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.
Martel732 wrote: No that general hasn't. He's just won in spite of poor unit selection. Mathematics doesn't lie. It can be overcome, however. That same general's magnitude of victory would be higher with better units. Just because I win some games with ba or whatever doesn't make them not statistically inferior.
My take from your example is that you are a very good general who beat a bad opponent with a terrible unit. That doesn't make mutilators good. It means you are good enough to beat some opponents with bad units.
Mathematics doesn't lie? Lol.
It doesn't.
You might get multiple answers (the quadratic is a simple example), numbers can be taken out of context (as you mentioned), and mistakes can be made, but math itself is incredibly accurate when done correctly. Inferences taken upon math can be wrong, which is why most people want to see the math.
It's why it defines medicine, engineering, technology, science...pretty much every facet of human development from a hard science standpoint is based off of math to some degree.
Meaning that numbers can be made to support a lot of things that aren't true, especially when they lack context.
That's very true. A lot of arguments that are put forth rely on faulty numbers or selective data mining that isn't mentioned because it doesn't fit the narrative (is this what GW has meant by forge the narrative!?). I wish more people looked at numbers critically before making a snap judgement.
But as you're implying here, that our numbers don't fit the context, that's going to be hard to prove on your part.
To judge the offensive output, the mutilator is put against a variety of targets to see how it performs. Given it's attack profile, WS, str, it's pretty easy to put it against various models. Most toughnesses and weapon skills won't make a large impact, and invuls are the only saves that matter since the unit is melee only. The melee output for the points against a lot of heavy targets is quite good actually, but that can quickly be determined and doesn't require much work. Obviously against cheap GEQ it performs pretty poorly. I think we mostly skipped it since everyone agreed on how effective it is if it ever reaches melee.
To judge the toughness of the model, different weapons and units (most of them commonly seen, such as a tactical with 2 pgs or a 5 man scat bike squad, or even a grav cent) were run against the mutilator to determine how much firepower it can survive. This was surprisingly bad, as most units that cost between 100-150 points (minus transports) seem to be quite capable of removing the mutilator in a single turn. A few units can't, but those units can remove it in melee or are not commonly taken. There are rare exceptions (tau firewarriors) but those armies have much better options that commonly see play for removing a mutilator. Hugging cover is hard on a melee only unit, and it doesn't benefit from cover much anyway, so we didn't need to account for this like we would with, say, guardsmen or marines.
To judge it's speed, you look how fast it moves versus other units in the game. While it can deepstrike, it's a melee only unit that is incredibly slow, possibly in the top 3 for slowest unit in the entire game if looking only at its turn by turn movement. So it's speed is awful, probably its worse trait.
To take these numbers out of context we'd have to say;
"Oh, the mutilator is bad because it only kills a few guardsmen!". While true, mutilators have better targets than guardsmen in most IG lists, for killing power.
"Oh, the mutilator is great because it takes 300 points to destroy it!" This is true, but most armies have a much cheaper unit that is commonly taken that can easily destroy the mutilator.
"Oh, the mutilator is bad because it has to move 6" per turn across the entire board" This is true, but nobody is going to take a mutilator and not deepstrike or place it in a transport of some kind.
The numbers given, however, are not out of context so readily apply to the situation.
In any event, that all ignores the fact that you selectively accept the math that sounds good... while ignoring the math that means something: wins. You can't steal my wins with any amount of figuring. When you can, we'll chat again. Until then I think you would be better served learning than poo pooing.
No one is talking about stealing wins, I am not sure why you bring this up constantly. The Patriots recently lost to the dolphins, does that make the dolphins the better team? Of course not.
And it's not selectively accepting math...most of the math tells us mutilators are awful. They aren't tough enough for their points, poor range/speed on a melee only unit is pretty bad, and they are only effective against units they are often to slow to catch.
Wins are not math, btw. Just because something has a number doesn't make it a product of mathematics, although I suppose you can stretch counting to include math if you really want to.
Yoyoyo wrote: You guys probably understand that terrain and mission parameters have a large influence on how units perform.
Unless you all play by a common ruleset, terrain and universal Meta, this is really a pointless conversation.
Well, it's pointless because no one is likely to change anyone's mind (except me in regards to interceptor).
But people discuss the balance for way more complex games than 40k all the time, to meaningful results on occasion.
Check out dnd, exalted, wod, WMH, or various other table top games. WMH, right now, has a 5 page thread in the circle forums about their new large creature and trying to make it work. The Tl:dr summary is that it works in a few cases with specific warlocks, but overall is a poor model.
Fighting games are also more complex, and manage to make tier lists. Matchups are determined using tournament results, frame data, analysis of moves, and once the matchup spread is complete, tiers are placed. It takes a while, especially in a DLC/patch heavy environment like we see today, but its still done.
In 40k, we can discuss how units benefit from terrain. Obviously some units benefit more than others, and its certainly true that cover can vary (Martel's meta is a good example of this, if memory serves), but for a slow unit like the mutilator that only benefits from LoS blocking terrain, it's not a big factor.
In 40k, we can discuss how units can impact missions. Units that can do damage and wipe squads, have ObSec, are fast/tough, are all really good at taking advantage of mission objectives. But a slow unit that can be removed in one round by most 150 point units (so, another troop choice for many factions), isn't going to impact the game through objective grabbing much. How many maelstorm cards does the mutilator impact?
I'm not saying it won't happen ever. There could be 4+ cover all over your boards, you could be playing nothing but LoS blocking terrain everywhere, there could be a few occasions where the mutilator drops on an out of the way objective that, though it does take it out of the game, still made a big difference.
But these situations are remarkably corner case, and in many many more situations that are commonly seen, the mutilator does not perform as well as (if compared to 3 mutilators) to bikes, raptors, spawn, basic marines, plague marines...all the staples basically.
So yes, we can discuss it. Most people do, there are huge tactica threads after all.
One thing i will say that sorta hurts the whole LOS blocking terrain helping them is that there main mode of getting close to kill something is deepstrike. The more terrain on the board mishapping becomes an increasing problem.
Yoyoyo wrote: You can discuss and argue passionately and authoritatively without a common point of reference, yes.
Carry on.
I would believe the common point of reference is, you know, the rulebook and various supplements, codexes, etc.
Unless someone houserules the game like crazy, or uses ITC rules (which is quickly mentioned and understood, as it does change what is good and what isn't to some degree) I'm afraid I don't see your point at all.
I'm always quite disappointed in these kind of responses and how no one likes Mutilators. I don't play Chaos but still, if I did I would use them.
I personally think they look really cool (despite some people claiming it's the worst model) and I feel like you should take them in your army if you like them. If they aren't that great in a game because of GW's rule writing, does it really matter?
I say, use them. But of course, it's entirely up to you.
It'd be a shame to get blood all over my nice new outfit...
--------------Harlequins---------------
-------Dark Eldar Wych Cult--------
-----Eldar Craftworld Warhost-----
Harley Quinn wrote: I'm always quite disappointed in these kind of responses and how no one likes Mutilators. I don't play Chaos but still, if I did I would use them.
I personally think they look really cool (despite some people claiming it's the worst model) and I feel like you should take them in your army if you like them. If they aren't that great in a game because of GW's rule writing, does it really matter?
I say, use them. But of course, it's entirely up to you.
Because the debate is whether or not the Mutilator is any good or not. As in, is it worth taking if you want to win.
Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions.
Harley Quinn wrote: I'm always quite disappointed in these kind of responses and how no one likes Mutilators. I don't play Chaos but still, if I did I would use them.
I personally think they look really cool (despite some people claiming it's the worst model) and I feel like you should take them in your army if you like them. If they aren't that great in a game because of GW's rule writing, does it really matter?
I say, use them. But of course, it's entirely up to you.
Because the debate is whether or not the Mutilator is any good or not. As in, is it worth taking if you want to win.
I suppose that's fair, but still, it saddens me a little.
It'd be a shame to get blood all over my nice new outfit...
--------------Harlequins---------------
-------Dark Eldar Wych Cult--------
-----Eldar Craftworld Warhost-----
Martel732 wrote: No that general hasn't. He's just won in spite of poor unit selection. Mathematics doesn't lie. It can be overcome, however. That same general's magnitude of victory would be higher with better units. Just because I win some games with ba or whatever doesn't make them not statistically inferior.
My take from your example is that you are a very good general who beat a bad opponent with a terrible unit. That doesn't make mutilators good. It means you are good enough to beat some opponents with bad units.
Mathematics doesn't lie? Lol.
You know in my business, we have a saying: Figures don't lie but liers can figure. Meaning that numbers can be made to support a lot of things that aren't true, especially when they lack context.
In any event, that all ignores the fact that you selectively accept the math that sounds good... while ignoring the math that means something: wins. You can't steal my wins with any amount of figuring. When you can, we'll chat again. Until then I think you would be better served learning than poo pooing.
Also: If you think I care whether the score is 26-3 or 26-9 this weekend when the Seahawks take on the Vikings, you're mistaken. I won't care.
Winning isn't math. Winning is a combination of many, many factors, only one of which is math. And for 40K tournaments, magnitude of winning often matters. Just like in college football. I'm not trying to steal your wins. I'm actually making them even more impressive by pointing out how abysmal mutilators are. I just don't think that your success translates into something that can be applied in a general sense across all metas.
However, note that in some cases, the mathematics is the dominant factor in determining the winner. Take the example of BA vs Scatbike/WK Eldar. There is no way to general your way out of that hole on a consistent basis. The Eldar do too much damage and are too hard to get off the board for the BA to have a reasonable chance.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/01/08 03:08:50
Harley Quinn wrote: I'm always quite disappointed in these kind of responses and how no one likes Mutilators. I don't play Chaos but still, if I did I would use them.
I personally think they look really cool (despite some people claiming it's the worst model) and I feel like you should take them in your army if you like them. If they aren't that great in a game because of GW's rule writing, does it really matter?
I say, use them. But of course, it's entirely up to you.
Because the debate is whether or not the Mutilator is any good or not. As in, is it worth taking if you want to win.
I suppose that's fair, but still, it saddens me a little.
Me too... its the same with Warp talons sometimes.
Harley Quinn wrote: I'm always quite disappointed in these kind of responses and how no one likes Mutilators. I don't play Chaos but still, if I did I would use them.
I personally think they look really cool (despite some people claiming it's the worst model) and I feel like you should take them in your army if you like them. If they aren't that great in a game because of GW's rule writing, does it really matter?
I say, use them. But of course, it's entirely up to you.
Believe me, I wish I could. Mine look incredible. I had them converted so serpent heads are coming out of the armor, it looks like its bursting apart. I have matching fiends and a heldrake, so the army looks just incredible on the table top, especially with the leaders and terminators. I'm a god awful painter and converter, so I paid to have it done by a professional. It's the pride of my collection.
But in a meta that consists of only the strongest factions with semi-competitive lists, mutilators don't have a place. We play all of our games competitively, most of us were at one point seriously into at least one fighting game, and a few of us have played in GTs back in the day, so it would be strange to suddenly go casual. Even our RPGs are generally high danger cloak and dagger plots/combat as war style games (I'm the DM usually). Its how we like it, but it sadly doesn't work in 40k anymore. It was fine in 5th.
It's not a massive deal...most of us have at least 3 full armies after all. It's just annoying, since some of us really love eldar, crons and sm, while others like CSM, horde style nids, and orks.
Akiasura wrote: I would believe the common point of reference is, you know, the rulebook and various supplements, codexes, etc.
No, we're talking about meta, terrain, missions, points values, rules resolutions, restrictions on formations and detachments, etc. These affect the relative value of any unit. Y'know.
Pronouncements of universal value (or lack thereof) divorced from all context are not possible for a unit who's utility is defined purely in respect to non-universal situational utility.
In fact, we can only declare Mutilators bad if we hand-wave away the effects of terrain and missions (as you did), and ground discussion about 40k in irrelevant false analogies like fighting games and DND that have zero relevance on the tabletop. Do fighting games or DND score Linebreaker points?
Which means, I think this thread has been more of a psuedo-intellectual dick-measuring exercise than anything else. Play coy if you want.
Akiasura wrote: I would believe the common point of reference is, you know, the rulebook and various supplements, codexes, etc.
No, we're talking about meta, terrain, missions, points values, rules resolutions, restrictions on formations and detachments, etc. These affect the relative value of any unit. Y'know.
Pronouncements of universal value (or lack thereof) divorced from all context are not possible for a unit who's utility is defined purely in respect to non-universal situational utility.
In fact, we can only declare Mutilators bad if we hand-wave away the effects of terrain and missions (as you did), and ground discussion about 40k in irrelevant false analogies like fighting games and DND that have zero relevance on the tabletop. Do fighting games or DND score Linebreaker points?
Which means, I think this thread has been more of a psuedo-intellectual dick-measuring exercise than anything else. Play coy if you want.
Like when they try to deep strike into a terrain heavy area? That's not exactly in their favor.
Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions.
Martel732 wrote: However, note that in some cases, the mathematics is the dominant factor in determining the winner. Take the example of BA vs Scatbike/WK Eldar. There is no way to general your way out of that hole on a consistent basis. The Eldar do too much damage and are too hard to get off the board for the BA to have a reasonable chance.
To be fair Martel, I understand you play without Maelstrom and with a minimum of LOS blocking terrain. Your opponents can just leverage superior range to blast you off the end of the table, without a lot of tactical options for you to even the odds.
Math is going to be much bigger factor in that kind of environment, and correspondingly assault will be much harder to pull off.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MWHistorian wrote: Like when they try to deep strike into a terrain heavy area? That's not exactly in their favor.
Notice we didn't come to a conclusion on the value of Deepstrike either.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/08 03:18:51
Your right we can only go by general trends. The general trend which includes a rough average of all metas across the world seems to say that they are not a good unit. Chaos generally has not done well in major tournaments to my knowledge. From this we can extrapolate that Chaos space marines is not a great book, and mutilators are not a great unit.
Akiasura wrote: I would believe the common point of reference is, you know, the rulebook and various supplements, codexes, etc.
No, we're talking about meta,
Meta is certainly relative. We can discuss what type of meta's (what armies do well/ do not do well against mutilators? What units? Are these strong or weaker dexes?) however, so I don't see that as something outside of discussion.
We can and have discussed how mutilators benefit and don't benefit from terrain.
It's actually commonly brought up how certain units gain greatly from it or are impacted negatively from it quite often. I don't see why you are bringing it up as something that can't be discussed...it is all the time. We can debate how much it is, but generally units that are fast or have long range weapons benefit from cover more, since they aren't as inclined to leave it. Or if their ability to live requires cover. Mutilators don't really fall into either camp.
There are limited amounts of missions in the rulebook unless you houserule them. We can easily discuss them, it's not like there are hundreds of different ones.
Which is why house rules are typically not included in these discussions unless you mention them from the onset.
Point values for armies are usually standard across most metas (1500-2000, with ~1800 probably being the most common). It's not like anyone discusses 300-50,000, we can easily discuss the range of point values most people play with.
If you want to go over or under that, you merely have to state that certain units perform well in smaller point games or larger ones.
If you mean the point value of the unit, that's pretty much set in stone barring house rules.
rules resolutions, restrictions on formations and detachments, etc.
Which are all house rules and not included in an online discussion.
Take my meta. We don't use allies much, but outside of that its fair game. I mention this when people discuss ally combos as being powerful, since I don't commonly see them and can't comment on their effectiveness outside of damage, speed, or toughness.
But my meta includes houserules, which I make a point to mention. Beyond those house rules, I'm perfectly capable of discussing the game.
These affect the relative value of any unit. Y'know.
They do, and are discussed (missions, terrain benefit) unless they are house rules (formation restrictions).
You can't say "Well the gladius strike force is awful because my meta doesn't allow it". It may not work in your meta, but that doesn't make it weak at all.
See how easy that was?
Pronouncements of universal value (or lack thereof) divorced from all context are not possible for a unit who's utility is defined purely in respect to non-universal situational utility.
True, which is a good thing they weren't divorced of all context.
I mean, we compared them to other units in the chaos codex in regards to effect on the table top.
We compared their toughness against the firepower of enemy units of various strengths.
We compared their speed to the games standard (6" +2d6 charge compared to 6" +d6 run + 2d6 charge) and found them slow. Out of effective melee units, they are incredibly slow, with their only saving grace being inaccurate deepstrike that they can't adjust since they can not run.
What other context do you want?
In fact, we can only declare Mutilators bad if we hand-wave away the effects of terrain and missions (as you did),
I did no such thing.
I gave reasons why mutilators are not effected by terrain much (outside of LoS blocking terrain) and missions.
To restate;
Terrain
1) Mutilators do not gain much of a benefit from cover. Cover offers a 5+ save, which mutilators already always get in the form of an invul save. Standing in most cover doesn't benefit them at all.
2) Mutilators gain a small benefit from 4+ cover, which is much rarer and they have trouble reaching since they are a melee unit that can not run. The benefit is small, since you are going from a 5++ to a 4++ instead of nothing to a 4++, like you would see with raptors, most spawn, bikers
3) Mutilators do benefit from LoS blocking terrain, but not as much as faster units or units with guns. They must reach melee so the enemy must be within 11-12" of LoS blocking terrain without being able to kill the mutilator first. This is corner case barring LoS heavy boards, where they can be playable.
Missions
1) Mutilators are extremely slow and can't respond well to mission objectives because of this.
2) Mutilators are relatively easy to remove and can't be trusted to hold an objective.
You probably didn't notice all those reasons you hand waved away from your high horse
You can also declare mutilators bad for tons of reasons, without including terrain or missions. They would have to benefit immensely from missions or terrain to be good, because on their own they are quite bad (and their are many units that are good because of terrain and missions).
Some reasons not including terrain and missions are;
To slow
Not tough enough
Melee only
A little too expensive for what they bring
Inaccurate deep strike without being able to adjust for it
But reading the discussions illustrates all of this. Nothing is being hand waved away.
and ground discussion about 40k in irrelevant false analogies like fighting games and DND that have zero relevance on the tabletop. Do fighting games or DND score Linebreaker points?
Those aren't false analogies at all.
You claimed we couldn't analyze 40k units due to the complex nature of the game and mitigating circumstances that can't be accounted for.
I pointed to other systems that are even more complex than 40k and often have even larger mitigating circumstances, yet people are perfectly capable of discussing the relative strength of options in those systems.
You can't hand wave analogies away. If you don't like that they aren't tabletop wargames, look at WMH. People discuss the value of units all the time, and that game has more varied terrain with bigger impacts, and a much stronger scenario play.
Or you can point out how the analogies don't work instead of just claiming they don't because not table top (even though I included a table top example )
Or you know, go to the tactics forum. Or most of the pages in general discussion. Or BoLS, or warseer, or any other forum where people discuss 40k and see they are doing it just fine, if you feel only 40k can equate to 40k.
You are still trying to play off context as insignificant. Writing more won't change that.
At the end if the day, you are better off just saying "they haven't shown results in the ITC". Which is a lot more sensible and succinct as a response.
Yoyoyo wrote: You are still trying to play off context as insignificant. Writing more won't change that.
At the end if the day, you are better off just saying "they haven't shown results in the ITC". Which is a lot more sensible and succinct as a response.
,
Wow. Zero reading comprehension. He just said how all of that matters and can in fact be used to determine if a unit is good or not.
Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions.
Akiasura wrote: We are reading very different reports if you thought they worked as advertised. Drawing 190 points worth of gunfire all game and removing one wounded cheap unit off the board is pretty useless, and is what I would expect. And the marine list was extremely subpar.
I know this is from an age ago, but, 55 pt. unit keeps 190 pts. from doing their job. How is that not a good distraction?
To quote a fictional character... "Let's make this fun!"
Tactical_Spam wrote: There was a story in the SM omnibus where a single kroot killed 2-3 marines then ate their gene seed and became a Kroot-startes.
MWHistorian wrote: Wow. Zero reading comprehension. He just said how all of that matters and can in fact be used to determine if a unit is good or not.
First, grow up. Second, nah. It doesn't tell me how Mutilators perform in 500pt combat patrol game against a Meched up IG opponent, where his troops need to score a Maelstrom VPs rather than bubblewrapping a LRBT firebase. That's context.
As for the rest:
By and large, discussions that develop into excessive block-quoting and ‘fisking’ cease to have value: it’s usually a tedious point-scoring exercise.
MWHistorian wrote: Wow. Zero reading comprehension. He just said how all of that matters and can in fact be used to determine if a unit is good or not.
First, grow up. Second, nah. It doesn't tell me how Mutilators perform in 500pt combat patrol game against a Meched up IG opponent, where his troops need to score a Maelstrom VPs rather than bubblewrapping a LRBT firebase. That's context.
Thats specific context, but that doesn't invalidate any of the context I already had provided. But you can go ahead and continue to not address points being made.
As for your specific scenario;
In a Maelstorm mission, the mutilator will probably be quite bad for grabbing VPs. Some of the objectives include such things as Cast a Power, Do a Challenge, Destroy a flyer, none of which the mutilator can do at all really.
He can attempt to move to a location to capture an objective, but he's quite slow.
If you instead meant how would a mutilator stop a meched up IG army...he wouldn't mostly. He's too slow to catch meched IG.
The only exception being if the LRBT decides to stand still and nothing else decides to shoot the mutilator.
At such limited points, list construction becomes even more important than it does at higher point values. If the IG player is simply a few LRBT's, which is a pretty bad list since it can only fight effectively against a small amount of enemies, then the mutilator is good. If the IG player is taking transports with troops, the mutilator is bad as the chimera + squad can destroy the mutilator as it lands. The LRBT will still have 2 rounds of shooting, which is a lot in a 500 point game. He could destroy 20% of your army in that time, more if you take raptors, bikes, spawn, or plagues.
I also included that we could discuss lower point games (which aren't common by most accounts) and discussed maelstorm.
We also discussed meta's and mentioned that against certain factions (IG being specifically mentioned) the mutilator has use, but it's relatively corner case and can not be considered good.
So...if you had read the discussion, vehicles that must be stationary to fire without supporting troops being nearby was actually mentioned.
This strikes me as odd, because every professional email I've ever sent at my university and previous employers works like this.
When discussing someone's works, we don't write a conclusion in at the end. We break it apart point by point and write in counter points where they belong, not a lengthy summary at the end.
To do so would mean missing points (like you did when I mentioned WMH as an example of a TT game where discussing strategy is done) or confusion as to what you are talking about.
But I mean, it's some guy on the internet with a website. I'm sure he knows what he's talking about.
dusara217 wrote: I know this is from an age ago, but, 55 pt. unit keeps 190 pts. from doing their job. How is that not a good distraction?
It is. But at this point certain people are more interested in proving a point than offering anything of value. Typical dakka
Well, this was also discussed (again, if you read the discussion...which I'm starting to think you didn't, which explains why you feel there is no value in it. It's long, can't hold it against you)
The mutilator being discussed is a little more expensive than that, due to MoN. We can discuss the standard build (I'm not convinced it's worse, since it seems a lot of weapons are higher strength nowadays which makes the extra toughness not as good).
Regardless, the average unit costs between 100-180 points, plus transports (transports often have too much utility compared to a typical infantry unit to be so easily broken down, I don't want to include them here. We can though).
When deciding to fire at an opponent, one of the decisions to make is based on points. How ahead on attrition am I going to be if I destroy this unit? You even reference here (55 vs 190) and oddly enough, don't include any context. But hey, let's go.
Excellent shooting targets results in about a half of the units cost being destroyed in one turn. So if a unit costs 110-120 points and can destroy the mutilator in 1 turn, it's amazing if they fire at the mutilator. When looked at, here we see the top contenders you'd expect; 5 man scats, a single cent bike with split fire, other units with split fire that have plasma weapons....
Against these targets, mutilators are awful. Regular chaos marines are actually tougher, point for point.
Good shooting targets result in about 1/3-1/4 of their points in a turn. So a unit would have to cost about 150-180 to be a good use of points if firing at the mutilator. Here we see the vast majority of units. Most infantry units (Tacticals with 2 pg, Dire Avengers) from the stronger factions fall into this category, as do non-death star heavies/elites. These units can destroy a mutilator in one turn with rare exception.
Mutilators are bad against these targets, about equal to standard marines while being worse in nearly every way besides slow melee/deepstriking (unless FW) point for point.
Average shooting targets result in about 1/4 or a little more. A unit would need to cost 200+ points for it to do an average job that turn if shooting at a mutilator. Very few units require such a point investment to destroy the mutilator, though they do exist.
Against these targets, mutilators start being a good distraction. You save points if they had fired at something else and are up on attrition. Sadly, these units are rare and many armies have access to better units that are cheaper and can destroy a mutilator.
Bad shooting targets result in about 1/5 or worse a turn. A unit would need to cost 270-300 points for it to be a bad choice to fire at the mutilator.
Against these targets, mutilators start being amazing. Sadly, we are in almost deathstar point levels, and deathstars aren't frightened of a single mutilator charging in.
So...look, we actually proved a point!
Of course, you guys were too busy discussing about why we should bother to debate at all to notice this was covered a while ago in the thread
This is what I get for going on vacation without a Laptop charger. I really hate to bring up something from 6 pages ago, but I hate to leave an argument without at least conceding defeat, and I refuse to concede defeat unless proven wrong. Seriously, at least provide some kind of battle report of your own that shows them failing. I never like Mutis to begin with, honestly, Oblits do the job better, but I do believe that they are playable, and have a use as a distraction unit, and/or Linebreaker Unit that isn't a high-priority target. My replies are in red.
mondo80 wrote: 2 wound assault terminators are bad? I know one guy who drives them around in a landraider.
I know a guy who thought warp talons were the best unit in the game because claws.
Doesn't make them good.
Muties in a landraider is a very expensive unit that falls over against similar priced units from other dexes. At best it will manage to kill 2 units, more likely 1 or none, before being destroyed.
For people claiming Muties are good, I'd appreciate a battle report where they are used against a good force effectively or a tactica that holds up to scrutiny. Saying "I said so" doesn't carry much weight on an online forum.
I got ya, mate.
Chaos Marines vs. Eldar. Chaos wins. Mutilators show their value in turns 3 and 4.
Old dex, I've already seen this battle report. This is the one where the guy takes a very sub par list and forgets to deploy a Wave serpent.
I'm quite aware of Jancorans blog. I've been asking him for recent battle reports to back up his claims for a while now, much to my dismay
The Muties did precisely what we claimed they would. They chased units out of advantageous positions, and drew fire from other Units. How does this not prove the point? Better yet, how about you disprove it by actually providing sources where they failed to do their job (ie distracting heavy weapons fire, or forcing it to move). Perhaps using actual logic rather than throwing around insults would drive your point through our thick skulls a little better? Rebuffs tend to work better when based upon logic, as insults are generally only there to get an emotional response from people.
This Mutilator review pretty much supports everything that you're saying, and even brings in some mathhammer to show how terrible Mutilators are, but it gives you a good strategy to use them for, at the end.
Good read, nothing new though
Nothing new? It shows them useful for getting a VP, ie, one of the primary means of winning matches.
Here is a thread/tactica discussing different ways in which to deploy Mutilators effectively, and in a much more constructive manner, I might add. Among them is DSing three individual Mutis for maximum effect.
Fists vs. Chaos Marines. Turn 3 and 4 see the Muti wreck a Rhino when the nearby Tac Marines fail to eliminate it on the turn it deepstrikes in.
An old game, and the marine list is terrible. It has 30+ tactical marines
Yeah, the Muti had no real effect here, by the time they could charge, the Marines were already dead. I'm pretty sure that I just posted this link because it was one of the only Battle Reports that I could find. I posted literally every Battle Report I found in the first 5 pages of Google that featured solo Muties (as running a full squad of Muties is, imho, downright moronic).
raven guard vs. Chaos Marines. Chaos gets wrecked, but I'd like to point out how a single Mutilator drew the fire of a Tac Squad and a Rapier - a total of 190 pts. worth of shooting to take out a 55 pts. model. How delicious. A Mutilator proceeds to drive the Rapier Crew off the Board (55 pt. Unit rendering a 120-pt. Unit absolutely useless). Another Muti gets destroyed by a 100 pt. Thunderfire. Notice how the Mutis are drawing fire from higher-point Units the entire match.
The only good battle report that was posted, so thank you for that.
A few things
1) Were the mutilators deployed as a group? They all arrived turn 2 and I can't find them in the photos.
2) 190 points to kill a 55 pt model isn't great, but it's not terrible. It's 1/3 of their point cost, which is the cusp of being worth shooting at.
3) The mutilator destroyed the rapier crew AFTER the crew was roasted by a drake. So...they dedicated more points than the unit was worth by a bit.
4) I see no mention of the mutilator killing a thunderfire. The thunderfire is still operating on the last turn, when does this happen?
5) The only other time the mutilator was fired upon was by the techmarine, which destroyed it.
1.) It appears that they were. Use of the word "Mutilator" (no s) made it appear to me that they were deployed separately during the battle, but they were not. Skimming articles isn't always the best way to select them.
4.) I said that the Mutis got destroyed by one, not that they killed one. I'll just assume you misread that.
To me, if a unit can kill 1/3 of it's points in a turn, that's about average. 1/2 is great, but not even the bikes manage to kill their point cost every turn without support. 1/4 and lower is where it gets bad. So in this report, the mutilator managed to barely succeed once, and this is the only relevant report you posted. For the rest of the game, there is no mention of them doing anything, and this was not a powerful list.
In the future, if someone is asking for battle reports against the power armies (Space Marines, Eldar, Tau, Necron) posting old battle reports doesn't do much to help your argument. It makes it seem like, since these armies have released, mutilators have completely fallen off the game (or maybe chaos has?). Competitive army lists (For eldar, this would mean bikes, aspect warriors, WK, and not guardians from a previous edition; Space marines bikes and cents, not 30+ tacticals or vanguard; Necrons decurion; Tau suits and tides). That's what I have been asking for the entire time, from anyone, and so far no one has delivered. I'm a professor by trade, if someone is able to provide evidence that I'm wrong I'll happily switch opinions. I own a huge chaos army and would love to field mutilators, but in my meta only the better armies get played. I won't be going up against 30 tacticals or a dread mob sadly Out of your 10 sources, 1 battle report is against a modern codex I believe, and the list isn't what I would consider competitive, and the mutilators didn't accomplish what you are claiming. I probably should have spelled out what competitive consists of so that's my mistake.
Appreciate the reports though!
I posted every Battle Report that I could find within 5 pages of a google search, which I just repeated and couldn't find anything else worth adding. Also, the burden of proof lies upon all parties making claims, not just the ones making positive claims.
To quote a fictional character... "Let's make this fun!"
Tactical_Spam wrote: There was a story in the SM omnibus where a single kroot killed 2-3 marines then ate their gene seed and became a Kroot-startes.
MWHistorian wrote: There are too many variables when determining if a unit is bad or not. Is the general good and the opponent bad? What army is the opponent using? What's the scenario? Etc etc.
It seems that math is a good way to get a good overall look at how a unit is. All math points to the mutilator being bad.
Also, overall opinion by a large majority of players say that Mutilators are bad.
It seems the burden of proof is the side that says they're good because it goes against precedent and maths.
What math? You've been shown that it does indeed ablate very well. You cant MATH that away because you don't KNOW what will actually both want to and be able to fire at it in any given turn and you wont be able WITH MATH to tell me whether that is game relevant or will be in the end in any given game.
So claiming some mathematical victory here is A: Impossible. B: ignores actual results.
You can't claim a "math victory". Try it. Tell your opponent the next time you see them using a bad unit that you just math'd them. I am sure they will be very impressed and concede. But on the off chance you play it out just to get crazy, great.
I'm actually making them even more impressive by pointing out how abysmal mutilators are. I just don't think that your success translates into something that can be applied in a general sense across all metas.
.
You could do it.
Come now. Anyone who can read (or watch as the case may be) can see how I do something and say "ah ha... I see what his thinking is there" and then apply it (or just ask). Maybe it looks crazy because you never thought of it. This thread sems to indicate a lot of Mutilator haters. That's okay.
Meta? Everyone has to deal with Battle Companies. Everyone is dealing with War Convocations. Everyone is dealing with Scatter Bikes. Everyone is seeing the Space Wolk Biker Grav spam. Everyone is seeing the Drop pod armies with the special formation. Tau Empire Optimized Stealth Cadres and other fun stuff? Seeing it. You act as if this isn't the meta I live in! Its the one most of us live in.
Take the example of BA vs Scatbike/WK Eldar. There is no way to general your way out of that hole on a consistent basis. The Eldar do too much damage and are too hard to get off the board for the BA to have a reasonable chance.
I think I can safely say that if you go out and try something crazy... the worst possible outcome is a loss. Last time I checked, that wasn't a fate worse than death. So if what you're doing with your Blood Angels isn't working against Biker spam and Wraith knights, dare I suggest that you try something different? If you're already losing to them.... What have you got to lose by trying something new? Not Mutilators specifically (obviously) but the mindset about how best to time and use stuff?
I see nothing but gain for you if you do. I see the definition of insanity if you do the same thing over and over yet expect a different result. There's a reason I do unorthodox things and its because I am aware of those things and do not want to fall victim. Sometimes it takes a new angle in order to solve a new problem
Akiasura wrote: I would believe the common point of reference is, you know, the rulebook and various supplements, codexes, etc.
No, we're talking about meta, terrain, missions, points values, rules resolutions, restrictions on formations and detachments, etc. These affect the relative value of any unit. Y'know.
Pronouncements of universal value (or lack thereof) divorced from all context are not possible for a unit who's utility is defined purely in respect to non-universal situational utility.
In fact, we can only declare Mutilators bad if we hand-wave away the effects of terrain and missions (as you did), and ground discussion about 40k in irrelevant false analogies like fighting games and DND that have zero relevance on the tabletop. Do fighting games or DND score Linebreaker points?
Which means, I think this thread has been more of a psuedo-intellectual dick-measuring exercise than anything else. Play coy if you want.
Like when they try to deep strike into a terrain heavy area? That's not exactly in their favor.
Chances of losing one? Zero. Actually. So jumping into terrain? No problem!
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2016/01/08 06:22:12
Hold out bait to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and then crush him.
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War
http://www.40kunorthodoxy.blogspot.com
)
