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.

I can win in tournies or on a box with a fox. Look. Cgaos isnt as easy to learn to win with but saying you cant is simply a defeatist attitude and you can ignore my results til the cows come home as long as you shake my hand after we fight.

 Jancoran wrote:
I can win in tournies or on a box with a fox. Look. Cgaos isnt as easy to learn to win with but saying you cant is simply a defeatist attitude and you can ignore my results til the cows come home as long as you shake my hand after we fight.

Yes, because we have actual tournament results and far better numbers then simple anecdotal evidence.

So we can indeed ignore your results.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
I can win in tournies or on a box with a fox. Look. Cgaos isnt as easy to learn to win with but saying you cant is simply a defeatist attitude and you can ignore my results til the cows come home as long as you shake my hand after we fight.

Yes, because we have actual tournament results and far better numbers then simple anecdotal evidence.

So we can indeed ignore your results.

Other disagreements aside, I agree that CSM are pretty bad and the codex is downright depressing.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
I can win in tournies or on a box with a fox. Look. Cgaos isnt as easy to learn to win with but saying you cant is simply a defeatist attitude and you can ignore my results til the cows come home as long as you shake my hand after we fight.

Yes, because we have actual tournament results and far better numbers then simple anecdotal evidence.

So we can indeed ignore your results.

Just a minor nitpick...

While tournaments do yield hard numbers, they might not be the best numbers to use. An army's performance in an ultra competitive environment need not be indicate of it's overall performance when taking casual games into account.

To a large extend, that remains the problem when debating balance in 40K. I think we can all agree that there's a lot of imbalance in the game, but exactly what it is and how bad it is can vary tremendously depending on the local meta-game.

While tournaments do yield hard numbers, they might not be the best numbers to use. An army's performance in an ultra competitive environment need not be indicate of it's overall performance when taking casual games into account.

Doesn't matter really, odd as this may sound to some the casual game meta's aren't taken into account because they don't use things to their full potential. Sure you can use banshee's against mutilators if you want, doesn't mean the balance of an army isn't borked.

Like those of Moba's they instead make balance checks based on the upper tier levels of gameplay, while some heroes are 'pubstompers' because of how good they are in casual, many of them are actually too weak to compete in the upper tier due to playing level, and as a result may get buffed up a bit more.

So again, with both math-hammer and tournament play, actual performance can be seen, a casual meta is still going to be dominated by wave serpent spam, or any of the deathstars. A thousand sons list may be able to win at times, but it's math-hammer chance is very low. A skilled player may dominate a far worse player, but we don't assume X is better then Y, or that dice rolls will roll seventeen sixes in one rapid fire.

We assume based on player skill being equivalent, with an average for math-hammer.

I don't really mind the Chaos dex, even though some units are duds or just too powerful ( you know exactly what i'm talking about) even then, they added the dark apostle and warpsmith, units i love with every moment i use that dex.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
I can win in tournies or on a box with a fox. Look. Cgaos isnt as easy to learn to win with but saying you cant is simply a defeatist attitude and you can ignore my results til the cows come home as long as you shake my hand after we fight.

Yes, because we have actual tournament results and far better numbers then simple anecdotal evidence.

So we can indeed ignore your results.

So you need my actual tournament results? is that what you need then? I just want to be clear on what you need before I go further.

I've made a gaming "career" out of taking the smug netlists of the world and showing them the door. I dedicate my blog to making things work. Better Generals don't subscribe to this over generalization. You cant make my wins disappear by saying something trite like "anecdotal evidence". My wins aren't just once is a while, friend.

IF we're even still talking about whether the codex is irrelveant or not...if we're even still on that subject... Then how can you discard those whove got convincing proof? You should be asking me HOW I do it instead of WHETHER I can do it. Because that question has already been answered. Convincingly.

 Jancoran wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
I can win in tournies or on a box with a fox. Look. Cgaos isnt as easy to learn to win with but saying you cant is simply a defeatist attitude and you can ignore my results til the cows come home as long as you shake my hand after we fight.

Yes, because we have actual tournament results and far better numbers then simple anecdotal evidence.

So we can indeed ignore your results.

So you need my actual tournament results? is that what you need then? I just want to be clear on what you need before I go further.

I've made a gaming "career" out of taking the smug netlists of the world and showing them the door. I dedicate my blog to making things work. Better Generals don't subscribe to this over generalization. You cant make my wins disappear by saying something trite like "anecdotal evidence". My wins aren't just once is a while, friend.

IF we're even still talking about whether the codex is irrelveant or not...if we're even still on that subject... Then how can you discard those whove got convincing proof? You should be asking me HOW I do it instead of WHETHER I can do it. Because that question has already been answered. Convincingly.

You have established that you can win consistently, but your experience is still 'anecdotal'. We have no way of knowing the quality of your opponents. Just because someone is fielding a net list, does not mean they know how to use it, so a vastly more inefficient army commanded by a good general will still win. But at a tournament where everyone is fielding the most points efficient armies, and everyone is of higher skill levels, a CSM army made of the more inefficient choices (most of them) will be at a severe disadvantage and will lose the majority of the time.

Also helps that themed lists can lead to Rock Paper Scissors and be counter-meta to some extent. Spamminess works sometimes when enemies don't bring enough to counter a pure av14 list or flyerspam or etc. list

 Jancoran wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
I can win in tournies or on a box with a fox. Look. Cgaos isnt as easy to learn to win with but saying you cant is simply a defeatist attitude and you can ignore my results til the cows come home as long as you shake my hand after we fight.

Yes, because we have actual tournament results and far better numbers then simple anecdotal evidence.

So we can indeed ignore your results.

So you need my actual tournament results? is that what you need then? I just want to be clear on what you need before I go further.

I've made a gaming "career" out of taking the smug netlists of the world and showing them the door. I dedicate my blog to making things work. Better Generals don't subscribe to this over generalization. You cant make my wins disappear by saying something trite like "anecdotal evidence". My wins aren't just once is a while, friend.

IF we're even still talking about whether the codex is irrelveant or not...if we're even still on that subject... Then how can you discard those whove got convincing proof? You should be asking me HOW I do it instead of WHETHER I can do it. Because that question has already been answered. Convincingly.

Better general's don't think they make a gaming career out of stomping 'netlists'.

Not to mention most of what your essentially saying is "My evidence is GREATER then actual mathematical data, actual TOURNAMENT results with plenty of EXPERIENCED players." That isn't convincing, that's just bragging and stating your importance is greater then the average whole.

I mean as others have mentioned, Tournament players are generally more experienced as many come from far and wide to compete, they bring their A-game, they bring lists they know that a mathematical certainty will do well.

I've seen grots win against mech lists, am I going to ascribe to the higher power in that grots can win? No, I'm not.

I've seen tau firewarriors beat honor guard in assault, will I think otherwise? No.

A tac marine Lascannon popped a land raider, is it still a good choice? No.

You might be better then those in your meta, that's true, and I am glad you are able to win with what you have, but that's all it is still, just anecdotal evidence.

GorillaWarfare wrote:

You have established that you can win consistently, but your experience is still 'anecdotal'. We have no way of knowing the quality of your opponents.

Then ask.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Not to mention most of what your essentially saying is "My evidence is GREATER then actual mathematical data, actual TOURNAMENT results with plenty of EXPERIENCED players." That isn't convincing, that's just bragging and stating your importance is greater then the average whole.

I mean as others have mentioned, Tournament players are generally more experienced as many come from far and wide to compete, they bring their A-game, they bring lists they know that a mathematical certainty will do well.

Haha... no, I don't think that's what he's saying. I think he's saying he doesn't care.

Isn't it kind of crazy how some people thinking winning in a tournament makes their list better than other ones? This thread is about the most elitist interpretation of tournament results I have seen in a while.

The vast majority of people who play 40k don't participate in tournaments and never will. From that standard, playing in a tournament is a pretty deviant behavior to start with. Saying you are the best of this small slice of the gaming community really speaks to an obsession more than anything else. It's like being the best foot fetishist in a community of people with otherwise healthy sexual appetites. Footies aren't going to go around putting themselves above everyone else, they are more likely to become withdrawn for fear of revealing their obsessions to others who might disapprove.

The only real differences between a big time tournament player and a sexual degenerate is that tournament results are quantifiable, and there might be more stigma attached to being an adult going around claiming to be the best at playing with little plastic toys. I imagine these obsessions could be treated with the right mix of drugs and therapy, but tournament players tend to spend all their money on their unhealthy obsessions and can't afford to speak to someone about the problem. It's a vicious circle that's hard to break, I really feel for these poor people.

Leave Chaos alone. CSM players are smart enough to see through the pretense of your TAC lists and understand what they mean about their authors. We don't want to be dragged down to your level and don't need you trying to cram your delusions of superiority down our throats. We are happy to deal with the flaws in our rules because we are capable of winning games by being more creative and inventive.

We might not win games as often as you do, but the differential is no where near as significant as you make it out to be. What keeps CSM players out of the top tiers of your tournaments is typically a difference of 1 or 2 objectives over the course of a series of games. You are not tabling CSM armies with your TAC lists, you are scoring more victory points. There's a big difference between those outcomes, and it's not enough to seriously justify a topic like this.

To sum up: tournaments are a chain around your neck. They force you into a way of thinking about a game that denies experimentation and actual enjoyment of your pasttime. It really doesn't matter who has the best list in this compilation of poorly thought out rules and sales gimmicks we call 40k.

Leave Chaos alone. CSM players are smart enough to see through the pretense of your TAC lists and understand what they mean about their authors. We don't want to be dragged down to your level and don't need you trying to cram your delusions of superiority down our throats. We are happy to deal with the flaws in our rules because we are capable of winning games by being more creative and inventive.

We might not win games as often as you do, but the differential is no where near as significant as you make it out to be. What keeps CSM players out of the top tiers of your tournaments is typically a difference of 1 or 2 objectives over the course of a series of games. You are not tabling CSM armies with your TAC lists, you are scoring more victory points. There's a big difference between those outcomes, and it's not enough to seriously justify a topic like this.

You do realize my main army is a CSM list right? What is wrong with wanting actual balance for an army, for multiple play styles. To make sure things aren't autowins, to make sure things aren't so completely terrible as to be useless while others can completely dominate you.

Even in very popular games such as LoL, or dota 2, they balance from tournament results. Many casuals will never play tournaments, but they balance because they know the upper tier is what shows the true strength of heroes, and items.

Yeah, but since when have CSMs ever gotten along?

By attacking you, the OP gets the point.

 techsoldaten wrote:
Yeah, but since when have CSMs ever gotten along?

By attacking you, the OP gets the point.

The OP hasn't attacked me?

 techsoldaten wrote:
Yeah, but since when have CSMs ever gotten along?

By attacking you, the OP gets the point.

On what planet does the point you are trying to make even tangentially relate to Zebio's argument?

A balanced game where builds and codices can all fairly compete with one another is better for the game as a whole.

I started playing black legion in 97 they were my second army and i've played them in every edition since 2nd.

CSM are not okay, they are missing flavour and apart from a few units are just worse than every other army out there.

Weak psychic powers, 2/4 cult units are pathetic, we still only have 2 transport types, dinobots are too easy to kill except the helldrake thats over powered if you take 2 or more.

Telling CSM to just stfu and be happy isn't going to make genuine problems go away.

hobojebus wrote:
I started playing black legion in 97 they were my second army and i've played them in every edition since 2nd.

CSM are not okay, they are missing flavour and apart from a few units are just worse than every other army out there.

Weak psychic powers, 2/4 cult units are pathetic, we still only have 2 transport types, dinobots are too easy to kill except the helldrake thats over powered if you take 2 or more.

Telling CSM to just stfu and be happy isn't going to make genuine problems go away.

Well not every other army.

SoBs, BAs, Tyranids, and Orks are also all low tier at the moment.

But the fact that there are such strongly defined tiers in 40k is a crying shame when FB has much less noticeable breaks in competitiveness between it's armies.

Yeah, Tyranids needed like 50 bucks worth of DLC to give players a leg to stand on.

Either that, or it was just for $$$, or maybe both

I'm more curious, why would you argue against balancing an army?

If you can win with it, that's fine, but why struggle when you could have fairer odds?

Not to mention the fact that most of the time I seem to get anecdotes and those who play casually to begin with, not to mention not really understanding the mathematics behind it.

I want an actual argument for why CSM is an actual, balanced army now, not something akin to "I can win with it, its fiiiine"

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
I'm more curious, why would you argue against balancing an army?

If you can win with it, that's fine, but why struggle when you could have fairer odds?

Not to mention the fact that most of the time I seem to get anecdotes and those who play casually to begin with, not to mention not really understanding the mathematics behind it.

I want an actual argument for why CSM is an actual, balanced army now, not something akin to "I can win with it, its fiiiine"

Because there isn't an answer besides CSM being stuck with BA, Nids, SoB, and Orks for being bottom tier armies

 techsoldaten wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Not to mention most of what your essentially saying is "My evidence is GREATER then actual mathematical data, actual TOURNAMENT results with plenty of EXPERIENCED players." That isn't convincing, that's just bragging and stating your importance is greater then the average whole.

I mean as others have mentioned, Tournament players are generally more experienced as many come from far and wide to compete, they bring their A-game, they bring lists they know that a mathematical certainty will do well.

Haha... no, I don't think that's what he's saying. I think he's saying he doesn't care.

Isn't it kind of crazy how some people thinking winning in a tournament makes their list better than other ones? This thread is about the most elitist interpretation of tournament results I have seen in a while.

The vast majority of people who play 40k don't participate in tournaments and never will. From that standard, playing in a tournament is a pretty deviant behavior to start with. Saying you are the best of this small slice of the gaming community really speaks to an obsession more than anything else. It's like being the best foot fetishist in a community of people with otherwise healthy sexual appetites. Footies aren't going to go around putting themselves above everyone else, they are more likely to become withdrawn for fear of revealing their obsessions to others who might disapprove.

The only real differences between a big time tournament player and a sexual degenerate is that tournament results are quantifiable, and there might be more stigma attached to being an adult going around claiming to be the best at playing with little plastic toys. I imagine these obsessions could be treated with the right mix of drugs and therapy, but tournament players tend to spend all their money on their unhealthy obsessions and can't afford to speak to someone about the problem. It's a vicious circle that's hard to break, I really feel for these poor people.

Leave Chaos alone. CSM players are smart enough to see through the pretense of your TAC lists and understand what they mean about their authors. We don't want to be dragged down to your level and don't need you trying to cram your delusions of superiority down our throats. We are happy to deal with the flaws in our rules because we are capable of winning games by being more creative and inventive.

We might not win games as often as you do, but the differential is no where near as significant as you make it out to be. What keeps CSM players out of the top tiers of your tournaments is typically a difference of 1 or 2 objectives over the course of a series of games. You are not tabling CSM armies with your TAC lists, you are scoring more victory points. There's a big difference between those outcomes, and it's not enough to seriously justify a topic like this.

To sum up: tournaments are a chain around your neck. They force you into a way of thinking about a game that denies experimentation and actual enjoyment of your pasttime. It really doesn't matter who has the best list in this compilation of poorly thought out rules and sales gimmicks we call 40k.

This is bad and you should feel bad.

 StarTrotter wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
I'm more curious, why would you argue against balancing an army?

If you can win with it, that's fine, but why struggle when you could have fairer odds?

Not to mention the fact that most of the time I seem to get anecdotes and those who play casually to begin with, not to mention not really understanding the mathematics behind it.

I want an actual argument for why CSM is an actual, balanced army now, not something akin to "I can win with it, its fiiiine"

Because there isn't an answer besides CSM being stuck with BA, Nids, SoB, and Orks for being bottom tier armies

SoB aren't bottom tier, they are just rare to see, they are more mid tier when played as a stand alone dex mainly due to its only real AA being TL MMs from Immos. With say IG allies I would put them more upper tier but not top tier since now they can deal with a fair amount of fliers but not a whole swarm and their lists still play like a 5th ed army I.e. transport hammer with MM immos everywhere and excorcists for backup

Meh I'd put them above the rest of the bottom tier but not quite mid tier. Mainly due to lacking any real AA. If they had that naturally I'd be inclined to put them in a bump above middle. But I could be wrong.

Heldrakes are anti air. D3+1 STR 7 Vector Strikes that they dont even have to aim their weapon at?

Lots of twin linkable stuff.

Havocs?

Bastions?

uh...

Im just saying, how much AA do you really want?

 techsoldaten wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Not to mention most of what your essentially saying is "My evidence is GREATER then actual mathematical data, actual TOURNAMENT results with plenty of EXPERIENCED players." That isn't convincing, that's just bragging and stating your importance is greater then the average whole.

I mean as others have mentioned, Tournament players are generally more experienced as many come from far and wide to compete, they bring their A-game, they bring lists they know that a mathematical certainty will do well.

Haha... no, I don't think that's what he's saying. I think he's saying he doesn't care.

Isn't it kind of crazy how some people thinking winning in a tournament makes their list better than other ones? This thread is about the most elitist interpretation of tournament results I have seen in a while.

The vast majority of people who play 40k don't participate in tournaments and never will. From that standard, playing in a tournament is a pretty deviant behavior to start with. Saying you are the best of this small slice of the gaming community really speaks to an obsession more than anything else. It's like being the best foot fetishist in a community of people with otherwise healthy sexual appetites. Footies aren't going to go around putting themselves above everyone else, they are more likely to become withdrawn for fear of revealing their obsessions to others who might disapprove.

The only real differences between a big time tournament player and a sexual degenerate is that tournament results are quantifiable, and there might be more stigma attached to being an adult going around claiming to be the best at playing with little plastic toys. I imagine these obsessions could be treated with the right mix of drugs and therapy, but tournament players tend to spend all their money on their unhealthy obsessions and can't afford to speak to someone about the problem. It's a vicious circle that's hard to break, I really feel for these poor people.

Leave Chaos alone. CSM players are smart enough to see through the pretense of your TAC lists and understand what they mean about their authors. We don't want to be dragged down to your level and don't need you trying to cram your delusions of superiority down our throats. We are happy to deal with the flaws in our rules because we are capable of winning games by being more creative and inventive.

We might not win games as often as you do, but the differential is no where near as significant as you make it out to be. What keeps CSM players out of the top tiers of your tournaments is typically a difference of 1 or 2 objectives over the course of a series of games. You are not tabling CSM armies with your TAC lists, you are scoring more victory points. There's a big difference between those outcomes, and it's not enough to seriously justify a topic like this.

To sum up: tournaments are a chain around your neck. They force you into a way of thinking about a game that denies experimentation and actual enjoyment of your pasttime. It really doesn't matter who has the best list in this compilation of poorly thought out rules and sales gimmicks we call 40k.

wow i cannot believe i actually read that... you my sir should go an re evauluate yourself, thats the most disgraceful rubbish i have ever read.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jancoran wrote:
Heldrakes are anti air. D3+1 STR 7 Vector Strikes that they dont even have to aim their weapon at?

Lots of twin linkable stuff.

Havocs?

Bastions?

uh...

Im just saying, how much AA do you really want?

ok AA in CSM?

Helldrakes using VS? sorry pal you might be some leet general, but im busy enough positioning my drake to burn whatever is in the way and my opponents tend to be smart enough to NOT let me VS it.
a bastion? how is that even an AA option? how do you TL a bastion? oh and those heavy bolters have facings, so only 1 can shoot in any one direction
havoks? suure with AC and your still hoping for 6's.
the ML with flakk.... waste of points..

This post is lol. Anyone wanna explain how the bastion gun could be twin linked? Anyone want to explain to him what 36" moves mean to a "smart" opponent?

i mean we have enough dakka that AA isnt a problem, VS flyers is a nightmare its something you do if someone leaves the door open.

AC havoks all the way for glancing flyers down

he does bring up the question of Havocs being exceptional at shooting down flyers. The popular planes are either excessively cheap so killing them doesn't matter or they have an AV of 12 and largely one will be taking havocs with AC. You can use things that aren't dedicated AA, don't get me wrong. I've killed planes with plasma and melta when I have to (hurray for divination on mah loyalist guardsmen and marines!) but it does often eat up entire shooting forces.

As per you, yours aren't any better. You go on about crushing net lists and largely ignoring tournament scores. Thing is, tournaments do show what's generally good and one can take note of what is at the top. Thing is, Chaos is taken as support for cheap required cultists, a heldrake, and probably a DP to work with flyerspam. That's what CSM is now and the codex itself is a horribly imbalanced mess.

I never said to ignore anything. What I said...actually... is that ignoring people who can produce results is foolish. That is...in point of fact... what I said. I also said that Netlists dont win. Generals win. Generals.