.
Martel732 wrote: I just don't have a set list atm. I realize I probably need autobolters for starters. I also refuse to use leviathan dreads. I've also fired jump pack DC because of the issues I'm having. Sounds like Red Ultramarines are the future.
I don't think BA are unplayable, I just don't think they are that much better off than before match-up wise. They beat what they could beat before PA and lose to what they lost to before PA. Extra attacks for BA looks great on paper until you put it into practice.
I see the winner souped in TFCs. That fixes the issue I'm having, I suppose. Of course, I don't own TFCs because BA have never been able to use them. The rest of the list I would never pick to win anything, to be honest. Especially so many fragile DC.
Why won't you use leviathans? Don't like the model? Allergic to resin?
Nitro Zeus wrote: that's a fair enough response, though I still disagree with you.
And if you havent even landed on a good way to play the army yet I don't think you should be saying where they fit balance wise. Also if you refuse to soup in even a single small detachment for one unit, you aren't playing the army to its fullest. Cause this logic Knights are a bottom tier faction since pure solo knights have no pull.
I'm not refusing to soup; I just don't have those models.
Martel732 wrote: I just don't have a set list atm. I realize I probably need autobolters for starters. I also refuse to use leviathan dreads. I've also fired jump pack DC because of the issues I'm having. Sounds like Red Ultramarines are the future.
I don't think BA are unplayable, I just don't think they are that much better off than before match-up wise. They beat what they could beat before PA and lose to what they lost to before PA. Extra attacks for BA looks great on paper until you put it into practice.
I see the winner souped in TFCs. That fixes the issue I'm having, I suppose. Of course, I don't own TFCs because BA have never been able to use them. The rest of the list I would never pick to win anything, to be honest. Especially so many fragile DC.
Why won't you use leviathans? Don't like the model? Allergic to resin?
I dislike the FW dreads in general. I don't think they should be in the game, as they are so different from the regular dreads.
Nitro Zeus wrote: that's a fair enough response, though I still disagree with you.
And if you havent even landed on a good way to play the army yet I don't think you should be saying where they fit balance wise. Also if you refuse to soup in even a single small detachment for one unit, you aren't playing the army to its fullest. Cause this logic Knights are a bottom tier faction since pure solo knights have no pull.
I'm not refusing to soup; I just don't have those models.
Martel732 wrote: I just don't have a set list atm. I realize I probably need autobolters for starters. I also refuse to use leviathan dreads. I've also fired jump pack DC because of the issues I'm having. Sounds like Red Ultramarines are the future.
I don't think BA are unplayable, I just don't think they are that much better off than before match-up wise. They beat what they could beat before PA and lose to what they lost to before PA. Extra attacks for BA looks great on paper until you put it into practice.
I see the winner souped in TFCs. That fixes the issue I'm having, I suppose. Of course, I don't own TFCs because BA have never been able to use them. The rest of the list I would never pick to win anything, to be honest. Especially so many fragile DC.
Why won't you use leviathans? Don't like the model? Allergic to resin?
I dislike the FW dreads in general. I don't think they should be in the game, as they are so different from the regular dreads.
That's understandable. Don't run models you don't like just because they're more "competitive ". That's why I'll never trade in my fellblade for a godawful lord of skulls.
I respect that decision too, but at the same time, I wouldn't claim that my results are representative of the strength of my faction, but the guy out there winning tournaments with them is not.
Nitro Zeus wrote: I respect that decision too, but at the same time, I wouldn't claim that my results are representative of the strength of my faction, but the guy out there winning tournaments with them is not.
That's fair, but if the viability of a faction comes down to the use of one or two underpriced units, particularly FW ones, then they're one knee-jerk points adjustment away from being non-viable. But since we're here until December, who knows what else will change by then.
I've considered the leviathan an unfair "crutch" model the entire edition. Now it has access to half damage strat? It breaks what little immersion there is when a supposedly rare unit is in every damn list.
Nitro Zeus wrote: I respect that decision too, but at the same time, I wouldn't claim that my results are representative of the strength of my faction, but the guy out there winning tournaments with them is not.
That's fair, but if the viability of a faction comes down to the use of one or two underpriced units, particularly FW ones, then they're one knee-jerk points adjustment away from being non-viable. But since we're here until December, who knows what else will change by then.
TBF, gw has a lot of these types of unit in their "core" lineup allready
Nitro Zeus wrote: I respect that decision too, but at the same time, I wouldn't claim that my results are representative of the strength of my faction, but the guy out there winning tournaments with them is not.
That's fair, but if the viability of a faction comes down to the use of one or two underpriced units, particularly FW ones, then they're one knee-jerk points adjustment away from being non-viable. But since we're here until December, who knows what else will change by then.
TBF, gw has a lot of these types of unit in their "core" lineup allready
Eldar flyers, riptides/drones, obliterators, yeah lots of "must takes " along with stuff that no one uses. Internal balance in most codexes is pretty bad.
The old fw=broken line is pretty much proven wrong at this point as well especially after ca2019 pretty much pretended fw didn't exist. Unless of course it was something "primaris".
Martel732 wrote: I've considered the leviathan an unfair "crutch" model the entire edition. Now it has access to half damage strat? It breaks what little immersion there is when a supposedly rare unit is in every damn list.
Ah, I see. You're not using the Leviathan so that you A) can claim some sort of moral high ground, B) have a convenient excuse for when you lose to a list containing one.
I can share a list, but what would be the point, as I haven't settled on one yet? I can post some list I might never use again anyway? So you want a random list?
Some of my lists have scouts. Most don't at this point. Judging by this one tourney list, that's a mistake, but I don't understand why. I don't usually use two smash capts. I'm guessing they are used sequentially, since they can't be used simultaneously, which is why I don't use more than one. A few lists have zero smash capts, because I'm sick of that model, too.
Either you wring all of the efficiencies out of your list and win or you play casual and ask your opponents to tone down their lists. There's a difference between blood angels are trash vs the blood angel units I want to play with are trash.
I just can't beat this guy no mater what I try, but I only fight with one hand tied behind my back and on one leg because reasons...
Almost as bad as Xeno yelling in the DA topic while knowing nothing about DA.
Please move the BA theory crafting to the BA thread/topic please.
Yeah, running fluffy hodgepodge casual lists is perfectly fine, I do that all the time. I just don't cry about it on internet if I lose because of that.
Martel732 wrote: Judging by this one tourney list, that's a mistake, but I don't understand why.
It will help if you can either see the game, or get a recap of how it works. If people are finding success, it's always good to take some notes, even if ultimately you plan do things your own way.
Martel732 wrote: Neither, actually. I'm just sick of seeing them. Maybe you're projecting a bit.
Ahh, now you're just sick of seeing them....
Projecting? Nope. Not at all.
I love how the model looks & I love its stats (though those stats are a bonus & I'd run one regardless), & I don't care who else uses it or why. So I'll happily club my opponent with one & admit to it.
Martel732 wrote: I specifically dont like the bs 2+ dreads, as they are such outliers in the marine line. At a minimum, the relic rule needs to be very harsh.
I think all dreads should have WS and BS of 2+ (with appropriate point cost of course.) Dreads are entombed heroes, they should have skills to match. It would also nicely set them apart from more mundane vehicles. There really doesn't need to be separate 'venerable' variant, they can just all be 'venerable.'
The hellforged/relic dreadnoughts are ancient and rare and are therefore only the most skilled warriors are interred in them. So they should definitely have better stats. They also degrade so they don't always have those stats.
The hellforged/relic dreadnoughts are ancient and rare and are therefore only the most skilled warriors are interred in them. So they should definitely have better stats. They also degrade so they don't always have those stats.
All dreadnought are ancient and rare! Bjorn the Fellhanded was pals with Leman Russ and he has the standard dread chassis. FW can make new and different things, but this chase to make these even specialer and rarerer dreadnoughts is stupid and counterproductive. Like they even have a relic version of Contemptor! (Which is crazy levels more powerful than the normal one.) They first introduced Contemptors as ancient and special relic dreadnoughts, and then made even more relicer super version of it. Please, make it stop! All the models can stay, but the rules need to be streamlined and consolidated.
The hellforged/relic dreadnoughts are ancient and rare and are therefore only the most skilled warriors are interred in them. So they should definitely have better stats. They also degrade so they don't always have those stats.
All dreadnought are ancient and rare! Bjorn the Fellhanded was pals with Leman Russ and he has the standard dread chassis. FW can make new and different things, but this chase to make these even specialer and rarerer dreadnoughts is stupid and counterproductive. Like they even have a relic version of Contemptor! (Which is crazy levels more powerful than the normal one.) They first introduced Contemptors as ancient and special relic dreadnoughts, and then made even more relicer super version of it. Please, make it stop! All the models can stay, but the rules need to be streamlined and consolidated.
That's fair as long as the points for the affected units are adjusted as you previously stated. I have no problem with that.
I disagree that Dreads should all be BS2+. Relic ones, maybe, and all should ignore the penalty for moving and shooting sure. But being skilled when you're a fully functional Marine is one thing, but once you've suffered whatever grievous wound requiring you to be entombed in a Dread, there should be some kind of "dulling of sense" or lack of flexibility/speed causing those skills to not be so great.
A WS/BS2+ character being literally crippled should not get to keep that WS/BS2+. Being WS/BS3+ would still be impressive considering the circumstances. But again, I also believe Dreads of all variants should ignore hit penalties for moving, which would be almost a net result for Ven-Dreads on the move. (and Dread should be on the move, not just static weapon platforms)
Galef wrote: I disagree that Dreads should all be BS2+. Relic ones, maybe, and all should ignore the penalty for moving and shooting sure. But being skilled when you're a fully functional Marine is one thing, but once you've suffered whatever grievous wound requiring you to be entombed in a Dread, there should be some kind of "dulling of sense" or lack of flexibility/speed causing those skills to not be so great.
A WS/BS2+ character being literally crippled should not get to keep that WS/BS2+. Being WS/BS3+ would still be impressive considering the circumstances.
But again, I also believe Dreads of all variants should ignore hit penalties for moving, which would be almost a net result for Ven-Dreads on the move. (and Dread should be on the move, not just static weapon platforms)
-
Do you include hellforged with relics? Otherwise you'd be giving more of a nerf to heretics.
bananathug wrote: Either you wring all of the efficiencies out of your list and win or you play casual and ask your opponents to tone down their lists. There's a difference between blood angels are trash vs the blood angel units I want to play with are trash.
I just can't beat this guy no mater what I try, but I only fight with one hand tied behind my back and on one leg because reasons...
Almost as bad as Xeno yelling in the DA topic while knowing nothing about DA.
Please move the BA theory crafting to the BA thread/topic please.
Anyone got any stats on the LVO lists?
That is a dumb statement. DA are just marines with slightly different rules. I know marines really well. Holy crap I misread the leak and thought the FNP was vs all damage not mortals. Guess that means I know nothing about DA.
Nitro Zeus wrote: You actually know marines really poorly, like, impressively so, and DA are not just Marines with slightly different rules.
It's funny how you can make such a dumb statement and not even realize it is dumb. DA are just marines with slightly different rules. Please feel free to elaborate on how DA aren't marines with slightly different rules. I am dying to find out for myself. Also my knowledge of the marine factions I play is pretty high. You just have a grudge against me because I make strong arguments and you have no idea how to argue against them.
Galef wrote: I disagree that Dreads should all be BS2+. Relic ones, maybe, and all should ignore the penalty for moving and shooting sure. But being skilled when you're a fully functional Marine is one thing, but once you've suffered whatever grievous wound requiring you to be entombed in a Dread, there should be some kind of "dulling of sense" or lack of flexibility/speed causing those skills to not be so great.
A WS/BS2+ character being literally crippled should not get to keep that WS/BS2+. Being WS/BS3+ would still be impressive considering the circumstances.
But again, I also believe Dreads of all variants should ignore hit penalties for moving, which would be almost a net result for Ven-Dreads on the move. (and Dread should be on the move, not just static weapon platforms)-
I think they ought to all be 2+ BSWS, but then again I started in 2nd edition when they had better than veteran stats (BS6) plus a Targeter for a base of 0+ to-hit, plus superior versions of the standard weapons, with improved reliability/versatility. Reason being? Ancient tech, + heroes all had BS/WS stats between 5-7. It also highlighted the fact that Dreads were special and piloted by heroes, rather than the BS 4 of regular SM vehicle crewmen.
Like Martel I'm not fond of the Leviathan, either. It feels a little un-marine, being a big, lumbering thing that looks like it requires separate logistics than everything else. Great model though, I've often thought about adding one to my traitors.
I think they ought to all be 2+ BSWS, but then again I started in 2nd edition when they had better than veteran stats (BS6) plus a Targeter for a base of 0+ to-hit, plus superior versions of the standard weapons, with improved reliability/versatility. Reason being? Ancient tech, + heroes all had BS/WS stats between 5-7. It also highlighted the fact that Dreads were special and piloted by heroes, rather than the BS 4 of regular SM vehicle crewmen.
Yep. I started in the 2nd edition too. I was sad how mediocre dreads became in the third edition. I'd like to see them become something more than small and weak tanks on legs again.
Xenomancers wrote:You just have a grudge against me because I make strong arguments and you have no idea how to argue against them.
"Strong" arguments like...
Xenomancers wrote:I am pretty sure a lot of those really top players are using loaded dice...because they don't control for it. Last year I think Nayden won 46 consecutive games. The only way to do that in a dice game is to cheat.
Or you play 1 format 100's of times a year and only care about Min/Max that 1 format and play not the army you like but the army that you think is best in the format talking with other people about that format and if you can get an extra 1% chance to win if you modify X, Y, or Z, then practice it and realize it was a good choice but found out that if you mod it a bit more to get 2%, now you feel good and doing something others are not used to so they make 1 mistake and they lose hold more, and kill more making you the winner.
But yeah, its loaded dice and yes that is a valid argument and any other argument are wrong.
bananathug wrote: Either you wring all of the efficiencies out of your list and win or you play casual and ask your opponents to tone down their lists. There's a difference between blood angels are trash vs the blood angel units I want to play with are trash.
I just can't beat this guy no mater what I try, but I only fight with one hand tied behind my back and on one leg because reasons...
Almost as bad as Xeno yelling in the DA topic while knowing nothing about DA.
Please move the BA theory crafting to the BA thread/topic please.
Anyone got any stats on the LVO lists?
That is a dumb statement. DA are just marines with slightly different rules. I know marines really well. Holy crap I misread the leak and thought the FNP was vs all damage not mortals. Guess that means I know nothing about DA.
The point is you're making statements without even understanding what you're commenting on. The FNP mistake, for example, is kind of a big deal since it massively changes the effectiveness of the rule if you misread it and think it applies to all wounds. Then you make your blanket statement about the power level of the army without having access to all the new rules or even the points cost of the model you got the rules wrong for. The comment about DA being SM with slightly different rules is technically correct but you're missing the wood for the trees. If they're slightly different SM they need to be strictly better than all other SM before we see them dominate. If, say, IH or IF are 5% better, it doesn't matter how good DA are, the competitive players are going to gravitate towards the slightly better SM and you likely end up with DA in the same position UM are now - powerful but with reduced win rates due to there being a strictly better sub-faction within that faction.
In general, it also helps to not make sweeping statements about the power level of an army literally a few hours after a small number of their rules are first previewed. Kind of hard to take that argument seriously.
No, it's not a problem of being OP resin, it's just that you have a model (dreadnaught) that is supposed to be rare because it entombs the heroes of that chapter, so it is by definition at least rarer than the heroes of that faction. Then you get the "rarer" version of it, the venerable ones. At this point, you understand that you can count the number of venerable dreads available to a chapter one one hand, with spare fingers. The fact that we have a venerable dread model is already a stretch, we should have named dreads.
Then comes FW, and it makes a dread that is even more rare! And then one which is even more even more rare!
It sounds really stupid. It's like they made a generic primarch model, saying that it is a rarer form of primarch...
No, it's not a problem of being OP resin, it's just that you have a model (dreadnaught) that is supposed to be rare because it entombs the heroes of that chapter, so it is by definition at least rarer than the heroes of that faction. Then you get the "rarer" version of it, the venerable ones. At this point, you understand that you can count the number of venerable dreads available to a chapter one one hand, with spare fingers. The fact that we have a venerable dread model is already a stretch, we should have named dreads.
Then comes FW, and it makes a dread that is even more rare! And then one which is even more even more rare!
It sounds really stupid. It's like they made a generic primarch model, saying that it is a rarer form of primarch...
Only the contemptor is older than ferrum infernus dreads. The ferum infurnus predates leviathans and daredeos. The fw dreadnoughts are ancient and rare but FETHING EVERYTHING in 40k is. Custodes are probably rarer than any pattern of dreadnought. Nobody complains about them because of that. (Not to mention the aforementioned primarchs that seem to show up on every fething war zone in the galaxy).
Xenomancers wrote:You just have a grudge against me because I make strong arguments and you have no idea how to argue against them.
"Strong" arguments like...
Xenomancers wrote:I am pretty sure a lot of those really top players are using loaded dice...because they don't control for it. Last year I think Nayden won 46 consecutive games. The only way to do that in a dice game is to cheat.
Man. 46 straight games. I’m the best player ever. I must have won so many events this year! Ohhhh wait I didn’t win a single one according to itc BCP input, though I’m pretty sure I won a 3 game RTT in august, oh well.
As far as dice go. I have a chessex or similar cube bought from a local game store. Some games workshop dice both the classic red ones from old boxsets and some of the ones they give out for being on their stream. And some vanity dice that I’ve gathered from other players over the years in trades or gifts after games. People are always welcome to roll my dice, in fact I often encourage it for saves as it speeds the game along.
I also never select the dice myself for important rolls like seize the initiative or game ends or what not letting my opponents pick from my pile for me.
But please again jump to conclusions on my 46 game winning streak. And if you believe that, I’ve got a Few boxes of mountain air I can sell to you at a good price.
Thats why you take it in a Sumpreme command detachment - has 1 LOW slot. Then it gains clan culture and it hits on 4's with free bootas with 5's generating extra hits (more dakka). Which is statistically the same as hitting on 3's with the benefit that your good rolls can far exceed the total max number of shots hits. Again I will reiterate it is not amazing for the cost. It is not however useless. Stompa was also dropped in points. It has castellan level firepower with 12 additional wounds and repair up to 3 a turn and the ability to carry 20 dudes (you are probably paying about 100 points for that transport capacity you don't want).
The game I referenced was basically automatic. kills. Def cannon = auto dead repuslor executioner - 330 points - Super rocket easily killed a redemptor with 4 shots turning into 6 hits and 5 wounds....1 made 6 + save and 4d6 damage to do 13 wounds? easy. 160 Good roll on super gatler against and intercessor squad I dont remember precisely the wounds but it killed 8 primaris marines....didn't even use it's melee ability and it killed 650 points already...it charged into a unit of agressors and killed 3 of them. Theres 111 more points. Oh and he had about 26 wounds on him at the time not giving a FCK about it ether. Cause Ork BS doesn't degrade.
It's also asanine to expect units to kill their points value in 1 turn. If that was the case for even 5% of the units in the game the game would be over on turn 1 every game. Reiterating again that I don't think the stompa is amazing but if you build around it can remove 3 targets a turn pretty consistently. Much like a Castellan can. It just pays more for tarnport capacity and has a lot more wounds and self repair and is entirely reliant on free bootas + more dakka...which it turns out it actually can use.
So give it a 3 HQ tax which the cheapest would be 3 Weirdboyz so you end up paying 1056pts at the cheapest to give a Stompa exploding 5s. conversely, this forces you to make your last 944pts a Free Boota detachment otherwise you will simply never proc and get that +1 to hit. So you kulture lock your entire army to get +1 to hit for a Stompa which as pointed out, degrades quickly, and in a game where killing a Knight (Same toughness, gets a 5+ invuln save and has just about 2/3rds as many wounds)is done easily...well, that Stompa won't be lasting long.
I do love your point about the Stompa killing its points back, that is hilarious. Instead of using averages you use the one anecdotal piece of evidence you have which makes your point. Let us say best case scenario, you have popped your exploding 5s strat and you have managed to kill an enemy unit and therefore have 4+ to hit. A Deff Kannon AVERAGES: 10.5 shots which hitting on 4s = 5.25 hits, exploding results in about 3 more shots for 1.5 more which = 6.75 hits, its wounding on 3s so on average thats 4.5 wounds, no saves allowed unless it gets a FNP/INvuln from whatever army its playing as....like the Ironhands favorite right now which give it a 6+ FNP and a -1 to damage. So those 4.5 wounds become 11.25 damage after damage reduction and then become about 9 after FNP is used. So on average it will mess up one of those vehicles but it won't kill it, and in fact, it has 7 wounds left which means you NEED to overkill it because on the next turn the Iron Hands will repair a lot of that damage. Your example of a Supa Rokkit is also just as 1 sided. On average the Supa Rokkit gets 3.5 shots, even hitting on 4s and using the exploding 5s strat this becomes 1.75 hits with 1 exploding result which is .5 more hits. So 2.25, this wounds on 3s so 1.5ish wounds which become 3.75 damage on average against a 6+ save and a 6+ FNP that is 2 to 3 damage. The Supa Gatler is 3D6 shots which averages 10.5, lets assume it shoots twice with the psycho rule so 21 shots. hitting on 4s = 10.5hits, you will get 7 exploding 5s and 6s which average 3.5 more hits so 14 total hits, wounding on 3s = 9.3ish wounds so lets round up and say 10. its -2 ap so those intercessors get a 5+ save so 6ish (rounding up again)7 wounds which kills 3.5 marines, that is a far cry from 8 that you claim. you have to do more then twice the average to get the numbers you keep saying are happening on top of managing to proc a 4+ klan bonus which is actually hard to do unless your opponent is a muppet and lets you kill an easy target like a 5 man scout squad in the open without cloaks LOL! And then he managed a charge! WOOOO!!!!!!, assuming the Stompa went first, it moves 12, it doesn't advance because its guns would be functionally useless, turn 2 it can move 9 so 21 inches. Did the SM player deploy on the damn line, did he choose not to move back on his turn because there was a giant robot walking at him that is ok in CC and more importantly, if it violently explode when it dies it can wipe out characters and squads? The problem I have with most of your posts about orks is you use examples like this, where you compare Ork units and gear to SM items but you only ever use the best possible case scenario for the orkz. Yeah, a Stompa is AMAZING! if it shoots 3d6 shots and always gets 15-18 shots and somehow always has a 4+ to hit and somehow ends up with more hits then shots because of Dakkax3. Yeah, the Stompa is the best unit in the game if that is what you use as a metric.
Your final incorrect point. The Stompa CAN NOT remove 3 units a turn consistently. on average you will be lucky to get 2 and even that is a stretch. The Supa Gatler averages less than 7 dead Tactical Marines a turn, the Supa Rokkit doesn't kill a Dreadnought a turn, it averages (even without Iron Hands shenanigans) about 4.4 damage after a 6+ save. And those numbers factor in getting that 4+ to hit every single turn which speaking from experience, you wont.
No, it's not a problem of being OP resin, it's just that you have a model (dreadnaught) that is supposed to be rare because it entombs the heroes of that chapter, so it is by definition at least rarer than the heroes of that faction. Then you get the "rarer" version of it, the venerable ones. At this point, you understand that you can count the number of venerable dreads available to a chapter one one hand, with spare fingers. The fact that we have a venerable dread model is already a stretch, we should have named dreads.
Then comes FW, and it makes a dread that is even more rare! And then one which is even more even more rare!
It sounds really stupid. It's like they made a generic primarch model, saying that it is a rarer form of primarch...
Only the contemptor is older than ferrum infernus dreads. The ferum infurnus predates leviathans and daredeos. The fw dreadnoughts are ancient and rare but FETHING EVERYTHING in 40k is. Custodes are probably rarer than any pattern of dreadnought. Nobody complains about them because of that. (Not to mention the aforementioned primarchs that seem to show up on every fething war zone in the galaxy).
Guardsmen aren't. Nor are Orks or Nids. Marines are special snowflakes, but then GW makes things like GK and rare dreads that are even MOAR snowflakier. It's dumb.
Martel732 wrote: Its a big fw shiny thats the bestest because reasons. And it has snowflake weapons not found anywhere else
Really? We're back to the "evil magic fw resin is op and shouldn't be in the game " argument?
Guess my fellblade really is better than two baneblades. After all resin=magic.
I didn't mention resin. It's just a huge deviation from regular dreads and has dumb fluff. I'm fine with resin autocannon arms or whatever. But entirely NEW AND ANCIENT AND RARE dreads. Techmarines probably couldn't keep them running practically speaking, but then nothing the Imperium has should be running without scientific principles.
No, it's not a problem of being OP resin, it's just that you have a model (dreadnaught) that is supposed to be rare because it entombs the heroes of that chapter, so it is by definition at least rarer than the heroes of that faction. Then you get the "rarer" version of it, the venerable ones. At this point, you understand that you can count the number of venerable dreads available to a chapter one one hand, with spare fingers. The fact that we have a venerable dread model is already a stretch, we should have named dreads.
Then comes FW, and it makes a dread that is even more rare! And then one which is even more even more rare!
It sounds really stupid. It's like they made a generic primarch model, saying that it is a rarer form of primarch...
Only the contemptor is older than ferrum infernus dreads. The ferum infurnus predates leviathans and daredeos. The fw dreadnoughts are ancient and rare but FETHING EVERYTHING in 40k is. Custodes are probably rarer than any pattern of dreadnought. Nobody complains about them because of that. (Not to mention the aforementioned primarchs that seem to show up on every fething war zone in the galaxy).
Guardsmen aren't. Nor are Orks or Nids. Marines are special snowflakes, but then GW makes things like GK and rare dreads that are even MOAR snowflakier. It's dumb.
So basically you are jealous of the snowflake status?
In general, it also helps to not make sweeping statements about the power level of an army literally a few hours after a small number of their rules are first previewed. Kind of hard to take that argument seriously.
Like the new Marine codex being DOA because Gman and Repulsor nerfs. No chance Marines would ever win again.
Xenomancers wrote:You just have a grudge against me because I make strong arguments and you have no idea how to argue against them.
"Strong" arguments like...
Xenomancers wrote:I am pretty sure a lot of those really top players are using loaded dice...because they don't control for it. Last year I think Nayden won 46 consecutive games. The only way to do that in a dice game is to cheat.
Man. 46 straight games. I’m the best player ever. I must have won so many events this year! Ohhhh wait I didn’t win a single one according to itc BCP input, though I’m pretty sure I won a 3 game RTT in august, oh well.
As far as dice go. I have a chessex or similar cube bought from a local game store. Some games workshop dice both the classic red ones from old boxsets and some of the ones they give out for being on their stream. And some vanity dice that I’ve gathered from other players over the years in trades or gifts after games. People are always welcome to roll my dice, in fact I often encourage it for saves as it speeds the game along.
I also never select the dice myself for important rolls like seize the initiative or game ends or what not letting my opponents pick from my pile for me.
But please again jump to conclusions on my 46 game winning streak. And if you believe that, I’ve got a Few boxes of mountain air I can sell to you at a good price.
*drops mic*
Ho. Lee. gak.
I was hoping you’d weigh in. Didn’t expect it to be that hot.
And nice, now we have indisputable proof that Xenomancers doesn’t understand a lick of what he’s talking about, can we lock this thread and leave this godawful thread topic in the dirt?
And nice, now we have indisputable proof that Xenomancers doesn’t understand a lick of what he’s talking about, can we lock this thread and leave this godawful thread topic in the dirt?
No, because Xenomancer's last tangent isn't the actual topic of the thread. Discussion on competetive data shouldn't have to suffer because Xenomancer gets stuck in the same loop every time something new happens.
This entire topic is a nonsense Xenomancers rant from the start. There’s nothing competitive about this thread. But whatever, if you’re enjoying yourself I’ll leave you all to it.
Xenomancers wrote:You just have a grudge against me because I make strong arguments and you have no idea how to argue against them.
"Strong" arguments like...
Xenomancers wrote:I am pretty sure a lot of those really top players are using loaded dice...because they don't control for it. Last year I think Nayden won 46 consecutive games. The only way to do that in a dice game is to cheat.
Man. 46 straight games. I’m the best player ever. I must have won so many events this year! Ohhhh wait I didn’t win a single one according to itc BCP input, though I’m pretty sure I won a 3 game RTT in august, oh well.
As far as dice go. I have a chessex or similar cube bought from a local game store. Some games workshop dice both the classic red ones from old boxsets and some of the ones they give out for being on their stream. And some vanity dice that I’ve gathered from other players over the years in trades or gifts after games. People are always welcome to roll my dice, in fact I often encourage it for saves as it speeds the game along.
I also never select the dice myself for important rolls like seize the initiative or game ends or what not letting my opponents pick from my pile for me.
But please again jump to conclusions on my 46 game winning streak. And if you believe that, I’ve got a Few boxes of mountain air I can sell to you at a good price.
I always roll my saves with the same dice with which my opponent rolled the wounds evens out the odds mostly (not perfectly since AP is a thing.
bananathug wrote: Either you wring all of the efficiencies out of your list and win or you play casual and ask your opponents to tone down their lists. There's a difference between blood angels are trash vs the blood angel units I want to play with are trash.
I just can't beat this guy no mater what I try, but I only fight with one hand tied behind my back and on one leg because reasons...
Almost as bad as Xeno yelling in the DA topic while knowing nothing about DA.
Please move the BA theory crafting to the BA thread/topic please.
Anyone got any stats on the LVO lists?
That is a dumb statement. DA are just marines with slightly different rules. I know marines really well. Holy crap I misread the leak and thought the FNP was vs all damage not mortals. Guess that means I know nothing about DA.
The point is you're making statements without even understanding what you're commenting on. The FNP mistake, for example, is kind of a big deal since it massively changes the effectiveness of the rule if you misread it and think it applies to all wounds. Then you make your blanket statement about the power level of the army without having access to all the new rules or even the points cost of the model you got the rules wrong for. The comment about DA being SM with slightly different rules is technically correct but you're missing the wood for the trees. If they're slightly different SM they need to be strictly better than all other SM before we see them dominate. If, say, IH or IF are 5% better, it doesn't matter how good DA are, the competitive players are going to gravitate towards the slightly better SM and you likely end up with DA in the same position UM are now - powerful but with reduced win rates due to there being a strictly better sub-faction within that faction.
In general, it also helps to not make sweeping statements about the power level of an army literally a few hours after a small number of their rules are first previewed. Kind of hard to take that argument seriously.
Pfff. Garbage. My eyes played a trick on me reading a leak article literally a few hours after it came out which I corrected immediately when it was pointed out. The wording of that rule is really wordy for no reason which is why I made the mistake. Whatever though - if you want to make such a bad argument that I made a mistake and misread a rule so it invalidates my opinions you would be wrong. That is what you call a logical fallacy. Plus it's like most of you have never heard of a generalization "sweeping statements". When you know someone is making a generalization and treat it as literal is called arguing in bad faith.
Anyways just ignore this fact
DA have a dev doctrine bonus. Which with a chaplain litany essentially gives all units within 6" the Ironhands superdoctrine combined with the Ultramarines superdoctrine with the added benefit of having a +6 inch bonus from expert marksmen instead of 3" for rapid and heavy weapons. The only thing they are missing is master of artisans on every unit and character dreads. For that they get a 4++ invo bubble on all their infantry with Azreal - so they will be more durable and shoot farther - it's a fair trade off there. It's really not hard to compare things when they are the same. DA are going to perform at the same level of Ironhands because they have basically the same rules with even better tricks. Might be slightly less reliable and harder to play but...since "skill" is such a huge factor in the game to you people that should be easy for these "super pro 40k players".
And nice, now we have indisputable proof that Xenomancers doesn’t understand a lick of what he’s talking about, can we lock this thread and leave this godawful thread topic in the dirt?
No, because Xenomancer's last tangent isn't the actual topic of the thread. Discussion on competetive data shouldn't have to suffer because Xenomancer gets stuck in the same loop every time something new happens.
Nah...there were literally people in this thread attacking the data saying it is meaningless because it's always the same players winning events. I offered a pretty reasonable solution to that and people attack the idea like it's insane...people cheating at 40k is just wild with thousands of dollars on the line. The data isn't perfect but it is what we got.
In general, it also helps to not make sweeping statements about the power level of an army literally a few hours after a small number of their rules are first previewed. Kind of hard to take that argument seriously.
Like the new Marine codex being DOA because Gman and Repulsor nerfs. No chance Marines would ever win again.
LOL...you know that was before any of the supplement releases right? I believe I was specifically referring to Ultramarines to but regardless. No chance for marines to win again is not something I ever said. I said it was a nerf and it was before the supplements came out.
I've always used the "closed coffin" dreadnought just because I feel like the head poking out makes the proportions of the thing look really odd. The leviathan feels big enough where it feels right to me.
Pfff. Garbage. My eyes played a trick on me reading a leak article literally a few hours after it came out which I corrected immediately when it was pointed out.
Xeno - I think, sometimes, you have good thoughts. Others are over the top. Lately though it seems like you will die on the hill you stand on. I personally think it's a good thing to back down from a position and admit fault without lashing out simultaneously. When you start making baseless claims about cheating and other things and doubling down you just do yourself a disservice.
It's ok that emotions get the better of us from time to time, but you'll make better and more convincing arguments when you take a moment to process the information instead of rushing to judgement.
Xenomancers wrote:You just have a grudge against me because I make strong arguments and you have no idea how to argue against them.
"Strong" arguments like...
Xenomancers wrote:I am pretty sure a lot of those really top players are using loaded dice...because they don't control for it. Last year I think Nayden won 46 consecutive games. The only way to do that in a dice game is to cheat.
Man. 46 straight games. I’m the best player ever. I must have won so many events this year! Ohhhh wait I didn’t win a single one according to itc BCP input, though I’m pretty sure I won a 3 game RTT in august, oh well.
As far as dice go. I have a chessex or similar cube bought from a local game store. Some games workshop dice both the classic red ones from old boxsets and some of the ones they give out for being on their stream. And some vanity dice that I’ve gathered from other players over the years in trades or gifts after games. People are always welcome to roll my dice, in fact I often encourage it for saves as it speeds the game along.
I also never select the dice myself for important rolls like seize the initiative or game ends or what not letting my opponents pick from my pile for me.
But please again jump to conclusions on my 46 game winning streak. And if you believe that, I’ve got a Few boxes of mountain air I can sell to you at a good price.
I always roll my saves with the same dice with which my opponent rolled the wounds evens out the odds mostly (not perfectly since AP is a thing.
Players using the same dice is actually something I never thought of. That is a great idea. I lend people my dice all the time to fill out rolls - got no issue with rolling the same dice with someone. Anyone have issue with this?
Pfff. Garbage. My eyes played a trick on me reading a leak article literally a few hours after it came out which I corrected immediately when it was pointed out.
Xeno - I think, sometimes, you have good thoughts. Others are over the top. Lately though it seems like you will die on the hill you stand on. I personally think it's a good thing to back down from a position and admit fault without lashing out simultaneously. When you start making baseless claims about cheating and other things and doubling down you just do yourself a disservice.
It's ok that emotions get the better of us from time to time, but you'll make better and more convincing arguments when you take a moment to process the information instead of rushing to judgement.
I don't want to argue - I want to talk about solutions and improving the game and draw conclusions from the data we have seen. I've reiterated that point several times. I'd be happy to move on from the cheating topic as I have said I am not accusing anyone specifically of cheating intentionally (except maybe someone who won 46 consecutive games). I am just stating that without controls on dice you can expect a certain amount of that. Which I am absolutely right about BTW. It is pure ignorance to deny that. I am more than happy to move on from that though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ratius wrote: Only if they have clean hands.....#basement brigade
Xenomancers wrote: I don't want to argue - I want to talk about solutions and improving the game and draw conclusions from the data we have seen. I've reiterated that point several times. I'd be happy to move on from the cheating topic as I have said I am not accusing anyone specifically of cheating intentionally (except maybe someone who won 46 consecutive games). I am just stating that without controls on dice you can expect a certain amount of that. Which I am absolutely right about BTW. It is pure ignorance to deny that. I am more than happy to move on from that though.
This demonstrates what I'm talking about. You're backing down without backing down. I looked at the data for the past year and it recorded him as having 32 games of which 5 were loses. So perhaps there is some other source providing for 46 straight wins? Surely he would have won many GTs with that sort of record?
Data is finicky. There is so much more to these figures than what is seen at first glance.
No, it's not a problem of being OP resin, it's just that you have a model (dreadnaught) that is supposed to be rare because it entombs the heroes of that chapter, so it is by definition at least rarer than the heroes of that faction. Then you get the "rarer" version of it, the venerable ones. At this point, you understand that you can count the number of venerable dreads available to a chapter one one hand, with spare fingers. The fact that we have a venerable dread model is already a stretch, we should have named dreads.
Then comes FW, and it makes a dread that is even more rare! And then one which is even more even more rare!
It sounds really stupid. It's like they made a generic primarch model, saying that it is a rarer form of primarch...
Only the contemptor is older than ferrum infernus dreads. The ferum infurnus predates leviathans and daredeos. The fw dreadnoughts are ancient and rare but FETHING EVERYTHING in 40k is. Custodes are probably rarer than any pattern of dreadnought. Nobody complains about them because of that. (Not to mention the aforementioned primarchs that seem to show up on every fething war zone in the galaxy).
Guardsmen aren't. Nor are Orks or Nids. Marines are special snowflakes, but then GW makes things like GK and rare dreads that are even MOAR snowflakier. It's dumb.
Martel732 wrote: Its a big fw shiny thats the bestest because reasons. And it has snowflake weapons not found anywhere else
Really? We're back to the "evil magic fw resin is op and shouldn't be in the game " argument?
Guess my fellblade really is better than two baneblades. After all resin=magic.
I didn't mention resin. It's just a huge deviation from regular dreads and has dumb fluff. I'm fine with resin autocannon arms or whatever. But entirely NEW AND ANCIENT AND RARE dreads. Techmarines probably couldn't keep them running practically speaking, but then nothing the Imperium has should be running without scientific principles.
Dude, you're making me dizzy. A couple pages back you were complaining about those "not rare" guardsmen, orks, and nids now you're complaining about things you say are TOO RARE. It's beginning to seem you just want to complain about anything you have trouble beating.
There are ways to beat hordes and there are ways to beat "snowflake " fw units. Complaining won't beat either. If you don't like the model and don't want to use it that's fine but don't complain if someone else does unless you have a valid argument on whether it's properly balanced based on it's stats, rules, and points. Just calling something "dumb" isn't a valid argument.
bananathug wrote: Either you wring all of the efficiencies out of your list and win or you play casual and ask your opponents to tone down their lists. There's a difference between blood angels are trash vs the blood angel units I want to play with are trash.
I just can't beat this guy no mater what I try, but I only fight with one hand tied behind my back and on one leg because reasons...
Almost as bad as Xeno yelling in the DA topic while knowing nothing about DA.
Please move the BA theory crafting to the BA thread/topic please.
Anyone got any stats on the LVO lists?
That is a dumb statement. DA are just marines with slightly different rules. I know marines really well. Holy crap I misread the leak and thought the FNP was vs all damage not mortals. Guess that means I know nothing about DA.
The point is you're making statements without even understanding what you're commenting on. The FNP mistake, for example, is kind of a big deal since it massively changes the effectiveness of the rule if you misread it and think it applies to all wounds. Then you make your blanket statement about the power level of the army without having access to all the new rules or even the points cost of the model you got the rules wrong for. The comment about DA being SM with slightly different rules is technically correct but you're missing the wood for the trees. If they're slightly different SM they need to be strictly better than all other SM before we see them dominate. If, say, IH or IF are 5% better, it doesn't matter how good DA are, the competitive players are going to gravitate towards the slightly better SM and you likely end up with DA in the same position UM are now - powerful but with reduced win rates due to there being a strictly better sub-faction within that faction.
In general, it also helps to not make sweeping statements about the power level of an army literally a few hours after a small number of their rules are first previewed. Kind of hard to take that argument seriously.
Pfff. Garbage. My eyes played a trick on me reading a leak article literally a few hours after it came out which I corrected immediately when it was pointed out. The wording of that rule is really wordy for no reason which is why I made the mistake. Whatever though - if you want to make such a bad argument that I made a mistake and misread a rule so it invalidates my opinions you would be wrong. That is what you call a logical fallacy. Plus it's like most of you have never heard of a generalization "sweeping statements". When you know someone is making a generalization and treat it as literal is called arguing in bad faith.
You accuse a guy of cheating with no proof at all, refuse to acknowledge it and you want to talk about arguing in bad faith? Sure, you do you. My point, which you apparently missed, is that the very fact you don't know the rules is because nobody's played with them yet. The mistake you made in misreading the rule is the kind of thing that gets corrected very quickly once a Codex is released as people start to play games with and against it. The point is not that specific example being wrong, it's that it highlights how little we in general, and you specifically, know and understand about the DA rules right now. If you're going to make generalisations but want to be taken seriously it also helps not to jump right to "these guys are going to be broken" straight away.
No, it's not a problem of being OP resin, it's just that you have a model (dreadnaught) that is supposed to be rare because it entombs the heroes of that chapter, so it is by definition at least rarer than the heroes of that faction. Then you get the "rarer" version of it, the venerable ones. At this point, you understand that you can count the number of venerable dreads available to a chapter one one hand, with spare fingers. The fact that we have a venerable dread model is already a stretch, we should have named dreads.
Then comes FW, and it makes a dread that is even more rare! And then one which is even more even more rare!
It sounds really stupid. It's like they made a generic primarch model, saying that it is a rarer form of primarch...
Only the contemptor is older than ferrum infernus dreads. The ferum infurnus predates leviathans and daredeos. The fw dreadnoughts are ancient and rare but FETHING EVERYTHING in 40k is. Custodes are probably rarer than any pattern of dreadnought. Nobody complains about them because of that. (Not to mention the aforementioned primarchs that seem to show up on every fething war zone in the galaxy).
Guardsmen aren't. Nor are Orks or Nids. Marines are special snowflakes, but then GW makes things like GK and rare dreads that are even MOAR snowflakier. It's dumb.
Martel732 wrote: Its a big fw shiny thats the bestest because reasons. And it has snowflake weapons not found anywhere else
Really? We're back to the "evil magic fw resin is op and shouldn't be in the game " argument?
Guess my fellblade really is better than two baneblades. After all resin=magic.
I didn't mention resin. It's just a huge deviation from regular dreads and has dumb fluff. I'm fine with resin autocannon arms or whatever. But entirely NEW AND ANCIENT AND RARE dreads. Techmarines probably couldn't keep them running practically speaking, but then nothing the Imperium has should be running without scientific principles.
Dude, you're making me dizzy. A couple pages back you were complaining about those "not rare" guardsmen, orks, and nids now you're complaining about things you say are TOO RARE. It's beginning to seem you just want to complain about anything you have trouble beating.
There are ways to beat hordes and there are ways to beat "snowflake " fw units. Complaining won't beat either. If you don't like the model and don't want to use it that's fine but don't complain if someone else does unless you have a valid argument on whether it's properly balanced based on it's stats, rules, and points. Just calling something "dumb" isn't a valid argument.
There's something of a version of the "narcissist's prayer" I've heard from some folks I've played with over the years.
If I won, it's because I earned it.
If I lost, it's because my dice were bad.
If my dice weren't bad, it's because my opponent's stuff was OP.
If my opponent's stuff wasn't OP, it's because my stuff wasn't UP.
If my stuff wasn't UP, it's because the cheesy stuff is not fluffy and only I play the army the way it's *supposed* to be played.
I have these discussions all the time. A new player comes in, loses a few games, and asks the veterans "hey, how do I win more? It seems like my army is really weak compared to others"
And to use the latest example I experienced, I say something like
"Well, it looks like your army is very slow, you field expensive things right alongside cheap things so it's easy for an opponent to kill your expensive stuff right off the bat, anything you have that's mobile you deep strike and try to make charge rolls with no modifiers, and you don't have any shooting early on so when you do reach combat, all your opponent's cheap stuff is still in the way."
And they say
"This is the only real way to play orks, it's how orks are supposed to be! There's not supposed to be all these shooting units and psykers! And I don't want to use the evil sunz rules because I want my army to hit really hard so I want to use Goffs! The only HQs orks are supposed to have is warbosses! I don't want to deep strike my Nobz because they're supposed to be bodyguards for the warboss!"
A person who loses all the time and believes he's lost because of something that isn't his fault is happier than someone who's losing but making changes to try and get better.
There's something of a version of the "narcissist's prayer" I've heard from some folks I've played with over the years.
If I won, it's because I earned it.
If I lost, it's because my dice were bad.
If my dice weren't bad, it's because my opponent's stuff was OP.
If my opponent's stuff wasn't OP, it's because my stuff wasn't UP.
If my stuff wasn't UP, it's because the cheesy stuff is not fluffy and only I play the army the way it's *supposed* to be played.
I have these discussions all the time. A new player comes in, loses a few games, and asks the veterans "hey, how do I win more? It seems like my army is really weak compared to others"
And to use the latest example I experienced, I say something like
"Well, it looks like your army is very slow, you field expensive things right alongside cheap things so it's easy for an opponent to kill your expensive stuff right off the bat, anything you have that's mobile you deep strike and try to make charge rolls with no modifiers, and you don't have any shooting early on so when you do reach combat, all your opponent's cheap stuff is still in the way."
And they say
"This is the only real way to play orks, it's how orks are supposed to be! There's not supposed to be all these shooting units and psykers! And I don't want to use the evil sunz rules because I want my army to hit really hard so I want to use Goffs! The only HQs orks are supposed to have is warbosses! I don't want to deep strike my Nobz because they're supposed to be bodyguards for the warboss!"
A person who loses all the time and believes he's lost because of something that isn't his fault is happier than someone who's losing but making changes to try and get better.
Good stuff.
After every game I always ask my opponent "what did I do wrong"? If people can't avoid the blame game they'll never get better.
bananathug wrote: Either you wring all of the efficiencies out of your list and win or you play casual and ask your opponents to tone down their lists. There's a difference between blood angels are trash vs the blood angel units I want to play with are trash.
I just can't beat this guy no mater what I try, but I only fight with one hand tied behind my back and on one leg because reasons...
Almost as bad as Xeno yelling in the DA topic while knowing nothing about DA.
Please move the BA theory crafting to the BA thread/topic please.
Anyone got any stats on the LVO lists?
That is a dumb statement. DA are just marines with slightly different rules. I know marines really well. Holy crap I misread the leak and thought the FNP was vs all damage not mortals. Guess that means I know nothing about DA.
The point is you're making statements without even understanding what you're commenting on. The FNP mistake, for example, is kind of a big deal since it massively changes the effectiveness of the rule if you misread it and think it applies to all wounds. Then you make your blanket statement about the power level of the army without having access to all the new rules or even the points cost of the model you got the rules wrong for. The comment about DA being SM with slightly different rules is technically correct but you're missing the wood for the trees. If they're slightly different SM they need to be strictly better than all other SM before we see them dominate. If, say, IH or IF are 5% better, it doesn't matter how good DA are, the competitive players are going to gravitate towards the slightly better SM and you likely end up with DA in the same position UM are now - powerful but with reduced win rates due to there being a strictly better sub-faction within that faction.
In general, it also helps to not make sweeping statements about the power level of an army literally a few hours after a small number of their rules are first previewed. Kind of hard to take that argument seriously.
Pfff. Garbage. My eyes played a trick on me reading a leak article literally a few hours after it came out which I corrected immediately when it was pointed out. The wording of that rule is really wordy for no reason which is why I made the mistake. Whatever though - if you want to make such a bad argument that I made a mistake and misread a rule so it invalidates my opinions you would be wrong. That is what you call a logical fallacy. Plus it's like most of you have never heard of a generalization "sweeping statements". When you know someone is making a generalization and treat it as literal is called arguing in bad faith.
You accuse a guy of cheating with no proof at all, refuse to acknowledge it and you want to talk about arguing in bad faith? Sure, you do you. My point, which you apparently missed, is that the very fact you don't know the rules is because nobody's played with them yet. The mistake you made in misreading the rule is the kind of thing that gets corrected very quickly once a Codex is released as people start to play games with and against it. The point is not that specific example being wrong, it's that it highlights how little we in general, and you specifically, know and understand about the DA rules right now. If you're going to make generalisations but want to be taken seriously it also helps not to jump right to "these guys are going to be broken" straight away.
LOL. Do you know how this works? I wonder when Barry bonds broke the record for homeruns people were a little skeptical about it. Turns out they were right. Lance amrstrong won 7 tour de france. People were skeptical. Turn out they were right. Big time cheater. I'm sure there were lots of accusations without proof against these guys too. Plus these sports have massive hoops to jump through in order to avoid being caught cheating - they cheated the tests too. ITC tournaments don't even test the dice. Pulling a feat of winning 46 consecutive games in game where dice rolls play a huge factor - is evidence enough to be suspicious and make accusations. I don't remember specifically when it happend but I remember the discussion about it on dakka. People laughed at it then just like people laugh at it now. We supervise people taking tests so they don't look at each others answers. Online colleges even video tape you while you take online tests at home so you can't cheat - because they know everyone was cheating at it. You just don't understand human nature if you don't believe what I am saying. It is going on. Wake up. It is so easy to take that aspect out of the equation too. Which is what is sad.
Like I said though - lets move on from this. Live under a rock for all I care.
Xenomancers wrote: I don't want to argue - I want to talk about solutions and improving the game and draw conclusions from the data we have seen. I've reiterated that point several times. I'd be happy to move on from the cheating topic as I have said I am not accusing anyone specifically of cheating intentionally (except maybe someone who won 46 consecutive games). I am just stating that without controls on dice you can expect a certain amount of that. Which I am absolutely right about BTW. It is pure ignorance to deny that. I am more than happy to move on from that though.
This demonstrates what I'm talking about. You're backing down without backing down. I looked at the data for the past year and it recorded him as having 32 games of which 5 were loses. So perhaps there is some other source providing for 46 straight wins? Surely he would have won many GTs with that sort of record?
Data is finicky. There is so much more to these figures than what is seen at first glance.
bananathug wrote: Either you wring all of the efficiencies out of your list and win or you play casual and ask your opponents to tone down their lists. There's a difference between blood angels are trash vs the blood angel units I want to play with are trash.
I just can't beat this guy no mater what I try, but I only fight with one hand tied behind my back and on one leg because reasons...
Almost as bad as Xeno yelling in the DA topic while knowing nothing about DA.
Please move the BA theory crafting to the BA thread/topic please.
Anyone got any stats on the LVO lists?
That is a dumb statement. DA are just marines with slightly different rules. I know marines really well. Holy crap I misread the leak and thought the FNP was vs all damage not mortals. Guess that means I know nothing about DA.
The point is you're making statements without even understanding what you're commenting on. The FNP mistake, for example, is kind of a big deal since it massively changes the effectiveness of the rule if you misread it and think it applies to all wounds. Then you make your blanket statement about the power level of the army without having access to all the new rules or even the points cost of the model you got the rules wrong for. The comment about DA being SM with slightly different rules is technically correct but you're missing the wood for the trees. If they're slightly different SM they need to be strictly better than all other SM before we see them dominate. If, say, IH or IF are 5% better, it doesn't matter how good DA are, the competitive players are going to gravitate towards the slightly better SM and you likely end up with DA in the same position UM are now - powerful but with reduced win rates due to there being a strictly better sub-faction within that faction.
In general, it also helps to not make sweeping statements about the power level of an army literally a few hours after a small number of their rules are first previewed. Kind of hard to take that argument seriously.
Pfff. Garbage. My eyes played a trick on me reading a leak article literally a few hours after it came out which I corrected immediately when it was pointed out. The wording of that rule is really wordy for no reason which is why I made the mistake. Whatever though - if you want to make such a bad argument that I made a mistake and misread a rule so it invalidates my opinions you would be wrong. That is what you call a logical fallacy. Plus it's like most of you have never heard of a generalization "sweeping statements". When you know someone is making a generalization and treat it as literal is called arguing in bad faith.
You accuse a guy of cheating with no proof at all, refuse to acknowledge it and you want to talk about arguing in bad faith? Sure, you do you. My point, which you apparently missed, is that the very fact you don't know the rules is because nobody's played with them yet. The mistake you made in misreading the rule is the kind of thing that gets corrected very quickly once a Codex is released as people start to play games with and against it. The point is not that specific example being wrong, it's that it highlights how little we in general, and you specifically, know and understand about the DA rules right now. If you're going to make generalisations but want to be taken seriously it also helps not to jump right to "these guys are going to be broken" straight away.
LOL. Do you know how this works? I wonder when Barry bonds broke the record for homeruns people were a little skeptical about it. Turns out they were right. Lance amrstrong won 7 tour de france. People were skeptical. Turn out they were right. Big time cheater. I'm sure there were lots of accusations without proof against these guys too. Plus these sports have massive hoops to jump through in order to avoid being caught cheating - they cheated the tests too. ITC tournaments don't even test the dice. Pulling a feat of winning 46 consecutive games in game where dice rolls play a huge factor - is evidence enough to be suspicious and make accusations. I don't remember specifically when it happend but I remember the discussion about it on dakka. People laughed at it then just like people laugh at it now. We supervise people taking tests so they don't look at each others answers. Online colleges even video tape you while you take online tests at home so you can't cheat - because they know everyone was cheating at it. You just don't understand human nature if you don't believe what I am saying. It is going on. Wake up. It is so easy to take that aspect out of the equation too. Which is what is sad.
Like I said though - lets move on from this. Live under a rock for all I care.
Xenomancers wrote: I don't want to argue - I want to talk about solutions and improving the game and draw conclusions from the data we have seen. I've reiterated that point several times. I'd be happy to move on from the cheating topic as I have said I am not accusing anyone specifically of cheating intentionally (except maybe someone who won 46 consecutive games). I am just stating that without controls on dice you can expect a certain amount of that. Which I am absolutely right about BTW. It is pure ignorance to deny that. I am more than happy to move on from that though.
This demonstrates what I'm talking about. You're backing down without backing down. I looked at the data for the past year and it recorded him as having 32 games of which 5 were loses. So perhaps there is some other source providing for 46 straight wins? Surely he would have won many GTs with that sort of record?
Data is finicky. There is so much more to these figures than what is seen at first glance.
It was years ago.
My 46 game win streak was years ago??? when? The first time i went 6-0 to win an event was 2014 at 11tg company gt. In 2015 I won LVO with a loss so 8-1. I went undefeated at hammer in the new year in 2018 and also battle for salvation that same year, but in between I lost at both LVO and AdeptiCon as well as I’m sure other events. And someone above posted 2019 records.
So again point out this 46 game win streak that I’ve been on ever. Because I struggle to even come up with more than perhaps 10-13 games on a row bookended by losses.
I wouldn't bother. This is the same person who thinks a 14% better chance to roll a 6 (which is roughly a 19% total chance, versus a perfectly balanced 16.7) means you will almost never lose a game ever.
Xenomancers wrote: I don't want to argue - I want to talk about solutions and improving the game and draw conclusions from the data we have seen. I've reiterated that point several times. I'd be happy to move on from the cheating topic as I have said I am not accusing anyone specifically of cheating intentionally (except maybe someone who won 46 consecutive games). I am just stating that without controls on dice you can expect a certain amount of that. Which I am absolutely right about BTW. It is pure ignorance to deny that. I am more than happy to move on from that though.
This demonstrates what I'm talking about. You're backing down without backing down. I looked at the data for the past year and it recorded him as having 32 games of which 5 were loses. So perhaps there is some other source providing for 46 straight wins? Surely he would have won many GTs with that sort of record?
Data is finicky. There is so much more to these figures than what is seen at first glance.
It was years ago.
You're the one who said it was last year:
Xenomancers wrote: [I am pretty sure a lot of those really top players are using loaded dice...because they don't control for it. Last year I think Nayden won 46 consecutive games. The only way to do that in a dice game is to cheat.
If you're gonna accuse someone of cheating, make sure you have your facts straight. So where is your evidence that he ever had a 46-win streak? Or is it possible you were mistaken?
the_scotsman wrote: "Well, it looks like your army is very slow, you field expensive things right alongside cheap things so it's easy for an opponent to kill your expensive stuff right off the bat, anything you have that's mobile you deep strike and try to make charge rolls with no modifiers, and you don't have any shooting early on so when you do reach combat, all your opponent's cheap stuff is still in the way."
I think this is destined to get locked - but I probably have a ridiculous record against very casual friends whose armies and playstyles are exactly this. It isn't due to rigged dice, its because they are not very good at the game but don't care enough to get better - its not that important to them. They need everything to go right - and I need everything to go wrong. Which isn't very likely.
The problem - for balance - is how much the game should be warped to make stuff viable. Should you be able to build the above army, with obvious flaws, against someone who is vaguely aware of how the game can be played, and have a reasonable (say 40%) chance to win anyway? Or should it be much lower? How damaging for the hobby (if at all?) is it for said players to realise their collection doesn't really work in game, and they'll need to splash some cash to buy in more functional stuff?
bananathug wrote: Either you wring all of the efficiencies out of your list and win or you play casual and ask your opponents to tone down their lists. There's a difference between blood angels are trash vs the blood angel units I want to play with are trash.
I just can't beat this guy no mater what I try, but I only fight with one hand tied behind my back and on one leg because reasons...
Almost as bad as Xeno yelling in the DA topic while knowing nothing about DA.
Please move the BA theory crafting to the BA thread/topic please.
Anyone got any stats on the LVO lists?
That is a dumb statement. DA are just marines with slightly different rules. I know marines really well. Holy crap I misread the leak and thought the FNP was vs all damage not mortals. Guess that means I know nothing about DA.
The point is you're making statements without even understanding what you're commenting on. The FNP mistake, for example, is kind of a big deal since it massively changes the effectiveness of the rule if you misread it and think it applies to all wounds. Then you make your blanket statement about the power level of the army without having access to all the new rules or even the points cost of the model you got the rules wrong for. The comment about DA being SM with slightly different rules is technically correct but you're missing the wood for the trees. If they're slightly different SM they need to be strictly better than all other SM before we see them dominate. If, say, IH or IF are 5% better, it doesn't matter how good DA are, the competitive players are going to gravitate towards the slightly better SM and you likely end up with DA in the same position UM are now - powerful but with reduced win rates due to there being a strictly better sub-faction within that faction.
In general, it also helps to not make sweeping statements about the power level of an army literally a few hours after a small number of their rules are first previewed. Kind of hard to take that argument seriously.
Pfff. Garbage. My eyes played a trick on me reading a leak article literally a few hours after it came out which I corrected immediately when it was pointed out. The wording of that rule is really wordy for no reason which is why I made the mistake. Whatever though - if you want to make such a bad argument that I made a mistake and misread a rule so it invalidates my opinions you would be wrong. That is what you call a logical fallacy. Plus it's like most of you have never heard of a generalization "sweeping statements". When you know someone is making a generalization and treat it as literal is called arguing in bad faith.
You accuse a guy of cheating with no proof at all, refuse to acknowledge it and you want to talk about arguing in bad faith? Sure, you do you. My point, which you apparently missed, is that the very fact you don't know the rules is because nobody's played with them yet. The mistake you made in misreading the rule is the kind of thing that gets corrected very quickly once a Codex is released as people start to play games with and against it. The point is not that specific example being wrong, it's that it highlights how little we in general, and you specifically, know and understand about the DA rules right now. If you're going to make generalisations but want to be taken seriously it also helps not to jump right to "these guys are going to be broken" straight away.
LOL. Do you know how this works? I wonder when Barry bonds broke the record for homeruns people were a little skeptical about it. Turns out they were right. Lance amrstrong won 7 tour de france. People were skeptical. Turn out they were right. Big time cheater. I'm sure there were lots of accusations without proof against these guys too. Plus these sports have massive hoops to jump through in order to avoid being caught cheating - they cheated the tests too. ITC tournaments don't even test the dice. Pulling a feat of winning 46 consecutive games in game where dice rolls play a huge factor - is evidence enough to be suspicious and make accusations. I don't remember specifically when it happend but I remember the discussion about it on dakka. People laughed at it then just like people laugh at it now. We supervise people taking tests so they don't look at each others answers. Online colleges even video tape you while you take online tests at home so you can't cheat - because they know everyone was cheating at it. You just don't understand human nature if you don't believe what I am saying. It is going on. Wake up. It is so easy to take that aspect out of the equation too. Which is what is sad.
Like I said though - lets move on from this. Live under a rock for all I care.
Xenomancers wrote: I don't want to argue - I want to talk about solutions and improving the game and draw conclusions from the data we have seen. I've reiterated that point several times. I'd be happy to move on from the cheating topic as I have said I am not accusing anyone specifically of cheating intentionally (except maybe someone who won 46 consecutive games). I am just stating that without controls on dice you can expect a certain amount of that. Which I am absolutely right about BTW. It is pure ignorance to deny that. I am more than happy to move on from that though.
This demonstrates what I'm talking about. You're backing down without backing down. I looked at the data for the past year and it recorded him as having 32 games of which 5 were loses. So perhaps there is some other source providing for 46 straight wins? Surely he would have won many GTs with that sort of record?
Data is finicky. There is so much more to these figures than what is seen at first glance.
It was years ago.
My 46 game win streak was years ago??? when? The first time i went 6-0 to win an event was 2014 at 11tg company gt. In 2015 I won LVO with a loss so 8-1. I went undefeated at hammer in the new year in 2018 and also battle for salvation that same year, but in between I lost at both LVO and AdeptiCon as well as I’m sure other events. And someone above posted 2019 records.
So again point out this 46 game win streak that I’ve been on ever. Because I struggle to even come up with more than perhaps 10-13 games on a row bookended by losses.
Look dude, I am sure you popped up in the dakka discussion I am referring to so you know the discussion I was referring to. Do you remember that discussion/thread? Like I said it was years ago and it's not as if I collected or looked into the data myself at the time. I simply made a comment in the thread that if anyone won 46 games in a row they are certainly cheating somehow because it is basically impossible. So you have about a 90% WR on average? Never at any point have you had a 100% WR for a period of 46 games in ITC? Also I have nothing against you and if it's true that you never went on a steak like that I'm sorry for throwing that out there. The intent was not to target you anyways.
Xeno, I honestly think you should consider taking a break from the forum for a while brother, your posts are coming off as more and more aggressive, accusatory, over invested. This is dakkadakka ffs. It doesn't really matter. Life is sweet, those roses aren't gonna smell themselves!... Hope this doesn't come off as patronising, it's not intended that way.
Xenomancers wrote: I don't want to argue - I want to talk about solutions and improving the game and draw conclusions from the data we have seen. I've reiterated that point several times. I'd be happy to move on from the cheating topic as I have said I am not accusing anyone specifically of cheating intentionally (except maybe someone who won 46 consecutive games). I am just stating that without controls on dice you can expect a certain amount of that. Which I am absolutely right about BTW. It is pure ignorance to deny that. I am more than happy to move on from that though.
This demonstrates what I'm talking about. You're backing down without backing down. I looked at the data for the past year and it recorded him as having 32 games of which 5 were loses. So perhaps there is some other source providing for 46 straight wins? Surely he would have won many GTs with that sort of record?
Data is finicky. There is so much more to these figures than what is seen at first glance.
It was years ago.
You're the one who said it was last year:
Xenomancers wrote: [I am pretty sure a lot of those really top players are using loaded dice...because they don't control for it. Last year I think Nayden won 46 consecutive games. The only way to do that in a dice game is to cheat.
If you're gonna accuse someone of cheating, make sure you have your facts straight. So where is your evidence that he ever had a 46-win streak? Or is it possible you were mistaken?
Did you miss the part where I said. "I think". As in it might not be entirely accurate.
The problem is with your flippant inference that this necessarily means he's cheating, not with whether you remembered his win record perfectly or not. The first is some serious shade to throw on a fellow player, the second is no biggie.
Did you miss the part where I said. "I think". As in it might not be entirely accurate.
Nobody missed it. It's irrelevant. You don't accuse someone by name of cheating without evidence. Later trying to spin it as "oh its no biggie, im just kidding" when you get called on your bs is even more insulting.
grouchoben wrote: Xeno, I honestly think you should consider taking a break from the forum for a while brother, your posts are coming off as more and more aggressive, accusatory, over invested. This is dakkadakka ffs. It doesn't really matter. Life is sweet, those roses aren't gonna smell themselves!... Hope this doesn't come off as patronising, it's not intended that way.
Well I'm certainly taking the day off. Great advice.
As a side note, I'd be pretty upset if someone accused me of cheating and used a grossly exaggerated win/loss record as "proof" of my lack of integrity. Pretty sure most people would feel the same way. And the accuser then making excuses for himself or herself would just upset me more.
flandarz wrote: As a side note, I'd be pretty upset if someone accused me of cheating and used a grossly exaggerated win/loss record as "proof" of my lack of integrity. Pretty sure most people would feel the same way. And the accuser then making excuses for himself or herself would just upset me more.
But if he's not cheating, then I would be *wrong*, on the Internet
And nice, now we have indisputable proof that Xenomancers doesn’t understand a lick of what he’s talking about, can we lock this thread and leave this godawful thread topic in the dirt?
No, because Xenomancer's last tangent isn't the actual topic of the thread. Discussion on competetive data shouldn't have to suffer because Xenomancer gets stuck in the same loop every time something new happens.
Nah...there were literally people in this thread attacking the data saying it is meaningless because it's always the same players winning events.
lmao there literally wasn't a single person who said that. Literally not one. I know, as I was the very person who pointed out that some people are consistently winning, and it was unmistakably in direct response to you claiming that there is no skill to winning 40k. Oh look, here it is here.
Everything about you is extremely dishonest. The very guy you're accusing of cheating is in here asking for the example of the claims you've made, while you're here arguing past him to others because you know you can't answer the questions he's asking.
"I was wrong". It's not that hard pal. It only just barely starts to summarise where you're standing right now, but it's a good beginning.
bananathug wrote: Either you wring all of the efficiencies out of your list and win or you play casual and ask your opponents to tone down their lists. There's a difference between blood angels are trash vs the blood angel units I want to play with are trash.
I just can't beat this guy no mater what I try, but I only fight with one hand tied behind my back and on one leg because reasons...
Almost as bad as Xeno yelling in the DA topic while knowing nothing about DA.
Please move the BA theory crafting to the BA thread/topic please.
Anyone got any stats on the LVO lists?
That is a dumb statement. DA are just marines with slightly different rules. I know marines really well. Holy crap I misread the leak and thought the FNP was vs all damage not mortals. Guess that means I know nothing about DA.
The point is you're making statements without even understanding what you're commenting on. The FNP mistake, for example, is kind of a big deal since it massively changes the effectiveness of the rule if you misread it and think it applies to all wounds. Then you make your blanket statement about the power level of the army without having access to all the new rules or even the points cost of the model you got the rules wrong for. The comment about DA being SM with slightly different rules is technically correct but you're missing the wood for the trees. If they're slightly different SM they need to be strictly better than all other SM before we see them dominate. If, say, IH or IF are 5% better, it doesn't matter how good DA are, the competitive players are going to gravitate towards the slightly better SM and you likely end up with DA in the same position UM are now - powerful but with reduced win rates due to there being a strictly better sub-faction within that faction.
In general, it also helps to not make sweeping statements about the power level of an army literally a few hours after a small number of their rules are first previewed. Kind of hard to take that argument seriously.
Pfff. Garbage. My eyes played a trick on me reading a leak article literally a few hours after it came out which I corrected immediately when it was pointed out. The wording of that rule is really wordy for no reason which is why I made the mistake. Whatever though - if you want to make such a bad argument that I made a mistake and misread a rule so it invalidates my opinions you would be wrong. That is what you call a logical fallacy. Plus it's like most of you have never heard of a generalization "sweeping statements". When you know someone is making a generalization and treat it as literal is called arguing in bad faith.
You accuse a guy of cheating with no proof at all, refuse to acknowledge it and you want to talk about arguing in bad faith? Sure, you do you. My point, which you apparently missed, is that the very fact you don't know the rules is because nobody's played with them yet. The mistake you made in misreading the rule is the kind of thing that gets corrected very quickly once a Codex is released as people start to play games with and against it. The point is not that specific example being wrong, it's that it highlights how little we in general, and you specifically, know and understand about the DA rules right now. If you're going to make generalisations but want to be taken seriously it also helps not to jump right to "these guys are going to be broken" straight away.
LOL. Do you know how this works? I wonder when Barry bonds broke the record for homeruns people were a little skeptical about it. Turns out they were right. Lance amrstrong won 7 tour de france. People were skeptical. Turn out they were right. Big time cheater. I'm sure there were lots of accusations without proof against these guys too. Plus these sports have massive hoops to jump through in order to avoid being caught cheating - they cheated the tests too. ITC tournaments don't even test the dice. Pulling a feat of winning 46 consecutive games in game where dice rolls play a huge factor - is evidence enough to be suspicious and make accusations. I don't remember specifically when it happend but I remember the discussion about it on dakka. People laughed at it then just like people laugh at it now. We supervise people taking tests so they don't look at each others answers. Online colleges even video tape you while you take online tests at home so you can't cheat - because they know everyone was cheating at it. You just don't understand human nature if you don't believe what I am saying. It is going on. Wake up. It is so easy to take that aspect out of the equation too. Which is what is sad.
Like I said though - lets move on from this. Live under a rock for all I care.
Xenomancers wrote: I don't want to argue - I want to talk about solutions and improving the game and draw conclusions from the data we have seen. I've reiterated that point several times. I'd be happy to move on from the cheating topic as I have said I am not accusing anyone specifically of cheating intentionally (except maybe someone who won 46 consecutive games). I am just stating that without controls on dice you can expect a certain amount of that. Which I am absolutely right about BTW. It is pure ignorance to deny that. I am more than happy to move on from that though.
This demonstrates what I'm talking about. You're backing down without backing down. I looked at the data for the past year and it recorded him as having 32 games of which 5 were loses. So perhaps there is some other source providing for 46 straight wins? Surely he would have won many GTs with that sort of record?
Data is finicky. There is so much more to these figures than what is seen at first glance.
It was years ago.
My 46 game win streak was years ago??? when? The first time i went 6-0 to win an event was 2014 at 11tg company gt. In 2015 I won LVO with a loss so 8-1. I went undefeated at hammer in the new year in 2018 and also battle for salvation that same year, but in between I lost at both LVO and AdeptiCon as well as I’m sure other events. And someone above posted 2019 records.
So again point out this 46 game win streak that I’ve been on ever. Because I struggle to even come up with more than perhaps 10-13 games on a row bookended by losses.
Look dude, I am sure you popped up in the dakka discussion I am referring to so you know the discussion I was referring to. Do you remember that discussion/thread? Like I said it was years ago and it's not as if I collected or looked into the data myself at the time. I simply made a comment in the thread that if anyone won 46 games in a row they are certainly cheating somehow because it is basically impossible. So you have about a 90% WR on average? Never at any point have you had a 100% WR for a period of 46 games in ITC? Also I have nothing against you and if it's true that you never went on a steak like that I'm sorry for throwing that out there. The intent was not to target you anyways.
Lol just to be clear. 46 wins is like 6-7 tournaments or more. So to have that kind of streak you need to win 6-7 events in a row. Like GT events. Including some of the 9 round events like nova and LVO.
I haven’t won 6-7 events total in the last 4+ years combined. So no at no point have I come close to that record.
bananathug wrote: Either you wring all of the efficiencies out of your list and win or you play casual and ask your opponents to tone down their lists. There's a difference between blood angels are trash vs the blood angel units I want to play with are trash.
I just can't beat this guy no mater what I try, but I only fight with one hand tied behind my back and on one leg because reasons...
Almost as bad as Xeno yelling in the DA topic while knowing nothing about DA.
Please move the BA theory crafting to the BA thread/topic please.
Anyone got any stats on the LVO lists?
That is a dumb statement. DA are just marines with slightly different rules. I know marines really well. Holy crap I misread the leak and thought the FNP was vs all damage not mortals. Guess that means I know nothing about DA.
The point is you're making statements without even understanding what you're commenting on. The FNP mistake, for example, is kind of a big deal since it massively changes the effectiveness of the rule if you misread it and think it applies to all wounds. Then you make your blanket statement about the power level of the army without having access to all the new rules or even the points cost of the model you got the rules wrong for. The comment about DA being SM with slightly different rules is technically correct but you're missing the wood for the trees. If they're slightly different SM they need to be strictly better than all other SM before we see them dominate. If, say, IH or IF are 5% better, it doesn't matter how good DA are, the competitive players are going to gravitate towards the slightly better SM and you likely end up with DA in the same position UM are now - powerful but with reduced win rates due to there being a strictly better sub-faction within that faction.
In general, it also helps to not make sweeping statements about the power level of an army literally a few hours after a small number of their rules are first previewed. Kind of hard to take that argument seriously.
Pfff. Garbage. My eyes played a trick on me reading a leak article literally a few hours after it came out which I corrected immediately when it was pointed out. The wording of that rule is really wordy for no reason which is why I made the mistake. Whatever though - if you want to make such a bad argument that I made a mistake and misread a rule so it invalidates my opinions you would be wrong. That is what you call a logical fallacy. Plus it's like most of you have never heard of a generalization "sweeping statements". When you know someone is making a generalization and treat it as literal is called arguing in bad faith.
You accuse a guy of cheating with no proof at all, refuse to acknowledge it and you want to talk about arguing in bad faith? Sure, you do you. My point, which you apparently missed, is that the very fact you don't know the rules is because nobody's played with them yet. The mistake you made in misreading the rule is the kind of thing that gets corrected very quickly once a Codex is released as people start to play games with and against it. The point is not that specific example being wrong, it's that it highlights how little we in general, and you specifically, know and understand about the DA rules right now. If you're going to make generalisations but want to be taken seriously it also helps not to jump right to "these guys are going to be broken" straight away.
LOL. Do you know how this works? I wonder when Barry bonds broke the record for homeruns people were a little skeptical about it. Turns out they were right. Lance amrstrong won 7 tour de france. People were skeptical. Turn out they were right. Big time cheater. I'm sure there were lots of accusations without proof against these guys too. Plus these sports have massive hoops to jump through in order to avoid being caught cheating - they cheated the tests too. ITC tournaments don't even test the dice. Pulling a feat of winning 46 consecutive games in game where dice rolls play a huge factor - is evidence enough to be suspicious and make accusations. I don't remember specifically when it happend but I remember the discussion about it on dakka. People laughed at it then just like people laugh at it now. We supervise people taking tests so they don't look at each others answers. Online colleges even video tape you while you take online tests at home so you can't cheat - because they know everyone was cheating at it. You just don't understand human nature if you don't believe what I am saying. It is going on. Wake up. It is so easy to take that aspect out of the equation too. Which is what is sad.
Like I said though - lets move on from this. Live under a rock for all I care.
Xenomancers wrote: I don't want to argue - I want to talk about solutions and improving the game and draw conclusions from the data we have seen. I've reiterated that point several times. I'd be happy to move on from the cheating topic as I have said I am not accusing anyone specifically of cheating intentionally (except maybe someone who won 46 consecutive games). I am just stating that without controls on dice you can expect a certain amount of that. Which I am absolutely right about BTW. It is pure ignorance to deny that. I am more than happy to move on from that though.
This demonstrates what I'm talking about. You're backing down without backing down. I looked at the data for the past year and it recorded him as having 32 games of which 5 were loses. So perhaps there is some other source providing for 46 straight wins? Surely he would have won many GTs with that sort of record?
Data is finicky. There is so much more to these figures than what is seen at first glance.
It was years ago.
My 46 game win streak was years ago??? when? The first time i went 6-0 to win an event was 2014 at 11tg company gt. In 2015 I won LVO with a loss so 8-1. I went undefeated at hammer in the new year in 2018 and also battle for salvation that same year, but in between I lost at both LVO and AdeptiCon as well as I’m sure other events. And someone above posted 2019 records.
So again point out this 46 game win streak that I’ve been on ever. Because I struggle to even come up with more than perhaps 10-13 games on a row bookended by losses.
Look dude, I am sure you popped up in the dakka discussion I am referring to so you know the discussion I was referring to. Do you remember that discussion/thread? Like I said it was years ago and it's not as if I collected or looked into the data myself at the time. I simply made a comment in the thread that if anyone won 46 games in a row they are certainly cheating somehow because it is basically impossible. So you have about a 90% WR on average? Never at any point have you had a 100% WR for a period of 46 games in ITC? Also I have nothing against you and if it's true that you never went on a steak like that I'm sorry for throwing that out there. The intent was not to target you anyways.
Just out of sheer curiosity, what would you say to someone that's had a 46 game losing streak? Isn't that equally implausible?
LOL. Do you know how this works? I wonder when Barry bonds broke the record for homeruns people were a little skeptical about it. Turns out they were right. Lance amrstrong won 7 tour de france. People were skeptical. Turn out they were right. Big time cheater. I'm sure there were lots of accusations without proof against these guys too. Plus these sports have massive hoops to jump through in order to avoid being caught cheating - they cheated the tests too. ITC tournaments don't even test the dice. Pulling a feat of winning 46 consecutive games in game where dice rolls play a huge factor - is evidence enough to be suspicious and make accusations. I don't remember specifically when it happend but I remember the discussion about it on dakka. People laughed at it then just like people laugh at it now. We supervise people taking tests so they don't look at each others answers. Online colleges even video tape you while you take online tests at home so you can't cheat - because they know everyone was cheating at it. You just don't understand human nature if you don't believe what I am saying. It is going on. Wake up. It is so easy to take that aspect out of the equation too. Which is what is sad.
Like I said though - lets move on from this. Live under a rock for all I care.
Your criteria for deciding whether someone is cheating is the level of their success? As proof you provide two notorious cheaters but conveniently fail to mention successful athletes who don't cheat. Usain Bolt? Is he also a cheat? Not only that, your 46-game winning streak "evidence" is completely fictitious anyway. You refuse to acknowledge that and therefore stand by your initial accusation, which called out a specific player by name. Kind of ironic that in a conversation about cheating the dishonest one is the one who made the accusation in the first place.
On stats I just read a FLG article saying there are hundreds of Marine lists at LVO (shocker!) and hundreds of them are bringing the rare Chaplain Dread and Thunder fire Cannon. And there is a strict no "counts as" rule.
Wayniac wrote: On stats I just read a FLG article saying there are hundreds of Marine lists at LVO (shocker!) and hundreds of them are bringing the rare Chaplain Dread and Thunder fire Cannon. And there is a strict no "counts as" rule.
Which seems like it's just a bunch of netlisters?
Maybe, but a lot of them are about to be yellow carded and have the model removed from the table.
They're supposed to submit conversions for approval and lots did not.
Wayniac wrote: On stats I just read a FLG article saying there are hundreds of Marine lists at LVO (shocker!) and hundreds of them are bringing the rare Chaplain Dread and Thunder fire Cannon. And there is a strict no "counts as" rule.
Which seems like it's just a bunch of netlisters?
Maybe, but a lot of them are about to be yellow carded and have the model removed from the table.
They're supposed to submit conversions for approval and lots did not.
Would my chaplain dread I converted from a ven dread - which has a chaplain head for the marine...and the chaplain melee weapon mounted on the front side panel and lots of heraldry be acceptable?
Wayniac wrote: On stats I just read a FLG article saying there are hundreds of Marine lists at LVO (shocker!) and hundreds of them are bringing the rare Chaplain Dread and Thunder fire Cannon. And there is a strict no "counts as" rule.
Which seems like it's just a bunch of netlisters?
Maybe, but a lot of them are about to be yellow carded and have the model removed from the table.
They're supposed to submit conversions for approval and lots did not.
Would my chaplain dread I converted from a ven dread - which has a chaplain head for the marine...and the chaplain melee weapon mounted on the front side panel and lots of heraldry be acceptable?
FLG is really lenient on conversions, but it if isn't quite apparent that it is the model then you need the conversion approved. I can't say how they would take such a thing, but there have been warnings on it for a while.
Emicrania wrote: Is this a 25 pages of gak posting or there is any valuable information to gather "looking at the data"?
The problem is that the overall statistics do a terrible job describing the individual experience of any single data point, so when the OP comes in and says "Hey, guys, look at the data and Marines aren't that OP!" they generate a bunch of folks crawling out of the woodwork to explain why their experiences don't line up with the data, and then a bunch of other people popping in to describe how their experiences don't line up with the first batch. So the data has served here to start a fight about whose anecdotal experiences of the game more correctly describe the overall state of the game. I suppose it might be valuable information if you're trying to gather a collection of peoples' anecdotal experience of the game?
I feel like 40k doesn't have the volume of games to really produce quality data. It's also not like an online RTS where everyone has access to every unit in their codex and can experiment easily, due to things like painting and rules against proxying.
I mean, this is how it took 2 years for people to understand we could move Magnus backwards. Most 40k players are not as creative as they like to think they are.
Yoyoyo wrote: I feel like 40k doesn't have the volume of games to really produce quality data. It's also not like an online RTS where everyone has access to every unit in their codex and can experiment easily, due to things like painting and rules against proxying.
I mean, this is how it took 2 years for people to understand we could move Magnus backwards. Most 40k players are not as creative as they like to think they are.
The relatively low number of games played - or at least recorded on places like 40kstats - does mean that the data should be viewed as somewhat unreliable. I don't think that means it should be discarded entirely, because it is still informative, but it also shouldn't be taken as the final word on faction strength.
The data gets even messier when you starting to break things down beyond overall win rates. I dunno how helpful it is to find out that CWE had a 50% win rate against GSC in December when there were a grand total of 8 games played against them.
Yoyoyo wrote: I feel like 40k doesn't have the volume of games to really produce quality data. It's also not like an online RTS where everyone has access to every unit in their codex and can experiment easily, due to things like painting and rules against proxying.
Point of order. There are 52,472 games recorded for last year. 25,876 of those occurred between August and December, but the calculus is shifting so much that the results from that time period are absolutely useless. CA has hit. GK are definitely competitive. DA and BA are both better off. Nids have some moderately good things. I would argue TS will be showing up with more than just Ahriman.
I mean, this is how it took 2 years for people to understand we could move Magnus backwards. Most 40k players are not as creative as they like to think they are.
Agreed. This is a key point that many 40K players miss. "Do you think people haven't already tried everything?" No. No, they haven't.
This forum is really bad at two things:
1) Assessing the value of units whose primary purpose isn't to kill as much as possible
2) Understanding the layers of interactions when you're on the table
Far too often people call 40K a shallow game, and compared to some, it is. But there's a lot more to it and just like in Starcraft force preservation can be a key to victory.
The "strength" of a 40k army seems to be a floor to the army and then the ability of the general seems to set the upper bound.
A bad player with a great army can still go 3-0 at an RTT if they are playing against bad armies. At a major they may end up 4-2 while a good player with that army is in the 5-1 range and a great player is trying to win it.
A great player is usually not taking a bad army while a good player with a bad army can get to that same 4-2 as the bad player with a great army. So you see both 4-2 players and think the armies are of equal strength and attribute the 5-1/6-0 armies to player skill (which is half right and half wrong).
It's a tricky calculus. Then you have things like Nick N vs Mani Cheema and their LVO lists. On paper Manni C.'s list looks soooooo good while I have no idea what Nick is going to do with those reivers but I doubt a player who understands the game as well as Nick does is including a unit that isn't busted for it's intended role.
But if you look at the units people are bringing to LVO gives you an idea of what the hive-mind thinks are powerful (marines, TFCs, chaplain dreads). I'd say that is a more accurate way of judging what units are perceived as powerful. Problem with this is the divergence between CA2019 missions and ITC missions (secondaries on ITCs punishing certain units/builds) which is why I'd love to see more CA 2019 missions to see what over-performs across both formats.
The more numbers we look at the more of a picture we can draw. Connecting the dots of high performing armies along with over-represented units will give a picture of what's going on.
Then there is the whole other issue of what's good at what level. Casual, local, regional, national all have different metas and while hellblasters may eat your local meta up you'd be hard pressed to see them perform at a regional level. Invulnerable IH leviathan dreads may ruin your casual experience but at the national level they are not a problem.
There are lots of layers and it's quite interesting to see how all of these data points interact (at least to me).
Yoyoyo wrote: I feel like 40k doesn't have the volume of games to really produce quality data. It's also not like an online RTS where everyone has access to every unit in their codex and can experiment easily, due to things like painting and rules against proxying.
I mean, this is how it took 2 years for people to understand we could move Magnus backwards. Most 40k players are not as creative as they like to think they are.
that is true for sure. But do we have to be 100% accurate to know that pre PA4 GK were really bad, and pre nerf Inari were really good through half of 8th ed. I think people over focus a lot if a 2-3% difference in win ratio between ITC and not ITC means, and how it proves that something was or wasn't OP. I think it is better to look atwhat overlaps. If in ITC and outside of ITC, the eldar list is a flyer one, Then flyers are the good thing. Specialy if it is a result we see spread over both time and places played, so the argument of one person dominating and messing up the stats is less strong.
I don't think ITC vs CA 2019 fundamentally changes which units are good. Killing and not being killed are strong in both formats. You can't score with dead units in either format. I personally feel more empowered in ITC to maximize my score, but I get that many see the secondary missions as too gamey.
I think it's more that you choose your secondary objectives (and can thus skew your list towards them) that people take askance with. If you, say, chose your secondaries via a D6 roll, I doubt many people would complain. And it'd drive you to take a more "well rounded" list to the field, which is probably a good thing.
Martel732 wrote: I don't think ITC vs CA 2019 fundamentally changes which units are good.
There's a few qualities that will always be positive just by their nature. Mobility, resiliency, firepower. However, changing the mission parameters definitely changes how an army has to approach the mission.
Look at Scorched Earth for example. 2 objectives in each DZ and 2 in the midfield. If you can burn an objective in the enemy DZ, you score 3VP and remove it from the game. If you are fairly light on board control anything that's Obsec and resilient presents an existential threat.
Martel732 wrote: I don't think ITC vs CA 2019 fundamentally changes which units are good.
There's a few qualities that will always be positive just by their nature. Mobility, resiliency, firepower. However, changing the mission parameters definitely changes how an army has to approach the mission.
Look at Scorched Earth for example. 2 objectives in each DZ and 2 in the midfield. If you can burn an objective in the enemy DZ, you score 3VP and remove it from the game. If you are fairly light on board control anything that's Obsec and resilient presents an existential threat.
But those units are good in ITC as well. I just see CA 2019s twists are rearranging deck chairs on the titanic. It's just ITC with less agency and more randomness, and therefore a poorer readout on who is a better general. Your scorched earth example is just another case where CA 2019 unfairly rewards cheap chaff imo. The game already strongly rewards high model count low-value models, imo.
Martel732 wrote: I don't think ITC vs CA 2019 fundamentally changes which units are good.
There's a few qualities that will always be positive just by their nature. Mobility, resiliency, firepower. However, changing the mission parameters definitely changes how an army has to approach the mission.
Look at Scorched Earth for example. 2 objectives in each DZ and 2 in the midfield. If you can burn an objective in the enemy DZ, you score 3VP and remove it from the game. If you are fairly light on board control anything that's Obsec and resilient presents an existential threat.
But those units are good in ITC as well. I just see CA 2019s twists are rearranging deck chairs on the titanic. It's just ITC with less agency and more randomness, and therefore a poorer readout on who is a better general. Your scorched earth example is just another case where CA 2019 unfairly rewards cheap chaff imo. The game already strongly rewards high model count low-value models, imo.
Show me on this traitor guard enforcer model were the big Bad horde touched you.
That "joke" is getting pretty old. I'm allowed to have my opinion, regardless of what list I'm running at any given time. I've already posted that I need to build autobolter dudes and permanently fire the DC, as they are very weak vs chaff in practice.
Martel732 wrote: It's just ITC with less agency and more randomness
Scorched Earth has fixed VP for the primary mission. As for the secondaries there's a lot going on in CA recently -- one thing is building a deck with 18 secondary objectives. You can mulligan on your first draw and use CP to manipulate your secondaries in-game. BA have their 6 codex objectives and it's fairly easy to assemble competitive secondaries of the other 12. It's a little more random than ITC but more interesting and dynamic. Forcing yourself to kill 80 infantry models every single game to score full points on Reaper just sounds kind of miserable.
Martel732 wrote: That "joke" is getting pretty old. I'm allowed to have my opinion, regardless of what list I'm running at any given time. I've already posted that I need to build autobolter dudes and permanently fire the DC, as they are very weak vs chaff in practice.
They are asking you to please, just this once, to show your working out...
Martel732 wrote: It's just ITC with less agency and more randomness
Scorched Earth has fixed VP for the primary mission. As for the secondaries there's a lot going on in CA recently -- one thing is building a deck with 18 secondary objectives. You can mulligan on your first draw and use CP to manipulate your secondaries in-game. BA have their 6 codex objectives and it's fairly easy to assemble competitive secondaries of the other 12. It's a little more random than ITC but more interesting and dynamic. Forcing yourself to kill 80 infantry models every single game to score full points on Reaper just sounds kind of miserable.
It's something I end up doing most of the time anyway to clear assault lanes. Because one surviving jerk wad pushes deep strike back.
Martel732 wrote: It's just ITC with less agency and more randomness
Scorched Earth has fixed VP for the primary mission. As for the secondaries there's a lot going on in CA recently -- one thing is building a deck with 18 secondary objectives. You can mulligan on your first draw and use CP to manipulate your secondaries in-game. BA have their 6 codex objectives and it's fairly easy to assemble competitive secondaries of the other 12. It's a little more random than ITC but more interesting and dynamic. Forcing yourself to kill 80 infantry models every single game to score full points on Reaper just sounds kind of miserable.
It's something I end up doing most of the time anyway to clear assault lanes. Because one surviving jerk wad pushes deep strike back.
Almost like hordes are taken to get in the way, be annoying and difficult to remove...
I mean, this is how it took 2 years for people to understand we could move Magnus backwards.
Why would that matter?
Because people act like that 40k is a solved game when it isnt.
People throw Magnus to the wind, because omg so strong. And then he dies and isnt as good as he could be. Then people don't use him, because he is "bad".
Martel732 wrote: It's just ITC with less agency and more randomness
Scorched Earth has fixed VP for the primary mission. As for the secondaries there's a lot going on in CA recently -- one thing is building a deck with 18 secondary objectives. You can mulligan on your first draw and use CP to manipulate your secondaries in-game. BA have their 6 codex objectives and it's fairly easy to assemble competitive secondaries of the other 12. It's a little more random than ITC but more interesting and dynamic. Forcing yourself to kill 80 infantry models every single game to score full points on Reaper just sounds kind of miserable.
It's something I end up doing most of the time anyway to clear assault lanes. Because one surviving jerk wad pushes deep strike back.
Almost like hordes are taken to get in the way, be annoying and difficult to remove...
I get that. I just think they are too good at their job in 8th with GW rules. GW's "solution" was the new marine codex, and so now we all suffer. Except marine players.
Martel732 wrote: It's just ITC with less agency and more randomness
Scorched Earth has fixed VP for the primary mission. As for the secondaries there's a lot going on in CA recently -- one thing is building a deck with 18 secondary objectives. You can mulligan on your first draw and use CP to manipulate your secondaries in-game. BA have their 6 codex objectives and it's fairly easy to assemble competitive secondaries of the other 12. It's a little more random than ITC but more interesting and dynamic. Forcing yourself to kill 80 infantry models every single game to score full points on Reaper just sounds kind of miserable.
It's something I end up doing most of the time anyway to clear assault lanes. Because one surviving jerk wad pushes deep strike back.
Almost like hordes are taken to get in the way, be annoying and difficult to remove...
I get that. I just think they are too good at their job in 8th with GW rules. GW's "solution" was the new marine codex, and so now we all suffer. Except marine players.
I have no idea what BA army you're playing (probably because you've yet to post your list) but yesterday I played against a Nid list with 170 Gaunts as well as a whole bunch of big monsters. On my turn 1 my BA had cleared all 60 of the Hormagaunts and killed a Hive Tyrant while wrapping a Carnifex to somewhat protect a unit of Incursors. My game plan was simply to remove as many little bugs as possible through shooting and assault, while getting the DCTH into the Tyrant if I could. I burned lots of CPs that turn but cleared basically all of the chaff I cared about. I lost a lot of stuff in return but my opponent was pretty much crippled as far as board control and breadth of threat was concerned. I did all of this without a single auto bolt rifle and if you look at the points traded and even number of units killed after the first battle round I was behind on both counts yet I won the game quite handily because, unlike ITC missions, relatively mindless killing isn't hugely rewarded in Maelstrom missions.
I have no idea why you're having problems against chaff but I can assure you BA are not incapable of dealing with it in any mission format.
I mean, this is how it took 2 years for people to understand we could move Magnus backwards.
Why would that matter?
Because people act like that 40k is a solved game when it isnt.
People throw Magnus to the wind, because omg so strong. And then he dies and isnt as good as he could be. Then people don't use him, because he is "bad".
No, I mean why would it matter whether Magnus moves backwards or forwards?
Martel732 wrote: It's just ITC with less agency and more randomness
Scorched Earth has fixed VP for the primary mission. As for the secondaries there's a lot going on in CA recently -- one thing is building a deck with 18 secondary objectives. You can mulligan on your first draw and use CP to manipulate your secondaries in-game. BA have their 6 codex objectives and it's fairly easy to assemble competitive secondaries of the other 12. It's a little more random than ITC but more interesting and dynamic. Forcing yourself to kill 80 infantry models every single game to score full points on Reaper just sounds kind of miserable.
It's something I end up doing most of the time anyway to clear assault lanes. Because one surviving jerk wad pushes deep strike back.
Almost like hordes are taken to get in the way, be annoying and difficult to remove...
I get that. I just think they are too good at their job in 8th with GW rules. GW's "solution" was the new marine codex, and so now we all suffer. Except marine players.
I have no idea what BA army you're playing (probably because you've yet to post your list) but yesterday I played against a Nid list with 170 Gaunts as well as a whole bunch of big monsters. On my turn 1 my BA had cleared all 60 of the Hormagaunts and killed a Hive Tyrant while wrapping a Carnifex to somewhat protect a unit of Incursors. My game plan was simply to remove as many little bugs as possible through shooting and assault, while getting the DCTH into the Tyrant if I could. I burned lots of CPs that turn but cleared basically all of the chaff I cared about. I lost a lot of stuff in return but my opponent was pretty much crippled as far as board control and breadth of threat was concerned. I did all of this without a single auto bolt rifle and if you look at the points traded and even number of units killed after the first battle round I was behind on both counts yet I won the game quite handily because, unlike ITC missions, relatively mindless killing isn't hugely rewarded in Maelstrom missions.
I have no idea why you're having problems against chaff but I can assure you BA are not incapable of dealing with it in any mission format.
That's okay, I don't know either game to game. That's why I haven't posted anything. I don't have a single list atm. I could post a list, but it wouldn't mean anything.
So you consider 60 out of 170 crippled? That doesn't sound right.
Martel732 wrote: It's just ITC with less agency and more randomness
Scorched Earth has fixed VP for the primary mission. As for the secondaries there's a lot going on in CA recently -- one thing is building a deck with 18 secondary objectives. You can mulligan on your first draw and use CP to manipulate your secondaries in-game. BA have their 6 codex objectives and it's fairly easy to assemble competitive secondaries of the other 12. It's a little more random than ITC but more interesting and dynamic. Forcing yourself to kill 80 infantry models every single game to score full points on Reaper just sounds kind of miserable.
It's something I end up doing most of the time anyway to clear assault lanes. Because one surviving jerk wad pushes deep strike back.
Almost like hordes are taken to get in the way, be annoying and difficult to remove...
I get that. I just think they are too good at their job in 8th with GW rules. GW's "solution" was the new marine codex, and so now we all suffer. Except marine players.
I have no idea what BA army you're playing (probably because you've yet to post your list) but yesterday I played against a Nid list with 170 Gaunts as well as a whole bunch of big monsters. On my turn 1 my BA had cleared all 60 of the Hormagaunts and killed a Hive Tyrant while wrapping a Carnifex to somewhat protect a unit of Incursors. My game plan was simply to remove as many little bugs as possible through shooting and assault, while getting the DCTH into the Tyrant if I could. I burned lots of CPs that turn but cleared basically all of the chaff I cared about. I lost a lot of stuff in return but my opponent was pretty much crippled as far as board control and breadth of threat was concerned. I did all of this without a single auto bolt rifle and if you look at the points traded and even number of units killed after the first battle round I was behind on both counts yet I won the game quite handily because, unlike ITC missions, relatively mindless killing isn't hugely rewarded in Maelstrom missions.
I have no idea why you're having problems against chaff but I can assure you BA are not incapable of dealing with it in any mission format.
That's okay, I don't know either game to game. That's why I haven't posted anything. I don't have a single list atm. I could post a list, but it wouldn't mean anything.
So you consider 60 out of 170 crippled? That doesn't sound right.
I think that's your problem. I killed just over 1/3 of the chaff my opponent had but it's not the number or proportion of them that I killed that's important, it's which specific units. I removed two of the actual threatening chaff units (Hormagaunts) and damaged a couple of the Termagaunt units closest to me. The bulk of the other chaff was either protecting against Deep Strike (so quite spread out) or controlling objectives around the backfield. I don't care about them. I don't care if there's 300 of them if it'll take 2 turns for them to influence the game. My BA use a lot of Phobos Primaris and jump pack units to make it very mobile so I can isolate parts of the enemy army to kill and ignore other parts for later on.
Maybe it's an ITC thing, maybe it's just a you thing, but you seem far too concerned with raw numbers of kills. That's just not that important. Read what I wrote again. When I said I crippled my opponent I was not referring to numbers I was referring to the impact of removing the units I killed on the wider game.
Again, post a list, any list, even the last one you used, and you might actually get some useful pointers as to what you're doing wrong. It's baffling to me that you haven't done this already.
Slipspace wrote: Maybe it's an ITC thing, maybe it's just a you thing, but you seem far too concerned with raw numbers of kills. That's just not that important. Read what I wrote again. When I said I crippled my opponent I was not referring to numbers I was referring to the impact of removing the units I killed on the wider game.
I'll second everything I just quoted.
Sure, the other guy may have 200 models on the board, but if only 30 of those are within range of a progressive-scoring objective and you've got your turn to remove them before VP gets awarded at the end of the battle round, you don't need to kill 200, you just need to kill 30. Anything beyond that is a bonus.
I think the footprint hordes have is more of a double-edged sword than players often treat it- trying to maneuver 6+ squads of Guardsmen, let alone 20+, so that they're able to usefully contribute and not just getting in the way of everything is a very difficult task. This is also another case where terrain matters; big hordes are much less useful if you have sufficient terrain, as their inability to maneuver or take cover means they hit diminishing returns very quickly.
I think the reality is that hordes are just really strong vs BA. I'll dig up my last list exactly but I know it had 15 DC, astorath, 10 Sg, sg ancient, 15 intercessors, smash capt, and 9 suppressors. DC are getting fired, though. Permanently.
I seriously doubt that. I'm not gonna listen over a hour long pod cast to learn an answer to a simple question.
The answer isn't simple. If you don't care to learn then you can't claim to have a position from a place of knowledge. Suffice to say the simple answer is that Magnus' position creates fear. The opposing player will move to prepare to deal with that threat. By moving Magnus in to deal damage and then away using warp time you confound their movements, and with tables containing good terrain, their ability to target him cohesively.
Previously it was always "get Magnus (and Morty) into combat where he can do the most damage and hopefully he'll be safe". It's one dimensional thinking.
The big scary marines lists? They have jack gak for ranged anti-tank. Nick Nanavanti has 6 Chaplain Dread LCs and that's it. With good movement Magnus is now in a position to exploit those lists and he just got access to more healing.
I seriously doubt that. I'm not gonna listen over a hour long pod cast to learn an answer to a simple question.
The answer isn't simple. If you don't care to learn then you can't claim to have a position from a place of knowledge. Suffice to say the simple answer is that Magnus' position creates fear. The opposing player will move to prepare to deal with that threat. By moving Magnus in to deal damage and then away using warp time you confound their movements, and with tables containing good terrain, their ability to target him cohesively.
Previously it was always "get Magnus (and Morty) into combat where he can do the most damage and hopefully he'll be safe". It's one dimensional thinking.
The big scary marines lists? They have jack gak for ranged anti-tank. Nick Nanavanti has 6 Chaplain Dread LCs and that's it. With good movement Magnus is now in a position to exploit those lists and he just got access to more healing.
Right...see, I think the confusion is more about the way the original comment was phrased. Crimson, like me, probably assumed you were talking about the physical orientation of the model rather than the direction of movement, which is why it seemed like a confusing statement.
I seriously doubt that. I'm not gonna listen over a hour long pod cast to learn an answer to a simple question.
The answer isn't simple. If you don't care to learn then you can't claim to have a position from a place of knowledge. Suffice to say the simple answer is that Magnus' position creates fear. The opposing player will move to prepare to deal with that threat. By moving Magnus in to deal damage and then away using warp time you confound their movements, and with tables containing good terrain, their ability to target him cohesively.
Previously it was always "get Magnus (and Morty) into combat where he can do the most damage and hopefully he'll be safe". It's one dimensional thinking.
The big scary marines lists? They have jack gak for ranged anti-tank. Nick Nanavanti has 6 Chaplain Dread LCs and that's it. With good movement Magnus is now in a position to exploit those lists and he just got access to more healing.
Right...see, I think the confusion is more about the way the original comment was phrased. Crimson, like me, probably assumed you were talking about the physical orientation of the model rather than the direction of movement, which is why it seemed like a confusing statement.
Right...see, I think the confusion is more about the way the original comment was phrased. Crimson, like me, probably assumed you were talking about the physical orientation of the model rather than the direction of movement, which is why it seemed like a confusing statement.
Fair enough. I still can't recommend that podcast episode enough. It's engaging and may change the way you think about the game.
Right. So it had nothing to do with actually moving Magnus 'backwards, in relation to himself, only in relation to table, which is hardly considered remarkable. My question was prompted by wonderment about facing mattering in this edition.
My take aways-
expert crafters (and eldar equiv) was a great idea
Chaplain dreads and TFCs are not single-handedly supporting multiple re-casters families
crimson hunters need more great strat support
centurions are the worst unit in the SM codex
IH/IF still need more buffs while WS/RG are equally under powered given the right general
2.0 marines, eldar and chaos soup are bad mmmmkay
Martel has played so many games with his BA that he has sunk their win rate below 40% because he refuses to use primaris bolters
GW knows I play DA/SW/DW so have given me a chance to show off my superior game play with some of the worst armies in the game
Yanarri are still OP, nerf Yanarri (J/K 3 games does not make a sample)
40k fantasy drafts are riveting pod-cast material and should definitely be taken seriously and make for great content
Comparing the state of the meta vs the podcast the numbers don't really match-up vs how some of the best players think about the game and I think it's illustrative of the problems of just relying on tourney results. To be honest there are so many bad 40k players that the results are often skewed by really good players (Siegler and Pullen with Tau) and really bad players (I'd say me but I haven't played at a GT or better since SM dexes came out so not my fault this time) which is why some critical thinking beyond just what the numbers show is required but you know what they say about common sense.
GW has no idea how to balance their game. We are entering into the dog days of 8th (I like the garden hose metaphor Peety Pab used) similar to the end of 7th where GW no longer cares about balancing since it has turned into a train wreck. OP changes (GK) will keep coming out until the game is so broken and we will do a soft reset with 8.5/9.0 sometime this summer (just in time for my marines to catch-up to the meta...).
TLR - Games feth'ed. GW is working on the next edition and doesn't care. Get ready for end of 7th part 2.
My take aways-
expert crafters (and eldar equiv) was a great idea
Chaplain dreads and TFCs are not single-handedly supporting multiple re-casters families
crimson hunters need more great strat support
centurions are the worst unit in the SM codex
IH/IF still need more buffs while WS/RG are equally under powered given the right general
2.0 marines, eldar and chaos soup are bad mmmmkay
Martel has played so many games with his BA that he has sunk their win rate below 40% because he refuses to use primaris bolters
GW knows I play DA/SW/DW so have given me a chance to show off my superior game play with some of the worst armies in the game
Yanarri are still OP, nerf Yanarri (J/K 3 games does not make a sample)
40k fantasy drafts are riveting pod-cast material and should definitely be taken seriously and make for great content
Comparing the state of the meta vs the podcast the numbers don't really match-up vs how some of the best players think about the game and I think it's illustrative of the problems of just relying on tourney results. To be honest there are so many bad 40k players that the results are often skewed by really good players (Siegler and Pullen with Tau) and really bad players (I'd say me but I haven't played at a GT or better since SM dexes came out so not my fault this time) which is why some critical thinking beyond just what the numbers show is required but you know what they say about common sense.
GW has no idea how to balance their game. We are entering into the dog days of 8th (I like the garden hose metaphor Peety Pab used) similar to the end of 7th where GW no longer cares about balancing since it has turned into a train wreck. OP changes (GK) will keep coming out until the game is so broken and we will do a soft reset with 8.5/9.0 sometime this summer (just in time for my marines to catch-up to the meta...).
TLR - Games feth'ed. GW is working on the next edition and doesn't care. Get ready for end of 7th part 2.
It does feel much the same. GK getting powerful rules has also signaled the end of an edition before.
Then again if you are talking about data. If you look at the % of the top of the fields performance only you can basically eliminate bad players.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: I think the reality is that hordes are just really strong vs BA. I'll dig up my last list exactly but I know it had 15 DC, astorath, 10 Sg, sg ancient, 15 intercessors, smash capt, and 9 suppressors. DC are getting fired, though. Permanently.
Hordes are straight up great vs elite melee. They are pretty dog crap vs elite anti infantry shooting though.
bananathug wrote: which is why some critical thinking beyond just what the numbers show is required but you know what they say about common sense.
Taking the tournament results from November and December will introduce a heavy skew to marines without accounting for CA or any recent PAs. 40kstats does not have these tournaments available, so I couldn't tell you what effect there is yet.
So, yes, critical thinking. Let's not get carried away, yet.
bananathug wrote: which is why some critical thinking beyond just what the numbers show is required but you know what they say about common sense.
Taking the tournament results from November and December will introduce a heavy skew to marines without accounting for CA or any recent PAs. 40kstats does not have these tournaments available, so I couldn't tell you what effect there is yet.
So, yes, critical thinking. Let's not get carried away, yet.
They are updating really slowly. They must do monthly updates?
people don't understand the human element to statistics and have no idea what a statistic actually says. Hint: it's not 'this stuff is all the good stuff in the meta and all the rest is bad'.
Nitro Zeus wrote: people don't understand the human element to statistics and have no idea what a statistic actually says. Hint: it's not 'this stuff is all the good stuff in the meta and all the rest is bad'.
Nitro Zeus wrote: people don't understand the human element to statistics and have no idea what a statistic actually says. Hint: it's not 'this stuff is all the good stuff in the meta and all the rest is bad'.
That's what it means to most competitive players.
I think its a complaint that on the forums, something which is a bit worse never ever beats something which is a bit better, because we live in a world of perfect average hammer.
And the best units always go first.
But it can always be interesting how something which isn't very good wins a tournament, probably because someone played well/lucked out, and suddenly there are a dozen "is this the new meta!?" takes, which quickly devolve into "no, its not consistently repeatable".
Nitro Zeus wrote: people don't understand the human element to statistics and have no idea what a statistic actually says. Hint: it's not 'this stuff is all the good stuff in the meta and all the rest is bad'.
That's what competitive play is though. It's not hard to go through a codex and pick out all the high performers that "statistically" outperform everything else due to the either low point cost or hyper efficient interaction with game mechanics.
To play in the competitive meta, you only take what is "good" and spam the crap out of it. Everything else is "bad" and you gimp yourself in the competitive sense by taking them.
The stats have been wrong so so many times in the past, because they are massively influenced by human decisions and knowledge and understanding. The statistics are a reference of what is doing well right now. But low level 'competitive' players think that stats are the rule of law on what is good and what isn't, hence why they will always be chasing the meta at best, and never the players defining it.
People's perception doesn't change the fact that there are units in every codex that are better than others - often by a very clear margin which is half the secret to competitive play.
Yes, the meta can be both local and global with different players and local group mindsets that can alter certain playstyles, but there's a reason most "net lists" look very similar and often take the same units - it's because they are statistically better than others will consistently out perform others.
NurglesR0T wrote: People's perception doesn't change the fact that there are units in every codex that are better than others - often by a very clear margin which is half the secret to competitive play.
Yes, the meta can be both local and global with different players and local group mindsets that can alter certain playstyles, but there's a reason most "net lists" look very similar and often take the same units - it's because they are statistically better than others will consistently out perform others.
Few high level players are sitting down with a spreadsheet and finding that unit X is 95% as efficient as unit Y and making their decisions based on that, because that's a terrible way to go about making final decisions. They're looking for dynamics to exploit and putting the best unit in its place for it. Playing practice matches, tweaking, and repeat.
Take lists with 3 TFCs. They could take one or two, and more Intercessors up front which are more durable when facing certain lists. But for whatever reason they chose 3. Other players opted not to for their own reasons. TFCs are clearly quite efficient, so why doesn't everyone take 3?
NurglesR0T wrote:People's perception doesn't change the fact that there are units in every codex that are better than others - often by a very clear margin which is half the secret to competitive play.
Yes, the meta can be both local and global with different players and local group mindsets that can alter certain playstyles, but there's a reason most "net lists" look very similar and often take the same units - it's because they are statistically better than others will consistently out perform others.
While true, not everyone can take a net list and make the most of it.
Daedalus81 wrote:Few high level players are sitting down with a spreadsheet and finding that unit X is 95% as efficient as unit Y and making their decisions based on that, because that's a terrible way to go about making final decisions. They're looking for dynamics to exploit and putting the best unit in its place for it. Playing practice matches, tweaking, and repeat.
Take lists with 3 TFCs. They could take one or two, and more Intercessors up front which are more durable when facing certain lists. But for whatever reason they chose 3. Other players opted not to for their own reasons. TFCs are clearly quite efficient, so why doesn't everyone take 3?
Costs and buildability are usually some of the biggest reasons, and sometimes just how their meta interacts with them.
NurglesR0T wrote: People's perception doesn't change the fact that there are units in every codex that are better than others - often by a very clear margin which is half the secret to competitive play.
Yes, the meta can be both local and global with different players and local group mindsets that can alter certain playstyles, but there's a reason most "net lists" look very similar and often take the same units - it's because they are statistically better than others will consistently out perform others.
Few high level players are sitting down with a spreadsheet and finding that unit X is 95% as efficient as unit Y and making their decisions based on that, because that's a terrible way to go about making final decisions. They're looking for dynamics to exploit and putting the best unit in its place for it. Playing practice matches, tweaking, and repeat.
Take lists with 3 TFCs. They could take one or two, and more Intercessors up front which are more durable when facing certain lists. But for whatever reason they chose 3. Other players opted not to for their own reasons. TFCs are clearly quite efficient, so why doesn't everyone take 3?
Snippet from my earlier post - I agree with you
...due to the either low point cost or hyper efficient interaction with game mechanics.
One player is taking reivers while a cadre of the best players (team bro-hammer) all pretty much settled on the same iron hands list as the best.
In order to come up with something really good you need good units that excel at the role you have for them. I'm sure Nick has figured out some crazy good role that reivers can play in his army and after LVO will be more than happy to tell people (probably people who pay him) why he chose them.
The rest of us need to glean from their experience because I sure as heck am not sitting in my garage with 3-5 really good players, playing crazy practice games, situation recreations, opening gambits and all of the theory crafting + in game work to figure out just what is the right amount of intercessors I need to survive most in meta army first turn shooting so that I can contest x objectives in mission y while making sure I can kill x number of meta units to make sure I get kill/hold more and what combo produces a list that gives up the least amount of ITC secondaries (I'm sadly falling into the ITC is warping the game camp but I keep seeing examples of it changing the value of units).
There is a lot more than pure statistical efficiency that goes into over all list design but the meta is usually the meta because of efficiencies and it's the pro-players that can break from what is just the most efficient mathematical units to what creates the best chance of winning.
In the podcast Nick even says that pure iron hands is better on paper than his list but he feels that his list opens up "jank" that allows him to outplay his opponents rather than just mathammer them to death.
I'd much rather have a game where the mathammer is close and then it is your tactical decisions in list building that matter more. There's a reason why the guys say it's marines or eldar or chaos is because those armies mathhammer so hard vs the rest of the field that you do not have a chance to let gameplay matter because they are so efficient. When those efficiencies close and the mathammer is close, the efficiency divergence can be overcome by a good game plan, smart tactical movement/decisions and playing the mission (which is why Nick is willing to give up a little statistical advantage for his perceived tactical advantage, but you notice he's not doing it with GSC...)
Be as good as you want but running pure dark angels (or other sub 40% faction) into one of the big boys (better than 50% win rate) just gets you blown off the table without a chance for your gameplay to matter.
Even then, you have lists like Mani Cheema's where if he goes first he wins 90% of the time because his shooting is so strong it just mathammers you off the board. 40k is such a killy, imbalanced mess that a lot of the games will be decided by who goes first (eldar parking lots vs IF) in a close match or just won't matter what you do because 500 points of their army shoots like 1.5k points of your army and it is nearly impossible to overcome such a mathematical disadvantage (even in a dice game which shows just how imbalanced GW has made the game).
NurglesR0T wrote: People's perception doesn't change the fact that there are units in every codex that are better than others - often by a very clear margin which is half the secret to competitive play.
Yes, the meta can be both local and global with different players and local group mindsets that can alter certain playstyles, but there's a reason most "net lists" look very similar and often take the same units - it's because they are statistically better than others will consistently out perform others.
People's perception does affect the context in which units operate though. You could have a brilliant tank-killing unit, but if your perception is that people generally don't take many tanks, you won't bring it.
NurglesR0T wrote: People's perception doesn't change the fact that there are units in every codex that are better than others
But it does change what is taken to events, which is why the statistic is not an accurate measure of balance.
It also means that the best stuff may or may not be taken based on human understanding, meaning the stats may not reflect the power level of the army. You can see this earlier in the edition with Necrons and then Tau, and even now Tyranids are falling victim to it.
Stats are not what top players use to measure what's good, it's what is used to measure what is taken.
Does it matter more what's better on paper, or what wins on the table by allowing you to ovecome statistical advantage?
Sorry but "play better" to compensate superior units is bad excuse. It assumes the guy who uses superior units is crappy player himself. That's condensing and stupid attitude. Imagine shock horror that there's nothing preventing good player from taking superior units...
Yoyoyo wrote: "Play better" isn't a part of competition?
That's the entire tactics and strategy part of the game!
tbf, 40k is a tad to list building heavy compared to actual play ration on performance impact.
which is significant due to hinting at a imbalance problem
Does it matter more what's better on paper, or what wins on the table by allowing you to ovecome statistical advantage?
If you have a play that can win in statistically weaker situations frequently, you in fact have a statistical advantage over the other build. It just moves the goal posts slightly.
Yoyoyo wrote: "Play better" isn't a part of competition? That's the entire tactics and strategy part of the game!
How useful is the statistically superior Leviathan Dread, when it's been swarmed by Warp Talons and can't fall back due to the Contorted Epitome aura?
Or when it's been mobility killed by Doombolt and can't find a valid target due to its short range?
Or when it's shooting at lowered BS due to Symphony of Pain, Miasma, Benediction and bracketing?
And your "play better" is countered by the guy with superior army list playing just as well. There's only one guy in the world who can rely on his skills being superior to the extent he doesn't need to have best army to have equal field against best army. And that's the best player period. Everybody else can simply face somebody who is at least as good as you or better AND uses superior army because you are silly enough to bring non competive options. And then short of you getting lucky you lose.
Yoyoyo wrote: That whole spiel is based around the idea there are no rock-paper-scissors mechanics in 40k, only rocks and better rocks.
That's because a lot of "utility" is pointless. If said utility isn't based on strictly over the top offensive, defensive, or movement bonuses, the game ends too quickly. I mean, why would you pay for morale shenanigans when you can spend more points on a gun that is more likely to kill that one model that flees? Why would you ever use the new Grey Knights Tide that affects Psi Weapons when you can affect the whole army's save or generate 10+ more Mortal wounds a turn?
Yoyoyo wrote: "Play better" isn't a part of competition? That's the entire tactics and strategy part of the game!
How useful is the statistically superior Leviathan Dread, when it's been swarmed by Warp Talons and can't fall back due to the Contorted Epitome aura?
Or when it's been mobility killed by Doombolt and can't find a valid target due to its short range?
Or when it's shooting at lowered BS due to Symphony of Pain, Miasma, Benediction and bracketing?
A leviathan in IH can even while on less than half health, moving and debuffed hit on 3+ with rerolls. It only needs to be screened against the at max 1 unit in the enemies list that ignore overwatch since its such a hard to get special rule, most everything else gets killed in overwatch. And even if you try to ignore it it can still zone a large portion of the board while only costing a bit over 300pts.
Im not saying leviathan is broken or even the best unit in IH but if units are just allround good enough its damn hard to just outplay it unless terrain hampers it. At least a leviathan cant do too much on a table with really good amounts of terrain. But since the IH player probably have lots of infantry, a smash character, Thunderfire cannons, whirwlinds or eliminators the rest of the list isnt as hampered by terrain heavy boards as a more traditional gunline.
At some point you cant really outplay superior stats.
Yoyoyo wrote: That whole spiel is based around the idea there are no rock-paper-scissors mechanics in 40k, only rocks and better rocks.
This is what I used to think, before I learned to properly compete. This isn't even remotely true.
You can elaborate?
When I first started to play 'competitively', I used to think the game was all about mathhammer, dice, and 'obvious best choices in the dexes'. I had a very strong knowledge of what was considered good out of each faction, and I considered myself a very good competitive player because of the research I had done, the experience of play, and understanding of math and statistics. What more could there be to it? It was only after I began to participate in the higher level of the competitive scene, listen to some of the best players talk, and recognise the broader strategy involved in 40k, that I was able to really see the value of units beyond numbers. The balance you have to strike between having enough teeth, while also making yourself a challenge for your opponent to navigate around upon the board, and also having enough tools tricks and utility on the board, is what you need to leverage the options you have that your opponent doesn't, to allow you to consistently win the actual game of 40k, and that's just the beginning.
Where I see a lot of people at right now is where I was at, before I overcame this mentality and took my game to the next level. As a direct result of tuning myself out from the groupthink of what's 'good' and whats 'trash' (rarely ever any inbetween on here, another falsity), and understanding there is so much more nuance to the game than just mathhammer, I improved myself as a player tremendously. I used to think I was at the peak of my game, similar to this thread's creator, but it was when I crested this hump that I realised I still today am nowhere near being a great 40k player, and I can improve on a ton of things. But this hindsight, and watching the way so many people here talk, just makes it so blaring how many are still in that spot, and honestly, will probably never overcome it because they aren't interacting with the game in the right mindset or pushing themselves to improve with an open mind - they know the math, therefor, they are good 40k player, and the only reason they don't have a consistently high win rate is because balance, armys, op, trash, meta, lucky dice, terrain rules, itc missions, gw missions, win rate, statistics, buzzwords, buzzwords, and other excuses about stuff that they think, and you think, they have a strong understanding of, but they really. just. don't.
"I was able to really see the value of units beyond numbers. The balance you have to strike between having enough teeth, while also making yourself a challenge for your opponent to navigate around upon the board, and also having enough tools tricks and utility on the board, is what you need to leverage the options you have that your opponent doesn't"
This kinda sounds like buzzword soup. Don't all these things boil down to numbers and special rules? So you are really talking about leveraging special rules?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Why would you ever use the new Grey Knights Tide that affects Psi Weapons when you can affect the whole army's save or generate 10+ more Mortal wounds a turn?
This is the kind of logic that misses the forest for the trees.
You can confidently state that an extra 10 mortal wounds is great, but then you look at the table and see that those mortal wounds are spread out to different targets. What if I need to touch someone behind a screen or focus on one unit? You're damn right I'd be dropping 10 strikes with storm bolters and switching tides.
40 SB shots normally do 4.4 wounds to Primaris. Under tide and strat they do 18. With full rerolls to hit and wound it becomes 31.
Yoyoyo wrote: That whole spiel is based around the idea there are no rock-paper-scissors mechanics in 40k, only rocks and better rocks.
Why would you ever use the new Grey Knights Tide that affects Psi Weapons when you can affect the whole army's save or generate 10+ more Mortal wounds a turn?
Because you have less control over where those Mortal Wounds go? Because the unit you need to remove isn't in range for your Smites? You can even do both in the same turn since the only way to change the Tide is via a psychic power you can dish out 2W Smites for an entire phase then change the Tide as your last cast and get the benefit on your shooting too. This is a perfect example of where just looking at the raw numbers doesn't lead to useful conclusions.
Martel732 wrote: "I was able to really see the value of units beyond numbers. The balance you have to strike between having enough teeth, while also making yourself a challenge for your opponent to navigate around upon the board, and also having enough tools tricks and utility on the board, is what you need to leverage the options you have that your opponent doesn't"
This kinda sounds like buzzword soup. Don't all these things boil down to numbers and special rules? So you are really talking about leveraging special rules?
whats the numbers behind something like Shifting Worldscape? there's differing levels of non-numeric value to so much stuff in the ever-changing game of 40k. Some inclusions are indeed just flat out numbers. Sometimes there's a bunch of hidden value to a unit that isn't quite related by it's datasheet.
The fact that these words sound like 'buzzword soup' to you is a very strong indicator of how light your grasp actually is on this game. Positioning and decision making is what makes a great player, but understanding which units allow you to make the decisions you may need to, and providing less linear options than just dice to your army, is a fundamental part of getting there.
Yoyoyo wrote: That whole spiel is based around the idea there are no rock-paper-scissors mechanics in 40k, only rocks and better rocks.
Why would you ever use the new Grey Knights Tide that affects Psi Weapons when you can affect the whole army's save or generate 10+ more Mortal wounds a turn?
Because you have less control over where those Mortal Wounds go? Because the unit you need to remove isn't in range for your Smites? You can even do both in the same turn since the only way to change the Tide is via a psychic power you can dish out 2W Smites for an entire phase then change the Tide as your last cast and get the benefit on your shooting too. This is a perfect example of where just looking at the raw numbers doesn't lead to useful conclusions.
Exactly this. When 'obvious best options' lead you to completely blinding yourself to the value of something very strong.
Yoyoyo wrote: That whole spiel is based around the idea there are no rock-paper-scissors mechanics in 40k, only rocks and better rocks.
Why would you ever use the new Grey Knights Tide that affects Psi Weapons when you can affect the whole army's save or generate 10+ more Mortal wounds a turn?
Because you have less control over where those Mortal Wounds go? Because the unit you need to remove isn't in range for your Smites? You can even do both in the same turn since the only way to change the Tide is via a psychic power you can dish out 2W Smites for an entire phase then change the Tide as your last cast and get the benefit on your shooting too. This is a perfect example of where just looking at the raw numbers doesn't lead to useful conclusions.
You can't be serious. This isn't like the Mortal Wounds are random. You're literally doubling your output. Something has just one wound left? Smite something else. It isn't rocket science, but now you know how much more those extra Mortal wounds mattered if you're that worried about overkill via ONE extra Mortal Wound.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Why would you ever use the new Grey Knights Tide that affects Psi Weapons when you can affect the whole army's save or generate 10+ more Mortal wounds a turn?
This is the kind of logic that misses the forest for the trees.
You can confidently state that an extra 10 mortal wounds is great, but then you look at the table and see that those mortal wounds are spread out to different targets. What if I need to touch someone behind a screen or focus on one unit? You're damn right I'd be dropping 10 strikes with storm bolters and switching tides.
40 SB shots normally do 4.4 wounds to Primaris. Under tide and strat they do 18. With full rerolls to hit and wound it becomes 31.
LOL you're not going to lose 10+ mortal wounds a turn just so you can use ONE Strat on some Storm Bolters slightly better. That's like beyond stupid.
Martel732 wrote: So special rules, then. Just as I said. Special rules are non-numeric.
" hidden value"
Please describe a unit with said hidden value. So I understand what you mean.
I'm sorry, what exactly are you saying here? Special rules aren't numbers. If it's all about mathhammer, then non-numeric utility isn't encompassed by that. The entire point being made here is that often the value of non-numeric things is overlooked. Sometimes moving sideways is better than moving forwards.
Regardless, no, it's not just special rules. Positioning, speed, base size, unit size, keywords, synergy, faction limitations, consistency and variation, safety, disruption, etc, there's a lot of things that just get often completely overlooked by mathhammer list crafters.
I don't consider any of that hidden. So I guess that's why I wasn't understanding. Any application of mathhammer must be adjusted by those factors. This is obvious. Garbage in, garbage out.
Yoyoyo wrote: That whole spiel is based around the idea there are no rock-paper-scissors mechanics in 40k, only rocks and better rocks.
Why would you ever use the new Grey Knights Tide that affects Psi Weapons when you can affect the whole army's save or generate 10+ more Mortal wounds a turn?
Because you have less control over where those Mortal Wounds go? Because the unit you need to remove isn't in range for your Smites? You can even do both in the same turn since the only way to change the Tide is via a psychic power you can dish out 2W Smites for an entire phase then change the Tide as your last cast and get the benefit on your shooting too. This is a perfect example of where just looking at the raw numbers doesn't lead to useful conclusions.
You can't be serious. This isn't like the Mortal Wounds are random. You're literally doubling your output.
A simple example should show you how you're wrong. Let's assume you have some sort of MSUGK army and you can dish out 15 Smites a turn. Now you can do 30MW instead of 15 with the correct Tide active. But let's also assume you're up against Orks and the enemy army is screened out by a wall of Grots. You're suggesting killing 30 Grots rather than 15 is better than making a potentially huge amount of your shooting much better so you can kill things like bikers or Nobz or just hordes of Orks instead of insignificant Grots? That's wrong. Better example, with more practical use: you're up against Tau and you know you can shoot and remove the Drone screen near a Riptide and then kill it with enhanced Psi weapons. According to you, I should stay in my extra MW Tide so I can really, really Smite a bunch of Drones to death rather than make a more intelligent decision to play in such a way as to remove one of my enemies main threats.
Yes, it's situational, and yes, you're likely to use the MW tide from turn 2 in most cases, but it's completely incorrect to claim there's never a good reason to use a different Tide, especially when GK can switch between them relatively easily.
Martel732 wrote: I don't consider any of that hidden. So I guess that's why I wasn't understanding. Any application of mathhammer must be adjusted by those factors. This is obvious. Garbage in, garbage out.
So then you agree that 40k isn't about 'there is no scissors paper rock, there is only bigger rocks', it's about playing all aspects of the entire game on a broader scale?
Sheesh it's like there's literally no train of thought behind some people's statements, just whip it out there because that guy disagreed with you earlier right?
Well, you're right about one thing, you don't understand what I'm talking about. I think you don't even understand what you're talking about.
But you don't get to the point where git gud matters until the balance is cleaned up. Take marines before 2.0. They were terrible even though a lot of their stat lines haven't changed. It wasn't player skill that was lacking there, the armies were just straight up bad. Too many things had to go right for you and wrong for your opponent to have a consistent chance of winning. An IH army before codex 2.0 has no chance of winning against an IH army using the supplement (assuming both players can read). I'd take my chances against any of the top players in this matchup so there's only so much gitting gud you can do.
The best armies in the game combine efficient units with effective units. The toolbox that an army provides is just as important as the mathammer at the highest levels of the game. Jim Vessels chaos list combined some of the most durable units with some of the jankiest units. Custodes grav tanks were efficient and janky, ynarri was the king of efficient jank. The ability to have units reliably do what you need them to do is vital to winning 40k and two of the things you need to reliably need units to do is kill things and not be killed by things. That's not the only thing you need but it's one of the few things that is controlled by the design of the units.
The outlying units on the power curve need to be brought back down so we have a game where tactical decisions and gameplay matter. Where people like Brandon Grant and Siegler can use their robot brains and really good movement phases to decide a game instead of just getting blown off the table by hyper efficient IH shooting.
But that balance is also needed down the line at my mid-table matchups where someone doesn't lose the game because they brought hellbalsters and a landraider. The stark differences in efficiencies within codexes and between codexes is something that GW can control but doesn't for a ton of tin-foil hat reasons and I think that's what I usually complain about in these balance discussions.
I'm not whipping anything out. You are making baseless assumptions.
"So then you agree that 40k isn't about 'there is no scissors paper rock, there is only bigger rocks',"
I think it's partially this, because you can't build in counters to everything in any list. I think there are still too many false choices in the game.
Take the Contorted Epitome as an example. It's not particularly killy, but the utility it provides is through the roof, both in defending against psychic powers and changing the dynamic around countering melee units. How do you value that?
Also, there's plenty of times when 10 mortal wounds are markedly inferior to better psy weapons. The concept of "wasted" or "effective" wounds has already been discussed earlier in the thread. Maximum damage is not always what wins you games. I'd rather kill a crucial target than do more spread-out damage to the enemy army.
Martel732 wrote: "I was able to really see the value of units beyond numbers. The balance you have to strike between having enough teeth, while also making yourself a challenge for your opponent to navigate around upon the board, and also having enough tools tricks and utility on the board, is what you need to leverage the options you have that your opponent doesn't"
This kinda sounds like buzzword soup. Don't all these things boil down to numbers and special rules? So you are really talking about leveraging special rules?
No, obviously not. What is the one thing, the number one thing you complain about on these boards day in and day out?
How would a game go if your opponent took their models and deployed them base-to base in old pre-7th ed deep strike formation, and tried to play the game the same way?
Would you have an easier time than if they deployed their units in straight lines, bases 31mm apart, preventing you from moving through them?
People on this forum spend basically all their time trivializing every single aspect of the game that is not a simple mathmatical comparison of how many models of unit X can weapon Y kill, when pretty much any mission format whether that's ITC or CA2019 scores the majority of its points or all of its points based on units moving to a location and securing an objective.
Damage and Durability numbers tell you basically nothing about how a model actually scores you points and wins you games. A model's capacity to move to an objective, prevent opposing models from moving, and secure objectives over enemy units is how models express the majority of their in-game power, and none of that can be mathhammered.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Take the Contorted Epitome as an example. It's not particularly killy, but the utility it provides is through the roof, both in defending against psychic powers and changing the dynamic around countering melee units. How do you value that?
Also, there's plenty of times when 10 mortal wounds are markedly inferior to better psy weapons. The concept of "wasted" or "effective" wounds has already been discussed earlier in the thread. Maximum damage is not always what wins you games. I'd rather kill a crucial target than do more spread-out damage to the enemy army.
The mathhammer crowd will never not see super-smites as the superior option, because there is no way you can simulate the limitations of smite relative to the psy weapon boost (range, the opponent's capacity to deny, the risk of perils, the other powers you give up to smite, and biggest of all the requirement that the closest enemy unit be targeted cannot be simulated through math.)
The psi weapon boost causes any given GK squad with a single psilencer to deal .666 more damage on average against any target where they gain a wound shift from the str (e.g., an Imperial Knight or a Primaris Marine). The smite boost causes them to deal 1 more damage. On paper, that means you should always take the super-smite. But all I need to attack that knight is to have my squad within 24", and to smite it I need to be 18" away AND it needs to have no screen in the psychic phase (which means I had to kill the screen last turn, I can't shoot them out of the way first).
It also ignores that I can pop psybolt ammo to make my storm bolters also count as psi weapons and deal 2 damage, and I can pop Bring Down the Beast to up my wound rolls from .333 to .55. A 10-man squad with 2 psilencers that drops BDTB and psybolts deals 17 damage to an IK, and Rotate does nothing to stop it.
Yoyoyo wrote: That whole spiel is based around the idea there are no rock-paper-scissors mechanics in 40k, only rocks and better rocks.
I think this highlights the problem best. People don't see utility. The power of marine books leads people to the "rocks and better rocks" mentality.
To be fair, sometimes a rock is big enough that it can smash anything and not care. Marine codexes are really big rocks.
those marine codexes also have to play vs other marine codexes, where math is no longer enough, and the person winning the tournament is the person who did more than press the most calculator buttons.
"People on this forum spend basically all their time trivializing every single aspect of the game that is not a simple mathmatical comparison of how many models of unit X can weapon Y kill, when pretty much any mission format whether that's ITC or CA2019 scores the majority of its points or all of its points based on units moving to a location and securing an objective."
I still think its'a combination of factors, of which math is a large one. The cheaper the screens, the easier it is to make a mockery of BA.
I like that ITC introduces a mathematical consequence for infinite <hyperbole> cheap screens.
Martel732 wrote: "People on this forum spend basically all their time trivializing every single aspect of the game that is not a simple mathmatical comparison of how many models of unit X can weapon Y kill, when pretty much any mission format whether that's ITC or CA2019 scores the majority of its points or all of its points based on units moving to a location and securing an objective."
I still think its'a combination of factors, of which math is a large one. The cheaper the screens, the easier it is to make a mockery of BA.
I like that ITC introduces a mathematical consequence for infinite <hyperbole> cheap screens.
There aren't enough facepalms in the world...
You and Slayer-Fan are making the same error, and it's an error that's directly linked to your completely incorrect view about the value of hordes. All damage is not equal. You're far too concerned with the raw numbers and not nearly concerned enough about where damage is applied. Your approach is akin to Angron and his World Eaters rather than the more tactically nuanced approach of the Blood Angels. You don't measure a unit's effectiveness purely by the number of wounds it can dish out, you measure it by how efficiently it can dish out wounds to the things you actually want to kill.
" you measure it by how efficiently it can dish out wounds to the things you actually want to kill."
Which my opponent can physically prevent with clever placement. I care where the damage is applied. But until most enemy screens are handled, they can keep moving them in the way.
Isn't the very obvious answer here 'play to the mission'?
Most of the 5-1 BA lists we've seen lately have a lot of Scouts and Infiltrators. If you physically block him from reaching midfield objectives, what do you care if you're stuck in a quagmire on the edge of his DZ?
I'm finding that scouts don't last long enough to block anything for very long. I've done some work with infiltrators, though. Less work in the marine meta. At the end of the day, marines are still glass cannons and vanilla plays around this much better than melee marines.
I'm not killing chaff for fun. They are on objectives or protecting units that turn my list to soup.
They don't need to last -- they are YOUR chaff and movement blockers. Their job is to shape the battlefield, so when your DC arrives, they are locking chaff into their own DZ rather than slapfighting infantry and losing you points on an objective.
But the enemy has even more units to move out of their DZ. If the game ends turn 3, DC and scouts are decent, but I find that in longer games, they are liabilities because they are so flimsy per point and they can't keep the containment you describe. I can't imagine taking on new GK with these units. Scouts are too expensive to be proper chaff and DC are too flimsy to be proper shock troops. That's the story for me.
Martel732 wrote: they are liabilities because they are so flimsy per point
Stop thinking about the math for a moment. If you've contained them to their side of the table you're likely way ahead on holds by turn 3. If they have weak chaff then it isn't improbably to do well on kill and kill more.
Hold
Hold More
Kill
-- If you don't get Kill More its a wash, but is otherwise a 2 point swing in your favor.
That could give enough of a buffer even if your opponent does well on secondaries.
There can't be that many 5-1 lists with BA having a 35% win rate over 110 games from Nov through first week of jan. But sure, it's just that martel is playing them wrong...
Scouts are nothing more than a cheap source of CP since a TFC picks one to two up per turn and a lot of marine lists are rocking 2-3 so you are losing all of your scouts t1 (because as BA you usually aren't starting something more threatening on the table that marines need to slow/kill with TFC). Giving up easy kill/kill more in ITC.
The 5-1 BA lists are usually BA soup(not really BA lists) for the deepstrike elements backed by the mathammer stuff from SM books.
Martel732 wrote: they are liabilities because they are so flimsy per point
Stop thinking about the math for a moment. If you've contained them to their side of the table you're likely way ahead on holds by turn 3. If they have weak chaff then it isn't improbably to do well on kill and kill more.
Hold
Hold More
Kill
-- If you don't get Kill More its a wash, but is otherwise a 2 point swing in your favor.
That could give enough of a buffer even if your opponent does well on secondaries.
I don't contain them. My army is too small generally speaking.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
bananathug wrote: There can't be that many 5-1 lists with BA having a 35% win rate over 110 games from Nov through first week of jan. But sure, it's just that martel is playing them wrong...
Scouts are nothing more than a cheap source of CP since a TFC picks one to two up per turn and a lot of marine lists are rocking 2-3 so you are losing all of your scouts t1 (because as BA you usually aren't starting something more threatening on the table that marines need to slow/kill with TFC). Giving up easy kill/kill more in ITC.
The 5-1 BA lists are usually BA soup(not really BA lists) for the deepstrike elements backed by the mathammer stuff from SM books.
bananathug wrote: There can't be that many 5-1 lists with BA having a 35% win rate over 110 games from Nov through first week of jan. But sure, it's just that martel is playing them wrong...
Scouts are nothing more than a cheap source of CP since a TFC picks one to two up per turn and a lot of marine lists are rocking 2-3 so you are losing all of your scouts t1 (because as BA you usually aren't starting something more threatening on the table that marines need to slow/kill with TFC). Giving up easy kill/kill more in ITC.
The 5-1 BA lists are usually BA soup(not really BA lists) for the deepstrike elements backed by the mathammer stuff from SM books.
This is the problem with some stats. Poor players and fluffy armies are in there, too. The BA book has barely been out more than a month, too. These are the people who played in December with BA - no soup lists it seems. I'll pull up the lists of a couple of the bottom end scorers.
Daedalus81 wrote: Stop thinking about the math for a moment. If you've contained them to their side of the table you're likely way ahead on holds by turn 3. If they have weak chaff then it isn't improbably to do well on kill and kill more.
Exactly. You've also probably got a more resilient and a more killy section of your force, which would be respectively your Intercessors/Support core and then your Smash Captains, AT shooting, and artillery.
BA assault will be more difficult to general, the easiest tactic in the game is castle up and throw optimized dice which you chose at home with a calculator. There's a greater skill barrier to entry when you're managing things like terrain and advance moves and enemy movement and blah, blah, blah. But 40k is not entirely different than other games in that respect. People can have a really hard time dealing with Protoss Cannon rushes in Starcraft for example. At lower levels where players don't have experience to scout or mechanics and knowledge to execute an effective counter, it's going to work well. But it's obviously not much more than a gimmick as skill levels and experience scale up.
Martel732 wrote: "I was able to really see the value of units beyond numbers. The balance you have to strike between having enough teeth, while also making yourself a challenge for your opponent to navigate around upon the board, and also having enough tools tricks and utility on the board, is what you need to leverage the options you have that your opponent doesn't"
This kinda sounds like buzzword soup. Don't all these things boil down to numbers and special rules? So you are really talking about leveraging special rules?
No, obviously not. What is the one thing, the number one thing you complain about on these boards day in and day out?
How would a game go if your opponent took their models and deployed them base-to base in old pre-7th ed deep strike formation, and tried to play the game the same way?
Would you have an easier time than if they deployed their units in straight lines, bases 31mm apart, preventing you from moving through them?
People on this forum spend basically all their time trivializing every single aspect of the game that is not a simple mathmatical comparison of how many models of unit X can weapon Y kill, when pretty much any mission format whether that's ITC or CA2019 scores the majority of its points or all of its points based on units moving to a location and securing an objective.
Damage and Durability numbers tell you basically nothing about how a model actually scores you points and wins you games. A model's capacity to move to an objective, prevent opposing models from moving, and secure objectives over enemy units is how models express the majority of their in-game power, and none of that can be mathhammered.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Take the Contorted Epitome as an example. It's not particularly killy, but the utility it provides is through the roof, both in defending against psychic powers and changing the dynamic around countering melee units. How do you value that?
Also, there's plenty of times when 10 mortal wounds are markedly inferior to better psy weapons. The concept of "wasted" or "effective" wounds has already been discussed earlier in the thread. Maximum damage is not always what wins you games. I'd rather kill a crucial target than do more spread-out damage to the enemy army.
The mathhammer crowd will never not see super-smites as the superior option, because there is no way you can simulate the limitations of smite relative to the psy weapon boost (range, the opponent's capacity to deny, the risk of perils, the other powers you give up to smite, and biggest of all the requirement that the closest enemy unit be targeted cannot be simulated through math.)
The psi weapon boost causes any given GK squad with a single psilencer to deal .666 more damage on average against any target where they gain a wound shift from the str (e.g., an Imperial Knight or a Primaris Marine). The smite boost causes them to deal 1 more damage. On paper, that means you should always take the super-smite. But all I need to attack that knight is to have my squad within 24", and to smite it I need to be 18" away AND it needs to have no screen in the psychic phase (which means I had to kill the screen last turn, I can't shoot them out of the way first).
It also ignores that I can pop psybolt ammo to make my storm bolters also count as psi weapons and deal 2 damage, and I can pop Bring Down the Beast to up my wound rolls from .333 to .55. A 10-man squad with 2 psilencers that drops BDTB and psybolts deals 17 damage to an IK, and Rotate does nothing to stop it.
LOL the capacity to deny, or that you'd be giving up other powers that you're only going to cast one of anyway when the Sanctic table is already bad as is. Psi Weapons are also subject to a LOT more external factors like cover, army abilities, and being more subject to Strats affecting offensive output.
No, a Tide affecting just a few weapons is not on the same level as army wide cover or doubling your Smite output, which you already pay for existing as a Grey Knight.
Yoyoyo wrote: That whole spiel is based around the idea there are no rock-paper-scissors mechanics in 40k, only rocks and better rocks.
Why would you ever use the new Grey Knights Tide that affects Psi Weapons when you can affect the whole army's save or generate 10+ more Mortal wounds a turn?
Because you have less control over where those Mortal Wounds go? Because the unit you need to remove isn't in range for your Smites? You can even do both in the same turn since the only way to change the Tide is via a psychic power you can dish out 2W Smites for an entire phase then change the Tide as your last cast and get the benefit on your shooting too. This is a perfect example of where just looking at the raw numbers doesn't lead to useful conclusions.
You can't be serious. This isn't like the Mortal Wounds are random. You're literally doubling your output.
A simple example should show you how you're wrong. Let's assume you have some sort of MSUGK army and you can dish out 15 Smites a turn. Now you can do 30MW instead of 15 with the correct Tide active. But let's also assume you're up against Orks and the enemy army is screened out by a wall of Grots. You're suggesting killing 30 Grots rather than 15 is better than making a potentially huge amount of your shooting much better so you can kill things like bikers or Nobz or just hordes of Orks instead of insignificant Grots? That's wrong. Better example, with more practical use: you're up against Tau and you know you can shoot and remove the Drone screen near a Riptide and then kill it with enhanced Psi weapons. According to you, I should stay in my extra MW Tide so I can really, really Smite a bunch of Drones to death rather than make a more intelligent decision to play in such a way as to remove one of my enemies main threats.
Yes, it's situational, and yes, you're likely to use the MW tide from turn 2 in most cases, but it's completely incorrect to claim there's never a good reason to use a different Tide, especially when GK can switch between them relatively easily.
Honestly in your example I'd likely still stick with Mortal Wounds. Orks aren't that dangerous. Once they put all their eggs in that one basket who cares? Worst case scenario they're gonna be in melee in which case why not just use the rerolling 1s to wound at that point?
Simper only played 2 out of 5 games - more typical of casual players. List a little lacking in focus - Meph, scouts, DC, company vets, DC Dread, Raven, Stalker Intercessors, Reivers, Ven Dread, Corvus
This tournament was on the 7th so I'm not sure if PA made the cut, but there were 5 BA there and one of them (Morgan) did well. His list:
Astorath, Smash Cap, Incursors, Intercessors, Scouts, Lib Dread, Phobos Lib, Incursor, 2xScout, Sanguinor, and a bunch of Jump DC, 10 SG, and 6 VV.
Capizzo stuck around for 5 games and lost 4 (one was a 0-0 tie). His list had a bunch of bodies, but mostly all S4 AP0 attacks in more MSU configuations.
I might have misunderstood Grey Knights, its not my faction, but isn't the clutch play going to be doing both?
Break out the smites, switch over with your last caster, then have 10 stormbolters get the damage output of 2 riptides for a turn (plus psilencers and cannons etc), then switch back at the start of your psyhic phase and drop the smites again.
Its perhaps a bit clunky, but doesn't seem that unrealistic to do.
The weakness of smiting is the range (can be buffed etc, but still.)
The melee tide would seem to be the one where you are left going "this doesn't feel that great?"
Martel732 wrote: "I was able to really see the value of units beyond numbers. The balance you have to strike between having enough teeth, while also making yourself a challenge for your opponent to navigate around upon the board, and also having enough tools tricks and utility on the board, is what you need to leverage the options you have that your opponent doesn't"
This kinda sounds like buzzword soup. Don't all these things boil down to numbers and special rules? So you are really talking about leveraging special rules?
No, obviously not. What is the one thing, the number one thing you complain about on these boards day in and day out?
How would a game go if your opponent took their models and deployed them base-to base in old pre-7th ed deep strike formation, and tried to play the game the same way?
Would you have an easier time than if they deployed their units in straight lines, bases 31mm apart, preventing you from moving through them?
People on this forum spend basically all their time trivializing every single aspect of the game that is not a simple mathmatical comparison of how many models of unit X can weapon Y kill, when pretty much any mission format whether that's ITC or CA2019 scores the majority of its points or all of its points based on units moving to a location and securing an objective.
Damage and Durability numbers tell you basically nothing about how a model actually scores you points and wins you games. A model's capacity to move to an objective, prevent opposing models from moving, and secure objectives over enemy units is how models express the majority of their in-game power, and none of that can be mathhammered.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Take the Contorted Epitome as an example. It's not particularly killy, but the utility it provides is through the roof, both in defending against psychic powers and changing the dynamic around countering melee units. How do you value that?
Also, there's plenty of times when 10 mortal wounds are markedly inferior to better psy weapons. The concept of "wasted" or "effective" wounds has already been discussed earlier in the thread. Maximum damage is not always what wins you games. I'd rather kill a crucial target than do more spread-out damage to the enemy army.
The mathhammer crowd will never not see super-smites as the superior option, because there is no way you can simulate the limitations of smite relative to the psy weapon boost (range, the opponent's capacity to deny, the risk of perils, the other powers you give up to smite, and biggest of all the requirement that the closest enemy unit be targeted cannot be simulated through math.)
The psi weapon boost causes any given GK squad with a single psilencer to deal .666 more damage on average against any target where they gain a wound shift from the str (e.g., an Imperial Knight or a Primaris Marine). The smite boost causes them to deal 1 more damage. On paper, that means you should always take the super-smite. But all I need to attack that knight is to have my squad within 24", and to smite it I need to be 18" away AND it needs to have no screen in the psychic phase (which means I had to kill the screen last turn, I can't shoot them out of the way first).
It also ignores that I can pop psybolt ammo to make my storm bolters also count as psi weapons and deal 2 damage, and I can pop Bring Down the Beast to up my wound rolls from .333 to .55. A 10-man squad with 2 psilencers that drops BDTB and psybolts deals 17 damage to an IK, and Rotate does nothing to stop it.
LOL the capacity to deny, or that you'd be giving up other powers that you're only going to cast one of anyway when the Sanctic table is already bad as is. Psi Weapons are also subject to a LOT more external factors like cover, army abilities, and being more subject to Strats affecting offensive output.
No, a Tide affecting just a few weapons is not on the same level as army wide cover or doubling your Smite output, which you already pay for existing as a Grey Knight.
Yeah so, this kind of absolutist thinking right here. Thanks for providing a solid example.
1) GK currently have 2 psychic disciplines. The new one contains a buff to reroll all hit rolls while within half range, a power that grants a unit JSJ, a power that gives you a command point in an extremely elite army, and a melee-range power that on average rolls deals 5.3MW to an enemy unit. Asserting that you'd always want to give up those new powers as well as Hammerhand, Gate and Sanctuary to smite is just kind of laughable.
2) You do not need to choose between super-smites and super-psi weapons. You can have both in a turn. You can choose to swap at the beginning of the psychic phase (if you want to swap to super-smite) or at the end, if you want to swap away. If you go second, you most likely started in cover for your enemy's turn, swapped to smite for all your powers, then turn 2 started in Smite and swap to Psi Weapons as your last cast just in time for all your deep strikers to have shown up to maximise your offensive power.
GK currently have about 7 psychic powers that are unequivocally good, that you basically always want to try to be using, 4 that are situational, and 1 that's just always bad. Given how elite the army is and how much their huge number of single-unit buffs incentivizes large units, I don't know if you're doing yourself any favors trying to play the army as just smitespam.list
Tyel wrote: I might have misunderstood Grey Knights, its not my faction, but isn't the clutch play going to be doing both?
Break out the smites, switch over with your last caster, then have 10 stormbolters get the damage output of 2 riptides for a turn (plus psilencers and cannons etc), then switch back at the start of your psyhic phase and drop the smites again.
Its perhaps a bit clunky, but doesn't seem that unrealistic to do.
The weakness of smiting is the range (can be buffed etc, but still.)
The melee tide would seem to be the one where you are left going "this doesn't feel that great?"
It's unreliable in the IGOUGO system. It's better just to stick to either more Smites (which would really affect the Riptide too) or Cover to really force the Tau to spend even more Markerlights.
The root issue with the blood angels thing is we have no data from Martel to work with, we have no examples of complete lists, opponents, games, missions, ideas of how it was played etc.
All we see is "hordes are too hard to deal with and ITC is better because it directly rewards me for killing chaff". If we get some metrics there are plenty of people in this thread, way more qualified than myself, who are happy to help.
Martel732 wrote: "I was able to really see the value of units beyond numbers. The balance you have to strike between having enough teeth, while also making yourself a challenge for your opponent to navigate around upon the board, and also having enough tools tricks and utility on the board, is what you need to leverage the options you have that your opponent doesn't"
This kinda sounds like buzzword soup. Don't all these things boil down to numbers and special rules? So you are really talking about leveraging special rules?
No, obviously not. What is the one thing, the number one thing you complain about on these boards day in and day out?
How would a game go if your opponent took their models and deployed them base-to base in old pre-7th ed deep strike formation, and tried to play the game the same way?
Would you have an easier time than if they deployed their units in straight lines, bases 31mm apart, preventing you from moving through them?
People on this forum spend basically all their time trivializing every single aspect of the game that is not a simple mathmatical comparison of how many models of unit X can weapon Y kill, when pretty much any mission format whether that's ITC or CA2019 scores the majority of its points or all of its points based on units moving to a location and securing an objective.
Damage and Durability numbers tell you basically nothing about how a model actually scores you points and wins you games. A model's capacity to move to an objective, prevent opposing models from moving, and secure objectives over enemy units is how models express the majority of their in-game power, and none of that can be mathhammered.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Take the Contorted Epitome as an example. It's not particularly killy, but the utility it provides is through the roof, both in defending against psychic powers and changing the dynamic around countering melee units. How do you value that?
Also, there's plenty of times when 10 mortal wounds are markedly inferior to better psy weapons. The concept of "wasted" or "effective" wounds has already been discussed earlier in the thread. Maximum damage is not always what wins you games. I'd rather kill a crucial target than do more spread-out damage to the enemy army.
The mathhammer crowd will never not see super-smites as the superior option, because there is no way you can simulate the limitations of smite relative to the psy weapon boost (range, the opponent's capacity to deny, the risk of perils, the other powers you give up to smite, and biggest of all the requirement that the closest enemy unit be targeted cannot be simulated through math.)
The psi weapon boost causes any given GK squad with a single psilencer to deal .666 more damage on average against any target where they gain a wound shift from the str (e.g., an Imperial Knight or a Primaris Marine). The smite boost causes them to deal 1 more damage. On paper, that means you should always take the super-smite. But all I need to attack that knight is to have my squad within 24", and to smite it I need to be 18" away AND it needs to have no screen in the psychic phase (which means I had to kill the screen last turn, I can't shoot them out of the way first).
It also ignores that I can pop psybolt ammo to make my storm bolters also count as psi weapons and deal 2 damage, and I can pop Bring Down the Beast to up my wound rolls from .333 to .55. A 10-man squad with 2 psilencers that drops BDTB and psybolts deals 17 damage to an IK, and Rotate does nothing to stop it.
LOL the capacity to deny, or that you'd be giving up other powers that you're only going to cast one of anyway when the Sanctic table is already bad as is. Psi Weapons are also subject to a LOT more external factors like cover, army abilities, and being more subject to Strats affecting offensive output.
No, a Tide affecting just a few weapons is not on the same level as army wide cover or doubling your Smite output, which you already pay for existing as a Grey Knight.
Yeah so, this kind of absolutist thinking right here. Thanks for providing a solid example.
1) GK currently have 2 psychic disciplines. The new one contains a buff to reroll all hit rolls while within half range, a power that grants a unit JSJ, a power that gives you a command point in an extremely elite army, and a melee-range power that on average rolls deals 5.3MW to an enemy unit. Asserting that you'd always want to give up those new powers as well as Hammerhand, Gate and Sanctuary to smite is just kind of laughable.
2) You do not need to choose between super-smites and super-psi weapons. You can have both in a turn. You can choose to swap at the beginning of the psychic phase (if you want to swap to super-smite) or at the end, if you want to swap away. If you go second, you most likely started in cover for your enemy's turn, swapped to smite for all your powers, then turn 2 started in Smite and swap to Psi Weapons as your last cast just in time for all your deep strikers to have shown up to maximise your offensive power.
GK currently have about 7 psychic powers that are unequivocally good, that you basically always want to try to be using, 4 that are situational, and 1 that's just always bad. Given how elite the army is and how much their huge number of single-unit buffs incentivizes large units, I don't know if you're doing yourself any favors trying to play the army as just smitespam.list
1. All those new powers are only available on Characters, which does not affect the rest of Grey Knights paying to be Psykers in the first place. You therefore have three powers you're using in an army that's already basically about MSU. Somehow I'm just doubting there's gonna be a problem there.
2. Swapping requires you to cast a power in the first place. I'm either keeping Smite, switching to Smite from Cover, or even switching to the rerolling 1s to wound.
Psi Weapon boost would be worth it on occasion if it affected vehicles or Dreadknights or our Incinerators. It does not.
It started with my view on why i like itc better. I know i need to update my collection, but that won't change my preference for formats. I also greatly prefer itc terrain even though it is far from panacea.
Martel732 wrote: "I was able to really see the value of units beyond numbers. The balance you have to strike between having enough teeth, while also making yourself a challenge for your opponent to navigate around upon the board, and also having enough tools tricks and utility on the board, is what you need to leverage the options you have that your opponent doesn't"
This kinda sounds like buzzword soup. Don't all these things boil down to numbers and special rules? So you are really talking about leveraging special rules?
No, obviously not. What is the one thing, the number one thing you complain about on these boards day in and day out?
How would a game go if your opponent took their models and deployed them base-to base in old pre-7th ed deep strike formation, and tried to play the game the same way?
Would you have an easier time than if they deployed their units in straight lines, bases 31mm apart, preventing you from moving through them?
People on this forum spend basically all their time trivializing every single aspect of the game that is not a simple mathmatical comparison of how many models of unit X can weapon Y kill, when pretty much any mission format whether that's ITC or CA2019 scores the majority of its points or all of its points based on units moving to a location and securing an objective.
Damage and Durability numbers tell you basically nothing about how a model actually scores you points and wins you games. A model's capacity to move to an objective, prevent opposing models from moving, and secure objectives over enemy units is how models express the majority of their in-game power, and none of that can be mathhammered.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Take the Contorted Epitome as an example. It's not particularly killy, but the utility it provides is through the roof, both in defending against psychic powers and changing the dynamic around countering melee units. How do you value that?
Also, there's plenty of times when 10 mortal wounds are markedly inferior to better psy weapons. The concept of "wasted" or "effective" wounds has already been discussed earlier in the thread. Maximum damage is not always what wins you games. I'd rather kill a crucial target than do more spread-out damage to the enemy army.
The mathhammer crowd will never not see super-smites as the superior option, because there is no way you can simulate the limitations of smite relative to the psy weapon boost (range, the opponent's capacity to deny, the risk of perils, the other powers you give up to smite, and biggest of all the requirement that the closest enemy unit be targeted cannot be simulated through math.)
The psi weapon boost causes any given GK squad with a single psilencer to deal .666 more damage on average against any target where they gain a wound shift from the str (e.g., an Imperial Knight or a Primaris Marine). The smite boost causes them to deal 1 more damage. On paper, that means you should always take the super-smite. But all I need to attack that knight is to have my squad within 24", and to smite it I need to be 18" away AND it needs to have no screen in the psychic phase (which means I had to kill the screen last turn, I can't shoot them out of the way first).
It also ignores that I can pop psybolt ammo to make my storm bolters also count as psi weapons and deal 2 damage, and I can pop Bring Down the Beast to up my wound rolls from .333 to .55. A 10-man squad with 2 psilencers that drops BDTB and psybolts deals 17 damage to an IK, and Rotate does nothing to stop it.
LOL the capacity to deny, or that you'd be giving up other powers that you're only going to cast one of anyway when the Sanctic table is already bad as is. Psi Weapons are also subject to a LOT more external factors like cover, army abilities, and being more subject to Strats affecting offensive output.
No, a Tide affecting just a few weapons is not on the same level as army wide cover or doubling your Smite output, which you already pay for existing as a Grey Knight.
Yeah so, this kind of absolutist thinking right here. Thanks for providing a solid example.
1) GK currently have 2 psychic disciplines. The new one contains a buff to reroll all hit rolls while within half range, a power that grants a unit JSJ, a power that gives you a command point in an extremely elite army, and a melee-range power that on average rolls deals 5.3MW to an enemy unit. Asserting that you'd always want to give up those new powers as well as Hammerhand, Gate and Sanctuary to smite is just kind of laughable.
2) You do not need to choose between super-smites and super-psi weapons. You can have both in a turn. You can choose to swap at the beginning of the psychic phase (if you want to swap to super-smite) or at the end, if you want to swap away. If you go second, you most likely started in cover for your enemy's turn, swapped to smite for all your powers, then turn 2 started in Smite and swap to Psi Weapons as your last cast just in time for all your deep strikers to have shown up to maximise your offensive power.
GK currently have about 7 psychic powers that are unequivocally good, that you basically always want to try to be using, 4 that are situational, and 1 that's just always bad. Given how elite the army is and how much their huge number of single-unit buffs incentivizes large units, I don't know if you're doing yourself any favors trying to play the army as just smitespam.list
1. All those new powers are only available on Characters, which does not affect the rest of Grey Knights paying to be Psykers in the first place. You therefore have three powers you're using in an army that's already basically about MSU. Somehow I'm just doubting there's gonna be a problem there.
2. Swapping requires you to cast a power in the first place. I'm either keeping Smite, switching to Smite from Cover, or even switching to the rerolling 1s to wound.
Psi Weapon boost would be worth it on occasion if it affected vehicles or Dreadknights or our Incinerators. It does not.
....Or on the occasion that you wanna spend 2CP to get a whole squad with S6 AP-1 D2 RF2 guns. You know, maybe turn 2 in the shooting phase, right after you drop in a large squad, or even turn 1 if you get the first turn and you don't have a huge amount of your army on the board/in range to make multiple smites worth it, but you do have something like a 10-man Interceptor squad ready to shunt and put an alpha strike down.
That's the nice thing about all these rules, they're incredibly adaptable. You can find out you get first turn, start in shadows just to be safe vs a seize, put a 10-man interceptor squad down on the board next to a chaplain, bless them with a litany to give them an extra -1AP on psi weapons, shunt them up the board and give them Psybolts+possibly Bring Down the Beast and have an absolutely bonkers alpha strike for 200pts. But if you go second, that squad can wait in deep strike, you can start in cover, and turn 2 do the exact same thing. You're locked into very little, which is great.
There is actually zero reason to stay in Smite. Basically ever. you get the whole benefit of smite when you either swap to it, or swap away from it.
I'm going to start building around 6X bolter inceptors and 10X SG all within 6" of the FNP banner. I'm hoping this setup gives me the flexibility to handle hordes and elites.
I would build around effects rather than units. "What do I need to accomplish". If you can be very deliberate and detailed about that, literally phase-by-phase (don't skip pre-game prep, deployment, or enemy phases) the units pretty much select themselves. Then check out common meta lists to wargame a few scenarios in your head, dice out key actions for feel and cross-check with mathhammer, and finally trial it out and see how it does.
SG seems like a strange choice to handle hordes. I've only faced them a few times, but they seemed to be anti-elite specialists without much in terms of volume of fire. The Death...guys were the anti-horde ones, having both regular boltguns and chainswords.
SG aren't there to handle hordes. They're what I'm trying to clear through the hordes. I'm done using DC I think, as they just are too expensive for a one-use unit.
the_scotsman wrote: SG seems like a strange choice to handle hordes. I've only faced them a few times, but they seemed to be anti-elite specialists without much in terms of volume of fire. The Death...guys were the anti-horde ones, having both regular boltguns and chainswords.
Well, remember the angelus boltguns and most weilding encarmine swords.
The boltgun is a short range bolt rifle, basically. And with essentially 4A each hordes should go down fast with no armor save on top of being pretty durable models that can take a lot of AP0 swings and not blink. A 10 man can clear 30 GEQ between shooting and melee (with reroll 1s to hit and provided ranges work out)
the_scotsman wrote: SG seems like a strange choice to handle hordes. I've only faced them a few times, but they seemed to be anti-elite specialists without much in terms of volume of fire. The Death...guys were the anti-horde ones, having both regular boltguns and chainswords.
Well, remember the angelus boltguns and most weilding encarmine swords.
The boltgun is a short range bolt rifle, basically. And with essentially 4A each hordes should go down fast with no armor save on top of being pretty durable models that can take a lot of AP0 swings and not blink. A 10 man can clear 30 GEQ between shooting and melee (with reroll 1s to hit and provided ranges work out)
It's really hard to get 30 Geq with a single squad. 12" range is really short.
Tyel wrote: I might have misunderstood Grey Knights, its not my faction, but isn't the clutch play going to be doing both?
Break out the smites, switch over with your last caster, then have 10 stormbolters get the damage output of 2 riptides for a turn (plus psilencers and cannons etc), then switch back at the start of your psyhic phase and drop the smites again.
Its perhaps a bit clunky, but doesn't seem that unrealistic to do.
The weakness of smiting is the range (can be buffed etc, but still.)
The melee tide would seem to be the one where you are left going "this doesn't feel that great?"
It's unreliable in the IGOUGO system. It's better just to stick to either more Smites (which would really affect the Riptide too) or Cover to really force the Tau to spend even more Markerlights.
What the feth does IGOUGO have to do with anything? Between your bizarre attempts to crowbar IGOUGO into every thread and Martel's "I can't kil hordes" comments I'm starting to wonder if the pair of you are just bots regurgitating the same phrases over and over again.
The reason you don't Smite the Riptide has already been pointed out: Smite doesn't work that way, especially when Tau's thing is spamming Drones as screens. I think you're completely missing the point, either wilfully or because of some blinkered approach to the game. Nobody's claiming the double damage Smites aren't great for GK, they absolutely are. What people are disputing is your assertion that there's no reason to use the Psi weapon buffing tide and your absolutist approach to looking at the rules. There are definitely situations where you want to get the extra Psi weapon damage and GK now have the flexibility to do both in one turn anyway, but apparently that doesn't work because of the IGOUGO system for...reasons.
Tyel wrote: I might have misunderstood Grey Knights, its not my faction, but isn't the clutch play going to be doing both?
Break out the smites, switch over with your last caster, then have 10 stormbolters get the damage output of 2 riptides for a turn (plus psilencers and cannons etc), then switch back at the start of your psyhic phase and drop the smites again.
Its perhaps a bit clunky, but doesn't seem that unrealistic to do.
The weakness of smiting is the range (can be buffed etc, but still.)
The melee tide would seem to be the one where you are left going "this doesn't feel that great?"
It's unreliable in the IGOUGO system. It's better just to stick to either more Smites (which would really affect the Riptide too) or Cover to really force the Tau to spend even more Markerlights.
What the feth does IGOUGO have to do with anything? Between your bizarre attempts to crowbar IGOUGO into every thread and Martel's "I can't kil hordes" comments I'm starting to wonder if the pair of you are just bots regurgitating the same phrases over and over again.
The reason you don't Smite the Riptide has already been pointed out: Smite doesn't work that way, especially when Tau's thing is spamming Drones as screens. I think you're completely missing the point, either wilfully or because of some blinkered approach to the game. Nobody's claiming the double damage Smites aren't great for GK, they absolutely are. What people are disputing is your assertion that there's no reason to use the Psi weapon buffing tide and your absolutist approach to looking at the rules. There are definitely situations where you want to get the extra Psi weapon damage and GK now have the flexibility to do both in one turn anyway, but apparently that doesn't work because of the IGOUGO system for...reasons.
To switch it you have to select it as a Psyker power and it goes off on a 90% chance. If you keep switching off like suggested, you're going to eventually fail. Ergo, you'd need backup from another character taking the same Tide changing power. That's a waste of a power slot.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: To switch it you have to select it as a Psyker power and it goes off on a 90% chance. If you keep switching off like suggested, you're going to eventually fail. Ergo, you'd need backup from another character taking the same Tide changing power. That's a waste of a power slot.
Luckily they're not lacking for psykers. I'm not a GK player, but I'm pretty sure I'd have two psykers with that power in a list, it's pretty key.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: To switch it you have to select it as a Psyker power and it goes off on a 90% chance. If you keep switching off like suggested, you're going to eventually fail. Ergo, you'd need backup from another character taking the same Tide changing power. That's a waste of a power slot.
Luckily they're not lacking for psykers. I'm not a GK player, but I'm pretty sure I'd have two psykers with that power in a list, it's pretty key.
They're not lacking for Psykers but they're lacking for Characters, which is a MAJOR difference.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: They're not lacking for Psykers but they're lacking for Characters, which is a MAJOR difference.
Not terribly interested in delving into this argument except to say I disagree. So continue your rant sir.
That's a very convoluted way to say "I forgot the Tide power isn't automatic and i can't just stick it everywhere to ensure success" but okay. You do you, boo.
Tyel wrote: I might have misunderstood Grey Knights, its not my faction, but isn't the clutch play going to be doing both?
Break out the smites, switch over with your last caster, then have 10 stormbolters get the damage output of 2 riptides for a turn (plus psilencers and cannons etc), then switch back at the start of your psyhic phase and drop the smites again.
Its perhaps a bit clunky, but doesn't seem that unrealistic to do. The weakness of smiting is the range (can be buffed etc, but still.)
The melee tide would seem to be the one where you are left going "this doesn't feel that great?"
It's unreliable in the IGOUGO system. It's better just to stick to either more Smites (which would really affect the Riptide too) or Cover to really force the Tau to spend even more Markerlights.
What the feth does IGOUGO have to do with anything? Between your bizarre attempts to crowbar IGOUGO into every thread and Martel's "I can't kil hordes" comments I'm starting to wonder if the pair of you are just bots regurgitating the same phrases over and over again.
The reason you don't Smite the Riptide has already been pointed out: Smite doesn't work that way, especially when Tau's thing is spamming Drones as screens. I think you're completely missing the point, either wilfully or because of some blinkered approach to the game. Nobody's claiming the double damage Smites aren't great for GK, they absolutely are. What people are disputing is your assertion that there's no reason to use the Psi weapon buffing tide and your absolutist approach to looking at the rules. There are definitely situations where you want to get the extra Psi weapon damage and GK now have the flexibility to do both in one turn anyway, but apparently that doesn't work because of the IGOUGO system for...reasons.
To switch it you have to select it as a Psyker power and it goes off on a 90% chance. If you keep switching off like suggested, you're going to eventually fail. Ergo, you'd need backup from another character taking the same Tide changing power. That's a waste of a power slot.
I struggled over the logic in this writing for a while, and realised that's because it's not there. None was included while writing it. Nothing you say makes any sense.
Tyel wrote: I might have misunderstood Grey Knights, its not my faction, but isn't the clutch play going to be doing both?
Break out the smites, switch over with your last caster, then have 10 stormbolters get the damage output of 2 riptides for a turn (plus psilencers and cannons etc), then switch back at the start of your psyhic phase and drop the smites again.
Its perhaps a bit clunky, but doesn't seem that unrealistic to do.
The weakness of smiting is the range (can be buffed etc, but still.)
The melee tide would seem to be the one where you are left going "this doesn't feel that great?"
It's unreliable in the IGOUGO system. It's better just to stick to either more Smites (which would really affect the Riptide too) or Cover to really force the Tau to spend even more Markerlights.
What the feth does IGOUGO have to do with anything? Between your bizarre attempts to crowbar IGOUGO into every thread and Martel's "I can't kil hordes" comments I'm starting to wonder if the pair of you are just bots regurgitating the same phrases over and over again.
The reason you don't Smite the Riptide has already been pointed out: Smite doesn't work that way, especially when Tau's thing is spamming Drones as screens. I think you're completely missing the point, either wilfully or because of some blinkered approach to the game. Nobody's claiming the double damage Smites aren't great for GK, they absolutely are. What people are disputing is your assertion that there's no reason to use the Psi weapon buffing tide and your absolutist approach to looking at the rules. There are definitely situations where you want to get the extra Psi weapon damage and GK now have the flexibility to do both in one turn anyway, but apparently that doesn't work because of the IGOUGO system for...reasons.
To switch it you have to select it as a Psyker power and it goes off on a 90% chance. If you keep switching off like suggested, you're going to eventually fail. Ergo, you'd need backup from another character taking the same Tide changing power. That's a waste of a power slot.
I struggled over the logic in this writing for a while, and realised that's because it's not there. None was included while writing it. Nothing you say makes any sense.
Either argue the point or admit your wrong. I'm not incorrect you have limited characters for casting the power nillywilly like you all are suggesting.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: They're not lacking for Psykers but they're lacking for Characters, which is a MAJOR difference.
Not terribly interested in delving into this argument except to say I disagree. So continue your rant sir.
That's a very convoluted way to say "I forgot the Tide power isn't automatic and i can't just stick it everywhere to ensure success" but okay. You do you, boo.
Considering it has a 1 in 12 chance to fail if you don't bother to have some spare CP then, yes, it might be unreliable once every couple games.
Either argue the point or admit your wrong. I'm not incorrect you have limited characters for casting the power nillywilly like you all are suggesting.
Because you wouldn't be casting it willy-nilly. Your entire argument so far has been how rare the situations are that it gets used. And even if you did it every single turn, a 90% chance is on failure on that every 10 times you do it, equates to one failure every 2 games. And regardless, if you simply did the Smites first, you would be no worse off than if you failed any other spell. This is the equivalent of saying never risk a 4" charge, it's just nutso.
On top of that, you don't even know the rules at play here. You can't use a 'backup character' to save the spell, you can only attempt to manifest a power once per turn. So again, nothing you sense makes any sense whatsoever.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: They're not lacking for Psykers but they're lacking for Characters, which is a MAJOR difference.
Not terribly interested in delving into this argument except to say I disagree. So continue your rant sir.
That's a very convoluted way to say "I forgot the Tide power isn't automatic and i can't just stick it everywhere to ensure success" but okay. You do you, boo.
Not really. I can fully understand his frustration, TBH. GK are not lacking in characters and I expect most GK lists to be built around a dual Battalion. They're also fairly likely to include either an Ancient or an Apothecary, perhaps both. The power casts on a 4+, 3+ under ideal circumstances. Your counterpoint is invalid because it doesn't reflect the reality of how GK lists are likely to be constructed.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: That's a very convoluted way to say "I forgot the Tide power isn't automatic and i can't just stick it everywhere to ensure success" but okay. You do you, boo.
I didn't forget anything about it. I'm just not interested in some binary argument, especially with you, that involves counting, which is clearly something you're not big on doing. So rant on son.
Normally Gk are going to want to change tide at the end of the psychic phase. So I think a libby with +1 to cast relic is going to lead off with the +1 to cast aura and then cast another support power...Your last character will do change tide - if you didn't need to use Command reroll you are probably safe going for a 4 on 2 dice but can always go for the 3d6 stratagem to ensure you can get into shooty tide. We are looking at really low odds of failure her on most spells. Smites are going off on 3's in this setup.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: They're not lacking for Psykers but they're lacking for Characters, which is a MAJOR difference.
Not terribly interested in delving into this argument except to say I disagree. So continue your rant sir.
That's a very convoluted way to say "I forgot the Tide power isn't automatic and i can't just stick it everywhere to ensure success" but okay. You do you, boo.
Oh god, what if I try to switch tides and I get stuck with automatic cover and -1 to hit on a bunch of my stuff.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: They're not lacking for Psykers but they're lacking for Characters, which is a MAJOR difference.
Not terribly interested in delving into this argument except to say I disagree. So continue your rant sir.
That's a very convoluted way to say "I forgot the Tide power isn't automatic and i can't just stick it everywhere to ensure success" but okay. You do you, boo.
Oh god, what if I try to switch tides and I get stuck with automatic cover and -1 to hit on a bunch of my stuff.
What a terrible outcome.
You mean you try to switch and you're stuck with your Infantry Psycannons and Psilencers are slightly better, and suddenly things die at range.
You're the one saying to switch between the two.
Either argue the point or admit your wrong. I'm not incorrect you have limited characters for casting the power nillywilly like you all are suggesting.
Because you wouldn't be casting it willy-nilly. Your entire argument so far has been how rare the situations are that it gets used. And even if you did it every single turn, a 90% chance is on failure on that every 10 times you do it, equates to one failure every 2 games. And regardless, if you simply did the Smites first, you would be no worse off than if you failed any other spell. This is the equivalent of saying never risk a 4" charge, it's just nutso.
On top of that, you don't even know the rules at play here. You can't use a 'backup character' to save the spell, you can only attempt to manifest a power once per turn. So again, nothing you sense makes any sense whatsoever.
The "backup character" is if one character dies. I should've clarified that.
Either argue the point or admit your wrong. I'm not incorrect you have limited characters for casting the power nillywilly like you all are suggesting.
Because you wouldn't be casting it willy-nilly. Your entire argument so far has been how rare the situations are that it gets used. And even if you did it every single turn, a 90% chance is on failure on that every 10 times you do it, equates to one failure every 2 games. And regardless, if you simply did the Smites first, you would be no worse off than if you failed any other spell. This is the equivalent of saying never risk a 4" charge, it's just nutso.
On top of that, you don't even know the rules at play here. You can't use a 'backup character' to save the spell, you can only attempt to manifest a power once per turn. So again, nothing you sense makes any sense whatsoever.
The "backup character" is if one character dies. I should've clarified that.
No, you quite unmistakeably said that the back-up character is for when you fail a power, and that's why you need him. Here:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: To switch it you have to select it as a Psyker power and it goes off on a 90% chance. If you keep switching off like suggested, you're going to eventually fail. Ergo, you'd need backup from another character taking the same Tide changing power. That's a waste of a power slot.
There's no two ways to interpret that. Just admit that you didn't even have a thorough understanding of the base rule, you are 100% not playing at a level where you should be getting involved in this debate about what it takes to properly push your game to the highest level.
Either argue the point or admit your wrong. I'm not incorrect you have limited characters for casting the power nillywilly like you all are suggesting.
Because you wouldn't be casting it willy-nilly. Your entire argument so far has been how rare the situations are that it gets used. And even if you did it every single turn, a 90% chance is on failure on that every 10 times you do it, equates to one failure every 2 games. And regardless, if you simply did the Smites first, you would be no worse off than if you failed any other spell. This is the equivalent of saying never risk a 4" charge, it's just nutso.
On top of that, you don't even know the rules at play here. You can't use a 'backup character' to save the spell, you can only attempt to manifest a power once per turn. So again, nothing you sense makes any sense whatsoever.
The "backup character" is if one character dies. I should've clarified that.
No, you quite unmistakeably said that the back-up character is for when you fail a power, and that's why you need him. Here:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: To switch it you have to select it as a Psyker power and it goes off on a 90% chance. If you keep switching off like suggested, you're going to eventually fail. Ergo, you'd need backup from another character taking the same Tide changing power. That's a waste of a power slot.
There's no two ways to interpret that. Just admit that you didn't even have a thorough understanding of the base rule, you are 100% not playing at a level where you should be getting involved in this debate about what it takes to properly push your game to the highest level.
I had two separate thoughts going on. My point still stands that the particular Tide is pointless.
Your point doesn't still stand, because all your supporting logic has been completely dismantled. I hate to call it logic in the first place, because as I initially said, it made no sense whatsoever, and you've now acknowledged that yourself.
All that's left standing is the empty statement "that Tide is useless", which has been thoroughly disproved.
This is like a textbook example of the low level mentality.
Either argue the point or admit your wrong. I'm not incorrect you have limited characters for casting the power nillywilly like you all are suggesting.
Because you wouldn't be casting it willy-nilly. Your entire argument so far has been how rare the situations are that it gets used. And even if you did it every single turn, a 90% chance is on failure on that every 10 times you do it, equates to one failure every 2 games. And regardless, if you simply did the Smites first, you would be no worse off than if you failed any other spell. This is the equivalent of saying never risk a 4" charge, it's just nutso.
On top of that, you don't even know the rules at play here. You can't use a 'backup character' to save the spell, you can only attempt to manifest a power once per turn. So again, nothing you sense makes any sense whatsoever.
The "backup character" is if one character dies. I should've clarified that.
No, you quite unmistakeably said that the back-up character is for when you fail a power, and that's why you need him. Here:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: To switch it you have to select it as a Psyker power and it goes off on a 90% chance. If you keep switching off like suggested, you're going to eventually fail. Ergo, you'd need backup from another character taking the same Tide changing power. That's a waste of a power slot.
There's no two ways to interpret that. Just admit that you didn't even have a thorough understanding of the base rule, you are 100% not playing at a level where you should be getting involved in this debate about what it takes to properly push your game to the highest level.
I had two separate thoughts going on. My point still stands that the particular Tide is pointless.
But it's been demonstrated that it's not pointless in more than one significant way. It's a Tide that buffs shooting from your equivalent of heavy/special weapons. Nobody's saying that's as good as the extra MW or the cover Tide but it is unequivocally not pointless. This is the problem with arguing absolutes: they're rarely useful and more often than not wrong.
I had two separate thoughts going on. My point still stands that the particular Tide is pointless.
The only argument raised is there's:
-a ~8% chance without CP or ~1% with CP that you fail to swap from Mortals to Guns at the end of your Psychic phase, leaving you in the same state as if you didn't try it.
-a ~8% chance without CP or ~1% with CP that you fail to swap from Guns to Mortals at the start of your Psychic phase, nearly halving (you don't have to swap back out, so not quite halving) your mortals for the round.
The first case means you're only really getting ~99% of the benefit the mathhammer shown above says you'd be getting. The second case says you're losing the bonus mortals ~1% of the time.
A 99% chance of greatly increased priority firepower in exchange for a 1% chance of fewer Mortals on screens seems like a non-pointless tradeoff to me.
And that's before discussing the usefulness of wounds on targets you pick over wounds on mortals. 15 Mortals on Gaunts or Guardsmen is nice, but we're talk of trading those for wounds on your shooting targets. Which are on the hammer units, not the anvils.
The problem is that he hasn't even remotely considered the implication of any of that when he said what he did. It's just 'tide x gud, tide y bad', and that was the end of it. He did an amazing job of demonstrating exactly what we were talking about for people who see things as a complete black and white numbers game, and why that describes literally no top competitor of 40k.
Invulnerable IH leviathan dreads may ruin your casual experience but at the national level they are not a problem.
I am an idiot. I honestly couldn't see hiding an entire army behind a invulnerable dread but it worked so well and consistently that it is a huge issue. The chaplain dreads and the wound passing and the double feel no pains all made the issue worse but the single unkillable IH levi dread absolutely is a problem at the national level...
Nitro Zeus wrote: before this tournament the stats would have said otherwise though.
Just another reason why blindly following stats are dumb. There is a very real human element even at the tippest top of comp play.
If you go look at the Ironhands reveal thread here on dakka. You'd see that this very strategy was theorized and everyone (including me) said it would be broken then. (They even nerfed the Ironstone to on and addition -1 damage but it barely makes a difference.) Plus being a character and the stratagem for intercessors to take hits. They even buffed it by giving chappy dreads Litanies to give the bodyguard unit FNP. A bunch of really smart people said "lets waits and see" now look - 3 months later it wins LVO. LOL. Dakka gets this wrong a lot - just because it doesn't see competitive play doesn't mean it's bad. Everyone knew this Levi combo was broken. Literally. Everyone.
It also takes about 0 skill to play outside of picking secondaries and counting houseruled points in your head. Which really aren't 40k skills at all. They are ITC skills.
Where do I place indestructible levi with 10 man intercessor body guard? Oh I suppose by this building (where intercessors can hide) with the widest area of arch.
Where do I place untargetable chaplains? Oh...behind the levi dread I guess - It does;t really matter cause they can't shoot me anyways.
Where do I place eliminators...Can use as screens or if not necessary just hide them in a building somewhere (even outside my deployment zone).
What about the rest of these marines? Oh I'll hide them too as best can.
This list pretty much runs itself. If you are indestructible it's pretty hard to lose.
Nitro Zeus wrote: before this tournament the stats would have said otherwise though.
Just another reason why blindly following stats are dumb. There is a very real human element even at the tippest top of comp play.
This is why posts that sceam about tournament data and mathshammer frustrate me so much. There are so many other variables to consider beyond the bare bones of numbers.
Nitro Zeus wrote: before this tournament the stats would have said otherwise though.
Just another reason why blindly following stats are dumb. There is a very real human element even at the tippest top of comp play.
This is why posts that sceam about tournament data and mathshammer frustrate me so much. There are so many other variables to consider beyond the bare bones of numbers.
Like what? Ironhands players are winning 70% of their games and only a few are using leviathans...so IH leviathans are balanced?
Heck - There are other OP marines too like IF and RG turn 1 charge-assault cents. It's pretty easy to see when you read the rules that they are over the top.
Nitro Zeus wrote: before this tournament the stats would have said otherwise though.
Just another reason why blindly following stats are dumb. There is a very real human element even at the tippest top of comp play.
If you go look at the Ironhands reveal thread here on dakka. You'd see that this very strategy was theorized and everyone (including me) said it would be broken then.
Yes and you can see the very same people decide it's not very good after the tournament 'stats' said other things were best. And maybe they still are, and something else will come out and top it. This is the folly with following stats blindly. It only shows us what has done well, not what CAN do well in the future.
) I picked up off the side of the road and 
