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.

 Kingsley wrote:
"Knowing what's good" is a very high-level skill and most people don't have it.

Really? I think anyone with half a brain can tell the difference between good, useable, and bad units. It doesn't take much skill to see the difference between terminators, tactical marines, and Legion of the Damned.

The types of armies that I frequently see indicate that it's harder than one might think. Further, many people only know what's good because they were convinced by others, who in turn may have been convinced by yet still others. There are also units that look good but aren't, units that look bad but aren't, etc. Actually determining what's good in the absence of other resources is quite challenging for most people.

We are talking about the minute differences and having a deep understanding of the core rules and unit interactions. Having the ability to visualize how they will interact before actual playtesting. That is a skill

I like how people keep talking about units that are no good. but if you look really hard and think now they are good... but yet no one has put a name to those units its always referred to as the "units"

To be honest, the OP has a rather good point about each unit in the codex being worthy of being played. Honestly, the guys that spend their time writing fluff and working on these codexes had a plan, and even though some of us turn our heads to the side in confusion, these units have value. Personally, as a Tyranid player, I have been proxying every single unit from the codex in nice little battles, finding the niches in each monster, and I have to say, all of them have incredible value that wouldn't of been discovered if I hadn't tested them. I of course mean my beloved ripper swarms and all their neglected big brothers. Cute little devils. Sure, you always have those dependables that make up your competetive lists, but there is nothing wrong with having all those fun games made up of units you wouldn't bring to utterly stomp your opponent. If you keeping jumping up and down, tearing your hair out because you just can't figure out how you should be using the unit, try again and again until you do. Also, buy hair implants. I would say to each person, as a personal challenge, Take every single unit you would never play with in your codex because it is not the best, and make an army out of them. Have your buddy do the same with his codex, and watch the entertainment. You'll be surprised how quick you start to see how they should be played.

 Kingsley wrote:
The existence of this thread and the serious debate about whether Vendettas (IMO an objectively great unit) are worth it is evidence that there is not the kind of consensus and knowledge that you claim.

Consensus doesn't mean 100% agreement. You can still have 90% agreement on something among skilled players, but have plenty of threads arguing about it with newbies or bad players claiming otherwise. And that's exactly what we have here: there's strong consensus that the Vendetta is a powerful unit, and the only real disagreement is about whether it's overpowered, or just at the upper limit of what is acceptable. While it's theoretically possible that all of these people arguing and playtesting over and over again have all made a mistake, the more likely explanation is that the person arguing that the Vendetta is weak is just wrong.

and even in those games, advanced players often develop builds with unexpected techniques long after the metagame has been largely hashed out.

That's not really true at all. Those metagame shifts involve one (or both) of two things:

1) A card that was originally judged to be good, but only if the right deck shows up to make use of it, finds that necessary other component to make it work. These aren't draft commons or casual gamer cards that are suddenly getting a complete re-evaluation, they're cards that everyone saw and recognized as potentially useful tools, but didn't have an immediate use for. For example, lightning bolt is obviously powerful, but if there aren't many other good red cards in the format then it isn't going to be played. But when the next set includes a good base of red cards and suddenly lightning bolts are everywhere nobody is surprised, because they already knew the potential.

or

2) The metagame shifts and card values change. Again, these aren't terrible cards that are suddenly becoming awesome, they're second-tier stuff moving up to top-tier. For example, there could be a powerful graveyard-based deck that can't win effectively because anti-graveyard cards are common in the metagame. But then someone figures out a new "best deck", everyone reacts to counter it and the anti-graveyard cards go away, and suddenly the graveyard deck rises in power again.

In both cases the common theme is that very soon after the set is released competitive players quickly reach a pretty solid consensus about which cards are powerful, which have potential, and which are junk. There's still plenty of disagreement about the fine points of which cards and decks are the absolute best, but you aren't going to see top players arguing about whether a card is complete garbage or a pro tour winner.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unyielding Hunger wrote:
Sure, you always have those dependables that make up your competetive lists, but there is nothing wrong with having all those fun games made up of units you wouldn't bring to utterly stomp your opponent.

The problem is that "fun" is a subjective concept, unlike winning. Everyone has their own definition of what is fun, so arguing that trying every unit in the codex can be fun isn't even close to the same thing as proving that all of them can be useful for winning.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:
The existence of this thread and the serious debate about whether Vendettas (IMO an objectively great unit) are worth it is evidence that there is not the kind of consensus and knowledge that you claim.

Consensus doesn't mean 100% agreement. You can still have 90% agreement on something among skilled players, but have plenty of threads arguing about it with newbies or bad players claiming otherwise. And that's exactly what we have here: there's strong consensus that the Vendetta is a powerful unit, and the only real disagreement is about whether it's overpowered, or just at the upper limit of what is acceptable. While it's theoretically possible that all of these people arguing and playtesting over and over again have all made a mistake, the more likely explanation is that the person arguing that the Vendetta is weak is just wrong.

Right, but a new player, not knowing who to listen to and who not to, could easily be misled. In Magic good decklists are pretty easily obtainable. In 40k, not so much.

 Peregrine wrote:

and even in those games, advanced players often develop builds with unexpected techniques long after the metagame has been largely hashed out.

That's not really true at all...

In both cases the common theme is that very soon after the set is released competitive players quickly reach a pretty solid consensus about which cards are powerful, which have potential, and which are junk. There's still plenty of disagreement about the fine points of which cards and decks are the absolute best, but you aren't going to see top players arguing about whether a card is complete garbage or a pro tour winner.

I'm less familiar with Magic, but in Starcraft this sort of thing is not particularly uncommon. In original Starcraft the Reaver was considered mediocre until Zileas invented Reaver drops, at which point it was nigh-universally agreed to be broken (and indeed got nerfed several times in a row). In Starcraft II beta, Siege Tanks were initially considered too expensive to be worth building, but then people realized that they were actually quite powerful and they had to be nerfed repeatedly once proper tactics for using them were known. It's not that uncommon for a build or tactic used at a high level by pro gamers to suddenly become popular across the game, as with TLO's 1/1/1 build.

That said, Starcraft has two big advantages over 40k. First, the community is much larger. Second, games are much more quickly resolved. Third, people just aren't as competitive-- 40k is a hobby, not a sport, and there isn't money on the line like their is with Magic or Starcraft? How many people play dozens of test games of 40k prior to attending major tournaments (focused test games, not just "games with the appropriate list")? I suspect the number is less than one hundred. Magic or Starcraft players are much more sophisticated in this respect.

 Kingsley wrote:
Right, but a new player, not knowing who to listen to and who not to, could easily be misled. In Magic good decklists are pretty easily obtainable. In 40k, not so much.

We aren't talking about newbies here. The OP was confident enough in their knowledge of the game to make a nice long post telling us how we're all wrong.

I'm less familiar with Magic, but in Starcraft this sort of thing is not particularly uncommon.

Yeah, I have no idea about Starcraft, since I absolutely despise it. But in MTG new sets are analyzed pretty quickly and "new" deck ideas are most frequently based around stuff everyone knew had potential and was just waiting for someone to figure out how to make it work and/or a change in the game/metagame that gave it an opportunity, not consensus garbage cards that turned out to be powerful despite everyone agreeing initially that they sucked*.


*This excludes cases where the card DID suck at the time, and some later card interacted with it well and made it powerful, since it's a game change and new circumstances, not the initial judgement being wrong.

That said, Starcraft has two big advantages over 40k. First, the community is much larger. Second, games are much more quickly resolved. Third, people just aren't as competitive-- 40k is a hobby, not a sport, and there isn't money on the line like their is with Magic or Starcraft? How many people play dozens of test games of 40k prior to attending major tournaments (focused test games, not just "games with the appropriate list")? I suspect the number is less than one hundred. Magic or Starcraft players are much more sophisticated in this respect.

Sure, but we're not talking about fine-tuning the difference between, say, whether it's better to take a LR Demolisher or LR Executioner to support an infantry-heavy IG army. We're talking about units that are safely on the "weak" end of the power scale, that people have analyzed and tested and found to be lacking.

 Peregrine wrote:

 CKO wrote:
I am not saying take the bad unit and make it work I am saying take the average unit or the units that might be overlooked and see if it has potential.

That might have been a good policy back in 1990. Now that we have the internet and dozens of forums/blogs/etc within a week of a new codex being released it's been analyzed in detail and all of the good and bad units have been identified. ?

To turn your own statement on to you.

This is an absurd thing to say. Look back to Alex Fennels Necron army from last years Adepticon where he won consistently with Necron units the Internet said were no good. In fact it would be Alex Fennels Necrons that prove parts of the OP's modified claim that consensus average units can be manipulated and perform well championship caliber army list.

I get the feeling that the Internet echo chamber has little effect on the evolution of tactics and army lists. It allows people to copy and paste from the loudest voices, but innovation occurs on the fringe and is only brought to light infrequently. Even then it can be dismissed or even forgotten, as in the case of Alex's Necrons.

Greg Sparks walking Eldar are another example of this. Here's a list from 5th that abdicated almost all vehicles for Wraithguard and Dire Avengers on foot! A pariah according to the Internet echo chamber yet a consistent top performer at Cons and a winner at the ETC for several years.

Oh most certainly there's plenty of units that either through cost or being forgotten / ignored that are good.
But there are also things that stand out above the rest, and others that are quite obviously, terrible.

Personally, I'm going to have things like Dark Reapers in my Eldar, I use Grotesques regularly, and I enjoy using large numbers of Fire Warriors.

Kingsley wrote:The types of armies that I frequently see indicate that it's harder than one might think.

Actually the more likely reality is that the types of armies you see frequently indicate that players in your area find it hard to determine what's good, not people everywhere. If you made the point on somewhere like Warseer it might stand, but I find at least half of the people that I see posting on Dakka know what they are talking about and know the game very well including what makes a competitive list.

DarthDiggler wrote:
Look back to Alex Fennels Necron army from last years Adepticon where he won consistently with Necron units the Internet said were no good. In fact it would be Alex Fennels Necrons that prove parts of the OP's modified claim that consensus average units can be manipulated and perform well championship caliber army list.

Ever hear of the exception that proves the rule? The argument that because a handful of people can achieve this makes it valid is flawed, as they are still a minority. In a game with so many dice, it takes incredible skill to excel past the bar to the point where you can field whatever you want and still consistently perform. And nobody has denied that these players exist. But they are still few and far between and their presence doesn't mean that every player should be able to play like they do.

It should be noted also that performing consistently well within the one tournament doesn't say much either, as their performance is dependant on match-up, dice, and what the other players were using. In an event as large as Adepticon it is quit easy to face sub-par lists even on the higher tables, due to the high attendance rating.

Ovion wrote:Personally, I'm going to have things like Dark Reapers in my Eldar, I use Grotesques regularly, and I enjoy using large numbers of Fire Warriors.

Not sure what point you are trying to make here given that Dark Reapers and Fire Warriors are pretty good within their respective armies (and Fire Warriors are Troops so essential also).

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:

Ovion wrote:Personally, I'm going to have things like Dark Reapers in my Eldar, I use Grotesques regularly, and I enjoy using large numbers of Fire Warriors.

Not sure what point you are trying to make here given that Dark Reapers and Fire Warriors are pretty good within their respective armies (and Fire Warriors are Troops so essential also).

I constantly see Firewarriors badmouthed as terrible. Slightly less in 6th, but it's the same complaints - They're fragile, they're slow, they can't hit things, and you should generally take the minimum required and max out on suits and broadsides, blablabla.

As for Dark Reapers - every time I mentioned them I've been told how they're expensive, outclassed by pretty much every other Eldar HS option and I shouldn't take them.
Just my experience.

 Ovion wrote:

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:

Ovion wrote:Personally, I'm going to have things like Dark Reapers in my Eldar, I use Grotesques regularly, and I enjoy using large numbers of Fire Warriors.

Not sure what point you are trying to make here given that Dark Reapers and Fire Warriors are pretty good within their respective armies (and Fire Warriors are Troops so essential also).

I constantly see Firewarriors badmouthed as terrible. Slightly less in 6th, but it's the same complaints - They're fragile, they're slow, they can't hit things, and you should generally take the minimum required and max out on suits and broadsides, blablabla.

As for Dark Reapers - every time I mentioned them I've been told how they're expensive, outclassed by pretty much every other Eldar HS option and I shouldn't take them.
Just my experience.

Taking minimum Troops is always a bad decision IMO. And I think Fire Warriors aren't that bad; they aren't extraordinary but mass S5 shooting cannot be scoffed at, even at BS3. Yes take as many suits as you can, but without gimping yourself for objectives.

As for Reapers, they are outclassed by War Walkers, but that doesn't make them bad. The game is all about infantry now, and Marines are still prevalent, and they just happen to kill Marines well. I've seen them used to good effect with the right list at tournaments a few times now.

HERETIC!!! How dare you lump Phil Kelly and he-who-must-not-be-allowed-to-defile-another-codex-by-smurf-worship in the same mold? Sure, they both work for Games Workshop but even you must have seen the difference in quality between the Smurfs and the DE!?!

Anyway, back to topic. Every general has their preferences. Some prefer out right infantry with few vehicles. Others (insert General Patton) are exceptionally good with tank warfare. Its up to the player to find the army who's fluff suits him best and then find the right unit combinations to excel in said army's deployment.

It all comes down to style and dice rolls anyway.

 CIAbugguy wrote:
I like how people keep talking about units that are no good. but if you look really hard and think now they are good... but yet no one has put a name to those units its always referred to as the "units"

Storm Troopers. The Internet wisdom in 5th was "hurr durr they suck Vets are better!!!11!!". Then the Internet stopped being silly and realised they aren't the same and perform different roles.

enooNaMI wrote:
HERETIC!!! How dare you lump Phil Kelly and he-who-must-not-be-allowed-to-defile-another-codex-by-smurf-worship in the same mold? Sure, they both work for Games Workshop but even you must have seen the difference in quality between the Smurfs and the DE!?!

One is a Codex with pretty good internal balance that has aged well, the other has a lot of pointless filler units, hasn't aged well despite being half as old than the other and gave rise to one of the most dull lists ever. You're right though, DE shouldn't be compared to C:SM.