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.

Like others have said, you need to meet him half way. That Eldar list is weak but the SM list is even weaker. I think I could take an army full of Eldar Rangers and beat that.

Also, play with more terrain. AP3 isn't very scary to marines in a ruin or out of LoS.

pm713 wrote:
Looking at things you definitely had more chance to win than you make out.

Yes, I think I definitely did. My deployment was terrible, and I didn't place terrain particularly well. What I should have done is deploy everything to my left, his right, where his forces were relatively weak.

What I ended up doing was putting most of my forces to his right, where his forces were strong, except for a lone tac squad in the left to hold an objective and a missile launcher dev squad right next to them...which promptly got pie-plated by reapers.

Not to mention that my target prioritization was sub-optimal.

I definitely could have played better and stood a chance.

Ultimately, however, that's not what provoked this thread. What provoked this thread was that I got accused of whining and received a long lecture simply for trying to bring my opponent to admit that the eldritch storms were overkill.

Had he admitted that the seer council was overkill, I would not have made this thread.

Had he brought an avatar of khaine or a wraithlord instead of the seer council, I would probably not have made this thread, even had I gotten tabled.

I fail to see the issue with using Eldritch Storms. He rolled power that was good and used it. Based on what you said it sounds like your deployment mistake made the situation even worse.
Honestly looking at the things you've said it doesn't sound like the opponent did anything wrong. He did as you asked and brought a weaker list and played you like a normal opponent. If you wanted special treatment you should ask for it.

pm713 wrote:
I fail to see the issue with using Eldritch Storms.

Against blob marines, combined with the 6 blasts from the reapers, it was simply overkill. That's my complaint.

He could have won the game without the seer council, albeit with greater difficulty on his part.

Against blob armies, AP2 apocalyptic blasts are just far too effective...a forteriori because I wasn't using psykers myself.

So he should not play to his full ability? He should deliberately let you win? Should he let you make lists for him?

They'd be a lot less effective if you used cover and spread out.....

By the way what units were the Farseers in?

pm713 wrote:
So he should not play to his full ability?

Absolutely not. He should play to his full ability...with a different list (i.e., one without a seer council (or, in general, psykers able to use eldritch storm or other shennanigans), wraithknights or bikes). Actually, I'll make it simpler: he should play to his full ability...with a list that doesn't rely on shenanigans.

Actually, that about sums up my demands: no shenanigans! If you look at the entry in the codex and start getting any funny ideas, pass it over and bring something else.

He should deliberately let you win?

Supra. The dichotomy that you are implicitly assuming presupposes the anti-scrub mentality against which I protest in the OP.

Should he let you make lists for him?

My criticism is largely negative: the seer council was unnecessary and could have been replaced with something else which isn't inordinately good against blobs of infantry.

Examples: More dire avengers, an avatar of khaine, a wraithlord, etc.

They'd be a lot less effective if you used cover and spread out.....

It's an apocalyptic blast. Do you know how big those are?

By the way what units were the Farseers in?

Eldrad, farseer and 3 or 4 warlocks constituted a single seer council unit.

Traditio wrote:

pm713 wrote:
I fail to see the issue with using Eldritch Storms.

Against blob marines, combined with the 6 blasts from the reapers, it was simply overkill. That's my complaint.

He could have won the game without the seer council, albeit with greater difficulty on his part.

Against blob armies, AP2 apocalyptic blasts are just far too effective...a forteriori because I wasn't using psykers myself.

Thus, not his fault. You took a blob, you suffered. Next time, he might not roll Eldritch Storm. It's not guarenteed, you happened to get a bad deal due to his good roll.

It really feels like you want to dictate his list to him, and that's not okay. You already imposed one restriction, and he adapted. Would you be happy if your marines ALWAYS got their saves and just removed AP3 and 2 from the game? I'm sorry, but I'm struggling to find ways to take your side here.

So he should write bad lists solely to accommodate you then. Got it. He asked the kind of list you asked him to. Now it's your turn to change and use different units.

There is no guarantee the Council will be good against blobs. If he rolls different powers it becomes terrible against blobs but great at buffing.

Yes. I also know the table is a lot bigger than the blast is.

That unit should not have survived very long unless he got very good rolls with his saves. So it again sounds like the problem came from you making a mistake. Even if they don't die in a turn you still weaken them by reducing warp charges.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:Thus, not his fault. You took a blob, you suffered. Next time, he might not roll Eldritch Storm. It's not guarenteed, you happened to get a bad deal due to his good roll.

His strategy relied on getting enough rolls on the psyker table to get Eldritch storm at least once. He specifically took the seer council for psyker shenanigans.

Which, again, is fine.

But not what I want to play against.

He's perfectly free not to play against me, of course, and that's fine too.

You already imposed one restriction, and he adapted.

Spirit vs. Letter

Would you be happy if your marines ALWAYS got their saves and just removed AP3 and 2 from the game? I'm sorry, but I'm struggling to find ways to take your side here.

Absolutely not. I use AP 3 and AP 2 myself. That said, I do think it's reasonable to say: "Y'know what? We aren't playing an apocalypse game. No apocalyptic AP2 blasts."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pm713 wrote:
So he should write bad lists solely to accommodate you then.

"Bad" is a relative term when we are talking about lists in warhammer 40k.

That unit should not have survived very long unless he got very good rolls with his saves. So it again sounds like the problem came from you making a mistake. Even if they don't die in a turn you still weaken them by reducing warp charges.

He did not. At no point in the game, as far as I remember, did he get anything higher than a 4+ rerollable invuln on the seer council, and they stayed close to the middle of the table. Somehow, this just didn't "click" for me. Again, I'm not saying that my tactics were great.

Did you explicitly say what you meant? Saying no scatbikes or wraithknights doesn't really imply no Seer Councils or Reapers or most things in the codex for that matter.

Traditio wrote:

pm713 wrote:
So he should not play to his full ability?

Absolutely not. He should play to his full ability...with a different list (i.e., one without a seer council (or, in general, psykers able to use eldritch storm or other shennanigans), wraithknights or bikes). Actually, I'll make it simpler: he should play to his full ability...with a list that doesn't rely on shenanigans.

Actually, that about sums up my demands: no shenanigans! If you look at the entry in the codex and start getting any funny ideas, pass it over and bring something else.

What defines shenanigans as anything but your opinion? Why is your word the one that determines shenanigans?
You're handicapping anything you don't like, without trying to adapt yourself.
List building is a part of tactics too, one that your opponent is willing to employ. By asking them to not bring certain units, you are stopping them playing at full potential. This is okay, to some extent. IMHO, you take it too far.

But hey, my opinion = worthless.

Should he let you make lists for him?

My criticism is largely negative: the seer council was unnecessary and could have been replaced with something else which isn't inordinately good against blobs of infantry.

Examples: More dire avengers, an avatar of khaine, a wraithlord, etc.

Why unnecessary? He is allowed to take what you don't force him not to. His choices at list making are just as valid as yours.
And don't forget, you chose to take blobs of infantry, which I could deem unnecessary when you could have taken tanks.

They'd be a lot less effective if you used cover and spread out.....

It's an apocalyptic blast. Do you know how big those are?

Spreading out is always valid, especially for the Dark Reapers too.

EDIT - You seem to say Spirit vs Word a lot. Enlighten me, how should your opponent have known that "No wraithknights and scatbikes" meant "absolutely nothing I deem as shenanigans without any other context"?

He did as you asked, is that not enough?

pm713 wrote:
Did you explicitly say what you meant? Saying no scatbikes or wraithknights doesn't really imply no Seer Councils or Reapers or most things in the codex for that matter.

Again, letter vs. spirit.

Somehow, this objection strike me as autistic at best, intentionally and maliciously disingenuous at worst. Kind of like a child holding his finger an inch away from his sibling: "I'm not touching you!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Traditio wrote:

pm713 wrote:
So he should not play to his full ability?

Absolutely not. He should play to his full ability...with a different list (i.e., one without a seer council (or, in general, psykers able to use eldritch storm or other shennanigans), wraithknights or bikes). Actually, I'll make it simpler: he should play to his full ability...with a list that doesn't rely on shenanigans.

Actually, that about sums up my demands: no shenanigans! If you look at the entry in the codex and start getting any funny ideas, pass it over and bring something else.

What defines shenanigans as anything but your opinion? Why is your word the one that determines shenanigans?

Silly question. You know it when you see it. If it makes you laugh and your opponent roll his eyes, it's shenanigans. Rerollable 2+ invuln saves come to mind.

You're handicapping anything you don't like, without trying to adapt yourself.
List building is a part of tactics too, one that your opponent is willing to employ. By asking them to not bring certain units, you are stopping them playing at full potential. This is okay, to some extent. IMHO, you take it too far.

But hey, my opinion = worthless.

As I said, see the OP.

Stop holding other people responsible for your poor communication.

Stop blaming somebody else for the fact they had a different idea to what constituted "fair" than yours.

Stop expecting other people to change to accommodate you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Maybe start playing a game where this sort of gak doesn't happen every fething game?

 Azreal13 wrote:
Stop holding other people responsible for your poor communication.

Stop blaming somebody else for the fact they had a different idea to what constituted "fair" than yours.

Stop expecting other people to change to accommodate you.

See the OP.

Again, ultimately, it's not the simple fact that he brought the units that provoked the thread. What provoked the thread is the attitude.

Traditio wrote:

pm713 wrote:
Did you explicitly say what you meant? Saying no scatbikes or wraithknights doesn't really imply no Seer Councils or Reapers or most things in the codex for that matter.

Again, letter vs. spirit.

Somehow, this objection strike me as autistic at best, intentionally and maliciously disingenuous at worst. Kind of like a child holding his finger an inch away from his sibling: "I'm not touching you!"

Letter vs spirit, returning again.
Your opponent is not a child (or maybe they are. I wouldn't know :shrug: ). They thought what they were doing was right, as you set it down.

To put it another way, for example, I am told that person X doesn't like strawberry ice cream. When I get person X a chocolate ice cream, they then tell me that they don't like chocolate either, and wanted raspberry. How could I have know what they wanted if they didn't tell me?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Traditio wrote:

pm713 wrote:
So he should not play to his full ability?

Absolutely not. He should play to his full ability...with a different list (i.e., one without a seer council (or, in general, psykers able to use eldritch storm or other shennanigans), wraithknights or bikes). Actually, I'll make it simpler: he should play to his full ability...with a list that doesn't rely on shenanigans.

Actually, that about sums up my demands: no shenanigans! If you look at the entry in the codex and start getting any funny ideas, pass it over and bring something else.

What defines shenanigans as anything but your opinion? Why is your word the one that determines shenanigans?
You're handicapping anything you don't like, without trying to adapt yourself.
List building is a part of tactics too, one that your opponent is willing to employ. By asking them to not bring certain units, you are stopping them playing at full potential. This is okay, to some extent. IMHO, you take it too far.

But hey, my opinion = worthless.

As I said, see the OP.

The OP where you come across as rather controlling and passive-aggressive because your opponent can't read your mind and figure out what you really want without communicating to him? When/if you next play him, PLEASE be completely clear about what you want, and what is okay with you to play.

Traditio wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Stop holding other people responsible for your poor communication.

Stop blaming somebody else for the fact they had a different idea to what constituted "fair" than yours.

Stop expecting other people to change to accommodate you.

See the OP.

Again, ultimately, it's not the simple fact that he brought the units that provoked the thread. What provoked the thread is the attitude.

What was the attitude? Tell us what you said and tell us what they said.

pm713 wrote:

What was the attitude? Tell us what you said and tell us what they said.

I'm sure the response will be totally unbiased though.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:Letter vs spirit, returning again.
Your opponent is not a child (or maybe they are. I wouldn't know :shrug: ). They thought what they were doing was right, as you set it down.

To put it another way, for example, I am told that person X doesn't like strawberry ice cream. When I get person X a chocolate ice cream, they then tell me that they don't like chocolate either, and wanted raspberry. How could I have know what they wanted if they didn't tell me?

This is why I am saying that this response strikes me either as autistic or disingenuous.

Either:

A. The objector can't read sub-texts/implications.
B. The objector can read sub-texts/implications, but simply chooses to ignore them.

A reasonable person would ask himself: "Why doesn't this person want me to use wraithknights or bikes? Oh, well, clearly, because his list can't really deal with them. He doesn't have the mobility to deal with bikes, and he doesn't really have the firepower to deal with a wraithknight. Perhaps I could use a seer council...well, reasoning analogously..."

[My apologies for bringing in religion, but the objector essentially reads my words like a protestant reads the Bible: i.e., a-contextually and over-literally (when it suits them, at any rate). ]

There are only two ways that I can understand the objector:

Autistically: He asked me for no wraithknights or scatter bikes...he specifically doesn't like those units, right?
Maliciously: He asked me for no wraithknights or scatter bikes...you know what else would completely wreck his list?

The OP where you come across as rather controlling and passive-aggressive because your opponent can't read your mind and figure out what you really want without communicating to him? When/if you next play him, PLEASE be completely clear about what you want, and what is okay with you to play.

I basically did. When he brought up the possibility of using a seer council, I believe my words were something to the effect of: "Oy vey! Just use a bunch of units that you normally wouldn't bring...for funsies, dawg." At some point, I do believe I said something to the effect of: "Hey, you should bring an avatar of khaine!"

As I said previously Traditio, I'm all for tailoring your lists in such a way as to try and have a good matchup. You tried to convey to him that you'd like him to tone down his list, and from what I can see, it looks like he really did. Obviously you didn't particularly enjoy the game, and you didn't like his response when you asked about him bringing dark reapers (which admittedly are pretty effective against marines, though he probably took the least effective weapon possible short of a shuriken cannon on his exarchs). I suspect his answer may have been hasty/awkward as a result of people not generally being used to their opponents asking them why they took a unit.

Here's the thing though: If I knew your list looked roughly like the one you posted, and you asked me to bring a toned-down eldar list that would be roughly even with it, I'd probably be tempted to bring something very similar to what your opponent brought. Not because what he brought smashes your face in, but because what he brought is about as toned down as it gets without basically insulting you by bringing a completely incapable army.

And I don't mean this as an insult. You seem to be pretty aware that the army you're bringing is not very effective. Except for the reapers (which again, are pretty okay against marines), he basically brought a short-ranged army. Those dragons have an 18" threat range. The d-scythes have a 14" threat range (no battle focus). Scary asD-scythes are, I think he actually specifically took them because they'd be less threatening to your army than the wraith guns with their superior range thus giving you a fat, expensive target to missile off the board right away. Those rangers kill something like one marine a turn on average if that. Illic kills a marine about once every other turn. Those avengers can be mean en masse, but they're roughly equivalent to marines and can do nothing against what few transports you have. That seer council (which should have at least 5 warlocks if it's an actual seer council, by the way) really isn't all that bad. Seer councils are generally considered scary when they're running around on bikes, chopping things up with witch blades, and giving daunting rerolls to other units. If he was using them as 24" artillery, he may have actually been trying to tone things down for you. Also, if that seer council wasn't on jetbikes, that makes them a unit of toughness 3 models with 4+ saves that range in cost from 35 points a model to about 100 for the farseer to about 200 for Eldrad. You say you're running "blob" marines, but your list is really more of an MSU marine list, so spreading out and mitigating casualties from blasts should be relatively easy.

I feel like if all you did in the first few turns was shield your devastators with your vehicles and blast his reapers and/or wraiths with your missiles, you'd probably actually end up doing some significant damage to his army before he reached you.

He probably could have run his list as a pair of CADs or something rather than using the formations, but I really wouldn't call his list optimized either. Using cover/terrain to your advantage and prioritizing the right targets would go a long way against his list. I think he was basically trying to give you a turn or two where you had nothing to worry about but his reapers (and rangers; I guess) so that your missiles could get some work done.

I say this sincerely and without any intent to be rude, but the only sorts of eldar lists I could see being on roughly even footing with yours in a head-on collission would be something like ranger spam backed up with banshee spam. A given farseer rolling only on Runes of Fate has a 50/50 chance of getting Eldritch storm, so we'd be looking at taking Illic (which he did take) or an autarch with very sub-par equipment to avoid taking an HQ that you wouldt object to. And honestly? If I played ranger and banshee spam against your list, I feel like I'd still have a pretty good chance of beating you, man. :(

Traditio wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:Letter vs spirit, returning again.
Your opponent is not a child (or maybe they are. I wouldn't know :shrug: ). They thought what they were doing was right, as you set it down.

To put it another way, for example, I am told that person X doesn't like strawberry ice cream. When I get person X a chocolate ice cream, they then tell me that they don't like chocolate either, and wanted raspberry. How could I have know what they wanted if they didn't tell me?

This is why I am saying that this response strikes me either as autistic or disingenuous.

Either:

A. The objector can't read sub-texts/implications.
B. The objector can read sub-texts/implications, but simply chooses to ignore them.

A reasonable person would ask himself: "Why doesn't this person want me to use wraithknights or bikes? Oh, well, clearly, because his list can't really deal with them. He doesn't have the mobility to deal with bikes, and he doesn't really have the firepower to deal with a wraithknight. Perhaps I could use a seer council...well, reasoning analogously..."

[My apologies for bringing in religion, but the objector essentially reads my words like a protestant reads the Bible: i.e., a-contextually and over-literally (when it suits them, at any rate). ]

There are only two ways that I can understand the objector:

Autistically: He asked me for no wraithknights or scatter bikes...he specifically doesn't like those units, right?
Maliciously: He asked me for no wraithknights or scatter bikes...you know what else would completely wreck his list?

Why is there no middle ground? You know, actually doing what you say because he can't read minds.
Did you communicate as to why he shouldn't take WK and SB, and how would he know that your list was incapable of dealing with anything stronger than a light breeze? (exaggerated, but you see my point)

I know that's what I would have done. I'd have taken what I deemed as fun, with accordance to what you strictly say I can't take.
Be very careful how you respond to that.

The OP where you come across as rather controlling and passive-aggressive because your opponent can't read your mind and figure out what you really want without communicating to him? When/if you next play him, PLEASE be completely clear about what you want, and what is okay with you to play.

I basically did. When he brought up the possibility of using a seer council, I believe my words were something to the effect of: "Oy vey! Just use a bunch of units that you normally wouldn't bring...for funsies, dawg." At some point, I do believe I said something to the effect of: "Hey, you should bring an avatar of khaine!"

Fun is subjective. And again, he may have taken that as a joke or just some friendly banter. What if he'd said to you something along those lines - "Hey, you should bring more tanks and drop pod Sternguard!"

Sgt_Smudge wrote:Why is there no middle ground? You know, actually doing what you say because he can't read minds.

Most people aren't autistic. Just saying.

And even some autistic people eventually learn to read sub-texts.

[And do please note, I'm not using "autistic" as an insult. I'm using it as a bare descriptive.]

Fun is subjective. And again, he may have taken that as a joke or just some friendly banter. What if he'd said to you something along those lines - "Hey, you should bring more tanks and drop pod Sternguard!"

He owns an avatar of khaine. He owns at least one wraithlord. I don't have more tanks or drop pods.

Traditio wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:Why is there no middle ground? You know, actually doing what you say because he can't read minds.

Most people aren't autistic. Just saying.

And even some autistic people eventually learn to read sub-texts.

So, most people (including me) are malicious then?

Fun is subjective. And again, he may have taken that as a joke or just some friendly banter. What if he'd said to you something along those lines - "Hey, you should bring more tanks and drop pod Sternguard!"

He owns an avatar of khaine. He owns at least one wraithlord. I don't have more tanks or drop pods.

Proxy.

Whether he has it or not is irrelevant. You asked him to take something you said would be "fun", to which Seer Council may have been.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:So, most people (including me) are malicious then?

I have no clue what most people would do. I further don't know what most players of warhammer 40k would do (which population is very likely not representative of the general population). I don't even know what most people on this particular forum would do (which population, again, very likely is not representative of the general population of Warhammer 40k players).

That said, the objections raised by you and certain others strike me as either autistic or malicious.

The latter really is just like the sibling saying: "I'm not touching you!"

Proxy.

Whether he has it or not is irrelevant. You asked him to take something you said would be "fun", to which Seer Council may have been.

Correction. What I said was "Use a bunch of units that you wouldn't normally use. For funsies, dawg."

Funsies =/= fun

The dude regularly uses a seer council.

It looks like me the OP is just trying to take the blame of him loosing onto the opponent and not yourself

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
It looks like me the OP is just trying to take the blame of him loosing onto the opponent and not yourself

See the OP.

Traditio wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
It looks like me the OP is just trying to take the blame of him loosing onto the opponent and not yourself

See the OP.

Really not helping with supporting the argument. The OP isn't explaining much, and your default answer seems to be "Spirit vs Letters".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:So, most people (including me) are malicious then?

I have no clue what most people would do. I further don't know what most players of warhammer 40k would do (which population is very likely not representative of the general population). I don't even know what most people on this particular forum would do (which population, again, very likely is not representative of the general population of Warhammer 40k players).

That said, the objections raised by you and certain others strike me as either autistic or malicious.

The latter really is just like the sibling saying: "I'm not touching you!"

Most people in this thread have given their views on this whole situation.
Hell, I just let you know what I'd do, but apparently I'm either an autist or full of malice.

Proxy.

Whether he has it or not is irrelevant. You asked him to take something you said would be "fun", to which Seer Council may have been.

Correction. What I said was "Use a bunch of units that you wouldn't normally use. For funsies, dawg."

Funsies =/= fun

The dude regularly uses a seer council.

Context was required, thank you.
Also, how is funsies =/= fun?

Traditio wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
It looks like me the OP is just trying to take the blame of him loosing onto the opponent and not yourself

See the OP.

I am. and it looks like you want us to just pat you on the back, tell you the guy was a meanie for beating you and playing eldar ad give you a lollipop.
but no, you brought a subpar list, knowing you brought one(Seriously, Missiles with flakk?) and you get upset you lost.
Here, read this.
https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2015/12/19/you-are-not-a-special-40k-flower/

hotsauceman1 wrote:I am. and it looks like you want us to just pat you on the back, tell you the guy was a meanie for beating you and playing eldar ad give you a lollipop.
but no, you brought a subpar list, knowing you brought one(Seriously, Missiles with flakk?) and you get upset you lost.
Here, read this.
https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2015/12/19/you-are-not-a-special-40k-flower/

That article is just another piece which exemplifies the anti-scrub, "git gud" attitude. And again: refer to the OP.

No, it refers to people who whine and complain when they loose, but dont take advice. Kinda like right now. People arent anti-scrub, their anti-entitlement

Traditio wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:I am. and it looks like you want us to just pat you on the back, tell you the guy was a meanie for beating you and playing eldar ad give you a lollipop.
but no, you brought a subpar list, knowing you brought one(Seriously, Missiles with flakk?) and you get upset you lost.
Here, read this.
https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2015/12/19/you-are-not-a-special-40k-flower/

That article is just another piece which exemplifies the anti-scrub, "git gud" attitude. And again: refer to the OP.

No, it's explaining how even if you give people advice about how the game actually works, people still think they can break it. It's the "scrub"'s call if they want to change and maybe win, without handicapping their opponent.