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.

anonymou5 wrote:
(he is immortal with the Grimoire)

I beg to differ!

IMO daemons wont win a major GT unless the dice are crazy good for them. There is just too much randomness for them to stay consistent. If you wanna run them I would run them as a primary force so you can make use of the heralds. In addition, FW is an auto include for any competitive list. If you dont think so then roll a 4 on the warp storm table twice in a row and fell the grimiore. Good luck winning after all of that.

I think if Draigoless wing had just punched on forwards it would have been a massacre. Wraithdar are great till they get in combat. Even with half a squad the pally's nearly destroyed em. Here's hoping that the new codex fixes the greatest weakness of the eldar codex: a bunch of dumb #*%# 12" weapons on units that have no business being near CC.

As for the rematch Council/Farbomb. It's over. 7 warlocks in one turn ended it. Unless grant goes red hot on saves (and mathematically he shouldn't) he'll die in the next turn. It was a good gambit to try and sweep the tau, but it didn't work (even with I7 baron? Bad luck). If some how he survives, and gets Terrify off/ survives over watch he gets one more chance to sweep. I'm not holding my breath though (...but spamming F5 may not be out of the question).

Game #7 - Rematch - Farsight-Bomb Tau vs Seer Council Deldar


Completed on p. 14.


Sorry, but I will get to responses and the Post-game Thoughts tomorrow. Gotta go now.

Blegh...something about that Farsight Bomb vs Seer Council rematch upsets me.

The game would have been a massacre if the Council got ANY other warlord trait. Not to mention that failing 3 out of 4 Ld 7 tests is pretty unlikely anyway...almost a 60% chance to pass. (plus the council making that 9" charge, plus taking 0 casualties in two rounds of combat, plus only losing a single biker to all those missiles, etc )

Either way, I don't know if I would call that a crushing victory. The Tau may have been tabled, but the Eldar deathstar only had 2 wounds left.

Siphen wrote:
Blegh...something about that Farsight Bomb vs Seer Council rematch upsets me.

The game would have been a massacre if the Council got ANY other warlord trait. Not to mention that failing 3 out of 4 Ld 7 tests is pretty unlikely anyway...almost a 60% chance to pass. (plus the council making that 9" charge, plus taking 0 casualties in two rounds of combat, plus only losing a single biker to all those missiles, etc )

Either way, I don't know if I would call that a crushing victory. The Tau may have been tabled, but the Eldar deathstar only had 2 wounds left.

the power of 4++ and fortune is very evident in this battle. Not to mention the fact as to how dependent we are on fortune. A lot of the people at my LGS despise the sweep rule since they think it is very illogical for so small a unit to take out so many XD. I am with them on this, but Eldar need every rule that works in our favor to win...for now .

After reading all the reports two things stand out to me. First psychic powers are extremely strong. Fortune, prescience, invisible, misfortune etc are all so powerful and are really the glue that holds the death stars together. Which bring me to the second thing that stands out, if your powers fail you are ed. So many of the games came down to getting the right powers, having the power denied, taking a peril of the warp etc. Or going second and not having that power up on the first turn. Fortune is probably the strongest power, it means your baron needs an average of 36 wounds on him to fail his invul save rather than 6. But if you go second you don't get a turn to buff up and are extremely vulnerable. I am not sure how much I like relying on powers that may fail or be denied and leave my army dead.

This is one of the things I like most about the tau star. It does similar things to prescience, perfect timing, invisible without needing to be cast every turn, there is no risk of failing or being denied. Doesn't matter if you go first or second, you just get the power. You don't have to worry if your opponent has runes of warding or ghost helms or anything. Also even though tau star didn't come out on top I do think it is the best deathstar for actual game purposes. Because of target locks you can focus on multiple targets instead of being stuck killing one thing at a time. In your tau vs eldar report you say how you like the fireknife build but I think it is wrong. You are better off having 2 plasma on one suit and 2 missile pods on another than to mix weapons, as in real situations those 2 missiles will be going to light vehicles while the 2 plasma want to be going to elite unites. The tau deathstar's ability to move across the board taking out multiple things at one is where its real power lies and sadly we don't see it here.

Overall, I think this was a fun series. I enjoyed reading ever report was surprised at how strong some of the death stars are (namely demons who I thought were going to be rubbish). Thanks for making these. I hope we can get a tau vs eldar rematch in a few months when the new eldar book comes out.

Good to see the much hyped farsight bomb get beaten! Eldar were very lucky with warlord trait and some of the Tau Ld checks though. Great series of reports jy2.

Coming up later, a more in-depth analysis of the tournament in the Post-Tournament Wrap-up .

 Pyriel- wrote:

Draigo would have definitely done better against this battle due to his ability to tank AP 1/2 shots. Though against the other deathstars, I prefer the shooting and psychic buffs of the GKGM + Coteaz.

I have tried GK deathstars in many, many games and my opinion is that a generally nothing beats a librarian and coteaz.

I too like the dreadknight, to bad the upgrades are to expensive to ever be used.

Interesting. I have never even considered that combo. I always felt it more important to take Draigo or a Grandmaster in order to make the paladins scoring, but I like the fact that 2 psykers does make the unit that much more psychically powerful.

 ace101 wrote:
Is game 7 Hamminators vs Draigoless Draigowing? that would be a good matchup.

I will put that in my queue. Although the tournament is done, I will still be posting the bonus deathmatches.

Or perhaps we just may see some of these deathstars again starring in the Battle of the Deathstars Part II.....

 felixcat wrote:
Do you think overall that daemons can beat a tau-bomb list at 1750+

Without a doubt, yes. Daemons are one of the toughest matchups for the Tau. They are super-fast, highly resilient (despite their 5++ only) and don't care about plasmas or having their cover removed. In other words, a lot of the Tau strengths are useless against daemons.

I've played against Tau 3 times with my daemons and, although I lost 2 of them, I really beat myself in those games. Otherwise, I never felt I was out-matched in any of those contests. Rather, it was my opponent who was feeling the pressure. He actually almost conceded in one of those games. If not for a little luck on his part, I could have and should have won all 3.

BTW, he didn't run a full-blown Tau bomb, but rather, a Farsight mini-bomb.

I have to say, the end was both completely anti-climactic, and totally 6th ed. Yay, one side won by rolling a warlord trait that dominated the game.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
This multi part question is for jy2 but anyone else please free to answer...

It seems like daemons are now tending to be even more random. That is what I've observed reading lots of Batreps. At a GT it just seems like there is a good chance they'll have at least one proverbial bad dice game.

So first do you think the new daemons (pure) can win a big competitive event like NOVA?

Second what do you do to minimize the randomness?

Finally do you think they would be a better choice as an ally? That's what I am currently thinking.

Over the long haul, as in a 5-7 game GT, daemons are bound to mess up some of their rolls. Thus, I think the chances for daemons to win a big event like NOVA is small. They have the tools to dominate games (and armies), especially in short stretches. But to dominate consistently, they are going to have to include Fateweaver in their army....and even he isn't a guarantee that they won't have bad dice game. However, after using FW in a few games, I can't say that I am all that impressed with him. I prefer to take my chances with the LoC as I think he is just so powerful. I prefer the trade-off of more and better threats as opposed to a less random game, but that is just my personal taste.

Other than taking Fateweaver, I think you have to build a balanced list to try to minimize the impact of the randomness. Do not rely too much from any single unit. Rather, make each unit more-or-less about equal so that when 1 unit goes down due to bad luck, the rest of the army can still function. That's one of the reasons I don't currently run bloated FMC-spam daemons. It is a powerful and competitive daemon build, but even losing one of those 350-pt Daemon Princes can really bone you. Instead, run some Heralds, add some of their awesome fast attacks and take a few Soulgrinders, which I feel are one of the most versatile and best units in the dex. If you want to over-power your opponent with an unbalanced hammer build, take DP's and watch those armies that can't deal with them struggle. However, when you go up against those armies that can, you will most likely lose. But if you want a more balanced attack, take those grinders instead. They are awesome for their cost.

 Tomb King wrote:

anonymou5 wrote:
(he is immortal with the Grimoire)

I beg to differ!

IMO daemons wont win a major GT unless the dice are crazy good for them. There is just too much randomness for them to stay consistent. If you wanna run them I would run them as a primary force so you can make use of the heralds. In addition, FW is an auto include for any competitive list. If you dont think so then roll a 4 on the warp storm table twice in a row and fell the grimiore. Good luck winning after all of that.

I think it is still too early to tell. FW does make the army more reliable, but to me, he is lacking in other areas. I guess it will be a subject of constant debate among daemons players on whether "to FW or not to FW". Only time will tell after daemons participate in a few of those major tournaments.

 Dash2021 wrote:
I think if Draigoless wing had just punched on forwards it would have been a massacre. Wraithdar are great till they get in combat. Even with half a squad the pally's nearly destroyed em. Here's hoping that the new codex fixes the greatest weakness of the eldar codex: a bunch of dumb #*%# 12" weapons on units that have no business being near CC.

As for the rematch Council/Farbomb. It's over. 7 warlocks in one turn ended it. Unless grant goes red hot on saves (and mathematically he shouldn't) he'll die in the next turn. It was a good gambit to try and sweep the tau, but it didn't work (even with I7 baron? Bad luck). If some how he survives, and gets Terrify off/ survives over watch he gets one more chance to sweep. I'm not holding my breath though (...but spamming F5 may not be out of the question).

Hard to say. The wraith bomb would have just back-pedaled and kept firing if the paladinstar adopted that tactic. Just the 2 Tau characters alone were enough to cause all that damage. Imagine how walking into the threat range of the bomb would have been! If I had Draigo in the unit or Forewarning on Coteaz, I definitely would have done that. This battle really illustrates the difference between Draigo and a Grandmaster. Both are good for different purposes.

The new eldar codex will fix some and then will nerf some. Just like the new Tau codex. Just like the new daemons. It's a give-&-take and generally, I like the direction of the newer codices. Gone are the mono-dominant builds such as Tzeentch screamer/flamer-spam. Instead, you're getting a more flexible codex with a lot more variety. That is a win in my books.

Siphen wrote:
Blegh...something about that Farsight Bomb vs Seer Council rematch upsets me.

The game would have been a massacre if the Council got ANY other warlord trait. Not to mention that failing 3 out of 4 Ld 7 tests is pretty unlikely anyway...almost a 60% chance to pass. (plus the council making that 9" charge, plus taking 0 casualties in two rounds of combat, plus only losing a single biker to all those missiles, etc )

Either way, I don't know if I would call that a crushing victory. The Tau may have been tabled, but the Eldar deathstar only had 2 wounds left.

Yeah, I'm upset also....I lost!

But it is a dice game and there is a lot of unbalance between the deathstars. That is also why there is a lot of rock-paper-scissors matchups between the various deathstars.

Stupid Warlord trait. Stupid, stupid.....

But it's all a part of the game. Just got to deal with it and move on. Get dealt the wrong cards, then you have to compensate with your tactics. And in that game, I almost pulled it off.

Yeah, it is more of a minor victory, but I believe the rulebook describes a tabling as a crushing victory. Small technicalities but the bottom line is, a win is still a win.

 jy2 wrote:

But it is a dice game and there is a lot of unbalance between the deathstars. That is also why there is a lot of rock-paper-scissors matchups between the various deathstars.

I disagree. It's not Rock-Paper-Scissors, because Rock-Paper-Scissors is deterministic. The results here aren't that, they're based on rolling the good psychic powers and/or warlord traits. It'd be like Rock-Paper-Scissors, where Rock gets a 1-in-6 chance to beat Paper if it rolls the right power.

All told, you did some fun battles and posted some cool pictures and it's a game. But I don't think I'd claim that the Warlockstar is the best deathstar based on which warlord trait it rolled.

Everything went as planned for the council. They have spoken.

This was a fun and interesting thread idea, jy2. I suspect another one will follow in due time!

GTKA666 wrote:

Siphen wrote:
Blegh...something about that Farsight Bomb vs Seer Council rematch upsets me.

The game would have been a massacre if the Council got ANY other warlord trait. Not to mention that failing 3 out of 4 Ld 7 tests is pretty unlikely anyway...almost a 60% chance to pass. (plus the council making that 9" charge, plus taking 0 casualties in two rounds of combat, plus only losing a single biker to all those missiles, etc )

Either way, I don't know if I would call that a crushing victory. The Tau may have been tabled, but the Eldar deathstar only had 2 wounds left.

the power of 4++ and fortune is very evident in this battle. Not to mention the fact as to how dependent we are on fortune. A lot of the people at my LGS despise the sweep rule since they think it is very illogical for so small a unit to take out so many XD. I am with them on this, but Eldar need every rule that works in our favor to win...for now .

Yeah, Fortune is a powerhouse. I think competitive eldar is just too reliant on their psychic powers.

I can't wait to see the new eldar codex. I really like the direction GW is going with all their new 6E codices. They are very flexible in terms of playstyle, even for the competitive builds. Even now, I don't believe anyone can come up to an agreement on what a truly competitive Daemon or Tau build looks like, and to me, that is a good thing. So pretty soon, eldar players won't need to have "every rule that works in our favor to win". They're probably going to have a whole lot of options for winning.

 lambsandlions wrote:
After reading all the reports two things stand out to me. First psychic powers are extremely strong. Fortune, prescience, invisible, misfortune etc are all so powerful and are really the glue that holds the death stars together. Which bring me to the second thing that stands out, if your powers fail you are ed. So many of the games came down to getting the right powers, having the power denied, taking a peril of the warp etc. Or going second and not having that power up on the first turn. Fortune is probably the strongest power, it means your baron needs an average of 36 wounds on him to fail his invul save rather than 6. But if you go second you don't get a turn to buff up and are extremely vulnerable. I am not sure how much I like relying on powers that may fail or be denied and leave my army dead.

This is one of the things I like most about the tau star. It does similar things to prescience, perfect timing, invisible without needing to be cast every turn, there is no risk of failing or being denied. Doesn't matter if you go first or second, you just get the power. You don't have to worry if your opponent has runes of warding or ghost helms or anything. Also even though tau star didn't come out on top I do think it is the best deathstar for actual game purposes. Because of target locks you can focus on multiple targets instead of being stuck killing one thing at a time. In your tau vs eldar report you say how you like the fireknife build but I think it is wrong. You are better off having 2 plasma on one suit and 2 missile pods on another than to mix weapons, as in real situations those 2 missiles will be going to light vehicles while the 2 plasma want to be going to elite unites. The tau deathstar's ability to move across the board taking out multiple things at one is where its real power lies and sadly we don't see it here.

Overall, I think this was a fun series. I enjoyed reading ever report was surprised at how strong some of the death stars are (namely demons who I thought were going to be rubbish). Thanks for making these. I hope we can get a tau vs eldar rematch in a few months when the new eldar book comes out.

Well said. I think some of the most powerful armies will be the ones able to take advantage of psychic powers. Unfortunately, armies like Tau and Necrons, who are very good non-psychic armies, will also be at the mercy of these new power-houses.

In any case, I will touch up more on this subject in my Post-Tournament Wrap-up.

I actually felt that daemons were one of the stronger armies and could have taken this tournament. Their only bad matchup was the seer council and even then, the seer council would have had problems against the daemons. There is nothing more powerful in the game right now than re-rollable 2++ Invuln's! Truly, a broken piece of mechanic.

djn wrote:
Good to see the much hyped farsight bomb get beaten! Eldar were very lucky with warlord trait and some of the Tau Ld checks though. Great series of reports jy2.

Thanks. Yeah, Tau was playing with a huge handicap in this game with a reduced LD. This is probably one game where the Space Marine Librarian ally would have made a big difference. ATSKNF is just wicked good, but I suppose that is a different deathstar for another day.

 Redbeard wrote:
I have to say, the end was both completely anti-climactic, and totally 6th ed. Yay, one side won by rolling a warlord trait that dominated the game.

Well, deldar did make an astounding comeback despite taking such a beating, which did make it such an exciting game (at least while we were playing). But I think these types of rolling - the ones that makes or breaks some of these matchups - is the norm nowadays. They come pack and parcel with 6E, like it or not. But if you're still playing in 6th, then you just have to deal with it.

Some examples:

Paladinstar probably wouldn't have beaten the eldar so badly had they not got Misfortune in 1 game and had they not seized the initiative in the 2nd game.

Daemons never really rolled poorly on the Warpstorm tables or they got unfavorable Grimoire rolls when they most needed it.

All the good psychic powers were dice-dependent. Get the right powers and matches become much easier. Get the wrong ones and it becomes much tougher.

Random charge lengths. Fail even 1 charge and it could be game over.

Getting a good Warlord Trait whereas your opponent gets a bad one. Honestly, Tau had the advantage the entire series because they always had a good Warlord trait (Shadowsun's 3D6" assault move) whereas everyone else had to roll for them.


6E has just made the game more random. Some may like it. Others may not. Unfortunately, you just got to make do with what you've got....or else go play another game.

 Redbeard wrote:

 jy2 wrote:

But it is a dice game and there is a lot of unbalance between the deathstars. That is also why there is a lot of rock-paper-scissors matchups between the various deathstars.

I disagree. It's not Rock-Paper-Scissors, because Rock-Paper-Scissors is deterministic. The results here aren't that, they're based on rolling the good psychic powers and/or warlord traits. It'd be like Rock-Paper-Scissors, where Rock gets a 1-in-6 chance to beat Paper if it rolls the right power.

All told, you did some fun battles and posted some cool pictures and it's a game. But I don't think I'd claim that the Warlockstar is the best deathstar based on which warlord trait it rolled.

I like to look at it as a true measure of the deathstar. Can your deathstar still persevere even in unfavorable conditions? Because 6E has just made the game more random and like it or not, sometimes you will find yourself handicapped by its randomness (whether it be going 2nd, getting good/bad powers, favorable Warlord traits, getting the initiative seized, failing a charge, daemon randomness, etc.). The good deathstars should be able to cope. The bad ones - the deathstars that are reliant on certain favorable conditions to go their way - they will be the ones that have the most problems. These are now a part of "everyday life" for the normal 40K gamer. Either learn to cope with it or let it frustrate and discourage you (and then move on to another gaming system).

The seer council isn't the "best deathstar" anymore than necrons are the "best army". Rather, they are the "best deathstar in this tournament" because they consistently beat everyone but the Grey Knights. Yeah, they had some good luck in the Finale, but they also had some horrible luck against the knights.

 Lt. Coldfire wrote:
Everything went as planned for the council. They have spoken.

This was a fun and interesting thread idea, jy2. I suspect another one will follow in due time!

Thanks!

It may be a while. I need to start posting some "normal" battle reports again and then I'm off on vacation. Then we have the new eldar coming out....

I don't think you really addressed Redbeards point however. And it was a very good point. I simply think he was pointing out how this demonstration ended up proving how it is impossible to determine which is better due to all the randomness. There really isn't much consistency left now in 6th. Saying, oh hey, welcome to 6th. Like it it or leave it, may be the only enswer we are left with, but it doesn't discredit his claim any.

You and others, myself included, have been guilty of utilizing the old "rock, paper, scissors match-up," but this is a very 5th edition concept and I don't think it holds true any more with the advent of allies and the newer codexes.

On a personal note I and many others I play with are abandoning, well maybe taking a step back is a better explanation, from competitive 40k for more of the hobby side as the more we play the more we have to deal with this glaring truth that although it is a game of dice, adding more and more random generation really does make it less consistent and by design less tactical then 5th. Is this bad? Actually I am liking it more and more as it seems we are playing with units whose fluff we appreciate and whose models are adored rather then simply what is the most cost efficient at it's roll.

 Red Corsair wrote:
I don't think you really addressed Redbeards point however. And it was a very good point. I simply think he was pointing out how this demonstration ended up proving how it is impossible to determine which is better due to all the randomness. There really isn't much consistency left now in 6th. Saying, oh hey, welcome to 6th. Like it it or leave it, may be the only enswer we are left with, but it doesn't discredit his claim any.

You and others, myself included, have been guilty of utilizing the old "rock, paper, scissors match-up," but this is a very 5th edition concept and I don't think it holds true any more with the advent of allies and the newer codexes.

On a personal note I and many others I play with are abandoning, well maybe taking a step back is a better explanation, from competitive 40k for more of the hobby side as the more we play the more we have to deal with this glaring truth that although it is a game of dice, adding more and more random generation really does make it less consistent and by design less tactical then 5th. Is this bad? Actually I am liking it more and more as it seems we are playing with units whose fluff we appreciate and whose models are adored rather then simply what is the most cost efficient at it's roll.

I agree with almost everything you say here except for Tactical having less to do with more randomness. I feel with more randomness you have to play as if your 5th Ed 'Sure thing' won't be that sure thing. This requires more thinking instead of taking those go-to units and winning via rolling the dice versus making any tactical decisions in case things go wrong.

The game would have been a massacre if the Council got ANY other warlord trait. Not to mention that failing 3 out of 4 Ld 7 tests is pretty unlikely anyway...almost a 60% chance to pass. (plus the council making that 9" charge, plus taking 0 casualties in two rounds of combat, plus only losing a single biker to all those missiles, etc )

Tough luck. Did you see all the "1"s the GK got for their armour saves?
Crap happens.

Interesting. I have never even considered that combo. I always felt it more important to take Draigo or a Grandmaster in order to make the paladins scoring, but I like the fact that 2 psykers does make the unit that much more psychically powerful.

Deathstars should not be scoring as a definition of them imo. In the wider context you always have something scoring on the table.

Draigo only brings a few tanking rolls to the deathstar, for what he costs that is ridiculously underpowered.
The libby buffs and protects the squad far better and also allows for deep striking tricks that have won me more close-call games then anything other.
Also, now with the deamons and their OP combos I am tempted to really start experimenting with dark excommunication. At the low cost that it has it might be a real bargain now.

Still waiting for that Taudar vs pinkstar Daemons report. lol

 Red Corsair wrote:
I don't think you really addressed Redbeards point however. And it was a very good point. I simply think he was pointing out how this demonstration ended up proving how it is impossible to determine which is better due to all the randomness. There really isn't much consistency left now in 6th. Saying, oh hey, welcome to 6th. Like it it or leave it, may be the only enswer we are left with, but it doesn't discredit his claim any.

You and others, myself included, have been guilty of utilizing the old "rock, paper, scissors match-up," but this is a very 5th edition concept and I don't think it holds true any more with the advent of allies and the newer codexes.

On a personal note I and many others I play with are abandoning, well maybe taking a step back is a better explanation, from competitive 40k for more of the hobby side as the more we play the more we have to deal with this glaring truth that although it is a game of dice, adding more and more random generation really does make it less consistent and by design less tactical then 5th. Is this bad? Actually I am liking it more and more as it seems we are playing with units whose fluff we appreciate and whose models are adored rather then simply what is the most cost efficient at it's roll.

Look back he has already answered this , let me find it.

I always said here that these batreps are worth nothing more than amusement. I would never design an army based on these results.

MarkyMark wrote:

 Salacious Greed wrote:
First: Let me say, great games so far, been interesting to see them play out.

Second: A few questions though on your methodology.

1. You keep pointing out that instead of DeathStars, some people are bringing up Army lists, which I agree. But in your GK vs PinkStar, you didn't really run the PinkStar as a Star. If it was a DS, wouldn't the LOC have to be IN the DS, otherwise you're running a mini-army by not having it as part of the Star. Just trying to parse what we effectively consider a DS, and what's not.

2. While this is a great thread, and you are producing great matchups, you're really only providing one-offs for us (the readers), and not really showing which DS is better. It would be much more boring, but I think to show which DS is statistically the best, you'd have to approximate average rolls (3.5 for 1d6[being a 3 or 4 on a rotating basis], a 7 for 2d6, 10.5 for 3d6, etc.). You're really incorporating the luck factor into these matchups, which you've pointed out multiple times to likely determining the winner. Also, I think knowledge of using the DS and generalship are also in play here, and thus not giving a true measure of the actual DS.

I'm just asking, as I see so many people throwing so many hats into the ring, and want to know where the majority stands. Thanks! Great stuff as always JY2.

This idea was borne from using the pinkstar/horrorbomb. The LoC was added in to enable the use of more expensive deathstars.

2. Luck is a factor in all games, if you want to mathhammer averages in anyone can do that, it doesnt need a entry in bat reps (more tactics). There is no acutal measurement of a deathstar as you pointed out it is down to the general and to the opponent on how he counters any deathstar, that is a impossible to answer question and something that cannot be attained in a bat rep. This isnt (I think, excuse for me for putting words in your mouth Jy2) a test to see make each deathstar a paper rock scissors (i,e Tau ALWAYS beats paladins, Pinkstar Always beats palandins etc) it is a interesting read up on Jy2's tactics and experince of deathstars and other peoples.

Bat Reps really is not the place for math hammer as there are real life people rolling dice here.

And

Those are some very good questions. Let me address them as best I can.

1. It's not a pure deathstar vs deathstar as there are discrepencies in points between them. Draigowing runs in at almost 1K, but many of the other deathstars run much less. Examples include the Pinkstar, the Dark Harliestar, Dark Eldar Beastmasters, etc. These deathstars are too big to be considered a mini-star (about 500-pts) but not big enough to be considered a true deathstar (1K). Thus, in order to make it as fair as possible, I allowed complementary units so that the units can get up to 1K. Otherwise, you bring in allegations that the matches aren't fair...."well, naturally the 700-pt pinkstar should lose to other deathstars, they're 300-pts less! It was never a fair battle. Etc." And it isn't an army list as it doesn't consist of a legal army composition (though it does have to obey legal FOC compositions). In a sense, you can kind of look at the LoC as a complementary unit to the Pinkstar in a way that the Land Raider Spartan is a complementary unit to the hamminator deathstar. They're both separate units.


2. It would be much more boring if this was just a mathhammer/theoryhammer thread. It would also be inaccurate as well. No amount of theoryhammer can let you know which deathstar is best. Because theoryhammer does not and cannot take into consideration tactics, terrain and all the random variables in a game. Just some of the stuff theoryhammer will not account for:

- Terrain.

- Tactics. How will the grey knights deal with the plasma-heavy Tau? How can Tau and the Pinkstar deal with the mobility of the Seer Council? How can you avoid some of the psychic powers such as Doom, Misfortune, Enfeeble, etc.? How would you play/deploy if you were going 2nd? Tactics is a huge portion of the game that theoryhammer will never be able to account for.

- What psychic powers or daemonic rewards you get. Without Forewarning, there will be no re-rollable 2++ for daemons. Powers such as Misfortune and Invisibility makes a huge difference in a game if the army can get it. So do gifts such as 4+ FNP, +1W or re-roll Invuln's. Then you've got Iron Arm from Biomancy. Or what about Hallucination on the paladins? All these powers and gifts really change the outcome of the game.

- Runes of Warding. You can't see on paper how RoW will affect psychic armies - how many models it will kill and more importantly, how it affects whether you use psychic powers or not.

- Movement. The Movement phases is one of the most important phases of the game....and yet it can't be accounted for on paper.

- Failed leaderships.

- Precision shots/strikes to target VIP models in a unit.

- The success/failure and impact of Hit & Run.

- Miscellaneous factors such as the Grimoire or the Warp Storm table. Or how if you roll snake-eyes for Daemonic Instability (it did happen!), the entire unit comes back from the dead (or dies if you roll box-cars).

Luck will always be a part of the game as this is a dice game. Yes, these games may be "one-offs". Then again, so is every person who has ever won a tournament before. So is every person who has ever played a game before. Luck is as much a part of this game as anything else.

Mathhammer tells half a story ... I was fooling around with this ...

Here's some Mathhammer for some averages.

ON THE CHARGE VS x10 SM (average unsaved wounds)

x8 Flesh Hounds (128pt) = 3.45 unsaved wounds
x5 Screamers (125pt) = 1.65 unsaved wounds
x3 Plague Drones (126pt) = 1.49 unsaved wounds
x10 Seekers (120pt) = 5.80 unsaved wounds (4.36 being rending)
x15 Furies of Slaan. (125pt) = 4.15 unsaved wounds (2.50 being rending)

Look how high furies score on wounds ... but they are LD2 ... so depending on terrain and who they are up against ... also they need a herald badly (so minimum 90+ with beguilement). and how good are they without any AP2 against vehicles - actually a bit better in some cases then seekers,

Plague Drones are by far the lowest ... but they are tough. They make excellent icon carriers. They have a higher str. Adding an AP2 weapon allows them to take down vehicles as well.

Seekers pretty much rule in cc but they are Str3 and they die easily. But they can outflank and have acute senses.

I could mathhhamer out horrors as well. They do not kill that many meqs with shooting ( DTW, SotW, Runes, all hurt them as well) But they are bodyguards to the best heralds in the game. Daemonetttes may do more damage, PBs might be a bit more durable. It does not negate that only horrors shoot and that Tzeentch heralds need protection.

So much of the game depends on dice rolls. Daemons are very random, indeed. Now Jy2 did not use Fateweaver in his DoC list. I suspect he will be more of a staple in any tournament list then an LoC becuase rerolls are crucial for daemons. So as much as I want to put my faith in mathhammer we all know that it is just an indicator of what needs testing not a determinate of what should eventually constitute your list.

I could go through a Paladinstar as well. Draigo actually makes no sense without eternal warrior. Certainly a Libbie might indeed be better but a libbie does not make paladins troops aor another unit scoring. And again we can compare a Commander to Shadowsun in a farsight bomb. Shadowsun is not that difficult to take out with precision shots either. We can nit pick these deathstars ad nauseam. But really I would rather just enjoy the reports. I ask questions from time to time. Jy2 swears by portaglphs - I can supply math on the likehood of it getting destroyed early and wasting thirty points easily. But it can also end up pumping out a scoring troop. I play DE ... I'm told using a crucible I'm bucking the odds. Tell me that when I drop in the middle of your daemon host or Nid force. Math be da****

The crucible is a much better choice now due to popularity of psychic powers. Who would have known?

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
I don't think you really addressed Redbeards point however. And it was a very good point. I simply think he was pointing out how this demonstration ended up proving how it is impossible to determine which is better due to all the randomness. There really isn't much consistency left now in 6th. Saying, oh hey, welcome to 6th. Like it it or leave it, may be the only enswer we are left with, but it doesn't discredit his claim any.

You and others, myself included, have been guilty of utilizing the old "rock, paper, scissors match-up," but this is a very 5th edition concept and I don't think it holds true any more with the advent of allies and the newer codexes.

On a personal note I and many others I play with are abandoning, well maybe taking a step back is a better explanation, from competitive 40k for more of the hobby side as the more we play the more we have to deal with this glaring truth that although it is a game of dice, adding more and more random generation really does make it less consistent and by design less tactical then 5th. Is this bad? Actually I am liking it more and more as it seems we are playing with units whose fluff we appreciate and whose models are adored rather then simply what is the most cost efficient at it's roll.

I agree with almost everything you say here except for Tactical having less to do with more randomness. I feel with more randomness you have to play as if your 5th Ed 'Sure thing' won't be that sure thing. This requires more thinking instead of taking those go-to units and winning via rolling the dice versus making any tactical decisions in case things go wrong.

OK but I am not saying forfeit all decisions and contingencies however I recently played a game against demons and my opponent rolled forewarning on 2 heralds and then preceded to roll a 10 on the warp storm table and pass the grimoir the first three turns.... Tell me, how to I plan for that or even compensate? This was my major point...


And to MarkyMark- He makes good points there and I would agree, math hammer only takes you so far. But that still doesn't address RB point. It was a simple statement and I believe it to be fact. In large tactics took a major hit in 6th like it or not and there really were NO rock paper scissor matches when at the start of every match no one knew who would be a rock and who scissors until they rolled some random tables. A lot of the rhetoric I read in here is the same noise I have heard for years, when something goes right it's amazing generalship, when the crap hits the fan, it's bad dice and hey what can you do. To some degree this was and still is true, but it's starting to matter less what decisions one makes after list construction. Is movement important, of course but some one can lose an entire game just because his opponent rolled iron bark forest regardless of how well you position yourself.

To summarize, I am not saying tactics no longer play a roll, nor am I saying these exercises are not entertaining but the fact remains that this whole exercise really didn't solve a thing because you could rewind the tournament and make the same correct or incorrect decisions and even apply the same die rolls with the exception of random preliminary tables like warlord traits and psychic powers and never get the same outcome. Back in 5th for example you could play draigo wing against a jet seer council and 9 times out of 10 you would have the same result.

Imagine in real life if whenever a soldier fired a round he had a 16% chance or chambering rock salt rather then a live bullet. Now you understand what these tables have done in 6th.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
I don't think you really addressed Redbeards point however. And it was a very good point. I simply think he was pointing out how this demonstration ended up proving how it is impossible to determine which is better due to all the randomness. There really isn't much consistency left now in 6th. Saying, oh hey, welcome to 6th. Like it it or leave it, may be the only enswer we are left with, but it doesn't discredit his claim any.

You and others, myself included, have been guilty of utilizing the old "rock, paper, scissors match-up," but this is a very 5th edition concept and I don't think it holds true any more with the advent of allies and the newer codexes.

On a personal note I and many others I play with are abandoning, well maybe taking a step back is a better explanation, from competitive 40k for more of the hobby side as the more we play the more we have to deal with this glaring truth that although it is a game of dice, adding more and more random generation really does make it less consistent and by design less tactical then 5th. Is this bad? Actually I am liking it more and more as it seems we are playing with units whose fluff we appreciate and whose models are adored rather then simply what is the most cost efficient at it's roll.

I agree with almost everything you say here except for Tactical having less to do with more randomness. I feel with more randomness you have to play as if your 5th Ed 'Sure thing' won't be that sure thing. This requires more thinking instead of taking those go-to units and winning via rolling the dice versus making any tactical decisions in case things go wrong.

OK but I am not saying forfeit all decisions and contingencies however I recently played a game against demons and my opponent rolled forewarning on 2 heralds and then preceded to roll a 10 on the warp storm table and pass the grimoir the first three turns.... Tell me, how to I plan for that or even compensate? This was my major point...


And to MarkyMark- He makes good points there and I would agree, math hammer only takes you so far. But that still doesn't address RB point. It was a simple statement and I believe it to be fact. In large tactics took a major hit in 6th like it or not and there really were NO rock paper scissor matches when at the start of every match no one knew who would be a rock and who scissors until they rolled some random tables. A lot of the rhetoric I read in here is the same noise I have heard for years, when something goes right it's amazing generalship, when the crap hits the fan, it's bad dice and hey what can you do. To some degree this was and still is true, but it's starting to matter less what decisions one makes after list construction. Is movement important, of course but some one can lose an entire game just because his opponent rolled iron bark forest regardless of how well you position yourself.

To summarize, I am not saying tactics no longer play a roll, nor am I saying these exercises are not entertaining but the fact remains that this whole exercise really didn't solve a thing because you could rewind the tournament and make the same correct or incorrect decisions and even apply the same die rolls with the exception of random preliminary tables like warlord traits and psychic powers and never get the same outcome. Back in 5th for example you could play draigo wing against a jet seer council and 9 times out of 10 you would have the same result.

Imagine in real life if whenever a soldier fired a round he had a 16% chance or chambering rock salt rather then a live bullet. Now you understand what these tables have done in 6th.

QFT! 6th Edition was definitely tiered to destroy competitive play to a degree. However, at the same time it is also ruining the game with unkillable models/units. a 2+ re-rollable invul is silly and so many units can use that now. In addition with the way they changed wound allocation these guys can be shields for an entire unit. GEQ... "Good thing we brought this terminator guy with us. He just took 35 bolter saves like a champ.

 felixcat wrote:

Here's some Mathhammer for some averages.

ON THE CHARGE VS x10 SM (average unsaved wounds)

x8 Flesh Hounds (128pt) = 3.45 unsaved wounds
x5 Screamers (125pt) = 1.65 unsaved wounds
x3 Plague Drones (126pt) = 1.49 unsaved wounds
x10 Seekers (120pt) = 5.80 unsaved wounds (4.36 being rending)
x15 Furies of Slaan. (125pt) = 4.15 unsaved wounds (2.50 being rending)

Look how high furies score on wounds ... but they are LD2 ... so depending on terrain and who they are up against ... also they need a herald badly (so minimum 90+ with beguilement). and how good are they without any AP2 against vehicles - actually a bit better in some cases then seekers,

Plague Drones are by far the lowest ... but they are tough. They make excellent icon carriers. They have a higher str. Adding an AP2 weapon allows them to take down vehicles as well.

Seekers pretty much rule in cc but they are Str3 and they die easily. But they can outflank and have acute senses.

I could mathhhamer out horrors as well. They do not kill that many meqs with shooting ( DTW, SotW, Runes, all hurt them as well) But they are bodyguards to the best heralds in the game. Daemonetttes may do more damage, PBs might be a bit more durable. It does not negate that only horrors shoot and that Tzeentch heralds need protection.

So much of the game depends on dice rolls. Daemons are very random, indeed. Now Jy2 did not use Fateweaver in his DoC list. I suspect he will be more of a staple in any tournament list then an LoC becuase rerolls are crucial for daemons. So as much as I want to put my faith in mathhammer we all know that it is just an indicator of what needs testing not a determinate of what should eventually constitute your list.

I could go through a Paladinstar as well. Draigo actually makes no sense without eternal warrior. Certainly a Libbie might indeed be better but a libbie does not make paladins troops aor another unit scoring. And again we can compare a Commander to Shadowsun in a farsight bomb. Shadowsun is not that difficult to take out with precision shots either. We can nit pick these deathstars ad nauseam. But really I would rather just enjoy the reports. I ask questions from time to time. Jy2 swears by portaglphs - I can supply math on the likehood of it getting destroyed early and wasting thirty points easily. But it can also end up pumping out a scoring troop. I play DE ... I'm told using a crucible I'm bucking the odds. Tell me that when I drop in the middle of your daemon host or Nid force. Math be da****

And 120 points worth of Bloodletters on the charge will kill 10.66 marines :-)

I think this is interesting, and sheds some light on what other people are saying. A lot of the discussion seems to be quite polar: "Stone-scissors-paper" versus "random". 40k was never really stone-scissors-paper, because you could always roll
But some units are really well suited to dealing with other units, which skews the odds, and makes it all the more unlikely that the will actually happen. 6th has just created new types of randomness that brings the outcome closer to being 50:50, beause when a previously disadvantaged unit rolls a good warlord trait you notice that it's a contender... but when an already dominant unit rolls one, no one notices, because there are diminishing returns to additional buffs on an already dominant unit.

A single deathstar 1v1 was never (even in 5th) a universal answer to the question "Which One Is Better?". The only way to answer such a question would be to play hundreds and hundreds of games with equally skilled players, varying terrain, and examine the large data set. I think the randomness of warlord traits, and charge distance, and psychic powers has just helped to converge (on average) most contests to being 50:50. The reason being the diminishing returns returns I mentioned above.

This, to me, makes tactics more important. Without any randomness, some units were almost strictly better than others, all the time, due to the extreme low probability of rolling . But now, if you roll up the right warlord trait (or your opponent does), you have to adapt. If you don't roll what you want, you have to adapt.

These reports are fun to read. It's great to barrack for your preferred army, and hope they come up well. But it's not the be all and end all of who's best, because as numerous people have highlighted, there are lots of other factors at play, not least of which is randomness.

 DexKivuli wrote:

 felixcat wrote:

Here's some Mathhammer for some averages.

ON THE CHARGE VS x10 SM (average unsaved wounds)

x8 Flesh Hounds (128pt) = 3.45 unsaved wounds
x5 Screamers (125pt) = 1.65 unsaved wounds
x3 Plague Drones (126pt) = 1.49 unsaved wounds
x10 Seekers (120pt) = 5.80 unsaved wounds (4.36 being rending)
x15 Furies of Slaan. (125pt) = 4.15 unsaved wounds (2.50 being rending)

Look how high furies score on wounds ... but they are LD2 ... so depending on terrain and who they are up against ... also they need a herald badly (so minimum 90+ with beguilement). and how good are they without any AP2 against vehicles - actually a bit better in some cases then seekers,

Plague Drones are by far the lowest ... but they are tough. They make excellent icon carriers. They have a higher str. Adding an AP2 weapon allows them to take down vehicles as well.

Seekers pretty much rule in cc but they are Str3 and they die easily. But they can outflank and have acute senses.

I could mathhhamer out horrors as well. They do not kill that many meqs with shooting ( DTW, SotW, Runes, all hurt them as well) But they are bodyguards to the best heralds in the game. Daemonetttes may do more damage, PBs might be a bit more durable. It does not negate that only horrors shoot and that Tzeentch heralds need protection.

So much of the game depends on dice rolls. Daemons are very random, indeed. Now Jy2 did not use Fateweaver in his DoC list. I suspect he will be more of a staple in any tournament list then an LoC becuase rerolls are crucial for daemons. So as much as I want to put my faith in mathhammer we all know that it is just an indicator of what needs testing not a determinate of what should eventually constitute your list.

I could go through a Paladinstar as well. Draigo actually makes no sense without eternal warrior. Certainly a Libbie might indeed be better but a libbie does not make paladins troops aor another unit scoring. And again we can compare a Commander to Shadowsun in a farsight bomb. Shadowsun is not that difficult to take out with precision shots either. We can nit pick these deathstars ad nauseam. But really I would rather just enjoy the reports. I ask questions from time to time. Jy2 swears by portaglphs - I can supply math on the likehood of it getting destroyed early and wasting thirty points easily. But it can also end up pumping out a scoring troop. I play DE ... I'm told using a crucible I'm bucking the odds. Tell me that when I drop in the middle of your daemon host or Nid force. Math be da****

And 120 points worth of Bloodletters on the charge will kill 10.66 marines :-)

I think this is interesting, and sheds some light on what other people are saying. A lot of the discussion seems to be quite polar: "Stone-scissors-paper" versus "random". 40k was never really stone-scissors-paper, because you could always roll
But some units are really well suited to dealing with other units, which skews the odds, and makes it all the more unlikely that the will actually happen. 6th has just created new types of randomness that brings the outcome closer to being 50:50, beause when a previously disadvantaged unit rolls a good warlord trait you notice that it's a contender... but when an already dominant unit rolls one, no one notices, because there are diminishing returns to additional buffs on an already dominant unit.

A single deathstar 1v1 was never (even in 5th) a universal answer to the question "Which One Is Better?". The only way to answer such a question would be to play hundreds and hundreds of games with equally skilled players, varying terrain, and examine the large data set. I think the randomness of warlord traits, and charge distance, and psychic powers has just helped to converge (on average) most contests to being 50:50. The reason being the diminishing returns returns I mentioned above.

This, to me, makes tactics more important. Without any randomness, some units were almost strictly better than others, all the time, due to the extreme low probability of rolling . But now, if you roll up the right warlord trait (or your opponent does), you have to adapt. If you don't roll what you want, you have to adapt.

These reports are fun to read. It's great to barrack for your preferred army, and hope they come up well. But it's not the be all and end all of who's best, because as numerous people have highlighted, there are lots of other factors at play, not least of which is randomness.

10 bloodletters on the charge kill 11.11 marines? This is if there is no OW and terrain isnt an issue. Though they strike symo otherwise and the bloodletters are gonna take some casualties. This is if and only if your opponent let bloodletters get close as they are T3 combat monsters.

Sorry, guys. I'm going to take a 1-2 day break from my deathstar thread in order to writeup my Necrons vs Tau battle report. Post-Tournament Wrap-up to follow shortly afterwards.


2K Competitive - Wraithwing Tesla-spam Necrons vs Triptide Riptide Tau

Thanks again for all these brilliant reports

A question ; how do you have a 2+ invunerable save on eldar wraith guard ?

tetsuo666 wrote:
Thanks again for all these brilliant reports

A question ; how do you have a 2+ invunerable save on eldar wraith guard ?

It's a 2+ cover. 5+ cover from Conceal by the Spiritseer. Then Shroud+Stealth on top of that from Shadowsun. Then Fortune makes it 2+ re-rollable cover.

You ever get that pinkstar vs Taudar report done?