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.

I agree and I understand what you are saying Mandaloryn. The thing however that the game is unbalanced (whether this is a calculated business plan from GW or simply the unintentional result of bad game design is another issue) and is not helped in any way by individual players who are adding to the issue of imbalance by list building based on the over efficient, unfairly priced or outright broken units. This becomes an issue when certain players, myself therein included, want to participate with what they conceive to be a fun and balanced list (please note that I hereby admit to fun being subjective and that people have different tastes and preferences) and find themselves at a complete loss. It doesn't matter what kind of “A-game” you bring unless you bring THE A-game. The net list, the one list to rule them all. Because even if you play to win, even if you are a decent enough player and with a better than average rolls of the dice, there are armies and lists that will quite frankly roll all over you.

As I stated before, I am not a competitive player. I should not participate in events where I am supposed to bring my A-game and hold back my punches. Those events are for those who enjoy that kind of playing and I can imagine that they must be ridiculously exciting, fun and challenging if you are of the competitive sort. But the competitive sort tends to dominate not just most (if not all) of the tournaments, they even control the hobby beyond the actual tournament. A few years ago I went to a small and relaxed (those were the words used to market the event) tournament in the city I had recently moved to, I brought my “fun” and “fluffy” (Come on sharks, blood in the water! Please tell us “fluffy” players that our definition of the word doesn't match yours, please, I beg you!) army and was completely massacred by the A-game armies and lists of that day and age. It didn't matter how I played, I lost... big time. Some time after that I went to the active gaming group of the city in order to get some more gaming going, only to find that the group was dominated and controlled by the same (WAMCs) people who I had bumped into before. And after a few years away from competitive gaming I return and STILL find them there. The kind of players for whom “competitive lists are so important every single time” as the OP wanted to discuss. I have tried to speak out for a more relaxed tournament scene here in Sweden or for some way for us beer and pretzel gamers to participate in events in order to meet new people, face new armies, builds and tactics and generally have good time... but the hard core tournament scene isn't interested in that. It is competitive gaming through and through. And let's not start talking about comp because the WAMCs will simply try to break the system in the best and most obvious way they possibly can. So the hard-core people, as they always have; in sport, in religion, in politics and in life in general will rule over those who take things slightly less serious.

What I am trying to say is that there are a lot of players who would like for the hobby to become more relaxed, carefree and happy-go-lucky. But the tournament scene, the gaming groups and the internet forums won't cater to their needs and if they try they will be shot down. We understand that you competitive players want to play rough and like it that way, we accept that and we understand why you want to play that way. The excitement, the fun, the challenges and in the end the battles of pure skill! But somehow it feels like the competitive players fails to understand that there are those who would like to play in a more “fluffy” way and that they, us, we are having a hard time being heard, seen or given any space even though I personally suspect that we are the vast majority of the players.

Agusto

Many people like to think that there is a gulf between bringing a fluffy army, and a competitive one. That is simply not the case.
A fluffy army is one that has a theme, a back story, and a certain feel to it.
True fluff gamers are interested with how their army expresses the back story. There might be self imposed limits built into it, but then i find fluffy armies can be as carefully picked as non fluffy ones. After all, it does your characters back story no good if he gets killed all the time, does it?

Where the 'Competitive' tag usually gets used (abused??) by others is when the person picking the army simply picks the most powerful units in a codex (or codices) with no thought to the back story, simply to make what he percieves as the most powerful army he can. I fought a 1500 point 'Blood angel' army, that had a total of 13 Blood angels models in it, out of about 40 guys.
It was effective, but it wasn't a blood angels army, and the guy bringing it was also the WAAC rules lawyering hygiene deficient type, so he really in one person could define what people see a competitive gamer as being. but, despite this, he was tabled twice in a row. once by A very 'fluffy' Emperors children army (units of 6) and then by my own Necrons (nemensor zahndrehk) who left the wraiths, spyders and deathmarks at home.

I'm fairly certain that i can pick a better list (more optimised/points efficient), with what are regarded as being the better units, but it doesn't mean that i will deliberately pick a weak list, select sub optimal choices outside of my self imposed limits, or upon the battlefield, not try to win. it simply means that i want my army to tell a story.

Fluffy armies don't have to be weak, and competitive armies aren't by definition strong, they are simply an expression of how you as a player want them to work. My Necron army, based on the Cohort of Nemensor Zahndrehk, is fluffy, and its (in my opinion) fairly strong to boot.

There is also the added fact that the majority of games will be pick up games, and in a pickup game, fluff or no fluff, you will at least try to give yourself the best chances of winning.
Fluffy armies excel in narrative campaigns though, where the story is almost as important as winning or losing. I recently played a game, using the kill team rules where we refought the boarding action on Horus' battlebarge. Sanguinus still died, horus still crippled the emperor, but it was Rogal Dorn who killed Horus (with a Thunder-hammer to the head) . And i decided to use that in my own Imperial fists narrative rather than the 'historical' events.

Tournaments, pick up games or narrative campaigns, i pick fluffy armies, but i play competitively.

Agusto: Everything you're saying is totally valid, and I agree that it is unfair how hard it is for you to find the type of game you want to play. But another aspect of this is definitely the money. When models are as expensive as they are, a lot of people don't want to put down the money for units that won't perform well, or that won't see a lot of play time. When the majority of people at the LGS are fine playing against a "competitive" army, it's not too cost-effective to spend the time and money buying and painting units that'll hardly see the table. It's all about getting the most bang for your buck.

My enjoyment of the game has nothing to do with lists, but more about the attitude of the player putting their list on the table.

I have played WAAC lists with awesome opponents (tournament or game store setting) where I still had a lot of fun getting my teeth kicked in because THEY were awesome to play a game with.

I've also had numerous experiences of playing WAAC/Netlist/Fluffly themed lists with players who constantly accuse your list of being cheesey, question your every move, argue about rules, throw a tantrum when things don't go their way, or just blatantly cheat with fudged movement and dice. Those games suck regardless of the models on the table.

Its the person not the list that makes playing wargames memorable and fun.

You also have to accept that this is not a balanced game. Take any two "fluffy" lists or even two "WAAC" lists bump them together and you will find enough discrepancies in power levels where barring dice you can get a pretty decent prediction of what is going to happen.

 Anpu42 wrote:

Now Back to my Point:
In friendly Non-Tournament games; Why does your list Need to be “Competitive” Every Time?

It doesn't. But it's easier to discuss the game from the perspective that it does.

Consider this. A player, in a non-competitive venue, is having trouble defeating opponents. He posts on dakka asking for help. He posts his list, and gets told that what he's bringing isn't competitive. Well, he's not playing competitively, why should that matter? Because he's looking to improve his performance. Non-competitive is a euphemism for bad, and you can't help someone improve their game without being able to communicate to them why their units are bad, and what units are good. As such, we spend a lot of time talking about what's competitive and what isn't. It doesn't mean we play every game like that. But, it's like art, or music, in which you need to know the rules before you can break them. It isn't until you understand what makes something competitive that you can consciously take non-competitive options; if you can't tell the difference, you're just fumbling either way.

Why do you complain about not using their Favorite Units, because they are are not as good as you think they should be?

To me, when I get upset about this, it isn't about not using the unit, it's about the really bad job that GW game designers do. In an ideal world, you could build an army around the units that look cool, and it would be competitive. That will never be the case with GW writing the rules though.

Why do you shelve entire armies because you “New Codex” was not what you wanted it to be?

Some of us have limited time to play games, and tournaments provide a convenient way to get three or four games in on a day. If you're going to a tournament, you owe it to your opponent to try and put up a good fight, and so if your army gets nerfed into oblivion by the inadequacies of GW rules dev, then you're not fulfilling your side of the social contract when you continue to play it at a tournament. At that point, you have two options - don't play it anymore, or spend more money. Is it really surprising that people shelve the army?

Why can’t you just take you models you want to play and just play them?

Because GW can't write rules that support this approach to the game. Consider the latest Tau codex. I have a hammerhead. It's already built and has what used to be two burst cannons on it. With the new codex, however, those two burst cannons are now one twin-linked burst cannon, so I lost two S5 shots (and mathematically, .5 of a S5 hit). Meanwhile, the other option, the one I don't have modeled, is a Smart Missile System. This used to cost more points for fewer shots, but not need line-of-sight or allow cover saves. Now, it costs the same amount of points, has the same number of shots, still has the advantages with regard to LoS and Cover, and have greater range. If I just take the model I want to play (the one I own), I've lost 12" and significant benefits with no reduction in point cost.

Could you not have a good game will All “Bad Units” as you could with an All “Good Unit” game?

Sometimes, it depends on why the unit is bad. Some units are perfectly reasonable, and are simply overpriced. They're "bad" because there are less expensive alternatives that perform the same role. The Hammerhead option I mention above is one of these. It's a perfectly adequate tank as I already have it, it's just not as good as one with the Smart Missiles. You can have fun with these options, you can even win games with them, although if your opponent is using more optimal selections, you may be facing an uphill battle.

Then there are the unusable options. These are bad not because they're overpriced, but because they don't actual fulfill the role they're tentatively designed to fill. No matter how cheap you make a unit like this, it's not going to be worth playing with.

Competitive lists get more attention because they're really the only ones that merit discussion.

I don't need feedback to help me build a friendly list. I pick the units I like, throw them together and have fun.

If I'm preparing for a tournament, I'm going to get as much input as possible. I'll talk to people, ask for feedback on my list, play practice games, research and all that jazz.

When I'm going out to game, I just bring 2 lists: competitive and friendly. I'll ask my opponent what sort of game he's looking for and pick the appropriate list. Boom, done.

Note: I have enjoyed reading everything, whether I agreed with it or not.

 Redbeard wrote:
Because GW can't write rules that support this approach to the game. Consider the latest Tau codex. I have a hammerhead. It's already built and has what used to be two burst cannons on it. With the new codex, however, those two burst cannons are now one twin-linked burst cannon, so I lost two S5 shots (and mathematically, .5 of a S5 hit). Meanwhile, the other option, the one I don't have modeled, is a Smart Missile System. This used to cost more points for fewer shots, but not need line-of-sight or allow cover saves. Now, it costs the same amount of points, has the same number of shots, still has the advantages with regard to LoS and Cover, and have greater range. If I just take the model I want to play (the one I own), I've lost 12" and significant benefits with no reduction in point cost.

So this stops you from taking it off the shelf for games in a “Non-Competitive” Because it lost some “Combat Effectiveness”?

Here is my “Hammer Head” Situation: Björn Fellhanded
Björn now has 3 Hull Points, that’s not bad, but I have the old Metal version of him with the Assault Cannon. The Assault Canon means I have to get him close to things like Melta and Plasma Weapons. In 5th I would wade into Nob Mobs without fear. This is now a suicide run for him now. Currently I am loosing him to 150 point Rifleman Dreads glancing him to death.
I did not build him, I got him off EBay. He is such a nice model built so much above my skill level I can’t just pop off the arm to put on a Las-Cannon or Plasma Cannon on him. So were does that leave me, I use him as is, “Proxy” one of the other weapons, use him as a normal Dread or let him gather dust.
This is the solution I came up with, just keep using him as is until I can get a new Björn, and I am not in a hurry to this.

 Chumbalaya wrote:
Competitive lists get more attention because they're really the only ones that merit discussion.

I don't need feedback to help me build a friendly list. I pick the units I like, throw them together and have fun.

If I'm preparing for a tournament, I'm going to get as much input as possible. I'll talk to people, ask for feedback on my list, play practice games, research and all that jazz.

When I'm going out to game, I just bring 2 lists: competitive and friendly. I'll ask my opponent what sort of game he's looking for and pick the appropriate list. Boom, done.

This guy answered the question perfectly.

 Anpu42 wrote:

So this stops you from taking it off the shelf for games in a “Non-Competitive” Because it lost some “Combat Effectiveness”?

Uh, no. I was using the hammerhead as an example of how GW simply doesn't write rules that support a 'take whatever you want and expect them to work' mentality. Sure, I can use it (as I described below, in the section you didn't include in your quote block), and only lose a little effectiveness relative to running the SMS. But when I use it as such, I also recognize that I am not playing optimally (which can be a good thing), and that if I were to go to a tournament with it, I should probably replace those weapons.

I think a big issue is that there is no standard definition of the terminology used here. 'Competative' can mean different things, largely dependent on context.

I tend to see it used as another term for WAAC, or cheesy spam net lists. While I personally view the word competitive as just a descriptor, meaning a list that synergizes well within the player's theme or parameters, rather than one a specific type of army (ex: WAAC, Tourney, Casual). I believe there are competitive or non-competative WAAC and Tourney lists, and the same goes for fluffy or casual lists. I think the terminology and analogy used above by Prince Raven states it very well. A competative list should simply be defined as one that synergizes well, regardless whether it is WAAC, Tourney (upper tier), or Fluff/Casua (lower tier).

I think to truly have an efficient, effective discussion on this type of thing, a clear standard definition of list types is required, and to stop reinforcing the perceived superiority or inferiority of one list over another. Simply work to make sure the list works smoothly within the given theme. A clear, standard definition of list types would also ensure everyone's understanding of exactly what is meant by the OP.

I also feel based on the experiences within my meta, granted they are few, that this topic, along with most others, gets blown waaaay out of proportion on Dakka, as much as I love this place. There is a distinct focus on what I define as Tourney geared lists, regardless of the fact that most games played by the average player are not in tournaments. This emphasis gives the impression that anything that isn't tuned up to dominate a tournament is a weak, invalid list and that judgment carries on to the players themselves at times. I don't personally feel the last part, but I did initially feel pressure to have to have a tuned up Tourney list or I was a bad gamer wastin everyone's time and my money.

I've since come to realize the importance of list synergy over all else. I will doubtfully ever play in a tournament (even so I'd take it much more casually). Creativity and theme is more important to me. That said I still want to be an interesting, competative opponent. My success of that is dependent on how well my units work together, and how well I use them, as much as or more so than what the specific units are.

My personal issue with the "if your lists don't conform to net-accepted competitive standards, they are bad, and you should feel bad for taking it" is that it prevents the kind of discussion that leads to expanding the meta and getting more varied games. For example, should someone (say, Aliaros...) post a question in the tactics forum of "how can Unit X be configured / used in order to make it as effective as possible?" the response shouldn't be "it totally sucks and can never be used in any effective manner ever, and you're a moron for thinking it could be". The response that the poster in that instance is seeking, is something like "well, other units can do the obvious stuff better, but Unit X does have advantages A, B, and C, so if you do Y and Z that might be an effective use."

In other words, the "must conform to our competitive expectations" group tends to crowd out any discussion of "what if" scenarios. You can't talk about how best to build a Mech Tau list without Riptides, since everyone will just tell you that Devilfish suck and you suck for wanting to bring them, get your Aegis and castle up like everyone else is. You can't discuss how to run Dantewing, because Dantewing is totally suboptimal and Blood Angels aren't competitive anyway, go build yourself a Draigowing army instead. You can't discuss how to run a NId army without Tervigons, because you're obviously brain dead if you don't see how awesome they are, so why would anyone waste their time on you? You can't discuss how best to run a Chaos Raptor focused list, because Raptors suck and you suck for thinking they could ever work in any conceivable scenario ever. Which means that these players - who do in fact wish to become more competitive or at least have a fighting chance with the thematic lists they want to run - get essentially no constructive feedback that would help them tweak their lists accordingly.

It's incredibly frustrating. I've got no problem going up against Draigowing or Psychic Choir Nids or Beastpack Shenanigans or whatever. I don't consider them terribly imaginative, but I don't have an issue playing against them or losing to them. I do, however, have a problem with the idea that there is ONE TRUE WAY to play WH40k, and that's by using net-approved lists specifically optimized to maximally exploit the asymmetric game mechanical advantage of a few poorly balanced units in a codex, or combination of those across a couple codexes.

 Crimson wrote:
Of course it does! Your decision was based on things other than pure competitiveness, and that is exactly the sort of thinking the OP wanted to encourage. You ally your Tau with IG instead of Necrons or Chaos Marines because it makes more sense fluff-wise, and I put Sentinels in my IG force because I like the models.

But I never said that nobody should ever play with anything less than a perfectly optimized list. I said that:

1) Playing with a perfectly optimized list (or a list optimized beyond some arbitrary point of "too competitive") is a legitimate way of enjoying the game, and people who do so are under no obligation to justify their decision or waste some of their games by playing with a less-optimized list just for the sake of using bad/different units.

2) If you want tactical advice on how to use a less-than-optimal unit you need to clearly say "I know this unit is bad, but how can I use it as well as possible?" or the discussion will naturally turn to the fact that you shouldn't use the unit at all.

Veskrashen wrote:
For example, should someone (say, Aliaros...) post a question in the tactics forum of "how can Unit X be configured / used in order to make it as effective as possible?" the response shouldn't be "it totally sucks and can never be used in any effective manner ever, and you're a moron for thinking it could be". The response that the poster in that instance is seeking, is something like "well, other units can do the obvious stuff better, but Unit X does have advantages A, B, and C, so if you do Y and Z that might be an effective use."

Except that's not what Ailaros asked, he asked whether it is a viable option, not how to use the non-viable option as well as possible. Seriously, don't try to white knight for him when he even posted to explicitly reject the "I still want tactics for a bad unit" argument and claim that the unit is a viable one that should be used on its own merits, not just to do something different.

Veskrashen wrote:
My personal issue with the "if your lists don't conform to net-accepted competitive standards, they are bad, and you should feel bad for taking it" is that it prevents the kind of discussion that leads to expanding the meta and getting more varied games. For example, should someone (say, Aliaros...) post a question in the tactics forum of "how can Unit X be configured / used in order to make it as effective as possible?" the response shouldn't be "it totally sucks and can never be used in any effective manner ever, and you're a moron for thinking it could be". The response that the poster in that instance is seeking, is something like "well, other units can do the obvious stuff better, but Unit X does have advantages A, B, and C, so if you do Y and Z that might be an effective use."

In other words, the "must conform to our competitive expectations" group tends to crowd out any discussion of "what if" scenarios. You can't talk about how best to build a Mech Tau list without Riptides, since everyone will just tell you that Devilfish suck and you suck for wanting to bring them, get your Aegis and castle up like everyone else is. You can't discuss how to run Dantewing, because Dantewing is totally suboptimal and Blood Angels aren't competitive anyway, go build yourself a Draigowing army instead. You can't discuss how to run a NId army without Tervigons, because you're obviously brain dead if you don't see how awesome they are, so why would anyone waste their time on you? You can't discuss how best to run a Chaos Raptor focused list, because Raptors suck and you suck for thinking they could ever work in any conceivable scenario ever. Which means that these players - who do in fact wish to become more competitive or at least have a fighting chance with the thematic lists they want to run - get essentially no constructive feedback that would help them tweak their lists accordingly.

It's incredibly frustrating. I've got no problem going up against Draigowing or Psychic Choir Nids or Beastpack Shenanigans or whatever. I don't consider them terribly imaginative, but I don't have an issue playing against them or losing to them. I do, however, have a problem with the idea that there is ONE TRUE WAY to play WH40k, and that's by using net-approved lists specifically optimized to maximally exploit the asymmetric game mechanical advantage of a few poorly balanced units in a codex, or combination of those across a couple codexes.

QFT +1

 Peregrine wrote:

Veskrashen wrote:
For example, should someone (say, Aliaros...) post a question in the tactics forum of "how can Unit X be configured / used in order to make it as effective as possible?" the response shouldn't be "it totally sucks and can never be used in any effective manner ever, and you're a moron for thinking it could be". The response that the poster in that instance is seeking, is something like "well, other units can do the obvious stuff better, but Unit X does have advantages A, B, and C, so if you do Y and Z that might be an effective use."

Except that's not what Ailaros asked, he asked whether it is a viable option, not how to use the non-viable option as well as possible. Seriously, don't try to white knight for him when he even posted to explicitly reject the "I still want tactics for a bad unit" argument and claim that the unit is a viable one that should be used on its own merits, not just to do something different.

Probably semantics. I find the question "is this viable?" to be the same as "how can Unit X be configured / used in order to make it as effective as possible?". I also feel that there should be no requirement to genuflect and perform obeisance to the internet competitive list building crowd in acknowledgement of their judgement of a unit's total uselessness in order to have a discussion about how best to use it.

Veskrashen wrote:
I find the question "is this viable?" to be the same as "how can Unit X be configured / used in order to make it as effective as possible?".

But that's not what it means. You're completely changing the meaning of the question. Compare:

Should I eat an apple?

vs.

What's the best way to cook an apple?

One asks whether you should do X, the other asks if, given that you're going to do X, what is the best way to do X. If someone asks you "is unit X a viable option" then it's a yes/no question, and "no" is a perfectly valid answer.

I also feel that there should be no requirement to genuflect and perform obeisance to the internet competitive list building crowd in acknowledgement of their judgement of a unit's total uselessness in order to have a discussion about how best to use it.

There isn't. But there is an obligation to be clear in asking for something if you want to have a specific discussion. If you ask "should I do X" when you want to talk about "what's the best way to do X" then it's entirely your fault if you get "don't do X" as an answer.

I don't consider the question "is X viable?" to be a "should I do X?" question, as I said; you do. Again, it's a semantic difference. I see "is X viable?" to mean "can it be used in an effective manner?". You seem to read "is X viable?" to mean "should I take unit X in a tourney / competitive / optimized list?" which is making the same semantic contortion you're insuating that I'm making.

Oh, and for the record, when someone comes back to say "by asking "is unit X viable?" I meant blah blah blah" you don't get to say "nuh uh!" and continue to seem like a reasonable individual.

Veskrashen wrote:
I see "is X viable?" to mean "can it be used in an effective manner?".

And what is the standard for "effective", if not "performs well in an optimized list"? Are we obligated to pretend that ineffective units are somehow "effective" because they're better than nothing?

Oh, and for the record, when someone comes back to say "by asking "is unit X viable?" I meant blah blah blah" you don't get to say "nuh uh!" and continue to seem like a reasonable individual.

Sure I do. Words have meanings, and if you use them in the wrong way it's entirely reasonable to point out that what you said and what you meant are two different things.

 Peregrine wrote:

Veskrashen wrote:
I see "is X viable?" to mean "can it be used in an effective manner?".

And what is the standard for "effective", if not "performs well in an optimized list"? Are we obligated to pretend that ineffective units are somehow "effective" because they're better than nothing?

Oh, and for the record, when someone comes back to say "by asking "is unit X viable?" I meant blah blah blah" you don't get to say "nuh uh!" and continue to seem like a reasonable individual.

Sure I do. Words have meanings, and if you use them in the wrong way it's entirely reasonable to point out that what you said and what you meant are two different things.

Words definitely have meanings. You assume that the connotations you attach to them are shared by the other person using them, which isn't a good assumption to stick to when they start correcting your interpretation of the message they're sending. If they say "I mean X" then they mean X, regardless of what you understood their prior message to be.

As far as standard by which to measure effectiveness, I don't feel that "performs well in an optimized list" is a good standard to go by. Primarily because the phrases "performs well" and "in an optimized list" aren't really well defined ones to begin with, and the "optimized list" you're talking about changes the nature of the measurement significantly. Baron Sathonyx, for example, wasn't considered a "good unit" until people started running him with Invisible Fortuned Beastpacks. In that particular list, he's good. In other lists, not so much. You can't simply say "Take Baron Sathonyx as your HQ choice in a DE army or allied detachment" since doing so isn't going to be effective in all lists, not even all optimized lists. Raiderspam Warriors do better with the Duke, for instance, and you're probably better off with a cheap Archon in a lot of cases.

On the other hand, you can look at a unit like Baron Sathonyx and say, "ok, what can he do well, and what roles can he play well in an army?" Well, he's not all that great in CC, since he's only S3, doesn't have power weapons or poison weapons, isn't Fearless so he can (potentially) be swept if a unit he's attached to loses combat. He's not that great in shooting, since all he's got is a splinter pistol. He does give Hit and Run to a unit, and he's got a Shadowfield; he also gives Stealth. And he's Jump Infantry. Oh, and he gives you a better chance to get first turn. So realistically, he's not that good of an HQ to take, unless you've got a nice, heavy, fast moving melee unit you want to use a Shadowfield character to LOS tank with, or if you're dependent on going first in a game. In most other instances, he's probably not your best choice.

The only way you can make the blanket statement that the Baron is an effective unit is if you assume that any "optimized list" run by Eldar or Dark Eldar has a nice big melee unit you want to throw into someone's face. That's not a valid assumption to make in my opinion. The more correct response is that the Baron is an effective way to increase your chances of going first, and is an effective addition to a melee oriented army - particularly one with a melee oriented deathstar of some kind.

In that vein, you can look at something like Vespid, and say something like they're a fast moving unit that's not worried about moving through terrain, that has solid AP3 shooting at a reasonable range. Thus, in a Tau list that needs to reliably take out MEQ units in an opponent's backfield, the Vespid can be an effective choice. The reason you can say this is that a Fire Warrior, on average, will cause 1/9 wounds to a MEQ per turn outside of rapid fire range, while a Vespid will cause 1/3 wounds to a MEQ per turn. As a FW costs 9 points, and a Vespid costs 18, it takes 50% more points worth of FW to cause the same average MEQ wounds as a Vespid does. Thus, Vespid are a more effective anti-MEQ choice than FW outside of rapid fire range. This doesn't, by the way, invalidate the claim that Vespid are a poor choice overall - there's lots of other units in the Tau codex that are better than Vespid at taking out MEQ from 24" or further, and there's lot of solid choices that compete with Vespid for the FOC slots. Which often means that you *shouldn't* take Vespid. None of which makes them an ineffective anti-MEQ harassment unit.

Edit: To generalize my point a bit, by stating that it has to "perform well in an optimized list" you're making a lot of unstated assumptions about what a competitive list will contain, about what lists a competitive list will go up against, and about the scenarios a competitive list must do well at. The majority of "competitive lists" I've seen build around 1-2 mechanics and attempt to funnel every single ounce of the list to supporting those 1-2 mechanics. Psychic Choir lists look to maximize the amount of Biomancy rolls to buff up their MCs, with some consideration given to keeping troops on the board to hold an objective or two. Guard lists tend to maximize cheap artillery platforms and flyers, or they concentrate on flooding the board with high Leadership / Fearless / ATSKNF blobs of 30+ guardsmen. DEldar Beastpack lists look to get a nice, big, fat Invisible beast pack with all the Rending goodness into CC as fast as possible. Necron Flying Circus depends on flooding the board with cheap, effective flyers and beaming troops onto objectives late game. The existence of these lists does not imply or necessitate that they are the only valid lists from those codexes. Further, their existence does not mean that any list or unit you choose has to be able to roflstomp each and every one of the above in order to be considered competitive. A competitive list, however, should include effective ways to deal with all of those archetypal lists. This means that you need to be able to handle high Toughness FNP MCs, you need to be able to handle flyers in some way (flooding the board with bodies being a viable option), you need to be able to kill 150+ T3 5+ save troops over the course of a game, you need to be able to counter - in some way - Invisible, fast, hard melee troops.

The fact that Unit X may not be good at being one of those counters does not make it useless. If the rest of the list has a hole that Unit X can fill effectively, then it can be an effective unit in that list. That is the standard by which I feel things should be judged - can Unit X be effective in a particular role, such that the rest of your points can go to doing other things.

I agree with Veskreshen. Splitting hairs aside, regardless of the intended question, saying a unit is 'bad' is pretty close minded. There's a use and a reason for every unit or the resources wouldn't have been spent to design it.

When someone asks if a unit is viable, it's reasonable to assume they also want to know how it is most viable. Being purposefully obtuse and ignoring the intended question is, given the general level of intelligence here, is just trolling and ridiculous, and possibly the occasional example of ignorance.

A while back I posted a thread for advice on using Dreadnoughts. With a lack of 'they suck in 6th don't use them' comments, it was quite informative. Whether one believes they're 'bad' or not, it was obvious I wanted to know how to use them as effectively as possible and other than the occasional' long fangs do it better', people strove to answer the intended question.

I don't understand why people refuse to help so often by perpetrating good/bad unit mentality, and ignoring the obvious question. I understand some just like to argue, for the same of arguing, but there are plenty of other opportunities without turning nearly every request for advice into an off topic argument. That's all it is, pretending otherwise claiming misunderstanding is just a thin cover which is just a transparent insult to te intelligence of the person making the claim, that of the person asking for advice, and those willing to actually help. If someone wants to argue and stop another from getting quality advice, whatever, but call it what it is.

A glutton for punishment, I keep posting for such advise hoping beyond hope to get what I got with the Dread thread but it seems it's in vain.

 Badger_Bhoy wrote:
I agree with Veskreshen. Splitting hairs aside, regardless of the intended question, saying a unit is 'bad' is pretty close minded. There's a use and a reason for every unit or the resources wouldn't have been spent to design it.

That's simply not true. You assume that GW's designers are actually competent, when there is a wealth of evidence that suggests they are not. There are bad units. They are the units that cannot successfully accomplish tasks that they would be expected to perform. Often, a change in edition has this result.

Take Howling Banshees as an example. They're an assault unit, but they're T3 4+, with a smallish max unit size and no way to get into position to assault which prevents them from being shot to death. In 5th ed, they were marginal, because they could assault out of a wave serpent, provided it had not yet moved that turn. In 6th ed, they cannot even do that. They're currently a bad unit.

I know I'm not adding much to the discussion, that this is mainly a "QFT" post, and I apologise, but I'd just like to say I'm so glad I'm not the only one who feel that GW's designers aren't all that competent. I mean, I agree with Redbeard. It has always felt, to me, that GW's design philosophy is the same as what us video gamers would call "pay2win", the most despicable kind of game design in video game side of thing(See: Zynga, the myriad of terrible iOS/android games with IAP, etc)...

And to attempt to add some to the discussion: when someone calls an unit "bad", it's often not the result of them looking at the profile or the codex or analysing in vaccum, it's usually the result of actual field testing by several competent players of that codex, as well as critical analysis on discussion boards, which is especially the case for older codices. Example, DE's mandrakes, Kheradruakh.

That said, I do also prefer players who'd just field what they like rather than what the interweb told them to field.

 Redbeard wrote:

 Badger_Bhoy wrote:
I agree with Veskreshen. Splitting hairs aside, regardless of the intended question, saying a unit is 'bad' is pretty close minded. There's a use and a reason for every unit or the resources wouldn't have been spent to design it.

That's simply not true. You assume that GW's designers are actually competent, when there is a wealth of evidence that suggests they are not. There are bad units. They are the units that cannot successfully accomplish tasks that they would be expected to perform. Often, a change in edition has this result.

I'd agree and disagree here. You assume that there is a wealth of evidence to suggest GW's designers are incompetent. I'd say that statement bears examination, since you assume they're designing the rules to support the style of competitive, min-max tournament play we have here in the US. Since it's also been established that the GW designers didn't design the game with that in mind, I'd say you're making an unsupported statement there. I would also point out that your example of Howling Banshees as a bad unit is for a unit that's in a codex drafted for 4th edition WH40k, when none of the 5th edition or 6th edition rules were in place. It is hardly reasonable to state that the designers of 4th edition codex Howling Banshees are incompetent simply because they don't meet your min-max competitive efficiency standards two editions later.

Your example of Howling Banshees being a bad unit, however, is a good one to unpack. For approximately the cost of a standard Space Marine, you get a WS4 I5 model with a power weapon and pistol. Sure, T3 4+ means you're taking more wounds from small arms on average. And yes, the fact that Eldar lack an assault transport makes getting them into melee safely a far more difficult proposition. That said, does that automatically make them useless? Is 30 AP3 attacks on the charge of no value at all? Is the ability to model your power weapons to choice, giving you mauls and swords and axes and lances in any combination you choose completely pointless and not at all worth taking ever? Is the fact that your cheap Exarch can take an S5 AP3 melee weapon not worth considering? Is the fact that he can take a weapon that gives +2 attacks and straight up ignores armor saves altogether useless? Oh, and since they've got Banshee Masks, those girls strike at I10 the first round, regardless of any grenades or cover.

Are there challenges in using them? Absolutely. Are there probably better assault units in the Eldar codex, especially now that it's 2 editions out of date? Yeah, most likely. Are there options that are probably easier for most players to use well, or more survivable in more situations, or more flexible overall? Yup. Are they totally useless, completely unable to accomplish anything of value ever, and thus not worthy of consideration at all? That, I highly doubt.

Veskrashen wrote:

I'd agree and disagree here. You assume that there is a wealth of evidence to suggest GW's designers are incompetent. I'd say that statement bears examination, since you assume they're designing the rules to support the style of competitive, min-max tournament play we have here in the US. Since it's also been established that the GW designers didn't design the game with that in mind, I'd say you're making an unsupported statement there.

Good rules work for tournament and casual play equally well, as MtG has shown. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the disparity in power level between two units from the same codex. Even without the goal being to create a game suitable for tournament play, if your goal is to sell models, and one unit is comparatively much worse than another, you're not going to sell the worse model. Consider Mutilators, from the Chaos codex. Brand new model, dedicated assault unit as an elite choice in a codex full of dedicated assault units as elites (in an edition that really doesn't favour dedicated assault units). Probably the worst of these dedicated assault choices, and I've never seen anyone run one. Is that good design?

I would also point out that your example of Howling Banshees as a bad unit is for a unit that's in a codex drafted for 4th edition WH40k, when none of the 5th edition or 6th edition rules were in place. It is hardly reasonable to state that the designers of 4th edition codex Howling Banshees are incompetent simply because they don't meet your min-max competitive efficiency standards two editions later.

It has nothing to do with a efficiency standard. I have largely avoided talking about efficiency, because an inefficient unit can still get some things done. A bad unit really can't, or at least struggles to find situations to be useful in. Banshees are bad, indeed because of changes to the basic rules (which are still part of design), that have made it increasingly difficult to get any mileage out of them. In a vacuum, they're not a poorly priced unit, and yes, 30 AP3 attacks has some merit. How often do you think someone gets to make 30 attacks with them in 6th ed? And that's why they're bad. Not because they're inefficient, but because the rules have marginalized a unit with those stats. Getting the unit into combat is such a challenge that you can go several games before you accomplish it. But go ahead and keep running them if you want. (BTW - Wyches, from a much more recent codex, suffer from many of the same problems, although they can at least charge out of a transport, and be taken in much larger squads, allowing some to make it to combat, and even still you don't see them in many 6th ed lists either, do you.)

Baronyu wrote:
And to attempt to add some to the discussion: when someone calls an unit "bad", it's often not the result of them looking at the profile or the codex or analysing in vaccum, it's usually the result of actual field testing by several competent players of that codex, as well as critical analysis on discussion boards, which is especially the case for older codices. Example, DE's mandrakes, Kheradruakh.

Sure, there's some of that going around too. But again, a lot of that discussion is conducted with various unstated or otherwise implied assumptions. And I'm not saying that categorically there are no bad units at all. What I'm saying is that I find it highly unlikely that a unit is so unredeemably terribad that there is no possible efficient use for it at all. Even with Mandrakes, as universally loathed as they are. They are, for example, the only unit in the entire Dark Eldar codex with Infiltrate, and one of two non-HQ units with an invulnerable save. Between Fleet and Move Through Cover, they're better at making long charges against troops in cover than most units in the codex. Given Kheradruakh appears anywhere on the board when he arrives from reserve, as long as it's not within 1" of an enemy unit, he can easily get a pain token to those infiltrated Mandrakes. It's not clear to me if, after joining a unit after coming in from reserves, the unit he joins can still assault, but if so - between Infiltrate / Fleet / Move Through Cover - you can easily engineer a turn 2 charge with a 5++ / FNP unit with 3 attacks each. Easily enough to tarpit something fugly for a while, especially since the Decapitator can inflict ID.

Now, is it a good combo, a tournament winning combo, a combo that makes shelling out 185-300pts for? Especially when you can get Harlequins or Wracks or Grotesques or any number of other things instead? Yeah.... not so much. Can I see situations in which it could be used well? Sure. Can I see what the designers were probably going for with that unit, given their fluff and design? Yup. The only real drawback is that they're not cheap enough to make up for the fact that the rest of the DEldar army is so damn fast that being able to Infiltrate into a forward position isn't worth a whole lot. And given that Wyches have Drugs and get an Invul in CC where it counts, and can get pain tokens far easier from an attached Haemie for far cheaper, there's little reason to use Mandrakes to tarpit.

So, all that said... Mandrakes are generally a poor choice in a DEldar army, because the cost of making them good enough is too high, and there are other options that can achieve the same impact / serve in the same role better or more cheaply. There simply isn't a *need* for an infiltrating assault unit in a DE list. But, if for whatever reason an infiltrating tarpit assault unit is what you need - then Mandrakes would fit the bill.

Veskrashen wrote:
If they say "I mean X" then they mean X, regardless of what you understood their prior message to be.

Fine. Once they clarify that they meant X even though they said Y then the thread can change to discuss X. But that doesn't chance the fact that if you say Y you should expect a discussion about Y, or that it is completely unreasonable to expect people to read your mind and magically know that you really meant to say X.

As far as standard by which to measure effectiveness, I don't feel that "performs well in an optimized list" is a good standard to go by. Primarily because the phrases "performs well" and "in an optimized list" aren't really well defined ones to begin with, and the "optimized list" you're talking about changes the nature of the measurement significantly.

That's why you have to state a context for your list. The fact that there is no single perfect list doesn't change the fact that units can be evaluated based on how well they perform in a given optimized list, or that the relevant question in evaluating a unit is whether or not you would take it over the alternatives purely for its superior ability to win games.

That is the standard by which I feel things should be judged - can Unit X be effective in a particular role, such that the rest of your points can go to doing other things.

That's a terrible standard because it ignores the potential for there to be a unit Y that is better than unit X in that particular role.

Veskrashen wrote:
Are they totally useless, completely unable to accomplish anything of value ever, and thus not worthy of consideration at all?

Again, that's a terrible standard for evaluating a unit. Every single unit (AFAIK) in 40k can accomplish something of value, the question is whether it will accomplish more of value than the alternative units. A unit with a 1% chance to kill a vehicle is capable of accomplishing something of value, but that doesn't mean that you ever want to use it if you have an otherwise-identical unit that has a 90% chance of killing the same vehicle. Instead we discard the garbage units that are out-performed by the alternatives, and focus on the viable options that make an effective contribution for their points/FOC slots.

 Badger_Bhoy wrote:
When someone asks if a unit is viable, it's reasonable to assume they also want to know how it is most viable.

No it isn't reasonable. If someone asks "is this viable" the reasonable assumption is that they're asking if it's viable. For example, they might be considering buying one and asking to find out if it's worth the money, or if they should buy something else instead.

If that person actually wants to ask what the best way to use a unit is, with the assumption that the unit will be used no matter what, then they need to ask that question instead instead of blaming other people for their own failure to communicate.

 Redbeard wrote:
Good rules work for tournament and casual play equally well, as MtG has shown. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the disparity in power level between two units from the same codex. Even without the goal being to create a game suitable for tournament play, if your goal is to sell models, and one unit is comparatively much worse than another, you're not going to sell the worse model. Consider Mutilators, from the Chaos codex. Brand new model, dedicated assault unit as an elite choice in a codex full of dedicated assault units as elites (in an edition that really doesn't favour dedicated assault units). Probably the worst of these dedicated assault choices, and I've never seen anyone run one. Is that good design?

Again, I'd disagree that it's necessarily poor design that the rules have to work equally well in an extreme setting as in a more moderate setting. What I mean is that basically every system frays at the margins of it's design - once you start pushing the envelope on that, things break. To the best of my knowledge, MtG has been designed - if not from the beginning, then for as long as I can remember, and I was around in the beginning - for tournament play. And even there, they have to disallow certain decks or combinations of rules or whatever in order to ensure that the system that they designed doesn't break. If GW designed their system for casual, narrative play, then highly competitive push the boundaries tournament play is simply a use of the game that wasn't intended, tested, or allotted for by the designers of the game. The fact that so many things are broken or work poorly in that kind of environment isn't at all surprising - it wasn't designed to be played in that manner. Now, I will absolutely agree that you have every right to play it in that way, and I go to tourneys myself. But if the system was never designed to be played in that manner, you can't call the designer incompetent if it doesn't work well when played that way. As far as the Mutilators go, every single thing you said was absolutely valid - they're an elite choice dedicated assault unit in a codex full of dedicated assault units. And I can say with a straight face that if that unit is good at it's job, then it's not poor design. It's definitely not good design from a competitive list building standpoint, since there's obviously so many other units in the dex that can perform the same job as well, or have other advantages that make them worth taking. But as long as that unit isn't craptacular at what it was designed to do, then I can't say it's poor unit design. Bad codex design or less than optimal internal balance, both from a competitive tourney play standpoint, sure.

It has nothing to do with a efficiency standard. I have largely avoided talking about efficiency, because an inefficient unit can still get some things done. A bad unit really can't, or at least struggles to find situations to be useful in. Banshees are bad, indeed because of changes to the basic rules (which are still part of design), that have made it increasingly difficult to get any mileage out of them. In a vacuum, they're not a poorly priced unit, and yes, 30 AP3 attacks has some merit. How often do you think someone gets to make 30 attacks with them in 6th ed? And that's why they're bad. Not because they're inefficient, but because the rules have marginalized a unit with those stats. Getting the unit into combat is such a challenge that you can go several games before you accomplish it. But go ahead and keep running them if you want. (BTW - Wyches, from a much more recent codex, suffer from many of the same problems, although they can at least charge out of a transport, and be taken in much larger squads, allowing some to make it to combat, and even still you don't see them in many 6th ed lists either, do you.)

You'll notice that I agreed with most of your points regarding how difficult they are to use in 6th, and how difficult it would be to get the most out of them in 6th. I also stated that evaluating the design competency of 4th edition units using a 6th edition standard is flat out useless - the system has changed, and nothing works the way it used to. You're trying to evaluate the competency of a design in an environment it was never designed to be used in - namely, two versions of a game later, none of the rules of which anyone could have reasonably predicted with any accuracy back then. I absolutely, unequivocally agree that it is incredibly difficult to get the most out of a Banshee unit these days, and as a result most people are going to be frustrated trying to get them to perform to max potential in a tournament setting (where the dominant lists are primarily 5th edition codexes taking advantage of older units that now work more effectively in the new edition). As far as Wyches, yeah our local DE player still runs a lot of them, though generally as anti-armor units than anti-infantry assault units. My Mech Tau hate them with a passion.

Veskrashen wrote:
And even there, they have to disallow certain decks or combinations of rules or whatever in order to ensure that the system that they designed doesn't break.

You remember wrong. Card bans are very rare, and it's even rarer that more than one card from a "problem" deck will ever be banned. And it is never a deliberate policy, bans are an absolute last resort to fix the rare mistake that slips through balancing.

But if the system was never designed to be played in that manner, you can't call the designer incompetent if it doesn't work well when played that way.

Sure we can. A competent designer would have made a system that works for both competitive and casual play. Unfortunately GW is incompetent and designed a system that falls apart unless you never try too hard to win and are always willing to 4+ the frequent rule problems.

 Peregrine wrote:

Veskrashen wrote:
If they say "I mean X" then they mean X, regardless of what you understood their prior message to be.

Fine. Once they clarify that they meant X even though they said Y then the thread can change to discuss X. But that doesn't chance the fact that if you say Y you should expect a discussion about Y, or that it is completely unreasonable to expect people to read your mind and magically know that you really meant to say X.

And again, assuming that I said Y in the first place, because of the connotations you attach to the words I say, doesn't make it so.

As far as standard by which to measure effectiveness, I don't feel that "performs well in an optimized list" is a good standard to go by. Primarily because the phrases "performs well" and "in an optimized list" aren't really well defined ones to begin with, and the "optimized list" you're talking about changes the nature of the measurement significantly.

That's why you have to state a context for your list. The fact that there is no single perfect list doesn't change the fact that units can be evaluated based on how well they perform in a given optimized list, or that the relevant question in evaluating a unit is whether or not you would take it over the alternatives purely for its superior ability to win games.

That is the standard by which I feel things should be judged - can Unit X be effective in a particular role, such that the rest of your points can go to doing other things.

That's a terrible standard because it ignores the potential for there to be a unit Y that is better than unit X in that particular role.

Actually, neither of your arguments are correct. You can in fact discuss a unit without the context of a list. In fact, in the absence of a list's context, the assumption that it is intend for use in a competitive tourney setting is in fact an erroneous assumption, because no such thing was stated or implied. Further, discussion of whether Unit X is good or bad at a particular role does not in fact ignore the fact that there might be another unit that is better at that particular role. Talking about whether FWs with EMPs are an effective anti-armor unit doesn't negate the fact that Deep Striking Crisis are generally better at it, which doesn't negate the fact that a Vendetta may be a better choice. However, by assuming that because Unit Y does that role better in some way, that Unit X is useless and should never be taken, ignores a whole host of other things - like any reason not to take Unit Y, for example. Which also, by the way, makes an assumption about the list in question - that allies are available, or that the FOC slots for Unit Y aren't already filled by something else, etc etc etc.

Veskrashen wrote:
Are they totally useless, completely unable to accomplish anything of value ever, and thus not worthy of consideration at all?

Again, that's a terrible standard for evaluating a unit. Every single unit (AFAIK) in 40k can accomplish something of value, the question is whether it will accomplish more of value than the alternative units. A unit with a 1% chance to kill a vehicle is capable of accomplishing something of value, but that doesn't mean that you ever want to use it if you have an otherwise-identical unit that has a 90% chance of killing the same vehicle. Instead we discard the garbage units that are out-performed by the alternatives, and focus on the viable options that make an effective contribution for their points/FOC slots.

Veskrashen wrote:
And again, assuming that I said Y in the first place, because of the connotations you attach to the words I say, doesn't make it so.

There is no connotation involved. "Is X viable" is a simple yes/no question, and "no" is a legitimate answer.

(Please note that "connotation" is not the same thing as "I expect you to know what I mean even though I don't say it".)

You can in fact discuss a unit without the context of a list.

Yes, and your point is? You were saying that "performs well" has no meaning, I corrected you based on the fact that there's always a context (whether implied or explicit) and discussion of performance in optimized lists already accounts for the fact that different units are better or worse in different optimized lists.

In fact, in the absence of a list's context, the assumption that it is intend for use in a competitive tourney setting is in fact an erroneous assumption, because no such thing was stated or implied.

You're right, we shouldn't assume a competitive tournament environment. Fortunately I never did, I've said from the beginning that we're talking about competitive games, not tournament games.

Further, discussion of whether Unit X is good or bad at a particular role does not in fact ignore the fact that there might be another unit that is better at that particular role.

That's not what I said. I said that your "can X be effective in a particular role" comment is a terrible standard because it ignores the potential existence of alternative options that are better in that role, not that discussion of a given unit ignores other units. You can evaluate how effective a unit is in a given role in isolation (through math alone), but you can't answer the question of whether it's good enough to go in a list until you consider the question of whether or not it is better than the alternatives.

There may well be, as again I have noted above, several valid reasons for NOT taking Unit Y. Such as Unit Z, which takes the same FOC slot as Unit Y, but is effective at doing something else that Unit Y and Unit X are not effective at doing.

That's why I said "otherwise identical". If unit X is effective, and unit Y is otherwise identical but more effective, unit X is garbage and should never be used. Obviously you'll never have two exactly identical units like that, but usually the overlap is sufficient that you can reject one of them as non-viable garbage even though it is capable of rolling dice and making a non-zero contribution.

The fact that YOU assume that everyone is asking about tournament viability does not, in fact, make that assumption true.

I never assumed anything about tournaments. Competitive =/= tournaments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Veskrashen wrote:
As an analogy, a competent designer can design a car that flies as well as it drives. That does not make Lambourghinis incompetently designed cars, simply because they're rather bad at flying.

That's a terrible analogy because building a car that can fly would take away from its primary role as a car. It will be slower, probably won't look as nice, etc. On the other hand, designing a game for competitive play doesn't take anything away from casual play. The only reason to throw out competitive play is that you're too lazy and/or incompetent to design a game that can handle it.

Peregrine, you assume that competitive necessitates an highly optimized and min-maxed list. Every single counter argument you advanced above is based on that assumption. My use of the word "tournament" is shorthand for any kind of play that necessitates a highly optimized, min-maxed list in order to have any chance of success. Which I feel is the basis of your arguments.

And again, "can X be effective at a role" does not in fact ignore alternatives. Saying "X sucks because Y is better at that role" does not in fact answer the question of "can X be effective at a role". Further, the inclusion of Unit X based on it's performance of a role is not at all dependent on whether Unit Y is better at it. It can be based on funds or model availability, it can be based on time before the next game, it can be based on points or FOC restrictions imposed by the rest of the list, it can be based on the use of different allies than the codex Unit Y is in. In short, the fact that Unit Y is better at a role than Unit X does not make Unit X not viable, it means that Unit Y is better at that role. That's why I believe it's best to actually lay out why - even though Unit Y is better at a particular role - you might want to take Unit X anyway.

If those units are "otherwise identical" then yes, you'd be right - one would be garbage and the other not. If both units were exactly the same, with the exact same capabilities, but one cost twice as much as the other with no additional advantages then yes, that's an absolutely fair statement to make. That is not the situation in just about any circumstance you care to name. Take, for example, Tau flyers. When the question was asked "which is the best Tau flyer?" your response was "they're not Vendettas or Helldrakes, so don't take them, they suck." Which is not comparing units that are otherwise identical. Taking a Vendetta means also taking an IG HQ and Troop choice. It means you're taking Lascannons, which are terrible against massed infantry. Instead, you simply listed any unit that was maximally efficient at any particular use of said flyer, and said "it sucks because this other unit is better at that role." There are 4 Tau flyers, and they're all Fast Attack choices. For "all other things to be equal" you'd have to be comparing it to the same role using Tau units in Fast Attack slots. That's not the analysis and comparison you make.