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.

This is what keeps me from bringing my Eldar back to play. Despite what people say about Mechdar being competitive, I don’t want to pay 120-150 for an AV12 transport.

I agree with what Captain K said regarding BT. While they are still potent & have some perks being an older codex (dual cannons for my 5 man termie squads for example) I think they can be buffed with a new codex.

As to daemons deep striking & mishaps the example of Cent losing a huge block of Crushers with Heralds attached is the worst case scenario. Yes it can happen... And while as a daemon player myself I shouldn't sweep that under the carpet I had a similar occurences in my first tournament - last round playing for 1st place - it was a really stupid mistake as I had an icon on the table and for whatever reason decided not to use it. :( Blood Crushers have a huge footprint so if there is no icon you have to be very careful where you place them for the initial drop. By doing so & using my icons I have never lost a squad of daemons to a mishap since.

On the Inq/Mys anti daemon unit... First you have to remember that the average spotting roll is only 14" and the unit will be placed in the center of the army. Often I will deep strike on either flank forcing my opponent to move forward through his center. This pretty much shuts down the Inq/Mys unit making them useless for all practical purposes. It's hard for a mechanized army to avoid being charged by the initial wave the following turn. Mechdar are a tough matchup for just about any daemon army since their skimmer tanks can move 24". I kit my Bloodthirster with deathstrike... That is basically 36" range with a plasma pistol. Might not sound all that great but you'd be surprised how often it has dropped light transports. It's not something you can count on but it's still there to handle certain contingencies.

G

What! You mean Bill isn't the unbeatable player of legend who can shrug off such inconsequential things as the loss of a 400 point unit with ease?


To add a little more of substance to this post, I'd like to go back to what GK Luke said a few posts back - what is the definition of a tier?

I believe that player skill on the tabletop is more important than how powerful a codex is, or even, how min-maxxed their list is. JWolf's gladiator list, Blackmoor's Foot Eldar, DarthDiggler's 'ard boy marines - lists that constantly draw comments like "you won with that" or "you couldn't have played anyone competitive" - show that there's more to it than taking the best mathhammer units.

So, how important are these theoretical tiers? I think that they really only come into play when comparing games played between equally skilled opponents.

I also don't think that it is necessarily correct to label Tiers by codex alone. I think it is more appropriate to consider list archetypes than just what book they're taken from.

Take C:CSM as an example. Dual-Lash is still a top performer. But it's only one archtype from that codex. Most of the rest of that codex seems underwhelming in the face of subsequent releases. Does that mean that the whole codex is top-tier, because of one build? I don't think so. But does that mean you can't make a tier-one army out of C:CSM - clearly you still can.

Some codexes have multiple tough builds. Space Wolves, for example, can field an extremely shooty mech list, or the thunderwolf cav heavy-assault version. Does their ability to field more than one competitive build mean that they're a higher tier?

There's also the RPS effect to consider. I've seen Dark Eldar played very well in 5th ed, and they've got good matchups against several armies. But leafblower guard has their number.

Maybe that's a good baseline for deciding what tiers something is. First, assume equal player competence.

A top tier army is going to have no bad matchups, and at least one (or maybe more) easy wins from lower tier armies.

A 2nd tier army might have a bad matchup against a 1st tier army, but no outright bad matchups against other 2nd tier armies. And so on.

I still think that this is far more relevant when discussing army archtypes though, rather than codexes.

Black Blow Fly wrote:Redbeard I find your view wrong on mulitple levels. I want to address what you have said in detail. Ihave read many of your daemon batreps and feel you never really got your head around the army. Every army actually has some randomness... We are rolling dice.

Your talking out your rectum.

No not every army has the same level of randomness. Deamons, by their codex are more then any army. What redbeard talks about is a part of the army- if their on, their on. When their not on the reserve rolls....yeah ist bad. When you land dead on, its great. When you scatter all over the place, its bad.

No other army has that much randomness day in and day out.

Redbeard, I agree entirely with everything your saying. Yeah the tier system I and Black Blow Fly have suggested is flawed badly as a good build in a lower tier could beat a "better" army in a higher tier with easy especially if it is a build that is built for the purpose or has an army wide advantage.

Luck, competency and the like all play a part. We all know players that could have killer armies but just buy the models they want and thats that. Even in tornament play people like the armies they like and that is fine.

Old codexes do have a problem with the pricing of certain units for the latest addition of the rules. I could easy see BT, DE, DA and Necrons getting moved with a new codex release almost for certainly. We will just have to wait while GW get around to releasing the new books.

There was a time when Eldar did rule for a while I think for the moment it is IG that rule, but are still better balanced IMO than it was when eldar held the crown.

>>Mech Tau is less competitive than some other armies is because the vehicles are more expensive for what you get.

A Devilfish has fewer shots with lower power and half the range of a stock Chimaera.

The Chimaera has firing points for the passengers to shoot out of, and smoke dischargers and a searchlight, and it's amphibious.

The Chimaera is only worth 1 KP while the Devilfish is 2KP because of its drones.

The only advantage the Fish has is that it is a skimmer. Should it cost 80p to the Chimaera's 55p?

A good daemon player knows how to reduce randnomness:

• Split your units into your two waves such that they are equal in strength. Many daemon players want to front load their primary wave with all their heavy hitters. It requires some discipline not to fall into this trap. By equalizing your two waves it does not matter which one comes in first.

• Use multiple icons. Yes they are expensive but well worth the investment.

• Learn how to visualize 3", 6" & 12" on the table taking into account the foot print for your units. It's far better to drop on a safe area than risk scattering into an enemy unit/impassable terrain. Daemons are very resilient and if properly placed can soak up a lot of shooting then dish it back out the next turn. I think daemons are the most resilient army with invulnerable saves & Eternal Warrior across the board. It's also another plus that they are fearless across the board as you never have to worry about breaking after being shot.

These tips are all based upon many games; i.e., experience. That's hardly talking out the arse.

G

Kilkrazy wrote:>>Mech Tau is less competitive than some other armies is because the vehicles are more expensive for what you get.

A Devilfish has fewer shots with lower power and half the range of a stock Chimaera.

The Chimaera has firing points for the passengers to shoot out of, and smoke dischargers and a searchlight, and it's amphibious.

The Chimaera is only worth 1 KP while the Devilfish is 2KP because of its drones.

The only advantage the Fish has is that it is a skimmer. Should it cost 80p to the Chimaera's 55p?

Having just looked through the tau codex once more. Yeah I can see your point. As Mech Tau is a little off kilter points-wise. There are other diffs that you have forgetting. Chimaera have front : 12 side : 10 back : 10. Devilfish gives better protection from the sides. Also you have drones as part of the deal. I think the points for the basic fish should be reduces say 65 pts.

Your points are valid though alot of the upgrades for the devilfish are underpointed. Targetting array should be 10 pts at 5 pts it is a no brainer, too cheep. Disruption pod I think should be 10 and decoy should be 10.

In many cases think you may only need one of these to give the tank the protection it needs. So over all you have a more effective tank that would cover the differences.

True, I got the points value of the side armour wrong. That is worth 8% increase to the base value.

Drones are part of the deal because they can't be recycled for spare points. If you replace them with SMS, you just pay the SMS cost and lose the points for the drones.

65p could be about right compared to the Chimaera.