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.

Personal experience is also statistically meaningless. My complaints are specifically about the mathhammer of matchups.

 Vaktathi wrote:
[Mathhammer will give you an average, the most likely outcome from which to form a baseline to make decisions from, it wont ever predict exactly what *will* happen. It's possible for 5 basic Guardsmen to slay those 5 Wraiths in a single round of shooting, but the math tells you that you that you shouldn't expect that outcome.

Taking advantagr of the odds the mathammer gives you is what makes players good, its what informs decisionmaking, consciously or not.

If people wish to rely on that, that's fine. I personally have no interest in it all.

 Vaktathi wrote:

that sounds much more plausible and I probably should have gathered that but even then thats a majority of the army being focused onto a single, non-optimized unit, and such killing power concentration onto such a small portion of an opponents army often has major drawbacks.

It's been three days since I played the game and my memory is a bit hazy.

The Wraiths where significantly ahead of the rest of my army with no support. That was a mistake in retrospect. Behind them a ways I had a unit of Immortals and Warriors behind an Aegis Line. On the other side of the board, I had a warrior blob and a Triarch Stalker that got blown up before it could do anything. He really could afford to kill the Wraiths because I could not deploy the rest of the army quickly enough to form an effective counter-attack.

Gree wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
[Mathhammer will give you an average, the most likely outcome from which to form a baseline to make decisions from, it wont ever predict exactly what *will* happen. It's possible for 5 basic Guardsmen to slay those 5 Wraiths in a single round of shooting, but the math tells you that you that you shouldn't expect that outcome.

Taking advantagr of the odds the mathammer gives you is what makes players good, its what informs decisionmaking, consciously or not.

If people wish to rely on that, that's fine. I personally have no interest in it all.

Well, you do it whether you realize it or not. For instance, you dump the battlecannon on the Tac Marines instead of the Terminators because it offers the greatest possible expected outcome. It's possible to kill that Terminator squad with the Battlecannon, but their 2+ save means it's unlikely, and you may be lucky to kill one, whereas with the Tac squad a total unit wipe is far more likely and a solid hit will generate 5 or 6 kills as a matter of course (which, combined, have a much greater value than the single Terminator you might otherwise expect to kill), hence you don't shoot the Terminators and send the ordnance at the Tac marines. Whether you consciously work out the math manually or not, you're always relying on the general principles. Likewise I know I probably don't need to dump all twenty meltagun shots from drop podding Sternguard into that Rhino to kill it barring a one in a billion unlucky dice rolls streak, one combat squad will probably do the trick, two if it's sporting a 4+ cover save, and I can position the other units to engage different targets for an overall more effective round of shooting.

Nobody is sitting there running the numbers and calculating out exactly how many casualties they're going to inflict with each salvo from every unit each and every turn, but those numbers will inform you as to what sort of resources will be required to accomplish a given task in the majority of instances.

It's been three days since I played the game and my memory is a bit hazy.

The Wraiths where significantly ahead of the rest of my army with no support. That was a mistake in retrospect. Behind them a ways I had a unit of Immortals and Warriors behind an Aegis Line. On the other side of the board, I had a warrior blob and a Triarch Stalker that got blown up before it could do anything. He really could afford to kill the Wraiths because I could not deploy the rest of the army quickly enough to form an effective counter-attack.

If one player makes a major error and it's seized upon by the other skillfully, of course things can be turned around. I can beat Mike Tyson in a fistfight if I catch him passed out drunk, however much he may pound me to mush in a fair fight.

However assuming equally skilled players with nobody making a major error that's capitalized upon (generally what most people are assuming in discussions like this), the CSM's are going to be at a massive disadvantage almost without exception.

 Vaktathi wrote:
*snip*.

I suppose I should repeat myself in this case. If people wish to rely on it, then that's fine. I personally have no interest in Mathhammer.

That is really all I have to say on the subject.

 Vaktathi wrote:
If one player makes a major error and it's seized upon by the other skillfully, of course things can be turned around. I can beat Mike Tyson in a fistfight if I catch him passed out drunk, however much he may pound me to mush in a fair fight.

However assuming equally skilled players with nobody making a major error that's capitalized upon (generally what most people are assuming in discussions like this), the CSM's are going to be at a massive disadvantage almost without exception.

If it was just that once time, I'd be fine with dismissing it as an outlier. Certainly I'm relatively inexperienced with playing Necrons. But I've played this guy multiple times with a firmly slanted win-loss ratio in his favor. This is despite me playing the ''power armies'' like Space Marines and him playing armies like Chaos and Tyranids that people deride. (He plays Chaos, Tyranids, Orks and Necrons, with Chaos being his most favorite). Yet according to the internet, I shouldn't be losing a often as I do with those armies.

I mean, I would certainly like to think that I'm a decent enough player, since I've played since 3rd edition. He started much more recently, so I don't consider our matches unfair at all. I'm not some top-grade tournament player, but I don't think I'm a complete loser either. My win/loss ratio is pretty good against everyone else in my gaming store. Nor do I think I generally make major errors often. Really, one could say quite the opposite as I've tried all the ''top-tier'' builds that the internet recommends. So no, I really don't think that's the case.

 Selym wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:


We are just commenting on the general views from the playerbase of a certain army.

You do understand you're making a bad name for yourself in the process, right? And by logical extension of what you're doing, a bad name for Guard players as your comments will inevitably be associated with the army you play and mention often.

There are annoying players for every faction. Best not to paint them all with the broadest brush in your arsenal.

And yet I have yet to personally meet anyone who primarily uses C:SM that wasn't a dick about it.

My older brother is not a dick, thank you very ing much.

What grinds my gears as a CSM player. Is all the sources I have to have if I want maintain a competitive army. I use the Chaos Demon Codex with the Curse of the Wulfen supplement, Khorne Daemonkin, the Black Legion supplement, Helcult Formation, and sometimes the Crimson Slaughter supplement. Of course not all at once but I am still searching for a fluffy competitive army list. I want a single codex to maintain a competitive army. Two is fine but with so many varied sources I mine as well be writing an essay than playing 40k. Now with new FAQ's I will soon be editing my sources to maintain current rules. Truthfully this has discouraged me from investing in GW. If rumors are true about new CSM (I have chasing that rabbit for several years now) a new kharne and maybe primarch models will do little for me or for most CSM armies since our codex hasn't drastically improved for almost 4 years. If GW makes a new codex I will consider investing again.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Selym wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:


We are just commenting on the general views from the playerbase of a certain army.

You do understand you're making a bad name for yourself in the process, right? And by logical extension of what you're doing, a bad name for Guard players as your comments will inevitably be associated with the army you play and mention often.

There are annoying players for every faction. Best not to paint them all with the broadest brush in your arsenal.

And yet I have yet to personally meet anyone who primarily uses C:SM that wasn't a dick about it.

My older brother is not a dick, thank you very ing much.

#anecdotal

 Selym wrote:

#anecdotal

Exactly, your experiences are anecdotal. There are far, far more of them in the world than those you have met, so stop sassing them all for it.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Selym wrote:

#anecdotal

Exactly, your experiences are anecdotal. There are far, far more of them in the world than those you have met, so stop sassing them all for it.

Uh-huh.

The same logic gives you no logical reason to defend them.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
I'd put GK, BA, AM, Nids and CSM near the bottom

Orks arent as bad off as people think.

Well according to every major tournament result they are that bad off. Add in the fact that the only trick they have is "Spam" they really aren't doing well.

I understand your local meta might have some talented Ork players who have some good lists who win regularly, but based on competitive play and non-competitive play that we have seen, orks aren't doing well.

 Selym wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Selym wrote:

#anecdotal

Exactly, your experiences are anecdotal. There are far, far more of them in the world than those you have met, so stop sassing them all for it.

Uh-huh.

The same logic gives you no logical reason to defend them.

You are making sweeping accusations on a large population without more than anecdotes as evidence, and anecdotes can equally be provided to show the contrary (see my brother). The burden of proof is not on me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Selym wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Selym wrote:

#anecdotal

Exactly, your experiences are anecdotal. There are far, far more of them in the world than those you have met, so stop sassing them all for it.

Uh-huh.

The same logic gives you no logical reason to defend them.

You are making sweeping accusations on a large population without more than anecdotes as evidence, and anecdotes can equally be provided to show the contrary (see my brother). The burden of proof is not on me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Never said I was logical, but for the large number of people who have met such people on this site, the lines are amusing.

It is stil illogical to assume persons are nice by default. Equally as illogical as assuming they are not nice by default.

 Selym wrote:
for the large number of people who have met such people on this site, the lines are amusing.

Master of Ordinance posting agreement over and over again is not the same as 'large number of people.'

It is stil illogical to assume persons are nice by default. Equally as illogical as assuming they are not nice by default.

So why do you do it?

 Selym wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Selym wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Selym wrote:

#anecdotal

Exactly, your experiences are anecdotal. There are far, far more of them in the world than those you have met, so stop sassing them all for it.

Uh-huh.

The same logic gives you no logical reason to defend them.

You are making sweeping accusations on a large population without more than anecdotes as evidence, and anecdotes can equally be provided to show the contrary (see my brother). The burden of proof is not on me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Never said I was logical, but for the large number of people who have met such people on this site, the lines are amusing.

It is stil illogical to assume persons are nice by default. Equally as illogical as assuming they are not nice by default.

To be fair, I've found the same that Space Marine players tend to be the most TFG and annoying; always power gaming and getting on everyone elses' nerves

No, they are just the most numerous, and it is much easier to remember annoying players than the normal players.

Painting with broad brushes, meeting one person and judging all the others from that, and so on, is the reason things like racism even exists. It is not a good thing.

 Ashiraya wrote:
No, they are just the most numerous, and it is much easier to remember annoying players than the normal players.

Painting with broad brushes, meeting one person and judging all the others from that, and so on, is the reason things like racism even exists. It is not a good thing.

And they always happen to be the most elitist as well. GW is best, other games havnt got the same tactical depth, your a bad player because you play Guard, you should play another army, hahaha, such a weak player, etc....

 master of ordinance wrote:
And they always happen to be the most elitist as well.

Citation needed.

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
No, they are just the most numerous, and it is much easier to remember annoying players than the normal players.

Painting with broad brushes, meeting one person and judging all the others from that, and so on, is the reason things like racism even exists. It is not a good thing.

And they always happen to be the most elitist as well. GW is best, other games havnt got the same tactical depth, your a bad player because you play Guard, you should play another army, hahaha, such a weak player, etc....

Don't worry, you only lose because you are a bad player. It has nothing to do with C:SM being better than C:AM in every way.

"And they always happen to be the most elitist as well."

I'd say Eldar players are by far the most elitist in my experience, but that's a sample of a few hundred players at best. Just stop. Unless every marine player is going superfriends or gladius, they aren't even that good of list. Not even in my play group is every marine player superfriend or gladius. Most of them own a gladius, but often get bored of playing it.

Martel732 wrote:
"And they always happen to be the most elitist as well."

I'd say Eldar players are by far the most elitist in my experience,

thankfully there is only one Eldar player in my club, although he has openly stated that the only way to beat him is to have a hell of a lot of long range firepower and then pray that you get the first turn.

So... that's pretty elitist. I guarantee that if you had more eldar players they would be the subject of your tirades.

 Selym wrote:
Don't worry, you only lose because you are a bad player. It has nothing to do with C:SM being better than C:AM in every way.

Sarcasm isn't really the lowest form of humour.

That is because it isn't humorous at all.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Selym wrote:
Don't worry, you only lose because you are a bad player. It has nothing to do with C:SM being better than C:AM in every way.

Sarcasm isn't really the lowest form of humour.

That is because it isn't humorous at all.

Clearly you didn't grow up in Britain.

 Selym wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Selym wrote:
Don't worry, you only lose because you are a bad player. It has nothing to do with C:SM being better than C:AM in every way.

Sarcasm isn't really the lowest form of humour.

That is because it isn't humorous at all.

Clearly you didn't grow up in Britain.

Fawlty Towers is funny.

'I am being oppressed by Marine players! Woe is me!' is not.

Unless you are deliberately doing this as satire (like that Holy Grail scene), in which case the problem is that you are beating a horse that is so long dead there is little but earth left.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Selym wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Selym wrote:
Don't worry, you only lose because you are a bad player. It has nothing to do with C:SM being better than C:AM in every way.

Sarcasm isn't really the lowest form of humour.

That is because it isn't humorous at all.

Clearly you didn't grow up in Britain.

Fawlty Towers is funny.

'Help! Help! I am being oppressed by Marine players! Woe is me!' is not.

This is an argument with the equivalent logic of "I don't find 40k fluff interesting, so nobody does".

Do you think it is fair to me to claim that all IG players are TFG because of what you and MoO are posting?

 Ashiraya wrote:
Do you think it is fair to me to claim that all IG players are TFG because of what you and MoO are posting?

If making sarcastic comments is TFG, sure.

Jesus Christ! Just act like adults the pair of you and get on with the fething topic.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Jesus Christ! Just act like adults the pair of you and get on with the fething topic.

So do we actually have a conclusion on which is the weakest codex, or are we going nowhere?

Yes, there's a poll, I suggest you check it out and use it as a basis for discussions rather than trying to establish which faction has the greatest number of dick players.

I mean, I try never to mini-mod, but you two are taking the piss.