People love to day that armies like Eldar and Tau are 'cheesy', 'broken' or 'OP' but according to Torrent of Fire Eldar's WR is 55.1% and Tau's is 52.8%.
So here's my question; how is a 50% win rate bad? Surely winning 50% of your games is very balanced so maybe the problem lies with the underperforming armies instead.
50% of games against ALL other races. Yes, people say Tau and Eldar are OP. Although to be fair, Tau have been toned down by the new edition and the Tau hate is a remnant of then.
The reason these are so OP is usually only down to a few core units of special rules, without these they could be considered balanced.
**For the Record** I'm interested in those Dark Eldar results. I know it's a small sample group, but it's still rather cool that they are doing so well and i'd love to see their lists.
If eldar play against each other and one wins and one loses for example, that will count as a 50% win rate. If there are more eldar players than other races on average (which there are), that means those eldar vs eldar games will skew the result closer to the 50% line as there will be more battles where there is a 50% outcome so brings the average closer to 50%. What also exacerbates this fact is that the game will be counted as 2 games for the purpose of the stats equalling 50%.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If there were an equal amount of games per army, the stats would be more reliable.
That graph is a bit limited in data, it's better to refer to their summary of seventh, which you can find on the right of the website (at least top 4) and more if you pay (lol feth you ToF I'm not paying for that).
One very important thing about such statistics is to remember that they cover competitive tournaments in the USA, a meta that has allowed IK and dataslates / formations / etc. for a while now.
That means that it may not be accurate for other metas (probably rather accurate though) and mostly that the players represented are competitive and even likely to be playing FOTM - as evidenced by the number of players in Eldar, Tau, Tyranids which haven't always been that high, and surely aren't outside of the ToF statistics.
Poly Ranger wrote: If eldar play against each other and one wins and one loses for example, that will count as a 50% win rate. If there are more eldar players than other races on average (which there are)
Will you just read the graph before posting things like that ?
Because on that graph, there's 49 Eldar Victories TOTAL. (it's the beginning of 2015) and 82 Tyranid Victories.
Part of it is less about the stats and more about the codex itself. At a tourney level, where everyone takes the absolute best from their codex as many times as possible, things seem to balance out a little. Either through crutch units, unforseen combinations or simply a high-powered book, the playing field is rather level. There are a few exceptions, on both ends, but on the whole, the 'upper limit' of what most books can do isn't radically different.
However, some books have units that stand out as being so good, you don't need to really apply any thought beyond googling 'best X list'. For example, the 'best' Eldar list revolves around Serpents, Wraithknights and maybe Seer Councils, all of whom are somewhat 'point and click' units. To build a SM list on par with that, you need to build a specific combo of imabalanced units (GravCents, Tigurius, maybe some allied ICs), which requires far more thought, tactical thinking and luck than the aforementioned spam Eldar list.
Taking it down to a non-competitive level, where you aren't looking to exploit imbalance to the best of your ability, and the issue goes away somewhat, but for a tournament list, the fact some codexes are far easier to build/play at that level is pretty clear indicator that the imbalance is pretty severe. Eldar may only win just over 50% of their games, but I would hazard a guess those wins were far easier to achieve than those of the opponents that beat them the rest of the time, in terms of building the list and playing it.
Poly Ranger wrote: If eldar play against each other and one wins and one loses for example, that will count as a 50% win rate. If there are more eldar players than other races on average (which there are)
Will you just read the graph before posting things like that ?
Because on that graph, there's 49 Eldar Victories TOTAL. (it's the beginning of 2015) and 82 Tyranid Victories.
I did. Can you read what I posted before you post that?
I'll repeat:
If there are more eldar players than other races ON AVERAGE. I could have used tyranids for my example, I could have used Tau. I didn't. I used Eldar. What's the problem with that? Worried I'm going to mention serpents by any chance?
The problem is eldar have a 60%+ win rate against everything except tau, IK and eldar. The prevalence of those 3 armies keeps any of them from going way above a 55% win rate. ToF has a chart somewhere showing win rate of each race against every other race. Eldar are 50/50 against eldar, tau, necrons and IK. They are 60/40 or better against everyone else.
Toofast wrote: The problem is eldar have a 60%+ win rate against everything except tau, IK and eldar. The prevalence of those 3 armies keeps any of them from going way above a 55% win rate. ToF has a chart somewhere showing win rate of each race against every other race. Eldar are 50/50 against eldar, tau, necrons and IK. They are 60/40 or better against everyone else.
I know in League of Legends (bear with me) when a player has +50% win rate, they move up in rank cause they're good. When a Champion has an overall winrate above 50% (like 52-59%), they usually get nerfed. Any higher and the player is either leagues ahead playing against lowbies, or the champ has a crazy game winning bug. 50% is just about where an army should be, above that i'd say it's a pretty strong army.
Paradigm wrote: Part of it is less about the stats and more about the codex itself. At a tourney level, where everyone takes the absolute best from their codex as many times as possible, things seem to balance out a little. Either through crutch units, unforseen combinations or simply a high-powered book, the playing field is rather level. There are a few exceptions, on both ends, but on the whole, the 'upper limit' of what most books can do isn't radically different.
However, some books have units that stand out as being so good, you don't need to really apply any thought beyond googling 'best X list'. For example, the 'best' Eldar list revolves around Serpents, Wraithknights and maybe Seer Councils, all of whom are somewhat 'point and click' units. To build a SM list on par with that, you need to build a specific combo of imabalanced units (GravCents, Tigurius, maybe some allied ICs), which requires far more thought, tactical thinking and luck than the aforementioned spam Eldar list.
Taking it down to a non-competitive level, where you aren't looking to exploit imbalance to the best of your ability, and the issue goes away somewhat, but for a tournament list, the fact some codexes are far easier to build/play at that level is pretty clear indicator that the imbalance is pretty severe. Eldar may only win just over 50% of their games, but I would hazard a guess those wins were far easier to achieve than those of the opponents that beat them the rest of the time, in terms of building the list and playing it.
The load of bull...
First of all, WS Spam is a lot harder to handle than CenturionStar.
Second, nobody plays a Seer Council in v7 because it's garbage.
Third, your vision of the good player playing SM and the bad one playing Eldar is just ridiculous.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Toofast wrote: The problem is eldar have a 60%+ win rate against everything except tau, IK and eldar. The prevalence of those 3 armies keeps any of them from going way above a 55% win rate. ToF has a chart somewhere showing win rate of each race against every other race. Eldar are 50/50 against eldar, tau, necrons and IK. They are 60/40 or better against everyone else.
You are referring to v6, when Eldar had the BeastStar and the SeerStar for all of eleven months.
In other words, you are not well informed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Deafbeats wrote: I know in League of Legends (bear with me) when a player has +50% win rate, they move up in rank cause they're good. When a Champion has an overall winrate above 50% (like 52-59%), they usually get nerfed. Any higher and the player is either leagues ahead playing against lowbies, or the champ has a crazy game winning bug. 50% is just about where an army should be, above that i'd say it's a pretty strong army.
Then maybe LoL is not a good reference.
Starcraft Brood War would be a much better reference, and in SC:BW, many players had a lot more than 50% win rate.
Because that's how competition is, unless you want to go ahead and call for a nerf on Michael Phelps maybe ?
This is going to be another morgoth rant where he holds his fingers in his ears and sings lalala isn't it? See you in 10 pages guys after we have got the thread back on track after the usual 'serpents are completely balanced' 9 page hijack.
But eldar seem to have a 50% according to this graph only, because they have to face other eldar armies or counters. That doesn't fix the eldar match up for non eldar player in any way.
Poly Ranger wrote: This is going to be another morgoth rant where he holds his fingers in his ears and sings lalala isn't it? See you in 10 pages guys after we have got the thread back on track after the usual 'serpents are completely balanced' 9 page hijack.
If this is going to be another Wave Serpent debacle, feth it, I'm out.
Haha yeah well if you're winning more than you're losing you're good, if you're even then you're average, and if you lose more than you win, then you'd have some learning to do. I mean that's just a general philosophy I apply to games in general.
Quickjager wrote: Didn't Seer Council win a big tourny a couple of months ago?
Oooh i'd like to see that list, I just played it and failed miserably.
Nvm was an old article.
Well, back in those days, it was so powerful that Eldar players would pick it over the BeastStar or Wraith Knights or more Wave Serpents.
When v7 dropped, the Psychic Phase Nerf pretty much made BeastStar the only competitive star, and when the new DE dex dropped, no more stars for the space elves anymore.
Dang, very sad about that. While I didn't play Eldar with the 5th Ed. Codex, I tried the star with last weekend and tied the game by the skin of my teeth.
Deafbeats wrote: Dang, very sad about that. While I didn't play Eldar with the 5th Ed. Codex, I tried the star with last weekend and tied the game by the skin of my teeth.
Yeah if you play it those days you have to master it. And it's a tricky one, being an Assault Deathstar that doesn't have Hit&Run. For a *playable* v7 version, you might wanna try two jetseers + Baharroth. Still nowhere as good as the old one but at least you get grenades, hit&run, ...
Deafbeats wrote: Dang, very sad about that. While I didn't play Eldar with the 5th Ed. Codex, I tried the star with last weekend and tied the game by the skin of my teeth.
Yeah if you play it those days you have to master it. And it's a tricky one, being an Assault Deathstar that doesn't have Hit&Run. For a *playable* v7 version, you might wanna try two jetseers + Baharroth. Still nowhere as good as the old one but at least you get grenades, hit&run, ...
OooOOoh I never thought about Baharroth, I might have to try that this week, thanks!
And according to that graph, BA is a stronger army than C:SM, despite the fact that the army is SM -1.
Surely this isn't a graph people take seriously?
It also doesn't adjust for number of players relative to other factions. The more players of a faction you have, the more wins and losses you'll have. That means factions with high turnout and low turnout have skewed results.
You would need close to identical turnouts, or simply enough in each category, for the graph to have any meaning. It also doesn't account for players who bring suboptimal lists, like a Tau list with no interceptor or a Tyranid list that's spamming genestealers.
Ooh, drop it with that "SM-1".
Do SM have Death Company?
Do they have Heavy Flamer-Tactical Marines?
Do they get +1S/Init. on the charge?
Where are their Furioso's?
Martel732 wrote: C:SM have gravstars. BA do not. I don't think much else needs to be said for the competitive scene. I'd even say that BA are SW -2 as well.
Ooh, drop it with that "SW-2".
Do SM have Death Company?
Do they have Heavy Flamer-Tactical Marines?
Do they get +1S/Init. on the charge?
Where are their Furioso's?
Grey Templar wrote: It also doesn't adjust for number of players relative to other factions. The more players of a faction you have, the more wins and losses you'll have. That means factions with high turnout and low turnout have skewed results.
You would need close to identical turnouts, or simply enough in each category, for the graph to have any meaning. It also doesn't account for players who bring suboptimal lists, like a Tau list with no interceptor or a Tyranid list that's spamming genestealers.
To be honest, if you are bringing a suboptimal list to a tournament... Why? Surely the point in entering a tournament is to win.
Also, Dark Eldar and Grey Knights only had 9 victories but they're really high up so it doesn't skew it that much.
Actually that few victories mean's they are highly susceptible to being skewed.
The difference between 1 win and 1 loss is much larger, meaning that some minor variable could drastically alter the results. Say there was one crucial game where a bunch of saves were made that on average shouldn't have been and that is the tipping point in the game.
You need a large sample size to adjust for outliers like the above.
Zewrath wrote: Surely this isn't a graph people take seriously?
People will take any graph seriously as long as it supports their argument.
They'll also call any army that just beat them "cheesy."
The ToF stats show how armies (read: factions as primary detachments) are doing in the US tournament scene (read: some of the US tournament scene). And that's it. Player skill is not accounted for (e.g., Space Marines are very popular, so could their numbers be pulled down by noobs getting stomped? Don't know, and the stats don't show it) and neither is whether or not the primary detachment is the driver of the list or not (e.g., if you take Khan, two Scout units and 1600 points of Guard, and win all your games, you'll pull up the numbers of SM, even if you basically have a Guard army). ToF is useful if you want to know more about the tournament meta, but not so much for anything else.
You do know that this is Warhammer and there cannot be a large enough sample size to be reliable as it is a niche game. Take Eldar, Tau and Tyranid's wins. They are low numbers but are high due to where the results are coming from.
So you admit you cannot have a large enough sample size, thus your assertion that this is proof that Tau and Eldar aren't OP is false and you admit it as such.
Martel732 wrote: C:SM have gravstars. BA do not. I don't think much else needs to be said for the competitive scene. I'd even say that BA are SW -2 as well.
Ooh, drop it with that "SW-2".
Do SM have Death Company?
Do they have Heavy Flamer-Tactical Marines?
Do they get +1S/Init. on the charge?
Where are their Furioso's?
Does anyone actually fear any of those options? It's just like 5th: spoiling assault the BA, and they fold up like a cheap tent.
Martel732 wrote: C:SM have gravstars. BA do not. I don't think much else needs to be said for the competitive scene. I'd even say that BA are SW -2 as well.
Ooh, drop it with that "SW-2".
Do SM have Death Company?
Do they have Heavy Flamer-Tactical Marines?
Do they get +1S/Init. on the charge?
Where are their Furioso's?
Does anyone actually fear any of those options? It's just like 5th: spoiling assault the BA, and they fold up like a cheap tent.
We'll have to wait for a statistics-update, wouldn't we?
Martel732 wrote: C:SM have gravstars. BA do not. I don't think much else needs to be said for the competitive scene. I'd even say that BA are SW -2 as well.
Ooh, drop it with that "SW-2".
Do SM have Death Company?
Do they have Heavy Flamer-Tactical Marines?
Do they get +1S/Init. on the charge?
Where are their Furioso's?
Does anyone actually fear any of those options? It's just like 5th: spoiling assault the BA, and they fold up like a cheap tent.
Martel732 wrote: C:SM have gravstars. BA do not. I don't think much else needs to be said for the competitive scene. I'd even say that BA are SW -2 as well.
Ooh, drop it with that "SW-2".
Do SM have Death Company?
Do they have Heavy Flamer-Tactical Marines?
Do they get +1S/Init. on the charge?
Where are their Furioso's?
Does anyone actually fear any of those options? It's just like 5th: spoiling assault the BA, and they fold up like a cheap tent.
We'll have to wait for a statistics-update, wouldn't we?
Fair enough, but I can't see why any of the power codices would care about any of that stuff.
So four armies better (IK are just stupid as a stand alone codex... Why can't I play Codex: Warhounds or Codex: Baneblades) and 10 worse. Plus some of those 4 better are a really small sample size....
There are several problems with the dataset here, that others have touched on.
First, sample sizes are low and not uniform. To a degree that can be worked around, but the sample size as a whole isn't exactly huge, and for some of the armies the sample sizes certainly are not anything resembling statistically viable.
On top of that, these are supposedly tournament wins, meaning in theory you're only pairing the best against the best, and not necessarily the full range of any given codex.
Additionally, army diversity is huge but not accurately represented. If you're primarily seeing Eldar vs IK's, well those win rates may be fairly flat, but if you compare Eldar or IK to say, IG or DAs that win rate may be drastically imbalanced.
Finally, if you're including mirror matches, that's also going to flatten out the win/loss rate as both binomial results get counted.
Counterpoint, if you include all casual games, then it flattens even further, because now you have to include "casual" Eldar builds like Saim-Hann and Alaitoc. It is possible to make truly bad Eldar armies for casual play.
OTOH, IK just don't have the problem of crappy "casual" builds.
Your data is usually considered a little more trustworthy if you link the source (http://www.torrentoffire.com/6499/the-meta-meets-2015), rather than just throwing a graph up there. The graph itself is an incomplete picture because:
1) Even the people reporting the data say so. "This will give us a quick snapshot of the current state, but it will be a few months before we can start showing trends again with any significance. As for the current snapshot, it looks a bit like this:"
2) It doesn't include effects of allies, which later on in the article becomes very relevant in the case of Imperial Knights.
3) As other posters have pointed out, it doesn't filter out the results of an army playing itself.
4) The win % isn't weighted by which wins those were...was it over a noob in the first round or the win that won the GT? We don't know. I went to an RTT with a friend once, and both of us won all our games. However, he won the tourney and I was just under the top 25%.
Finally 40K metrics are always going to be difficult to calculate simply because of the combination of army, list, and player skill. Player quality doesn't affect whether or not an army is "OP", that's an objective (if there is such a thing in this game with the stereotypes we have) assessment of the overall potential of an army and it's units. "Cheesy" is a very subjective term that gets thrown around a lot and means absolutely nothing.
Yeah, the OP's data is complete garbage. Tiny sample size, and nothing at all is controlled for. This is just subjectivity with a graph.
And cheese has little to do with win-loss ratios, which are pretty useless in a dice game anyways. Cheese is about how an army does something, not if it's slightly more likely to be successful in doing it.
It looks like you linked the results of a singular tournament or the beginning of 2015, not the statistics for whole of 7th edition, which tell a very different story.
Pyeatt wrote: So... Eldar "All Ranger" army justifies "Eldar All Wraithknight/Wave Serpent Army" because total army win stats average out.
Why wouldn't it? I can field both. Also, Ulthwe-style Seer/Guardian. Though I prefer Aspect-heavy. Plus generic "balanced" Highlander army. And various unbound things. "Eldar" isn't synonymous with WaveWraith - it's a whole Codex with lots of options.
Zewrath wrote: And according to that graph, BA is a stronger army than C:SM, despite the fact that the army is SM -1.
Surely this isn't a graph people take seriously?
That's not how these graphs work entirely. It's saying it has an average win rate higher than the other, depending on the size of the sample will determine the overall accuracy of the graph. The BA data seems to come from a smaller pool. One's like the Tyranids there are more accurate.
greyknight12 wrote:Your data is usually considered a little more trustworthy if you link the source (http://www.torrentoffire.com/6499/the-meta-meets-2015), rather than just throwing a graph up there. The graph itself is an incomplete picture because:
1) Even the people reporting the data say so. "This will give us a quick snapshot of the current state, but it will be a few months before we can start showing trends again with any significance. As for the current snapshot, it looks a bit like this:"
2) It doesn't include effects of allies, which later on in the article becomes very relevant in the case of Imperial Knights.
3) As other posters have pointed out, it doesn't filter out the results of an army playing itself.
4) The win % isn't weighted by which wins those were...was it over a noob in the first round or the win that won the GT? We don't know. I went to an RTT with a friend once, and both of us won all our games. However, he won the tourney and I was just under the top 25%.
Finally 40K metrics are always going to be difficult to calculate simply because of the combination of army, list, and player skill. Player quality doesn't affect whether or not an army is "OP", that's an objective (if there is such a thing in this game with the stereotypes we have) assessment of the overall potential of an army and it's units. "Cheesy" is a very subjective term that gets thrown around a lot and means absolutely nothing.
If you bothered to read the entire thread you would have noticed that I did actually provide a link to the source... So nice try.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
RunicFIN wrote: It looks like you linked the results of a singular tournament or the beginning of 2015, not the statistics for whole of 7th edition, which tell a very different story.
Nice try though.
Up-to-date stats mean that newly updated armies are more likely to be represented whilst with generic 7th stats they will not be represented.
I think the issue with the graph here is the sample size. The armies closer to 50% also happen to have a massive amount of games to draw from so the win rate normalizes around 50% with an even-ish win/record. While the armies on each end of the graph have a very low sample size which skews the percentage more.
Basically the sample size is too low on most of the armies to accurately claim how viable they are. If for example I only had 1 game with Dark Angels for a sample size it was 1 win then I'd have a 100% win record which is not accurate to how competitive they are. This is the issue the data for the a lot of the armies have. The armies with massive sample size (Tau, Eldar, Nids) have a large enough data pool to account for that inaccuracy but because they are so popular also have a lot of matches amongst themselves so come with a win and a loss for the data make they win ratio zero-sum which is they normalize around 50%.
4) The win % isn't weighted by which wins those were...was it over a noob in the first round or the win that won the GT? We don't know. I went to an RTT with a friend once, and both of us won all our games. However, he won the tourney and I was just under the top 25%.
Finally 40K metrics are always going to be difficult to calculate simply because of the combination of army, list, and player skill. Player quality doesn't affect whether or not an army is "OP", that's an objective (if there is such a thing in this game with the stereotypes we have) assessment of the overall potential of an army and it's units. "Cheesy" is a very subjective term that gets thrown around a lot and means absolutely nothing.
So how would you qualify this fact:
In Starcraft II, mines used to be a low skill very powerful tool that would severely affect the balance of games from copper to diamond and only end up balanced in Masters / GrandMasters league.
In 40K, which at most has leagues up to maybe gold because nobody plays it and nobody has several thousand games in the same revision of the game and isn't that competitive, most things will totally depend on player skill.
An army cannot be objectively OP, what happens is that specific builds from specific sources handled in a specific way come out on top.
You have many people still whining about the old SeerStar and BeastStar, or WS Spam who truly believe those things are so easy to handle anyone could do it.
And the fact of the matter is that most 40K players cannot handle any of these builds well enough to make them truly strong.
There is no objective assessment of the overall potential of an army and its units, because power level is a matter of context: what is out there, what's the current shift in the meta, what unexpected list could break your combo, how likely is it that you will have to face your nemesis, what's the latest discovery and so on.
I play aspects of 40K that I've seen some of the best US players ignore completely and that tells me there are a lot of undiscovered things out there and always room for a new meta-breaking build which will completely change your vision of what's overpowered - if you're watching.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
RunicFIN wrote: It looks like you linked the results of a singular tournament or the beginning of 2015, not the statistics for whole of 7th edition, which tell a very different story.
Nice try though.
This has been pointed out several times already, and the statistics for the whole of 7th edition start like this:
IK: 62%
Eldar: 56%
Tau: 54%
Necron: 52%
So basically, the discussion is still on even if Pozy picked the wrong data to start it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CrownAxe wrote: The armies with massive sample size (Tau, Eldar, Nids) have a large enough data pool to account for that inaccuracy but because they are so popular also have a lot of matches amongst themselves so come with a win and a loss for the data make they win ratio zero-sum which is they normalize around 50%.
That is not correct and here's why.
Let's assume that you have a total population of say 200, with 60 Eldar, 60 Tau and 80 Nids.
Any single Eldar player would be playing 59 Eldar, 60 Tau and 80 Nids.
Any single Tau player would be playing 60 Eldar, 59 Tau and 80 Nids.
And so on.
For an Eldar, that would give you (50% WR * 59 + (vsTau)% WR *60 + (vsNids)% WR*80)/200, or in other words one third 50% and two thirds actual win rates.
When you take real numbers into account, Eldar on Eldar games represent even less (more like a fifth at most) and will thus have little effect on the overall average.
Morgoth that is not accurate because Eldar, Nids, and Tau are not the only armies in the data. Even with their massive presence in the sampling thay are only 45% of the entire batch of data.
The point i was making is that the chance of those armies facing them selves is much high then any of the armies on the ends of pozy's graph.
Pyeatt wrote: So... Eldar "All Ranger" army justifies "Eldar All Wraithknight/Wave Serpent Army" because total army win stats average out.
Why wouldn't it? I can field both. Also, Ulthwe-style Seer/Guardian. Though I prefer Aspect-heavy. Plus generic "balanced" Highlander army. And various unbound things. "Eldar" isn't synonymous with WaveWraith - it's a whole Codex with lots of options.
Yeah, it is synonymous with WaveWraithSpiders because that's what people use in practice.
Pyeatt wrote: So... Eldar "All Ranger" army justifies "Eldar All Wraithknight/Wave Serpent Army" because total army win stats average out.
Why wouldn't it? I can field both. Also, Ulthwe-style Seer/Guardian. Though I prefer Aspect-heavy. Plus generic "balanced" Highlander army. And various unbound things. "Eldar" isn't synonymous with WaveWraith - it's a whole Codex with lots of options.
Yeah, it is synonymous with WaveWraithSpiders because that's what people use in practice.
Yeah, because everybody only uses the best units in their codex and every local meta is just like the overall competitive meta, and the statistics that say that Eldar win 56% of the time are thus perfectly descriptive of your local meta, meaning that anyone whining about Eldar and Playing Tau is whining for a 2% WR difference, and Necrons 4%.
Or maybe not.
Maybe most whiners have a good reason to whine, that they were roflstomped by a much better army list than theirs, because they don't actually play those competitive army lists, and that has nothing to do with a codex in particular.
Grey Templar wrote: I have to seriously question the validity of the data used in this graph.
Imperial Knights have a 70% win ratio? Daemons, Knights, and Dark Eldar being the top 3?
In my experience, very few people play deamons and de and those that do tend to be some of the best people at the game. right now imperial knights is probably just do to people have no idea how to counter them yet. Or just don't build armies capable of countering them because they are so rare.
Makumba wrote: Are you seriously claiming that the number of WS spam lists is lower then let say those eldar armies made out bad units?
If we were to be able to see every Eldar list made and played since the new codex, then I would hazard a guess that is indeed the case; experience and various polls/threads online suggest to me that most players worldwide are closer to the casual than competitive end of the spectrum, and as such are likely to run a wider range of lists. However, at a tournament level, the point being discussed, then you are right in suggesting WS Spam is probably the most common, as it's widely accepted as the most powerful build in the book.
This misses the point, though. It's not whether or not a codex is most often played as it's most powerful, the issue with balance is that the potential for that list to exist is there. If one book can produce a list that stands head and shoulders over the 'best' of most other books, then that book clearly has an issue in its balance, whether that list is played by 1% of the book's players or 100%
Makumba wrote: Are you seriously claiming that the number of WS spam lists is lower then let say those eldar armies made out bad units?
If we were to be able to see every Eldar list made and played since the new codex, then I would hazard a guess that is indeed the case; experience and various polls/threads online suggest to me that most players worldwide are closer to the casual than competitive end of the spectrum, and as such are likely to run a wider range of lists. However, at a tournament level, the point being discussed, then you are right in suggesting WS Spam is probably the most common, as it's widely accepted as the most powerful build in the book.
This misses the point, though. It's not whether or not a codex is most often played as it's most powerful, the issue with balance is that the potential for that list to exist is there. If one book can produce a list that stands head and shoulders over the 'best' of most other books, then that book clearly has an issue in its balance.
Just to add to what you are saying, I think the problem with Eldar, when compared to another strong Codex like Newcrons or Tau, is what units are overpowered.
Tau have the riptide, a non-essential unit. It's just one option in the book, and Tau players don't have to take it. You can argue it's not fluffy as well.
Necrons have wraiths. A non-essential unit, you certainly don't have to take it. There are a lot of strong options in the codex.
Eldar have their dedicated transport. It's extremely fluffy to take it, and they really should include at least one. It's hard to picture an eldar army that doesn't include at least one of these.
The same is true for most of the really strong units in other dexes. They usually aren't the most fluffy option (Heldrake is a good example when it released), and they often aren't the ONLY choice.
For Eldar this is not the case.
Grey Templar wrote: I have to seriously question the validity of the data used in this graph.
Imperial Knights have a 70% win ratio? Daemons, Knights, and Dark Eldar being the top 3?
In my experience, very few people play deamons and de and those that do tend to be some of the best people at the game. right now imperial knights is probably just do to people have no idea how to counter them yet. Or just don't build armies capable of countering them because they are so rare.
Daemons ? there's a ton of FOTM Daemons out there. How many editions ago are you ?
Makumba wrote: Are you seriously claiming that the number of WS spam lists is lower then let say those eldar armies made out bad units?
If we were to be able to see every Eldar list made and played since the new codex, then I would hazard a guess that is indeed the case; experience and various polls/threads online suggest to me that most players worldwide are closer to the casual than competitive end of the spectrum, and as such are likely to run a wider range of lists. However, at a tournament level, the point being discussed, then you are right in suggesting WS Spam is probably the most common, as it's widely accepted as the most powerful build in the book.
This misses the point, though. It's not whether or not a codex is most often played as it's most powerful, the issue with balance is that the potential for that list to exist is there. If one book can produce a list that stands head and shoulders over the 'best' of most other books, then that book clearly has an issue in its balance.
Just to add to what you are saying, I think the problem with Eldar, when compared to another strong Codex like Newcrons or Tau, is what units are overpowered.
Tau have the riptide, a non-essential unit. It's just one option in the book, and Tau players don't have to take it. You can argue it's not fluffy as well.
Necrons have wraiths. A non-essential unit, you certainly don't have to take it. There are a lot of strong options in the codex.
Eldar have their dedicated transport. It's extremely fluffy to take it, and they really should include at least one. It's hard to picture an eldar army that doesn't include at least one of these.
The same is true for most of the really strong units in other dexes. They usually aren't the most fluffy option (Heldrake is a good example when it released), and they often aren't the ONLY choice.
For Eldar this is not the case.
Except that Riptides are somewhat outdated, I also think WS Spam will always be my build of choice (looks, playstyle and fluff), it was the case in v4, v5 and v7 and I'm rather happy with the current state of affairs, where it's competitive for once but still a fair match up for the other very competitive builds.
Just to put my two cents in, I'd consider myself not a great player, but I've been practicing Eldar for a bit now. It's not impossible to play without Wave Serpents, but at the same time I need to get my boys from A to B, and hoofing it (even with Battle focus) doesn't really cut it. I kinda wish we had another transport to be honest cause I don't want to lose the Wave Serpent fire power, but I also don't want to pay a ton if the Serpent gets a points increase just to hussle guys.
Grey Templar wrote: I have to seriously question the validity of the data used in this graph.
Imperial Knights have a 70% win ratio? Daemons, Knights, and Dark Eldar being the top 3?
In my experience, very few people play deamons and de and those that do tend to be some of the best people at the game. right now imperial knights is probably just do to people have no idea how to counter them yet. Or just don't build armies capable of countering them because they are so rare.
Daemons ? there's a ton of FOTM Daemons out there. How many editions ago are you ?
Makumba wrote: Are you seriously claiming that the number of WS spam lists is lower then let say those eldar armies made out bad units?
If we were to be able to see every Eldar list made and played since the new codex, then I would hazard a guess that is indeed the case; experience and various polls/threads online suggest to me that most players worldwide are closer to the casual than competitive end of the spectrum, and as such are likely to run a wider range of lists. However, at a tournament level, the point being discussed, then you are right in suggesting WS Spam is probably the most common, as it's widely accepted as the most powerful build in the book.
This misses the point, though. It's not whether or not a codex is most often played as it's most powerful, the issue with balance is that the potential for that list to exist is there. If one book can produce a list that stands head and shoulders over the 'best' of most other books, then that book clearly has an issue in its balance.
Just to add to what you are saying, I think the problem with Eldar, when compared to another strong Codex like Newcrons or Tau, is what units are overpowered.
Tau have the riptide, a non-essential unit. It's just one option in the book, and Tau players don't have to take it. You can argue it's not fluffy as well.
Necrons have wraiths. A non-essential unit, you certainly don't have to take it. There are a lot of strong options in the codex.
Eldar have their dedicated transport. It's extremely fluffy to take it, and they really should include at least one. It's hard to picture an eldar army that doesn't include at least one of these.
The same is true for most of the really strong units in other dexes. They usually aren't the most fluffy option (Heldrake is a good example when it released), and they often aren't the ONLY choice.
For Eldar this is not the case.
Except that Riptides are somewhat outdated, I also think WS Spam will always be my build of choice (looks, playstyle and fluff), it was the case in v4, v5 and v7 and I'm rather happy with the current state of affairs, where it's competitive for once but still a fair match up for the other very competitive builds.
In what way are Riptides outdated? Their upgrade is still too cheap, and they are a pretty safe choice for removing infantry of all kinds.
Granted, they suffer against knights and fliers, but knights are not really popular. With the nerf of the heldrakes, most fliers aren't OP unless their FMC's, which tau handle very well compared to most armies.
Deafbeats, when I say it's hard to imagine playing without waveserpents, I mean because the eldar fluff suggests they'd risk a tank over troops anyday. They seem like an army that wants and uses transports, yet theirs is considered to be quite overpowered.
Nothing about necrons suggests they'd use wraiths all day every day, for example.
You'd have a hard time selling a grav-star as the most fluffy of builds for Marines as well.
Deafbeats wrote: Just to put my two cents in, I'd consider myself not a great player, but I've been practicing Eldar for a bit now. It's not impossible to play without Wave Serpents, but at the same time I need to get my boys from A to B, and hoofing it (even with Battle focus) doesn't really cut it. I kinda wish we had another transport to be honest cause I don't want to lose the Wave Serpent fire power, but I also don't want to pay a ton if the Serpent gets a points increase just to hussle guys.
Just don't take a Scatter Laser, it makes the Wave Serpent perfectly balanced.
In what way are Riptides outdated? Their upgrade is still too cheap, and they are a pretty safe choice for removing infantry of all kinds.
Granted, they suffer against knights and fliers, but knights are not really popular. With the nerf of the heldrakes, most fliers aren't OP unless their FMC's, which tau handle very well compared to most armies.
Deafbeats, when I say it's hard to imagine playing without waveserpents, I mean because the eldar fluff suggests they'd risk a tank over troops anyday. They seem like an army that wants and uses transports, yet theirs is considered to be quite overpowered.
Nothing about necrons suggests they'd use wraiths all day every day, for example.
You'd have a hard time selling a grav-star as the most fluffy of builds for Marines as well.
That's all I meant.
Go ask tournament players, they'll all tell you that Riptides are not where Tau is at anymore.
And yeah, Eldar are meant to be Mech in my opinion.
Deafbeats wrote: Just to put my two cents in, I'd consider myself not a great player, but I've been practicing Eldar for a bit now. It's not impossible to play without Wave Serpents, but at the same time I need to get my boys from A to B, and hoofing it (even with Battle focus) doesn't really cut it. I kinda wish we had another transport to be honest cause I don't want to lose the Wave Serpent fire power, but I also don't want to pay a ton if the Serpent gets a points increase just to hussle guys.
Just don't take a Scatter Laser, it makes the Wave Serpent perfectly balanced.
In what way are Riptides outdated? Their upgrade is still too cheap, and they are a pretty safe choice for removing infantry of all kinds.
Granted, they suffer against knights and fliers, but knights are not really popular. With the nerf of the heldrakes, most fliers aren't OP unless their FMC's, which tau handle very well compared to most armies.
Deafbeats, when I say it's hard to imagine playing without waveserpents, I mean because the eldar fluff suggests they'd risk a tank over troops anyday. They seem like an army that wants and uses transports, yet theirs is considered to be quite overpowered.
Nothing about necrons suggests they'd use wraiths all day every day, for example.
You'd have a hard time selling a grav-star as the most fluffy of builds for Marines as well.
That's all I meant.
Go ask tournament players, they'll all tell you that Riptides are not where Tau is at anymore.
And yeah, Eldar are meant to be Mech in my opinion.
That's an appeal to authority, which is a fallacy.
The 2 tournament players I know don't play Tau and never have. They play Eldar.
Could you give reasons why Riptides are not good anymore?
Has something changed to make them weaker? I suppose wraiths being T5 means they can not be ID'ed anymore by a Riptide, which is certainly a blow to the strength there, but necrons are extremely new and I doubt that is what you were talking about.
If by tournament player you mean local tournaments, then in 2014 I qualify, and I feel Riptides are where Tau is at. That, and pathfinders are probably the best units they have (please note I don't count HQ as units, even though they are clearly such. This comes from other wargames I play).
But I like suits. Even stealth suits, which I don't feel are very good. I never liked Kroot, even when they were a good choice.
EDIT: Agree that Eldar are meant to be meched. Most of the Eldar players I know don't play their armies anymore.
We used to have a large collection of Eldar players too.
Deafbeats wrote: Just to put my two cents in, I'd consider myself not a great player, but I've been practicing Eldar for a bit now. It's not impossible to play without Wave Serpents, but at the same time I need to get my boys from A to B, and hoofing it (even with Battle focus) doesn't really cut it. I kinda wish we had another transport to be honest cause I don't want to lose the Wave Serpent fire power, but I also don't want to pay a ton if the Serpent gets a points increase just to hussle guys.
Just don't take a Scatter Laser, it makes the Wave Serpent perfectly balanced.
In what way are Riptides outdated? Their upgrade is still too cheap, and they are a pretty safe choice for removing infantry of all kinds.
Granted, they suffer against knights and fliers, but knights are not really popular. With the nerf of the heldrakes, most fliers aren't OP unless their FMC's, which tau handle very well compared to most armies.
Deafbeats, when I say it's hard to imagine playing without waveserpents, I mean because the eldar fluff suggests they'd risk a tank over troops anyday. They seem like an army that wants and uses transports, yet theirs is considered to be quite overpowered.
Nothing about necrons suggests they'd use wraiths all day every day, for example.
You'd have a hard time selling a grav-star as the most fluffy of builds for Marines as well.
That's all I meant.
Go ask tournament players, they'll all tell you that Riptides are not where Tau is at anymore.
And yeah, Eldar are meant to be Mech in my opinion.
That's an appeal to authority, which is a fallacy.
The 2 tournament players I know don't play Tau and never have. They play Eldar.
Could you give reasons why Riptides are not good anymore?
Has something changed to make them weaker? I suppose wraiths being T5 means they can not be ID'ed anymore by a Riptide, which is certainly a blow to the strength there, but necrons are extremely new and I doubt that is what you were talking about.
If by tournament player you mean local tournaments, then in 2014 I qualify, and I feel Riptides are where Tau is at. That, and pathfinders are probably the best units they have (please note I don't count HQ as units, even though they are clearly such. This comes from other wargames I play).
But I like suits. Even stealth suits, which I don't feel are very good. I never liked Kroot, even when they were a good choice.
EDIT: Agree that Eldar are meant to be meched. Most of the Eldar players I know don't play their armies anymore.
We used to have a large collection of Eldar players too.
Well I know many high level tournament players (not just local tournaments) who say that Tau is not about Riptides anymore.
Apparently the hot deal right now is missile sides or Crisis Spam.
I think this is mostly because the meta has adapted to Riptides a while ago already.
They're still very good of course, just not necessarily the best choice for a Tau player looking to spend those points.
It probably has something to do with the GravStar and other hard counters to T6Sv2+ models, which tend to be really hard countered, which is bad when taken in numbers.
615-720 points of your army in just one type of unit that has quite a few hard counters is just too much of a risk .
Deafbeats wrote: Just to put my two cents in, I'd consider myself not a great player, but I've been practicing Eldar for a bit now. It's not impossible to play without Wave Serpents, but at the same time I need to get my boys from A to B, and hoofing it (even with Battle focus) doesn't really cut it. I kinda wish we had another transport to be honest cause I don't want to lose the Wave Serpent fire power, but I also don't want to pay a ton if the Serpent gets a points increase just to hussle guys.
Just don't take a Scatter Laser, it makes the Wave Serpent perfectly balanced.
In what way are Riptides outdated? Their upgrade is still too cheap, and they are a pretty safe choice for removing infantry of all kinds.
Granted, they suffer against knights and fliers, but knights are not really popular. With the nerf of the heldrakes, most fliers aren't OP unless their FMC's, which tau handle very well compared to most armies.
Deafbeats, when I say it's hard to imagine playing without waveserpents, I mean because the eldar fluff suggests they'd risk a tank over troops anyday. They seem like an army that wants and uses transports, yet theirs is considered to be quite overpowered.
Nothing about necrons suggests they'd use wraiths all day every day, for example.
You'd have a hard time selling a grav-star as the most fluffy of builds for Marines as well.
That's all I meant.
Go ask tournament players, they'll all tell you that Riptides are not where Tau is at anymore.
And yeah, Eldar are meant to be Mech in my opinion.
That's an appeal to authority, which is a fallacy.
The 2 tournament players I know don't play Tau and never have. They play Eldar.
Could you give reasons why Riptides are not good anymore?
Has something changed to make them weaker? I suppose wraiths being T5 means they can not be ID'ed anymore by a Riptide, which is certainly a blow to the strength there, but necrons are extremely new and I doubt that is what you were talking about.
If by tournament player you mean local tournaments, then in 2014 I qualify, and I feel Riptides are where Tau is at. That, and pathfinders are probably the best units they have (please note I don't count HQ as units, even though they are clearly such. This comes from other wargames I play).
But I like suits. Even stealth suits, which I don't feel are very good. I never liked Kroot, even when they were a good choice.
EDIT: Agree that Eldar are meant to be meched. Most of the Eldar players I know don't play their armies anymore.
We used to have a large collection of Eldar players too.
Well I know many high level tournament players (not just local tournaments) who say that Tau is not about Riptides anymore.
Apparently the hot deal right now is missile sides or Crisis Spam.
I think this is mostly because the meta has adapted to Riptides a while ago already.
They're still very good of course, just not necessarily the best choice for a Tau player looking to spend those points.
It probably has something to do with the GravStar and other hard counters to T6Sv2+ models, which tend to be really hard countered, which is bad when taken in numbers.
615-720 points of your army in just one type of unit that has quite a few hard counters is just too much of a risk .
Thank you for posting reasons. The two players I know have gone to GT's, I never have. The only tournaments I ever traveled for where smash bros, and that was a long long time ago, when I was an undergrad. But this is all appeals to authority, which I am loathe to reach for given my profession.
I am not sure about the meta. To be honest, it doesn't seem like GW has a meta like WMH does, because the tournaments aren't taken as seriously here (compared to 5th edition). I can't tell you the top 8 lists in the last major tournaments, meanwhile I do know the top 8 for the last major warmachine tournament. I didn't look either up, the latter just comes up a lot more on their forums. Usually the winners post on the forums quite frequently and discuss their lists in detail and provide battle reports.
I wouldn't call grav star a hard counter to a riptide. The riptide out ranges it by quite a bit, and can put some wounds on it. The rest of the tau army is also very effective at putting wounds in the grav star (better than any other army in the game, especially with Tiggy included). The riptide also has a nice invul save and FnP, so it is unlikely to get one rounded by the grav star.
Missile sides and crisis suits are great units. Very good for the points, though crisis suits aren't what they used to be last edition. Which is a good thing.
EDIT
Throwing a lot of points in one unit type has always been what competitive 40k is about. Beast stars, FMC spam, Starcannon Spam, Rhino Rush, The Flying Bakery...they all rely on the premise of skewing hard in a way that makes most of the enemy's list unable to deal with it, and just walking over the opponent. What the unit type is changes from edition to edition, but that has always been a staple of the better builds.
Even grav star is basically taking one giant unit, from 2 types, and mashing them together to create an insane unit that doesn't die.
Dont forget that many of the berst generals dont gravitate to the Sisters of Battle for example. That says nothing about the Sisters of Battle and everything about those generals. Same thing with Eldar
So if the best generals began to play Sisters of Battle a lot, you'd see that number rise sharply. My most feared army over time has BEEN my Sisters of Battle, despite the success i have had with Tau. most people know me as a "Tau guy" but ask them which of my armies they DONT want to face when they are paying money to face it and they will say Sisters of Battle.
So I think this chart has two problems: it doesn't tell you about ties, which are affecting this possibly. it also doesn't show who played those armies.
Tony Kopachs lists until he took up Eldar were not necessarily what I'd call world beaters on their own, just plain old reliable. Especially his Space Wolves. But he wins with skill (and a little luck never hurts).
Give him a good Sisters of Battle Army and I am quite confident these numbers would change. That or he's not as good as his record makes him look. =)
Ahh I see what you mean there Akiasura, totally agree.
Also I think i'm gonna try a game without Scatter Lasers too and see how that goes. I do like the weight of fire that the Lasers have so i'll have to try Shuriken Cannons or Star Cannons.
This whole thread raises the question of how much of a 40k win can be attributed to:
- player skill,
- listbuilding skill,
- Codex selection, and
- dice luck.
And if you assume a high level of player skill and/or listbuilding skill, to what extent does Codex selection matter?
My sense is that player skill has dropped dramatically from 40k3/4 down to 40k6/7, while luck and listbuilding has gone up. But I'm not at all convinced that a "pro" with Sisters or Orks regularly loses to a n00b with Knights.
JohnHwangDD wrote: This whole thread raises the question of how much of a 40k win can be attributed to:
- player skill,
- listbuilding skill,
- Codex selection, and
- dice luck.
And if you assume a high level of player skill and/or listbuilding skill, to what extent does Codex selection matter?
My sense is that player skill has dropped dramatically from 40k3/4 down to 40k6/7, while luck and listbuilding has gone up. But I'm not at all convinced that a "pro" with Sisters or Orks regularly loses to a n00b with Knights.
People can only speak to their own experience where they play and then look to data like this (and it is suspect data since it lacks a lot of qualifiers you'd really want to analyze it). All we see for sure is that people chose to use certain armies more often that happened to win.
Through a preponderance of the evidence we generally accept that there probably IS a pecking order for the codex in terms of HOW easy it is to create a list good enough to compete. Or to put it another way, we recognize that certain codex's require lesss list building acumen. That does not tell us that the players could not compensate with greater list building acumen if they chose. So that little statement right there is important bcause if we have no way to know for sure that ANOTHER build wouldn't work EQUALLY well, then we're really missing a big chunk of the picture.
List building aside the General himself matters and so does his ego. Ask yourself an honest question. If you were generally respected as very good and there was pressure on you to perform, so to speak, to maintain that reputation, would you chance things by taking a less common build that ISN'T known to win? Maybe. But the odds on human behavior say no. That's like asking the rich if they would stop doing accepted best business practices and bartr their companies future on a more creative mode of operating. some do but very few.
So the excellent General progressively grows less and less interested in creativity and more and more into absolute certainty. He simply knows the weapon will perform through analytics JUST LIKE THIS chart. He intuitively knows it WILL work for him and he never has to answer hard questions about his choices if he fails (see the Seahawks for details on why someone might not EVER throw on second and goal with 20 seconds to go evr again). that in't to say they will never score like that. Just that they wont bet on it probably ever again.
So then there are the outlyers. A GREAT example of this was that awesome Deathleaper list that went berzerk and won it all. WHAT a great list for SO many reasons and it was from WAY in left field. Sometimes the road less traveled in the hands of excellent generals is EXACTLY what you need to win. But analytics like this won't ever show you what the best generals could do with the road less travelled because, simply put, they themselves wont put themselves out there like that.
Imperial Knights are extremely brutal in the hands of a competent opponent, and if you go to a lot of tournaments then, yes, they are more of a problem than Wave Serpents or Invisible deathstars. In fact, it's pretty likely that the relative dominance of IK's is artificially suppressing the win rates for Tau and Eldar. That said, IKs don't actually win a lot of tournaments, because they have a few bad matchups. They'll curbstomp most of their opponents, but in that one game where the other guy has a drop pod melta army, they fall apart.
Paradigm wrote: Part of it is less about the stats and more about the codex itself. At a tourney level, where everyone takes the absolute best from their codex as many times as possible, things seem to balance out a little. Either through crutch units, unforseen combinations or simply a high-powered book, the playing field is rather level. There are a few exceptions, on both ends, but on the whole, the 'upper limit' of what most books can do isn't radically different.
However, some books have units that stand out as being so good, you don't need to really apply any thought beyond googling 'best X list'. For example, the 'best' Eldar list revolves around Serpents, Wraithknights and maybe Seer Councils, all of whom are somewhat 'point and click' units. To build a SM list on par with that, you need to build a specific combo of imabalanced units (GravCents, Tigurius, maybe some allied ICs), which requires far more thought, tactical thinking and luck than the aforementioned spam Eldar list.
Taking it down to a non-competitive level, where you aren't looking to exploit imbalance to the best of your ability, and the issue goes away somewhat, but for a tournament list, the fact some codexes are far easier to build/play at that level is pretty clear indicator that the imbalance is pretty severe. Eldar may only win just over 50% of their games, but I would hazard a guess those wins were far easier to achieve than those of the opponents that beat them the rest of the time, in terms of building the list and playing it.
The load of bull...
First of all, WS Spam is a lot harder to handle than CenturionStar.
Second, nobody plays a Seer Council in v7 because it's garbage.
Third, your vision of the good player playing SM and the bad one playing Eldar is just ridiculous.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Toofast wrote: The problem is eldar have a 60%+ win rate against everything except tau, IK and eldar. The prevalence of those 3 armies keeps any of them from going way above a 55% win rate. ToF has a chart somewhere showing win rate of each race against every other race. Eldar are 50/50 against eldar, tau, necrons and IK. They are 60/40 or better against everyone else.
You are referring to v6, when Eldar had the BeastStar and the SeerStar for all of eleven months.
In other words, you are not well informed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Deafbeats wrote: I know in League of Legends (bear with me) when a player has +50% win rate, they move up in rank cause they're good. When a Champion has an overall winrate above 50% (like 52-59%), they usually get nerfed. Any higher and the player is either leagues ahead playing against lowbies, or the champ has a crazy game winning bug. 50% is just about where an army should be, above that i'd say it's a pretty strong army.
Then maybe LoL is not a good reference.
Starcraft Brood War would be a much better reference, and in SC:BW, many players had a lot more than 50% win rate.
Because that's how competition is, unless you want to go ahead and call for a nerf on Michael Phelps maybe ?
That chart is from 7th edition tournaments only. Maybe you're not so well informed. I have looked at most of those lists, they aren't beast or seer star. Mostly serpent spam with WK support.
Deafbeats wrote: I know in League of Legends (bear with me) when a player has +50% win rate, they move up in rank cause they're good. When a Champion has an overall winrate above 50% (like 52-59%), they usually get nerfed. Any higher and the player is either leagues ahead playing against lowbies, or the champ has a crazy game winning bug. 50% is just about where an army should be, above that i'd say it's a pretty strong army.
Then maybe LoL is not a good reference.
Starcraft Brood War would be a much better reference, and in SC:BW, many players had a lot more than 50% win rate.
Because that's how competition is, unless you want to go ahead and call for a nerf on Michael Phelps maybe ?
Champions win rates in LoL are a good comparison to Races win rates in 40K. Players in BW and completely unrelated Olympic athlete analogies are not. Why bring up BW anyway? How far out of the loop are you...
JohnHwangDD wrote: This whole thread raises the question of how much of a 40k win can be attributed to:
- player skill,
- listbuilding skill,
- Codex selection, and
- dice luck.
And if you assume a high level of player skill and/or listbuilding skill, to what extent does Codex selection matter?
My sense is that player skill has dropped dramatically from 40k3/4 down to 40k6/7, while luck and listbuilding has gone up. But I'm not at all convinced that a "pro" with Sisters or Orks regularly loses to a n00b with Knights.
People can only speak to their own experience where they play and then look to data like this (and it is suspect data since it lacks a lot of qualifiers you'd really want to analyze it). All we see for sure is that people chose to use certain armies more often that happened to win.
Through a preponderance of the evidence we generally accept that there probably IS a pecking order for the codex in terms of HOW easy it is to create a list good enough to compete. Or to put it another way, we recognize that certain codex's require lesss list building acumen. That does not tell us that the players could not compensate with greater list building acumen if they chose. So that little statement right there is important bcause if we have no way to know for sure that ANOTHER build wouldn't work EQUALLY well, then we're really missing a big chunk of the picture.
List building aside the General himself matters and so does his ego. Ask yourself an honest question. If you were generally respected as very good and there was pressure on you to perform, so to speak, to maintain that reputation, would you chance things by taking a less common build that ISN'T known to win? Maybe. But the odds on human behavior say no. That's like asking the rich if they would stop doing accepted best business practices and bartr their companies future on a more creative mode of operating. some do but very few.
So the excellent General progressively grows less and less interested in creativity and more and more into absolute certainty. He simply knows the weapon will perform through analytics JUST LIKE THIS chart. He intuitively knows it WILL work for him and he never has to answer hard questions about his choices if he fails (see the Seahawks for details on why someone might not EVER throw on second and goal with 20 seconds to go evr again). that in't to say they will never score like that. Just that they wont bet on it probably ever again.
So then there are the outlyers. A GREAT example of this was that awesome Deathleaper list that went berzerk and won it all. WHAT a great list for SO many reasons and it was from WAY in left field. Sometimes the road less traveled in the hands of excellent generals is EXACTLY what you need to win. But analytics like this won't ever show you what the best generals could do with the road less travelled because, simply put, they themselves wont put themselves out there like that.
Good reply, good stuff there.
Back when I played a lot, I didn't worry much about data, as there wasn't a lot of netlisting going on locally. I played several Codices, against pretty much everything. At the time, I was a pretty decent general, and I very strongly preferred Eldar when prizes were on the line because it was a less-common army and I knew it inside out. Not at all unlike the Deathleaper example. Take prizes off the table, and I'd play things out of left field to switch things up and challenge myself. I'd switch among lots of Codices and random sublists of all types, just for the variety and challenge. You'd be surprised how much your playing ability grows when you rotate among a dozen army lists and get to know both sides of the table. When you can win with just about anything, that only enhances one's reputation further. Analytics also help, but it's more important to get a "feel" for the army, an army that you like and complements your play style.
While I think that there is a heirarchy of Codices, I think it's more of a tiebreaker, assuming you did a good job of listbuilding and have the playing chops to make it work.
Morgoth wrote:
615-720 points of your army in just one type of unit that has quite a few hard counters is just too much of a risk .
Thank you for posting reasons. The two players I know have gone to GT's, I never have. The only tournaments I ever traveled for where smash bros, and that was a long long time ago, when I was an undergrad. But this is all appeals to authority, which I am loathe to reach for given my profession.
I am not sure about the meta. To be honest, it doesn't seem like GW has a meta like WMH does, because the tournaments aren't taken as seriously here (compared to 5th edition). I can't tell you the top 8 lists in the last major tournaments, meanwhile I do know the top 8 for the last major warmachine tournament. I didn't look either up, the latter just comes up a lot more on their forums. Usually the winners post on the forums quite frequently and discuss their lists in detail and provide battle reports.
I wouldn't call grav star a hard counter to a riptide. The riptide out ranges it by quite a bit, and can put some wounds on it. The rest of the tau army is also very effective at putting wounds in the grav star (better than any other army in the game, especially with Tiggy included). The riptide also has a nice invul save and FnP, so it is unlikely to get one rounded by the grav star.
Missile sides and crisis suits are great units. Very good for the points, though crisis suits aren't what they used to be last edition. Which is a good thing.
EDIT
Throwing a lot of points in one unit type has always been what competitive 40k is about. Beast stars, FMC spam, Starcannon Spam, Rhino Rush, The Flying Bakery...they all rely on the premise of skewing hard in a way that makes most of the enemy's list unable to deal with it, and just walking over the opponent. What the unit type is changes from edition to edition, but that has always been a staple of the better builds.
Even grav star is basically taking one giant unit, from 2 types, and mashing them together to create an insane unit that doesn't die.
40K has a meta, and I am frequently looking at the top lists in major tournaments.
The Grav Star has free Deep Strike every turn, invisibility and 25 Prescienced Grav Shots.
Not only does it one turn a Riptide (rerollable 2+ to wound, AP2), it can two turn three Riptides.
But it would probably start by one turning your Commander + Drones + Crisis and split firing into something else.
Competitive 40K is not just about skew or deathstars, sometimes it is, like any competitive strategy-related game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnHwangDD wrote: This whole thread raises the question of how much of a 40k win can be attributed to:
- player skill,
- listbuilding skill,
- Codex selection, and
- dice luck.
And if you assume a high level of player skill and/or listbuilding skill, to what extent does Codex selection matter?
My sense is that player skill has dropped dramatically from 40k3/4 down to 40k6/7, while luck and listbuilding has gone up. But I'm not at all convinced that a "pro" with Sisters or Orks regularly loses to a n00b with Knights.
Oh yes, the glorious past.
There was a lot less skill involved in v4 than v7, listbuilding was a lot simpler too.
Just go back to 3rd and 4th, list the top 3 builds, present them in a thread and ask people to give a relative complexity level to each.
Rhino Spam was dumb as feth, so were Falcon-based Eldar.
I mean, those armies were really point and click. Move forward and nothing can go wrong.
v6 SeerStar and BeastStar are not noob units
v7 Wave Spam is a lot more complex because it has true hard counters. You can't bumrush and expect to win, except maybe against Tau where it could be one of the best strategies.... damn fishpeople.
That chart is from 7th edition tournaments only. Maybe you're not so well informed. I have looked at most of those lists, they aren't beast or seer star. Mostly serpent spam with WK support.
My dear TooFast, I often check the ToF website for new articles on statistics and I know what I'm talking about.
The statistics you speak of that have Eldar at 60% win rate or more are not v7 statistics, they're from v6, where the big point earners for Eldar were Beast and Seerstars.
In v7, as can be seen on the ToF website, the Eldar have about 56% win rate.
The chart presented here is only January 2015, or a pretty much irrelevant share of v7 because it's only one month and doesn't contain any major GTs (?).
And yes, since the new Dark Eldar codex, Eldar have fallen back to mostly WKWS, which is not that good of a build in my opinion, and will surely drag the Eldar win rate down from the Iyanden BeastStar days of early v7.
It's all your fault, people! Acknowledge what has been done! Morgoth has learnt to operate with valid arguements! You haven't listened! You haven't listened...
Deafbeats wrote: I know in League of Legends (bear with me) when a player has +50% win rate, they move up in rank cause they're good. When a Champion has an overall winrate above 50% (like 52-59%), they usually get nerfed. Any higher and the player is either leagues ahead playing against lowbies, or the champ has a crazy game winning bug. 50% is just about where an army should be, above that i'd say it's a pretty strong army.
Then maybe LoL is not a good reference.
Starcraft Brood War would be a much better reference, and in SC:BW, many players had a lot more than 50% win rate.
Because that's how competition is, unless you want to go ahead and call for a nerf on Michael Phelps maybe ?
Champions win rates in LoL are a good comparison to Races win rates in 40K. Players in BW and completely unrelated Olympic athlete analogies are not. Why bring up BW anyway? How far out of the loop are you...
Because BW is a strategy game, like 40K, whereas LoL is a much simpler game with a lot less in common with 40K.
Exceptional people are exceptional people, whether they chose to focus on work, 40K (that generally doesn't happen because even the top of 40K is pretty low), SC:BW (and SCII when it stabilizes) and Olympics are all the same: people who give their all to one single discipline and compete with others who do the exact same.
Competition in Olympics (Usain Bolt anyone), BW (Flash) and anything else sees the best competitors with win rates far above 50%, because that's how competition is.
In LoL, it's surely the same thing except you didn't see it. The best LoL players are sure to have a lot more than 50% win rate, and cannot go any higher because they're the top of the ladder already.
Morgoth wrote:
615-720 points of your army in just one type of unit that has quite a few hard counters is just too much of a risk .
Thank you for posting reasons. The two players I know have gone to GT's, I never have. The only tournaments I ever traveled for where smash bros, and that was a long long time ago, when I was an undergrad. But this is all appeals to authority, which I am loathe to reach for given my profession.
I am not sure about the meta. To be honest, it doesn't seem like GW has a meta like WMH does, because the tournaments aren't taken as seriously here (compared to 5th edition). I can't tell you the top 8 lists in the last major tournaments, meanwhile I do know the top 8 for the last major warmachine tournament. I didn't look either up, the latter just comes up a lot more on their forums. Usually the winners post on the forums quite frequently and discuss their lists in detail and provide battle reports.
I wouldn't call grav star a hard counter to a riptide. The riptide out ranges it by quite a bit, and can put some wounds on it. The rest of the tau army is also very effective at putting wounds in the grav star (better than any other army in the game, especially with Tiggy included). The riptide also has a nice invul save and FnP, so it is unlikely to get one rounded by the grav star.
Missile sides and crisis suits are great units. Very good for the points, though crisis suits aren't what they used to be last edition. Which is a good thing.
EDIT
Throwing a lot of points in one unit type has always been what competitive 40k is about. Beast stars, FMC spam, Starcannon Spam, Rhino Rush, The Flying Bakery...they all rely on the premise of skewing hard in a way that makes most of the enemy's list unable to deal with it, and just walking over the opponent. What the unit type is changes from edition to edition, but that has always been a staple of the better builds.
Even grav star is basically taking one giant unit, from 2 types, and mashing them together to create an insane unit that doesn't die.
40K has a meta, and I am frequently looking at the top lists in major tournaments.
The Grav Star has free Deep Strike every turn, invisibility and 25 Prescienced Grav Shots.
Not only does it one turn a Riptide (rerollable 2+ to wound, AP2), it can two turn three Riptides.
But it would probably start by one turning your Commander + Drones + Crisis and split firing into something else.
Competitive 40K is not just about skew or deathstars, sometimes it is, like any competitive strategy-related game.
How do crisis suits survive that any better then a riptide does, point for point? It seems to come out about the same...actually worse for the suits due to invuls and FnP, plus longer range on the guns means tides don't bunch up.
40k doesn't have a meta because one person looks into the top lists. People on this forum often argue about their metas and what is strong or not. This is not the case in other games, like LoL, WMH, WoW, or some other game with a strong meta.
If I say WS spam, what do I mean? 2? 3? 7? Where is the cut off?
If I say grav death star, do I need to include all the pieces or just a few?
Just how many fliers is the flying bakery, etc etc
In WMH, if I say MMM, few things change. You know I'm looking at warders, champs, kriel stone, mulg, and maybe 1 different unit.
Fist varies on what you take more of for medium bases but is very similar and plays the same.
Wold War offers nearly no variation when taken to T4.
In LoL, counter picks and who to ban is well known. Pick wrong in a game and people will lose their minds. Champions have certain lanes they excel at, and certain lanes they excel at only if certain champs are picked. Commonly, a small list of champs are banned. This meta shifts (like when twitch got nerfed, or hermie upgraded) but it is well known among the better players. Part of this is this is an online game and it's easier to establish a meta here.
Yes, the grav star is able to delete pretty much any unit in the game (unless invisibility is thrown into the equation, or it has a comically low armor save). It still costs quite a bit more then a riptide, and will not be able to reach 2 riptides at the same time unless the Tau player castles. Given the long range of the guns, I doubt he needs to.
Competitive 40k is always about skews and deathstars. It has been since 2nd edition (I have never played rogue trader, can't comment there). Unless a codex itself is just so broken that anything in it can be taken, which is rare throughout history, it is usually the case.
This is not true in many of the other table top games, with few exceptions.
WMH the strongest list are not skews, though they can be strong. MMM and Fist is a thing, but the best lists remain Wold War, Haley2, Goreshade3, and a huge list of others that are quite varied, but remain focused on a strategy.
JohnHwangDD wrote: This whole thread raises the question of how much of a 40k win can be attributed to:
- player skill,
- listbuilding skill,
- Codex selection, and
- dice luck.
And if you assume a high level of player skill and/or listbuilding skill, to what extent does Codex selection matter?
My sense is that player skill has dropped dramatically from 40k3/4 down to 40k6/7, while luck and listbuilding has gone up. But I'm not at all convinced that a "pro" with Sisters or Orks regularly loses to a n00b with Knights.
Oh yes, the glorious past.
There was a lot less skill involved in v4 than v7, listbuilding was a lot simpler too.
Just go back to 3rd and 4th, list the top 3 builds, present them in a thread and ask people to give a relative complexity level to each.
Rhino Spam was dumb as feth, so were Falcon-based Eldar.
I mean, those armies were really point and click. Move forward and nothing can go wrong.
v6 SeerStar and BeastStar are not noob units
v7 Wave Spam is a lot more complex because it has true hard counters. You can't bumrush and expect to win, except maybe against Tau where it could be one of the best strategies.... damn fishpeople.
That chart is from 7th edition tournaments only. Maybe you're not so well informed. I have looked at most of those lists, they aren't beast or seer star. Mostly serpent spam with WK support.
My dear TooFast, I often check the ToF website for new articles on statistics and I know what I'm talking about.
The statistics you speak of that have Eldar at 60% win rate or more are not v7 statistics, they're from v6, where the big point earners for Eldar were Beast and Seerstars.
In v7, as can be seen on the ToF website, the Eldar have about 56% win rate.
The chart presented here is only January 2015, or a pretty much irrelevant share of v7 because it's only one month and doesn't contain any major GTs (?).
And yes, since the new Dark Eldar codex, Eldar have fallen back to mostly WKWS, which is not that good of a build in my opinion, and will surely drag the Eldar win rate down from the Iyanden BeastStar days of early v7.
Rhino spam was solid, but it didn't last forever in 3rd. Eldar could counter it with certain units due to the way transports worked (block all the exits and everything inside dies), and starcannons plus falcons made it somewhat capable of being dealt with. Chaos eventually dropped and had their siren bombs and iron warriors.
List building is harder now, because of the data slates, allies, and all the options. I think its very hard to argue against that.
But the game itself is much easier to play. Power combos are developed in the list building stage, like the grav star or some other star. It doesn't require much on board work other then remembering to turn the powers on.
You then just move around deleting 1-2 units a turn until you win. Its not hard.
When people say "what could I have done different?" the answer is usually "should have taken this" and not "should have done this". Look at the tactics forums. It dicusses builds, data slates, allies, but rarely on table strategies more complex then target order.
morgoth wrote: You're just listening to the wrong people.
Try the competitive game for yourself, I'm sure you'll be able to see what I'm talking about.
Again, this is an appeal to authority.
Also, I work at a job that demands a lot of my time. I'm responsible for over 1000 students each semester and I have several education based grants that I'm responsible for.
Try arguing the points, rather than hand waving people away.
Because BW is a strategy game, like 40K, whereas LoL is a much simpler game with a lot less in common with 40K.
Hmm lemme come back with this, a Champion is to league of legends as an army is to 40k. millions of people play a Champion or Army, resulting in an average win/lose ratio or win percent. If that number is higher than most other, I think that's acceptable that that Champ/Codex is strong.
No doubt there are skill Codexes, as there are skill Champions who are difficult to play but extremely rewarding, but if you're looking at the over all, I think a win% above 50 is the mark of a strong codex.
edit:
morgoth wrote: In LoL, it's surely the same thing except you didn't see it. The best LoL players are sure to have a lot more than 50% win rate, and cannot go any higher because they're the top of the ladder already.
I wouldn't say they're much higher, they're still playing against other who are of nearly equal skill level. World Famous players like Faker don't play against scrubbies like me and carry a 90% win rate.
People can only speak to their own experience where they play and then look to data like this (and it is suspect data since it lacks a lot of qualifiers you'd really want to analyze it). All we see for sure is that people chose to use certain armies more often that happened to win.
Through a preponderance of the evidence we generally accept that there probably IS a pecking order for the codex in terms of HOW easy it is to create a list good enough to compete. Or to put it another way, we recognize that certain codex's require lesss list building acumen. That does not tell us that the players could not compensate with greater list building acumen if they chose. So that little statement right there is important bcause if we have no way to know for sure that ANOTHER build wouldn't work EQUALLY well, then we're really missing a big chunk of the picture.
List building aside the General himself matters and so does his ego. Ask yourself an honest question. If you were generally respected as very good and there was pressure on you to perform, so to speak, to maintain that reputation, would you chance things by taking a less common build that ISN'T known to win? Maybe. But the odds on human behavior say no. That's like asking the rich if they would stop doing accepted best business practices and bartr their companies future on a more creative mode of operating. some do but very few.
So the excellent General progressively grows less and less interested in creativity and more and more into absolute certainty. He simply knows the weapon will perform through analytics JUST LIKE THIS chart. He intuitively knows it WILL work for him and he never has to answer hard questions about his choices if he fails (see the Seahawks for details on why someone might not EVER throw on second and goal with 20 seconds to go evr again). that in't to say they will never score like that. Just that they wont bet on it probably ever again.
So then there are the outlyers. A GREAT example of this was that awesome Deathleaper list that went berzerk and won it all. WHAT a great list for SO many reasons and it was from WAY in left field. Sometimes the road less traveled in the hands of excellent generals is EXACTLY what you need to win. But analytics like this won't ever show you what the best generals could do with the road less travelled because, simply put, they themselves wont put themselves out there like that.
Good reply, good stuff there.
Back when I played a lot, I didn't worry much about data, as there wasn't a lot of netlisting going on locally. I played several Codices, against pretty much everything. At the time, I was a pretty decent general, and I very strongly preferred Eldar when prizes were on the line because it was a less-common army and I knew it inside out. Not at all unlike the Deathleaper example. Take prizes off the table, and I'd play things out of left field to switch things up and challenge myself. I'd switch among lots of Codices and random sublists of all types, just for the variety and challenge. You'd be surprised how much your playing ability grows when you rotate among a dozen army lists and get to know both sides of the table. When you can win with just about anything, that only enhances one's reputation further. Analytics also help, but it's more important to get a "feel" for the army, an army that you like and complements your play style.
While I think that there is a heirarchy of Codices, I think it's more of a tiebreaker, assuming you did a good job of listbuilding and have the playing chops to make it work.
Akiasura wrote: List building is harder now, because of the data slates, allies, and all the options. I think its very hard to argue against that.
But the game itself is much easier to play. Power combos are developed in the list building stage, like the grav star or some other star. It doesn't require much on board work other then remembering to turn the powers on.
You then just move around deleting 1-2 units a turn until you win. Its not hard.
When people say "what could I have done different?" the answer is usually "should have taken this" and not "should have done this". Look at the tactics forums. It dicusses builds, data slates, allies, but rarely on table strategies more complex then target order.
The problem with your statement that you just get a powerbuild, and kill stuff until you win is that you completely ignore your opponent's ability to do the same. What if you're running a Centstar at a tournament and come up against me with an identical list? What if we both roll the powers we want, and we both roll average over the course of the game? Who wins then? To use another example; Tony Kopach won Nova Open (180ish attendees) with a Serpent spam list, but if you do some digging, I can guarantee you that you'll find a very similar list in the bottom thirty placers.
As for the tactics forums, the problem with those are twofold.
Firstly, listbuilding is important, and a lot of people have no idea how to do it (assuming "it" is ending up with a competitive list). It's not super complicated, and doesn't need any buzzwords, it simply means that a list needs to include all the tools necessary to win games. You try telling that to someone who wants to know if Wraitknights are better than Wave Serpents, or how to beat their friend's Tau army. And this being the internet, you're guaranteed that there are at least three pedantic posters just waiting to latch onto a red herring and flog it until it's well and truly dead (along with the rest of the thread). But if you somehow, full of pedagogic passion, manage to stumble past these initial hurdles you need to explain abstract concepts precisely, concisely, understandably, and in a way such as the recipient will understand when and how exceptions and alternatives come into play. For instance, dealing with Eldar depends on the exact Eldar list, your list (which should probably be better than it is), how your Eldar opponent plays, what the mission is, and whether or not, and when, or if, you got very lucky/unlucky during the game. I could write 10k words on how to do that, and get ignored, red herringed to death, or exalted. And since it's not gonna be the last one, I could instead just tell the OP to take Khan and a bunch of grav-bikes and have at it.
Secondly, competitive players who actually know what they're talking about can't be bothered to deal with it. Not because of an elitist attitude that the ignorant plebs with their battle force armies are below any consideration and effort, but because you'll simply end up getting shouted down by either anti-competitive nutters who have a quasi-religious attitude towards how 40k should be enjoyed and cling to the delusions that their favourite units are actually good, or by the eloquent Sun Tzu-quoting tossers who seemingly only play against 12 year olds, and thus get their Vypers to rule the tabletop alongside their totally underrated Howling Banshees, and have the time and willingness to repeat their arguments ad nauseum. And there's no incentive to try to beat back the tides either. For instance, there's no way I can be bothered to get involved with the Sicaran thread going on right now, and try to tell people it's pretty overrated, because I'd have to jump through millions of hoops explaining exactly what I mean by overrated, and how that doesn't mean it's completely useless, and that I don't also think Wave Serpents are garbage.
Thud wrote: Firstly, listbuilding is important, and a lot of people have no idea how to do it (assuming "it" is ending up with a competitive list). It's not super complicated, and doesn't need any buzzwords, it simply means that a list needs to include all the tools necessary to win games. You try telling that to someone who wants to know if Wraitknights are better than Wave Serpents, or how to beat their friend's Tau army. And this being the internet, you're guaranteed that there are at least three pedantic posters just waiting to latch onto a red herring and flog it until it's well and truly dead (along with the rest of the thread).
Well, thank goodness that doesn't happen here on Dakka.
Akiasura wrote: List building is harder now, because of the data slates, allies, and all the options. I think its very hard to argue against that.
But the game itself is much easier to play. Power combos are developed in the list building stage, like the grav star or some other star. It doesn't require much on board work other then remembering to turn the powers on.
You then just move around deleting 1-2 units a turn until you win. Its not hard.
When people say "what could I have done different?" the answer is usually "should have taken this" and not "should have done this". Look at the tactics forums. It dicusses builds, data slates, allies, but rarely on table strategies more complex then target order.
The problem with your statement that you just get a powerbuild, and kill stuff until you win is that you completely ignore your opponent's ability to do the same. What if you're running a Centstar at a tournament and come up against me with an identical list? What if we both roll the powers we want, and we both roll average over the course of the game? Who wins then? To use another example; Tony Kopach won Nova Open (180ish attendees) with a Serpent spam list, but if you do some digging, I can guarantee you that you'll find a very similar list in the bottom thirty placers.
As for the tactics forums, the problem with those are twofold.
Firstly, listbuilding is important, and a lot of people have no idea how to do it (assuming "it" is ending up with a competitive list). It's not super complicated, and doesn't need any buzzwords, it simply means that a list needs to include all the tools necessary to win games. You try telling that to someone who wants to know if Wraitknights are better than Wave Serpents, or how to beat their friend's Tau army. And this being the internet, you're guaranteed that there are at least three pedantic posters just waiting to latch onto a red herring and flog it until it's well and truly dead (along with the rest of the thread). But if you somehow, full of pedagogic passion, manage to stumble past these initial hurdles you need to explain abstract concepts precisely, concisely, understandably, and in a way such as the recipient will understand when and how exceptions and alternatives come into play. For instance, dealing with Eldar depends on the exact Eldar list, your list (which should probably be better than it is), how your Eldar opponent plays, what the mission is, and whether or not, and when, or if, you got very lucky/unlucky during the game. I could write 10k words on how to do that, and get ignored, red herringed to death, or exalted. And since it's not gonna be the last one, I could instead just tell the OP to take Khan and a bunch of grav-bikes and have at it.
Secondly, competitive players who actually know what they're talking about can't be bothered to deal with it. Not because of an elitist attitude that the ignorant plebs with their battle force armies are below any consideration and effort, but because you'll simply end up getting shouted down by either anti-competitive nutters who have a quasi-religious attitude towards how 40k should be enjoyed and cling to the delusions that their favourite units are actually good, or by the eloquent Sun Tzu-quoting tossers who seemingly only play against 12 year olds, and thus get their Vypers to rule the tabletop alongside their totally underrated Howling Banshees, and have the time and willingness to repeat their arguments ad nauseum. And there's no incentive to try to beat back the tides either. For instance, there's no way I can be bothered to get involved with the Sicaran thread going on right now, and try to tell people it's pretty overrated, because I'd have to jump through millions of hoops explaining exactly what I mean by overrated, and how that doesn't mean it's completely useless, and that I don't also think Wave Serpents are garbage.
I'm interested to know - what is your opinion of tactical squads?
morgoth wrote: You're just listening to the wrong people.
Try the competitive game for yourself, I'm sure you'll be able to see what I'm talking about.
Again, this is an appeal to authority.
Also, I work at a job that demands a lot of my time. I'm responsible for over 1000 students each semester and I have several education based grants that I'm responsible for.
Try arguing the points, rather than hand waving people away.
You don't have a point, there is nothing to argue.
If what you said had any connection to reality or logic, there would be a discussion.
But there's not, because you don't bother about listing the builds and openly ignore the builds that do not match your description of competitive 40K, have no experience or interest in it, yet insist to talk about it.
Because BW is a strategy game, like 40K, whereas LoL is a much simpler game with a lot less in common with 40K.
Hmm lemme come back with this, a Champion is to league of legends as an army is to 40k. millions of people play a Champion or Army, resulting in an average win/lose ratio or win percent. If that number is higher than most other, I think that's acceptable that that Champ/Codex is strong.
No doubt there are skill Codexes, as there are skill Champions who are difficult to play but extremely rewarding, but if you're looking at the over all, I think a win% above 50 is the mark of a strong codex.
edit:
morgoth wrote: In LoL, it's surely the same thing except you didn't see it. The best LoL players are sure to have a lot more than 50% win rate, and cannot go any higher because they're the top of the ladder already.
I wouldn't say they're much higher, they're still playing against other who are of nearly equal skill level. World Famous players like Faker don't play against scrubbies like me and carry a 90% win rate.
1. Codexes are WAY more complex than Champions. There is no comparison here. If you take a race in SC2, ok that's comparable. But a single champion in LoL ? noway.
2. You have no idea do you ? Go do your research on pro gaming, then come back informed and agree with me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Thud wrote: To use another example; Tony Kopach won Nova Open (180ish attendees) with a Serpent spam list, but if you do some digging, I can guarantee you that you'll find a very similar list in the bottom thirty placers.
It's a very bad example.
Tony Kopach won thanks to lucky matching and a very unlucky finals opponent.
Statistically he did not stand a chance.
He was running a light-ish Serpent Spam list that would have lost 9 matches out of ten against his last opponent, yet it was that one match out of ten that came true.
Another proof if necessary that "Serpent Spam" is nowhere as strong as previous Eldar shenanigans were.
I think we've reached the point where Morgoth really needs to outline his qualifications - he called me out for being unqualified to discuss GW's financials (despite the fact I have, you know, qualifications)
So, I think if one is going to throw around accusations of incompetence and ignorance, one really needs to qualify one's own experiences that inform the opinion one's offering.
Because it would be dreadful if he were as rude as he is to so many other posters if it was based on second hand information he read off the net and very little, if any, first hand experience or success.
Xenomancers wrote:I'm interested to know - what is your opinion of tactical squads?
Depends. Ultramarines or Blood Angels in Pods, for example, are pretty good. So are Raven Guard in Rhinos. They're not an auto-include in any competitive list, but you can build many super strong lists based around them.
morgoth wrote:It's a very bad example.
Tony Kopach won thanks to lucky matching and a very unlucky finals opponent.
Statistically he did not stand a chance.
He was running a light-ish Serpent Spam list that would have lost 9 matches out of ten against his last opponent, yet it was that one match out of ten that came true.
Another proof if necessary that "Serpent Spam" is nowhere as strong as previous Eldar shenanigans were.
No, it's a good example of what I was trying to convey; which is that a list perceived to be cheesy/good/OP/whatever isn't enough to win, you also need skill. And you can point to instances where he got lucky, but it's no way he's won however many 8 round NOVAs on luck alone.
It is, however, a bad example on how adding too much salt ruins pancakes. So, yeah, you can have that one.
Azreal13 wrote:I think we've reached the point where Morgoth really needs to outline his qualifications - he called me out for being unqualified to discuss GW's financials (despite the fact I have, you know, qualifications)
So, I think if one is going to throw around accusations of incompetence and ignorance, one really needs to qualify one's own experiences that inform the opinion one's offering.
Because it would be dreadful if he were as rude as he is to so many other posters if it was based on second hand information he read off the net and very little, if any, first hand experience or success.
I was talking to some of the Belgian ETC guys about them coming up to Norway for a tournament in April, so maybe Morgoth could tag along with them and impress me with his skills?
Azreal13 wrote:I think we've reached the point where Morgoth really needs to outline his qualifications - he called me out for being unqualified to discuss GW's financials (despite the fact I have, you know, qualifications)
So, I think if one is going to throw around accusations of incompetence and ignorance, one really needs to qualify one's own experiences that inform the opinion one's offering.
Because it would be dreadful if he were as rude as he is to so many other posters if it was based on second hand information he read off the net and very little, if any, first hand experience or success.
What, you think he's a Stelek? ____
Thud wrote: I was talking to some of the Belgian ETC guys about them coming up to Norway for a tournament in April, so maybe Morgoth could tag along with them and impress me with his skills?
That would be ideal. I wonder if morgoth qualiifed for the Belgian ETC team, based on his mad skillz. It's not like Belgium is a large country with a lot of players *cough*America*cough*. Belgium is like the smallest country that's larger than a city (Luxembourg / Monaco). A piddly country like Belgium should be trival to qualify in.
Azreal13 wrote: I think we've reached the point where Morgoth really needs to outline his qualifications - he called me out for being unqualified to discuss GW's financials (despite the fact I have, you know, qualifications)
So, I think if one is going to throw around accusations of incompetence and ignorance, one really needs to qualify one's own experiences that inform the opinion one's offering.
Because it would be dreadful if he were as rude as he is to so many other posters if it was based on second hand information he read off the net and very little, if any, first hand experience or success.
Cuz no one can fake qualifications on a forum.....
morgoth wrote: You're just listening to the wrong people.
Try the competitive game for yourself, I'm sure you'll be able to see what I'm talking about.
Again, this is an appeal to authority.
Also, I work at a job that demands a lot of my time. I'm responsible for over 1000 students each semester and I have several education based grants that I'm responsible for.
Try arguing the points, rather than hand waving people away.
You don't have a point, there is nothing to argue.
If what you said had any connection to reality or logic, there would be a discussion.
But there's not, because you don't bother about listing the builds and openly ignore the builds that do not match your description of competitive 40K, have no experience or interest in it, yet insist to talk about it.
My points are twofold, since you seemed to have missed them in a mad rush to dismiss my points out of hand.
1) Crisis suits aren't any more survivable against Gravstars then riptides, point for point. This was your argument for crisis suits being better then riptides, and I countered it. It's now up to you to either refute my claim, or admit I was right. This is generally how debates work.
2) 40k is no longer a competitive game, and doesn't encourage a competitive meta like many other games do. There are many reasons for this, but generally this is true.
I don't understand what you mean by "listing the builds". I'm saying many builds do not have hard definitions of when they are OP (as you have argued in the many WS threads, when are they considered spam?) or even what they are (leaf blower from long ago, Ironwarriors, Siren bomb).
I do not have experience in highly competitive 40k, in the sense that I have traveled to GT's. Have you? If so, which one, and how did you rank? I play against people who have attended them long ago, but most of us are a little old and settled to travel for a tournament like this.
Are you claiming that no one can talk about 40k unless they have participated in a major tournament, such as NOVA?
If so, I demand you stop discussing statistics. You do not have a doctorate in a scientific or engineering field, and are therefore not an authority on the subject. I do and am See how silly that gets?
Because BW is a strategy game, like 40K, whereas LoL is a much simpler game with a lot less in common with 40K.
Hmm lemme come back with this, a Champion is to league of legends as an army is to 40k. millions of people play a Champion or Army, resulting in an average win/lose ratio or win percent. If that number is higher than most other, I think that's acceptable that that Champ/Codex is strong.
No doubt there are skill Codexes, as there are skill Champions who are difficult to play but extremely rewarding, but if you're looking at the over all, I think a win% above 50 is the mark of a strong codex.
edit:
morgoth wrote: In LoL, it's surely the same thing except you didn't see it. The best LoL players are sure to have a lot more than 50% win rate, and cannot go any higher because they're the top of the ladder already.
I wouldn't say they're much higher, they're still playing against other who are of nearly equal skill level. World Famous players like Faker don't play against scrubbies like me and carry a 90% win rate.
1. Codexes are WAY more complex than Champions. There is no comparison here. If you take a race in SC2, ok that's comparable. But a single champion in LoL ? noway.
2. You have no idea do you ? Go do your research on pro gaming, then come back informed and agree with me.
Pro gaming doesn't really include 40k. LoL, however, is an esport and has lead to people getting college scholarships and even citizen ship.
An individual champion is not more complex then a codex (though it's closer than you might think depending on the codex). A big part of this is the fact LoL is much more complicated then a table top game.
It's real time, has fog of war, and involves a lot more players then 2. Skill level matters. My brother in law plays the game competitively, if he joins me and my friends in a bronze game, he easily scores over 30 kills and just dominates every match.
40k is not like that, though a big factor there is dice. LoL has very little RNG outside of crit builds and certain champs.
Maybe you should research the game before knocking it.
Thud wrote: To use another example; Tony Kopach won Nova Open (180ish attendees) with a Serpent spam list, but if you do some digging, I can guarantee you that you'll find a very similar list in the bottom thirty placers.
It's a very bad example.
Tony Kopach won thanks to lucky matching and a very unlucky finals opponent.
Statistically he did not stand a chance.
He was running a light-ish Serpent Spam list that would have lost 9 matches out of ten against his last opponent, yet it was that one match out of ten that came true.
Another proof if necessary that "Serpent Spam" is nowhere as strong as previous Eldar shenanigans were.
How did he statistically not stand a chance? Did you compute the chances of every single one of his units hurting all of his opponents' units, and vice versa?
Sometimes people win matches, through luck, this is true. Recently a bradigus player lost a major WMH tournament with a top of turn 2 caster kill attempt that had something like a 68% chance to work. It happens.
But calculating statistics for a whole game in any table top game is very complex and I seriously doubt you have done it.
If so, please provide the math, which I can only assume you have done, since you not only used the word statistics, but gave him a 90% lose rate.
Jancoran wrote:Through a preponderance of the evidence
I'm sorry, but what preponderance? Or, rather, what evidence? All we have is a pile of anecdotes, nothing rigorous or controlled. It's just an amalgamation of people's stories, which has never been real proof of anything.
Jancoran wrote:there probably IS a pecking order for the codex in terms of HOW easy it is to create a list good enough to compete.
And it's a tie for last place. The internet makes it very, very easy to create lists good enough to compete.
Jancoran wrote:Ask yourself an honest question. If you were generally respected as very good and there was pressure on you to perform, so to speak, to maintain that reputation, would you chance things by taking a less common build that ISN'T known to win? Maybe. But the odds on human behavior say no.
What? I do this all the time. So do several people I've known.
You're assuming that what a vast majority of people want is the easiest win. That's not even remotely true. There are a LOT of other reasons to play 40k.
Jancoran wrote:So the excellent General progressively grows less and less interested in creativity and more and more into absolute certainty.
Then what do you define as strategy? I'm pretty sure successful generals use creativity, even if it means taking risks.
I think what you're talking about is a bad general - someone who needs everything to go exactly according to a certain plan.
Thud wrote:because you'll simply end up getting shouted down by either anti-competitive nutters who have a quasi-religious attitude towards how 40k should be enjoyed and cling to the delusions that their favourite units are actually good, or by the eloquent Sun Tzu-quoting tossers who seemingly only play against 12 year olds, and thus get their Vypers to rule the tabletop alongside their totally underrated Howling Banshees, and have the time and willingness to repeat their arguments ad nauseum.
And, of course, the third category of positivists who believe 40k is a science like chess, and get all pouty when people point out that creative people can also prosper, and that a lot of 40k is based on the results of random number generators.
Believing there is a, one, the truth, isn't any more flattering on learn to play types as people who mindlessly knee-jerk against learn to play types.
Martel732 wrote: Stelek had pretty good builds for 5th ed. Don't know about since then.
LOL.
If a good build is taking the units with the biggest kill ratio and spamming them, then sure. Eh. I guess? I mean a lot of those lists could have been written in Crayon, they were so simple. Every single list he posted was THAT. Triple "redundancy" until he had no points left. That was his claim to fame. "I can spam and you are a mental midget if you don't". Basically. "heavy Bolter Retributors are the future". Sigh.
Martel732 wrote: Stelek had pretty good builds for 5th ed. Don't know about since then.
LOL.
If a good build is taking the units with the biggest kill ratio and spamming them, then sure. Eh. I guess? I mean a lot of those lists could have been written in Crayon, they were so simple. Every single list he posted was THAT. Triple "redundancy" until he had no points left. That was his claim to fame. "I can spam and you are a mental midget if you don't". Basically. "heavy Bolter Retributors are the future". Sigh.
Spamming was power in 5th. It still is, actually for certain lists.
Jancoran wrote:Through a preponderance of the evidence
I'm sorry, but what preponderance? Or, rather, what evidence? All we have is a pile of anecdotes, nothing rigorous or controlled. It's just an amalgamation of people's stories, which has never been real proof of anything.
Jancoran wrote:there probably IS a pecking order for the codex in terms of HOW easy it is to create a list good enough to compete.
And it's a tie for last place. The internet makes it very, very easy to create lists good enough to compete.
Jancoran wrote:Ask yourself an honest question. If you were generally respected as very good and there was pressure on you to perform, so to speak, to maintain that reputation, would you chance things by taking a less common build that ISN'T known to win? Maybe. But the odds on human behavior say no.
What? I do this all the time. So do several people I've known.
You're assuming that what a vast majority of people want is the easiest win. That's not even remotely true. There are a LOT of other reasons to play 40k.
Jancoran wrote:So the excellent General progressively grows less and less interested in creativity and more and more into absolute certainty.
Then what do you define as strategy? I'm pretty sure successful generals use creativity, even if it means taking risks.
I think what you're talking about is a bad general - someone who needs everything to go exactly according to a certain plan.
Thud wrote:because you'll simply end up getting shouted down by either anti-competitive nutters who have a quasi-religious attitude towards how 40k should be enjoyed and cling to the delusions that their favourite units are actually good, or by the eloquent Sun Tzu-quoting tossers who seemingly only play against 12 year olds, and thus get their Vypers to rule the tabletop alongside their totally underrated Howling Banshees, and have the time and willingness to repeat their arguments ad nauseum.
And, of course, the third category of positivists who believe 40k is a science like chess, and get all pouty when people point out that creative people can also prosper, and that a lot of 40k is based on the results of random number generators.
Believing there is a, one, the truth, isn't any more flattering on learn to play types as people who mindlessly knee-jerk against learn to play types.
Preponderance of the evidence means that the pile as you refer to it is more likely than not likely to be guilty (or true). it is not true "beyond a shadow of doubt", as would be needed in a true criminal proceeding. It is the way Civil suits are handled. the court understands that opinions are going to vary and the subject matter is subjective in the extreme so the court does its best through a preponderance of the evidence to determine that something was far more likely than not. It's how they got OJ Simpson to cough up money for a Criminal charge that could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt, but could be shown to be more likely than not. anywho.
The "internet" isnt an entity that gives advice. Individuals may give opinions and though that gestalt input sure. We can see a trend but we cannot take that as proof on its own that this was the only way it could be played which is what you have to know.
As for going the road less traveled: was i talking about you specifically? No. obviously not. But then you're also not at the top Table at NOVA or Adepticon every year either are you? So you're hardly who i am talking about. More than that, i myself if you've seen the blog, am one of those as well that is a bit unorthodox. So that wasn't a criticism of those who do. merely an observation that someone in that situation (see Lance Armstrong for extreme examples, but there are MANY others) would do much to stay on top. History is filled with examples of them.
I'm not talking about a bad general. This was all in the context of a good general and more specifically, on the list building side. You're jumping tracks on me here. the LIST such a successful person uses is going to be the one he knows he can win with and that means that in list building, he isn't going to get overly creative with "experimental" builds when the internet DENIZENS, as you point out, can so easily assist him with the data needed to find a winning path. And that means you DONT see them playing things the Denizens dont know as well or they themselves don't know as well. Ergo, Sisters of Battle and other interesting armies that just don't have a reputation or their piled up list of powers doesn't exactly jump off the page at you aren't the first weapon of choice of the top General. he cant trust uit enough and doesnt want to have to explain later why he did something NOT on the beaten path.
I define strategy as the game before the game. i define tactics as the game within the game, since you ask. In game, this General might be quite skilled and bright. After all, thats who this was referring to: the smart ones. but even the smart ones don't take their "new fun and fluffy" list to a big dance, now...do they? No. They don't.
i agree whole heartedly with your last comment. those who are willing to take risks are out here. again, you seemingly have not read my articles, but you can trust that I, among anyone here, will espouse the creative solutions. But I also am not attending Adepticon or NOVA (its just too far and too expensive for the Average Joe to pick up and go). I dont have a big name to protect and to be honest Ive never been one for painting so I don't have those issues in choosing what i will or wont play. I do play in a very competitive pool of people who DO DO those things though. A LARGE one that strings from Salem Oregon to Vancouver BC along I-5 and there are a large number of names you'd recognize from that group. So I do get to see the worst (meaning toughest) builds there and on the net like you. Fortunately i have a lot of exposure to good Generals to play.
The bottom line I was getting to is, these metrics fail to tell you the two things you really NEEDED to know.
The problem with Stelek lists is that they're these mindless shooting lists that show no actual listbuilding skill. Nor playing ability aside from target selection. And yet, he makes it seem like he's got some kind of miraculous insight, etc.
I bet he's a pure IK player in the current meta. Bandwagoning on the big guns that basically do it all, no subtletly or thought required.
Martel732 wrote: Stelek had pretty good builds for 5th ed. Don't know about since then.
LOL.
If a good build is taking the units with the biggest kill ratio and spamming them, then sure. Eh. I guess? I mean a lot of those lists could have been written in Crayon, they were so simple. Every single list he posted was THAT. Triple "redundancy" until he had no points left. That was his claim to fame. "I can spam and you are a mental midget if you don't". Basically. "heavy Bolter Retributors are the future". Sigh.
Spamming was power in 5th. It still is, actually for certain lists.
Its one way to skin the cat. I instantly start tuning out when I hear someone tell me that there is only one way to skin a cat. You should too. Do you really think that person can teach you anything you hadn't already considered? I'm just saying. Think about that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnHwangDD wrote: The problem with Stelek lists is that they're these mindless shooting lists that show no actual listbuilding skill. Nor playing ability aside from target selection. And yet, he makes it seem like he's got some kind of miraculous insight, etc.
I bet he's a pure IK player in the current meta. Bandwagoning on the big guns that basically do it all, no subtletly or thought required.
He kinda stopped playing 40K is what someone told me. he does gaming but maybe not 40K. That could be totally wrong. I havent been really anywhere near the fellas site in a dark age. he had quite a following though so maybe?
JohnHwangDD wrote: Yeah, nothing wrong with gunline spam, and it definitely wins a fair share of games. There are other ways to play, though.
Did he? I never followed him. It seemed like he was pretty committed to 40k, that a lot of his self-worth was invested in "winning" at 40k.
I don't know the story though I'd say you're right on one thing: he was definitely invested.
He started claiming a hatred for GW itself as time went on but i somehow feel like there was more to that than just simple Codex-creep. Maybe his favorite army build got nerfed or something? Ive seen rage quitters over that. Maybe someone important dissed him. I dont freaking know. I bet his site is still up though. You could ask him if it is.
I basically quit Fantasy when GW stopped supporting my Dogs of War, so I get the ragequit thing.
I don't think he'd have quit over someone dissing him - he craved attention, positive or negative. And I don't think I'd ever seen him acknowledge anybody else as "important". From previous interaction, no, I'm not going to his site. If he's out, he's out. No need to pester the guy.
His site is still active, and his most recent post was about Circle in Hordes, so I'm guessing, like many a competitive player, he's moved in to a system more structured for competitive play?
Azreal13 wrote: His site is still active, and his most recent post was about Circle in Hordes, so I'm guessing, like many a competitive player, he's moved in to a system more structured for competitive play?
Azreal13 wrote: If he's going to cite tournament participation and/or wins/placing, that can be confirmed by public record or other participants.
Thud already seems to be in contact with the sort of people who would know him.
If he's citing public information, I don't see what other qualifications he needs. Both of you can make claims on the same evidence, I don't think he needs to be legally qualified to talk about a table top game.
JohnHwangDD wrote: I basically quit Fantasy when GW stopped supporting my Dogs of War, so I get the ragequit thing.
I don't think he'd have quit over someone dissing him - he craved attention, positive or negative. And I don't think I'd ever seen him acknowledge anybody else as "important". From previous interaction, no, I'm not going to his site. If he's out, he's out. No need to pester the guy.
Azreal13 wrote: His site is still active, and his most recent post was about Circle in Hordes, so I'm guessing, like many a competitive player, he's moved in to a system more structured for competitive play?
Azreal13 wrote: His site is still active, and his most recent post was about Circle in Hordes, so I'm guessing, like many a competitive player, he's moved in to a system more structured for competitive play?
Of course he plays circle...
Mind if I ask what that is?
Circle is a faction in warmachine.
Up until two years ago, it was viewed as one of the hardest factions to play, but a very good faction. It was great at caster killing.
The two "easiest" factions were Cryx and Legion, due to special rules or casters they had.
Keep in mind that in WMH, factions are very balanced. Even minions, which isn't a real faction, has won a tournament. This would be like if the Harliequin codex (no allies) won a major tournament.
Then, 2 years ago, they got a really powerful caster. She had the ability to stay very far away from the fight and bring troops back to life. She also allowed re-rolls for every single trooper every turn (normally such spells are limited to Warmachine, which has weaker giant monsters. Now Hordes had it for their incredible beasts. Bringing people back to life is usually a warmachine only spell).
Last year, they got the most powerful tier list in the entire game, Wold war.
It features a caster, called Bradigus (you may have seen #bradforthegame or something similar, or any of the 10+ page threads on the faction forums, or the 46+ page thread on the main board...) using nothing but Golems and constructs.
These creatures can be teleported.
They have synergy, so when one attacks, they all get stronger.
They all have guns that have Remove from Play, so no bringing back from the dead.
They can create giant forests that you can't see through and create rough terrain.
They have shield guard, which allows the super tough golems to take hits for Bradigus.
Bradigus can be teleported 3 times, use synergy, and push enemies out of his way to kill the caster.
He's quite popular despite being brand new. Wolds have been sold out for some time now, most players are expecting a nerf relatively soon but are unsure what it will be.
Jreily89,
It's not that he's citing public information, it's that he's telling other posters that because they aren't playing in the most competitive atmosphere, their arguments are invalid and not worthy of discussion.
If he's going to say such, he had better be playing at such high levels or it looks very...awkward for him.
Granted, either way is a logical fallacy, I just want to see how hypocritical it is.
It seems like eldar players are always trying to justify their wins by saying their armies are not cheese-balls. Anybody if the you can play a straight up game, no allies or formations, with a team like the tyranids, orks, or Dark Angles, against the eldar and still win then ill consider your argument.
Azreal13 wrote: If he's going to cite tournament participation and/or wins/placing, that can be confirmed by public record or other participants.
Thud already seems to be in contact with the sort of people who would know him.
If he's citing public information, I don't see what other qualifications he needs. Both of you can make claims on the same evidence, I don't think he needs to be legally qualified to talk about a table top game.
Akiasura has already pretty much covered it, but I didn't actually say he's citing public information I said if he were to cite tournament participation for his so-called insight, it would be relatively easy to verify as tournament results and participation are normally publicly available.
Realistically speaking, if he doesn't have a track record of tournament success to back up claims he's making which run counter to essentially everyone else with even a passing understanding of the subject, then he's essentially wrong or playing in such a skewed meta as to be irrelevant to any discussion of the game at large.
Nobody needs to be legally qualified about anything to talk about it on Dakka, but if one is going to post in a high-handed, dismissive, patronising or arrogant manner (as he has to me and other users) it really pays to have the chops to back it up.
Deafbeats wrote: I know in League of Legends (bear with me) when a player has +50% win rate, they move up in rank cause they're good. When a Champion has an overall winrate above 50% (like 52-59%), they usually get nerfed. Any higher and the player is either leagues ahead playing against lowbies, or the champ has a crazy game winning bug. 50% is just about where an army should be, above that i'd say it's a pretty strong army.
Then maybe LoL is not a good reference.
Starcraft Brood War would be a much better reference, and in SC:BW, many players had a lot more than 50% win rate.
Because that's how competition is, unless you want to go ahead and call for a nerf on Michael Phelps maybe ?
Champions win rates in LoL are a good comparison to Races win rates in 40K. Players in BW and completely unrelated Olympic athlete analogies are not. Why bring up BW anyway? How far out of the loop are you...
Because BW is a strategy game, like 40K, whereas LoL is a much simpler game with a lot less in common with 40K.
Exceptional people are exceptional people, whether they chose to focus on work, 40K (that generally doesn't happen because even the top of 40K is pretty low), SC:BW (and SCII when it stabilizes) and Olympics are all the same: people who give their all to one single discipline and compete with others who do the exact same.
Competition in Olympics (Usain Bolt anyone), BW (Flash) and anything else sees the best competitors with win rates far above 50%, because that's how competition is.
In LoL, it's surely the same thing except you didn't see it. The best LoL players are sure to have a lot more than 50% win rate, and cannot go any higher because they're the top of the ladder already.
How have you missed the point this hard? Comparing winrates of people to winrates of codices is a poor comparison. Comparing winrates to champions in LoL to Codices is not. It does not matter how much they have in common, it's just general statistics. A 5% swing in a somewhat balanced system is large. You tend miss the point on about 90% of your post and arguing with you is somewhat similar to arguing with a brick wall so I think I'll leave this for now.
Azreal13 wrote: If he's going to cite tournament participation and/or wins/placing, that can be confirmed by public record or other participants.
Thud already seems to be in contact with the sort of people who would know him.
If he's citing public information, I don't see what other qualifications he needs. Both of you can make claims on the same evidence, I don't think he needs to be legally qualified to talk about a table top game.
Akiasura has already pretty much covered it, but I didn't actually say he's citing public information I said if he were to cite tournament participation for his so-called insight, it would be relatively easy to verify as tournament results and participation are normally publicly available.
Realistically speaking, if he doesn't have a track record of tournament success to back up claims he's making which run counter to essentially everyone else with even a passing understanding of the subject, then he's essentially wrong or playing in such a skewed meta as to be irrelevant to any discussion of the game at large.
Nobody needs to be legally qualified about anything to talk about it on Dakka, but if one is going to post in a high-handed, dismissive, patronising or arrogant manner (as he has to me and other users) it really pays to have the chops to back it up.
I get that. But I also feel like a lot of people "calling him out" could be called in other threads. If you want to disagree with him, go for it, but he's not the only I've seen post in a high-handed, dismissive, patronising or arrogant manner.
Azreal13 wrote: Ok, you get that if you're going to make controversial claims you probably need something to back them up if you wish to be taken seriously, cool.
Az, the irony is palpable, but okay, have it your way. Morgoth's wrong and should never be trusted on anything
If you'd like to point out to me any post I've made in any thread where I've made an outlandish claim without being able to substantiate it, or at least argue in a coherent way to support it, by all means bring it to my attention.
Otherwise, cut it out.
Morgoth is making claims that neither conventional wisdom nor mathematics supports - I am still willing to accept he may have a point, but I am asking for something to add substance to his claims, some sort of evidence to either lend credibility to his insight into the game or something where played games have borne out what he's saying.
Considering how contrary to accepted thinking his claims are, I don't feel it's unreasonable.
If you can fault my logic, irrespective of whatever (erroneous) ideas you may have about my own posts, please feel free to outline it to me.
gmaleron wrote: Tau shouldn't be considered OP because they aren't in any way shape or form. Way too much hate stemming from 6 addition, people need to get over it.
Says you. I think the Riptide still makes that army pretty OP.
Azreal13 wrote: If you'd like to point out to me any post I've made in any thread where I've made an outlandish claim without being able to substantiate it, or at least argue in a coherent way to support it, by all means bring it to my attention.
Otherwise, cut it out.
Morgoth is making claims that neither conventional wisdom nor mathematics supports - I am still willing to accept he may have a point, but I am asking for something to add substance to his claims, some sort of evidence to either lend credibility to his insight into the game or something where played games have borne out what he's saying.
Considering how contrary to accepted thinking his claims are, I don't feel it's unreasonable.
If you can fault my logic, irrespective of whatever (erroneous) ideas you may have about my own posts, please feel free to outline it to me.
I asked you for examples of where I'd made outlandish claims and failed to back them up with evidence or a compelling argument, not threads where I was defending myself from a user who has taken any opportunity to jump down my throat for months.
Azreal13 wrote: I asked you for examples of where I'd made outlandish claims and failed to back them up with evidence or a compelling argument, not threads where I was defending myself from a user who has taken any opportunity to jump down my throat for months.
Or just one of the many users who finds your arrogance and seemingly OCD level habit of twisting other users words and behaviour and then presenting it in a completely different light irksome. I for example have not waited to jump at your throat for months. You're just annoying as a person.
Someone might make a completely valid argument and even back it up. Your response is often along the general lines of "X is just making arguments that have no substance and are as coherent as a band of raving lepers."
Your defense when argumenting, which is infact offense, includes a statement inwhich you supposedly just singlehandedly decide someones argument is invalid in one or numerous ways ( decided and conjured from thin air by you ) with the added offensive, sometimes partially humorous twist.
Start behaving better and seize to attract such attention. Next to that you weren't defending yourself in said thread, you were being childish and on the offensive, and no amount of squirming that will surely follow will change this fact.
"Does it hurt when you poop? Watching over them like an oversensitive batman."
Not the words I'd expect from a person you make yourself out to be on these forums ( aside from this behaviour. ) Get over yourself.
My own opinion regarding the apparent topic is that playing a list that utilizes the most broken combinations in the game does not equal skill. I've seen examples of people that do think that though. There is a Necron player I know ( just for example ) that used to say he is a really good player when playing his Necrons ( which consisted from 3 Annibarges, CCB, and a minimum of 6 flyers without exception. ) He said he is only "okay" when playing his Blood Angels ( old Codex. ) Atleast he was honest.
Quickjager wrote: Or you can just accept the fact people hate certain units in your army and get over it.
lol nothing for me to get over nice try bro I am perfectly fine with people hating the Tau but crying that they're OP when their not gets tiresome. That goes for anyone saying they can't win against any unit or any army just because their quote unquote "OP".
Tau have op units but in and of itself, no they are no longer op, riptides and missile sides are on the knife edge off powerful to op but that's about it.
Everyone has one or more of there own units like this, my black knights for example, God damned nasty when spammed.
Formosa wrote: Tau have op units but in and of itself, no they are no longer op, riptides and missile sides are on the knife edge off powerful to op but that's about it.
Everyone has one or more of there own units like this, my black knights for example, God damned nasty when spammed.
Oh for sure I totally agree with you that they're strong but by no means are they these invincible things that people continually complain about and as you mentioned other armies have stronger if not just a strong units. Its just a complaint I don't like in general as to me it feels like people are just giving up and creating an excuse why they can't beat it.
Well the thing is, the thread was meant to revolve around whether or not a winning percentage of 50% was "proof" that a certain army is "cheezy"
I'm convinced of some things 6 pages in:
1. No. It's not proof.
2. Cheezy is an OVER used term. Good lord its over used and its definition never agreed upon anyways.
3. LOTS of mising data, so really how can you even evaluate it without an even number of very good generals taking an even number of cracks at it using all the armies. You'd need expert generals playing 320 games or so (by my estimation) just to even know for sure. And whose got that kind of time in a year? No one.
So really I am satisfied that this data doesnt disprove or prove anything other than that many good players have chosen to play some armies more than others yet we don't know if they could do the same with others simply by dent of the fact they never even tried.
Formosa wrote: Tau have op units but in and of itself, no they are no longer op, riptides and missile sides are on the knife edge off powerful to op but that's about it.
Everyone has one or more of there own units like this, my black knights for example, God damned nasty when spammed.
Oh for sure I totally agree with you that they're strong but by no means are they these invincible things that people continually complain about and as you mentioned other armies have stronger if not just a strong units. Its just a complaint I don't like in general as to me it feels like people are just giving up and creating an excuse why they can't beat it.
yeah lol, I surprised people don't cry cheese at me when I rad grenade a riptide then hit it with 8 plasma talons then a demolisher, I haven't seen one survive that yet, even with 3++, I plan on dealing with wraiths the same way, if they advance on me I will just hit them with my knights (now they are t4) 50 + twin linked bolters, plasma talons and demolishers will ruin there day, then assault what's left with the knights and hit/run away end of there turn, I know real life it's not that easy but meh
Formosa wrote: Tau have op units but in and of itself, no they are no longer op, riptides and missile sides are on the knife edge off powerful to op but that's about it.
Everyone has one or more of there own units like this, my black knights for example, God damned nasty when spammed.
Oh for sure I totally agree with you that they're strong but by no means are they these invincible things that people continually complain about and as you mentioned other armies have stronger if not just a strong units. Its just a complaint I don't like in general as to me it feels like people are just giving up and creating an excuse why they can't beat it.
yeah lol, I surprised people don't cry cheese at me when I rad grenade a riptide then hit it with 8 plasma talons then a demolisher, I haven't seen one survive that yet, even with 3++, I plan on dealing with wraiths the same way, if they advance on me I will just hit them with my knights (now they are t4) 50 + twin linked bolters, plasma talons and demolishers will ruin there day, then assault what's left with the knights and hit/run away end of there turn, I know real life it's not that easy but meh
To be honest, they probably don't call cheese against your rad grenades, plasma talons and your demolisher for one reason:
Azreal13 wrote: I asked you for examples of where I'd made outlandish claims and failed to back them up with evidence or a compelling argument, not threads where I was defending myself from a user who has taken any opportunity to jump down my throat for months.
Or just one of the many users who finds your arrogance and seemingly OCD level habit of twisting other users words and behaviour and then presenting it in a completely different light irksome. I for example have not waited to jump at your throat for months. You're just annoying as a person.
Someone might make a completely valid argument and even back it up. Your response is often along the general lines of "X is just making arguments that have no substance and are as coherent as a band of raving lepers."
Your defense when argumenting, which is infact offense, includes a statement inwhich you supposedly just singlehandedly decide someones argument is invalid in one or numerous ways ( decided and conjured from thin air by you ) with the added offensive, sometimes partially humorous twist.
Start behaving better and seize to attract such attention. Next to that you weren't defending yourself in said thread, you were being childish and on the offensive, and no amount of squirming that will surely follow will change this fact.
"Does it hurt when you poop? Watching over them like an oversensitive batman."
Not the words I'd expect from a person you make yourself out to be on these forums ( aside from this behaviour. ) Get over yourself.
I won't be held responsible for you inability to spot, or grasp, any attempt I make at humour. Or simply your ability to choose to act outraged because you get something out of it.
I won't be changing my personality nor my posting style just to protect your sensibilities, and I'm frankly tired of the constant haranguing, so please either put me on ignore and really, really mean it or just over your own self get.
I'm with you grey Templar, it may just be because I don't have many dark eldar players at my local store but I have never seen a scary dark eldar list, not one. Granted I have only played a handful of games against a pure dark eldar list but those games were cake walks.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Further I rarely see in all my time searching through torrent of fire, dakka, and the rest of the net posts for "competitive" dark eldar. Kinda like seeing a "competitve" Black Templar list. You just don't see it.
Tau cheese is kinda funny to me, the it's a shooting only army that is bs3 across the board. Yes they have marker lights but take those out and you neuter the army.
Epartalis wrote: I'm with you grey Templar, it may just be because I don't have many dark eldar players at my local store but I have never seen a scary dark eldar list, not one. Granted I have only played a handful of games against a pure dark eldar list but those games were cake walks.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Further I rarely see in all my time searching through torrent of fire, dakka, and the rest of the net posts for "competitive" dark eldar. Kinda like seeing a "competitve" Black Templar list. You just don't see it.
Tau cheese is kinda funny to me, the it's a shooting only army that is bs3 across the board. Yes they have marker lights but take those out and you neuter the army.
If the Riptide was toned down a bit and Vespids buffed a bit, they'd be darn near passable in external and internal balance.
Epartalis wrote: I'm with you grey Templar, it may just be because I don't have many dark eldar players at my local store but I have never seen a scary dark eldar list, not one. Granted I have only played a handful of games against a pure dark eldar list but those games were cake walks.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Further I rarely see in all my time searching through torrent of fire, dakka, and the rest of the net posts for "competitive" dark eldar. Kinda like seeing a "competitve" Black Templar list. You just don't see it.
Tau cheese is kinda funny to me, the it's a shooting only army that is bs3 across the board. Yes they have marker lights but take those out and you neuter the army.
You definitely have to play a skilled DE player, but I've seen some nasty lists. The problem is DE are so fragile that unless they can outmaneuver you or get in first, they just get shot to pieces
Epartalis wrote: I'm with you grey Templar, it may just be because I don't have many dark eldar players at my local store but I have never seen a scary dark eldar list, not one. Granted I have only played a handful of games against a pure dark eldar list but those games were cake walks.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Further I rarely see in all my time searching through torrent of fire, dakka, and the rest of the net posts for "competitive" dark eldar. Kinda like seeing a "competitve" Black Templar list. You just don't see it.
Tau cheese is kinda funny to me, the it's a shooting only army that is bs3 across the board. Yes they have marker lights but take those out and you neuter the army.
If the Riptide was toned down a bit and Vespids buffed a bit, they'd be darn near passable in external and internal balance.
The Riptide does not need to be toned down though, really what needs to be changed is the points cost for the Ion Accelerator as even I can agree its to low. Other then that its perfectly fine, if were talking about toning down the Riptide then Grey Knight Dreadknights should also be in the discussion.
Epartalis wrote: I'm with you grey Templar, it may just be because I don't have many dark eldar players at my local store but I have never seen a scary dark eldar list, not one. Granted I have only played a handful of games against a pure dark eldar list but those games were cake walks.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Further I rarely see in all my time searching through torrent of fire, dakka, and the rest of the net posts for "competitive" dark eldar. Kinda like seeing a "competitve" Black Templar list. You just don't see it.
Tau cheese is kinda funny to me, the it's a shooting only army that is bs3 across the board. Yes they have marker lights but take those out and you neuter the army.
If the Riptide was toned down a bit and Vespids buffed a bit, they'd be darn near passable in external and internal balance.
The Riptide does not need to be toned down though, really what needs to be changed is the points cost for the Ion Accelerator as even I can agree its to low. Other then that its perfectly fine, if were talking about toning down the Riptide then Grey Knight Dreadknights should also be in the discussion.
No, not really. The Dreadknight can't disintegrate my entire list from 60" away and LOL at any return fire. The Dreadknight has to put itself much more in harms way. The base chasis of the Riptide needs a points boost and then the ion accelerator needs banned or a massive boost. Pointing to a squad and having the whole thing picked up from 60" on a platform that can't be killed is insane. And Riptides effectively can't be killed at 60".
Epartalis wrote: I'm with you grey Templar, it may just be because I don't have many dark eldar players at my local store but I have never seen a scary dark eldar list, not one. Granted I have only played a handful of games against a pure dark eldar list but those games were cake walks.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Further I rarely see in all my time searching through torrent of fire, dakka, and the rest of the net posts for "competitive" dark eldar. Kinda like seeing a "competitve" Black Templar list. You just don't see it.
Tau cheese is kinda funny to me, the it's a shooting only army that is bs3 across the board. Yes they have marker lights but take those out and you neuter the army.
If the Riptide was toned down a bit and Vespids buffed a bit, they'd be darn near passable in external and internal balance.
The Riptide does not need to be toned down though, really what needs to be changed is the points cost for the Ion Accelerator as even I can agree its to low. Other then that its perfectly fine, if were talking about toning down the Riptide then Grey Knight Dreadknights should also be in the discussion.
No, not really. The Dreadknight can't disintegrate my entire list from 60" away and LOL at any return fire. The Dreadknight has to put itself much more in harms way. The base chasis of the Riptide needs a points boost and then the ion accelerator needs banned or a massive boost. Pointing to a squad and having the whole thing picked up from 60" on a platform that can't be killed is insane. And Riptides effectively can't be killed at 60".
Though I agree 1v1 a riptide is far stronger than a single dreadknight but how often do you see a dreadknight without his civil partner(s) coming at you?
Epartalis wrote: I'm with you grey Templar, it may just be because I don't have many dark eldar players at my local store but I have never seen a scary dark eldar list, not one. Granted I have only played a handful of games against a pure dark eldar list but those games were cake walks.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Further I rarely see in all my time searching through torrent of fire, dakka, and the rest of the net posts for "competitive" dark eldar. Kinda like seeing a "competitve" Black Templar list. You just don't see it.
Tau cheese is kinda funny to me, the it's a shooting only army that is bs3 across the board. Yes they have marker lights but take those out and you neuter the army.
If the Riptide was toned down a bit and Vespids buffed a bit, they'd be darn near passable in external and internal balance.
The Riptide does not need to be toned down though, really what needs to be changed is the points cost for the Ion Accelerator as even I can agree its to low. Other then that its perfectly fine, if were talking about toning down the Riptide then Grey Knight Dreadknights should also be in the discussion.
No, not really. The Dreadknight can't disintegrate my entire list from 60" away and LOL at any return fire. The Dreadknight has to put itself much more in harms way. The base chasis of the Riptide needs a points boost and then the ion accelerator needs banned or a massive boost. Pointing to a squad and having the whole thing picked up from 60" on a platform that can't be killed is insane. And Riptides effectively can't be killed at 60".
Riptide is not better then a Dreadknight for a few reasons:
-For 50 points cheaper the Dreadknight only has 1 less wound.
-Both have a 2+5+ and before you say it the Riptide Invulnerable save has a 1/3 chance to fail and hurt itself with NO saves of any kind.
-Exagerration clearly on the points boost, I would say max upgrade the Ion Accelerator to 20pts. and leave the model as because its perfectly balanced. If the Riptide goes up, the Dreadknight better go up to, typical Tau hate.
-60 inch range does not matter when you can move 12 inches every turn on top of a free 30 shunt move putting you RIGHT in front of your opponent, or even better Deepstrike in on turn 1.
-Access to Psychic powers which can give your Gatling Psilencer Instant Death, Flamer and Sword for cheaper then most upgraded Riptides
Sorry your argument is incorrect, a single Dreadknight would WOOP a single Riptide.
Didn't mean to derail the thread, just needed to educate. In regards to a 50% win percentage being cheesy no idea how or why that would even be or come up in a conversation or game. If people are accusing you that its only your army is why your doing so well (like Eldar, Imperium Army Shenanigans, Necrons or whatever you play) let them. You play with the armies and units you want to play with, the only thing I would always keep in mind is what kind of game it is (friendly, competitive ect.) and also the skill level of your opponent.
Only the forgeworld riptides really need a nerf. In a world with grav cannons, eldar, and Knights, I don't think the riptide is so horrendously op. Ion accelerator could use a price bump, but that's about it.
I think the biggest offending monstrous creature in the game right now is the wraith knight.
Epartalis wrote: I'm with you grey Templar, it may just be because I don't have many dark eldar players at my local store but I have never seen a scary dark eldar list, not one. Granted I have only played a handful of games against a pure dark eldar list but those games were cake walks.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Further I rarely see in all my time searching through torrent of fire, dakka, and the rest of the net posts for "competitive" dark eldar. Kinda like seeing a "competitve" Black Templar list. You just don't see it.
Tau cheese is kinda funny to me, the it's a shooting only army that is bs3 across the board. Yes they have marker lights but take those out and you neuter the army.
If the Riptide was toned down a bit and Vespids buffed a bit, they'd be darn near passable in external and internal balance.
The Riptide does not need to be toned down though, really what needs to be changed is the points cost for the Ion Accelerator as even I can agree its to low. Other then that its perfectly fine, if were talking about toning down the Riptide then Grey Knight Dreadknights should also be in the discussion.
The fact that it pays the same for EWO is crazy. 5 points for EWO on a Riptide... what?
Epartalis wrote: I'm with you grey Templar, it may just be because I don't have many dark eldar players at my local store but I have never seen a scary dark eldar list, not one. Granted I have only played a handful of games against a pure dark eldar list but those games were cake walks.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Further I rarely see in all my time searching through torrent of fire, dakka, and the rest of the net posts for "competitive" dark eldar. Kinda like seeing a "competitve" Black Templar list. You just don't see it.
Tau cheese is kinda funny to me, the it's a shooting only army that is bs3 across the board. Yes they have marker lights but take those out and you neuter the army.
If the Riptide was toned down a bit and Vespids buffed a bit, they'd be darn near passable in external and internal balance.
The Riptide does not need to be toned down though, really what needs to be changed is the points cost for the Ion Accelerator as even I can agree its to low. Other then that its perfectly fine, if were talking about toning down the Riptide then Grey Knight Dreadknights should also be in the discussion.
The fact that it pays the same for EWO is crazy. 5 points for EWO on a Riptide... what?
edit: eh only EWO is really that nuts.
Well 5 points for master crafted (Dreadknight's sword) is also retry nuts.
Riptide is not better then a Dreadknight for a few reasons:
-For 50 points cheaper the Dreadknight only has 1 less wound.
-Both have a 2+5+ and before you say it the Riptide Invulnerable save has a 1/3 chance to fail and hurt itself with NO saves of any kind.
-Exagerration clearly on the points boost, I would say max upgrade the Ion Accelerator to 20pts. and leave the model as because its perfectly balanced. If the Riptide goes up, the Dreadknight better go up to, typical Tau hate.
-60 inch range does not matter when you can move 12 inches every turn on top of a free 30 shunt move putting you RIGHT in front of your opponent, or even better Deepstrike in on turn 1.
-Access to Psychic powers which can give your Gatling Psilencer Instant Death, Flamer and Sword for cheaper then most upgraded Riptides
Sorry your argument is incorrect, a single Dreadknight would WOOP a single Riptide.
Didn't mean to derail the thread, just needed to educate. In regards to a 50% win percentage being cheesy no idea how or why that would even be or come up in a conversation or game. If people are accusing you that its only your army is why your doing so well (like Eldar, Imperium Army Shenanigans, Necrons or whatever you play) let them. You play with the armies and units you want to play with, the only thing I would always keep in mind is what kind of game it is (friendly, competitive ect.) and also the skill level of your opponent.
He wasn't saying that a Dreadknight couldn't beat a Riptide, he was (correctly) stating that the Riptide is able to do its damage from further away than the Dreadknight can. The DK has to subject itself to plasma guns, melta guns, force weapons (potentially), and the regular long ranged AT weapons in order to do its damage. The Riptide can usually sit far enough back to only worry about the long ranged stuff.
Epartalis wrote: I'm with you grey Templar, it may just be because I don't have many dark eldar players at my local store but I have never seen a scary dark eldar list, not one. Granted I have only played a handful of games against a pure dark eldar list but those games were cake walks.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Further I rarely see in all my time searching through torrent of fire, dakka, and the rest of the net posts for "competitive" dark eldar. Kinda like seeing a "competitve" Black Templar list. You just don't see it.
Tau cheese is kinda funny to me, the it's a shooting only army that is bs3 across the board. Yes they have marker lights but take those out and you neuter the army.
If the Riptide was toned down a bit and Vespids buffed a bit, they'd be darn near passable in external and internal balance.
The Riptide does not need to be toned down though, really what needs to be changed is the points cost for the Ion Accelerator as even I can agree its to low. Other then that its perfectly fine, if were talking about toning down the Riptide then Grey Knight Dreadknights should also be in the discussion.
The fact that it pays the same for EWO is crazy. 5 points for EWO on a Riptide... what?
edit: eh only EWO is really that nuts.
Well 5 points for master crafted (Dreadknight's sword) is also retry nuts.
10pts, 5pts more than the hammer that gives concussive.
Epartalis wrote: I'm with you grey Templar, it may just be because I don't have many dark eldar players at my local store but I have never seen a scary dark eldar list, not one. Granted I have only played a handful of games against a pure dark eldar list but those games were cake walks.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Further I rarely see in all my time searching through torrent of fire, dakka, and the rest of the net posts for "competitive" dark eldar. Kinda like seeing a "competitve" Black Templar list. You just don't see it.
Tau cheese is kinda funny to me, the it's a shooting only army that is bs3 across the board. Yes they have marker lights but take those out and you neuter the army.
If the Riptide was toned down a bit and Vespids buffed a bit, they'd be darn near passable in external and internal balance.
The Riptide does not need to be toned down though, really what needs to be changed is the points cost for the Ion Accelerator as even I can agree its to low. Other then that its perfectly fine, if were talking about toning down the Riptide then Grey Knight Dreadknights should also be in the discussion.
No, not really. The Dreadknight can't disintegrate my entire list from 60" away and LOL at any return fire. The Dreadknight has to put itself much more in harms way. The base chasis of the Riptide needs a points boost and then the ion accelerator needs banned or a massive boost. Pointing to a squad and having the whole thing picked up from 60" on a platform that can't be killed is insane. And Riptides effectively can't be killed at 60".
Riptide is not better then a Dreadknight for a few reasons:
-For 50 points cheaper the Dreadknight only has 1 less wound.
The Riptide pays roughly 40-50 points per wound as it is, so this seems fair. The riptide is a lot more survivable between not relying on pyskers, long range weapons, and better saves as well, so really the dreadknight seems over priced in relation.
Note I say in relation. I am not saying either is priced fairly, but relatively speaking,so far it seems the dreadknight is more fairly costed.
-Both have a 2+5+ and before you say it the Riptide Invulnerable save has a 1/3 chance to fail and hurt itself with NO saves of any kind.
True. However, your point is very misleading.
Let's not forget that first off, the failure happens less then half the time, and the survival jump is about equal to the chances of wounding (33%).
The Riptide can gain FnP as well, which helps.
The Riptide is not likely to be targetted by grav weapons, plasma, melta, or any other weapon it should fear unless the unit is deep striked. The Dreadknight really wants to touch you, while the Riptide wants to hang on the opposite table edge and fire at you.
It is very easy for the Riptide to hug cover.
The Riptides weapons can gain ignore cover or BS improvements from the rest of the army, which is huge on a unit like this.
-Exagerration clearly on the points boost, I would say max upgrade the Ion Accelerator to 20pts. and leave the model as because its perfectly balanced. If the Riptide goes up, the Dreadknight better go up to, typical Tau hate.
See my points above. Both should go up, imo, but the Riptide needs about 2-3 times the point increase of the dreadknight.
-60 inch range does not matter when you can move 12 inches every turn on top of a free 30 shunt move putting you RIGHT in front of your opponent, or even better Deepstrike in on turn 1.
12 Inches plus 30 is only 42, so it still loses to the 60 range of the gun. If it deepstrikes, it can't assault.
So the Riptide is doing it's thing turn 1, while the dreadknight is waiting till turn 2 or later depending on incoming fire. In a game that lasts only 5-7 turns, that can be a huge improvement on table presence.
Let's not forget the dreadknight is moving forward, into enemy fire. A unit of TWC can destroy a dreadknight if properly kitted. They have a much harder time dealing with a riptide.
Sorry your argument is incorrect, a single Dreadknight would WOOP a single Riptide.
Luckily that would never happen. When discussing balance, you don't put two units on the table and have them fight each other.
You discuss their impact on metas or armies. The Riptide has a much larger presence here.
Or are you saying markerlights are useless? After all, nearly every unit in the game walks over pathfinders 1v1.
Didn't mean to derail the thread, just needed to educate. In regards to a 50% win percentage being cheesy no idea how or why that would even be or come up in a conversation or game. If people are accusing you that its only your army is why your doing so well (like Eldar, Imperium Army Shenanigans, Necrons or whatever you play) let them. You play with the armies and units you want to play with, the only thing I would always keep in mind is what kind of game it is (friendly, competitive ect.) and also the skill level of your opponent.
No problem, I don't mind a little education myself when it is being provided.
Some armies are harder to win with then others. In a balanced game, this would be a matchup discussion (Like how Cryx has an advantage against Skorne, but has issues with cygnar. Skorne has an advantage against cygnar). In 40k, certain codexes are just head and shoulders above others. They are flat out easier to win with then others.
In 40k, these dexes are Tau, Eldar, IoM (needs allies to achieve this often, but it certainly can), and Necrons. My meta disallows Knights so I won't comment there.
If you are winning with these armies it's not as impressive as winning with, say, De or DA.
Some people get mad at that, I can understand why. It's not always their fault that their codex is overpowered. But reality is reality.
Akiasura, what you are forgetting to do is factor in the rest of the Grey Knight's army.
You're including marker lights and stuff, but what about Grey Knight's alpha strike? That would soften up the opponent which would also reduce the amount of units that will shoot at the Dreadknight since there will be terminators and purifiers using BA/SW drop pods or a cent star with Draigo and friends.
This means that the rest of the army makes the Dreadknight more survivable.
Edit: how could I forget the Dreadknight's civil partner(s) (like total0 said). You usually see singular Riptides but you NEVER see singular Dreadknights.
SGTPozy wrote: Akiasura, what you are forgetting to do is factor in the rest of the Grey Knight's army.
You're including marker lights and stuff, but what about Grey Knight's alpha strike? That would soften up the opponent which would also reduce the amount of units that will shoot at the Dreadknight since there will be terminators and purifiers using BA/SW drop pods or a cent star with Draigo and friends.
This means that the rest of the army makes the Dreadknight more survivable.
Edit: how could I forget the Dreadknight's civil partner(s) (like total0 said). You usually see singular Riptides but you NEVER see singular Dreadknights.
Grey knights are not what I would call a survivable army, and haven't been since 5th. Even then, it was based on the would allocation tricks you could pull. Grey knights take shots like marines, but are costed above that.
The Grey knights alpha strike doesn't have t1 effectiveness unless they deep strike. Grey knights lack truly long ranged weaponary, unlike the riptides and Tau army. Deep striking has it's own weaknesses, though it can certainly be a strong strategy.
If you are implying that people would rather shoot at other parts of the army OVER a dreadknight, providing both are in range, that just suggests the dreadknight isn't the most threatening thing on the table. The riptide doesn't get shot because it is out of range. If I had a crisis suit squad next to a rip tide, unless I was running meltas (for the ID), I'd shoot the riptide. It's a much scarier enemy.
And what about the rest of my points?
As for your last comment, I don't know your experiences. I will say that Triptide is a thing, while Biknight or Triknight is not. Dreadknights are often run in pairs, true, but Riptides are often run in 2 or 3. It's why it has a nickname
Epartalis wrote: I'm with you grey Templar, it may just be because I don't have many dark eldar players at my local store but I have never seen a scary dark eldar list, not one. Granted I have only played a handful of games against a pure dark eldar list but those games were cake walks.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Further I rarely see in all my time searching through torrent of fire, dakka, and the rest of the net posts for "competitive" dark eldar. Kinda like seeing a "competitve" Black Templar list. You just don't see it.
Tau cheese is kinda funny to me, the it's a shooting only army that is bs3 across the board. Yes they have marker lights but take those out and you neuter the army.
If the Riptide was toned down a bit and Vespids buffed a bit, they'd be darn near passable in external and internal balance.
The Riptide does not need to be toned down though, really what needs to be changed is the points cost for the Ion Accelerator as even I can agree its to low. Other then that its perfectly fine, if were talking about toning down the Riptide then Grey Knight Dreadknights should also be in the discussion.
No, not really. The Dreadknight can't disintegrate my entire list from 60" away and LOL at any return fire. The Dreadknight has to put itself much more in harms way. The base chasis of the Riptide needs a points boost and then the ion accelerator needs banned or a massive boost. Pointing to a squad and having the whole thing picked up from 60" on a platform that can't be killed is insane. And Riptides effectively can't be killed at 60".
That makes no sense when the Space marines get a Vindicator for what... 115?
Grey Templar wrote: Its only range 24", and its a vehicle. Meaning its much less durable.
185 gets you a Plasmacutioner AV 14. So i mean we can go back and forth but the reality is, the Riptide is basically like the Plasmacutioner only LESS effective, and the Plasmacutioner armor makes it very doughty. The Riptide is more survivable against big guns but can be taken down under the weight of plasma/exotic small arms and FORGET about it in combat. It ALMOST auto-loses. Every dog has its day but...
I'm not one of those Tau players who feels the Riptide is "over rated" by people. It really is powerful. But so's a WraithKnight. So are Imperial Knights. So are Necron Wraith units. So are a dozen other examples of things that the enemy has ready acccess to.
Shooting is WHAT Tau DO. And they are good at it. Everyone knows the thing to do with Tau is engage them in melee asap. Not shoot them. So if you really want to explain how the Ion Cannon should be nerfed, first explain to me why you're army isnt built by now to get to them in turn two or three? Even the slowest Rhino moving flat out can be there. Terminators, Land Raiders. Good lord how can anyone complain about a Riptide when Land Raiders run arouns ith two STR 6 AP 3 flamers, AV 14 armor and enough Assault terminators inside to wreck anyones day!
The Riptide is powerful but the answer si the same as it always was: ram your frist through their stomachs and tear out their spines.
But referring to any LR chassis as AV14 is no more or less accurate than referring to it as av10 or 11.
The Riptide is the same durability, whatever angle the shots are coming from, and while it isn't the best CCMC in the game, will sure as hell outperform a LR in an assault.
You can play the point for point comparison game all day, but one has to take the overall package into consideration, and while they're no doubt not quite the power they were, you'd still have to seriously consider a Riptide for a top 5 units in the game right now. That's a case much harder to make for the Russ chassis.
I have no problem and said as much, placing it in the powerful category. i also know this: there is always going to BE a top 5. Always. Forever. here to eternity.
And were the tables not tilted against Tau for QUITE long enough? I think they were.
So pointing out its placement among the pantheon of powerful units really isnt an argument against it. EVERY unit likes or dislikes things differently and last time i checked a Land raidr WINS most close combats. You hit it on a 3 and you BETTER have something AWESOME, it better be AP 2 or bettr and you better roll well. Or next round its going to burninate you or expel an uber unit into your face. If it didnt already.
Sorry but I can look around and see TOTALLY ubiquitous examples of "powerful" but what remains true is that they all have answers. Some like Land Raiders are just so old and common that we dont think about them in nearly the positive light we should. Others are less common but no less brutal.
D-Cannons for example. EXTREMELY good. RARELY used. tough as nailks, destructive and can be bubble wrapped as well as any strong unit can be. Its range is short but its destructive power is pretty serious and its barrage. No one puts it in the top 5, but dayam. take three of them and wrap them. Move them up for a round if the enemy isnt coming to you and let the fire works begin.
Now in melee it folds like a paper airplace. But getting there might be a trifle difficult and vry dangrous.
total cost? Less. Total impact? about the same minus the round it takes to cart it into position. But then its less. So thats okay.
I only use it as YET another example. one that isnt even going to make the top ten on most peoples list Ill wager.
The Riptide is in no way cheap so my feeling on it is that its VERY GOOD, and WORTH THE POINTS. I think people need to adjust to it by fighting it in melee. and if they refuse that, then I suppose you'll have a long day. Like the day 9 Plasmacutioners showed up. No less ridiculous and absolutely not mentioned on these forums often. dont know why not. Dont care either because nothing exists in a vacuum.
Jancoran wrote: I have no problem and said as much, placing it in the powerful category. i also know this: there is always going to BE a top 5. Always. Forever. here to eternity.
And were the tables not tilted against Tau for QUITE long enough? I think they were.
So pointing out its placement among the pantheon of powerful units really isnt an argument against it. EVERY unit likes or dislikes things differently and last time i checked a Land raidr WINS most close combats. You hit it on a 3 and you BETTER have something AWESOME, it better be AP 2 or bettr and you better roll well. Or next round its going to burninate you or expel an uber unit into your face. If it didnt already.
Sorry but I can look around and see TOTALLY ubiquitous examples of "powerful" but what remains true is that they all have answers. Some like Land Raiders are just so old and common that we dont think about them in nearly the positive light we should. Others are less common but no less brutal.
D-Cannons for example. EXTREMELY good. RARELY used. tough as nailks, destructive and can be bubble wrapped as well as any strong unit can be. Its range is short but its destructive power is pretty serious and its barrage. No one puts it in the top 5, but dayam. take three of them and wrap them. Move them up for a round if the enemy isnt coming to you and let the fire works begin.
Now in melee it folds like a paper airplace. But getting there might be a trifle difficult and vry dangrous.
total cost? Less. Total impact? about the same minus the round it takes to cart it into position. But then its less. So thats okay.
I only use it as YET another example. one that isnt even going to make the top ten on most peoples list Ill wager.
The Riptide is in no way cheap so my feeling on it is that its VERY GOOD, and WORTH THE POINTS. I think people need to adjust to it by fighting it in melee. and if they refuse that, then I suppose you'll have a long day. Like the day 9 Plasmacutioners showed up. No less ridiculous and absolutely not mentioned on these forums often. dont know why not. Dont care either because nothing exists in a vacuum.
Even in melee, a Riptide can do well. It may not kill a lot, but it can still sweeping advance, smash, has good armor, good toughness, and can get an invuln or FNP. A Riptide is tougher base stats than a Daemon Prince not kitted out and comes with decent stuff standard.
One of the only good ways I've seen to kill Riptides is to swing at Initiative with AP 2 weapons or to bog it down with lots of units, as a Riptide can't kill small guys a lot.
No kidding a single DK would murder a Riptide, a Dreadknight was designed to kill MC; you know those Daemon Princes that are T8 melee-monsters? for 50 points cheaper you know what the DK can do? It can punch someone and move 6 inches a turn, Riptide not so much. Also the DK has a chance of removing itself from play from full wounds! horrible ain't it. You state all these things but you fail to notice the only time a Dreadknight is a threat is once it takes all the upgrades, unlike the Riptide who really just has to toss out 5 points. Hell a DK to kill a Riptide would only have to spend 165 total for a damn good chance at killing anything in the game one-on-one
Jancoran wrote: I have no problem and said as much, placing it in the powerful category. i also know this: there is always going to BE a top 5. Always. Forever. here to eternity.
And were the tables not tilted against Tau for QUITE long enough? I think they were.
So pointing out its placement among the pantheon of powerful units really isnt an argument against it.
Ah, I see, Tau used to be poor, so now it's ok if they're not?
Not the strongest argument I've seen today.
EVERY unit likes or dislikes things differently and last time i checked a Land raidr WINS most close combats. You hit it on a 3 and you BETTER have something AWESOME, it better be AP 2 or bettr and you better roll well. Or next round its going to burninate you or expel an uber unit into your face. If it didnt already.
In this context LR means Leman Russ. As you were the one who was using a Russ as a comparison, I didn't feel I needed to clarify.
Sorry but I can look around and see TOTALLY ubiquitous examples of "powerful" but what remains true is that they all have answers. Some like Land Raiders are just so old and common that we dont think about them in nearly the positive light we should. Others are less common but no less brutal.
I don't think you're seeing people arguing against powerful. Too cheap is much more of an issue.
D-Cannons for example. EXTREMELY good. RARELY used. tough as nailks, destructive and can be bubble wrapped as well as any strong unit can be. Its range is short but its destructive power is pretty serious and its barrage. No one puts it in the top 5, but dayam. take three of them and wrap them. Move them up for a round if the enemy isnt coming to you and let the fire works begin.
Is it possible that maybe they're not quite as good as you think, given that apparently nobody seems to be taking them? I mean, this is the internet, this is the largest wargaming site on it. If you're the only one convinced of their über goodness, statistically, you've probably missed something? Do they, perhaps, occupy a slot that competes for something else? There's probably a reason they're not seeing wide use in competitive play. Doesn't mean they're not good, just that they're not Wraith, Serpent, Tide good.
Now in melee it folds like a paper airplace. But getting there might be a trifle difficult and vry dangrous.
total cost? Less. Total impact? about the same minus the round it takes to cart it into position. But then its less. So thats okay.
I only use it as YET another example. one that isnt even going to make the top ten on most peoples list Ill wager.
,
Ok, it's all got a bit ranty and mistyped at this point and I've lost your point, sorry.
The Riptide is in no way cheap so my feeling on it is that its VERY GOOD, and WORTH THE POINTS. I think people need to adjust to it by fighting it in melee. and if they refuse that, then I suppose you'll have a long day. Like the day 9 Plasmacutioners showed up. No less ridiculous and absolutely not mentioned on these forums often. dont know why not. Dont care either because nothing exists in a vacuum.
Again, there's probably a good reason they're not mentioned in the same breath. Perhaps dealing with 3 AV10 rear tanks that can't punch back poses fewer people a problem than three much more mobile MCs?
EDIT
Also, randomly SHOUTING in the middle of your sentences may be coming across more aggressive than you intend, perhaps try bolting or italics for emphasis?
One of the only good ways I've seen to kill Riptides is to swing at Initiative with AP 2 weapons or to bog it down with lots of units, as a Riptide can't kill small guys a lot.
Is it possible that maybe they're not quite as good as you think, given that apparently nobody seems to be taking them? I mean, this is the internet, this is the largest wargaming site on it. If you're the only one convinced of their über goodness, statistically, you've probably missed something? Do they, perhaps, occupy a slot that competes for something else? There's probably a reason they're not seeing wide use in competitive play. Doesn't mean they're not good, just that they're not Wraith, Serpent, Tide good.
Ok, it's all got a bit ranty and mistyped at this point and I've lost your point, sorry.
Again, there's probably a good reason they're not mentioned in the same breath. Perhaps dealing with 3 AV10 rear tanks that can't punch back poses fewer people a problem than three much more mobile MCs?
EDIT
Also, randomly SHOUTING in the middle of your sentences may be coming across more aggressive than you intend, perhaps try bolting or italics for emphasis?
You cant yell on forums. You can tell me that "everyone knows that is yelling" but i guess I would disagree, since i wasn't...yelling. So if there's two ways can choose to take something... and one is reasonable and good, but the second is not, then go with the first one. That's my advice to anyone whose looking for something to complain about. =)
As for your question (really a statement):
I think that the "largest forum" is appealing to higher authority, but you knew that. More specifically, I have run into enough dumb people in every walk of life that should have known better, but didn't. I got a rule wrong yesterday that i was quite sure of and now I know. the wisdom of the ancients isnt here in some vault, I can promise you.
I don't accept the argument that "if a lot of people think one way but one thinks another they must be right..." is valid. I feel as if Galileo and others would most likely have been like I am at times: tried by the inflexibility of people to try or even entertain new ideas. I also know a large pool of people who have learned to respect the proper use of some units in my hands that they thought were garbage. That doesn't make my point of view true either, does it? It just means i have some experience on the matter to share. You can't ever gauge the truth of that so you either have to believe me or don't. It's a forum so it really doesn't matter which you choose.
Here's what I know as wisdom: That there is a WraithKnight I COULD take does not mean the {enter unit here} should not be taken. As reasonable thinking men and women, we know that's silly. What we also know is that army lists are the sum of their parts. The Riptide in any army besides Tau Empire would be too expensive. It is only because of the other units around it that it is so notably feared. The same exact effect can be gotten by other means if one wanted to, depending on the matchup, using much cheaper units. For example, Necrons are now quite resistant to the Riptide Ion Cannon, aren't they? If I peg 8 of them (unlikely but whatevs) I'll kill 5 even with all the help it takes to ignore cover (assentially TWO units costing about 350 points dedicated to killing 5 Necron Warriors). But the Warrior 4+ save means they view the Ionhead the same way they do a Riptide! Same EXACT effectiveness and a LOT cheaper againt Necron Warriors. Shall we all go out and start using Ionheads? Will necron players curse us vociferously for bringing three ion heads and dropping those sweet sweet STR 8 Large Blasts? Who knows?
Like all weapons, their target determines their value. The value isn't totally intrinsic to the weapon.
So the D-Cannons of the world remain in obscurity and unhated while Wraiths and Riptides get hate. What can ya' do? Riptides a bigger moel i suppose so its easier to hate maybe. =)
One of the only good ways I've seen to kill Riptides is to swing at Initiative with AP 2 weapons or to bog it down with lots of units, as a Riptide can't kill small guys a lot.
Exactly. So do that.
Oh, okay. Let me just grab my AP 2 weapons that swing at init....
Oh. My faction doesn't have any.
Well surely i have lots of small guys that can swing in melee, yes?
What's that? It has one of the largest range guns in the game and is extremely quick? And the army is one of the best in the game at removing lots of small guys, and I need to get through said army to reach it?
Well...bugger
Is it possible that maybe they're not quite as good as you think, given that apparently nobody seems to be taking them? I mean, this is the internet, this is the largest wargaming site on it. If you're the only one convinced of their über goodness, statistically, you've probably missed something? Do they, perhaps, occupy a slot that competes for something else? There's probably a reason they're not seeing wide use in competitive play. Doesn't mean they're not good, just that they're not Wraith, Serpent, Tide good.
Ok, it's all got a bit ranty and mistyped at this point and I've lost your point, sorry.
Again, there's probably a good reason they're not mentioned in the same breath. Perhaps dealing with 3 AV10 rear tanks that can't punch back poses fewer people a problem than three much more mobile MCs?
EDIT
Also, randomly SHOUTING in the middle of your sentences may be coming across more aggressive than you intend, perhaps try bolting or italics for emphasis?
You cant yell on forums. You can tell me that "everyone knows that is yelling" but i guess I would disagree, since i wasn't...yelling. So if there's two ways can choose to take something... and one is reasonable and good, but the second is not, then go with the first one. That's my advice to anyone whose looking for something to complain about. =)
People are unreasonable all the time, and caps lock is commonly taken as yelling.
Regardless, it's hard to take someone SERIOUSLY who does THIS.
I think that the "largest forum" is appealing to higher authority, but you knew that. More specifically, I have run into enough dumb people in every walk of life that should have known better, but didn't. I got a rule wrong yesterday that i was quite sure of and now I know. the wisdom of the ancients isnt here in some vault, I can promise you.
Yes, that is appealing to authority.
I don't really get your third sentence. You got a rule wrong and so knowledge isn't available on dakka? I find that, in a forum, its hard to get a rule wrong. People are too anxious to point out another's mistake to discredit them.
I don't accept the argument that "if a lot of people think one way but one thinks another they must be right..." is valid. I feel as if Galileo and others would most likely have been like I am at times: tried by the inflexibility of people to try or even entertain new ideas. I also know a large pool of people who have learned to respect the proper use of some units in my hands that they thought were garbage. That doesn't make my point of view true either, does it? It just means i have some experience on the matter to share. You can't ever gauge the truth of that so you either have to believe me or don't. It's a forum so it really doesn't matter which you choose.
First off, comparing yourself to Galileo takes massive brass ones. Kudos.
Second, for every Galileo there were a thousand people who were just wrong.
Third, if you feel a unit that is commonly viewed as sub par or average is overpowered, you need to be ready to defend that position. That is true in science (you'll notice Galileo used math and science to back up his thoughts, and not just "God the church is so inflexible!") and in most cases where you go against common logic.
If you feel it's as strong as the riptide, please state how. I'd be interested to hear it, it's not a unit I see commonly taken either.
Here's what I know as wisdom: That there is a WraithKnight I COULD take does not mean the {enter unit here} should not be taken. As reasonable thinking men and women, we know that's silly. What we also know is that army lists are the sum of their parts. The Riptide in any army besides Tau Empire would be too expensive. It is only because of the other units around it that it is so notably feared. The same exact effect can be gotten by other means if one wanted to, depending on the matchup, using much cheaper units. For example, Necrons are now quite resistant to the Riptide Ion Cannon, aren't they? If I peg 8 of them (unlikely but whatevs) I'll kill 5 even with all the help it takes to ignore cover (assentially TWO units costing about 350 points dedicated to killing 5 Necron Warriors). But the Warrior 4+ save means they view the Ionhead the same way they do a Riptide! Same EXACT effectiveness and a LOT cheaper againt Necron Warriors. Shall we all go out and start using Ionheads? Will necron players curse us vociferously for bringing three ion heads and dropping those sweet sweet STR 8 Large Blasts? Who knows?
I don't understand the first few sentences. Unit strength is relative. If chaos didn't have cult units, cultists, bikers, princes, warp talons would seem like a viable choice. But we do, so they are terrible. It is the same with every codex. You look at what units are in the game, what you can field, and pick the strongest ones (for the sake of unit strength. real games may vary).
Wraiths are going to be a good counter to the Riptide in general, due to their increased toughness. The strength of the riptide will go down because of that.
But the same can be said for a lot of strong units. Grav guns don't do a lot versus the new wraiths either. It'll be weight of fire that brings them down, and a lot of weight of fire at that. But every unit was impacted by the necron codex, it's very powerful. Not just tau. Since every unit got a bit weaker, relatively speaking, the riptide stays at the same level.
Like all weapons, their target determines their value. The value isn't totally intrinsic to the weapon.
So the D-Cannons of the world remain in obscurity and unhated while Wraiths and Riptides get hate. What can ya' do? Riptides a bigger moel i suppose so its easier to hate maybe. =)
So you think the riptide gets more hate because it's a bigger model?
That is...an interesting view point.
I think it is much more likely that the riptide and wraiths are some of the strongest model in the game, and cause the average to weaker codexes a lot of trouble.
Oh, okay. Let me just grab my AP 2 weapons that swing at init....
Oh. My faction doesn't have any.
Well surely i have lots of small guys that can swing in melee, yes?
What's that? It has one of the largest range guns in the game and is extremely quick? And the army is one of the best in the game at removing lots of small guys, and I need to get through said army to reach it?
Well...bugger
.
well I think you just ned to have a better attitude about it. Lol. last time I looked, no Tau Empire force is unbeatable. Just sayin.
Also the list of tyhings you "dont understand" is long enough that I think it not wise to continue.
Oh, okay. Let me just grab my AP 2 weapons that swing at init....
Oh. My faction doesn't have any.
Well surely i have lots of small guys that can swing in melee, yes?
What's that? It has one of the largest range guns in the game and is extremely quick? And the army is one of the best in the game at removing lots of small guys, and I need to get through said army to reach it?
Well...bugger
.
well I think you just ned to have a better attitude about it. Lol. last time I looked, no Tau Empire force is unbeatable. Just sayin.
This is called a slippery slope.
No unit in a dice game is unbeatable. I can defeat a Tau opponent. But the more riptides he takes, the worse my chances are, and it's a nearly braindead unit to use or take.
Still, I appreciate your tactical insight and sound logic.
On topic;
I think in most games, even a 56% win rate is considered way too strong. In WMH, Cryx at one point had a win rate of 58% due to Gaspy 2 and he recieved 3 nerfs over the years. His feat was just incredible.
But the game has a lot more statistical data available for whatever reason. It's really hard to find information on the 'meta' in 40k. Hence these long discussions on which factions are op, or which units are just too good.
EDIT
And personal attacks from someone who didn't list a single point to back up a claim?
Nice.
Riptide is not better then a Dreadknight for a few reasons:
-For 50 points cheaper the Dreadknight only has 1 less wound.
-Both have a 2+5+ and before you say it the Riptide Invulnerable save has a 1/3 chance to fail and hurt itself with NO saves of any kind.
-Exagerration clearly on the points boost, I would say max upgrade the Ion Accelerator to 20pts. and leave the model as because its perfectly balanced. If the Riptide goes up, the Dreadknight better go up to, typical Tau hate.
-60 inch range does not matter when you can move 12 inches every turn on top of a free 30 shunt move putting you RIGHT in front of your opponent, or even better Deepstrike in on turn 1.
-Access to Psychic powers which can give your Gatling Psilencer Instant Death, Flamer and Sword for cheaper then most upgraded Riptides
Sorry your argument is incorrect, a single Dreadknight would WOOP a single Riptide.
Didn't mean to derail the thread, just needed to educate. In regards to a 50% win percentage being cheesy no idea how or why that would even be or come up in a conversation or game. If people are accusing you that its only your army is why your doing so well (like Eldar, Imperium Army Shenanigans, Necrons or whatever you play) let them. You play with the armies and units you want to play with, the only thing I would always keep in mind is what kind of game it is (friendly, competitive ect.) and also the skill level of your opponent.
Yet I'd rather have a free Riptide over a free Dreadknight any day and twice on Sunday.
Epartalis wrote: I'm with you grey Templar, it may just be because I don't have many dark eldar players at my local store but I have never seen a scary dark eldar list, not one. Granted I have only played a handful of games against a pure dark eldar list but those games were cake walks.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Further I rarely see in all my time searching through torrent of fire, dakka, and the rest of the net posts for "competitive" dark eldar. Kinda like seeing a "competitve" Black Templar list. You just don't see it.
Tau cheese is kinda funny to me, the it's a shooting only army that is bs3 across the board. Yes they have marker lights but take those out and you neuter the army.
If the Riptide was toned down a bit and Vespids buffed a bit, they'd be darn near passable in external and internal balance.
The Riptide does not need to be toned down though, really what needs to be changed is the points cost for the Ion Accelerator as even I can agree its to low. Other then that its perfectly fine, if were talking about toning down the Riptide then Grey Knight Dreadknights should also be in the discussion.
No, not really. The Dreadknight can't disintegrate my entire list from 60" away and LOL at any return fire. The Dreadknight has to put itself much more in harms way. The base chasis of the Riptide needs a points boost and then the ion accelerator needs banned or a massive boost. Pointing to a squad and having the whole thing picked up from 60" on a platform that can't be killed is insane. And Riptides effectively can't be killed at 60".
Riptide is not better then a Dreadknight for a few reasons:
-For 50 points cheaper the Dreadknight only has 1 less wound.
-Both have a 2+5+ and before you say it the Riptide Invulnerable save has a 1/3 chance to fail and hurt itself with NO saves of any kind.
-Exagerration clearly on the points boost, I would say max upgrade the Ion Accelerator to 20pts. and leave the model as because its perfectly balanced. If the Riptide goes up, the Dreadknight better go up to, typical Tau hate.
-60 inch range does not matter when you can move 12 inches every turn on top of a free 30 shunt move putting you RIGHT in front of your opponent, or even better Deepstrike in on turn 1.
-Access to Psychic powers which can give your Gatling Psilencer Instant Death, Flamer and Sword for cheaper then most upgraded Riptides
Sorry your argument is incorrect, a single Dreadknight would WOOP a single Riptide.
Didn't mean to derail the thread, just needed to educate. In regards to a 50% win percentage being cheesy no idea how or why that would even be or come up in a conversation or game. If people are accusing you that its only your army is why your doing so well (like Eldar, Imperium Army Shenanigans, Necrons or whatever you play) let them. You play with the armies and units you want to play with, the only thing I would always keep in mind is what kind of game it is (friendly, competitive ect.) and also the skill level of your opponent.
Yet I'd rather have a free Riptide over a free Dreadknight any day and twice on Sunday.
Except not. I'd say they are about on par with each other, but I've seen several cases where a DK and a Riptide were locked in combat. A DK, unless rolling hot and the Riptide is rolling poorly, will nout outright woop a Riptide. I think they are both underpriced units that could use a price increase.
Also, you fail to include the fact that the Riptide has much better army-wide synergy than a single DK.
One of the only good ways I've seen to kill Riptides is to swing at Initiative with AP 2 weapons or to bog it down with lots of units, as a Riptide can't kill small guys a lot.
Exactly. So do that.
And Eldar WraithKnights are fine because they can be bogged down in combat too? Guess what, having one strategy to take down a pretty widely used unit is poor game design. Also, outside of a couple instances, there aren't a lot of units that swing at Init with AP 2.
Epartalis wrote: I'm with you grey Templar, it may just be because I don't have many dark eldar players at my local store but I have never seen a scary dark eldar list, not one. Granted I have only played a handful of games against a pure dark eldar list but those games were cake walks.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Further I rarely see in all my time searching through torrent of fire, dakka, and the rest of the net posts for "competitive" dark eldar. Kinda like seeing a "competitve" Black Templar list. You just don't see it.
Tau cheese is kinda funny to me, the it's a shooting only army that is bs3 across the board. Yes they have marker lights but take those out and you neuter the army.
If the Riptide was toned down a bit and Vespids buffed a bit, they'd be darn near passable in external and internal balance.
The Riptide does not need to be toned down though, really what needs to be changed is the points cost for the Ion Accelerator as even I can agree its to low. Other then that its perfectly fine, if were talking about toning down the Riptide then Grey Knight Dreadknights should also be in the discussion.
No, not really. The Dreadknight can't disintegrate my entire list from 60" away and LOL at any return fire. The Dreadknight has to put itself much more in harms way. The base chasis of the Riptide needs a points boost and then the ion accelerator needs banned or a massive boost. Pointing to a squad and having the whole thing picked up from 60" on a platform that can't be killed is insane. And Riptides effectively can't be killed at 60".
"Sorry your argument is incorrect, a single Dreadknight would WOOP a single Riptide."
Too bad I'm not talking Riptide vs Dreadknight. I'm talking about Riptide vs my lists and Dreadknight vs my lists. As I said the Riptide does its business from 60" away. That makes it MUCH better than a Dreadknight in my book.
I must agree with Grey Templar in that DE winning 64%+ is crazy high. That being said, this chart is junk.
The percentages don't add up to 100%. Grey Knights and DE rank highly, but they only have 9 games apiece. Most importantly, the grid doesn't represent matchup. Ideally, you would have a grid that has 2 axis, with all the factions on both axis. Against itself, every faction would be 50% (if Eldar play Eldar, there must be 1 win and 1 loss). On any other matchup it should read, for example, Eldar v SM, 60% Eldar win.
There should be a large sample size (say, at least 100 of each matchup; 500 or 1000 would be better), and ideally, you exclude all players who win 0 games in the year.
In the current dataset, if Dark Eldar play a disproportionate number of games against Dark Angels, all we could determine is that it's a bad matchup. Perhaps if the DA player played 8 more games, all against Orks, they'd win all 8 games and score 50% total.
Epartalis wrote: I'm with you grey Templar, it may just be because I don't have many dark eldar players at my local store but I have never seen a scary dark eldar list, not one. Granted I have only played a handful of games against a pure dark eldar list but those games were cake walks.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Further I rarely see in all my time searching through torrent of fire, dakka, and the rest of the net posts for "competitive" dark eldar. Kinda like seeing a "competitve" Black Templar list. You just don't see it.
Tau cheese is kinda funny to me, the it's a shooting only army that is bs3 across the board. Yes they have marker lights but take those out and you neuter the army.
If the Riptide was toned down a bit and Vespids buffed a bit, they'd be darn near passable in external and internal balance.
The Riptide does not need to be toned down though, really what needs to be changed is the points cost for the Ion Accelerator as even I can agree its to low. Other then that its perfectly fine, if were talking about toning down the Riptide then Grey Knight Dreadknights should also be in the discussion.
No, not really. The Dreadknight can't disintegrate my entire list from 60" away and LOL at any return fire. The Dreadknight has to put itself much more in harms way. The base chasis of the Riptide needs a points boost and then the ion accelerator needs banned or a massive boost. Pointing to a squad and having the whole thing picked up from 60" on a platform that can't be killed is insane. And Riptides effectively can't be killed at 60".
"Sorry your argument is incorrect, a single Dreadknight would WOOP a single Riptide."
Too bad I'm not talking Riptide vs Dreadknight. I'm talking about Riptide vs my lists and Dreadknight vs my lists. As I said the Riptide does its business from 60" away. That makes it MUCH better than a Dreadknight in my book.
Indeed. Shooting has been better than melee for several editions. The Dreadknight only has a chance to get there with its teleporter. Not to mention it has to buy its guns too. The only competitive dreadknight is 205+ points.
Its guns are good, but not amazing. Its decent in combat against anything that doesn't have too many AP2 attacks that hit it first.
The Dreadknight is good, but the Riptide is amazing.
Incidentally, if you want to know what happens when GKs with lots of Dreadknights plays against a good Tau player with a competitive Tau army... they get tabled after about two rounds of shooting. What little survives running through the killzone gets picked apart on Overwatch. Not that the Dreadknights won't get into combat and kill something, but losing a Riptide or two before blowing away the rest of the army isn't a big deal.
DarkLink wrote: Incidentally, if you want to know what happens when GKs with lots of Dreadknights plays against a good Tau player with a competitive Tau army... they get tabled after about two rounds of shooting. What little survives running through the killzone gets picked apart on Overwatch. Not that the Dreadknights won't get into combat and kill something, but losing a Riptide or two before blowing away the rest of the army isn't a big deal.
Getting into combat is a very low bar. So many units get into combat, smoosh one throwaway unit and then eat 20 plasma guns the next turn. I've done it with my lowly BA to superior assault lists over and over. BA don't exactly have 20 plasma guns, but you get the idea.
DarkLink wrote: Incidentally, if you want to know what happens when GKs with lots of Dreadknights plays against a good Tau player with a competitive Tau army... they get tabled after about two rounds of shooting. What little survives running through the killzone gets picked apart on Overwatch. Not that the Dreadknights won't get into combat and kill something, but losing a Riptide or two before blowing away the rest of the army isn't a big deal.
Getting into combat is a very low bar. So many units get into combat, smoosh one throwaway unit and then eat 20 plasma guns the next turn. I've done it with my lowly BA to superior assault lists over and over. BA don't exactly have 20 plasma guns, but you get the idea.
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here. Are you saying assaulting Tau is easy or not?
Oh, okay. Let me just grab my AP 2 weapons that swing at init....
Oh. My faction doesn't have any.
Well surely i have lots of small guys that can swing in melee, yes?
What's that? It has one of the largest range guns in the game and is extremely quick? And the army is one of the best in the game at removing lots of small guys, and I need to get through said army to reach it?
Well...bugger
.
well I think you just ned to have a better attitude about it. Lol. last time I looked, no Tau Empire force is unbeatable. Just sayin.
This is called a slippery slope.
No unit in a dice game is unbeatable. I can defeat a Tau opponent. But the more riptides he takes, the worse my chances are, and it's a nearly braindead unit to use or take.
Still, I appreciate your tactical insight and sound logic.
On topic;
I think in most games, even a 56% win rate is considered way too strong. In WMH, Cryx at one point had a win rate of 58% due to Gaspy 2 and he recieved 3 nerfs over the years. His feat was just incredible.
But the game has a lot more statistical data available for whatever reason. It's really hard to find information on the 'meta' in 40k. Hence these long discussions on which factions are op, or which units are just too good.
EDIT
And personal attacks from someone who didn't list a single point to back up a claim?
Nice.
Theres discussion and then there's brick walls. Now you're claiming that ayone wise enough to make use of a Riptide is... brain dead? This is the discussion i should engage in?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Quickjager wrote: He's saying that its hard to assault Tau, because he destroys the unit in assault on his turn and then gets shot to death.
My Night Lords solved it with their Rhinos. Shuts off the fire hose on the way in.
Good Points Akiasura and it is refreshing to see someone who actually wants to discus the topic rather then just say "Riptide is overpowered and needs a fix because it does" argument that many seem to toss out on here, now if I may respond:
Akiasura wrote: The Riptide pays roughly 40-50 points per wound as it is, so this seems fair. The riptide is a lot more survivable between not relying on pyskers, long range weapons, and better saves as well, so really the dreadknight seems over priced in relation.
Note I say in relation. I am not saying either is priced fairly, but relatively speaking,so far it seems the dreadknight is more fairly costed.
-The only thing that I can see making the Riptide more survivable is the fact it has the advantage of range with shooting when it comes to the Dreadknight. It does not have a better save then the Dreadknight and failing a save with no saves of any kind allowed unless you take an expensive upgrade to give it "Feel No Pain" 1/3 of the time is much worse then the chance of failing a LD9/LD10 check.
Akiasura wrote: True. However, your point is very misleading. Let's not forget that first off, the failure happens less then half the time, and the survival jump is about equal to the chances of wounding (33%). The Riptide can gain FnP as well, which helps. The Riptide is not likely to be targetted by grav weapons, plasma, melta, or any other weapon it should fear unless the unit is deep striked. The Dreadknight really wants to touch you, while the Riptide wants to hang on the opposite table edge and fire at you. It is very easy for the Riptide to hug cover. The Riptides weapons can gain ignore cover or BS improvements from the rest of the army, which is huge on a unit like this.
-It is not an attempt by me to mislead you its just a fact that something that has a chance to fail 1/3 of the time is by no means reliable and has hurt me, and as I am sure other Tau players can attest, more then we care to admit. And yes we can get Feel No Pain but it is a very expensive upgrade and by doing that we are forgoing a chance or Skyfire or Interceptor. And I am somewhat confused by saying how a Riptide will not be hurt by weapons unless they are Deep Striking? Granted it would help I will give you that but on most tables are not nearly that long to completely negate such weapons, most weapons designed to handle armor will handily drop Riptides. Grav Cannons alone are the bane of any Tau players Riptides in particular. You then mention how its easy for the Riptide to hug cover, surely it is the same for the Dreadknight then? The Dreadknight is vastly more maneuverable then the Riptide and more often then not can move into cover faster and more reliably, on top of almost always getting the turn 2 assault it requires. You bring up other parts of the army that accent the Riptide, yes Markerlights are great but at the same time they are a crutch as they are not as cheap as people make them out to be. Also more often then not they are on T3 and T4 models with a 5+ or 4+ save which makes them VERY easy to kill and if they are gone the effectiveness of the Tau army as a whole goes down. If you want to touch on other parts of the army supporting then I should mention that the Imperium of Man have probably the strongest army in the game as a whole thanks to their ability to ally. Having Dreadknights backed by an Imperial Knight or even worse, Purifiers in Drop Pods is very nasty and can do different things then Markerlights, but they are just as nasty.
Akiasura wrote: 12 Inches plus 30 is only 42, so it still loses to the 60 range of the gun. If it deepstrikes, it can't assault. So the Riptide is doing it's thing turn 1, while the dreadknight is waiting till turn 2 or later depending on incoming fire. In a game that lasts only 5-7 turns, that can be a huge improvement on table presence. Let's not forget the dreadknight is moving forward, into enemy fire. A unit of TWC can destroy a dreadknight if properly kitted. They have a much harder time dealing with a riptide.
-Will mention to what I said above, I have yet to play on a table that has 42 inches separating my army from his opponent, the only tables that wide are for Apocalypse games. The Dreadknight can easily do its thing Turn 1 as more often then not 30 inches is more then enough distance to get them within striking distance. Yes the Dreadknight is moving closer then the Riptide, which is the biggest thing that makes these two MC's different, however along with the Dreadknights you could have several squads of Terminators coming in via deepstrike, purifiers in drop pods ect. And granted I am using elements that support the Dreadknight and not saying the Tau do not have access to equally nasty stuff, however at that point we are comparing two different play styles which both of these MC's help. Alpha Strike for Grey Knights and more Defensive shooty approach by the Tau.
Akiasura wrote: Psychic powers are very unreliable in my experience. I'd rather have markerlights then powers outside of a few crazy ones.
-For the most part Grey Knights and Psychic Powers go hand in hand very well and they usually have no issue getting spells off thanks to the amount of Psykers and Warp Charges. Granted though my Riptides Nova Charge I have been very unlucky with so that is a personal experience with me where something should be good but isn't!
Akiasura wrote: Luckily that would never happen. When discussing balance, you don't put two units on the table and have them fight each other. You discuss their impact on metas or armies. The Riptide has a much larger presence here. Or are you saying markerlights are useless? After all, nearly every unit in the game walks over pathfinders 1v1.
-Fair enough a poor comparison on my part but on the topic of armies the Riptide does not have a larger presence then the Dreadknight as both are large parts of what their respective armies do. Grey Knights as of now are at their nastiest in the form of Alpha Striking while Tau prefer to sit back and blast away with their guns (should be mentioned I do not play my Tau this way, I play them quite unconventionally which catches people off guard). Just like Markerlights make Tau better the amount of Psychic powers, Ally shenanigans, ect. that the Grey Knights have is just as nasty.
Akiasura wrote: No problem, I don't mind a little education myself when it is being provided. Some armies are harder to win with then others. In a balanced game, this would be a matchup discussion (Like how Cryx has an advantage against Skorne, but has issues with cygnar. Skorne has an advantage against cygnar). In 40k, certain codexes are just head and shoulders above others. They are flat out easier to win with then others. in 40k, these dexes are Tau, Eldar, IoM (needs allies to achieve this often, but it certainly can), and Necrons. My meta disallows Knights so I won't comment there. If you are winning with these armies it's not as impressive as winning with, say, De or DA. Some people get mad at that, I can understand why. It's not always their fault that their codex is overpowered. But reality is reality.
I can agree that some armies are harder to win with then others but truly I do not see the Tau being head and shoulders over most Imperial books. Honestly I look at the top books as Eldar (both of them), Necrons, Imperial of Man and then the Tau for one reason that I feel is often overlooked. The ability to ally and take anything from any of those books in your army, that is why I have both the Eldar and the Imperial Armies up there. Unlike the Tau, Necrons, Orks ect. the Imperial armies have the most flexibility and options when it comes to building their lists and they can come up with some nasty ones. You are lucky your meta does not allow Knights, fighting that formation that gives them all a 3+ Invulnerable save is a tough matchup, especially against the new Forgeworld Knights. I am not saying that the Tau are a weak book because they are better then some, however the amount of hate they get, in particular the Riptide when compared to some of the things that other books can do, in particular the Imperium of Man armies it is kind of hypocritical.
And on that note just because some people want to play with an army they enjoy does not make them a less skilled or worse player. That is like saying "because I play Tau im a gakky general and cant win unless I use this unit". That is completely false, if anything he is being a smart general utilizing good units to help him win, should he take the worst units in the game to appease his opponent because he does not know how to deal with a single unit? I can agree it is more impressive to win with some armies but I wont say any of the Imperial Armies because of their abilities to ally and take basically anything they want. If it was an army like CSM, ORKS or TYRANIDS then yes that statement is true. I also want to point out that I do play both IMPERIAL GUARD and TAU so I have been and am on both sides of the argument so no bias here.
"-The only thing that I can see making the Riptide more survivable is the fact it has the advantage of range with shooting when it comes to the Dreadknight"
That, and better saves. And access to FNP. Don't forget that. And even that one thing you listed is enormous. Huge. Go look at how many weapons can even reach past 36" and then look at what the Dreadknight has to voluntarily move into within range of.
Martel732 wrote: "-The only thing that I can see making the Riptide more survivable is the fact it has the advantage of range with shooting when it comes to the Dreadknight"
That, and better saves. And access to FNP. Don't forget that. And even that one thing you listed is enormous. Huge. Go look at how many weapons can even reach past 36" and then look at what the Dreadknight has to voluntarily move into within range of.
Again you are making it sound so misleading. It does not come with a better save, it has to roll for it and it has a chance to fail 1/3 of the time which is a pretty bad statistic when compared to Psychic powers. The Feel No Pain is a very expensive upgrade that means your not taking Interceptor or Skyfire, maybe we should mention that with the Psychic powers the Dreadknight can get they can do some pretty nasty things. The Dreadknight ignores the range factor unlike most units because it can move 30 inches and then shoot and has a great chance to wipe out whatever its shooting at before they can return fire on top of being cheaper so you can take more of them. Tit for tat bro, its a different play style for two different armies the Dreadknight is just as nasty as the Riptide in its designed role.
" has a great chance to wipe out whatever its shooting at before they can return fire"
Not really.
" Dreadknight is just as nasty as the Riptide in its designed role. "
I bet the GK wish this were true.
" its a different play style "
Yeah, the GK have a play style where they have to actually get shot at by lots of weapons. You offhandedly mention the range issue, but this is a huge, huge issue. On top of the superior saves 66% of the time.
Oh, okay. Let me just grab my AP 2 weapons that swing at init....
Oh. My faction doesn't have any.
Well surely i have lots of small guys that can swing in melee, yes?
What's that? It has one of the largest range guns in the game and is extremely quick? And the army is one of the best in the game at removing lots of small guys, and I need to get through said army to reach it?
Well...bugger
.
well I think you just ned to have a better attitude about it. Lol. last time I looked, no Tau Empire force is unbeatable. Just sayin.
This is called a slippery slope.
No unit in a dice game is unbeatable. I can defeat a Tau opponent. But the more riptides he takes, the worse my chances are, and it's a nearly braindead unit to use or take.
Still, I appreciate your tactical insight and sound logic.
On topic;
I think in most games, even a 56% win rate is considered way too strong. In WMH, Cryx at one point had a win rate of 58% due to Gaspy 2 and he recieved 3 nerfs over the years. His feat was just incredible.
But the game has a lot more statistical data available for whatever reason. It's really hard to find information on the 'meta' in 40k. Hence these long discussions on which factions are op, or which units are just too good.
EDIT
And personal attacks from someone who didn't list a single point to back up a claim?
Nice.
Theres discussion and then there's brick walls. Now you're claiming that ayone wise enough to make use of a Riptide is... brain dead? This is the discussion i should engage in?
Strawman, I never said anyone using a Riptide is braindead. I said it's a braindead unit to use.
You sit it in cover, and just target units. With it's range and toughness, it doesn't need to move. The only threats it faces is
1) CC, which somehow got past the rest of your army
2) Deep striking units, which unless it's a gravstar, will invest more points then the riptide costs to kill it.
Compare that to the dreadknight, where you need to deploy him so he can reach cover, stay out of range of most guns at the end of T1 but still reach assault, and be careful he's not in the open at the end of each assault phase.
So yeah. It's a very simple unit to use. Hence triptide being a thing.
And to be fair, you personally attacked me in your last post, and have still not posted any reasons for why you alone see certain units as overpowered.
Quickjager wrote: He's saying that its hard to assault Tau, because he destroys the unit in assault on his turn and then gets shot to death.
My Night Lords solved it with their Rhinos. Shuts off the fire hose on the way in.
How does a rhino shut off the fire hose...?
You realize nobody is talking about overwatch, right?
They are saying you win assault, wipe the unit...and sit there.
Tau are so bad in melee you wipe them out on your turn most of the time. In 40k, that is awful. You really want to the wipe the unit on the enemy turn, so they can't shoot you.
They really need to make it so if a unit just won assault you can only target it with snap shots or something. As it is, you must be very tough to be an assault unit against most armies in this edition.
Edit;
gmaleron, I appreciate your detailed response. Sadly, at this time I don't have the time to respond to such a post and give it the attention it deserves.
I'll read it over later and respond in the same manner you did for me, which is always nice to read.
I do think we have some simple miscommunications but that is merely at first glance.
Martel732 wrote: "-The only thing that I can see making the Riptide more survivable is the fact it has the advantage of range with shooting when it comes to the Dreadknight"
That, and better saves. And access to FNP. Don't forget that. And even that one thing you listed is enormous. Huge. Go look at how many weapons can even reach past 36" and then look at what the Dreadknight has to voluntarily move into within range of.
Again you are making it sound so misleading. It does not come with a better save, it has to roll for it and it has a chance to fail 1/3 of the time which is a pretty bad statistic when compared to Psychic powers. The Feel No Pain is a very expensive upgrade that means your not taking Interceptor or Skyfire, maybe we should mention that with the Psychic powers the Dreadknight can get they can do some pretty nasty things. The Dreadknight ignores the range factor unlike most units because it can move 30 inches and then shoot and has a great chance to wipe out whatever its shooting at before they can return fire on top of being cheaper so you can take more of them. Tit for tat bro, its a different play style for two different armies the Dreadknight is just as nasty as the Riptide in its designed role.
The Riptide is already very expensive. FnP is a no-brainer upgrade. Especially to make it more survivable on top of mitigating the risk of hurting itself.
Yeah it happens a lot. i suppose if you just dont USE the Nova Reactor then sure. You'll be fine. That's a player choice. But in 6 turns, Im gonna give myself a 33% chance EVERY turn for six turns of losing wounds. FnP is cool but its no guarantee.
and that one loses a wound in round 1, lets say, doesnt reduce the chance at all of doing so again. So over six turns you usually lose a couple wounds to it assuming you use it as freely as I do (I figure they will wrap me up in melee at some point so why try and "save" them when Ill just die in melee anyways to anything hald way decent).
EDIT: Also if you have two of them then you're rolling twice as often so you REALLY cant underestimate that. that excludes the Gets hot rolls, which are in ADDITION to the Reactor.
I've actually seen Riptides win quite a few CCs 1-0 due to inability of the opponent to cause any wounds. S6 AP 2 melee attacks are nontrivial, especially against squads depleted from shooting.
First, Akiasura, Ive done more than that. You just didn't like the answer (not that I care).
Second, I play two of these "brain dead' units as you call them, and the wounds mount up. If you're lucky enough NOT to take a couple wounds from it, awesome. Good day for you.
But it's a dice game and the drama comes FROM the dice so no matter your statistics, bad things happen and good things do too. but its fairly intuitive for anyone to recognize that you will take wounds. So a 5 wound MC is not REALLY a 5 wound MC if played to its strengths. And I do.
Jancoran wrote: First, Akiasura, Ive done more than that. You just didn't like the answer (not that I care).
Second, I play two of these "brain dead' units as you call them, and the wounds mount up. If you're lucky enough NOT to take a couple wounds from it, awesome. Good day for you.
But it's a dice game and the drama comes FROM the dice so no matter your statistics, bad things happen and good things do too. but its fairly intuitive for anyone to recognize that you will take wounds. So a 5 wound MC is not REALLY a 5 wound MC if played to its strengths. And I do.
Even at 3.75 W, let's say, it takes an absurd amount of long range firepower to kill one of these things. You can't assault them, because you can't catch them. You can't use short range guns because they will stay out of your range.
Martel732 wrote: I've actually seen Riptides win quite a few CCs 1-0 due to inability of the opponent to cause any wounds. S6 AP 2 melee attacks are nontrivial, especially against squads depleted from shooting.
Yup, they win sometimes. Its not impossible. I've done it. I am not going to bet on that, and a point that has been stated elsewhere: "winning" the combat as the Riptide being charged just gives the enemy a reprieve from my shooting. So even in victory I kinda lose. Lol. Best to consign it to the briney deep and avenge it.
Jancoran wrote: First, Akiasura, Ive done more than that. You just didn't like the answer (not that I care).
Where?
I have honestly missed where you describe why the unit you alone feel is overpowered is. I've never seen the unit played, and if there is a hidden treasure there, I'd like to see it. I have failed to see you detail why the dreadknight is superior, or indeed, any MC in the game is superior to the Riptide.
Second, I play two of these "brain dead' units as you call them, and the wounds mount up. If you're lucky enough NOT to take a couple wounds from it, awesome. Good day for you.
That isn't really a strategy. We can discuss standard deviation if you want, so we can determine just how accurate those averages are, but throwing your hands up in the air and saying "luck should be enough" isn't a viable strategy.
And yes, most shooting units with an incredibly long range don't require a great amount of work to use. If the guns are strong, the unit fast, and it is very tough, then its very easy to use. You may not like it, but there is no Riptide tactica or strategy that involves more than
"Do not deploy like an idiot. Place toe in area terrain. Pick unit. Delete Unit. Run if something approaches" Compare that to something like the Dreadknight, and it comes out very braindead to use indeed.
That said, I've used brain dead units before. Longfangs in the old SW dex were the most braindead unit in the game at the time, and I fielded 3 units in most tournaments. But I can freely admit they were just a dice roll, I could run through their movement and shooting in second.
But it's a dice game and the drama comes FROM the dice so no matter your statistics, bad things happen and good things do too. but its fairly intuitive for anyone to recognize that you will take wounds. So a 5 wound MC is not REALLY a 5 wound MC if played to its strengths. And I do.
Of course drama comes from the dice. No one is suggesting otherwise. Standard deviations are something to take into consideration, and I do.
The issue is this is a 5-7 turn game. The Riptide will have roughly 3-4 wounds most of the time. Can you do enough damage to remove it quick enough before it does what it needs to?
Part of the problem it is an MC. It's at full effectiveness until it dies, unlike a tank which can have parts blown off by incoming fire.
The answer for any dex that isn't a power dex is "Not without investing double or triple the points, and losing them next turn".
Just to show you some math,
72 bolters fire - 48 hit - 8 wound - 1.4 wounds - 1 wound. This is the equivalent of 36 marines rapid firing, so about 4 squads minus their special weapon.
8 plasma fire - 6 hit (round up) - 4 wound - either 2.67 wounds or 1.3 wound - 1.7 wounds or 0.9 wounds on average, for their plasma guns.
So 4 full squads of marine take roughly 2-3 wounds off of a riptide, and you must be within rapid fire range for 4 full squads.
That's nuts.
Jancoran wrote: First, Akiasura, Ive done more than that. You just didn't like the answer (not that I care).
Second, I play two of these "brain dead' units as you call them, and the wounds mount up. If you're lucky enough NOT to take a couple wounds from it, awesome. Good day for you.
But it's a dice game and the drama comes FROM the dice so no matter your statistics, bad things happen and good things do too. but its fairly intuitive for anyone to recognize that you will take wounds. So a 5 wound MC is not REALLY a 5 wound MC if played to its strengths. And I do.
Even at 3.75 W, let's say, it takes an absurd amount of long range firepower to kill one of these things. You can't assault them, because you can't catch them. You can't use short range guns because they will stay out of your range.
Look you are basically going to KEEP 3 wounds and the Nova Reactor is going to take 2 most of the time. Again, unless you refuse to use the Reactor (usually, and ironically, because you already took 2! Lol)
You can pincer them, and boards aren't unlimited inches deep.
Like all expensive singular models, if you allow it to do whatever its designed to do, yeah. It's going to whallop you but good.
Jancoran wrote: First, Akiasura, Ive done more than that. You just didn't like the answer (not that I care).
Where?
I have honestly missed where you describe why the unit you alone feel is overpowered is. I've never seen the unit played, and if there is a hidden treasure there, I'd like to see it. I have failed to see you detail why the dreadknight is superior, or indeed, any MC in the game is superior to the Riptide.
Second, I play two of these "brain dead' units as you call them, and the wounds mount up. If you're lucky enough NOT to take a couple wounds from it, awesome. Good day for you.
That isn't really a strategy. We can discuss standard deviation if you want, so we can determine just how accurate those averages are, but throwing your hands up in the air and saying "luck should be enough" isn't a viable strategy.
And yes, most shooting units with an incredibly long range don't require a great amount of work to use. If the guns are strong, the unit fast, and it is very tough, then its very easy to use. You may not like it, but there is no Riptide tactica or strategy that involves more than
"Do not deploy like an idiot. Place toe in area terrain. Pick unit. Delete Unit. Run if something approaches" Compare that to something like the Dreadknight, and it comes out very braindead to use indeed.
That said, I've used brain dead units before. Longfangs in the old SW dex were the most braindead unit in the game at the time, and I fielded 3 units in most tournaments. But I can freely admit they were just a dice roll, I could run through their movement and shooting in second.
But it's a dice game and the drama comes FROM the dice so no matter your statistics, bad things happen and good things do too. but its fairly intuitive for anyone to recognize that you will take wounds. So a 5 wound MC is not REALLY a 5 wound MC if played to its strengths. And I do.
Of course drama comes from the dice. No one is suggesting otherwise. Standard deviations are something to take into consideration, and I do.
The issue is this is a 5-7 turn game. The Riptide will have roughly 3-4 wounds most of the time. Can you do enough damage to remove it quick enough before it does what it needs to?
Part of the problem it is an MC. It's at full effectiveness until it dies, unlike a tank which can have parts blown off by incoming fire.
The answer for any dex that isn't a power dex is "Not without investing double or triple the points, and losing them next turn".
Just to show you some math,
72 bolters fire - 48 hit - 8 wound - 1.4 wounds - 1 wound. This is the equivalent of 36 marines rapid firing, so about 4 squads minus their special weapon.
8 plasma fire - 6 hit (round up) - 4 wound - either 2.67 wounds or 1.3 wound - 1.7 wounds or 0.9 wounds on average, for their plasma guns.
So 4 full squads of marine take roughly 2-3 wounds off of a riptide, and you must be within rapid fire range for 4 full squads.
That's nuts.
For me to answer your questions, here's what has to be true: you have to be right that "I alone say" anything. Because if "I alone" don't, you have no question for me to answer. So if you want to argue in good faith, do it. Otherwise... eh...Expect little in answer.
And what I ACTUALLY said had nothing to do with superiority. You weren't paying attention to what I DID say which was...that.... there will always be a ...top five. bemoaning WHAT that is is a pointless exercise. So it hardly matters whether there IS an MC thats superior to it but since you wish to ask, I find a Flying Nurgle MC with his awesome weapons to be not only better but quite likely to kick a Riptides teeth in along with a few other fellas nearby. i think he is harder to hit and with shrouded, as hard to wound, faster and FAR more dangerous in melee. So yeah. Thats one. There are more. And like every unit if you find a way to stop him from getting there then bravo. Tzeentch FMC armies are ridiculously effective when someone knows how to range band with them. Noneof it means a darn thing. its just another tangent for you to argue. but there you go.
And if I HAD thrown my hands up and HAD said "luck is enough" you'd have a point. but since I didn't, you don't. Putting a toe in cover no longer works, smart guy, so you might want to update yourself on that point. Area Terrain no longer exists, Just an FYI.
When you knowwhat you REALLY want to ask...really specifically... then I'll be happy to provide you an answer.
But we're talking about win ratios in the thread. and my point which you've thrown us on a tangent over, is that we can't know what these Generals would be like or would do if they had chosen a road less traveled. So the percentages lack enough meaning, for all the reasons I stated.
start a new thread if you want to talk about Heavy Weapons Platforms in that much depth.
Oh yeah and WHY are you shooting a Riptide with Bolters? that math makes no sense unless my plan is to uh...do that?
Jancoran wrote: First, Akiasura, Ive done more than that. You just didn't like the answer (not that I care).
Where?
I have honestly missed where you describe why the unit you alone feel is overpowered is. I've never seen the unit played, and if there is a hidden treasure there, I'd like to see it. I have failed to see you detail why the dreadknight is superior, or indeed, any MC in the game is superior to the Riptide.
Second, I play two of these "brain dead' units as you call them, and the wounds mount up. If you're lucky enough NOT to take a couple wounds from it, awesome. Good day for you.
That isn't really a strategy. We can discuss standard deviation if you want, so we can determine just how accurate those averages are, but throwing your hands up in the air and saying "luck should be enough" isn't a viable strategy.
And yes, most shooting units with an incredibly long range don't require a great amount of work to use. If the guns are strong, the unit fast, and it is very tough, then its very easy to use. You may not like it, but there is no Riptide tactica or strategy that involves more than
"Do not deploy like an idiot. Place toe in area terrain. Pick unit. Delete Unit. Run if something approaches" Compare that to something like the Dreadknight, and it comes out very braindead to use indeed.
That said, I've used brain dead units before. Longfangs in the old SW dex were the most braindead unit in the game at the time, and I fielded 3 units in most tournaments. But I can freely admit they were just a dice roll, I could run through their movement and shooting in second.
But it's a dice game and the drama comes FROM the dice so no matter your statistics, bad things happen and good things do too. but its fairly intuitive for anyone to recognize that you will take wounds. So a 5 wound MC is not REALLY a 5 wound MC if played to its strengths. And I do.
Of course drama comes from the dice. No one is suggesting otherwise. Standard deviations are something to take into consideration, and I do.
The issue is this is a 5-7 turn game. The Riptide will have roughly 3-4 wounds most of the time. Can you do enough damage to remove it quick enough before it does what it needs to?
Part of the problem it is an MC. It's at full effectiveness until it dies, unlike a tank which can have parts blown off by incoming fire.
The answer for any dex that isn't a power dex is "Not without investing double or triple the points, and losing them next turn".
Just to show you some math,
72 bolters fire - 48 hit - 8 wound - 1.4 wounds - 1 wound. This is the equivalent of 36 marines rapid firing, so about 4 squads minus their special weapon.
8 plasma fire - 6 hit (round up) - 4 wound - either 2.67 wounds or 1.3 wound - 1.7 wounds or 0.9 wounds on average, for their plasma guns.
So 4 full squads of marine take roughly 2-3 wounds off of a riptide, and you must be within rapid fire range for 4 full squads.
That's nuts.
For me to answer your questions, here's what has to be true: you have to be right that "I alone say" anything. Because if "I alone" don't, you have no question for me to answer. So if you want to argue in good faith, do it. Otherwise... eh...Expect little in answer.
I...what?
What are you even saying here?
You claimed a unit was strong that many think are weak. You even compared yourself to galileo!
I am asking you to back up that claim, as I'd like to hear why you think it's too strong. No one else in the thread backed you up, so yes, it is you alone. I am addressing your points one by one and trying to reply to each one without insulting you (which you have done, btw).
And what I ACTUALLY said had nothing to do with superiority. You weren't paying attention to what I DID say which was...that.... there will always be a ...top five. bemoaning WHAT that is is a pointless exercise. So it hardly matters whether there IS an MC thats superior to it but since you wish to ask, I find a Flying Nurgle MC with his awesome weapons to be not only better but quite likely to kick a Riptides teeth in along with a few other fellas nearby. i think he is harder to hit and with shrouded, as hard to wound, faster and FAR more dangerous in melee. So yeah. Thats one. There are more. And like every unit if you find a way to stop him from getting there then bravo. Tzeentch FMC armies are ridiculously effective when someone knows how to range band with them. Noneof it means a darn thing. its just another tangent for you to argue. but there you go.
Everything is relative. Yes, there will always be a top 5. But how far above the rest of the game do those top 5 stand? How far from each other do they stand? These things matter.
The flying Nurgle MC has the same problem the Dreadknight has; he needs to touch you. He used to be quite scary, but now he doesn't make the list for Top 3 MCs (I'd argue top 5).
I'd say the Top 5 are, in order;
Riptide
Hive Tyrant
DreadKnight
WraithKnight
Tzneetch Greater Demon
Guns>Melee for the most part, though necrons are changing things.
Also, if you don't like arguing or debate, forums where people may disagree isn't the place for you. I suggest a less stressful leisure activity.
And if I HAD thrown my hands up and HAD said "luck is enough" you'd have a point. but since I didn't, you don't. Putting a toe in cover no longer works, smart guy, so you might want to update yourself on that point. Area Terrain no longer exists, Just an FYI.
Putting a toe in cover for area terrain is a turn of phrase. You barely need any of the model in cover to gain it, so it's easy to do. Perhaps you're not aware of this strategy or ability?
You have said several times that it is people's attitude that determines how things work. There is another thread where you claimed a blob of IG can stop wraiths currently, because it CAN happen. In this thread alone, you have mentioned that swings in dice cause drama. What else where you talking about besides luck?
When you knowwhat you REALLY want to ask...really specifically... then I'll be happy to provide you an answer.
I want you to back up what you're saying.
I want you to explain how night lords with rhinos stop a unit from being shot to death after winning assault.
I want you to explain why the riptide being so overpowered isn't bad for the game.
I want you to explain how riptides should be handled by some of the more average dexes, or admit that it's an overpowered unit that is bad for the game.
I want you to amaze me with your Galileo esque insight into the strategy of this game, since you have claimed to have it.
But we're talking about win ratios in the thread. and my point which you've thrown us on a tangent over, is that we can't know what these Generals would be like or would do if they had chosen a road less traveled. So the percentages lack enough meaning, for all the reasons I stated.
No one is disagreeing here. I said from the start that the statistics were useless, as most are for 40k. It isn't a competitive game like WMH, so there isn't a lot of data available on it.
And you are sadly mistaken if you think I originally brought up riptides originally. Please re-read the thread.
start a new thread if you want to talk about Heavy Weapons Platforms in that much depth.
The conversation has turned from that for pages, and you were happy to post for several of them on the new topic. If you no longer wish to do so, by all means.
Oh yeah and WHY are you shooting a Riptide with Bolters? that math makes no sense unless my plan is to uh...do that?
It was an example, since one of the common answers to a riptide is "deep strike it". I wanted to show what exactly deepstriking it entails with a unit that is considered to be poor to average, and how serious a point advantage it has.
It took more then double the points and an unrealistic set up to score enough wounds to kill it providing it had already hurt itself. That was my point.
You have yet to provide anyone with a gameplan for riptides except be positive.
Jancoran wrote: First, Akiasura, Ive done more than that. You just didn't like the answer (not that I care).
Where?
I have honestly missed where you describe why the unit you alone feel is overpowered is. I've never seen the unit played, and if there is a hidden treasure there, I'd like to see it. I have failed to see you detail why the dreadknight is superior, or indeed, any MC in the game is superior to the Riptide.
Second, I play two of these "brain dead' units as you call them, and the wounds mount up. If you're lucky enough NOT to take a couple wounds from it, awesome. Good day for you.
That isn't really a strategy. We can discuss standard deviation if you want, so we can determine just how accurate those averages are, but throwing your hands up in the air and saying "luck should be enough" isn't a viable strategy.
And yes, most shooting units with an incredibly long range don't require a great amount of work to use. If the guns are strong, the unit fast, and it is very tough, then its very easy to use. You may not like it, but there is no Riptide tactica or strategy that involves more than
"Do not deploy like an idiot. Place toe in area terrain. Pick unit. Delete Unit. Run if something approaches" Compare that to something like the Dreadknight, and it comes out very braindead to use indeed.
That said, I've used brain dead units before. Longfangs in the old SW dex were the most braindead unit in the game at the time, and I fielded 3 units in most tournaments. But I can freely admit they were just a dice roll, I could run through their movement and shooting in second.
But it's a dice game and the drama comes FROM the dice so no matter your statistics, bad things happen and good things do too. but its fairly intuitive for anyone to recognize that you will take wounds. So a 5 wound MC is not REALLY a 5 wound MC if played to its strengths. And I do.
Of course drama comes from the dice. No one is suggesting otherwise. Standard deviations are something to take into consideration, and I do.
The issue is this is a 5-7 turn game. The Riptide will have roughly 3-4 wounds most of the time. Can you do enough damage to remove it quick enough before it does what it needs to?
Part of the problem it is an MC. It's at full effectiveness until it dies, unlike a tank which can have parts blown off by incoming fire.
The answer for any dex that isn't a power dex is "Not without investing double or triple the points, and losing them next turn".
Just to show you some math,
72 bolters fire - 48 hit - 8 wound - 1.4 wounds - 1 wound. This is the equivalent of 36 marines rapid firing, so about 4 squads minus their special weapon.
8 plasma fire - 6 hit (round up) - 4 wound - either 2.67 wounds or 1.3 wound - 1.7 wounds or 0.9 wounds on average, for their plasma guns.
So 4 full squads of marine take roughly 2-3 wounds off of a riptide, and you must be within rapid fire range for 4 full squads.
That's nuts.
For me to answer your questions, here's what has to be true: you have to be right that "I alone say" anything. Because if "I alone" don't, you have no question for me to answer. So if you want to argue in good faith, do it. Otherwise... eh...Expect little in answer.
I...what?
What are you even saying here?
You claimed a unit was strong that many think are weak. You even compared yourself to galileo!
I am asking you to back up that claim, as I'd like to hear why you think it's too strong. No one else in the thread backed you up, so yes, it is you alone. I am addressing your points one by one and trying to reply to each one without insulting you (which you have done, btw).
And what I ACTUALLY said had nothing to do with superiority. You weren't paying attention to what I DID say which was...that.... there will always be a ...top five. bemoaning WHAT that is is a pointless exercise. So it hardly matters whether there IS an MC thats superior to it but since you wish to ask, I find a Flying Nurgle MC with his awesome weapons to be not only better but quite likely to kick a Riptides teeth in along with a few other fellas nearby. i think he is harder to hit and with shrouded, as hard to wound, faster and FAR more dangerous in melee. So yeah. Thats one. There are more. And like every unit if you find a way to stop him from getting there then bravo. Tzeentch FMC armies are ridiculously effective when someone knows how to range band with them. Noneof it means a darn thing. its just another tangent for you to argue. but there you go.
Everything is relative. Yes, there will always be a top 5. But how far above the rest of the game do those top 5 stand? How far from each other do they stand? These things matter.
The flying Nurgle MC has the same problem the Dreadknight has; he needs to touch you. He used to be quite scary, but now he doesn't make the list for Top 3 MCs (I'd argue top 5).
I'd say the Top 5 are, in order;
Riptide
Hive Tyrant
DreadKnight
WraithKnight
Tzneetch Greater Demon
Guns>Melee for the most part, though necrons are changing things.
Also, if you don't like arguing or debate, forums where people may disagree isn't the place for you. I suggest a less stressful leisure activity.
And if I HAD thrown my hands up and HAD said "luck is enough" you'd have a point. but since I didn't, you don't. Putting a toe in cover no longer works, smart guy, so you might want to update yourself on that point. Area Terrain no longer exists, Just an FYI.
Putting a toe in cover for area terrain is a turn of phrase. You barely need any of the model in cover to gain it, so it's easy to do. Perhaps you're not aware of this strategy or ability?
You have said several times that it is people's attitude that determines how things work. There is another thread where you claimed a blob of IG can stop wraiths currently, because it CAN happen. In this thread alone, you have mentioned that swings in dice cause drama. What else where you talking about besides luck?
When you knowwhat you REALLY want to ask...really specifically... then I'll be happy to provide you an answer.
I want you to back up what you're saying.
I want you to explain how night lords with rhinos stop a unit from being shot to death after winning assault.
I want you to explain why the riptide being so overpowered isn't bad for the game.
I want you to explain how riptides should be handled by some of the more average dexes, or admit that it's an overpowered unit that is bad for the game.
I want you to amaze me with your Galileo esque insight into the strategy of this game, since you have claimed to have it.
But we're talking about win ratios in the thread. and my point which you've thrown us on a tangent over, is that we can't know what these Generals would be like or would do if they had chosen a road less traveled. So the percentages lack enough meaning, for all the reasons I stated.
No one is disagreeing here. I said from the start that the statistics were useless, as most are for 40k. It isn't a competitive game like WMH, so there isn't a lot of data available on it.
And you are sadly mistaken if you think I originally brought up riptides originally. Please re-read the thread.
start a new thread if you want to talk about Heavy Weapons Platforms in that much depth.
The conversation has turned from that for pages, and you were happy to post for several of them on the new topic. If you no longer wish to do so, by all means.
Oh yeah and WHY are you shooting a Riptide with Bolters? that math makes no sense unless my plan is to uh...do that?
It was an example, since one of the common answers to a riptide is "deep strike it". I wanted to show what exactly deepstriking it entails with a unit that is considered to be poor to average, and how serious a point advantage it has.
It took more then double the points and an unrealistic set up to score enough wounds to kill it providing it had already hurt itself. That was my point.
You have yet to provide anyone with a gameplan for riptides except be positive.
Aki, Janc has obviously gone insane trying to defined the Riptide against the hate. It's okay
The flying Nurgle MC has the same problem the Dreadknight has; he needs to touch you. He used to be quite scary, but now he doesn't make the list for Top 3 MCs (I'd argue top 5).
I'd say the Top 5 are, in order;
Riptide
Hive Tyrant
DreadKnight
WraithKnight
Tzneetch Greater Demon
Guns>Melee for the most part, though necrons are changing things.
The flying Nurgle MC has the same problem the Dreadknight has; he needs to touch you. He used to be quite scary, but now he doesn't make the list for Top 3 MCs (I'd argue top 5).
I'd say the Top 5 are, in order;
Riptide
Hive Tyrant
DreadKnight
WraithKnight
Tzneetch Greater Demon
Guns>Melee for the most part, though necrons are changing things.
What? No Bel'akor?
Yeah, I think Bel'akor should bump out Tzeentch GD
The only thing that really give Bel'akor the edge over a tooled up LoC is the predictability. That -1 T can really hurt when it comes to being focussed down.
It's near impossible to give a fair comparison because even the person fielding it doesn't know how good a LoC is going to be until just before the game starts!
I'm assuming the Flyrant, otherwise the regular Hive Tyrant seems laughable
Of course, just like the Riptide is the IA one as the HBC is also awful. I'm not 100% sure on the best Wraithknight build and the Dreadknight... Is any build with two guns and their cheesy jet pack thing.
Not as good as the IA Riptide but not really awful.
Lots of units that need help aren't awful. They just aren't as good as alternatives.
Well I think that might be the problem. The Riptide has and option that is so obviously superior to the other that the other is branded as "awful". Nevermind that the superior option is hugely undercosted, the fair and balanced option is "awful" simply by its nature of not being the other.
But I was referring to SGTPozy's claim that HBC Riptides are "awful".
Not as good as the IA Riptide but not really awful.
Lots of units that need help aren't awful. They just aren't as good as alternatives.
Well I think that might be the problem. The Riptide has and option that is so obviously superior to the other that the other is branded as "awful". Nevermind that the superior option is hugely undercosted, the fair and balanced option is "awful" simply by its nature of not being the other.
But I was referring to SGTPozy's claim that HBC Riptides are "awful".
But I think that the Tau elite slot also might have better choices than the HBC Riptide.
Not as good as the IA Riptide but not really awful.
Lots of units that need help aren't awful. They just aren't as good as alternatives.
Well I think that might be the problem. The Riptide has and option that is so obviously superior to the other that the other is branded as "awful". Nevermind that the superior option is hugely undercosted, the fair and balanced option is "awful" simply by its nature of not being the other.
But I was referring to SGTPozy's claim that HBC Riptides are "awful".
But I think that the Tau elite slot also might have better choices than the HBC Riptide.
Ignatus, pretty much this. Crisis suits will do better than the Riptide with HBC, so there is no competition.
Likewise, GK Purgation squads are not awful (yet GJ players suggest otherwise) but it is because of the Dreadknight being there.
Not as good as the IA Riptide but not really awful.
Lots of units that need help aren't awful. They just aren't as good as alternatives.
Well I think that might be the problem. The Riptide has and option that is so obviously superior to the other that the other is branded as "awful". Nevermind that the superior option is hugely undercosted, the fair and balanced option is "awful" simply by its nature of not being the other.
But I was referring to SGTPozy's claim that HBC Riptides are "awful".
But I think that the Tau elite slot also might have better choices than the HBC Riptide.
Perhaps. Depends on the rest of their list and what they are looking to get out of the unit. HBC Riptides have, in my opinion, an acceptable amount of damage output for the amount of damage they can take. There aren't other Elites options that are as durable (not much in the game is) while still providing a fair amount of harassment and damage. If the player is running Farsight Enclaves then that's a difficult assertion to make as well, as the other great unit in the slot can be Troops instead. Again, it depends on the rest of the army. But I would venture that a unit being evaluated based on its role in a force is a great step towards being less an auto-include and more balanced against the rest of the slot. Which is in and of itself a great thing for the game that is sadly not as ordinary as it should be.
Not as good as the IA Riptide but not really awful.
Lots of units that need help aren't awful. They just aren't as good as alternatives.
Well I think that might be the problem. The Riptide has and option that is so obviously superior to the other that the other is branded as "awful". Nevermind that the superior option is hugely undercosted, the fair and balanced option is "awful" simply by its nature of not being the other.
But I was referring to SGTPozy's claim that HBC Riptides are "awful".
But I think that the Tau elite slot also might have better choices than the HBC Riptide.
Ignatus, pretty much this. Crisis suits will do better than the Riptide with HBC, so there is no competition.
Likewise, GK Purgation squads are not awful (yet GJ players suggest otherwise) but it is because of the Dreadknight being there.
Crisis suits do better at what? Shooting? Of course, there are more models and weapons being used. Surviving? No way. It'll depend on what you're looking to get out of the slot. If you want mid range damage output, then go for Crisis Suits. If you want durability and a distraction unit, go for a Riptide. The fact that there is a discussion about which is better, Crisis Suits or the HBC Riptide says a lot about both the balance of the units as well as the imbalance the IA Riptide creates.
Purgation Squads aren't near as effective as Dreadknights. Even if Dreadknights weren't in the codex I don't think many would take them. I'm curious as to why you claim they are something contrary to what you admit is the current opinion of them by the players who actually have experience and access to them.
SGTPozy wrote: People love to day that armies like Eldar and Tau are 'cheesy', 'broken' or 'OP' but according to Torrent of Fire Eldar's WR is 55.1% and Tau's is 52.8%.
So here's my question; how is a 50% win rate bad? Surely winning 50% of your games is very balanced so maybe the problem lies with the underperforming armies instead.
There is a lot of information missing in that graph, so the reason you question it is because somewhere deep down you recognize that. This is not to say that they didn't do a good job, but we're left with a lot of assumptions.
1) Random sampled or stratified sample of games? IMHO only a stratified sample would work, which means: every codex, every combination. How do you know that all match combinations were played?
2) How many times for each combination 1? 2? 3+? Can you justify results with only one game in each combination?
3) How many games in total? What was your Margin of Error?
4) Who chose the lists? Were they all comers lists or were they tailored to the army they were playing at the time? Were the best units chosen each game?
5) Was the skill of each player equal? How many mistakes were made in the match? Was it significant enough to skew the data?
6) Good luck bad luck, how do you account for good/bad dice?
Not as good as the IA Riptide but not really awful.
Lots of units that need help aren't awful. They just aren't as good as alternatives.
Well I think that might be the problem. The Riptide has and option that is so obviously superior to the other that the other is branded as "awful". Nevermind that the superior option is hugely undercosted, the fair and balanced option is "awful" simply by its nature of not being the other.
But I was referring to SGTPozy's claim that HBC Riptides are "awful".
But I think that the Tau elite slot also might have better choices than the HBC Riptide.
Ignatus, pretty much this. Crisis suits will do better than the Riptide with HBC, so there is no competition.
Likewise, GK Purgation squads are not awful (yet GJ players suggest otherwise) but it is because of the Dreadknight being there.
Purgation squads are, in fact, awful.
They're supposed to be Devastator equivalents, but they have only short ranged weapons. The only good special weapon in the codex can't even be moved with or it loses all its offensive power, but the range is too short to stay still.
They're super expensive, have little durability, and have little melee power either. If you wanted 4 special weapons you'd be better off getting Purifiers for double the melee output plus Cleansing Flame.
If we didn't have the Dreadknight, we'd just take more terminators and not use our HS slot at all except maybe for the occasional Land Raider.
I have honestly missed where you describe why the unit you alone feel is overpowered is. I've never seen the unit played,
You may not like it, but there is no Riptide tactica or strategy that involves more than Do not deploy like an idiot. Place toe in area terrain...
Can you do enough damage to remove it quick enough before it does what it needs to?
Just to show you some math,
72 bolters fire... So 4 full squads of marine take roughly 2-3 wounds off of a riptide, and you must be within rapid fire range for 4 full squads.
What are you even saying here?
You claimed a unit was strong that many think are weak. You even compared yourself to galileo!
I am asking you to back up that claim, as I'd like to hear why you think it's too strong. No one else in the thread backed you up
Yes, there will always be a top 5. But how far above the rest of the game do those top 5 stand?
You barely need any of the model in cover to gain it, so it's easy to do.
Your mischaracterizations and being intentionally obtuse have ended my interest in this convo. Sorry. You're just not going to argue in good faith here.
Aki, Janc has obviously gone insane trying to defined the Riptide against the hate. It's okay
No I just think that the tangents are getting in the way of the point of the thing. I used examples to illustrate the point we were talking about and instead of seeing those examples AS examples, you and he are treating them like they ARE the point of the convo. It's your right but I don't have to follow suit.
I'm happy to float along the river of tangents a little bit because they are inevitable, but when this becomes ALL about Eldar heavy Weapons Platforms and not at ALL about his assertions on 56% winning percentages...meh. I'm done. get another thread started on heavy weapons, or Riptide hate or whatever else you want to make the thread about. Here's what he's made it about. And I quote:
I want you to explain how night lords with rhinos stop a unit from being shot to death after winning assault.
I want you to explain why the riptide being so overpowered isn't bad for the game.
I want you to explain how riptides should be handled by some of the more average dexes, or admit that it's an overpowered unit that is bad for the game.
I want you to amaze me with your Galileo esque insight into the strategy of this game, since you have claimed to have it.
They can take psylincers, so 4 Guys with them gives 24 shots (which makes them similar to the fleshborer hive on Trygon Primes, but with greater range and Bs).
They can use force allowing them to insta-kill multi-wound models up to 24" away.
Whilst heavy weapons, they can steal drop pods from SW/BA allowing them to get into range, so the argument about their range being too short is invalid.
Even snap shots will give some hits due to the volume of shots (why do you think that Orky shooting is so good?).
Azreal13 wrote: So, rather than answer Akiasura's requests for clarification, you're going to post a lengthy reply explaining that you're not going to answer them?
If one were cynical, one may consider you don't have any good answers and are just blustering in an effort to distract and hope nobody notices.
Azreal13 wrote: So, rather than answer Akiasura's requests for clarification, you're going to post a lengthy reply explaining that you're not going to answer them?
If one were cynical, one may consider you don't have any good answers and are just blustering in an effort to distract and hope nobody notices.
If one were cynical...
Cynicism is a choice. =)
I have written a few responses but then after reading them, I just realized where it was headed: nowhere. So. I prefer to hear what he has to say about why he thinks 56% is "so high even in normal games". I have heard nothing on that other than that he thinks its true. If one were cynical one would think he doesn't win that often, which might explain it.
If one were cynical...
But we're not going to be cynical HERE, now are we?
Azreal13 wrote: So, rather than answer Akiasura's requests for clarification, you're going to post a lengthy reply explaining that you're not going to answer them?
If one were cynical, one may consider you don't have any good answers and are just blustering in an effort to distract and hope nobody notices.
If one were cynical...
Cynicism is a choice. =)
I have written a few responses but then after reading them, I just realized where it was headed: nowhere. So. I prefer to hear what he has to say about why he thinks 56% is "so high even in normal games". I have heard nothing on that other than that he thinks its true. If one were cynical one would think he doesn't win that often, which might explain it.
If one were cynical...
But we're not going to be cynical HERE, now are we?
So rather than answer his points, you're going to handwave them away? That's mature.
They can take psylincers, so 4 Guys with them gives 24 shots (which makes them similar to the fleshborer hive on Trygon Primes, but with greater range and Bs).
They can use force allowing them to insta-kill multi-wound models up to 24" away.
Whilst heavy weapons, they can steal drop pods from SW/BA allowing them to get into range, so the argument about their range being too short is invalid.
Even snap shots will give some hits due to the volume of shots (why do you think that Orky shooting is so good?).
Those ideas are horrible uses of points. Psilincers are still bad because you lose psycannons. That's not a good tactic.
So rather than answer his points, you're going to handwave them away? .
Yes, whatever handwave means is apparently what I'm doing. Sure.
I will also not be BROW BEATEN into continuing to converse with him on this by any well meaning denizen of Dakkadakka. Lol. I assume you mean well in any case.
They can take psylincers, so 4 Guys with them gives 24 shots (which makes them similar to the fleshborer hive on Trygon Primes, but with greater range and Bs).
They can use force allowing them to insta-kill multi-wound models up to 24" away.
Whilst heavy weapons, they can steal drop pods from SW/BA allowing them to get into range, so the argument about their range being too short is invalid.
Even snap shots will give some hits due to the volume of shots (why do you think that Orky shooting is so good?).
Those ideas are horrible uses of points. Psilincers are still bad because you lose psycannons. That's not a good tactic.
Not to be pedantic but weapons choices aren't tactics.
I think the thing to pull away from the actual article is that you should make sure you have the ability in your list to deal with a primary detachment of knights if you are planning on going to a big tournament and plan to make it to the top tables.
They can take psylincers, so 4 Guys with them gives 24 shots (which makes them similar to the fleshborer hive on Trygon Primes, but with greater range and Bs).
They can use force allowing them to insta-kill multi-wound models up to 24" away.
Whilst heavy weapons, they can steal drop pods from SW/BA allowing them to get into range, so the argument about their range being too short is invalid.
Even snap shots will give some hits due to the volume of shots (why do you think that Orky shooting is so good?).
Those ideas are horrible uses of points. Psilincers are still bad because you lose psycannons. That's not a good tactic.
Not to be pedantic but weapons choices aren't tactics.
Not that it's super important but yes it is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Killermonkey wrote: I think the thing to pull away from the actual article is that you should make sure you have the ability in your list to deal with a primary detachment of knights if you are planning on going to a big tournament and plan to make it to the top tables.
Also this is a pretty safe way to go. "Able to deal with Knights effectively" surely is towards the top of the list for the metric to determine if a list is of a competitive caliber anymore.
They can take psylincers, so 4 Guys with them gives 24 shots (which makes them similar to the fleshborer hive on Trygon Primes, but with greater range and Bs).
They can use force allowing them to insta-kill multi-wound models up to 24" away.
Whilst heavy weapons, they can steal drop pods from SW/BA allowing them to get into range, so the argument about their range being too short is invalid.
Even snap shots will give some hits due to the volume of shots (why do you think that Orky shooting is so good?).
Those ideas are horrible uses of points. Psilincers are still bad because you lose psycannons. That's not a good tactic.
Not to be pedantic but weapons choices aren't tactics.
I was a little sparse on information, my tactic comment was referring to dropping Purgators in a Drop Pod.
Killermonkey wrote: I think the thing to pull away from the actual article is that you should make sure you have the ability in your list to deal with a primary detachment of knights if you are planning on going to a big tournament and plan to make it to the top tables.
You're not joking. I built an army for a freind of mine and even put Haywires on my (now his) Fire Warriors AND Pathfinders which added substantially to their ability to handle the big boys.
There's a batrep on my blog recently showing serpent spam actually having to abandon positions to avoid getting whalloped by them, which was great.
from full wounds! horrible ain't it. You state all these things but you fail to notice the only time a Dreadknight is a threat is once it takes all the upgrades, unlike the Riptide who really just has to toss out 5 points. Hell a 
You can tell me that "everyone knows that is yelling" but i guess I would disagree, since i wasn't...yelling. So if there's two ways can choose to take something... and one is reasonable and good, but the second is not, then go with the first one. That's my advice to anyone whose looking for something to complain about. =)
