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.

Timmah wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

gardeth wrote:My opponents List

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

*shakes head*

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

Hrm, interesting.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Redbeard wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Also on the LRR w/Terminators

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Also on the LRR w/Terminators

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

440 ish pts vs 140ish pts

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

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

QFT.

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

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

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

gorgon wrote:

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

QFT.

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

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

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

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

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

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

You could argue that both equate to the same thing.

whitedragon wrote:

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

You could argue that both equate to the same thing.

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

Timmah wrote:

gorgon wrote:

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

QFT.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Double post, please delete.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well played, Darth.

--B.