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.

Why would someone who has only lost 15% of their matches post their record?

I mean, I successfully steal 100% of the candy I try and steal from babies. That "victory" rate would be an object of derision, not a goal towards which people should hope to achieve.

Bragging about how frequently you hammer newbies with easy lists comes across as petty, not glorious. Any assertions to the contrary are betrayed by the facts - you can't both be a skilled player demonstrating your abilities against hard opponents or taking on serious challenges AND be winning all of your games.

Instead, it just comes across as someone for whom winning is the only thing that's important, no matter the cost. Unwilling to take serious risks, or face serious challenges.

And in a dice game to boot.

@Lobukia well it is a pleasure to meet an accomplished player, I don't know that many and congratulations on your achievements. On the note of why someone only winning 15% would post their record is they may want to indicate they need advice? I know I certainly do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Well I haven't been let down by the community, thanks for the input and it is nice to have a fairly level-headed and intelligent conversation about some things. Seems I am wrong in the general community about a few things, but I don't mind admitting that.

Now I just have to reread my original post and see where I mentioned Helldrake...... (I haven't had the pleasure of facing one of these things yet, but not sure it would be that painful against my Guard, but maybe when I put the Iron Hands on the table I would have a different opinion).

Thanks Dakka Dakka.

I win almost every game I play ranging from serpent span/farsight bomb/triptide to easy lists like leafblower (who thought that would happen lol), in the last year I lost to a triptide list once with my deathwing out of 3 games vs thst list with deathwing, laughed my way through farsight bombs with my ravenwing and triptides lists with them too, why don't I post a w/d/l ratio... Because it's being a braggart.

My record can be confirmed by several on dakka, I enjoy playing both competitive players and others in pickup games and tourney standard.

Gosh, I'm ever so impressed.

Nobody's forcing you to play 6th ed. Get your 3rd ed codexes out and have a blast.

 Charles Rampant wrote:
Gosh, I'm ever so impressed.

Thanks for proving my point bud, w/l/d are for blowhards

With the debate about the heldrake, 6th edition brought us crazy hybrid crap that you would call a robot, but it has a toughness value, and in the case of a heldrake, looks like a vehicle, but acts in almost every way like a flying monstrous creature that cannot assault.

360 line of sight and a vector strike. It has big dragon wings, it can do whatever it wants. If it was an FMC for the same points and all, people would still take it, and people would still complain, but there wouldn't be any silly house rulings or debates.

Alright I will give my thoughts,

Allies: Allies were a good idea, I love the idea, the problem is they ignored the obvious in that people would just take the best of both worlds fluff be damned. Beings able to play my CD with my CSM is great! Then you have people playing Tau with SM or Eldar allies...which yes CAN be considered fluff, but we all know that they are running them for power gaming.

CCW getting profiles: Not a bad change, I like this change. Buuuuut....

Power Sword being AP3: This kills Power Swords. They are far to expensive to only ignore the armor of things that you wont have to worry about in CC anyway. Think about it, all the best CC units in the game either have 2+ armor OR are swarms with little to no armor to being with. So AP3 only helps against range dedicated units that wont really put up much of a fight in CC anyway. Also, 15 points for a PW? So a Vanguard Vet who is supposed to be a CC unit has to double their point cost in order to ignore armor? While a Tac marine spends 10 points, IIRC, for a plasma gun that is higher strength and ignores armor? Ohh, but you might get hot, totally balances that equation out....

Supplements: The problem I have with this is how much they cost, I remember when there was C:SM and all the other factions were supplements for it. It was like 20 for the main codex and 10 for the supplements. I don't want to pay the price of a codex for less content.

Ignoring Cover: This is a problem with newer codices and it isn't really THAT bad...but some armies heavily rely on cover, mostly the ones that have yet to receive an update. Like Tyranids. My MC only have a 3+ armor and beings able to ignore that with some high strength weapons that might also ignore cover hurts a LOT. Only three units in the Tyranid codex have invul saves, none have an option to upgrade with one. Two of those units are named characters. So if you ignore cover, ignore armor, the only defense I have is high toughness, then again a lot of these weapons are also high strength.

AP2 and AP3: The problem is when these are ranged weapons. An AP3 weapon at ranged is so much better than an AP3 weapon in melee, most often because it is higher strength. How many AP3 ranged weapons do you see used that are low strength? So you get a strength 6 AP 3 torrent on a flyer? SOOOO much better than a S4 AP 3 HQ with 3 or 4 attacks.

Vehicles and Hull Points: I like this change. I don't know what to tell you, I think this was a fantastic change.

 Lobukia wrote:

Two thoughts: why on earth would a person lie about their w/l record?!

Do you really need to ask? To make people think they're better than they really are. Just like all the other cheaters who cheat in various ways for the exact same reason. My personal win ratio is BAD, one notable reason being that I just can't stomach taking min-maxed lists. Most matches having been played with C:BT and only during 6th Edition didn't really do me any favors either. But then I don't really care much what others think of it, least of all online where I'm extremely unlikely to actually play against people that post from all over the world.

I just want to chime in about the 360 arc on the bale flamer:

Its a fething dragon! If it didn't have the arc it would be a poor representation of the Dragon that it is lol

I have no problem with the helldrake's rules. I have a problem with both its point cost (too low) and the internal balance within the CSM fast attack slot. Or shall we call it the helldrake slot.

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
Power Sword being AP3: This kills Power Swords. They are far to expensive to only ignore the armor of things that you wont have to worry about in CC anyway. Think about it, all the best CC units in the game either have 2+ armor OR are swarms with little to no armor to being with. So AP3 only helps against range dedicated units that wont really put up much of a fight in CC anyway. Also, 15 points for a PW? So a Vanguard Vet who is supposed to be a CC unit has to double their point cost in order to ignore armor? While a Tac marine spends 10 points, IIRC, for a plasma gun that is higher strength and ignores armor? Ohh, but you might get hot, totally balances that equation out....

You're incorrect on the cost of a plasma gun - it's the same as a power weapon.
Are Grey Hunters CC units? Khorne Berserkers? Vanguard Vets? Carnifexes? Hive Tyrants? Trygons?
Only one unit I listed can get a 2+ save and no one ever takes it because wings are better (and you can't have both).
I'll even ignore the GKSS and Interceptors and Purifiers because I haven't seen anyone running them lately. AP3 allows you to ignore the Armour saves of most of 13/15 books - maybe 12 (Dark Angels).
That said, Mauls are better most of the time anyway but that's not because swords are bad.

 Lobukia wrote:
Last singles match I lost was Aug of 2011.

Perhaps you should look into attending some larger tournaments or different gaming groups.

I cant imagine winning nonstop is very fun.

I dont like the way transports die so fast. I get pretty much 1 turn of movement out of my Rhinos and Razorbacks unless I very carefully move them. Which isnt always what I need to do with the trooops they are transporting. I guess it just happens, so I will have to learn to deal with it.

As for the W/L/D stats. I dont post my stats, not because I am embaressed, no, but because to me, they dont matter. If I posted the W/L/D stats that matter to me, did I have fun playing, I would have a near perfect record. Going by actual games won, I think my Marines are 2-10-2 or 3. I lose WAY more often then I win. Dont care. I have fun almost every game I play, so I win.

 ImotekhTheStormlord wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
Last singles match I lost was Aug of 2011.

Perhaps you should look into attending some larger tournaments or different gaming groups.

I cant imagine winning nonstop is very fun.

It might be tongue in cheek , i.e. the last match he lost was so long ago cuz he barely plays, and paints/ fluffs instead.