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.

We aren't talking about what's fun to use, though. Otherwise, when you have people hammering in the point of "don't use tournament standards and they're okay", what's the point of discussion?

There is no point then. I'll grab my ba devastators and have a fluffy game.

Experiment 626 wrote:

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Those are local gakky games. I see Warp Talons kill an Assault Terminator squad once and you don't see anyone praising them. We're using math and what's competitive and what's logical.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also one of those comes from Jancoran's blog, which has been shown to be terrible in different threads.

And this is where your logic fails entirely. Just because warp talons and mutilators don't work for YOUR playstyle don't mean they don't work for others. Going by math hammer and what's competitive imho is a bad way to design a list

It's not a matter of Warptalons not fitting certain play styles as it is the fact that many of these so-called 'specialist' Chaos units are just plain bad...

Warptalons cost too much for what you get. They have a special ability that can't be viably used as the army lacks any form of Deep Strike mitigation, nor can they garner any proper supports from within their own army. They're too effective at cutting up MEQ's, yet fall flat against most MC's due to the prevalence of 2+ saves on them. They can't dent Deathstars as they lack any way to get ap2 into the unit, nor do they have the weight of attacks to chew through them.
The one and only unit they really shine against, T5/3+, is typically only seen in small numbers, again making their combat role a crap-shoot, as they're likely to kill off the unit and then sit around to eat a whack load of enemy bullets.

Are Talons playable? Absolutely they are, but there's no hiding the fact that they, like Mutilators, as just a bad unit.

I freely admit that I love my small unit of Talons when playing my Tzeentch Daemons! But I make no mistake that my army is highly non-competitive.
If I wanted to make it competitive, things like the Talons would absolutely need to go, alongside my Flamers who are just dead weight competitively speaking. Meanwhile, I'd need to radically alter the way I use my Pink Horrors, trim down my Tzheralds, add in the better Slaanesh/Nurgle/Khorne Dog units, etc...

Mutilators are playable. But they're still a terrible unit that simply cannot be used against the top end stuff, and functions horribly in its intended role. They simply have far too much going against them that there is no way to make them viable against the newer books, especially when they're running their more optimised lists.

You have to realize people would still use the same stupid logic if every CSM unit cost 5 points more.

Play style can't overcome math on a week in and week out basis. This is why in starcraft units get point adjusted sometimes.

 Lammikkovalas wrote:


Sure, play a few games using mutilators and warp talons and tell us how it went..

We did

Those weren't games. That was people messing around with "games".

3 Serpents is NOT Mechdar. If you're going to make "unorthodox" battle reports, at least get your bloody facts straight.

I'm going to reserve further judgement until I see the ba article. If some crazy DoA strategy is suggested, then i'll know for sure. DoA has always stood for dead on arrival. It didn't work in 5th or 6th and it won't work now in 7th.

Tycho wrote:

Well, i just thought it's unfair to ask for batreps with mutilators doing fine, getting this batreps than still disregard tham as garbage even when you've got no batreps to prove how outright bad they are. Just seems a bit one-sided and unfair towards poor mutilators. What do they need to do to prove their worth? Kill deathstars on their own? Catch up scatbikes even though there's literally nothing in the codex that can reliably do that on it's own?

I'm sorry, I may have missed it, but I didn't see where Jancoran posted a Batrep. The closest thing I've seen is the thread I linked to where I talk about having used them in a few games. I would hesitate to call those batters though.

He had one battle report against the eldar 6th edition codex I believe. The opponent spammed guardians and forgot to deploy a waveserpent, so probably wasn't the best player around. The list wasn't competitive (3 WS, maybe 4, guardian heavy and one WS was not deployed)
It was certainly not the WS spam we saw back in 6th, despite claims that it was.

Tycho wrote:

Of course, I'm not sure how much it really matters either. At this point it's not likely that someone who's argued as strenuously for the use of Mutilators as Jancoran has is going to hog play some battles with the intent of doing reports and then come back and say "sorry guys, my bad. I was wrong." I mean, is that something that happens on Dakka?

It does with more reasonable players. I've had someone (I want to say vipoid) convince me I was wrong regarding BA and a formation they had at an earlier time. I had someone else convince me noise marines and regular marines were worth using for chaos (long ago, can't recall who). Another person on this forum recently convinced me of hawks being good (after 4 editions of ignoring them outside of their phoenix lord, I didn't even read their new rules )

In those situations, people linked army lists/battle reports, showed me the math, and detailed how they were to be used effectively. I even argued with them quite a bit, but admitted they were right eventually.
The problem is people in Jancorans camp just go "Well I made it work in my super competitive meta! I don't have a battle report, or strategy, but you guys are cowards! I mean, I've taken them against the mighty dread mob!", which isn't a convincing argument. I've had similar arguments from people who want to introduce reiki healing in my quantum mechanics in chemistry class
The worst argument I've seen so far is him saying a dominion squad can kill a WK and riptide on the same turn, trying to change it to multiple, I running the numbers and determining how many points that would be exactly, and him saying I made a mistake in my math but not pointing it out after 2 pages of discussion. All the while suggesting I was a horrible professor.

Tycho wrote:

Plus, and I don;t mean this to be offensive (seriously, I really don't), but Jancoran argues just hard enough for most of his points that he reminds me of Ailaros at times. I doubt he's really open to being wrong. I'd also like to see more of the meta he plays in. I remember someone (it may actually have been Ailaros) arguing for the use of a unit no one else thought was any good. This poster swore up and down that the unit was great and we just need to "L2P". When they finally posted a battle report about it, they were lined up against a list so sub-par that it was like it was made by a spider monkey with a mental deficiency. SO of COURSE in a meta like that, things will suddenly become "good". Not saying that's definitely the case for Jancoran, but I always wonder about that with people.

No, that sums up Jancoran pretty well. Whenever he posts a report the enemies list looks very weak, and their strategies seem terrible (charging a 2 Wound WK into 6 re-rolling to hit not firing snap shot lascannons springs to mind. He would have been better off not touching the model at all).
I'd really like to see his strategies against a competitive option, because I have read through his entire blog and enjoy his writing style (it's pretty funny). But whenever he introduces a tactic against a competitive opponent, he seems to get the rules wrong or doesn't understand why it won't work (The murdersword against the WK being a prime example), so I think his meta is more casual.
Which is fine, I'm all for a more casual meta. But it doesn't belong in a conversation about the strength of a unit.

Tycho wrote:

I think the most honest, unbiased review your going to get of them is in the thread I linked. My take going in was "these are trash" and my take coming out was, "these are better than I thought, but outside of this experiment, they weren't nearly good enough for me to take them over several other things in the book. Even if it's just for a distraction tactic.

That's a good summary of them. They are just missing 1 or 2 special rules or improved stats and they'd be good. Not amazing, but good.
Imagine muties with 3 wounds, more attacks, fleet, strike at init with fists...something. A lot of the chaos codex feels that way.

You know what would be an immediate fix for Obliterators and Mutilators? S5 and T5 standard. At least they'd be almost as good as Centurions.

Assault Centurions make Mutilators cry. For the same price, Mutilators have a 5++ and Deep Striking. Centurions can either fight at range with 3 TL Bolters or charge at I4 through cover, and can either flame stuff or for 5 more points carry a TL Melta Gun. For a few more points the Mutilators can take T5, but Centurions ID them anyway thanks to S10.

And assault centurions are still considered poor. Because grav centurions are LULZ ALL OF YOU DIES!

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You know what would be an immediate fix for Obliterators and Mutilators? S5 and T5 standard. At least they'd be almost as good as Centurions.

Assault Centurions make Mutilators cry. For the same price, Mutilators have a 5++ and Deep Striking. Centurions can either fight at range with 3 TL Bolters or charge at I4 through cover, and can either flame stuff or for 5 more points carry a TL Melta Gun. For a few more points the Mutilators can take T5, but Centurions ID them anyway thanks to S10.

At the very least they need to swap Slow & Purposeful for Relentless. S5/T5 would be simply amazing to have, especially if the MoN gets changed to something more flavourful than just the boring +1T. (I'd personally love to see it become say, FnP + Shrouded, then add a Nurgle psychic power to add +1FnP!)

Oh, and for the love of feth, remove that utterly stupid as gak BS about not being able to use the same weapon in consecutive turns!

Experiment 626 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You know what would be an immediate fix for Obliterators and Mutilators? S5 and T5 standard. At least they'd be almost as good as Centurions.

Assault Centurions make Mutilators cry. For the same price, Mutilators have a 5++ and Deep Striking. Centurions can either fight at range with 3 TL Bolters or charge at I4 through cover, and can either flame stuff or for 5 more points carry a TL Melta Gun. For a few more points the Mutilators can take T5, but Centurions ID them anyway thanks to S10.

At the very least they need to swap Slow & Purposeful for Relentless. S5/T5 would be simply amazing to have, especially if the MoN gets changed to something more flavourful than just the boring +1T. (I'd personally love to see it become say, FnP + Shrouded, then add a Nurgle psychic power to add +1FnP!)

Oh, and for the love of feth, remove that utterly stupid as gak BS about not being able to use the same weapon in consecutive turns!

But CHAOS!

Akiasura wrote:

The fact that they aren't being taken is a sign that they are bad.

Thousands of flies can't be mistaken? It's quite a weak arguement.

For example, noone was running lictors cause they're weak and mathhammer, and drama. BAM 1-st place at LVO (or BAO?). Noone's running masque. BAM 4 victories and one draw with orks + masque at ETC.

There are a lot of underestimated things in wh40k. The fact that "they aren't being taken" doesn't mean they're bad at all.

 koooaei wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

The fact that they aren't being taken is a sign that they are bad.

Thousands of flies can't be mistaken? It's quite a weak arguement.

For example, noone was running lictors cause they're weak and mathhammer, and drama. BAM 1-st place at LVO (or BAO?). Noone's running masque. BAM 4 victories and one draw with orks + masque at ETC.

There are a lot of underestimated things in wh40k. The fact that "they aren't being taken" doesn't mean they're bad at all.

The guy was only using the Lictors because they're Locator Beacons for the other good unit in the list besides the Flyrants: Mawlocs. People honestly need to stop citing this list as an example for this kinda topic. It's getting old and people kinda keep missing that.

That said I have no idea what this Masque list is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
And assault centurions are still considered poor. Because grav centurions are LULZ ALL OF YOU DIES!

And that says quite a lot.

 koooaei wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

The fact that they aren't being taken is a sign that they are bad.

Thousands of flies can't be mistaken? It's quite a weak arguement.

Are...you calling other players flies?
It's not a strong argument, which is why I listed some others (that you chose to omit and not respond to?) but when the people who say mutilators are good have no argument at all....even a weak argument is better than none.

 koooaei wrote:

For example, noone was running lictors cause they're weak and mathhammer, and drama. BAM 1-st place at LVO (or BAO?).

You mean the list that spammed mawlocs and FMCs (which everyone agreed are very good) while using a few lictors as locator beacons?
I saw the list, it didn't use the lictors in a new way. They weren't attacking anything or doing damage. If you check out the battle reports, the lictors didn't do anything weird or interesting other than act as locator beacons. I believe they spent most of the game hiding and going to ground.

 koooaei wrote:

Noone's running masque. BAM 4 victories and one draw with orks + masque at ETC.

Not aware of this list, do you have a link?

 koooaei wrote:

There are a lot of underestimated things in wh40k. The fact that "they aren't being taken" doesn't mean they're bad at all.

Which, again, is why I've been listing other arguments and asking for evidence that they are good. So far, no one has provided anything at all other than insulting other players.
I'm not sure why you singled out one piece of what I've been saying to pick at, rather than address any one of my points about why mutilators are weak, or my comments on the provided battle reports. Do you not have anything else to add to the discussion?

40k isn't exactly a deep game either, this isn't WMH where 2 years into the game we are discovering new combos that are absurdly strong.
At release, people saw that scat bikes were the best thing in eldar. Lo and behold, such is the case.
At release, people saw the WK was way undercosted and the best GMC in the game. Lo and behold, such is the case.
At release, people saw that guardians were subpar as were shining spears. Lo and behold, such is the case.

So on and so forth, sometimes there is a bit of a debate but usually by about 3-5 months after release any combos or tricks have been discovered. There isn't enough synergy in this game to make for weird tricks or combos that no one has seen before.

Look. Skyhammer exists. These are ASM assaulting from DS combined with grav cannons to my face. There is nothing the CSM can do to my BA that is remotely that brutal. Want to deep strike some CC units? You're asking to be assaulted by a list that desperately wants to be able to assault. Thanks for making that happen for me.

By the way, there's a reason the lictorshame list got its name.

While not exactly great evidence I ran 5 Nurgle Votlw warp talons today vs Grey Knights 2 of them quite happily chewed on a purifiers squad and the last one ran around being a annoying so and so by grabbing objectives lol

Akiasura wrote:

 koooaei wrote:

There are a lot of underestimated things in wh40k. The fact that "they aren't being taken" doesn't mean they're bad at all.

Which, again, is why I've been listing other arguments and asking for evidence that they are good. So far, no one has provided anything at all other than insulting other players.
I'm not sure why you singled out one piece of what I've been saying to pick at, rather than address any one of my points about why mutilators are weak, or my comments on the provided battle reports. Do you not have anything else to add to the discussion?

40k isn't exactly a deep game either, this isn't WMH where 2 years into the game we are discovering new combos that are absurdly strong.
At release, people saw that scat bikes were the best thing in eldar. Lo and behold, such is the case.
At release, people saw the WK was way undercosted and the best GMC in the game. Lo and behold, such is the case.
At release, people saw that guardians were subpar as were shining spears. Lo and behold, such is the case.

So on and so forth, sometimes there is a bit of a debate but usually by about 3-5 months after release any combos or tricks have been discovered. There isn't enough synergy in this game to make for weird tricks or combos that no one has seen before.

I think the only glaring miscalculation in recent years, was how a goodly portion of the competitive crowd initially declared that Daemons were unplayable & too random to even compete in friendly games.

Lo and behold, Daemons were a top codex in 6th, (with multiple optimised variations), and 7th has been just as kind as they can still compete even against the majority of the 7.5 stuff. (only free transport spam & Scatbikes/Wraithknight/Str.D spam really terrify them)

I can actually recall certain Tournament players outright calling the codex the worst rules set that GW had ever produced! (and then those same self-proclaimed 'experts' were among the first to claim that Daemons & summoning made 7th ed unplayable at the competitive level. )

I'd really like to see his strategies against a competitive option, because I have read through his entire blog and enjoy his writing style (it's pretty funny). But whenever he introduces a tactic against a competitive opponent, he seems to get the rules wrong or doesn't understand why it won't work (The murdersword against the WK being a prime example), so I think his meta is more casual.
Which is fine, I'm all for a more casual meta. But it doesn't belong in a conversation about the strength of a unit.

I'm with you on this. I also like Jancoran's blog. His writing style is fun and I do like that he tries to cover things that might be considered out of the ordinary by those on the "competitive scene". My only gripe (and this is a gripe I have with players in general) is that there's often not as much context as I'd like when he talks about his strategies and lists. This is a common mistake that a lot of people make too. Everyone kind of assumes that everyone else's meta is the same as theirs. This is, of course, false. That's why when I give advice I try to always stress context. For example, I will always tell people that my meta is semi competitive (meaning tough games but not a meta where 3 out of 4 are running hardcore, face smashing net lists) and I'll also generally list the types of armies/lists I tend to face on a regular basis. That way everyone reading knows right away where I'm coming from and whether or not my particular advice will work for them.

I think if everyone did that before handing out advice, a lot of this would be much easier to sort through. This Mutilators discussion in particular would have benefitted from more people giving a general rundown of their meta so we could all see what everyone else was facing. There' nothing wrong AT ALL with giving advice from the position of a fluffy "forge the narrative" type of meta. But if that's the meta your advice comes from AND you're telling me you're giving me advice for the competitive scene ... I have to call BS.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Those weren't games. That was people messing around with "games".

3 Serpents is NOT Mechdar. If you're going to make "unorthodox" battle reports, at least get your bloody facts straight.

Your sad refusal to accept any reason nor any proof nor any anything is what I find the most odd.

Also: I have no idea what you're talking about. Again. Who said a word about Serpents?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Akiasura wrote:

The problem is people in Jancorans camp just go "Well I made it work in my super competitive meta! I don't have a battle report, or strategy...

Except I did have batreps, did present the strategies and so you are entirely misrepresenting me. As usual. And i suppose that will be the way of it.

You not liking what I have to say doesnt mean I didn't tell you how to do it. And you not appreciating the way to do it is your call. But you were told, you were shown and you choose to reject it. I'm fine with that last part. Just don't go telling people this tripe about not offering any proof or any strategies. I did.

Also: I have no idea what you're talking about. Again. Who said a word about Serpents?

He's talking about the battle report on your blog (finally found the post they were in lol) between your Knight Lords list and your friend's "Mechdar". If that's what you're basing your opinion on then I'd have to agree that you're on shaky ground. That was a really weird Eldar list (not sure I'd consider it true mechdar but I see where you're coming from) and a lot of silly mistakes were made. That's cool and it happens all the time, but you can't use that as an example to say "see! they work".

Show me something in a situation like I had to deal with in the thread I posted where you're in a more competitive meta with stronger opponents (in terms of list building) and then I'm interested.

It was a very cool, well written report, but not one I'd hang my hat on as evidence that Mutilators are "good".

I see that a few other links were posted in the same post as your report was linked in so I'm going to read those now too. It's not that I think it's impossible to find legitimately solid uses for Mutilators (that work in a competitive scene and can't be better filled by something else in the codex), it's just that I've not really seen much actual evidence of it. I have some really cool conversion ideas for Mutilators so I'd really love for them to be decent.

 Jancoran wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Those weren't games. That was people messing around with "games".

3 Serpents is NOT Mechdar. If you're going to make "unorthodox" battle reports, at least get your bloody facts straight.

Your sad refusal to accept any reason nor any proof nor any anything is what I find the most odd.

It's not proof though. You merely state that they can catch enemies (they being the muties) but aren't really showing how one of the slowest units in the game is able to do so, besides claiming you've done it.

 Jancoran wrote:

Also: I have no idea what you're talking about. Again. Who said a word about Serpents?

This is in regards to one of your battle reports where you faced off against a 6th edition eldar opponent who you claimed was running mechdar.
It's from another thread, and not really relevant to the discussion at hand.

 Jancoran wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Akiasura wrote:

The problem is people in Jancorans camp just go "Well I made it work in my super competitive meta! I don't have a battle report, or strategy...

Except I did have batreps, did present the strategies and so you are entirely misrepresenting me. As usual. And i suppose that will be the way of it.

Where are the batreps of you using mutilators against 7th edition codexes? The stronger ones, if possible?
I've asked you for batreps constantly, for any of your unorthodox tactics and how they fare against competiive lists, and you have always been unable to provide any. Always.

I've asked how you are going to get the mutilators into combat, since their only effective range is melee and they are incredibly slow, and lack accurate deepstrike. Your response has been...lacking.
You mentioned they draw the fire of 200-300 point units, despite me showing that a ~150 point marine squad can kill one pretty reliably. What 300 point unit that you see on the table is dedicating firepower to this thing, rather than just moving away?

 Jancoran wrote:

You not liking what I have to say doesnt mean I didn't tell you how to do it. And you not appreciating the way to do it is your call. But you were told, you were shown and you choose to reject it. I'm fine with that last part. Just don't go telling people this tripe about not offering any proof or any strategies. I did.

Was this when you mentioned deploying all of them (somehow at the same time) and surrounding the enemy (despite not having accurate deep strike) and chasing them off the board (despite being extremely slow and not that tough)?
Or was it when you mentioned anyone who can't get the above to work lacks intestinal fortitude?

Nothing else I mentioned about previous discussions is false either. Those all happened.



EDIT;
I had a friend design my muties so they match my maulerfiends. They both look like hydras, with several dragon heads coming out of their arms and necks, and the armor looks like its bursting apart.
I would love to field them. My eldar/sm armies look quite boring.

 Jancoran wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Those weren't games. That was people messing around with "games".

3 Serpents is NOT Mechdar. If you're going to make "unorthodox" battle reports, at least get your bloody facts straight.

Your sad refusal to accept any reason nor any proof nor any anything is what I find the most odd.

Also: I have no idea what you're talking about. Again. Who said a word about Serpents?

http://40kunorthodoxy.blogspot.com/2014/02/battle-report-mechdar-vs-night-lords.html
That's specifically what I'm talking about. There are THREE Wave Serpents in a 2000 point game and you call it Mechdar. Coupled with the junk choices made, the fact this was presented in this thread as proof of Mutilators showing their value is complete junk and deserves to be thrown out if you actually have a sense of dignity. Nobody would take this seriously if they actually read it.

THAT is not Mechdar. You have obviously NOT faced Mechdar. I also doubt you've seen a good Eldar list this edition either. So yes the statement is entirely relative to the discussion at hand.

Tycho wrote:

Also: I have no idea what you're talking about. Again. Who said a word about Serpents?

He's talking about the battle report on your blog (finally found the post they were in lol) between your Knight Lords list and your friend's "Mechdar". If that's what you're basing your opinion on then I'd have to agree that you're on shaky ground. That was a really weird Eldar list (not sure I'd consider it true mechdar but I see where you're coming from) and a lot of silly mistakes were made. That's cool and it happens all the time, but you can't use that as an example to say "see! they work".

Show me something in a situation like I had to deal with in the thread I posted where you're in a more competitive meta with stronger opponents (in terms of list building) and then I'm interested.

It was a very cool, well written report, but not one I'd hang my hat on as evidence that Mutilators are "good".

I see that a few other links were posted in the same post as your report was linked in so I'm going to read those now too. It's not that I think it's impossible to find legitimately solid uses for Mutilators (that work in a competitive scene and can't be better filled by something else in the codex), it's just that I've not really seen much actual evidence of it. I have some really cool conversion ideas for Mutilators so I'd really love for them to be decent.

That is a 6E battle report that is indeed irrelevant to this discussion. His only gripe is "Thats not wave spam",. Well if not, call it what you will then Slayer-Fan. Lol. I don't really care WHAT he calls it. I smashed it. If the two Prisms had been Wave Serpents, I'd have smashed them too. I'd still be standing on their wreckage, for all the same reasons.

It would be one thing if i had painted them as the second coming of Christ. But I have not. I have said they absolutely have a place, and why and when. That is what I've said. Certainly good enough for me to have taken them to tourney.

There is a little mini-crusade going on to somehow "nuh uh" me to death, but I've put the Mutilators to the test. I dunno what else you can do BUT win to prove a point, because its all talk outside of that. I've done the former plenty. Lost a few too, but it wasn't because I spent some points on them. Doing a a battle report of me winning with them will somehow make it more real? I don't think so. But I have already decided to do one and said so on another thread a while ago. I have been waiting to find an opponent with the right models for it and the holidays are tough times to get games in. Wouldn't want Slayer-fan to lose his lunch over me playing the "wrong" army. God forbid!

As I said, the mutilator thing makes be dubious, but I'm not really an expert on CSM. I've seen them maybe once, ever, and they weren't a problem.

The BA material is so far out of date that it doesn't count for much.

Martel732 wrote:
As I said, the mutilator thing makes be dubious, but I'm not really an expert on CSM. I've seen them maybe once, ever, and they weren't a problem.

The BA material is so far out of date that it doesn't count for much.

Agreed and I said as much. It wasn't meant for 7E.

I was just fishing for something that I could definitively say yea or nay to, but that was the only thing. So that's why I mentioned it again.

 koooaei wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

The fact that they aren't being taken is a sign that they are bad.

Thousands of flies can't be mistaken? It's quite a weak arguement.

For example, noone was running lictors cause they're weak and mathhammer, and drama. BAM 1-st place at LVO (or BAO?). Noone's running masque. BAM 4 victories and one draw with orks + masque at ETC.

There are a lot of underestimated things in wh40k. The fact that "they aren't being taken" doesn't mean they're bad at all.

The lictor list only worked for the given scenarios. Same with the masque list. This way we can claim anything is bad or good. Invisibility or D weapons are suddenly bad, because we refaq them. Deathstars can be made godlike if all scenarios have kill points and D is nerfed.

Doing a a battle report of me winning with them will somehow make it more real?

Nope. But if they were selling like jetbikes for eldar, and were in almost every chaos list, then it would mean they are good. If they are not seen in tournament lists, and there are many different tournaments around the world, then they are either bad, or too situational to use.

[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 ALPHARIUS]