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.

Yeah, and it's not a valid comparison to a real world scenario.

Of course Destroyers with Extermination Protocols are better than Warriors with Talent for Murder. They also aren't mutually exclusive. But you can only use one of each each turn.

Destroyers really ought to be going after something that isn't MEQ anyway. Thats a job for immortals and warriors.

Total
Shots
20
Total
Hits
26.333
Includes 13 Extra Hits for Tesla
Wounds
Caused
17.556
Unsaved
Wounds
5.852
Total
Damage
5.852
Dead
Models
5

Total
Shots
20
Total
Hits
13.333
Includes 0 Extra Hits for Tesla
Wounds
Caused
6.667
Unsaved
Wounds
3.333
Total
Damage
3.333
Dead
Models
3

For mwbd on 20 warriors vs 10 immortals.

Sam Henley(famously good player) got 3rd in the big GT (78 people, a lot of top placing ITC people included) with sautekh 2 crypteks, 3x5 immortals, 3 DDA, 2 vaults and ZERO destroyers

 rvd1ofakind wrote:
Sam Henley(famously good player) got 3rd in the big GT (78 people, a lot of top placing ITC people included) with sautekh 2 crypteks, 3x5 immortals, 3 DDA, 2 vaults and ZERO destroyers

What kind of crypteks and immortals?

COLD CASH wrote:

Spoiler:

Total
Shots
20
Total
Hits
26.333
Includes 13 Extra Hits for Tesla
Wounds
Caused
17.556
Unsaved
Wounds
5.852
Total
Damage
5.852
Dead
Models
5

Total
Shots
20
Total
Hits
13.333
Includes 0 Extra Hits for Tesla
Wounds
Caused
6.667
Unsaved
Wounds
3.333
Total
Damage
3.333
Dead
Models
3

For mwbd on 20 warriors vs 10 immortals.

I'm assuming you meant 40 shots for those Warriors.
But we already knew 240 points of Warriors would out perform 170 points of Immortals. It was the equal points comparison that was unsure.

Inevitableq wrote:

 rvd1ofakind wrote:
Sam Henley(famously good player) got 3rd in the big GT (78 people, a lot of top placing ITC people included) with sautekh 2 crypteks, 3x5 immortals, 3 DDA, 2 vaults and ZERO destroyers

What kind of crypteks and immortals?

Cloakteks. 1 Veil, 1 Abyssal staff
Tesla Immortals obviously. Why is that even a question

Because there are actually reasons to run gauss immortals, especially if not using mephrit. On a secondary note, are you even capable of communication without being a fething prick about it?

You run Gauss Immortals if your list have next to no anti-armor. Which is the point where you should rethink your list.

Also his list had a TON of anti-armor.

And it's exactly the opposite. Gauss and warriors are the GOOD choices for mephrit as you want to be within 12'' with them anyway for rapid fire.

Finally, the second best Necron list was Mephrit which had 3W 3L so it sucked. And the third was also Mephrit and it went 2W 4L. It's like Mephrit is a trap or something

PS: I wasn't really calling you out. It was more of "why is gauss so bad, GW"

 rvd1ofakind wrote:
sautekh
2 crypteks,
3x5 immortals,
3 DDA,
2 vaults
and ZERO destroyers

So only 3 out of the 4 best units we have. Cool stuff.

Whether Tesseract were Sautekh to benefit from methodical destruction or Nihilakh to benefit from +1 to saves stratagem?

Probably Sautekh to benefit from not only MD but also to be healed by the Crypteks.

Nihilakh. Hope he didn't forget you can't heal em

 rvd1ofakind wrote:
Sam Henley(famously good player) got 3rd in the big GT (78 people, a lot of top placing ITC people included) with sautekh 2 crypteks, 3x5 immortals, 3 DDA, 2 vaults and ZERO destroyers

Yeah that does look good. The Weakness of the Vaults is that they aren't very good against tough, single model units. 3 DDAs make up for that nicely. It's also nice to see someone having the sense to not fall into the Mephrit trap! Sautekhs Methodical Destruction Strat is great for all that Tesla.

Nihilakh. Hope he didn't forget you can't heal em

Oh. I would have said that was the second best choice but I'm going to assume this guy knows what he's doing. My problem with Nihilak is that if you have 2 Vaults, you can only give the +1 Sv to one a turn. I suppose you wait until one is damaged then use it on that.

Finally, the second best Necron list was Mephrit which had 3W 3L so it sucked. And the third was also Mephrit and it went 2W 4L. It's like Mephrit is a trap or something

Oh, the internet. That's an insignificantly small sample size, homie, against really good competition. Considering we know nothing about the players themselves or their statistical variation that day, I would caution against drawing any conclusion at all from that.

The Astros just went 3 and 4 against the Yankees and Indians. They must "suck," too, right? I mean they are the defending world champions and the odds on favorite to win the AL pennant, but what does Vegas know, amrite? They just lost 4 out of 7?

You're not gonna get a better sample until one of the major tournaments: BAO for example as the closest one. So this is about as good as you're gonna get. Well known players, almost 80 people, 6 games, no BS missions.

"Small sample size" really doesn't cut it in 40k. There aren't millions of games going on that are documented every day and split into Rankings so you can find out which is the best. This tournament is "sufficient" sample size, IMO. The next one will be BAO.

 rvd1ofakind wrote:
You're not gonna get a better sample until one of the major tournaments: BAO for example as the closest one. So this is about as good as you're gonna get. Well known players, almost 80 people, 6 games, no BS missions.

Ok. That really doesn't change the fact that this is an insigificantly small sample size. "The best data we have" can still be woefully inconclusive.

I'm not saying it's meaningless data, but if you really think you can draw demonstrative conclusions off of it you have a ton to learn about statistics.

"Small sample size" really doesn't cut it in 40k. There are millions of games going on that are documented every day and split into Rankings so you can find out which is the best. This tournament is "sufficient" sample size, IMO. The next one will be BAO.

It's more like thousands, but sure, in theory, that gives us better data. Of course there are, what, 27 different codexes now? And how many different ways to we have of playing each one? The legitimate variations are easily in the hundreds. So our global sample size is maybe and order of magnitude higher then our total possible list of variations?

Yeah, that's still not a very big one. Again, not meaningless, just not conclusive.

 rvd1ofakind wrote:
Sam Henley(famously good player) got 3rd in the big GT (78 people, a lot of top placing ITC people included) with sautekh 2 crypteks, 3x5 immortals, 3 DDA, 2 vaults and ZERO destroyers

which GT was this? I'm curious to find out more about this tournament.

@rvd1ofakind

You don't like Mephrit and Destroyers, and you're unhappy that not more people share this view. Fine.

You have made your point with a pun-like remark in almost every post you have made over the last few pages, can you please drop it now.

torblind wrote:
@rvd1ofakind

You don't like Mephrit and Destroyers, and you're unhappy that not more people share this view. Fine.

You have made your point with a pun-like remark in almost every post you have made over the last few pages, can you please drop it now.

I muted him like 10 pages ago. It got old, and man, was it the right decision.

Anyway - Is it seeming to everyone like Vaults are becoming the go to for competitive play? I still think they suffer from an identity crisis as far as what they are meant to engage on the board, since most of their guns and powers work best on infantry...and we have no issues killing infantry with a plethora of our codex options.

 flyingnecronmaster wrote:

 rvd1ofakind wrote:
Sam Henley(famously good player) got 3rd in the big GT (78 people, a lot of top placing ITC people included) with sautekh 2 crypteks, 3x5 immortals, 3 DDA, 2 vaults and ZERO destroyers

which GT was this? I'm curious to find out more about this tournament.

Midwest Conquest GT 2018

 iGuy91 wrote:

torblind wrote:
@rvd1ofakind

You don't like Mephrit and Destroyers, and you're unhappy that not more people share this view. Fine.

You have made your point with a pun-like remark in almost every post you have made over the last few pages, can you please drop it now.

I muted him like 10 pages ago. It got old, and man, was it the right decision.

Anyway - Is it seeming to everyone like Vaults are becoming the go to for competitive play? I still think they suffer from an identity crisis as far as what they are meant to engage on the board, since most of their guns and powers work best on infantry...and we have no issues killing infantry with a plethora of our codex options.

Yeah it's getting really annoying.

The vaults are also shutting off large parts of the board by their physical size, and getting superior line of sight with its height. There is some tactical advantage in that against several armies.

torblind wrote:
@rvd1ofakind

You don't like Mephrit and Destroyers, and you're unhappy that not more people share this view. Fine.

You have made your point with a pun-like remark in almost every post you have made over the last few pages, can you please drop it now.

I just reported the results of the tournament. I was surprised there were no destroyers. I do not hate them. I just don't think they're the best unit everyone keeps saying they are.
Mephrit on the other hand is just bad for most units. The only ones that are good for it are low AP 12'' guns (basically just Gauss for RF range). But that means you have to sarcrifice your entire detachment for that. So you either take 60 warriors, which is not good, or gauss immortals which are not good either, or tomb blades which are OK.

Also, please. I hope the Mephrit lovers of this thread do ignore me. They have nothing of value to contribute anyway.

 rvd1ofakind wrote:

torblind wrote:
@rvd1ofakind

You don't like Mephrit and Destroyers, and you're unhappy that not more people share this view. Fine.

You have made your point with a pun-like remark in almost every post you have made over the last few pages, can you please drop it now.

I just reported the results of the tournament. I was surprised there were no destroyers. I do not hate them. I just don't think they're the best unit everyone keeps saying they are.
Mephrit on the other hand is just bad for most units. The only ones that are good for it are low AP 12'' guns (basically just Gauss for RF range). But that means you have to sarcrifice your entire detachment for that. So you either take 60 warriors, which is not good, or gauss immortals which are not good either, or tomb blades which are OK.

Also, please. I hope the Mephrit lovers of this thread do ignore me. They have nothing of value to contribute anyway.

Yeah again with the condescending tone. Sorry I'm ignoring this too, too childish.

Also, please. I hope the Mephrit lovers of this thread do ignore me. They have nothing of value to contribute anyway.

lol

Even when Stelek has long retired from the game, it's, um, "good" to see his spirit still haunts our precious little hobby of pewpewing with our man dollies.

There's really no reason to be so caustic on the intertrons broseph. People are going to have various perspectives on what works for them that's largely predicated on their personal playstyle and their local meta. If you don't want to use any of them and just copy paste some other guy's army that won some tournament somewhere? Cool. You do you. But that simply isn't any justifiable reason to micturate on everyone else's parade because they simply disagree with you.

Personally, I don't think there are any true duds among the current picks of dynasties. Through their various Codes, Relics, Traits and Strategems they all offer a different way to augment a different playstyle and set of units. Not to say there aren't individual duds in among them. Novohk's WT is pretty bad, for instance. But all in all I think GW did a fair job.

I also don't think Gauss is bad at all. It really shines at RF range versus Tesla, which works perfectly with Mephrit. I think the biggest problem right now, is, Veil is the only easy way to bring that to fruition. However, I think with the stratagems they gave Monos and Night Scythes there is definitely potential to use them as well. And both of those units, incidentally, also benefit wonderfully from Mephrit.

off-topic:


on-topic:
That's the problem with 40 I've noticed. People go to these tactics threads and expect their anecdotal FLGS battle reports/eperience to be taken as the "be all end all of the meta". I almost completelly ignore my personal experience. It's meaningless in the grand scheme of things. GT and Major results are what matter. And if you don't think so - why are you here arguing with people who do. You're clearly not playing competitive games/are not informed enough about the meta/tournament results to do so. Anyway...

Thinking none of the dynasties are duds, shows that you are not thinking competitively. Anything "pretty good" is "Trash" when it comes to competitive. You have to take the best of the best. That's why there are only about 1-2 subfactions in every codex doing anything in tournaments consistently. Again, you are free to think they are all equal, but... see my first on-topic point
GW didn't do a fair job. 50-80% of traits/stratagems/artifacts/WL traits are awful. That's in every codex (except maaaaaaybe eldar?). That's the problem when your testers are not complete WAAC a-holes. Yes, you wouldn't want to face one, but they would've done a much better job testing all the broken stuff and would easily notice which units are just "bad"... which is most of them...

Basically if you pick Gauss without mephrit - you're just silly. If you use Gauss outside RF range - you should use tesla. So there are 2 cams: tesla + non-mephrit and gauss + mephrit. And yes, right now there's only one realiable way to actually use gauss+mephrit - veil (even so, the enemy can scout you out of range, but let's ignore that). You can also Deceive in, but that relies on you going first. Monoliths and Night Scythes are just *fart sound*, sorry. They're for Open play/Narrative play

 iGuy91 wrote:

torblind wrote:
@rvd1ofakind

You don't like Mephrit and Destroyers, and you're unhappy that not more people share this view. Fine.

You have made your point with a pun-like remark in almost every post you have made over the last few pages, can you please drop it now.

I muted him like 10 pages ago. It got old, and man, was it the right decision.

Anyway - Is it seeming to everyone like Vaults are becoming the go to for competitive play? I still think they suffer from an identity crisis as far as what they are meant to engage on the board, since most of their guns and powers work best on infantry...and we have no issues killing infantry with a plethora of our codex options.

You can do that?!?

 rvd1ofakind wrote:


on-topic:
That's the problem with 40 I've noticed. People go to these tactics threads and expect their anecdotal FLGS battle reports/eperience to be taken as the "be all end all of the meta". I almost completelly ignore my personal experience. It's meaningless in the grand scheme of things. GT and Major results are what matter. And if you don't think so - why are you here arguing with people who do. You're clearly not playing competitive games/are not informed enough about the meta/tournament results to do so. Anyway...

Ya know you say that, but in the local flgs I reported on several pages ago, the guy I played in the finals is the guy that won Midwest Conquest, and another guy there placed in the top 15.

Local tournaments are often testing grounds for the GTs so I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss their results.

Oh, well obviously I will not dismiss people who are proven (by really high ITC scores, consistent tournament victories, etc). So if you face one of them in your FLGS - definitelly mention it. That's really valuable info.

Trust me, I don't think I'm the best 40k player or whatever. I just don't practice enough, don't spam enough, don't go to tournaments outside of my (small) country. If I have an opinion about anything - a pros disagreement will definitelly cause me to at least rethink my opinion.

 skoffs wrote:

 rvd1ofakind wrote:
sautekh
2 crypteks,
3x5 immortals,
3 DDA,
2 vaults
and ZERO destroyers

So only 3 out of the 4 best units we have. Cool stuff.

Did he fight AM with a shadowsword? 1 turn from that bad boy will Pop a Vault, or get very close and let another tank finish it off. Its Hitting on 3's, with order possibly rerolling 1's, also take reroll varaible shots (d6) AND wounding on 2's rerolling those as well.