Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

aka_mythos wrote:Nos, I think for the sake of fairness it does represent proof of something: the worst case scenario, but there in lies the flaw. All analysis starts with assumptions but the assumptions of math-hammer are inherently stacked against DE and thus only show the worst case scenario.

~most likely appended~

Just wanted to include that math(or the E-Score system I'm using) takes into consideration both best and worse case scenario, and averages them out... if you are referring to deployment/board then that falls under the "assumed" standard which would be both players setting up tactically sound deployments on a board with 25% cover (the recommended)

When I say worst case scenario I'm not talking about a statistical worst case scenario. I'm talking about one where a DE player is stupid enough to give his opponents as much opportunities as a head to head unit to unit match up would entail, ie charging across open table top. Playing DE well is all about mitigating the opportunity to be fired on until you're ready to strike; its all about wearing down an enemy unit until you can sufficiently over power them in the assault. That a good DE player will never get in a situation where a full squad wyches assaults a full unit of "X" or making sure when "X" assaults they're assaulting units that are least fragile and most adept at dealing with "X." Those are the end result of an army with as much fire power and speed, but no longevity.

On a different topic, I think one of the generally useless things is the fact that Warrirors can have 20 models . In all but the situation where they are coming through webway portals or riding venoms, they will only ever be fielded in units of 10. The near necessity of Raiders due to footslogging DE being suicidal places an effective cap at 10. Anyone else think so?

DAR - all that proves is you have an overly simplistic model.

It doesnt take into account force concentrations. It doesnt take into account speed (actual speed, not "+1" scores) on the real, actual battlefield. It doesnt take into account firelanes, and how to control them.

In short: it is overly simplistic, and doesnt accurately represent the strengths of the codex.

It simply proves your "facts" are nothing but ill-founded opinions, backed up with dodgy mathematical models.

The problem with mathhammer, theoryhammer, and posting lists for dissection is that they assume vacuums that ignore player skill, opponent skill, mission type, synergy with other units, total list construction, strategy and tactics. They are, generally, worthless, except as a predictor of success in very limited scenarios. This is why is it is useless to try to debate the relative worth of units or lists because they can be endlessly dissected or thrown into pointlessly obscure scenarios to either support or denounce the point you are trying to make. It's a waste of time to debate those points, so I don't. It's no skin off my nose if people don't play the DE, I only suggest to folks to actually playtest them and figure it out for themselves, unlike the rampant "analysis" attempted here. As stated before, and in the codex itself, it's not for everyone. See for yourself. Playtesting is the only way to know, theoryhammer is a waste of time.

Which was the point I was trying to make.

Understanding how to play the list, and how to beat other armies, is more important than any attempt at applying an overly simplistic model.

a mdoel that fails the further from the median you get, as well. For example DE are more reliant on cover than marines.

Oh wow... So when you you say mathhammer you mean that you give some superficial values to stats and gear that each unit has on the paper (those values seem to be based solely on your personal opinion) and then you compare those values to their point costs.

Everyone else uses math to just check what they can expect from units in different situations that are simple enough to be modeled. For example check how Unit X does against Unit Y when it gets charge.

You say that Grey Hunter are better than Wyches because you gave them more points in your own system. That is just great. Your model shows nothing, it proves nothing and it has no basis. You have no proof that the point values you give to stats are actually representing anything.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

it is an incorrect opinion

You have just invalidated every post you have ever made ever...

Are you implying that it's not possible to have an incorrect opinion DAR? Because it is, when it's baised on false premise or incorrect data. A better term might be a 'faulty' opinion, but that doesn't change that opinions will be judged against and need to meet certain standards.

As I said: an opinion based on bad data (that model is bad, as the edge case armies which rely more heavily on factors the model doesnt, well, model, are not accurately represented) is a bad opinion.

nosferatu1001 wrote:As I said: an opinion based on bad data (that model is bad, as the edge case armies which rely more heavily on factors the model doesnt, well, model, are not accurately represented) is a bad opinion.

Well, you are entitiled to you own opinion on the definition of the word opinion (and on the model). But its still just an opinion

Aetherse wrote:Oh wow... So when you you say mathhammer you mean that you give some superficial values to stats and gear that each unit has on the paper (those values seem to be based solely on your personal opinion) and then you compare those values to their point costs.

No, not "superficial values to states and gear based solely on my personal opinion" but a highly complex formula of charateristics derived from the statistics gathered from "Mathhammer".

Aetherse wrote:
Everyone else uses math to just check what they can expect from units in different situations that are simple enough to be modeled. For example check how Unit X does against Unit Y when it gets charge.

If I were simply basing my statement on such a simple (and situational) condition as the above, I would 100% agree with the statement of "This is not enought grounds to properly dismiss an army". I'm not doing that... which is why I will be listing up the full set of statistics to explain wherein my statement is derived from. And oh, BTW, I have played with my new DE already, I have gotten a few games in on VASSAL and I have the following record:

In 1500 Points: 3/0
I took: Wych list, with Duke/Haemonculi
Against: Mech-Orks(Some VERY lucky DL shots), Stealer nids(no surprise here), and Mech-Dar (with 1 walker squadron and a nightspinner as HS)

In 1850 0/1/0
Wrack List(no liqui's 5man hex+ Venom with SCx2) with urien against Lash CSM. We both ran out of troops by around turn 4, and neither had a moral victory.

In 2K 1/1/0
Baron/3xHaemonculi (one ancient) 2 Hellion troops 2 wrack troops, Grot, Incubi, Trueborn. Raider heavy. (both games)
Tied an MSU-SW player (thanks to last turn contesting skimmers, he won the moral victory)
Beat a DE Archon list (tried to gunline with warriors, stupidly, took vect((and his boat, god knows why...)) to sieze even tho I gave him turn one with baron's ability ((and got a 5 to sieze :sadface: )) and he took Cronos engines instead of Ravagers... so I don't really want to count this as a win) Annihilated (he almost beat me in kill points however, had he killed 3 more of my units, and had one thing survive, I would have lost to KPs...)

While they did well against the matchups they had, I almost lost a game that should have been an easy win. I think my Vassal is borked cause I was rolling high when I needed to , and low when I didn't, it was a really bad day for all the 1500 lists I went against. I enjoyed playing them, but I also am not willing to forsake the stastical averages already derived from the codexes, especially until I get a few games against more "higher tier" (In reference to the current metagame) lists... infact if any outstanding players would like to help me by playing one of the stronger BA/SW lists against my 2k list, that would be awesome! (I'm guessing I'll have around a 35% win chance/rate)

Aetherse wrote:
You say that Grey Hunter are better than Wyches because you gave them more points in your own system. That is just great. Your model shows nothing, it proves nothing and it has no basis. You have no proof that the point values you give to stats are actually representing anything.

Re-read the example... it shows wyches as the superior unit ((given the stats provided))

ChrisCP wrote:
Are you implying that it's not possible to have an incorrect opinion DAR? Because it is, when it's baised on false premise or incorrect data. A better term might be a 'faulty' opinion, but that doesn't change that opinions will be judged against and need to meet certain standards.

If what you are implying is that this post is fact, you are actually incorrect... however if that is your opinion on other peoples opinions... well then, as stated before, you are entitled to it. If you are infact claiming that the idea is based off of false pretenses, or erroneous views, then you must realise the irony in making such a statement without actually plasing true ideas or correct views, in this instance: The concept of "Dark eldar are good if you know how to play them" is what is being presented as the "correct view" in counter to the statement that "The Dark Eldar codex written by Phil Kelly, is not as strong or competitive (based on a raiting system derived by statistical averages and calulations which take into consideration a hell of alot more conditions then 'if you know how to play them' or 'they work like they used to, i.e. glass cannon') to the other 5th edition codexes written by Phil Kelly" which is why I am reluctant to consider the other argument without more supporting evidence...

Remember, when talking Meta, you HAVE to ZERO OUT player skill (to plan for the chance that your opponent may be mud-brick slowed in an endgame tourny game would be foolish). If not, then things like that tau player using kroot to block his opponents lines would totally screw up the meta, and make anysort of "tier structuring" impossible...

I don't know... Four wins, two ties and no losses... Regardless of your thinking on the games, that's a decet record for your first 6 games!

Eric

MagickalMemories wrote:I don't know... Four wins, two ties and no losses... Regardless of your thinking on the games, that's a decet record for your first 6 games!

Eric

I agree with this, 100%. As I said, they will be likely to win against opponents who are unfamilier with what they can bring to the table, and they have alot of gimmiky stuff.

But again, if skill, game/army knowledge, and Dice rolls are null (both players the same/statistical average) I don't see a situation* where the DE can come up on top (against other meta lists).

Compare that to BA vs DE. The BA should statistically come out on top (as the averages deal more damage per point from the BA side then the DE side). Solely on this, which seems to be the only way to compare armies in a "fair fight" situation, is where my claims from my FIRST IMPRESSIONS with the dark eldar comes from (see "Thread Topic" for more details...)

~~EDIT FOR CLARITY~~

*I have yet to see a list where DE can come out on top (if anyone would like to provide one, I would be most grateful).

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:Solely on this, which seems to be the only way to compare armies in a "fair fight" situation, is where my claims from my FIRST IMPRESSIONS with the dark eldar comes from (see "Thread Topic" for more details...)

To parapharase the guys who wrote the Dark Eldar "they cheat and that is reflected in play style." Not to say you cheat, but that they shouldn't be going straight on towards their enemy.

I also have to ask what BA list and what DE list are you using for your math-hammering?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:
Remember, when talking Meta, you HAVE to ZERO OUT player skill (to plan for the chance that your opponent may be mud-brick slowed in an endgame tourny game would be foolish). If not, then things like that tau player using kroot to block his opponents lines would totally screw up the meta, and make anysort of "tier structuring" impossible...

Once you eliminate player skill, you are zeroing out critical aspects of how armies move and engage, and you ignore situational advantages that a particular army his apt to take advantage of. For example, with all the fast options the DE have they will easily contest objectives. You ignore that a faster army can reposition itself more effectively to place its attacks where they need to go. You ignore that a more maneuverable army will avoid wounds and penetrations, by staying out of firing lanes. What you call meta, is really just a measure of brute force and its application. That isn't DE, thats why your sort of analysis is lacking.

Also I just want to pound home, footslogging and battle line lists don't belong with Dark Eldar. If anyone has plans to plays those lists they might as well start putting the models away before they even start. Vect and the Dias, are too pricey; neither are worth the points to field them.

aka_mythos wrote:To parapharase the guys who wrote the Dark Eldar "they cheat and that is reflected in play style." Not to say you cheat, but that they shouldn't be going straight on towards their enemy.

and by all means, they don't!

but unless you are saying that you have seen a game/plan out your lists based on the ability to stay outside of range/los the entire battle, pass every cover/flicker save imaginable, hit(and wound) will all of your melee attacks in CC without recieving a single blow (4+ to hit 5+(4+ with 2 pain tokens, 3+ with two pain tokens and grave lotus) to wound against marines, who get a 3+ armor save in CC against the ever amazing "wyches" whom the marines need a 4+ to hit, a 3+ to wound (2+ with PF) against a 4+ saved (with 4+ fnp if they have 1 token) I think it fair to say i'm favoring the wyches in this scenario, and they won't do as well as people are claiming them to do...) then you must also see where I am coming from. But believe me, if the previous were infact the case every time, I totally see how DE are competitive :sarcastic face:

aka_mythos wrote:
I also have to ask what BA list and what DE list are you using for your math-hammering?

HQ: Mephiston
HQ: Librarian with Shield of Sanguinius, Fear of the Darkness

Troop1: 5 man assault squad (in rhino); melta gun, infernus pistol, power weapon
Troop2: 5 man assault squad (in rhino); melta gun, infernus pistol, power weapon
Troop3: 5 man assault squad (in rhino); melta gun, infernus pistol, power weapon
Troop4: 5 man assault squad (in rhino); melta gun, infernus pistol, power weapon

Elite1: Honor Guard (in rhino); 2x meltaguns, 2x flamers
Elite2: Honor Guard (in rhino); 2x meltaguns, 2x flamers

Fast1: Baal Predator
Fast2: Baal Predator

Heavy1: Predator with Lascannon Sponsons, Autocannon Turret
Heavy2: Predator with Lascannon Sponsons, Autocannon Turret
Heavy3: Predator with Lascannon Sponsons, Autocannon Turret

(kudos for whomever gets where this list came from)

VS

The lists I've currently made (not specifically made to counter this list, but differnt "versitle DE lists")

AGAIN I AM NOT DENYING THE FACT THAT THERE MAY BE A LIST THAT I AM FAILING TO CONCEPTUALIZE WITH THIS CODEX THAT WOULD YEILD DIFFERENT RESULTS THEN WHAT I HAVE SEEN!

I'm saying "Based on WHAT I HAVE MADE, they can't be as competitive as other "all comer" lists"

IF YOU KNOW OF AN ALTERNATIVE THAT CAN FACE THE OTHER ALLCOMER LISTS IN THE META PLEASE POST IT HERE (or a link to the thread about it in the "army lists forum")

Failure to do so, is not a failure on my part, but an unbacked statement on those opposed's parts.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

aka_mythos wrote:Also I just want to pound home, footslogging and battle line lists don't belong with Dark Eldar. If anyone has plans to plays those lists they might as well start putting the models away before they even start. Vect and the Dias, are too pricey; neither are worth the points to field them.

This is why I said that my victory over the DE player was less to do with MY list as opposed to HIS failed list...

So no actual evidence still. Great.

The flaws in your model have been pointed out, yet you still cling to the "evidence" you gain from them.

Additionally can yous top with the all caps sentences? Grating on the eyes.

nosferatu1001 wrote: please please please Daemon-Archon Ren, will you put me on your ignore list

Fixt, and happily my good chum!

Another major problem with applying math to this game is the fact, which has been said by the designers, that stats, points etc. are all subjectively given based on how they 'feel' about giving them to units.

Sorry DAR, I can only assume (personal insult incoming) that stands for Dumb Ass slow. After 5 pages, I think that's deserved...

Rymafyr wrote:Sorry DAR, I can only assume (personal insult incoming) that stands for Dumb Ass slow. After 5 pages, I think that's deserved...

If you read my forum name, it makes a bit more sense(what DAR stands for anywho)... also, if you know any "dumb ass retards" that can formulate statitical calculations at the level I am doing them, kudos for you!

Personal "insult" averted.

~Edit~

I'd also like to think myself at least better then to be insulted by someone from a "Tea-Party State" lol...

DAR - so when people point out the flaws in the statistical model you're using, and how it directly impacts this situation, your solution is to ignore them?

Hilarious. Net equivalent of fingers in ears going "na na, cant hear you, I'm riiiight!"

Seems to me there are two types of 40k players - those that can do maths, and those that can't ;-)

And never the twain shall meet....

As someone who "does the maths" I'd say my experience is that:

- crunching the numbers very quickly indicates the very goood and very poor units individually.

- what you are left with is a lump in the middle that typically are situation dependent.

- it is far harder to see the interplay of different complementary units (or how 2 good units don't interwork)

But by and large the math-hammer player is going to opimise first on the great units, and then try and add situational dependent ones based on - well, the situation.

That is no doubt going to give them a better than average army build than another player until a *lot* of games have gone under their belt.

However, even the best math-hammer could still suck at tactical play on the field, neutralising all their benefits

This thread is disappointing.