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.
dusara217 wrote: 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.
Well, as I've mentioned already....
1) It's very hard to prove a negative. It's much easier to prove that they are good, if its true. Since the side of the argument is unable to claim any reasons as to why they are good other than "it works in gameplay" proof of gameplay is required. Otherwise we could say the pyrovore is good.
2) I was unable to provide any battle reports where the mutilators are even taken other than yours. Notice that the ones you provided prove my point for me, for the most part. I imagine I'd have the same issues finding ones where pyrovores performed poorly as well, since most people just won't play them.
3) At no point did I insult Jancoran in that message. That list was very subpar for a 6th edition list (especially since it was claimed to be mech dar) and he did forget to deploy a wave serpent. I have also asked Jancoran to post battle reports of his success with units, because he uses his games as proof of why things work. If someone came on here and said they beat Scatbike spam with pyrovores, but couldn't explain how, wouldn't you ask for a report?
4) I have been providing logic. I've posted detailed reasoning as to why mutilators are bad, in many ways. Even in specific context, when asked. The other side has devolved into insults since, I imagine, they are out of reasoning.
5) I have actually been the one being insulted (or did you skip over pseudo intellectual dick measuring comment?).
6) None of the battle reports the mutilators are good side provided really shows they are good. At all, despite exaggerations and claims to the contrary.
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.
1) It's from 2012. It's not the current edition.
2) It's just a review. People can say anything.
3) It pretty much admits that they are terrible overall.
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).
Fair enough, I couldn't find any new ones myself. [b] Another report where mutilators are bad and don't achieve anything though
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.
1) I was very confused by this, and it really defeats the purpose of the report. We have been discussing them as 3 different guys.
4) Oh you mean where they were destroyed by overwatch from the techmarine? I did misread that, sorry.
Again, outside of killing one unit (Which you somehow forget to mention that a heldrake had already attacked....) the mutilators didn't do anything. It didn't seem, from the photos, that the tac squad had another target to really fire at, and if the mutilators had deployed together, they too are about 190 points.
Honestly, the newer battle reports show the mutilators showing up and not really accomplishing anything of note. Just like most of us have claimed would happen.
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.
That's not true.
One side, the side claiming muties are bad, has given detailed reasoning on why they believe mutilators are bad. Math and scenarios have been submitted as proof.
The other side, claiming muties are good, has been unable to give reasoning that isn't "they overcome their weaknesses in gameplay". Battle reports would be required as proof here, since nothing else has been offered.
To note, and I think this is critical;
In the battle reports provided by the mutilators are good side, the mutilators did not perform well in any of the 7th edition battles even though their performance was exaggerated. So really, the mutilators are bad side does have proof, they just didn't provide it.
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.
We've started using maelstrom, but that doesn't help against tabling.
"Which is why you cant talk the Mutilator into sucking. Lol. You see? "
No, I don't. But we can agree to disagree.
" You act as if this isn't the meta I live in! "
Sure doesn't seem to be.
"Sometimes it takes a new angle in order to solve a new problem"
Firstly, I have lists drawn up before I know my opponent. Also, BA don't even have variation in the codex like CSM do. Nothing with a mutilator stat line, even. Everything is an meq. No MCs. The tanks are all garbage. A bunch of assault units no one care about because they'll never get close enough to assault anyone. Except, I guess, for your mutilators.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/01/08 13:26:36
"Sometimes it takes a new angle in order to solve a new problem"
Firstly, I have lists drawn up before I know my opponent. Also, BA don't even have variation in the codex like CSM do. Nothing with a mutilator stat line, even. Everything is an meq. No MCs. The tanks are all garbage. A bunch of assault units no one care about because they'll never get close enough to assault anyone. Except, I guess, for your mutilators.
But it is. In fact. The same lists you see. 8 of the top 40 ITC Generals attend the same tournaments I do. That's just the ones I know of. I'm pretty sure I'm seeing the same stuff.
As for your list, I'm not sure what you mean. Obviously any time you go to a tournament, you dont know who you're facing.
But i assure you of this much: If you're that down on your army, it won't come as much of a surprise if results follow. You have got to look for the possibilities and stop marrying yourself to the idea that "out-uniting" people is the only way to win. Sometimes just being in the right place at the right time is plenty.
Hold out bait to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and then crush him.
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War
http://www.40kunorthodoxy.blogspot.com
"Sometimes it takes a new angle in order to solve a new problem"
Firstly, I have lists drawn up before I know my opponent. Also, BA don't even have variation in the codex like CSM do. Nothing with a mutilator stat line, even. Everything is an meq. No MCs. The tanks are all garbage. A bunch of assault units no one care about because they'll never get close enough to assault anyone. Except, I guess, for your mutilators.
But it is. In fact. The same lists you see. 8 of the top 40 ITC Generals attend the same tournaments I do. That's just the ones I know of. I'm pretty sure I'm seeing the same stuff.
As for your list, I'm not sure what you mean. Obviously any time you go to a tournament, you dont know who you're facing.
But i assure you of this much: If you're that down on your army, it won't come as much of a surprise if results follow. You have got to look for the possibilities and stop marrying yourself to the idea that "out-uniting" people is the only way to win. Sometimes just being in the right place at the right time is plenty.
That's just the issue. All this thread is really doing at this point is convincing me more that the CSM have many more possibilities than the BA. Almost all BA units are just meqs kitted out slightly differently. Same stats, mostly the same equipment, etc.
dusara217 wrote: 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.
Well, as I've mentioned already....
1) It's very hard to prove a negative. It's much easier to prove that they are good, if its true. Since the side of the argument is unable to claim any reasons as to why they are good other than "it works in gameplay" proof of gameplay is required. Otherwise we could say the pyrovore is good.
Two Hypotheses that I know of have been proposed that were, in any way, viable. The first involves DSing Muties next to some LFs (or equivalent units) to distract Heavy Weapons fire from advancing tanks, Spawn, etc. This would force the enemy to choose between a.) firing upon the Muties, thus losing the opportunity to target the actually combat-useful targets b.) running away, forcing Snap Shots w/ the heavy weapons c.) Ignoring the Muties, and eating the charge. Unfortunately, nobody has actually bothered to test his with two or three matches to see if it actually works. The other one is using them DS for Linebreaker, which nobody has argued against, nor tested.
2) I was unable to provide any battle reports where the mutilators are even taken other than yours. Notice that the ones you provided prove my point for me, for the most part. I imagine I'd have the same issues finding ones where pyrovores performed poorly as well, since most people just won't play them.
3) At no point did I insult Jancoran in that message. That list was very subpar for a 6th edition list (especially since it was claimed to be mech dar) and he did forget to deploy a wave serpent. I have also asked Jancoran to post battle reports of his success with units, because he uses his games as proof of why things work. If someone came on here and said they beat Scatbike spam with pyrovores, but couldn't explain how, wouldn't you ask for a report?
Perhaps I misread the tone of voice, then. It appeared that you were calling his meta trash and his list bad. I admit it can be easy to mistake such things when reading forum posts.
4) I have been providing logic. I've posted detailed reasoning as to why mutilators are bad, in many ways. Even in specific context, when asked. The other side has devolved into insults since, I imagine, they are out of reasoning.
5) I have actually been the one being insulted (or did you skip over pseudo intellectual dick measuring comment?).
Honestly, you two had a good little back-and-forth going with the insults, and I skipped about two pages of the thread when I ran into a page where the first half was literally just insults. I'm actually a little surprised Alpharius didn't lock the thread on that page.
6) None of the battle reports the [b]mutilators are good side provided really shows they are good. At all, despite exaggerations and claims to the contrary.
My Batreps were all of the ones that I could find that seemed relevant to the discussion at hand, the point was that they were useful, when used properly, and the strategies that I believe them to be useful for were not present in any of the BatReps provided.
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.
1) It's from 2012. It's not the current edition.
2) It's just a review. People can say anything.
3) It pretty much admits that they are terrible overall.
It puts forth a viable strategy, that makes perfect sense, that was the point. It reiterated all of your points, but it said that they were useful, when used properly (ie cheap linebreaker).
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).
Fair enough, I couldn't find any new ones myself. Another report where mutilators are bad and don't achieve anything though
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.
1) I was very confused by this, and it really defeats the purpose of the report. We have been discussing them as 3 different guys.
4) Oh you mean where they were destroyed by overwatch from the techmarine? I did misread that, sorry.
Again, outside of killing one unit (Which you somehow forget to mention that a heldrake had already attacked....) the mutilators didn't do anything. It didn't seem, from the photos, that the tac squad had another target to really fire at, and if the mutilators had deployed together, they too are about 190 points.
Honestly, the newer battle reports show the mutilators showing up and not really accomplishing anything of note. Just like most of us have claimed would happen.
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.
That's not true.
One side, the side claiming muties are bad, has given detailed reasoning on why they believe mutilators are bad. Math and scenarios have been submitted as proof.
The other side, claiming muties are good, has been unable to give reasoning that isn't "they overcome their weaknesses in gameplay". Battle reports would be required as proof here, since nothing else has been offered.
To note, and I think this is critical;
In the battle reports provided by the mutilators are good side, the mutilators did not perform well in any of the 7th edition battles even though their performance was exaggerated. So really, the mutilators are bad side does have proof, they just didn't provide it.
Actually, if you had bothered to read the post, you would have realized that you misread a portion, and I said that they got killed by a 100 pt. Unit, not the other way around. But, whatever floats your boat.
Ok, then, i'm no Einstein of 40k, so what makes for good point expenditure for a single VP? Let's say that we're playing an 1850 pt. Tournament match, and I DS my Mutilator to your backfield for Linebreaker late-game. Was my 63 pt. (with MoN, it adds 8 pts., I think) expenditure worth it? To my mind, that seems like a worthy Unit, when used in such a manner, is this not the case? Obviously, it's not going to be an absolute gamechanging kind of thing, but that seems like an excellent bargain for the one VP that might be the difference between defeat and draw, or draw and victory.
EDIT: Added a few responses into the spoiler, I just realized you responded inside of it. My bad.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/08 19:45:12
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.
I was referring to the parts where you mentioned a 190 point unit fired at a single mutilator and that a single mutilator ran off a small squad, while neglecting to mention the heldrake that had attacked the same unit. And it was a unit of mutilators, not a single guy....which makes it worse...
I clearly stated that I had misread the tech marine and restated it (i believe they died to over watch). Literally stated I had misread that.
But that would require reading what other people are writing
Line breaker is rarely achieved by mutilators, and chaos has a lot of units that can more easily achieve this, by being either tougher or faster. Firing a 150 point tactical squad at a mutilator to remove a vp is a good use of points since it moves you forward on scenario and attrition after all. Removing a bike squad is much harder, since they can boost into a corner out of sight.
If you could control when you ds in, could hide, or was tougher, that would be a lot better. You also can only score one point line breaker max no?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/08 19:28:55
Akiasura wrote: One side, the side claiming muties are bad... The other side, claiming muties are good
As Dusara said, you are either misreading things or framing a strawman.
The counter-point is not that Mutilators are "good", it's that abstracted Platonic ideals of 'good' or 'bad' shouldn't be applied to a game like 40k, where units only possess situational value in context to the actual game conditions.
Your assertions are not proof, and in the case "Mutilators can't manifest a psychic power", they aren't even constructive. Neither can a Wraithknight.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/01/08 19:34:39
If I was listing the strengths of a wraith knight, I wouldn't list maelstrom missions, though it is a great deal faster and tougher than the mutilator for the points. More deadly against a variety of targets as well.
Someone listed maelstorm missions as a strength of the mutilator without explaining why they are good at it. I went through some of the cards and detailed why they really aren't good at maelstorm missions, and no counter points were given. Someone is now mentioning line breaker and we are discussing that.
Please point out my strawman. I am responding directly to everyone. You even said its a good distraction unit by saying 50 points can absorb firepower from a 190 point unit makes it a good distraction unit, despite the lack of context. Despite my breakdown on why this is false....
"Mutilators are good" is a different argument than "context is what determines utility". Strawman.
Reference that CSM bike squad, mobility and breaking LOS is a better defense against certain LOS weapons. However, not against an AP3 Ignores Cover Barrage. In this case, a single model 2W model limits # of casualties (no morale check) and the 2+ save protects the model.
Once again, you are assuming the context to support your argument. We can play "what if" all day, but it's kind of juvenile isn't it?
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/01/08 19:39:27
Akiasura wrote:I was referring to the parts where you mentioned a 190 point unit fired at a single mutilator and that a single mutilator ran off a small squad, while neglecting to mention the heldrake that had attacked the same unit. And it was a unit of mutilators, not a single guy....which makes it worse...
I clearly stated that I had misread the tech marine and restated it (i believe they died to over watch). Literally stated I had misread that.
But that would require reading what other people are writing
Line breaker is rarely achieved by mutilators, and chaos has a lot of units that can more easily achieve this, by being either tougher or faster. Firing a 150 point tactical squad at a mutilator to remove a vp is a good use of points since it moves you forward on scenario and attrition after all. Removing a bike squad is much harder, since they can boost into a corner out of sight.
If you could control when you ds in, could hide, or was tougher, that would be a lot better. You also can only score one point line breaker max no?
I didn't realize you had written things in the spoiler, as well, my apologies. Fixed the post.
Also, by your way of thinking, what is a competitive amount of points to spend on a Victory Point? Would spending 200 points on a victory point seem like points well-spent? What about 189 pts.?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/08 19:51:20
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.
personally, I think the proof provided was plenty good on the Pro-side.
The thought process was laid out clearly for those who wanted to know. There are indeed battle reports that were offered (one at least by me and another by another guy).
I also have the actualized tournament results (8 tournament games in a row won) as further evidence.
When and how you use units is the key to FINDING the latent value in them. Not this situational mathhammer where the PERFECT tool is assumed to have the perfect shot on the unit and always willing to use it.
That's what yoyoyo is protesting against. You cant just assume the worst case scenario for the Mutilator into being as your "answer" to it.
Terrain and the multiplicity of potential enemies factors big.
Consider this:
An army with 5x3 scatter bikes. Rightly feared. Now imagine 5 x 6 Breachers within 5" of them. Now imagine that there are four markerlights on each biker unit. Now imagine that its the Tau Empires turn to fire.
Of course in this light, and in this context, no one is betting on the scatter Bikes, are they? if you are, you sir are more of an optimist than I!
That's kind of what's being done here with the Mutilators.
And the other thing thats being done is that my comments are being inflated to mean more than i have stated. I have never stated they are the second coming of Christ. I have said they are extremely worthwhile given their cost and slot and explained why. The opposition is making it appear that I have made a more grandiose claim about them than I have as if to suggest I AM overselling them. But when the thread is entirely about this one unit, and I've had success with them, why would I not commend them? To commend them isn't to say they are infnitely better but simply that you're missing an opportunity by not adding them.
Here is a slot that is completely under used in the Chaos Marine codex. A unit that can do real damage for almost nothing! A unit that can absolutely ablate more points than it costs to do something and most importantly do so as a credible threat with a penalty attached for ignoring it. In other words... PERFECT for saturation and IDEAL for those who espouse MSU (which by the way includes Akiasura, ironically one of the loudest among the opposition).
Hold out bait to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and then crush him.
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War
http://www.40kunorthodoxy.blogspot.com
The burning pits of Hades, also known as Sweden in summer
You are painting up an unrealistic scenario. Scatterbikes can move almost the entire battlefield in one turn. The breachers are never going to be that close.
I am sure Mutilators look great in scenarios that are never going to come true as well.
Jancoran, I challenge you to a Vassal match. Let's see if your Mutilators are up to the task in actual practice, not just in alleged tournament wins.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/08 20:03:40
I can't believe this has gone on for 10 pages lol.
But I have to agree with Akiasura. I haven't read everything (it was kinda confusing at times) but it sounds like that Mutilators are usable in certain niche situations. However *in general* they have neither the versatility they imply they have, nor the point-effectiveness.
In the linebreaker example, Mutilators is a nice 60-ish point drop in the backline since no other choice in the CSM codex can bring a deepstrike at that point cost (even the cheapest terminator build is at least around 100 points). However, I could argue that this is only viable if you couldn't afford the extra points for an Obliterator/lack the slot for an obliterator (who can DS and then fire off something, potentially destroying something of value in addition to getting Linebreaker) OR if you wish to use some other method. A squad of bikers might be a tad bit more expensive than mutilators, but you can probably hold them back in reserve and then turbo boost them up to the back lines in a turn or two if you wanted them to survive, or give them a plasma gun and have them do something during the game and then turbo boost for that last point.
In both cases though, the examples would be a tad bit more expensive than a single Mutilator. However this brings me to my next point: a unit's effectiveness is not only measured by what it can do, but also by what it would deny you. The linebreaker is a good strategy, but if I could spend the extra 60 points on something else that would enhance another unit, I would have to weigh the linebreaker strategy against enhancing another unit. Can the enhancement be measured linear-ly? (like, add more wounds to a unit) or is it a force multiplier? (an Icon that grants extra buffs to a lot of models). In this case, not only is the Mutilator's point cost in question, but also the Elite Slot it uses. If that entire strategy will cost me the option of using another unit with a strategy I need, then Mutilators will get the shaft.
For me, in most cases Mutilators are not worth it, but it's not just due to some underperformance, but also because of resources. Using more than one would mean I'm allocating points away from another unit that actually need it (I can buy a lot for 110 points). I will not let my Chaos lord run around in power armor because I was short points for a Mutilator, but I won't hesitate to spend those same points to increase the effectiveness of my chaos lord with more wargear (or maybe even upgrade him to a Daemon Prince, or a Daemon Prince into Be'Lakor). Even if they could fill a niche, they won't be considered "good" unless they are superior to something. Bloodcrushers are considered bad because they have no armor save and can die to a S8 cannon so easily, but in a mono-khorne army you still gotta take em because they're the only reliable source of fast-moving icons for them. But if Plague drones become an option, suddenly Bloodcrushers are left without a job since the drones do it so much better.
Gwar! wrote:Huh, I had no idea Graham McNeillm Dav Torpe and Pete Haines posted on Dakka. Hi Graham McNeillm Dav Torpe and Pete Haines!!!!!!!!!!!!! Can I have an Autograph!
Kanluwen wrote:
Hell, I'm not that bothered by the Stormraven. Why? Because, as it stands right now, it's "limited use".When it's shoehorned in to the Codex: Space Marines, then yeah. I'll be irked.
When I'm editing alot, you know I have a gakload of homework to (not) do.
An army with 5x3 scatter bikes. Rightly feared. Now imagine 5 x 6 Breachers within 5" of them. Now imagine that there are four markerlights on each biker unit. Now imagine that its the Tau Empires turn to fire.
Of course in this light, and in this context, no one is betting on the scatter Bikes, are they? if you are, you sir are more of an optimist than I!
That's kind of what's being done here with the Mutilators.
Except that the scatter bike situation will never happen. How will 30 infantry speed models get within 5" of one of the fastest units in the game? Their transports will just get shot to death by the scatter bikes
You know what counters mutilators? Shooting them with ap2 are moving away from them. Did you know EVERY ARMY is capable of doing that? That pretty much any competent player that brought a balanced list should be able to make those mutilators do nothing?
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: But I have to agree with Akiasura [it sounds like that Mutilators are usable in certain niche situations]
I was under the impression he was arguing the opposite.
The real value of the discussion is what those niche situations are, and how reproducible they can be.
Uh, you literally posted a niche situation that I said the discussion had covered already, and admitted that mutilators were good in that situation . Most of the thread has been covering just that. Once you look at the niche situations, it's easy to determine that, by and large, mutilators are not worth it. We aren't going to keep typing that statement by the 8th page of discussion however.
I never once said they are useless in any and all situations, which you would know if you had actually read what I had written. Even recently, in response to yourself. Maybe someone was too involved in a pseudo intellectual dick measuring, eh? The problem is, in the vast majority of commonly encountered situations against the vast majority of armies, mutilators are bad.
I even stated that in my "How many points is needed in the unit firing at the mutilators break down" I admitted that if a unit costs 240+ (or costs 120 and takes 2 turns) then the mutilator is a great distraction.
However, such units are incredibly rare and often times the army has better units to deal with the mutilators. For example another niche unit that was covered are Tau fire warriors. They cost about 120-150, but usually take 2 rounds to destroy the mutilator. So thats in the point breakdown where the mutilator is excellent.
However, the tau have many units that cost less with plasma, and other units that split fire. So it's an niche situation, and doesn't make the mutilators good.
Reading the thread will help Yoyoyo, unless you are deliberating misreading or strawmanning .
@ Dusara217
It's alright, I flew off the handle a bit since you had accused me of ignoring what you had said. I make it a point to read everything and if I misread, am quick to apologize for doing so. It happens. I actually apologized to Jancoran in another thread for misunderstanding him.
As to your question, it's hard to say. If you spend 60 points on a VP, that's incredible. I think the problem is it's difficult to ensure the mutilator survives, since it's not that tough or fast for it's points. If I have to spend twice as much, say on bikes, but I'm much more likely to score my VPs since bikes can jink, are T5 (or 6), and can turbo boost, I'd most likely do that.
It's a fair point though, and one I hadn't considered. If you scored a linebreaker point for every unit, and could control deepstrikes, I would say mutilators are certainly worth it. Even with one of those factors, they'd approach "okay".
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: But I have to agree with Akiasura [it sounds like that Mutilators are usable in certain niche situations]
I was under the impression he was arguing the opposite.
The real value of the discussion is what those niche situations are, and how reproducible they can be.
I said "but mutilators are usable in niche situations". I meant that I agree that Mutilators are bad, but they have /some/ use.
I just don't see that use as being justified in giving up something else in my army. As it stands, most arguments end up "if you had the points to spare" or "in this specific situation". However, in most listbuilding, unless you're specifically tailoring your list towards something, such considerations are usually at the bottom of the list when considering whether or not a unit is "good" for you. If a unit makes you start questioning what you can cut for it, then it's a good unit. But if you have to rationalize sparing the points to take it, then it's a sign it's probably not the best.
EDIT: @ Akiasura: Yoyoyo misquoted me. The word "but" may be small, but it drastically changes my stance if it was left out. However I wasn't entirely sure on your platform either so I just generalized. Sorry if you did mean to say that Mutilators did have their niche uses.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/08 20:49:12
Gwar! wrote:Huh, I had no idea Graham McNeillm Dav Torpe and Pete Haines posted on Dakka. Hi Graham McNeillm Dav Torpe and Pete Haines!!!!!!!!!!!!! Can I have an Autograph!
Kanluwen wrote:
Hell, I'm not that bothered by the Stormraven. Why? Because, as it stands right now, it's "limited use".When it's shoehorned in to the Codex: Space Marines, then yeah. I'll be irked.
When I'm editing alot, you know I have a gakload of homework to (not) do.
Ashiraya wrote: You are painting up an unrealistic scenario. .
I know. that was the point. Lol. The point was that this is not always going to happen. So it is indeed pointless to assume context, like this, when you make your argument.
Hold out bait to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and then crush him.
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War
http://www.40kunorthodoxy.blogspot.com
Mecha,
After 10 pages I imagine it's hard to follow anyone in this thread..
You would think people would read what you posted before insulting you though...
Depending on opponents deployment, the infiltrate trait could work. But that would rely on getting it, you not having something better to infiltrate (chosen with special weapons maybe) or lumping yourself with Huron or Ahriman.
But again, you're limiting yourself in trying to make mutilators work, when you could be taking the better things in CSM. And mitigate the self limiting you have done by picking CSM as your army
Akiasura wrote:Mecha,
After 10 pages I imagine it's hard to follow anyone in this thread..
You would think people would read what you posted before insulting you though...
I posted it on the first page or something but no one seemed to pick up the "there are better options" reason and just kept talking about batreps. Which might I add is another fallacy since one batrep proving they're good isn't definitive proof. I would rather look at how many Tourney-level CSM lists that had access to Mutilators (so basically any list made since 6th edition) actually contained mutilators; the fact that few people included them should be a bigger indicator that they're bad rather than them actually performing badly, since it means that they would have taken things away from legitimately good choices.
Mozzyfuzzy wrote:Depending on opponents deployment, the infiltrate trait could work. But that would rely on getting it, you not having something better to infiltrate (chosen with special weapons maybe) or lumping yourself with Huron or Ahriman.
But again, you're limiting yourself in trying to make mutilators work, when you could be taking the better things in CSM. And mitigate the self limiting you have done by picking CSM as your army
^---This. This is why Mutilators is bad. There's no point in building a rube goldberg machine to prove their worth when you can just take something that's good on it's own.
Gwar! wrote:Huh, I had no idea Graham McNeillm Dav Torpe and Pete Haines posted on Dakka. Hi Graham McNeillm Dav Torpe and Pete Haines!!!!!!!!!!!!! Can I have an Autograph!
Kanluwen wrote:
Hell, I'm not that bothered by the Stormraven. Why? Because, as it stands right now, it's "limited use".When it's shoehorned in to the Codex: Space Marines, then yeah. I'll be irked.
When I'm editing alot, you know I have a gakload of homework to (not) do.
Akiasura wrote:Mecha,
After 10 pages I imagine it's hard to follow anyone in this thread..
You would think people would read what you posted before insulting you though...
I posted it on the first page or something but no one seemed to pick up the "there are better options" reason and just kept talking about batreps.
Ah yes, I do remember that. For some reason, some people involved in this thread feel you can't compare units to other units in the same dex. I don't understand it myself, but it's not an argument they are willing to address.
I brought up the same point much later in the discussion, and was immediately shot down, or not addressed.
Its one reason I prefer the point by point breakdown of replying...you can't ignore points made since you have to quote them (or it becomes obvious that you are omitting something), and are less likely to misread them.
Which might I add is another fallacy since one batrep proving they're good isn't definitive proof.
I agree, for what its worth. I don't think a battle against Jancoran will prove anything in regards to units strength.
But when people are claiming they are good only in corner case scenarios, you aren't left with much to do.
I would rather look at how many Tourney-level CSM lists that had access to Mutilators (so basically any list made since 6th edition) actually contained mutilators; the fact that few people included them should be a bigger indicator that they're bad rather than them actually performing badly, since it means that they would have taken things away from legitimately good choices.
I brought this up as well.
People mentioned that tournament goers only spam the best choices. I do agree with them that, in 40k, that is certainly the case.
Ashiraya wrote: You are painting up an unrealistic scenario. .
I know. that was the point. Lol. The point was that this is not always going to happen. So it is indeed pointless to assume context, like this, when you make your argument.
True, but looked what happened when you used this extremely unlikely context.
The posters immediately pointed out that this situation was extremely remote and unrealistic.
Not all cases are this clear cut (for example, are the marines you are firing at in cover or not? Rapid fire range or not) but many are.
You can certainly bring up different types of context, its what we have been doing the entire thread, and then judge how likely each one is.
The stationary battle tank with no supporting infantry for example, is relatively rare outside of IG. Interceptor on expensive units, however, is common (when it's seen...I'm not saying interceptor is common) and we can effectively rule it out as a reason mutilators might be bad.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/08 21:16:59
I can't believe this has gone on for 10 pages lol.
For me, in most cases Mutilators are not worth it, but it's not just due to some under performance, but also because of resources. Using more than one would mean I'm allocating points away from another unit that actually need it.
Yet this isnt necessarily the case either.
Consider that in my army, the only actual slot OPEN to take a unit in is...Elites and troops. Different lists will come to a different crossroads. But in my list, these are the choices for those points. Situation being King, we consider what to do.
With 180 points to spend, the Elites slots aren't primo. While an argument can be made for Terminators, they don't help me saturate nor ablate as well but they are as viable as any choice there so one could do that. I looked at it and said "sure you could, but why have just one unit when you can have three that are also essentially terminators with more wounds than the Terminators! 6 wounds of Terminators would cost me more and waste enemy fire less". So while it was tempting and I had the models in spades, I decided to forego them. Any argument you can make for units that can kill Mutilators "easily" applies just as well to Terminators.
The Troops option wasn't a terribad option. I could have squeaked some more scoring into the list. I essentially could add two small units on foot with some weapons. Not a terrible idea but we already have six Obsec units. Chaos Marines are certainly not going to threaten tanks from the backfield at those points nor saturate, there again. It doesn't really force the enemies hand in any way. If the enemy can get free of their lines to get my Marines, that would already be their goal and the extra Marines force no action and ablate nothing the enemy would have preferred to kill. So perhaps after some games, if it turned out I needed more Obsec I could always go back and make that change but at face value, Chaos Marines weren't going to help me.
That left inexpensive Cultists. As cheap as they are, I could take them and an Aegis Defense Line and a gun. It was not unappealing because anti-air/Anti-skimmer et al is definitely useful against a fair number of enemies. Also Obsec. They would melt under any adversity but if i could hold the units attention well enough up front then perhaps they wouldnt have to wworry about it much. So I looked to my list and asked myself "Do I, in fact, have enough to hold them forward long enough?" The answer was a maybe. Maybe. But i wasn't feeling confident that on their own and with no other targets to consider, that the Raptors in my force would be able to, on their own, do it. But Maybe. Certain enemies? Absolutely. But with too many enemies, this was a hollow maybe. Drop Pod armies are common enough and the White Scars and Thunder Cavalry Space Wolves all have some tools there.
So ultimately the idea of Cultists died and that brought me back to the question at hand.
Other option was to add another troops tax to my Black Legion and turn them into a CAD. But at that point, I've got even less points to spend.
Nope. Mutilators made the most sense. So then I thought: Three in a unit or three separate ones? Well it just made sense to make them separate. They are the perfect MSU type of ablation unit, all extra wounds are wasted, and they can all deep strike in different places so that I can saturate and yet have the option to just Line break with one if that makes the most sense.
then I played them in actual games and they performed exactly as imagined. They'd Deep Strike fearlessly right next to the Broadsides as the Raptors showed up and now you're forcing tough choices on the enemy. Broadsides know they can do some damage to whatever they want to. But now theres 11 things they have to decide on. Stop the Dirge Casters that will screw their overwatch? Kill the Raptors who can blanket the army in a warm embrace? Nuke the Multi-wound killer Mutilators? Kill the Obliterators that can ALSO kill multiwound models and can BOTH fight and shoot? 11 targets, and not enough bullets in the day. What to do...
It works really well. Sometimes they die, and it takes a couple units to kill one. No one cares. Sometimes they live. Everyone cares. They can hurt any unit type. That's a really good equation that can only favor me.
I get jancoran's point to a certain extent. T5 2+ is pretty tough. Against most weapons that's more durable than a dreadnought. I still think, however, that's it's very much a case of a good player winning with a poor unit.
I can't believe this has gone on for 10 pages lol.
For me, in most cases Mutilators are not worth it, but it's not just due to some under performance, but also because of resources. Using more than one would mean I'm allocating points away from another unit that actually need it.
Yet this isnt necessarily the case either.
Consider that in my army, the only actual slot OPEN to take a unit in is...Elites and troops. Different lists will come to a different crossroads. But in my list, these are the choices for those points. Situation being King, we consider what to do.
With 180 points to spend, the Elites slots aren't primo. While an argument can be made for Terminators, they don't help me saturate nor ablate as well but they are as viable as any choice there so one could do that. I looked at it and said "sure you could, but why have just one unit when you can have three that are also essentially terminators with more wounds than the Terminators! 6 wounds of Terminators would cost me more and waste enemy fire less". So while it was tempting and I had the models in spades, I decided to forego them.
The Troops option wasn't a terribad option. I could have squeaked some more scoring into the list. I essentially could add two small units on foot with some weapons. Not a terrible idea but we already have six Obsec units. Chaos Marines are certainly not going to threaten tanks from the backfield at those points nor saturate, there again. It doesn't really force the enemies hand in any way. If the enemy can get free of their lines to get my Marines, that would already be their goal and the extra Marines force no action and ablate nothing the enemy would have preferred to kill. So perhaps after some games, if it turned out I needed more Obsec I could always go back and make that change but at face value, Chaos Marines weren't going to help me.
That left inexpensive Cultists. As cheap as they are, I could take them and an Aegis Defense Line and a gun. It was not unappealing because anti-air/Anti-skimmer et al is definitely useful against a fair number of enemies. Also Obsec. They would melt under any adversity but if i could hold the units attention well enough up front then perhaps they wouldnt have to wworry about it much. So I looked to my list and asked myself "Do I, in fact, have enough to hold them forward long enough? The answer was a maybe. Maybe. But i wasn't feeling confident that on their own and with no other targets to consider, that the Raptors in my force would be able to, on their own, do it. But Maybe. Certain enemies? Absolutely. But with too many enemies, this was a hollow maybe. Drop Pod armies are common enough and the White Scars and Thunder Cavalry Space Wolves all have some tools there.
So ultimately the idea of Cultists died and that brought me back to the question at hand.
Other option was to add another troops tax to my Black Legion and turn them into a CAD. But at that point, I've got even less points to spend.
Nope. Mutilators made the most sense. So then I thought: Three in a unit or three separate ones? Well it just made sense to make them separate. They are the perfect MSU type of ablation unit, all extra wounds are wasted, and they can all deep strike in different places so that I can saturate and yet have the option to just Line break with one if that makes the most sense.
then I played them in actual games and they performed exactly as imagined. They'd Deep Strike fearlessly right next to the Broadsides as the Raptors showed up and now you're forcing tough choices on the enemy. They know they can do some damage to whatever they want to. But now theres 11 things they have to decide on. Stop the Dirge Casters that will screw their overwatch? Kill the Raptors who can blanket the army in a warm embrace? Nuke the Multi-wound killer Mutilators? Kill the Obliterators that can ALSO kill multiwound models and can BOTH fight and shoot? 11 targets, and not enough bullets in the day. What to do...
It works really well. Sometimes they die, and it takes a couple units to kill one. No one cares. Sometimes they live. Everyone cares. They can hurt any unit type. That's a really good equation that can only favor me.
So in death or in life, they serve.
However, you're still only considering them when you're scraping the bottom of the barrel. Has the scenario ever come up where you took Mutilators before you ran out of slots or points (and not just for a fluff army or a challenge army, those would be entirely different arguments)?
I usually play 1000-1500 points, and rarely 2000 or above. In those cases, I never use Mutilators, because the points are tight enough that I can rarely afford the stuff I need already. In the above example, if I had about 180 points and totally filled up with HQ, I would see if I can divide up my list enough to make room for another Chaos Sorceror in another CAD.
Gwar! wrote:Huh, I had no idea Graham McNeillm Dav Torpe and Pete Haines posted on Dakka. Hi Graham McNeillm Dav Torpe and Pete Haines!!!!!!!!!!!!! Can I have an Autograph!
Kanluwen wrote:
Hell, I'm not that bothered by the Stormraven. Why? Because, as it stands right now, it's "limited use".When it's shoehorned in to the Codex: Space Marines, then yeah. I'll be irked.
When I'm editing alot, you know I have a gakload of homework to (not) do.
Just thought I'd pop in to say this. One of my main opponents is a CSM player. There are many things in his army that give me pause regardless of what army I'm playing. Mutilators aren't one of them. If they can get to the fight they can do some damage. But their slow speed is what cripples them imo. Most of my armies are mechanized and can just easily zoom away from them. They're not a terrible unit, they're just not great.
TheEyeOfNight- I swear, this thread is 70% smack talk, 20% RP organization, and 10% butt jokes
TheEyeOfNight- "Ordo Xenos reports that the Necrons have attained democracy, kamikaze tendencies, and nuclear fission. It's all tits up, sir."
Space Marine flyers are shaped for the greatest possible air resistance so that the air may never defeat the SPACE MARINES!
Sternguard though, those guys are all about kicking ass. They'd chew bubble gum as well, but bubble gum is heretical. Only tau chew gum
.
