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.

Kroothawk wrote:

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:Also, it confirms the rumor that Phil Kelly hate Tyranids (as this dex COMPLETELY smashes Gav's nid book).

Good to see a well founded comparison with Gav's Tyranid book, when everyone else thinks that Robin Cruddace has written it

My mistake, I think I had C:CD open and tabbed to the wrong PDF when I wrote the post.>_< I forgot Cruddace did the new book. Either way, it breaks that as well.

BloodThirSTAR wrote:What I meant was the codex appears to be very balanced and not over the top like his SW codex.

See, herein lies the problem that I am describing.

Compare DE 5th to:

E: 4th
T: 4th
N: 4th
O: 4th
CSM: 4th (kind)
CD: 4th
And others (including DA, BT, DH and WH)

It seems balanced/Pretty good.

Compare to other 5th editions...

SM >>> DE
BA >>>>>> DE
SW >>>> DE
IG >>> DE
Nids >> DE (Not one-on-one mind you, DE could probably smash new nids in a head to head 75% of the time, but over all, the nids have more playability ((which should say something right there)) then the new DE)

The problem I see with this dex is that the other 4 5th edition dexs didn't seem "Over the top" as much as "Setting a new standard", which pre-faqnerf the nids almost held up to (some would argue that they met the standard before BA came out). The issue with this new DE dex is that is just does not live up to that standard... now, if the new standard is "Imperium codexs will be in a league of their own compared to non-imperium armies" (a statement that will be tested pending the next codex release) then yes, for a "Non-imperium league codex" the new DE dex is impressive. Unfortunately, current tournaments don't distinguish between the two classes. Currently, the DE dex would be the king of Class N, but the SM/SW/BA(BA closer to Class C then anything...) would be more like a Class B wherein IG and Nids would be Class A (if you are familiar with rally car race classes)

So again: If you don't play 40K in the competitive circuit, you have nothing to worry about, you will probably have many a fun game with these guys with your friends. They have a ton of different fun combos that a good player (or really good reader, outside of the comp-circuit skill matters very little compared to "dice luck" can wield quite effectively. But put up against the staple Tourney BA/SW lists, these guys will fall short (outside of "miraculous rolling" but then again, even Crons can be 'super-effective' with this)

Quite simply, Dark Eldar will be fine within the competitive scene as-well.
They won't be as blatantly OTT or Powerful as most of the 5th edition Codices as by their very nature, they are Eldar and therefore are powerful when coordinated, not isolated.
There are no real 'must take' choices within the new Dark Eldar codex and whether you see that as a good or a bad thing is up to interpretation, but ultimately they are still a very capable army.

Eldar can still stand up in 5th edition when used properly, although they struggle more these days.
Imagine how their NEW, 5th Edition Counter-parts are going to do. Very Well.

Except, as the last 4 pages should hopefully have hammered home, the new dex IS as powerful as the rest.

Yes, there are no obvious "hit the spam button" lists. Big deal.

YOur conclusion is suspect as you have insufficient evidence to back up your assertions, no objective evidence, and plenty of people who DO play competitively that contradict you, quite strongly.

DE are IG *killers*, and if you cant see that after 4 pages you should try rereading....

Is there some way to consolidate all this.... "stuff".... as it's spreading like wildfire.

I agree man, I messaged a Mod yesterday and the general response was to report any duplicate threads, which I will for any news threads on the topic at-least.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except, as the last 4 pages should hopefully have hammered home, the new dex IS as powerful as the rest.

Yes, there are no obvious "hit the spam button" lists. Big deal.

The "hit the spam button" lists aren't what I am talking about, I'm talking about the meta, match them up against the current tourny winners, and if you can honestly make a list that does well against the current meta, please have the confidence to post it...

nosferatu1001 wrote:
YOur conclusion is suspect as you have insufficient evidence to back up your assertions, no objective evidence, and plenty of people who DO play competitively that contradict you, quite strongly.

Quite the contrary. If there were 4 pages that said Oxygen was toxic to human beings, that wouldn't change the fact that the statement is incorrect. People have said "They're good if you can play" but have yet to provide any specific evidence as to "How" that statement is correct, in fact, the few lists that have been submitted as evidence have already been proven to have easy counters in the current meta.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
DE are IG *killers*, and if you cant see that after 4 pages you should try rereading....

Leafblower DECIMATE the DE codex, and if you are saying that DE can "kill ig" that don't run autocannons, hydras, and vendis, then yeah, but necrons can also smash situational IG lists as well, again, it doesn't mean that necrons are on the same tier as BA/IG/SW...

Just Dave wrote:Quite simply, Dark Eldar will be fine within the competitive scene as-well.
They won't be as blatantly OTT or Powerful as most of the 5th edition Codices as by their very nature, they are Eldar and therefore are powerful when coordinated, not isolated.
There are no real 'must take' choices within the new Dark Eldar codex and whether you see that as a good or a bad thing is up to interpretation, but ultimately they are still a very capable army.

I have to disagree with the core of this statement (but not any particular part in general). When you are talking "Competitve scene" 'over the top' and 'powerful' are two words you WANT to have associated with your codex. Again, I can't see a 2000 point list, that even with the best co-ordination can handle MSU ML LF SW lists, 5Pred BA lists, or Leaf-Blower. If you know of one that can consistently win(or even compete) against these, then by all means, list away.

Just Dave wrote:
Eldar can still stand up in 5th edition when used properly, although they struggle more these days.
Imagine how their NEW, 5th Edition Counter-parts are going to do. Very Well.

Except, the new DE aren't eldar. The New DE cant have Re-rolling 4+s on their vehicles that neg str 8+ to Str 8. The new DE don't have cheap squadrons of 20+ str 6 shots. The new DE don't have any of the things that make Eldar remotely viable, comparing them as such just doesn't seem right.

Basically this is what it seems like when reading the DE dex:

Do you like IG/Eldar*?

Do you like Melee?

Do you like having 12 HQ choices to pick from?

Do you like having gimmicky special weapons that could piss the crap off out of you opponents?

If you answered yes to any/all of the above, CODEX: DE!



*DISCLAIMER: The Reference to IG/Eldar is about taking alot of units for low point cost, user beware, they don't pack near the firepower of these guys, have about 20% of the transport breaking capacity and probably won't preform as well against a majority of the tournament players you will face... but they are a crap ton of fun!

~Does thAt fit betteR?

Oxygen IS toxic to humans above a certain partial pressure.

Leafblower cant touch the codex. Have you run it? We have. Lots. If you dont use your greatest advantage (speed) well, you're crippling yourself.....or if you let the guard player cheat in moving the wall. Bubble wrap dies turn one, you pop on average 3 key vehicles (hydras being the initial priority) and start to pull it apart.

Hell, your "meta" is off anyway. Leafblower is not the be all and end all, not at all.

You wont be convinced however, as you have shown in a number of places you are a closed mind.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Oxygen IS toxic to humans above a certain partial pressure.

you would...

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Leafblower cant touch the codex. Have you run it? We have. Lots. If you dont use your greatest advantage (speed) well, you're crippling yourself.....or if you let the guard player cheat in moving the wall. Bubble wrap dies turn one, you pop on average 3 key vehicles (hydras being the initial priority) and start to pull it apart.

Who is we? This isn't an "Us vs Them" situation bro, its a conversation about the viability of the DE dex in the current competitive meta. I've run the figures, and against leaf blower, the DE lists I have seen/made have had nothing but trouble, again, if you have a better list, maybe I am missing something, please list it here to defend your claims... You claim speed is your greatest advantage, HOW is that helping you against 72" range that denies your skimmer saves. Against things not trying to "skimmer save FGJ" you have like 12 other auto-cannons, multi-lasers, and other bad days eating apart your army.

The fact that they outnumber your anti tank (with better weaponry all things considered) with an easy 4-1 ratio, can drop templates that deny your cover and armor and 2xT you without batting a lash is a VERY bad day for DE... so again, if you know of some magic upgrade (or more preferably a full list) that can handle this kind of threat, please let me in on it...

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Hell, your "meta" is off anyway. Leafblower is not the be all and end all, not at all.

Its not the be-all-end-all, but to deny it exists in meta (is this what you are doing?) would not be very tactical... Not to mention I also mentioned two famous BA/SW lists that have still yet to be countered...

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You wont be convinced however, as you have shown in a number of places you are a closed mind.

Also, to be fair, I've said I'm open to the idea of being convinced, if you would be willing to provide more then loose terms (that really don't mention anything specific) as evidence...

Nos, really, i've had to think long and hard before reporting like 50% of your posts, you are overly emotional in your debates and you tend to be downright "stingy" in your responses... you really need to stop judging posts on B/W (which you seem to think that by me saying they are "Not competitive" is the equivalent of "They are total crap" which is not at ALL what I am saying) and be a bit more respectful in your words back, otherwise you come off as condecending, insulting, and overall a "pain-in-the-rear" when it comes to having to respond to your posts...

Ah sorry to correct your sweeping generalisations.

have you *actually played* a game of DE against gunline IG? You have mentioned "running the numbers" but the reality is very different - yes, they have 72" guns. the table is 48" across. Your key units for speed can move 31" / 36" a turn. Guard *cannot* castle in a corner if theyre running mech, and if they try to they screw their fire lanes.

Im not gonna throw lists out, as your dismissive attitude, exemplified in the previous but one post, shows you are a closed mind. You may SAY you are open to persuasion, but you arent. When DE are stomping face, which they will be, you may see reason.

[Finally - i dont care if you "thought long and hard", I really dont. If you have an issue, report and let the mods deal, thats what theyre here for. Or dont respond. Your choice]

To me, This:

nosferatu1001 wrote:~Snip~
Im not gonna throw lists out
~Snip~

Translates to: "I think they are good, but I don't have the necessary experience myself with the army to prove it, if I did, I would happily post up my lists to SHOW you what I am debating"

Hmmm, I wasn't expecting 4 pages of reasonable discussion...

I wanted more rage from that wonderful line ender in the OP.

:-(

I like the codex, lots of info to take in.
I like idea of the Baron... kinda sucks no power weapon, but I can live with that, esp. the relative low cost.

I'm just not too fon of Raider heavy and armor heavy it sort of pushes you into, nor am I a huge fan of the Raiders.......I'm crazy for saying it, but yea...

I think the overall problem that Nos is having is that you are making a sweeping bold statement when its still to early to tell. The new dex is fine and there are a lot of ways to deal with leafblower but it all depends on points etc etc. in an ard boyz list Vect and baron are a good way to make sure you alpha strike before they do. The duke helps with deepstriking. scourge with haywire blasters is potentially lethal. Haywire grenades on trueborn/wyches also devastating.

Ultimately you are entitled to your own opinion but I think the DE were semi competitive before and they just got better. Ive won or placed in several tourneys and I never MSUed Dark lances. So if I could do it before, it can be done now only even better

DAR - and your entire posts in this thread translates to: I dont see an utter obvious list, and my "numbers" (not actual playtime, theoryhammer. Such a useful tool to condemn a codex as "not competitive") suggest IG would beat it.

We cannot "prove" you wrong, as you have no actual experience of the army. You are convinced, from the opening post and as your prior posts have shown, that because *you* cannot see the strengths in the codex, that they dont exist.

Whereas I've played games, between 1500 and 2000 (not 2500, yet) and DE stomp face. This is why I guess indy GT (120 players next year, including some of the best players in the uk) will have a fair DE representation.

I'm just not willing to do your work for you, as you have shown your bias (especially in your claims about the lists in this thread) already.

nosferatu1001 wrote:DAR - and your entire posts in this thread translates to: I dont see an utter obvious list, and my "numbers" (not actual playtime, theoryhammer. Such a useful tool to condemn a codex as "not competitive") suggest IG would beat it.

Its math, and in a game of dice and statistics, math is relatively useful... Jus' sayin'.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
We cannot "prove" you wrong, as you have no actual experience of the army. You are convinced, from the opening post and as your prior posts have shown, that because *you* cannot see the strengths in the codex, that they dont exist.

No, math (and fact) is the only thing that seems "convinced" that when compared side-by-side to its peers in the meta, this dex offers less viable weaponry. You can tell how sharp a sword is without wielding it, ya know...

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Whereas I've played games, between 1500 and 2000 (not 2500, yet) and DE stomp face. This is why I guess indy GT (120 players next year, including some of the best players in the uk) will have a fair DE representation.

Congrats, either you played bad players, rolled better then average, or you have this 'magic' list that I 'clearly can't see'. Would it really be so hard to simply display said list?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I'm just not willing to do your work for you, as you have shown your bias (especially in your claims about the lists in this thread) already.

It's not "doing my work for me", its backing your claim. If you are going to say "My horse is just as fast as anyone else horse, but I don't want to let you see it run cause that would be doing your work for you" your just wasting mine, and everyone else in this thread's, time.

Laosiamus wrote:I think the overall problem that Nos is having is that you are making a sweeping bold statement when its still to early to tell. The new dex is fine and there are a lot of ways to deal with leafblower but it all depends on points etc etc. in an ard boyz list Vect and baron are a good way to make sure you alpha strike before they do. The duke helps with deepstriking. scourge with haywire blasters is potentially lethal. Haywire grenades on trueborn/wyches also devastating.

No, what my "sweeping bold statement" is that "Dark eldar are not as strong as BA/SW" which people seem to counter with "Well they can beat IG/Nids, and they are good if you know how to use them" which really holds no real relevance... its not too early to tell how they don't stack up mathematically, its not my problem that 'someone with a blog' hasn't run the numbers yet...

Laosiamus wrote:
Ultimately you are entitled to your own opinion but I think the DE were semi competitive before and they just got better. Ive won or placed in several tourneys and I never MSUed Dark lances. So if I could do it before, it can be done now only even better

Semi-competitive =/= Competitive.

And again, its not opinion, its fact (at this point) as no evidence has been provided to the contrary...

My Opinion is that "The Dark Eldar look to be a very fun army that will lead you to victory against most opponents (especially locally) I see myself enjoying them greatly. However, as far as I have seen, the evidence and the math(fact) supports that they are not as competitive in the meta as I would have hoped to seeing as how the writer of the most competitive codexes, also wrote this book. Buyer beware, if you are a WAAC tourny player hoping to score big on the competitive circuit, but don't like the way BA/SW look (AKA Power armor) these guys are not at the level rumor speculated them to be at."

Is that better?

my statement about the DE being semi competitive was in regards to the old 3ed codex. I am interested to see this math that makes them not competitive if you dont mind

I still like my story of having my Archon and court swept off the board turn two by Mephiston, failing to assalut a DC squad with wychs the same turn, having lost my 6 jet bikes as well, and still winning the game 11-10 in turn 5.

Yeah the dex is weak as wet paper, but somehow it it has powerhouse units everywhere, hurdy dur dur.

Skarboy wrote:
I would expect that you will see several DE armies finding success at competitive tournaments throughout the coming year and it won't just be the same Raider/Lance spam armies of the last 10+ years. Those that are disappointed/underwhelmed need to look deeper. If you're expecting it to slap you in the face, you're missing the entire point of the codex. I've been reading a leaked codex for a couple weeks and have a couple dozen lists built around different concepts that use pretty much every unit in the book in some fashion or another. There is, flat out, no codex that I will fear and only a handful of builds that I will even sweat. Yes, IMO, they are THAT good if you can make them work.

OK, lets see your thoughts because I am beggared if I can see a good way through. Far as I can see the main point of this Codex is to scrub the shooty DE option (one o the few that could still smack tanks an Smurfs) and try and force you to take a high priced S3 T3 army into combat.

I've played these boyos for years, and also play Eldar, CSM, SM, IG and Orks. This reminds me of the last Eldar and CSM lists when you sort of read it through and then know, with a sinking feeling, that its largely overpriced and/or cr*p and you are back to making an army out of about 4 half decent troops types.

The Codex has lots of toys for the dreamers and fluffheads to field, but if you are looking for a relly competitive outfit, its far harder now as they are on average quite a bit more expensive for what they do. In other words you now have to choose to get a paper tiger - bites as well as it ever did, but has no staying power, or a rubber shark - lots of cheap stuff to hanfg around, and hope you can gum your opponent to death.-

IMO it's no accident that the GW battlefield is going armoured, as many of the latest Codii have taken away decent, low cost heavy weapons AT from the armies.

I'm just going to throw this in here. Quoted from earlier in the thread, not the most powerful list by any means but still shows the potential threat of Dark Eldar.

Tzeentchling9 wrote:

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:
Care to give an example of a list(from the new codex) that would fear only a handful of builds?

Haemonculi w/Liquifier Gun, Venom Blade, and Vexator Mask 75
Haemonculi w/Liquifier Gun and Vexator Mask 70

5xTruborn
3xBlasters, Venom with Additional Splinter Cannon
170 Points

5xTruborn
3xBlasters, Venom with Additional Splinter Cannon
170 Points

5xTruborn
2xBlasters, Venom with Additional Splinter Cannon
155 Points

5xWarriors
Blaster, Sybrarite w/Blast Pistol, Venom with Additional Splinter Cannon
150 Points

5xWarriors
Blaster, Sybrarite w/Blast Pistol, Venom with Additional Splinter Cannon
150 Points

5xWarriors
Blaster, Sybrarite w/Blast Pistol, Venom with Additional Splinter Cannon
150 Points

5xWarriors
Blaster, Sybrarite w/Blast Pistol, Venom with Additional Splinter Cannon
150 Points

9xWracks
Liquifier Gun, Acothyst w/Agonizer, Raider w/Flickerfield, Grisly Trophies, and Dark Lance
205 Points

9xWracks
Liquifier Gun, Acothyst w/Agonizer, Raider w/Flickerfield, Grisly Trophies, and Dark Lance
205 Points

Ravager w/Flickerfield 115

Ravager w/Flickerfield 115

Ravager w/Flickerfield 115

2000 Points

Turn 1, Move up Venoms, Darklances target key anti-tank units.
Turn 2, Remaining tanks get Blastered and disembarked units get Dakkaed away by the Venoms
Turn 3, Wracks clean up the mess

The only real list that gives this trouble is the razorback spam since they carry a lot of heavy weapons and MEQs are not really easy to Dakka-away.

I would also just like to say that I don't believe the (much over-used term) Leafblower army is the biggest threat to Dark Eldar, for one thing, they most certainly have the manouevability to counter it, secondly the Leadblower army in its original and core use, relies on getting the 1st turn.
I'd argue the likes of shooty-wolves to be the biggest threat due to the ability to field lots of heavy weapons (Long Fangs, Razorbacks etc.) and still counter-assault.

I would also suggest that the OP puts forth his reasoning behind the Dark Eldar Codex apparently being weak, so rather than him simply rebuffing everyone elses opinion, we can see his reasoning behind it.
Finally, the Battle Reports forum shows many Dark Eldar armies succeeding, with or without strong builds.

DAR, with all due respect, I think your'e forgetting one thing... Mathhammer (which I do utilize to a degree) cannot possibly take all factors into effect. Terrain, cover, first turn; all these factors (and more) factor into how an army plays.

I believe that DE will be competetive. I believe they will be able to stand up to MEQ, if properly built.

Nope. I admit having never played a single game as DE. Not even with the previous codex. My beliefs are based on what I can read about them and what I know about the game.
It's about more than simple theory and/or math hammer.

I'm hoping everyone who's getting "personal" in here can cut out on the personal attacks. It's immature and unnecessary. Debate the points. Don't insult each other.

Eric

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:Its math, and in a game of dice and statistics, math is relatively useful... Jus' sayin'.

And I'm just saying that, in a 3D game played on a board full of terrain, with dice numbers *well* below anything that can even approach an approximation to a bell curve for your maths to hold any statistical merit at all - math is a lot less useful than you think.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:No, math (and fact) is the only thing that seems "convinced" that when compared side-by-side to its peers in the meta, this dex offers less viable weaponry. You can tell how sharp a sword is without wielding it, ya know...

You have yet to provide any facts. You have a theory, but no facts. Pointed this out to you a number of times, but dont let a lack of objective reason stop you!

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:Congrats, either you played bad players, rolled better then average, or you have this 'magic' list that I 'clearly can't see'. Would it really be so hard to simply display said list?

Given your closed mind, yes. Because trying to argue in this thread is similar to hitting your head against a wall - hard to make an impression.

ANd I really didnt play bad players. Lol. You're funny at times with your bias showing through in every post.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:It's not "doing my work for me", its backing your claim. If you are going to say "My horse is just as fast as anyone else horse, but I don't want to let you see it run cause that would be doing your work for you" your just wasting mine, and everyone else in this thread's, time.

Where are your facts that you keep lauding? Every point you have made in this thread has been debunked.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:No, what my "sweeping bold statement" is that "Dark eldar are not as strong as BA/SW" which people seem to counter with "Well they can beat IG/Nids, and they are good if you know how to use them" which really holds no real relevance... its not too early to tell how they don't stack up mathematically, its not my problem that 'someone with a blog' hasn't run the numbers yet...

And they run rings around SW, turning their expensive toys to bits with all the poison in the world. Missile spam? Gone / heavily reduced in a turn, 3 free pain tokens without too much effort. ASsault cannon spam? Even fast razorbacks find their firelines blocked.

Again: you have NO real world experience, just your own thoughts. Which appear to be heavily biased, as evidenced multiple times in this thread.

If you cant see the good in this dex, which has been pointed out to you a number of times already in this thread, perhaps you should just run BA/SW and wait for DE players to beat face on you.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:Semi-competitive =/= Competitive.

Reading is tech. The poster was talking about the previous codex.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:And again, its not opinion, its fact (at this point) as no evidence has been provided to the contrary...

Wrong. It is your theory that they are not competitive, whihch you ahve yet to back up with any facts or even actual playing experience. Dont confuse the two.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:My Opinion is that "The Dark Eldar look to be a very fun army that will lead you to victory against most opponents (especially locally) I see myself enjoying them greatly. However, as far as I have seen, the evidence and the math(fact) supports that they are not as competitive in the meta as I would have hoped to seeing as how the writer of the most competitive codexes, also wrote this book. Buyer beware, if you are a WAAC tourny player hoping to score big on the competitive circuit, but don't like the way BA/SW look (AKA Power armor) these guys are not at the level rumor speculated them to be at."

Is that better?

In so much as it is an incorrect opinion, yes it is better.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

it is an incorrect opinion

You have just invalidated every post you have ever made ever...

<<Edit>>

As for the math, I'll try to have something posted up by thursday or friday, I have all the hand-written notes, it may just take a little while to format them into an easy-to-read web document. (If anyone has any suggestions, such as google docs etc. that would be awesome!)

~DAR

No, I really havent. I just dont ascribe to the opinion that all opinions are correct. Your low opinion of the competitiveness of the codex certainly isnt.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On a side note: you ignored the part about the maths really not helping in this situation? Your model is too simplistic.

No, I really havent. I just dont ascribe to the opinion that all opinions are correct. Your low opinion of the competitiveness of the codex certainly isnt.

Incorrect opinion is not a great term, but bad opinion is certainly applicable here.

How anyone can already make such a harsh judgment one way or another is beyond me. Especially experienced posters who have been through multiple codex releases. This always happens. People who aren't playing them cry cheese, people who used to play them might cry nerf. The reality is yet to be seen.

I find it hard to believe they will be worse than before. The old dex was able to place and win tournies with a mono build and far less viable options. The new dex has a ton of goodies and nice looking units.

Competitive HQ-check
Competitive Troop choices (the biggest thing)- triple check
Competitive Heavy Support- check
Competitive transports- check (despite a cost increase)

These are the staples to a competitive codex. Dark Eldar has them all.

Perhaps "ill informed, biased, not based in real world" would also be appropriate additions as well.

Applying an overly simplistic model to a complex situation is an invalid way to "prove" a theory. Experiemental evidence, i.e. actually playing the damn game, is a far better method.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

it is an incorrect opinion

You have just invalidated every post you have ever made ever...

<<Edit>>

As for the math, I'll try to have something posted up by thursday or friday, I have all the hand-written notes, it may just take a little while to format them into an easy-to-read web document. (If anyone has any suggestions, such as google docs etc. that would be awesome!)

~DAR

Instead of doing math formulas how about playing a game with them? I'm not saying math theories are bad, but only providing the theory is not good enough. I would try three different builds from the codex and play at least 5-10 games against each of the top lists (IG,SW,BA) and compare them. I'm in the boat that DE are competitive but if you can only just lash out on the other posters providing a theory but no evidence or actual play testing than you really can't say much, but the same can be said for the people in the DE are competitive side.

So everyone instead of arguing over whether or not DE are or are not competitive go out and play some games!

I know nosferatu1001's been playing though it seems Daemon-Archon Ren is relying more solely on the math-hammer.

From watching others play, I'd say the distinction is when DE players play poorly going straight on with little or no strategy it is a D-AR says, but the players I've seen play well with strategy, it goes as Nos says.

DE have the tools to implement strategy and when they do they can defy the face value of their stats.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:DAR - and your entire posts in this thread translates to: I dont see an utter obvious list, and my "numbers" (not actual playtime, theoryhammer. Such a useful tool to condemn a codex as "not competitive") suggest IG would beat it.

Its math, and in a game of dice and statistics, math is relatively useful... Jus' sayin'.

I'm engineer and I love math but math can only go so far. Math-hammer tends only calculates face to face fighting and while that may present something useful it shouldn't be the end of the analysis. Fragile armies like DE rely on more than just stats. They rely so disproporionately on those non stat things relative to less fragile armies that you can't account for that aspect of them with statistics based solely on stats. It isn't just a matter that they need terrain, that they need the ability to safely move out of firing lanes, its that they have the ability to actually do those things quite well. The finesse of DE is about never giving your ability the opportunity to play on their term, by taking advantage of the volume of unconventional attacks that can be unpredictable.

Essentiallly simplistic math hammer doesnt work on edge or extreme cases - it doesnt even get close.

It also doesnt take into account the sheer speed of the army. Yes, yes, 72" guns. Yes, yes 48" width tables and potentially starting 18 inches apart.

Applying an overly simple model to a complex situation = not a proof of anything, not a fact, not even close.

Nos, I think for the sake of fairness it does represent proof of something: the worst case scenario, but there in lies the flaw. All analysis starts with assumptions but the assumptions of math-hammer are inherently stacked against DE and thus only show the worst case scenario.

Fair enough - it proves what happens if you start 72" apart on planet bowling ball, with the DE not using their speed / DS / reserves / et al, and allow guard / SW infinite room to shoot without providing cover or blocking each other.

It proves the simplistic edge case, and has little to do with real life.

Unless it was Great Devourer tourney 2 years ago, when most tables WERE planet bowling ball....

nosferatu1001 wrote:Fair enough - it proves what happens if you start 72" apart on planet bowling ball, with the DE not using their speed / DS / reserves / et al, and allow guard / SW infinite room to shoot without providing cover or blocking each other.

No, it doesn't...

This is how I use Math hammer to determine worth.

(THIS IS A VERY BASIC EXAMPLE TO MERELY SHOW HOW THE BASIC FUNCTION OF HOW I USE "MATHHAMMER" TO DETERMINE WORTH! I WILL PROVIDE A MUCH MORE INDEPTH ANALYSIS IN MY LATER POST)
Lets say you have Grey Hunter

Grey hunter costs 15 points
Grey Hunter has the a stat-line of 4/4/4/4/1/4/1/8/3+ (Total of 20)
Grey hunter comes with
24" str 4 Ap 5 RF (+1 for range weapon)
12" str 4 ap 5 Pistol (+1 for Pistol/ccw)
CCW
Frag/Crack nades (+1 for coming with grenades)
Counter attack (+1 for the bonus attack)
ATSKNF (+1 for LD Special rules)
AS (+0.25 for situational special rule)

Total of 25.25 for 15 points (Before special weapons/upgrades) (E-Score of 1.683~)

Wyches costs 10 points each
stat line 4/4/3/3/1/6/1/8/6+ (Total of 14 not counting save, see "dodge"
CCW
Splinter pistol (+ 1 for pistol/ccw)
Combat drugs (+0.9 from Combat drugs ((this becomes a 1 if Duke is present))
Plasma (+1 for grenades)
Fleet (+1 for movement)
NV (+.25 for situational special rule)
PfP (+ 1.75 for PfP ((this already includes the potential for sticking a haemonculi with them, or having them at 2+ tokens on turn 1))
Dodge 4+ (Average with the armor save gives 1.6 pts)

Total 21.5/10 points each (before special weapons/upgrades) (E-Score of 2.15)

With math here, at face value, you will notice that it would appear that the wyches are more efficient then the Grey hunters, and in all honesty, if you just 10 Grey hunters against 15 wyches, they wyches would probably(literally) stomp their face.

The thing is, when you apply this same math, to the entire dex, and make a list (at least, how I have made them) you don't come near the efficiency scores of the current meta (I think the closest I got was about ~100 away from one of the less successful BA lists from the 'Ard Boyz reports). Thus me asking for lists that I might be missing, that would provide a better score then what I am coming up with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

aka_mythos wrote:Nos, I think for the sake of fairness it does represent proof of something: the worst case scenario, but there in lies the flaw. All analysis starts with assumptions but the assumptions of math-hammer are inherently stacked against DE and thus only show the worst case scenario.

~most likely appended~

Just wanted to include that math(or the E-Score system I'm using) takes into consideration both best and worse case scenario, and averages them out... if you are referring to deployment/board then that falls under the "assumed" standard which would be both players setting up tactically sound deployments on a board with 25% cover (the recommended)