Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I don't think "public opinion" was what they studied when determining whether or not tobacco causes cancer.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:I'm genuinely curious as to how you came to that conclusion. Would you please enlighten me?

So long as there are personal interests involved, there's always going to be controversy over data. Snack food companies, cigarette companies, soda companies, etc. You name it. If there's a study which is bad for business, they'll try to devalue that study.

Same in politics with respect to public opinion polls.

Same with basically anything.

You have a personal interest in devaluing the poll.

At any rate, for all non-biased observers, I wish to offer a brief defense of the poll:

The results of the poll are basically what you should expect in a poll of this kind. To use a classic line, "most people are average." In public opinion, this means that people tend to gravitate to whatever cultural zeitgeist it is of which they are a part. Truly outlying opinions are rare.

Note, of course, that not all outlying opinions are of the troll-variety, and I perhaps spoke too hastily in saying that all persons who clicked on the "it needs to be cheaper" option are trolls. Some people genuinely might believe this, though it is an outlying opinion.

It is, of course, often easy to confuse the two, and people often think of me as a troll simply because of the content of what I say. I'm not a troll. I just have a habit of expressing unpopular opinions. [Though I do sometimes troll; the comment about how the tau player needs to expand his army...with orks...comes to mind. That was hilarious to me, and I do hope that at least some persons reading it laughed with me.]

At any rate, what you should expect in a poll of this kind is that most of the votes will gravitate around either one option or a cluster of options, and that deviations from this "normal" opinion will be comparatively rare. This will look like a standard bell curve, in all likelihood.

If you take a look at this poll, it basically looks like a bell curve, with the exception of the "it should be cheaper" option and the "over 500 points" option.

Both of these are easily explained:

"Over 500" is much more general than the other options, thus grouping a lot of disparate opinions together.

At least some of the "it should be cheaper" responses are trolls.

Note, of course, that this doesn't invalidate the entire poll. The deviations are clearly spotted and explained away, and the general trend of the poll is perfectly clear. The presence of the inevitable minority of dishonest answers doesn't invalidate an entire poll (otherwise, polling would be inherently useless).

What we have to look for are general trends.

Traditio wrote:
I agree. Thus all the people in this thread attempting to devalue the results of the poll.

People like you, you mean? Or are we supposed to forget how you insisted on devaluing the results of the poll when it disagreed with you, and only accepted that it is valid once the vote started to go your way?

Peregrine wrote:People like you, you mean? Or are we supposed to forget how you insisted on devaluing the results of the poll when it disagreed with you, and only accepted that it is valid once the vote started to go your way?

At no point was the poll not going my way. Yes, "less than now" held the largest percentage individually, but collectively, "more than now" held the largest share even then.

An Imperial knight costs 375 as a base paladin and is generally agreed to be a properly pointed super heavy. Wraithknights wipe the floor with them. They strike first in CC/their weapons are generally better at killing things that can kill them/ WK has more resiliency to damage. Just about the only advantage a kngiht has over a wraith knight is they can handle hordes because they have decent dakka. So I think any response under 375 flat out wrong based on these points. The question remains how much better is a WK than a IK. It's hard to say, I think given the chance an IK can keep up in the damage output category but its far more susceptible to being destroyed. To me this seems like a 40-60 point advantage. So I'll be fair and say it should cost something like 420 points.

SS on the other hand are also too cheap. They should probably cost roughly 460 points. Can anyone deny that a SS is superior to both platforms?

 BossJakadakk wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 BossJakadakk wrote:

How can a WK NOT be comparable in cost to any vehicle at all? There are vehicles that run the gamut in points costs.

You're right that there are vehicles that "run the gamut in points costs", but again:
It doesn't matter because even the most undercosted vehicle is still vulnerable to the stuff that every other vehicle is vulnerable to.

That is what I'm trying to get across here. You seem to be laser focused on the idea of the Wraithknight being reasonably costed, and it's not. It's nowhere NEAR reasonably costed. Even if it were bumped up to the price of a Knight, it would still be undercosted given that:
A) It benefits from Eldar Warhost bonuses.
B) It, currently,(the big FAQ is going to address this) can gain cover saves as easily as any infantry models can.
C) When granted its survival benefits by becoming GMCs removed the weaknesses it had as a MC(and even when it had those weaknesses, it was still considered underpriced by many).

There's three issues that need to be addressed there, in addition to or instead of the points issue.
One of those issues(Cover) is being addressed, one can be addressed fairly easily(Wraithknights gain the special rule "Torn Between Two Realms" negating the benefits of the Warhost bonuses by virtue of fluff. The Wraithknights are piloted by the living and the dead, make up some fluffy reasoning for it), and the last requires addressing GMCs as a whole--of which the remainder are not really considered issues, aside from their own unique weapon profiles/special rules(Supremacy Armour immediately springs to mind here).

I think I see. So what you mean is something more don't compare it to vehicles of similar costs to gauge it's cost/power effectiveness? That makes sense. Initially I was thinking you meant don't let it be comparable in cost to vehicles, which didn't make sense because no matter what it costs, it'll be a comparable cost to *some* vehicle somewhere.

A) Do people run these? I get it's a force multiplier but that shouldn't matter in the context of Traditio's rules because there's a tax to get those special rules. I almost hate to say it, but "I reject the premises" of this one.

Yup. People run them. There's not a huge tax, as people can run a Wind Rider Battlehost as the "tax". The only real tax unit in there is arguably the Vyper.

To you, however, I will say I understand this point. Run a warhost, with a wraithhost, and suddenly it has guaranteed 6" battle focus. It's a force multiplier, and it's pretty damn strong.

You don't need to run a Wraithhost. You can just run a Wraith Construct; which are Wraithguard, Wraithlords, or Wraithknights.

Wonder which one people will pick.

B) Absolutely. Grade-A ridiculously weird stuff. Glad it's being fixed.

C) Fair enough.

Honestly, I agree with your points, and respect your opinions. You actually define your views and give me reasoning that isn't vague to support your position. I can see how the WK is undercosted in this light.

Truthfully, I think I would be far more amenable to the Tyranid GMCs being pointed the same as the Wraithknight currently is.

Their GMCs need help, yo.

@Traditio: Since you've added ignoring people (of which I am now a victim), I will repeat what I said on Page 2 of this thread:

 IllumiNini wrote:

Traditio wrote:

kambien wrote:This x 10

Update. My opinion has over 60 percent of the vote thus far, even including the trolls.

In fact, even taken individually, my opinion has the largest share of the votes.

When can I start claiming the support of public opinion?

On this topic: Never.

You've admitted in an earlier post that, to some extent or another, that trolls have more than likely been involved with the poll in this thread. This means that any results that your poll yields are meaningless unless you can identity all the trolls that voted in the poll and which option they voted for, then remove their votes and tally the remaining results. This is practically impossible and therefore by both the likely scenario of people trolling the poll as well as by your own admission that trolls likely voted in the poll, you cannot draw any conclusions from the poll, which most definitely means you cannot start claiming the support of public opinion.

You are riding the general consensus that Wraithknights more than likely need a change, and are trying to use the results of a poll that has been invalidated by the presence of disingenuous answers being submitted to justify an argument that, as far as I can tell, is being disagree with by a significant number (if not a majority) of people.

It has been solidly established that there are trolls who have voted in the thread (believe it or not, I was not one of them). You claim that the trolls only voted for a particular result, conveniently leaving the results you want to use to support your argument as valid (since the trolls didn't vote for that option according to you). But how can you know this? How can you assume that the trolls only voted for any given set of options and left the other ones alone? You're trying to argue that the results of a poll that has clearly been invalidated by the presence of trolls is actually valid. You are wrong. You need something else to argue with, because the results of this polls are utterly useless to everyone.


Back on topic: All I've seen in this thread can be summarised by the following statement:

The Wraithknight needs a change.

This does support your argument that a points cost increase is in order, but that is definitely not the only option that this statement supports, with many other users commenting on this thread talking about features other than points costs that could also be the subject of change.

Consider the following example: You could nerf a number of things about the Wraithknight (e.g. its weaponry and number of "Wounds") and then it could not only be a unit that is more fair on the tabletop, but also worth less than 295 points. I find it funny that not only does your poll not take this sort of reasoning and option into account due to the lack of specificity in the poll question, but you also seem to completely ignore this possibility (which is evidenced by the fact that you've labelled everyone who voted for that option as a troll).

IllumiNini wrote:You've admitted in an earlier post that, to some extent or another, that trolls have more than likely been involved with the poll in this thread. This means that any results that your poll yields are meaningless unless you can identity all the trolls that voted in the poll and which option they voted for, then remove their votes and tally the remaining results.

False. I've already provided arguments to the contrary.

If you wish to disagree with me, then address those arguments.

This is practically impossible and therefore by both the likely scenario of people trolling the poll as well as by your own admission that trolls likely voted in the poll, you cannot draw any conclusions from the poll, which most definitely means you cannot start claiming the support of public opinion.

Again, no. Yes, trolls are likely to somewhat skew poll results, but they won't affect the overall trends of the poll. The poll result is precisely what I would expect, with some slight skew on the "less than now" side, for a standard bell curve.

How can you assume that the trolls only voted for any given set of options and left the other ones alone?

I can't. However, I've already shown why this doesn't matter.

Consider the following example: You could nerf a number of things about the Wraithknight (e.g. its weaponry and number of "Wounds") and then it could not only be a unit that is more fair on the tabletop, but also worth less than 295 points. I find it funny that not only does your poll not take this sort of reasoning and option into account due to the lack of specificity in the poll question, but you also seem to completely ignore this possibility (which is evidenced by the fact that you've labelled everyone who voted for that option as a troll).

All of this is irrelevant to my question. My question is not whether the WK needs fixing or how it might be fixed. My question is what constitutes a fair points cost for the wraithknight.

The average response is essentially my response: 400 points.

You still seem to be under the impression that we're dealing with a normal amount of bias as a result of trolling, which we're not. And even if we are (by some miracle) dealing with no more bias than is usual for polls like these, we have no way of actually knowing that. Therefore, all your arguments as to why the data can still be used are irrelevant, and poll results are still unusable.

Traditio wrote:

Consider the following example: You could nerf a number of things about the Wraithknight (e.g. its weaponry and number of "Wounds") and then it could not only be a unit that is more fair on the tabletop, but also worth less than 295 points. I find it funny that not only does your poll not take this sort of reasoning and option into account due to the lack of specificity in the poll question, but you also seem to completely ignore this possibility (which is evidenced by the fact that you've labelled everyone who voted for that option as a troll).

All of this is irrelevant to my question. My question is not whether the WK needs fixing or how it might be fixed. My question is what constitutes a fair points cost for the wraithknight.

The average response is essentially my response: 400 points.

Then be more specific with the poll question, because it currently does not specify that that the Wraithknight should remain unchanged except for points (which people were smart enough to infer).

IllumiNini wrote:You still seem to be under the impression that we're dealing with a normal amount of bias as a result of trolling, which we're not. And even if we are (by some miracle) dealing with no more bias than is usual for polls like these, we have no way of actually knowing that. Therefore, all your arguments as to why the data can still be used are irrelevant, and poll results are still unusable.

Can you demonstrate that we are dealing with extraordinary amounts of trolling to such an extent that it could skew the overall trends of that poll?

If you can't, then we are perfectly entitled to assume that the poll is accurate.

Then be more specific with the poll question, because it currently does not specify that that the Wraithknight should remain unchanged except for points (which people were smart enough to infer).

See the OP.

Traditio wrote:

IllumiNini wrote:You still seem to be under the impression that we're dealing with a normal amount of bias as a result of trolling, which we're not. And even if we are (by some miracle) dealing with no more bias than is usual for polls like these, we have no way of actually knowing that. Therefore, all your arguments as to why the data can still be used are irrelevant, and poll results are still unusable.

Can you demonstrate that we are dealing with extraordinary amounts of trolling to such an extent that it could skew the overall trends of that poll?

If you can't, then we are perfectly entitled to assume that the poll is accurate.

As is everyone else. Even if I cannot assume that the results are unreasonable, you have no reason to assume that there results are reasonable, especially considering the amount of disagreement, argument, and general dislike of you and your opinions that you that you seem to so easily inspire.

So even if I'm wrong in assuming the results are unusable, you do not have a good enough reason to assume the results are reasonable and usable. The presence of trolling at a level you cannot prove is within reason is a prime example of why this is the case.

Traditio wrote:

Then be more specific with the poll question, because it currently does not specify that that the Wraithknight should remain unchanged except for points (which people were smart enough to infer).

See the OP.

But I wasn't talking about the original post, I was talking about the poll question. It is quite easy to add the required specificity into the question without turning the question into an essay.

IllumiNini wrote:As is everyone else. Even if I cannot assume that the results are unreasonable, you have no reason to assume that there results are reasonable, especially considering the amount of disagreement, argument, and general dislike of you and your opinions that you that you seem to so easily inspire.

So even if I'm wrong in assuming the results are unusable, you do not have a good enough reason to assume the results are reasonable and usable. The presence of trolling at a level you cannot prove is within reason is a prime example of why this is the case.

I've already provided sufficient arguments against this, and the reasons why your arguments are just, at their core, faulty are patently evident to any non-biased observer (e.g., if they wished to troll me, why would they vote in agreement with my opinion?), that I simply won't deal further with these objections from you (which, I suspect, are probably troll-ish in nature).

I'll let the facts stand as they are for any non-biased observers who may be watching.

But I wasn't talking about the original post, I was talking about the poll question.

Again, see the OP.

Traditio wrote:
(e.g., if they wished to troll me, why would they vote in agreement with my opinion?)

Perhaps they're trolling me, not you, and voting in opposition to my argument regardless of their real beliefs? Perhaps they're just trolls in general, and think that 400 point Wraithknights are so obviously absurd that it's the comedy option? There's just as much evidence for either of those theories as there is for your theory that everyone voting against your position is a troll.

25% of the respondents think that the Wraithknight needs to be cheaper or stay exactly the same. 75% think it needs a price bump, most of these think it needs at least 100pts tacked onto the price.

Of those 25% who think its price fine or to expensive, I would hazard a guess that most are Eldar players who don't want to have to try tactics to win a game and instead like the ability to spam "I WIN" buttons everywhere, IE Wraith Knights, Scatbikes, Spiders.

Sorry if that offends you handful of Eldar players who think the Wraithknight is fine for its price but, either your blind or just trolling, either way. The Eldar Codex needs a complete rewrite with a lot of nerfs. AS does Tau/SM and Necron.

SemperMortis wrote:
25% of the respondents think that the Wraithknight needs to be cheaper or stay exactly the same. 75% think it needs a price bump, most of these think it needs at least 100pts tacked onto the price.

Of those 25% who think its price fine or to expensive, I would hazard a guess that most are Eldar players who don't want to have to try tactics to win a game and instead like the ability to spam "I WIN" buttons everywhere, IE Wraith Knights, Scatbikes, Spiders

That's basically how I'm reading the poll results.

Actually, Semper, this is why:



It's nothing more than people who are sick of Traditio constantly making new threads to dodge answering when it gets too hot under the collar for him/her after having their own logic turned against them.

Matt.Kingsley wrote:It's nothing more than people who are sick of Traditio constantly making new threads

If you're so sick of them, you're under no obligation to participate in them.

Traditio wrote:

Matt.Kingsley wrote:It's nothing more than people who are sick of Traditio constantly making new threads

If you're so sick of them, you're under no obligation to participate in them.

So not only are you still apparently "Waiting on numbers" as if they're supposed to be able to tell you about your own opinions on the issues I raised (referring to the this thread), but you've missed a fundamental point Matt.Kingsley's post:

People are getting sick of you and your threads/posts. Yes, they're not obliged to comment on what you've said or even acknowledge you've said anything, but the question you've got to ask yourself is why people are getting sick of you and your content. Only when you ask yourself that question as well as put a stop to stupid habits such as ignoring people and not admitting you were wrong can you actually get the genuine results you want out of these polls and genuine discussion in your threads (instead of what it always seems to devolve into)

Nice use of cutting up my argument to make me say something I didn't.

Once again showing your dishonesty.

It's not the threads, it's the fact you use them to try to dodge points and questions made in the previous one.

Of course, people have no obligation to post in your new threads is why you do it. You're hoping people stop so your dodging would be successful.

SemperMortis wrote:
25% of the respondents think that the Wraithknight needs to be cheaper or stay exactly the same. 75% think it needs a price bump, most of these think it needs at least 100pts tacked onto the price.

Of those 25% who think its price fine or to expensive, I would hazard a guess that most are Eldar players who don't want to have to try tactics to win a game and instead like the ability to spam "I WIN" buttons everywhere, IE Wraith Knights, Scatbikes, Spiders.

Sorry if that offends you handful of Eldar players who think the Wraithknight is fine for its price but, either your blind or just trolling, either way. The Eldar Codex needs a complete rewrite with a lot of nerfs. AS does Tau/SM and Necron.

I'm not offended in the slightest, although I do think that you WK/Eldar haters should L2P. It's not like the meta hasn't moved in a huge way since Necrons.

Now if you were saying that the old books need updates, that'd be different...

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
25% of the respondents think that the Wraithknight needs to be cheaper or stay exactly the same. 75% think it needs a price bump, most of these think it needs at least 100pts tacked onto the price.

Of those 25% who think its price fine or to expensive, I would hazard a guess that most are Eldar players who don't want to have to try tactics to win a game and instead like the ability to spam "I WIN" buttons everywhere, IE Wraith Knights, Scatbikes, Spiders.

Sorry if that offends you handful of Eldar players who think the Wraithknight is fine for its price but, either your blind or just trolling, either way. The Eldar Codex needs a complete rewrite with a lot of nerfs. AS does Tau/SM and Necron.

I'm not offended in the slightest, although I do think that you WK/Eldar haters should L2P. It's not like the meta hasn't moved in a huge way since Necrons.

Now if you were saying that the old books need updates, that'd be different...

Tell you what. You play orks.

And then come back to me about how people need to L2P.

I'll be waiting to hear all about your win/tie/loss ratio.

He plays Chaos and IG.

He doesn't need to play Orks to be able to tell people to L2P.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
He plays Chaos and IG.

He doesn't need to play Orks to be able to tell people to L2P.

More importantly, he's not bothered when he loses with any of his armies. It's no longer a big deal.

 Kanluwen wrote:

To you, however, I will say I understand this point. Run a warhost, with a wraithhost, and suddenly it has guaranteed 6" battle focus. It's a force multiplier, and it's pretty damn strong.

You don't need to run a Wraithhost. You can just run a Wraith Construct; which are Wraithguard, Wraithlords, or Wraithknights.

Wonder which one people will pick.

B) Absolutely. Grade-A ridiculously weird stuff. Glad it's being fixed.

C) Fair enough.

Honestly, I agree with your points, and respect your opinions. You actually define your views and give me reasoning that isn't vague to support your position. I can see how the WK is undercosted in this light.

Truthfully, I think I would be far more amenable to the Tyranid GMCs being pointed the same as the Wraithknight currently is.

Their GMCs need help, yo.

I just meant for it to have battle focus, the wraithhost is needed. Isn't it? I'll double check, but I think the warhost only makes battle focus a guaranteed 6" and doesn't actually grant it to units that don't have it, while the wraithhost does give its units battle focus. Then again, battle focus isn't really the big problem with the WK haha

I don't know enough about Tyranid GMCs, except I would instantly agree that anything that is a GMC should be on the same rough power level as other things classed GMC.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
25% of the respondents think that the Wraithknight needs to be cheaper or stay exactly the same. 75% think it needs a price bump, most of these think it needs at least 100pts tacked onto the price.

Of those 25% who think its price fine or to expensive, I would hazard a guess that most are Eldar players who don't want to have to try tactics to win a game and instead like the ability to spam "I WIN" buttons everywhere, IE Wraith Knights, Scatbikes, Spiders.

Sorry if that offends you handful of Eldar players who think the Wraithknight is fine for its price but, either your blind or just trolling, either way. The Eldar Codex needs a complete rewrite with a lot of nerfs. AS does Tau/SM and Necron.

I'm not offended in the slightest, although I do think that you WK/Eldar haters should L2P. It's not like the meta hasn't moved in a huge way since Necrons.

Now if you were saying that the old books need updates, that'd be different...

The L2P argument is my favorite when coming from Eldar Players. I understand you have two other armies, good for you. That doesn't mean that you get to tell others to L2P. My Ork army has very little chance to win against Eldar Lists. Every single Ork build except for the Zhadsnarkz Biker boyz list which isn't even able to place in the top 50 at LVO, has a distinct disadvantage against Eldar.

So how do I L2P against an Eldar Player who likes to bring WK's and Spam Scatbikes? What tactics would you suggest. Also if you suggest "use the terrain" im going to write you off completely as a useful contributor on these boards and label you as one of the Eldar Fan Boyz who can't win without using the Easy mode army.

No, having those armies doesn't mean I get to tell haters like you to L2P. You hating on the other armies is what means I get to tell you to L2P.

And L2P includes learning the meta.

If you want to play competitively, start by shelving your Orks. If you refuse to play a competitive Codex in whatever meta happens to be dominant, that is your failure, and you are not doing it right.

If you honestly believe that Eldar are "easy mode", then by all means, prove us right by taking them to an auto-pilot Tournament win.

I think its pretty uncontroversial to say that the Wraithknight is, if not THE most powerful single unit in the game, easily within the top 10.
Its a meta-defining unit. If your army can't deal with at least one wraithknight, you're not going to win tournaments.
It really doesn't help that Eldar also got other meta-defining units (Scatterbikes, Warp Spiders and Wraithguard) that complement the WK nicely.


So what could we compare the WK to?
An Imperial Knight is an obvious choice. My personal favourite comparison though is the D-Thirster.

The D-Thirster is a staple of Daemonkin and now Daemon armies, as it allows a reliable way for Daemons to take down high AV targets that they were previously lacking. Its rare to see a KDK army without them.

So lets look at the Combat WK vs the Combat D-Thirster. For only 20pts more, the WK has:
+ 2T (Immunity to S4 attacks)
+ 4S
+ Always On FNP
+ D-Weapon Strikes at I5
+ Stomp (!!!)
+ Resistance to Instant Death / Stomp
+ Resistance to Poison.
- Weaponskill
- Swooping mode
- Attacks.

Personally, the -WS and A aren't big deals to me. Stomp makes up for a few lost attacks easily; and in 95% of combats the WS loss won't matter. The swooping mode is also pretty meh; a D-thirster wants to be in combat, so essentially if it flies T1 it doesn't make combat until turn 3 at best - or deepstriking it doesn't make combat until T4.

Against things like Knights, a D-weapon WK is leagues ahead of the D-weapon bloodthirster because it strikes before the Knights.


What about compared to SHV's?
The WK is kind of a weird case because its T8, which crosses a lot of thresholds in the game. A T6 GMC would be a different story. (Unless its the Stormsurge, which again has quirks). T8 makes it immune to S4 (ie, the bulk of most army's infantry shooting and close combat attacks). It pushes most army's volume-of-fire attacks that they use to deal with light vehicles (scatterlasers or broadside missiles) to 5's or 6's to wound, and are AP4 or worse. Even armies' high S low ROF attacks like Melta or Lascannon are ineffective, because they're still wounding on 4's against effectively 12 wounds (FNP & 5++).
Couple that innate resistance from high Toughness with the innate bonuses of GMC's. They gain resistance to the type of attacks one would usually rely on to take out other MC's - poison, sniper and instant death. The remaining rules that work on them are Rending and Fleshbane which is handed out *very* sparingly (Poison 2+ is more common, but useless). Compare that to SHV's which are equally as susceptible to nearly all anti-vehicle tech: haywire, melta, lance and gauss all still work.

What you end up with is a unit that requires a very narrow range of weapons to kill efficiently and has very little fear of being in combat. Most armies would struggle to kill it even with an entire army's weight of firepower in a turn, or possibly even 2 turns.

The weapons that DO work against Wraithknights are essentially Grav. The combat units that work are... superfriends wolf units. Both of which also occupy places in the 'top 10 powerful units'.


And that is just for the combat knight... and the cannon knight is considered MORE powerful.


IMO, a Wraithknight could easily be 100pts more and it would still be very aggressively costed. So I vote 400-449 pts.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
No, having those armies doesn't mean I get to tell haters like you to L2P. You hating on the other armies is what means I get to tell you to L2P.

And L2P includes learning the meta.

If you want to play competitively, start by shelving your Orks. If you refuse to play a competitive Codex in whatever meta happens to be dominant, that is your failure, and you are not doing it right.

If you honestly believe that Eldar are "easy mode", then by all means, prove us right by taking them to an auto-pilot Tournament win.

So because I feel that the wraithknight is significantly under priced I am "Hating" on your army? That is a flawed statement from the start

So if I want to play competitively I need to shelve the Army that I have spent years collecting, assembling and painting and go out and buy a whole new army that is the current Cheese? Do you really not see why that is offensive to so many people. I am happy for you that you have enough money that your comfortable buying around a thousand dollars worth of Plastic toys every year or so to compete in your meta but most of us simply can not afford to do that.

As far as Eldar being Easy Mode? well go take a look at any recent major tournament. The 2016 LVO had 3 Eldar armies in the top 8 alone. (The most btw) on top of the fact that ITC nerfed Eldar with their rules and yet wow they won 1st and 2nd place not to mention they also scored the highest average of any other army (except random armies that only had 1-2 people and both played well EG Renages). So I think calling Eldar the Easy Mode army is a fair statement.

SemperMortis wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
No, having those armies doesn't mean I get to tell haters like you to L2P. You hating on the other armies is what means I get to tell you to L2P.

So because I feel that the wraithknight is significantly under priced I am "Hating" on your army? That is a flawed statement from the start

So if I want to play competitively I need to shelve the Army that I have spent years collecting, assembling and painting and go out and buy a whole new army that is the current Cheese? Do you really not see why that is offensive to so many people. I am happy for you that you have enough money that your comfortable buying around a thousand dollars worth of Plastic toys every year or so to compete in your meta but most of us simply can not afford to do that.

As far as Eldar being Easy Mode? well go take a look at any recent major tournament. The 2016 LVO had 3 Eldar armies in the top 8 alone. (The most btw) on top of the fact that ITC nerfed Eldar with their rules and yet wow they won 1st and 2nd place not to mention they also scored the highest average of any other army (except random armies that only had 1-2 people and both played well EG Renages). So I think calling Eldar the Easy Mode army is a fair statement.

You were hating on more than just the WK, basically everything Decurion forward.

If you want to play competitively, YES, you fething damn well do need to shelve your Orks. Don't like it? Too fething bad. That's how things go. And no, it shouldn't be at all offensive to anybody. If you want to compete, you need to play to compete. That means doing your homework and picking a competitive army from the get-go. You chose not to do that. That's not my fault. That is your fault. And fact is, from a competitive standpoint, I've shelved armies for years on end. Others have, too. There's nothing wrong with shelving an army. What is wrong is to complain that one made bad choices in the meta, and to blame others for those poor decisions.

What a top-level player does, and what you can do are two different things. In a mirror match, I suspect any of those 3 Eldar players could beat you convincingly Orks vs Orks, or Eldar vs Eldar. If Eldar allow a scrub like you to play at in the finals, I'd be shocked.

BTW, you should read Sirlin's definition of "scrub" - it's entirely apt.

SemperMortis wrote:
So if I want to play competitively I need to shelve the Army that I have spent years collecting, assembling and painting and go out and buy a whole new army that is the current Cheese? Do you really not see why that is offensive to so many people. I am happy for you that you have enough money that your comfortable buying around a thousand dollars worth of Plastic toys every year or so to compete in your meta but most of us simply can not afford to do that.

Yes, that's what "play competitively" means. If you aren't taking the best possible lists then you aren't playing competitively. It's entirely ok to say that you don't have any interest in playing competitively and would rather continue playing the same army you've already collected for fluff/painting/whatever reasons, but don't try to redefine "competitive" into something that it isn't.