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.

Red Corsair wrote:Except the title of this report was how to beat Draigowing not lets just line up some eldar then laugh when they get rolled. Then lets deflect every remark with, oh well he wasn't going for tactics or statistical edge, he was playing it like a Michael Bay film.

Honestly, if your going to title it with such bold remarks, be prepared to back up that claim, or at least answer some honest questions.

That psychic rule and the flat out move has been out forever, so that was just poor play... It happens but immediately that changes the game where if you knew the correct ruling he couldn't have even flat out tank shocked!

In regards to luck, a good player makes his own, example: "He flat out tank shocks my paladins, my hammer death or glories, and succeeds!" Like Blackmoore pointed out, why tank shock the hammer? He could have hit any part of your unit, even a clip, avoiding any chance you could blow it up.

It's just frustrating to start with a bold claim, poll, several days of hype, then a broken up report only to see "cinematic game effects".... seriously, title it Draigo Norris, curb stomps the pointy ears in laughable game... I think that was the most irritating part.

+1 to this post, on all accounts.

jy2 wrote:It's like Kobe's Lakers against Lebron James' Heat. You know you all want to see Kobe go mano-o-mano against Lebron. Who cares about the role players.

Except it was Kobe and Bruce Bowen.....

Red Corsair wrote:Except the title of this report was how to beat Draigowing not lets just line up some eldar then laugh when they get rolled. Then lets deflect every remark with, oh well he wasn't going for tactics or statistical edge, he was playing it like a Michael Bay film.

The intent of this game was to test alpha strike Eldar against Draigo-wing.

That psychic rule and the flat out move has been out forever, so that was just poor play... It happens but immediately that changes the game where if you knew the correct ruling he couldn't have even flat out tank shocked!

As jy2 already answered, I was not aware of the flat out move rule and we both weren't aware of the psychic rule. It's also been half a year since I've dusted off my Eldar and first time I fielded 30 Fire Dragons.

In regards to luck, a good player makes his own, example: "He flat out tank shocks my paladins, my hammer death or glories, and succeeds!" Like Blackmoore pointed out, why tank shock the hammer? He could have hit any part of your unit, even a clip, avoiding any chance you could blow it up.

After the Blood Angels versus Necrons game, we had a little less than an hour and a half to finish this game. This was a rush game and I overlooked the hammer model. Later on, when I tanked shocked the same Paladin unit with an empty Fire Dragon Wave Serpent, I made sure it avoided any hammer model.

It's just frustrating to start with a bold claim, poll, several days of hype, then a broken up report only to see "cinematic game effects".... seriously, title it Draigo Norris, curb stomps the pointy ears in laughable game... I think that was the most irritating part.

All 40k games involves two players confident that their army is going to win without knowledge of the actual outcome. The poll is setup to highlight pre-game analysis of both general's strategy. The final battle report features the results. If you are frustrated with how jy2 presents his battle reports, then don't them. If you are frustrated with the outcome of this game, then post your own battle report of how you stomped a Draigo-wing army using mech-dar.

Some thoughts on your analysis...

jy2 wrote:
- 30 melta shots, of which 20 were twin-linked, only killing 3 paladins and wounding Draigo. My saves were on fire as I must've made about 20 3+ cover saves or so.

Bad luck on his part, however he should have disembarked to your right so that charging him the next turn didn't bring you closer to his objective. Also, running away the next turn with the surviving guys instead of shooting confused me.

jy2 wrote:- My Death-&-Glory needing 6's to wreck him. I do.

He should've never ran over a guy with a hammer

jy2 wrote:- He rams my raven with a S10 missile. Only he is wrecked and my raven doesn't even suffer a scratch.

Bad luck, plain and simple. However, why would ramming be your first option? He had a lot of guns left at this point.

jy2 wrote:- Immobilizing his skimmer on terrain, thereby wrecking it because he moved flat-out, while tankshocking my paladins.

Do you take a terrain test for tank shocking guys in terrain? I don't have a rule book handy so I dunno.

jy2 wrote:- I killed all his tanks when it mattered. I can't believe I killed 9 skimmers with my limited shooting (and some assault)! Every time I needed, I was able to wreck his skimmers especially in the end with my dread (needing 6's to hit with only S6).

Again it seems like he fell back with all of his stuff and waited for you tom come get him instead of trying to kill you models in the middle of the board.

jy2 wrote:- I passed maybe about 2/3 of all my LD10 psychic tests on 3D6.

word, sometimes that happens

jy2 wrote:- I didn't fail a single morale test.

Also, sometimes that happens, but it seems like a lot of them were ill placed.

jy2 wrote:- His last unit of fire dragons getting pinned. If that hadn't happened, they may have been able to wipe out my 5-man paladin squad out in the open.

I feel this wouldn't have happened if he would've moved and shot at your approaching squad. I'm not sure what the pack up your meltas and run tactic was going to do.

jy2 wrote:- As my opponent already mentioned, Eldrad's fortuned serpent failed 3 re-rollable 4+ flat-out cover saves in the end when he was contesting my objective. Also, if only I had blown it up instead of wrecking it, he could have placed Eldrad still within contesting range of the objective. Only a wrecked result would Eldrad not be able to contest and I got it.

Sometimes it only takes one. However, he could've emergency disembarked on the side of the objective and tied the game up.

jy2 wrote:- His screening avengers only being able to run 1". Had they been able to run farther out, I may not have been able to contest with my 5-man paladin squad after wiping out the screening unit.

That's not good screening





Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just some hopefully constructive eldar criticism.

SabrX wrote:The intent of this game was to test alpha strike Eldar against Draigo-wing.

I wasn't really aware that alpha-strike Eldar was a thing. I've certainly never seen someone field 30 fire dragons in any game I've ever played, and as I pointed out it's not a great configuration. Eldar tactics often revolve around denial rather than actually killing your opponent, and against an obviously superior Death Star, a slash-and-burn tactic would have been better than an alpha strike. Hit the flanks, deal what damage you can, then run away. Not only is it the superior tactic from a competitive standpoint, it's also much closer to the fluff. Eldar cannot afford to sacrifice a massive number of warriors for a gamble that only has a chance of bearing fruit. They prefer to strike with maximum advantage when there is only a tiny probability of failure and much less risk of being slaughtered if the plan fails. You just lined up your guys and shot at him in a pseudo-gunline tactic that backfired heavily due to poor dice, and you lost almost the entire core of your force in the process, then let him pin you in your deployment zone for the rest of the game. What Red Corsair said was that jy2 posted a claim that a certain Eldar list was a terrible matchup for Draigo-Wing, but then Draigo-Wing smashed face all over the Eldar because you didn't play them properly. That doesn't make for a particularly gratifying read, and it really reflects negatively on Eldar players.

SabrX wrote:As jy2 already answered, I was not aware of the flat out move rule and we both weren't aware of the psychic rule. It's also been half a year since I've dusted off my Eldar and first time I fielded 30 Fire Dragons.

And that proves my point. The list was designed specifically to counter Draigo-Wing, and while it might have done that, it failed because of some rather large tactical blunders and poor dice. If it had been only the latter that caused the loss, I could feel good about it, but the former means the results don't really mean much.

SabrX wrote:After the Blood Angels versus Necrons game, we had a little less than an hour and a half to finish this game. This was a rush game and I overlooked the hammer model. Later on, when I tanked shocked the same Paladin unit with an empty Fire Dragon Wave Serpent, I made sure it avoided any hammer model.

An acceptable excuse. When pressed for time in a tournament there are bound to be some oversights like that, so I'm not holding you accountable for those kinds of mistakes. It's the general battle strategy with which you approached the game that I feel should have changed.

SabrX wrote:All 40k games involves two players confident that their army is going to win without knowledge of the actual outcome. The poll is setup to highlight pre-game analysis of both general's strategy. The final battle report features the results. If you are frustrated with how jy2 presents his battle reports, then don't them. If you are frustrated with the outcome of this game, then post your own battle report of how you stomped a Draigo-wing army using mech-dar.

I think jy2 could have set this one up better. Usually his reports are pretty well done and the title highlights what the game is all about. In this case though, he made the claim that a particular Eldar build would curb-stomp Draigo-Wing, then proceeded to walk all over the Eldar list in the actual report. That's a bit of a let-down to be honest. The game wasn't even very close. A better title would have been something like "Can Draigo-Wing Survive and Onslaught of Melta? Grey Knights V Mech Eldar - Fire Dragon Edition!" That sets the stage for a tough matchup, tells the reader who the players are, and draws interest without making the claim that one list is totally going to dominate another, only to have the readers find out that it's exactly the opposite.

The title is just that - a title. It is not a guarantee of victory or loss in a battle report that could go either ways. Otherwise, there would have been no need for me to even have the poll options if this was just a How-to-kill-XXX Guide. It's not. For those who may have felt the title to be misleading, I apologize for that. I just thought it was a cool title for this report. Remember, this is not the Tactica forum but a battle report where any army can beat any other army on any given day. There are no guarantees.

There are many ways for Eldar to win. Playing aggressively like what my opponent did by ramming his Fire Dragons down my throat is one way. Another would be what Aldarionn suggested - going after the weaker units while ignoring my deathstar. Honestly, there is no right or wrong way to play it....only a preference in play-styles. As this was an experimental game that was just more for fun, the question both my opponent and I posed were what was to happen if my paladinstar went up against his 30 fire dragons backed up by Eldrad? Given such a premise, you just have to play aggressive and go for the ultimate showdown. However, I have no doubt that if this was in a tournament setting, my opponent may have played it much differently and opted for the skirmishing eldar way.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The dice really skewered the results of this game. While I admit maybe some mistakes were made, had SabrX's 30 fire dragons succeeded in neutering my paladinstar - and that is actually a good probability with or without Guided fragons - the outlooks may have been completely different. Readers may then be praising his "brilliant" play instead. But instead, the dice boned him and consequently, we look at it in hindsight and criticize him instead.

And how about this: suppose I failed even 1 tankshocked morale test, would you still be claiming that he shouldn't have tankshocked my unit or would you probably applaud him with a "great" move? Is it not worth a calculated risk to sacrifice his 120pt transport to try to take out my 1100pt+ unit? Would you really be trying to avoid my deathstar with 30 meltas that has a good chance to annihilate them? I can tell you this much. If I were playing SabrX's mechdar, I would have done exactly what he did.

Red Corsair wrote:

jy2 wrote:It's like Kobe's Lakers against Lebron James' Heat. You know you all want to see Kobe go mano-o-mano against Lebron. Who cares about the role players.

Except it was Kobe and Bruce Bowen.....

No, it was Kobe on fire against Lebron on an off-night. Trust me, Bowen never had to tools to beat Kobe like Lebron has. It's just that Kobe made most of his shots and Lebron bricked most of his.

DarthDiggler wrote:Don't be to hard on SabrX. He explained his reasoning in wanting to have a cinematic battle and not a dodge and weave battle. I will admit his tactics make for a more exciting game in the end and how quickly would we get bored in reading a battle report which says each turn one side hides.

Maybe that is one of the reasons Eldar are not very popular. They require a finesse bordering on non-engagement and that can be a turn off for most players.

My favorite batreps are two equal players going at it and neither of them making mistakes, and it being a chess match with both players making moves and counter moves..

The Eldar build is one of the rare ones that can be aggressive with Paladins and does not have to sit back and shoot or maneuver.

It needs to do fish-of-fury type tactics of shooting behind the wave serpents so when the dice do not go your way, you are protected. Then it becomes more of a chess match where the GK vehicles try to take out the blocking Wave Serpents, and the paladins try to shoot the fire dragons, and then the battle would be really interesting.

jy2 wrote:The title is just that - a title. It is not a guarantee of victory or loss in a battle report that could go either ways. [

No one said anything about guarantees, the title claims to be a how to, which it clearly and laughably is not.

jy2 wrote:Otherwise, there would have been no need for me to even have the poll options if this was just a How-to-kill-XXX Guide.

No offense intended but ever since trying to get feedback for 'Ard boys (and asking for permission to poll post without a report) and polling which list to use, none of your polls have been relevant or needed. [POLL] Who will win?.... Not helpful or usable data considering no one has any grounds to make a conclusion yet. Now, a post game poll whether a list is valid? Now that would be understandable. You have said yourself that comparining things in a vacuum is useless, so why poll lists asking who will win?

jy2 wrote:There are many ways for Eldar to win. Playing aggressively like what my opponent did by ramming his Fire Dragons down my throat is one way.

So now your going to insult us by saying that his tactics were sound and it was only the dice? That was the crappiest plan ever, and that's the polite way of describing it. In no part of reading it did I say to myself, Oh OK he's going to do this later. It was like watching a lunatic wielding a sledge hammer chasing after a man wielding a pane of glass, who decides it would make a lovely shield and stands there holding it in front of his face.

jy2 wrote:As this was an experimental game that was just more for fun, the question both my opponent and I posed were what was to happen if my paladinstar went up against his 30 fire dragons backed up by Eldrad?

Apparently the answer is roll over and die rather then actually play well. Again, you are advocating that they play in a vacuum now, no strategy, no synergy, no plan for the objective. Simply dice rolling, that's not a battle report.

jy2 wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again. The dice really skewered the results of this game. While I admit maybe some mistakes were made, had SabrX's 30 fire dragons succeeded in neutering my paladinstar - and that is actually a good probability with or without Guided fragons - the outlooks may have been completely different. Readers may then be praising his "brilliant" play instead. But instead, the dice boned him and consequently, we look at it in hindsight and criticize him instead.

Actually even if his dice were on fire, his plan sucked and you played poorly. I think to say that are analysis of the situation is subjective based on the games results is an insult to readers and gamers. "Hey look that guy charged gretchin into paladins and won combat, he is a genius lets all try it!" I don't think so.

jy2 wrote:And how about this: suppose I failed even 1 tankshocked morale test, would you still be claiming that he shouldn't have tankshocked my unit or would you probably applaud him with a "great" move? Is it not worth a calculated risk to sacrifice his 120pt transport to try to take out my 1100pt+ unit?

It's a stupid move to leave your 'fragons' naked in hopes they will fail a ld10 check. Yes. As a last resort maybe it would have been worth it but point costs are irrelevant when you require that 120pt transport to play blocker.

jy2 wrote:Would you really be trying to avoid my deathstar with 30 meltas that has a good chance to annihilate them? I can tell you this much. If I were playing SabrX's mechdar, I would have done exactly what he did.

All this statement does is undermine your credibility as a tactician. So basically your telling us you have no idea how to play against your own army. Not to mention your now advocating smashing two units into each other without a plan and hoping for a result, which is foolish.

jy2 wrote:
No, it was Kobe on fire against Lebron on an off-night. Trust me, Bowen never had to tools to beat Kobe like Lebron has. It's just that Kobe made most of his shots and Lebron bricked most of his.

No trust me, fire dragons are not the Lebron James of 40k. I would never consider an expendable melta unit and all star. This statement is ridiculous btw.

@jy2 - Fair enough, but why have the battle if all you wanted was to know what would happen if a death star runs up on its hard counter? Seems like it's pretty easy to work out the various scenarios with mathhammer and adjust accordingly for good or poor rolling/terrain. What makes it interesting as a battle report is how the two ARMIES interact, NOT just how the two units interact, and the fact that you slammed them headlong into one another without the Eldar player using proper tactics is why people are questioning the report. You cannot look at two units in a vacuum and make a fair comparison, especially considering how cheap the Fire Dragons were compared to the 1100 point Death Star (almost 300 points cheaper for all 30 and their tanks?).

There IS a right and a wrong way to play Eldar, and the aggressive in-your-face style is exactly the WRONG way to play them against a Death Star. You play the aggressive way against turtled armies, or other fast armies. Against Death Stars you play the flanks and win with tactical moves. Eldar have very little in their arsenal that can stand up to the 10 Paladin + Draigo + Librarian brick on its own, and so they MUST adjust their tactics accordingly or they will lose.

Ultimately it was your game, and it was for fun, as you said. My point is that the title was misleading, and SabrX did not play a game representative of what Eldar are actually capable of so the report was a bit one-sided. If someone read the report without reading the rest of this thread, all they would see is "Grey Knights win against a list designed to take them out! They must be so OP!" Clearly that's not the case, but at a glance it's how the report is presented.

Of course all of this is just my opinion, and you should take it as no more than that. You guys clearly enjoyed the game and that's what matters. The rest is just could-haves and would-haves. I would be interested in seeing a rematch though.

Give it up dude. The eldar got rolled hard and the list was specifically tailored to beat Draigowing. No tears.

-666- wrote:Give it up dude. The eldar got rolled hard and the list was specifically tailored to beat Draigowing. No tears.

*ignored*

So what specifically was stupid?

That whole long winded statement.... lol, clearly it took a lot of creativity and insight.

So are you not happy that the eldar army lost? They seem to have had some bad luck for pointy ears.

@Red Corsair:

Clearly you are taking offense at how I named this battle report. That is fine by me, as it is your right to not like what someone else publishes.

I'll tell you what. When you come out with your own battle report, you can title it however you want. Me? I'm not changing my writing style or the way I do my reports. I will take in constructive criticism, but I have my own style of doing things.

My polls are mainly just for fun. For those who don't like it, you don't have to vote. You could just ignore it. But many readers find it fun to see if they were able to guess the outcome of my battles. Yes, there are polls that try to extrapolate data to show a point. Then there are polls that tries to gauge the views and trends of the general populace. And finally, there are polls just for funsies. Not every poll has to support a theory or ideology, though they do tend to show a trend as to how people behave/think (which I've always found to be interesting).

So now your going to insult us by saying that his tactics were sound and it was only the dice? That was the crappiest plan ever, and that's the polite way of describing it. In no part of reading it did I say to myself, Oh OK he's going to do this later. It was like watching a lunatic wielding a sledge hammer chasing after a man wielding a pane of glass, who decides it would make a lovely shield and stands there holding it in front of his face.

Excuse me? Are you saying that there is only 1 way to win a game? That every other strategy is crap and invalid? Now you are insulting me instead. I, for one, am a very aggressive player. That is how I've won a lot of my games where I should have lost - by being the aggressor and playing aggressively when the situation dictates. This is not to say that it is always better to play aggressively, but it is a play-style that could be rewarding.

Mechdar had all the tools to play aggressively and even try to table Draigowing in this battle. And that is exactly what I would have tried to do had I been in SabrX's shoes. So excuse me if you think I am insulting the reader's intelligence by advocating his playstyle. That is because I would have employed the same strategy (though with a slightly different execution). And BTW, I am winning just fine with the way I play, thank you very much.

Apparently the answer is roll over and die rather then actually play well. Again, you are advocating that they play in a vacuum now, no strategy, no synergy, no plan for the objective. Simply dice rolling, that's not a battle report.

You don't think my opponent had a plan? That his only plan was to sacrifice his fire dragons, and then nothing after that? Did you not realize he had 9 fast skimmers that could actually do much, much more damage to my army than just his fire dragons? And I'm not just talking about trying to kill my paladins.

Fire dragons, whether in units of 5 or 10, are still suicide units. If you are not employing them to screen, distract and kill, then you are not playing them right. Then after they die, you've still got skimmers to contest, screen out and sacrifice if necessary. In an objectives-game, only the 15 dire avengers matter. Everything else - all the skimmers, fire dragons and even Eldrad - are just a sacrifice to be made in the name of victory.

So no, fire dragons will do more than just roll over and die. They will do it at the time and place of their choosing, and their sacrifice will bring the eldar army that much closer to victory.

If only I hadn't been so good at killing his skimmers. No, you didn't really get a glimpse of SabrX's plan until the very end because I was just so good at stopping it this game. His plan was never really to rely on his dragons. It was to rely on his skimmers for the win. The dragons were really just a bonus.

Actually even if his dice were on fire, his plan sucked and you played poorly. I think to say that are analysis of the situation is subjective based on the games results is an insult to readers and gamers. "Hey look that guy charged gretchin into paladins and won combat, he is a genius lets all try it!" I don't think so.

So tell me how you would've played my army....no, how you could've played my army, keeping in mind that:

1) I have little mobility. Other than my stormraven, which my opponent poured a tremendous amount of firepower into - all of his prisms and bright lance/missile launchers as well as trying to ram it.

2) I had limited ranged AT and I am shooting at skimmers with cover for the most part.

3) I had to hug terrain. If he caught my paladins out in the open, they are dead. Thus, my mobility was severely hampered.

Regardless of the outcome, my army was very limited in terms of how I could play it in this game. My opponent had a lot more flexibility.


And I am not talking about a subjective analysis of the game. My opponent had his gameplan. If it had succeeded, people would say his play was "brilliant" just like an athlete who takes a risky play and wins the game. But if he had failed, people would criticize his performance as they would an athlete who takes a game-winning shot and misses. "Oh, he should have passed or he should have taken a less risky shot, etc., etc." It is just the nature of people, not the subjectivity of my analysis.

It's a stupid move to leave your 'fragons' naked in hopes they will fail a ld10 check. Yes. As a last resort maybe it would have been worth it but point costs are irrelevant when you require that 120pt transport to play blocker.

Who says they're naked? They are there for offense. He doesn't necessarily have to wipe out my paladins, just reduce the unit so that it isn't really much of a threat anymore. It's bascially a double offense. Fire dragons try to shoot me down. Serpent tries to break me. Also, my paladins were in terrain and about 7-8" away. There's always the possibility I may fail my difficult terrain tests in the movement and assault phases. I did it before when I tried to multi-assault his wave serpents.

Lastly, I think what you fail to realize is that the skimmers are actually more important than the fire dragons. If dragons die, so what? Even if they don't kill me, they've served their purpose by delaying my attempts to reach his objective. It's his skimmers that are going to win him the game at the end of the day, not the dragons.

All this statement does is undermine your credibility as a tactician. 3 units of ten dragons, that even if you crunch the numbers shouldn't annihilate your unit to a man, I think the average is half if I am not mistaken. So basically your telling us you have no idea how to play against your own army. Not to mention your now advocating smashing two units into each other without a plan and hoping for a result which is foolish.

Say what you want about my tactical acumen, but what many people fail to realize is that the dragons don't necessarily need to wipe out the paladins to be successful. What they really need to do is to keep them occupied for a couple of turns. In a objectives game in which a non-mobile army has to trekk to the enemy's objective, time is the main factor. Keep them occupied by letting them kill stuff and they won't be able to make it to your objective in time to contest. Mechdar, on the other hand, had many, many mobile units to contest the grey knight objective.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aldarionn wrote:@jy2 - Fair enough, but why have the battle if all you wanted was to know what would happen if a death star runs up on its hard counter? Seems like it's pretty easy to work out the various scenarios with mathhammer and adjust accordingly for good or poor rolling/terrain. What makes it interesting as a battle report is how the two ARMIES interact, NOT just how the two units interact, and the fact that you slammed them headlong into one another without the Eldar player using proper tactics is why people are questioning the report. You cannot look at two units in a vacuum and make a fair comparison, especially considering how cheap the Fire Dragons were compared to the 1100 point Death Star (almost 300 points cheaper for all 30 and their tanks?).

There IS a right and a wrong way to play Eldar, and the aggressive in-your-face style is exactly the WRONG way to play them against a Death Star. You play the aggressive way against turtled armies, or other fast armies. Against Death Stars you play the flanks and win with tactical moves. Eldar have very little in their arsenal that can stand up to the 10 Paladin + Draigo + Librarian brick on its own, and so they MUST adjust their tactics accordingly or they will lose.

Ultimately it was your game, and it was for fun, as you said. My point is that the title was misleading, and SabrX did not play a game representative of what Eldar are actually capable of so the report was a bit one-sided. If someone read the report without reading the rest of this thread, all they would see is "Grey Knights win against a list designed to take them out! They must be so OP!" Clearly that's not the case, but at a glance it's how the report is presented.

Of course all of this is just my opinion, and you should take it as no more than that. You guys clearly enjoyed the game and that's what matters. The rest is just could-haves and would-haves. I would be interested in seeing a rematch though.

Because we wanted to see how one army would do against the other as well. I also don't look at things in a vacuum as well and you're right, it isn't just paladins versus fire dragons. My analogy to the basketball game is actually quite accurate IMO. Kobe's Lakers versus Lebron's Heat. You want your team to win. That is the ultimate satisfaction. You want the role-players to contribute. You want the the team to do well on the whole because it is, after all, a team sport. But secretly inside, you also want to see Kobe go one-on-one against Lebron and see one do well over the other. Now it isn't actually necessary that each must be able to overcome the other in order for their team to win, but it would be all the more sweet if they did and their team won as well. Stars help to sensationalize the matchups and the game. Yes, it is a team sport, but no matter how you put it, people will always look up to and compare the stars. It's unavoidable.

It just happened that in this game, no matter how un-eldar-like my opponent played, both of our playstyles brought our 2 "stars" into a confrontation as my opponent wanted to kill my deathstar. And were it the other way around with me playing mechdar, I would have done the same thing. Who says you can't try to have your cake and eat it too?

I try to let the audience know that this game doesn't accurately represent how the results would have been under more normal circumstances (i.e. average dice). And I certainly hope that people don't come out from this battle report thinking that Draigowing in indestructable. What I hope that readers can take from this report is that any army can beat any other army on any given day no matter the army list mis-match. Even if it is a David-vs-Goliath type matchup, don't give up. There is always a chance to win.

To jy2: Thank you so much for taking the time to take all the pictures, organize them in an easy to follow way, talking the time to post them, do them in a manner that is exciting and engaging, and taking the time to post well thought out responses to posters while having the patience with regards to criticisms. I, for one, have always enjoyed your bat reps immensely and find them very educational. I like the fact that you are honest when you create these bat reps and never hesitating to post bat reps where you or you opponent make mistakes, because that is how I get to learn without having to make those errors myself (still make those errors, though, but that's my fault) -- I still remember the bat rep where you split you Crowe-purifier list forces agains a tau (I think) army, in contrary to your initial plan, to disastrous result. In fact, I am glad that you do not wait to post a "perfect game" because that willprobably a few games a year!

To those detractors (no one in particular): jy2 posted this bat rep for free out of his generousity, on his own time, and gains no profit from it. No one had to pay to read it, and he did not force anyone to read it, so he can name it and promote it however he likes. Everyone is, of cours, entitled to their opinion, but I do not see why anyone should be overly upset or insulted by it.

See this is whats irritating, he didn't post the battle report out of the goodness of his heart, he clearly gets just as much joy from having hits and viewers praise his reports. So to sit their and act like it's a selfless one way street is ridiculous. If he gained nothing from it, he wouldn't post it. He expects feedback, and I am just as quick to give kudos where merited. You have to take the good with the bad though. Saying you will take criticism and then not taking it are two different things.

Also reread my remarks, any tactical criticism was directed toward the Eldar not the GK. So why are you jumping on my back now and defending your own strategy for the GK that was not in question?
I also did not say there was one way to win. You actually implied that by rejecting feedback and saying he made all the right moves but dice failed him!
All myself and others were doing initially was try and give feedback in what I think was a very constructive manner only to have it tossed out by jy2's claims.
"it was for fun not competitive"
"he was gong for a cinematic feel"
Those are all fine, but then he makes claims that his opponent played the game with good strategy and that the tactics were sound. You can't have it both ways.
Was this just a completely casual game? If so why set it up like it wasn't? Why have a pregame analysis and strategy if you are just going to through two armies at each other aimlessly? That was all my concerns were. So obviously we are going to critique from what we have read and not assume by some miracle that neither play cared to learn from this report.
So basically, as long as we praise everything that he has done it is fine? But display any constructive critique, and he gets defensive and makes excuses? Then point out those excuses and he points the finger and acts like I and others are picking on him? All I am asking is that you own up to your claims, that's called integrity. If you want to through strategy out the window that's fine and your prerogative. But don't piss on my back and call it rain if you know what I mean, poor tactics are poor tactics.

Heck I enjoy reading BR on here that are fluff narrative only. But it is just arrogant to make a competitive claim at the beginning and then not take feedback at face value later and defend your stance by copping out and saying "don't read my reports if you don't agree with me". That's where I feel offended, when an honest critique is made and then rejected on these grounds. Simply reply based on what your thoughts were t the time.
But, to say that a rule must be new when you play it wrong has undertones that shout; it must be new or I wouldn't have made that mistake. That's extremely arrogant.

I want to take a side note and actually thank you for your posts, they are appreciated and well done. I think you have the best format and a very crisp and level flow that makes for a cinematic feel all its own. So again please don't think I am beating up on you. But please do realize feedback on here can't and will not always be in your favor. I am always looking to debate tactics and stratagem, but one has to own up to ones mistakes (btw most of which were not directed at you but your opponent might I add).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

If you would like to move forward constructively?.....

Who says they're naked? They are there for offense. He doesn't necessarily have to wipe out my paladins, just reduce the unit so that it isn't really much of a threat anymore. It's bascially a double offense. Fire dragons try to shoot me down. Serpent tries to break me. Also, my paladins were in terrain and about 7-8" away. There's always the possibility I may fail my difficult terrain tests in the movement and assault phases. I did it before when I tried to multi-assault his wave serpents.

No one was arguing the contrary other then for example, why place them so that after the assault you would be closer to his objective? That is poor model placement plain and simple. Others had even said this. He should have placed them where they could damage the paladins, and if the paladins dealt with them it would drag them off their own objective and further from his. Same for those important skimmers. It looked as though he hadn't moved the prisms much? If he had them to your right flank then again they would force you to make a decision.

Nice Batrep! Thanks for posting step by step pics!

From my PoV

-Your saves were the deciding factor in this fight. While I'm not knocking your skills as a GK general, I am gonna be frank, your ass should of been blown away a few times over. Those saves were stupid good and not something I would count on in a rematch.

-Mobility, where was it? Your opponent really went static when you advanced. Against GKs, he needed a squad of Fire Dragons on every side of that Death Star, forcing you to go for one at a time. He really needed his troops fanned out, wave serpents not only can do this, they can do it very reliably.

Good Game, looking forward to more and certainly a rematch.

Great batrep! I could tell this one was gonna end based upon that shooting phase, definitely a risky move. The best possible choice, or how I would have played it? Prob not, but it could have worked out. Its a shame for his bad luck, anyone who reads these forums should know jy and sabrx are great players. You can't look at one battle where sabrx loses badly and jy wins by thrashing forwards and judge their tactical ability off of it. Its ONE battle. But the report itself, not just the battle, was still very good and well documented. Obviously red corsair is just ungreatfull with regards to the time and effort it took to make the report and is unable to get over the fact it was just a fun battle, not some tournament. He is just determined to only look at this as negatively as possible and flame and vent as hard as he can. No matter what you put, hes gonna argue against it so just ignore him. Thanks for the reps jy, I look forward to the next! An sabrx please do another tau report, those are by far my favorite, the recent reports with tau players have been a bad representation of the army and its tactics

@Aldarionn:

Actually, my list is made to counter all MEQ, and not just Draigo-wing. While it may not win against horde (very few Eldar armies ever will) it should perform well against a lot of Marine lists.

@Blackmoor:

You've caught on. I've tried the sit back and shoot approach. It's boring and doesn't win in the current meta game. I like to play aggressive. I still think 30 Fire Dragons is a viable build.

I would have moved another Wave Serpent to complete the skimmer wall, but I couldn't balance one on top of the wrecked black Wave Serpent.

@Red Corsair:

You aren't taking this particular battle report at face value. This was a test game and a friendly match. While jy2 and I do compete in tournaments, we don't treat all our games highly competitive.

I'm also not a power gamer. I'm not changing my play style. Win or lose, I will continue to take risks and play my army as I see fit.

@darkcloud92 & Cladmir

Thanks a lot!

jy2 and I enjoy sharing our experiences to the online community. We aren't obligated or getting paid to do it. It's not like our game sets a precedence for all match ups between two armies.

When I have time, I'll post a couple battle reports featuring my Tau.

May I ask one thing?

How do some guys here could explain ignoring paladinstar is a viable option?

Excuse me, an entire turn of going, what, 24" from the paladin line on the centre on both sides? Or rather 30"? And give even MORE time to shoot for Vendreads and just allow paladins to salsa on Eldar home objective?

Or just go loco and get all those shots in your face, getting all your Dragon Serpents downed?

The two options seem to be let dreds catch us without taxi on open ground or let pallies down our transports chand eat us alive without shooting or Eldrad's powers.

The only big mistake I can see there was lack of proficient charge blocker on pallies' way. It could be blown away by dreads, but terrain can slow assailant down anyway.

Eeesh... I suppose it's true there are people on internet hating people for daring enter internet.

Red Corsair wrote:See this is whats irritating, he didn't post the battle report out of the goodness of his heart, he clearly gets just as much joy from having hits and viewers praise his reports. So to sit their and act like it's a selfless one way street is ridiculous. If he gained nothing from it, he wouldn't post it. He expects feedback, and I am just as quick to give kudos where merited. You have to take the good with the bad though. Saying you will take criticism and then not taking it are two different things.

Don't tell me you are naive enough to think that people are totally selfless? Everyone enjoys feedback in some shape or form, especially if it is positive. Take teachers for instance. You don't think they feel good if their students thank them or the parents pay them a compliment on what a good job they are doing or for that matter, they see that their students are actually learning? Is is so wrong for them to enjoy a sense of satisfaction from the fruits of their labor?

I, and others here who write battle reports, do it out of enjoyment and love for the game. We are all fans, and on top of that, I get a sense of satisfaction if my reports can help out newer players with their games, provide information for those who want to see how an army/unit is like or just provide a couple minutes of entertainment to others. Am I supposed to feel guilty for that? If so, then I'm sorry....I'm only human.

Also reread my remarks, any tactical criticism was directed toward the Eldar not the GK. So why are you jumping on my back now and defending your own strategy for the GK that was not in question?

Because you are saying that I played poorly, that I have "no idea how to play against your own army", that I advocate "smashing two units into each other without a plan and hopeing for a result, which is foolish" and that I am "advocating that they play in a vacuum now, no strategy, no synergy, no plan for the objective."

With such strong accusations, you don't think I will come to defend my own views?

I see my opponent's tactics as a viable, if unorthodox one as I also play unorthodox army builds (shooty nids, assault crons). It's ok to disagree with the tactics, but when you claim that the tactic is stupid and totally wrong, I take offense at that. There isn't just 1 way to win a game. SabrX's tactics is just as equally viable as your own or Aldarionn's or anyone elses for that matter, even if it isn't very fluffy. His execution may be a little off, but then again, he hasn't been playing his mechdar for a while (since our last Apoc game, I believe, which was about half a year ago).

I also did not say there was one way to win. You actually implied that by rejecting feedback and saying he made all the right moves but dice failed him!
All myself and others were doing initially was try and give feedback in what I think was a very constructive manner only to have it tossed out by jy2's claims.
"it was for fun not competitive"
"he was gong for a cinematic feel"
Those are all fine, but then he makes claims that his opponent played the game with good strategy and that the tactics were sound. You can't have it both ways.
Was this just a completely casual game? If so why set it up like it wasn't? Why have a pregame analysis and strategy if you are just going to through two armies at each other aimlessly? That was all my concerns were. So obviously we are going to critique from what we have read and not assume by some miracle that neither play cared to learn from this report.
So basically, as long as we praise everything that he has done it is fine? But display any constructive critique, and he gets defensive and makes excuses? Then point out those excuses and he points the finger and acts like I and others are picking on him? All I am asking is that you own up to your claims, that's called integrity. If you want to through strategy out the window that's fine and your prerogative. But don't piss on my back and call it rain if you know what I mean, poor tactics are poor tactics.

Heck I enjoy reading BR on here that are fluff narrative only. But it is just arrogant to make a competitive claim at the beginning and then not take feedback at face value later and defend your stance by copping out and saying "don't read my reports if you don't agree with me". That's where I feel offended, when an honest critique is made and then rejected on these grounds. Simply reply based on what your thoughts were t the time.
But, to say that a rule must be new when you play it wrong has undertones that shout; it must be new or I wouldn't have made that mistake. That's extremely arrogant.

No, you didn't say there was only 1 way to win, but just the fact that you wrote off someone elses strategy, labeling it as wrong and stupid, elicited a response from me.

I can handle criticism and I can also disagree with it. Your criticism was particularly strong, and as such, I felt that I had to respond in kind, which was also just as strong. Just as you vehemently claim that my opponent played it wrong, I just as strongly claim that there is more than one way to play the game. Playing counter to how the army normally plays isn't necessarily wrong. He is still playing to the strengths of his list, taking advantage of his powerful close-range shooting, his mobility and his psychic prowess. And my opponent is playing to win. We both are, even if we are playing "for fun". You know, you can both play competitively and for fun as well. The two doesn't necessarily have to contradict each other. You can say his main goal was to win, but his sub-goal was to try to take out my paladinstar.

I will admit when I make a mistake, and I do own up to my mistakes all the time in these battle reports. While everyone enjoy praises, I feel that criticism is just as important. I have accepted criticism before, and I have also rejected criticism that I don't agree with. You do have some valid points with some of your criticism, yet at the same time, I don't agree with your main criticism. There is no absolute right or wrong when talking strategy and tactics. There are only opinions on which is the better way to play it. In that regards, I can only say that we can just agree to disagree. As for the title, I am sorry that you find it misleading and you know what I will do about it? I will take it into consideration the next time I title my battle reports.

The only claim I made about this report is that it was more for fun and as an experiment. Look at the very first paragraph of my opening post and you will see. I make no excuses. Just like you, I speak my mind just as bluntly as you speak yours. But don't get me wrong. Even my casual "fun" games with SabrX are quite competitive as we are both competitive players, especially when we go up against each other. Against other players, maybe not so. But being competitive doesn't mean we play to win at all costs. It doesn't mean that every move we make is meant to win the game. It doesn't mean we don't give each other some leeway when mistakes are made (i.e. me forgetting to go first). And it doesn't mean that we don't help each other out advice-wise (even in our more "competitive" necron vs BA game, I gave SabrX some advice on how to play his blood angels, especially towards the end).

As for the rules mistake, it was an honest mistake that we were both not aware of. Does it matter whether I thought is was new or not? The point is, I overlooked it in the FAQ's which was why I was not aware of it.

I want to take a side note and actually thank you for your posts, they are appreciated and well done. I think you have the best format and a very crisp and level flow that makes for a cinematic feel all its own. So again please don't think I am beating up on you. But please do realize feedback on here can't and will not always be in your favor. I am always looking to debate tactics and stratagem, but one has to own up to ones mistakes (btw most of which were not directed at you but your opponent might I add).

That is fine and don't worry too much. I can handle criticism just fine. If I agree, I will own up. If I don't agree with the criticism, I will express why (and usually in a tone equal to the level of the critic). The reason why I am defending my opponent's tactics is because I would have probably done the same thing as him with just minute changes in execution.

If you would like to move forward constructively?.....

No one was arguing the contrary other then for example, why place them so that after the assault you would be closer to his objective? That is poor model placement plain and simple. Others had even said this. He should have placed them where they could damage the paladins, and if the paladins dealt with them it would drag them off their own objective and further from his. Same for those important skimmers. It looked as though he hadn't moved the prisms much? If he had them to your right flank then again they would force you to make a decision.

Agreed. You do make some good points tactics-wise and I would have also played it this way if I were him - try to draw the paladins away from his objective and make them choose. I find no problems with his overall strategy of being aggressive, though I do agree that my opponent may have made some mistakes in the execution.

Anyways, despite his crappy dice and some tactical mistakes, my opponent still had a good chance to win it in the end. This just goes to show how tough it is to beat mechdar in an objectives game with Draigowing.

Agreed, sometimes these things hit impasses for the wrong reasons. I blame a lot of it on implied tone as sometimes my remarks are taken as harsher then intended because that's how the written word can be interpreted sometimes.

Yea I agree that mech eldar are a real pain, mostly in objective missions as they are so durable and fast.

Dok wrote:Some thoughts on your analysis...

jy2 wrote:
- 30 melta shots, of which 20 were twin-linked, only killing 3 paladins and wounding Draigo. My saves were on fire as I must've made about 20 3+ cover saves or so.

Bad luck on his part, however he should have disembarked to your right so that charging him the next turn didn't bring you closer to his objective. Also, running away the next turn with the surviving guys instead of shooting confused me.

Hi Dok. Thanks for your analysis. I will try to answer them as best as I think my opponent was trying to do. I agree that he should have came in on the opposite flank from his objective. The only response I can give here was probably "ring rust" - that he hasn't played mechdar in quite a while. As for his fire dragons taking off, I believe he changed his strategy to "live to fight another day" and "defend the objective and contest his".

Dok wrote:

jy2 wrote:- My Death-&-Glory needing 6's to wreck him. I do.

He should've never ran over a guy with a hammer

I liked your play style jy2! An aggressive opening followed with lots of controlled actions.

Loved the report, and guys come on. Players and writers will do things there way. Honestly there is no real right or wrong. Just personal taste and style. Some have more appeal or success than others, but essentially both SabrX and Jy2 have more than fully explained why they did/do what they do. Therefore I see no real reason to continue this increasingly nasty argument. It's just a game guys. Either way, I love reading Jy's batreps and I actually look up to many of the people (for batreps, painting etc) who posted on this.

Ben

SabrX wrote:@Aldarionn:

Actually, my list is made to counter all MEQ, and not just Draigo-wing. While it may not win against horde (very few Eldar armies ever will) it should perform well against a lot of Marine lists.

If your list is designed to counter all MEQ's then I think you might want to reconsider the 30 Fire Dragons. They are an extremely effective unit if used properly, but 30 is overkill by about a mile. If you want to have effective anti MEQ and Anti-Horde rolled into one unit, I suggest taking 8 Fire Dragons, upgrading one to an Exarch, and giving him Crack Shot and a Dragons Breath Flamer. Supplement that with 1-2 units of Storm Guardians with 2x Flamers and a Warlock with Destructor, and 2 units of Dire Avengers with Bladestorm and Defend. Mount everything up in Wave Serpents, then use leftover points for a pair of Fire Prisms and either a DAVU Falcon or a unit of War Walkers. And of course, take Eldrad. All told the list should be able to handle MEQ's, horde armies and Terminators without too much trouble as long as you are very careful with placement.

jy2 wrote:Because we wanted to see how one army would do against the other as well. I also don't look at things in a vacuum as well and you're right, it isn't just paladins versus fire dragons. My analogy to the basketball game is actually quite accurate IMO. Kobe's Lakers versus Lebron's Heat. You want your team to win. That is the ultimate satisfaction. You want the role-players to contribute. You want the the team to do well on the whole because it is, after all, a team sport. But secretly inside, you also want to see Kobe go one-on-one against Lebron and see one do well over the other. Now it isn't actually necessary that each must be able to overcome the other in order for their team to win, but it would be all the more sweet if they did and their team won as well. Stars help to sensationalize the matchups and the game. Yes, it is a team sport, but no matter how you put it, people will always look up to and compare the stars. It's unavoidable.

It just happened that in this game, no matter how un-eldar-like my opponent played, both of our playstyles brought our 2 "stars" into a confrontation as my opponent wanted to kill my deathstar. And were it the other way around with me playing mechdar, I would have done the same thing. Who says you can't try to have your cake and eat it too?

I try to let the audience know that this game doesn't accurately represent how the results would have been under more normal circumstances (i.e. average dice). And I certainly hope that people don't come out from this battle report thinking that Draigowing in indestructable. What I hope that readers can take from this report is that any army can beat any other army on any given day no matter the army list mis-match. Even if it is a David-vs-Goliath type matchup, don't give up. There is always a chance to win.

Aside from the fact that I absolutely despise Basketball and have no desire to watch any of the players you named do anything except hang themselves, my point is that in this particular matchup, as the Eldar player, I WOULDN'T have a desire (secret or otherwise) to see that confrontation until I can make it happen on favorable terms. I'm not going to risk losing the game badly by dumping the core of my army in front of a huge unit of Paladins that will absolutely slaughter them if I fail, and that's what SabrX did. And he paid for it badly.

YOU guys might have had a desire to see that, but I know how it ends. Either I roll well and I win, or I roll badly and I lose. The whole point of my argument thus far is that in most games, casual or otherwise, one player usually doesn't have the desire to recklessly throw his all-stars into combat with his opponents all-stars if it means he could potentially suffer a big loss because of it. What he WANTS to do is kill off his opponents all-stars, or their supporting units, using his all-stars to maximum advantage and throwing them up against targets they can easily kill.

Aldarionn wrote:
If your list is designed to counter all MEQ's then I think you might want to reconsider the 30 Fire Dragons. They are an extremely effective unit if used properly, but 30 is overkill by about a mile. If you want to have effective anti MEQ and Anti-Horde rolled into one unit, I suggest taking 8 Fire Dragons, upgrading one to an Exarch, and giving him Crack Shot and a Dragons Breath Flamer.

It's difficult to create a take-all comers list that will handle both horde and MEQ effectively. Triple template Storm Guardians, Dragon Breath Flamer Fire Dragons, Fire Prisms, and Blade Storm Dire Avengers isn't enough to handle the infamous 180 green tide build nor will it be enough to handle Nids MC-bash featuring a lot of Termagants. It also won't be enough to handle the new Necron scarab-swarm. The best Eldar unit that can handle hordes effectively is the Night Spinner. However, the Night Spinner isn't effective against most MEQ. I've decided to focus my list towards the most popular 40k army, which is MEQ.

YOU guys might have had a desire to see that, but I know how it ends. Either I roll well and I win, or I roll badly and I lose. The whole point of my argument thus far is that in most games, casual or otherwise, one player usually doesn't have the desire to recklessly throw his all-stars into combat with his opponents all-stars if it means he could potentially suffer a big loss because of it. What he WANTS to do is kill off his opponents all-stars, or their supporting units, using his all-stars to maximum advantage and throwing them up against targets they can easily kill.

Well I'm not like most Eldar players, and I certainly don't want to be peer pressured into playing like so. It's your volition whether to read one's battle reports or not, but please don't force your ideology on others. Criticism is good, but dictating another player's play style isn't. Whether my decisions is good or bad, I'll make the final say. It's my army and I'll do whatever I damn please with it.

I liked it. I admire this 'throw caution to the wind' approach of the Eldar. Don't give a monkeys about which rules you got right or wrong. It was your game to make the mistakes, not mine.

However, you really should get the models sorted out. I like the weathering on the Storm Raven, but this is all about theatre, and some of your actors have got the wrong costumes on!

Aldarionn wrote:Aside from the fact that I absolutely despise Basketball and have no desire to watch any of the players you named do anything except hang themselves, my point is that in this particular matchup, as the Eldar player, I WOULDN'T have a desire (secret or otherwise) to see that confrontation until I can make it happen on favorable terms. I'm not going to risk losing the game badly by dumping the core of my army in front of a huge unit of Paladins that will absolutely slaughter them if I fail, and that's what SabrX did. And he paid for it badly.

YOU guys might have had a desire to see that, but I know how it ends. Either I roll well and I win, or I roll badly and I lose. The whole point of my argument thus far is that in most games, casual or otherwise, one player usually doesn't have the desire to recklessly throw his all-stars into combat with his opponents all-stars if it means he could potentially suffer a big loss because of it. What he WANTS to do is kill off his opponents all-stars, or their supporting units, using his all-stars to maximum advantage and throwing them up against targets they can easily kill.

That's perfectly fine. Your style (and many others, I'm sure) is the more cautious, conservative approach that will optimize your chances for winning. It's a great eldar strategy. Heck, if I was playing eldar, I'd probably play that way also in most games. Eldar is not the confrontational army that many others are. We get that, both me and my opponent.

But the fact of the matter is, in this game, my opponent decided to take a gamble. He decided he wanted to play aggressively. His goal was not just to win the game, but to see if he could take down my paladins. He was well aware of his other options but decided to forgo them in order to achieve his own personal goal. And he was willing to accept the consequences should his attempt fail.