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.

FenixZero wrote:

 Gangrel767 wrote:
Arc of Sight #4 on pg 72 in the BRB. 360 degree on a turret-mounted weapon

Considering that the neck isn't long enough to go completely around some parts of the body, this is a terrible decision on the part of GW.

I think it has more to do with the Dragon Breathing flames as it moves across the battlefield. At least, that's how I visualize it.

 Sasori wrote:

I think it has more to do with the Dragon Breathing flames as it moves across the battlefield. At least, that's how I visualize it.

It's also a deamonically infused machine, so it would have more control over it's body and allow it to twist to give the head a better angle of fire.

The thing has Hover and the only means of flight would be it's rear mounted jets or flapping it's wings. A LOT of imagination is needed with this thing.

 Che-Vito wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Wait, so a unit isn't worth it if it can't get its whole points cost back in one shot? That's pretty insane TBH.

Killing 6 Ork Boyz per turn for 5 turns will earn it's points cost back. Killing an entire mob over 5 turns will make it's VP back.
That's not awful at killing hordes, nor is it terribly effective.

once the boys get in combat they cant be shot. Its not like fearless mobz of Orkz want to get into combat is it?

Ouch. back to topic.

This game is a lot like rock-paper-scissors.

As Dark Angels player, when fielding Greenwing I could be scared of a helldrake with baleflamer... but when fielding all-terminator Deathwing... I laugh at it.

Never Ever expect your army to be invincible against all kinds of enemies. Never Ever claim that you can deal with all threats.

Last time I played with just one Terminator squad, a game before I had 4 of them.
Generally it seems to be good idea to play different style army each time. When they can't predict what you'll field, it'll be harder for them to make list that's gonna kill you.

Wow this thread has generated a lot of interest. I'd say I must have hit a nerve.

Many units in the game are powerful and even unbalanced, but can be countered. A good player can defeat a newb killer list with little difficulty. Players who spam these over powered units just to win are not good players. It has been my experience that players who design their armies around some loophole, or trick are not good losers nor gracious winners. They are not strategic players, but rather pin their hopes on the effectiveness of one unit.
I like to take that factor out of the game and play two equal armies against each other. That way you are playing against your opponent and it is your wit that wins you the game. It is your mistake that loses the game. No one can take away my wins by saying "if you didn't have unit x, you would have lost." In fact I enjoy a victory when I win with basic troops in spite of everyone's expectations.

To those who think that is not competitive I ask you this; who is the better player? Someone who wins with a standard list or someone who runs a dual force org list just so they can field six Helldrakes?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

maciek wrote:
Ouch. back to topic.

This game is a lot like rock-paper-scissors.

Lol! Rock, paper, scissors, lizard, Spock...

 Sasori wrote:

FenixZero wrote:

 Gangrel767 wrote:
Arc of Sight #4 on pg 72 in the BRB. 360 degree on a turret-mounted weapon

Considering that the neck isn't long enough to go completely around some parts of the body, this is a terrible decision on the part of GW.

I think it has more to do with the Dragon Breathing flames as it moves across the battlefield. At least, that's how I visualize it.

^^ This. I think it's more of a "what it was doing while it was moving thing." Granted, nothing else has been given that benefit, but it definitely has a, shall we say, cinematic, feel .


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 scuddman wrote:
I don't agree at all. It's good if you have money, and can afford to ally. You want to do a themed list? You just have some basic stuff? You can't hang, the end. You just said so yourself...sad times for MEQ...so ally or change your list or GTFO. Tournament runners? Sure, they always ran to the next best thing anyways. Not everybody has the luxury of doing that.

Did your 5th edition list really spam MeQ without mech, or TeQ? Even if it did, do you really think you have to change your entire list to be competitive? I mean, I could see tweaking a little bit with a new unit or two, but in my experience having a list you are comfortable with and know well >>>>>>>having a list that cherrie picks the latest internet hot sauce.

Oh and finally, you still are going to be really strong against a lot of armies out there (unless you weren't previously). Personally, ideally, I think in a tournament every army should have a possible bad match up, and ultimately probably does. Best Gen should end up in the hands of the person that could minimize the impact of that bad matchup, and maximize his good matchups. You really think Tony hasn't faced one bad matchup for his SW (or SW/IG) in three years? Of course he has... he just knows how to adapt his strategy on the fly to close inefficiency gaps. It's what separates list builders/die rollers from good field generals.

I remember reading something, I can't remember what or who it was but It was in response to a jerk saying how he was mad that a guy had a noob killer list so he beat that guy then a kid who watched the match came back 10 minutes later with a tailored list and beat this guy. And he was complaining about how poor the etiquette was...IT WAS A KID. The responder went on to say something along the lines of "if you think his army is OP try switching armies for a match and how he would play against his own army." Of course if you're the touchy kind so be it just don't rub it in people's faces. And if you ever do switch armies I would suggest you handle your own models

Just my 2 cents

 StormK wrote:
Maybe, but GW has lots of special characters and units that are overpowered and unbalancing. Like the kid in the arcade who wins because he is a button-masher and knows one unblockable move, playing against these units is aggravating and takes the game from fun to enfuriating. I don't want my opponent to be frustrated as he watches helplessly as I rip through his defenses because I have a unit for whom the rules do not apply.

That's the game man... I damn near laugh everytime I see a CSM player pay out the points to have Abaddon on the table. Sure he's broke as hell and can chew through litterally anything else on the table in a given turn... but when youl look at how many points it cost them to play that model they are loosing out in the long run. Same goes for the Helldrakes. They are kind of a one-trick-pony for CSM. I've got one on the sidebar for my Nurgle Army that I have yet to even put on the table. Having everything in my list running T5 lets me basically ignore my buddy's Drake.

I run Typhus, and 2 squads of 5 Palgue Marines with 2 Plasma guns per.
(unrelated, the box of "Plague Marines" in finecast is a massive waste of money since you can buy a squad of CSM and the FW Conversion for Deathgaurd and make two 5 man squads out of that... oh, and then you have wargear options)

Anyway, T5 doesn't exaclty laugh at the drake, but it keeps it from cooking as much stuff as it othwise would, and when you combine that with FNP it gives you a lot more staying power.


I got some excellent advice from another thread here that I'll be trying out using my Nephilim Jetfighter to explore, so I can't really say much for the Space Marines until I've given that a try.

The only army that's really going to have a tough time agianst the Drake is the Eldar... and they have a hard time against almost everything so... not really news there.

My advice to you is to just let your enemy sink his points into Fast Attack options and spend yours on better things like Land Raiders or Terminators that can basically ignore them

Below is a report (with pictures) of my Dark Eldar army beating a Triple Helldrake list without running a single dedicated anti air unit. The new helldrake turret feature and cover ignoring vector strikes are brutal I have to admit that, but it's far from unbeatable.

BR19: The Black Buzzards VS CSM Triple Helldrake - 1500pts

 StormK wrote:

To those who think that is not competitive I ask you this; who is the better player? Someone who wins with a standard list or someone who runs a dual force org list just so they can field six Helldrakes?

Since we haven't got all of the data (enemy list, enemy skill level, etc.) we don't know. Simply taking Heldrakes does not make one a bad player, as you seem to be implying. Keep insulting people though, I'm sure it'll create a lovely atmosphere of understanding and discussion.

That's the game man... I damn near laugh everytime I see a CSM player pay out the points to have Abaddon on the table. Sure he's broke as hell and can chew through litterally anything else on the table in a given turn... but when youl look at how many points it cost them to play that model they are loosing out in the long run. Same goes for the Helldrakes. They are kind of a one-trick-pony for CSM. I've got one on the sidebar for my Nurgle Army that I have yet to even put on the table. Having everything in my list running T5 lets me basically ignore my buddy's Drake.

I run Typhus, and 2 squads of 5 Palgue Marines with 2 Plasma guns per.
(unrelated, the box of "Plague Marines" in finecast is a massive waste of money since you can buy a squad of CSM and the FW Conversion for Deathgaurd and make two 5 man squads out of that... oh, and then you have wargear options)

Anyway, T5 doesn't exaclty laugh at the drake, but it keeps it from cooking as much stuff as it othwise would, and when you combine that with FNP it gives you a lot more staying power.

The only army that's really going to have a tough time agianst the Drake is the Eldar... and they have a hard time against almost everything so... not really news there.

I have always played an exclusively Khorne army. 5th edition kinda forced me to play vanilla marines which made me a better player, then with 6th Ed I started adding some Nurgle to my Khorne with good results.
I guess the real reason I don't play named characters and stuff is that I can write better characters myself and have more fun creating my own fluff than following established GW stories.
Even if there were an interesting character, the model usually looks dumb. Like Abbadon; how do you shave your head and still have enough hair for a pony-tail?
When I heard Chaos was getting a flier I was initially excited, but when I saw the model I lost all interest. I had imagined something like a mechanical terrorghast not a backwards hell talon.

BTW my friend who is the best player in our group uses an all Eldar army to wipe the floor with the "big scary" armies. I've seen him play his all-comer list against everything out there. He usually makes his opponents cry. Even me. But he's so polite you can't stay mad at him and he didn't in with cheese so you have to admit he outsmarted you.

(Scott, if you're reading this, I am plotting my revenge. Muoa-hahahaHA!!!)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mushkilla wrote:
Below is a report (with pictures) of my Dark Eldar army beating a Triple Helldrake list without running a single dedicated anti air unit. The new helldrake turret feature and cover ignoring vector strikes are brutal I have to admit that, but it's far from unbeatable.

BR19: The Black Buzzards VS CSM Triple Helldrake - 1500pts

Great battle report! That is a great example of skilled play beating cheese. Also great tip about using the board edge to your advantage. Dark Eldar takes skill to use. I tip my hat to you sir!

 StormK wrote:

That's the game man... I damn near laugh everytime I see a CSM player pay out the points to have Abaddon on the table. Sure he's broke as hell and can chew through litterally anything else on the table in a given turn... but when youl look at how many points it cost them to play that model they are loosing out in the long run. Same goes for the Helldrakes. They are kind of a one-trick-pony for CSM. I've got one on the sidebar for my Nurgle Army that I have yet to even put on the table. Having everything in my list running T5 lets me basically ignore my buddy's Drake.

I run Typhus, and 2 squads of 5 Palgue Marines with 2 Plasma guns per.
(unrelated, the box of "Plague Marines" in finecast is a massive waste of money since you can buy a squad of CSM and the FW Conversion for Deathgaurd and make two 5 man squads out of that... oh, and then you have wargear options)

Anyway, T5 doesn't exaclty laugh at the drake, but it keeps it from cooking as much stuff as it othwise would, and when you combine that with FNP it gives you a lot more staying power.

The only army that's really going to have a tough time agianst the Drake is the Eldar... and they have a hard time against almost everything so... not really news there.

I have always played an exclusively Khorne army. 5th edition kinda forced me to play vanilla marines which made me a better player, then with 6th Ed I started adding some Nurgle to my Khorne with good results.
I guess the real reason I don't play named characters and stuff is that I can write better characters myself and have more fun creating my own fluff than following established GW stories.
Even if there were an interesting character, the model usually looks dumb. Like Abbadon; how do you shave your head and still have enough hair for a pony-tail?
When I heard Chaos was getting a flier I was initially excited, but when I saw the model I lost all interest. I had imagined something like a mechanical terrorghast not a backwards hell talon.

BTW my friend who is the best player in our group uses an all Eldar army to wipe the floor with the "big scary" armies. I've seen him play his all-comer list against everything out there. He usually makes his opponents cry. Even me. But he's so polite you can't stay mad at him and he didn't in with cheese so you have to admit he outsmarted you.

(Scott, if you're reading this, I am plotting my revenge. Muoa-hahahaHA!!!)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mushkilla wrote:
Below is a report (with pictures) of my Dark Eldar army beating a Triple Helldrake list without running a single dedicated anti air unit. The new helldrake turret feature and cover ignoring vector strikes are brutal I have to admit that, but it's far from unbeatable.

BR19: The Black Buzzards VS CSM Triple Helldrake - 1500pts

Great battle report! That is a great example of skilled play beating cheese. Also great tip about using the board edge to your advantage. Dark Eldar takes skill to use. I tip my hat to you sir!

Listen here son,

Cheese is not spamming effective units out of your codex.

Cheese is abusing vagaries in the codex to gain an unfair advantage over your opponent.

Cheese really was rampant in 2nd ed. where you would field 20 space wolf terms with assault cannons and cyclone missile launchers, (Damn you Gav Thorpe) Or apothecary armies. Or crack, fast shotting Swoopin Hawk/Warp Spider exarchs w/ vortex grenades...

In the age of auto updated electronic codices, fairly regular FAQ updates, and generally better rules and codex writing I don't see too many cheese armies that do not have fatal flaws built into them. That doesn't mean that their are not stronger codices than others but its really hard to build a "cheese" list

3x Helldrakes is potent, but probably overkill, doesnt come on till turn 2 or later. Its one of the only truly points efficient choices in the codex. It suffers from FOC issues because two of the better choices share the same FOC slot. So if your opponent bring 3x Drakes, you know he probably will not be able close in melee with you. If you brought some mech and 2+ saves, the drake becomes even worse.

Helldrakes are really good, fast, deadly to a specific type of opponent. They do not have the versatility to be considered even close to a cheese army. End of story.

If I were a CSM player, I would be wary of bringing triple baleflamers because any kind of Vendetta spam, spam being 3 or more, will wreck that and then likely wreck my list.

I no longer understand the point of this thread; page 3 was pretty much the end lol

 StormK wrote:
Wow this thread has generated a lot of interest. I'd say I must have hit a nerve.

Many units in the game are powerful and even unbalanced, but can be countered. A good player can defeat a newb killer list with little difficulty. Players who spam these over powered units just to win are not good players. It has been my experience that players who design their armies around some loophole, or trick are not good losers nor gracious winners. They are not strategic players, but rather pin their hopes on the effectiveness of one unit.
I like to take that factor out of the game and play two equal armies against each other. That way you are playing against your opponent and it is your wit that wins you the game. It is your mistake that loses the game. No one can take away my wins by saying "if you didn't have unit x, you would have lost." In fact I enjoy a victory when I win with basic troops in spite of everyone's expectations.

To those who think that is not competitive I ask you this; who is the better player? Someone who wins with a standard list or someone who runs a dual force org list just so they can field six Helldrakes?

What a staggering amount of stereotyping, assumption, and generalization.

If the best player in the world fielded 3 Heldrakes and Tzeentch Flamers, then by your definition they would not be even a good player. Nor would they use strategy.

The best player isn't someone who can do well while bringing poor tools. It's the man who brings the best tools that knows how best to use them.

To those who think that is not competitive I ask you this; who is the better player? Someone who wins with a standard list or someone who runs a dual force org list just so they can field six Helldrakes?

Its impossible to accurately assess player skill given such a narrow range of information.

< Taken by the void dragon. >

omerakk wrote:
I no longer understand the point of this thread; page 3 was pretty much the end lol

Loyalist Marine players are whiners.

~duck~

Played a game today. I generally use two 'drakes at 1750 but this game I brought one at 1500. He was gone turn two against guard/sw allied force. Uwas not expecy=ting allies at 1500 but, meh, it is what it is. My list was ...

HQ: Chaos Lord; Mark of Slaanesh; Steed of Slaanesh; Sigil of Corruption; Lightning Claw; Burning Brand of Skalathrax 170 (joins oblits)
Troops: 5x 5 Noise Marines; Blastmaster 625
Troops: 20 Chaos Cultists; Heavy Stubber 95 (front my NMs)
Fast Attack; 1 Heldrake; Baleflamer 170
Heavy Support: 3 Obliterators 210 (outflank with lord)
Heavy Support: 2x 5 Havocs; 4 Autocannons 230

My opponent had two Vendettas which IMHO are better by far than heldrakes. He also had prescienced long fangs. And a Rifleman. Not=with=standing, I usually fare better but my opponent got his reserve rolls ( he had the right ccs to delay me - and I did not have a stellar game - I made a few mistakes which he jumped all over).

Even had we played at 1750, he would have added a third vendetta to my extra drake. Now my list generally works quite well. The outflanking lord tends to get my opponent to bunch centrally where i can do the maximum damage with baleflamers and blastmasters. This didn't go well against him. I'm not the best player at my LGS but I'm not a bad player either. So adding 'drakes hardly is an auto-win.

Now I've been told my 1750 list is cheesy. It just is not true. Noise Marines and Baleflanmers are good but hardly unbeatable by the top lists. IG, SW, GK, Necrons all have the resources to compete against them.

And as a final note - I rarely see good generals with bad lists. The notion that a good player can win with a sub-par list is flawed. He will only beat bad players.

Yeah SW+IG seems to be the bees knees for some reason.

The Vendettas took ut a third of my army ... heldrake, three oblits and a lord.

BronzeJon wrote:
Yeah SW+IG seems to be the bees knees for some reason.

Some reason = Cheap scoring bodies, tanks, flyers and orders + Divination, psyker defense, flexible heavy infantry.

I know I'm more impressed by people who win big tournaments with tau or eldar or Black Templars than I am by someone who uses net-list-of-the-month.

 PipeAlley wrote:

omerakk wrote:
I no longer understand the point of this thread; page 3 was pretty much the end lol

Loyalist Marine players are whiners.

~duck~

True. So are Chaos Marine players, Eldar players, Chaos Daemons players, Tyranid players and pretty much anyone else. The only players I usually don't see whining about stuff is the Ork players, which is pretty understandable considering how solid their Codex is, even two editions after it was released.

 Che-Vito wrote:

CaptainGrey wrote:
Its impossible to accurately assess player skill given such a narrow range of information.

It's impossible to accurately assess player skill given a game of chance.

That's not true. There are still clear-cut better players. What you can't do is:

>Assess player skill based on the outcome of games/events
>Assess the likely outcome of games/events based on player skill

Player skill can be defined as the player's talent at list-building, target priority, movement choices, and overall strategic thinking.

 StormK wrote:
Great battle report! That is a great example of skilled play beating cheese. Also great tip about using the board edge to your advantage. Dark Eldar takes skill to use. I tip my hat to you sir!

Thanks. Though to be fair I can imagine it's easier to beat a helldrake list with Dark Eldar than with vanilla marines. The Baleflamer is most efficient against those T4 3+ save models, and marine armies often lack the mobility to avoid the drakes, making it an uphill struggle for sure. Not to mention the vector strike transport into daemonforge baleflamer combo is absolutely lethal against mechanised marines.

 CaptainGrey wrote:

Player skill can be defined as the player's talent at list-building, target priority, movement choices, and overall strategic thinking.

It's a shame the internet seems entirely focus on the least important of those four concepts: List building. Lists are a very personal thing and what works for some people doesn't always work for others. You can use the same list that won NOVA but without a solid grounding in strategy and tactics it won't do you much good.

Seriously the internet just gives people lists, but it should really teach people core tactics, strategy and list design concepts. That way people would have the skill set to make the right list for them. Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

I'd definitely rather read about, or watch someone who is, in my mind actually 'good' at the game. Not someone who is good at taking advantage of Games Workshops incompetence / lack of caring about game balance.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 PipeAlley wrote:

omerakk wrote:
I no longer understand the point of this thread; page 3 was pretty much the end lol

Loyalist Marine players are whiners.

~duck~

True. So are Chaos Marine players, Eldar players, Chaos Daemons players, Tyranid players and pretty much anyone else. The only players I usually don't see whining about stuff is the Ork players, which is pretty understandable considering how solid their Codex is, even two editions after it was released.

Ork players dont have to whine because orks always win.

 Mushkilla wrote:

Seriously the internet just gives people lists, but it should really teach people core tactics, strategy and list design concepts. That way people would have the skill set to make the right list for them. Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

Giving him the fish is easier, though.

< Taken by the void dragon. >

 Che-Vito wrote:

 CaptainGrey wrote:

 Che-Vito wrote:

CaptainGrey wrote:
Its impossible to accurately assess player skill given such a narrow range of information.

It's impossible to accurately assess player skill given a game of chance.

That's not true. There are still clear-cut better players. What you can't do is:

>Assess player skill based on the outcome of games/events
>Assess the likely outcome of games/events based on player skill

Player skill can be defined as the player's talent at list-building, target priority, movement choices, and overall strategic thinking.

Did you ignore the rest of that post? I said exactly what you said above.

I wasn't assessing the post. Just that particular portion.

Don't take the internet so personally, bud. You'll go crazy.