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.

Yoyoyo wrote:
"Play better" isn't a part of competition?

That's the entire tactics and strategy part of the game!

tbf, 40k is a tad to list building heavy compared to actual play ration on performance impact.
which is significant due to hinting at a imbalance problem

but then again that's my opinion.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Well that's the thing.

Does it matter more what's better on paper, or what wins on the table by allowing you to ovecome statistical advantage?

If you have a play that can win in statistically weaker situations frequently, you in fact have a statistical advantage over the other build. It just moves the goal posts slightly.

Yoyoyo wrote:
"Play better" isn't a part of competition? That's the entire tactics and strategy part of the game!

How useful is the statistically superior Leviathan Dread, when it's been swarmed by Warp Talons and can't fall back due to the Contorted Epitome aura?

Or when it's been mobility killed by Doombolt and can't find a valid target due to its short range?

Or when it's shooting at lowered BS due to Symphony of Pain, Miasma, Benediction and bracketing?

And your "play better" is countered by the guy with superior army list playing just as well. There's only one guy in the world who can rely on his skills being superior to the extent he doesn't need to have best army to have equal field against best army. And that's the best player period. Everybody else can simply face somebody who is at least as good as you or better AND uses superior army because you are silly enough to bring non competive options. And then short of you getting lucky you lose.

That whole spiel is based around the idea there are no rock-paper-scissors mechanics in 40k, only rocks and better rocks.

Yoyoyo wrote:
That whole spiel is based around the idea there are no rock-paper-scissors mechanics in 40k, only rocks and better rocks.

I think this highlights the problem best. People don't see utility. The power of marine books leads people to the "rocks and better rocks" mentality.

Yoyoyo wrote:
That whole spiel is based around the idea there are no rock-paper-scissors mechanics in 40k, only rocks and better rocks.

This is what I used to think, before I learned to properly compete. This isn't even remotely true.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

Yoyoyo wrote:
That whole spiel is based around the idea there are no rock-paper-scissors mechanics in 40k, only rocks and better rocks.

This is what I used to think, before I learned to properly compete. This isn't even remotely true.

You can elaborate?

Yoyoyo wrote:
That whole spiel is based around the idea there are no rock-paper-scissors mechanics in 40k, only rocks and better rocks.

That's because a lot of "utility" is pointless. If said utility isn't based on strictly over the top offensive, defensive, or movement bonuses, the game ends too quickly. I mean, why would you pay for morale shenanigans when you can spend more points on a gun that is more likely to kill that one model that flees? Why would you ever use the new Grey Knights Tide that affects Psi Weapons when you can affect the whole army's save or generate 10+ more Mortal wounds a turn?

Yoyoyo wrote:
"Play better" isn't a part of competition? That's the entire tactics and strategy part of the game!

How useful is the statistically superior Leviathan Dread, when it's been swarmed by Warp Talons and can't fall back due to the Contorted Epitome aura?

Or when it's been mobility killed by Doombolt and can't find a valid target due to its short range?

Or when it's shooting at lowered BS due to Symphony of Pain, Miasma, Benediction and bracketing?

A leviathan in IH can even while on less than half health, moving and debuffed hit on 3+ with rerolls. It only needs to be screened against the at max 1 unit in the enemies list that ignore overwatch since its such a hard to get special rule, most everything else gets killed in overwatch. And even if you try to ignore it it can still zone a large portion of the board while only costing a bit over 300pts.

Im not saying leviathan is broken or even the best unit in IH but if units are just allround good enough its damn hard to just outplay it unless terrain hampers it. At least a leviathan cant do too much on a table with really good amounts of terrain. But since the IH player probably have lots of infantry, a smash character, Thunderfire cannons, whirwlinds or eliminators the rest of the list isnt as hampered by terrain heavy boards as a more traditional gunline.

At some point you cant really outplay superior stats.

Martel732 wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

Yoyoyo wrote:
That whole spiel is based around the idea there are no rock-paper-scissors mechanics in 40k, only rocks and better rocks.

This is what I used to think, before I learned to properly compete. This isn't even remotely true.

You can elaborate?

When I first started to play 'competitively', I used to think the game was all about mathhammer, dice, and 'obvious best choices in the dexes'. I had a very strong knowledge of what was considered good out of each faction, and I considered myself a very good competitive player because of the research I had done, the experience of play, and understanding of math and statistics. What more could there be to it? It was only after I began to participate in the higher level of the competitive scene, listen to some of the best players talk, and recognise the broader strategy involved in 40k, that I was able to really see the value of units beyond numbers. The balance you have to strike between having enough teeth, while also making yourself a challenge for your opponent to navigate around upon the board, and also having enough tools tricks and utility on the board, is what you need to leverage the options you have that your opponent doesn't, to allow you to consistently win the actual game of 40k, and that's just the beginning.

Where I see a lot of people at right now is where I was at, before I overcame this mentality and took my game to the next level. As a direct result of tuning myself out from the groupthink of what's 'good' and whats 'trash' (rarely ever any inbetween on here, another falsity), and understanding there is so much more nuance to the game than just mathhammer, I improved myself as a player tremendously. I used to think I was at the peak of my game, similar to this thread's creator, but it was when I crested this hump that I realised I still today am nowhere near being a great 40k player, and I can improve on a ton of things. But this hindsight, and watching the way so many people here talk, just makes it so blaring how many are still in that spot, and honestly, will probably never overcome it because they aren't interacting with the game in the right mindset or pushing themselves to improve with an open mind - they know the math, therefor, they are good 40k player, and the only reason they don't have a consistently high win rate is because balance, armys, op, trash, meta, lucky dice, terrain rules, itc missions, gw missions, win rate, statistics, buzzwords, buzzwords, and other excuses about stuff that they think, and you think, they have a strong understanding of, but they really. just. don't.

"I was able to really see the value of units beyond numbers. The balance you have to strike between having enough teeth, while also making yourself a challenge for your opponent to navigate around upon the board, and also having enough tools tricks and utility on the board, is what you need to leverage the options you have that your opponent doesn't"

This kinda sounds like buzzword soup. Don't all these things boil down to numbers and special rules? So you are really talking about leveraging special rules?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Why would you ever use the new Grey Knights Tide that affects Psi Weapons when you can affect the whole army's save or generate 10+ more Mortal wounds a turn?

This is the kind of logic that misses the forest for the trees.

You can confidently state that an extra 10 mortal wounds is great, but then you look at the table and see that those mortal wounds are spread out to different targets. What if I need to touch someone behind a screen or focus on one unit? You're damn right I'd be dropping 10 strikes with storm bolters and switching tides.

40 SB shots normally do 4.4 wounds to Primaris. Under tide and strat they do 18. With full rerolls to hit and wound it becomes 31.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Yoyoyo wrote:
That whole spiel is based around the idea there are no rock-paper-scissors mechanics in 40k, only rocks and better rocks.

Why would you ever use the new Grey Knights Tide that affects Psi Weapons when you can affect the whole army's save or generate 10+ more Mortal wounds a turn?

Because you have less control over where those Mortal Wounds go? Because the unit you need to remove isn't in range for your Smites? You can even do both in the same turn since the only way to change the Tide is via a psychic power you can dish out 2W Smites for an entire phase then change the Tide as your last cast and get the benefit on your shooting too. This is a perfect example of where just looking at the raw numbers doesn't lead to useful conclusions.

Martel732 wrote:
"I was able to really see the value of units beyond numbers. The balance you have to strike between having enough teeth, while also making yourself a challenge for your opponent to navigate around upon the board, and also having enough tools tricks and utility on the board, is what you need to leverage the options you have that your opponent doesn't"

This kinda sounds like buzzword soup. Don't all these things boil down to numbers and special rules? So you are really talking about leveraging special rules?

whats the numbers behind something like Shifting Worldscape? there's differing levels of non-numeric value to so much stuff in the ever-changing game of 40k. Some inclusions are indeed just flat out numbers. Sometimes there's a bunch of hidden value to a unit that isn't quite related by it's datasheet.


The fact that these words sound like 'buzzword soup' to you is a very strong indicator of how light your grasp actually is on this game. Positioning and decision making is what makes a great player, but understanding which units allow you to make the decisions you may need to, and providing less linear options than just dice to your army, is a fundamental part of getting there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slipspace wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Yoyoyo wrote:
That whole spiel is based around the idea there are no rock-paper-scissors mechanics in 40k, only rocks and better rocks.

Why would you ever use the new Grey Knights Tide that affects Psi Weapons when you can affect the whole army's save or generate 10+ more Mortal wounds a turn?

Because you have less control over where those Mortal Wounds go? Because the unit you need to remove isn't in range for your Smites? You can even do both in the same turn since the only way to change the Tide is via a psychic power you can dish out 2W Smites for an entire phase then change the Tide as your last cast and get the benefit on your shooting too. This is a perfect example of where just looking at the raw numbers doesn't lead to useful conclusions.

Exactly this. When 'obvious best options' lead you to completely blinding yourself to the value of something very strong.

So special rules, then. Just as I said. Special rules are non-numeric.

" hidden value"

Please describe a unit with said hidden value. So I understand what you mean.

Slipspace wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Yoyoyo wrote:
That whole spiel is based around the idea there are no rock-paper-scissors mechanics in 40k, only rocks and better rocks.

Why would you ever use the new Grey Knights Tide that affects Psi Weapons when you can affect the whole army's save or generate 10+ more Mortal wounds a turn?

Because you have less control over where those Mortal Wounds go? Because the unit you need to remove isn't in range for your Smites? You can even do both in the same turn since the only way to change the Tide is via a psychic power you can dish out 2W Smites for an entire phase then change the Tide as your last cast and get the benefit on your shooting too. This is a perfect example of where just looking at the raw numbers doesn't lead to useful conclusions.

You can't be serious. This isn't like the Mortal Wounds are random. You're literally doubling your output. Something has just one wound left? Smite something else. It isn't rocket science, but now you know how much more those extra Mortal wounds mattered if you're that worried about overkill via ONE extra Mortal Wound.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Why would you ever use the new Grey Knights Tide that affects Psi Weapons when you can affect the whole army's save or generate 10+ more Mortal wounds a turn?

This is the kind of logic that misses the forest for the trees.

You can confidently state that an extra 10 mortal wounds is great, but then you look at the table and see that those mortal wounds are spread out to different targets. What if I need to touch someone behind a screen or focus on one unit? You're damn right I'd be dropping 10 strikes with storm bolters and switching tides.

40 SB shots normally do 4.4 wounds to Primaris. Under tide and strat they do 18. With full rerolls to hit and wound it becomes 31.

LOL you're not going to lose 10+ mortal wounds a turn just so you can use ONE Strat on some Storm Bolters slightly better. That's like beyond stupid.

Martel732 wrote:
So special rules, then. Just as I said. Special rules are non-numeric.

" hidden value"

Please describe a unit with said hidden value. So I understand what you mean.

I'm sorry, what exactly are you saying here? Special rules aren't numbers. If it's all about mathhammer, then non-numeric utility isn't encompassed by that. The entire point being made here is that often the value of non-numeric things is overlooked. Sometimes moving sideways is better than moving forwards.

Regardless, no, it's not just special rules. Positioning, speed, base size, unit size, keywords, synergy, faction limitations, consistency and variation, safety, disruption, etc, there's a lot of things that just get often completely overlooked by mathhammer list crafters.

I don't consider any of that hidden. So I guess that's why I wasn't understanding. Any application of mathhammer must be adjusted by those factors. This is obvious. Garbage in, garbage out.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Yoyoyo wrote:
That whole spiel is based around the idea there are no rock-paper-scissors mechanics in 40k, only rocks and better rocks.

Why would you ever use the new Grey Knights Tide that affects Psi Weapons when you can affect the whole army's save or generate 10+ more Mortal wounds a turn?

Because you have less control over where those Mortal Wounds go? Because the unit you need to remove isn't in range for your Smites? You can even do both in the same turn since the only way to change the Tide is via a psychic power you can dish out 2W Smites for an entire phase then change the Tide as your last cast and get the benefit on your shooting too. This is a perfect example of where just looking at the raw numbers doesn't lead to useful conclusions.

You can't be serious. This isn't like the Mortal Wounds are random. You're literally doubling your output.

A simple example should show you how you're wrong. Let's assume you have some sort of MSU GK army and you can dish out 15 Smites a turn. Now you can do 30MW instead of 15 with the correct Tide active. But let's also assume you're up against Orks and the enemy army is screened out by a wall of Grots. You're suggesting killing 30 Grots rather than 15 is better than making a potentially huge amount of your shooting much better so you can kill things like bikers or Nobz or just hordes of Orks instead of insignificant Grots? That's wrong. Better example, with more practical use: you're up against Tau and you know you can shoot and remove the Drone screen near a Riptide and then kill it with enhanced Psi weapons. According to you, I should stay in my extra MW Tide so I can really, really Smite a bunch of Drones to death rather than make a more intelligent decision to play in such a way as to remove one of my enemies main threats.

Yes, it's situational, and yes, you're likely to use the MW tide from turn 2 in most cases, but it's completely incorrect to claim there's never a good reason to use a different Tide, especially when GK can switch between them relatively easily.

Martel732 wrote:
I don't consider any of that hidden. So I guess that's why I wasn't understanding. Any application of mathhammer must be adjusted by those factors. This is obvious. Garbage in, garbage out.

So then you agree that 40k isn't about 'there is no scissors paper rock, there is only bigger rocks', it's about playing all aspects of the entire game on a broader scale?

Sheesh it's like there's literally no train of thought behind some people's statements, just whip it out there because that guy disagreed with you earlier right?

Well, you're right about one thing, you don't understand what I'm talking about. I think you don't even understand what you're talking about.

But you don't get to the point where git gud matters until the balance is cleaned up. Take marines before 2.0. They were terrible even though a lot of their stat lines haven't changed. It wasn't player skill that was lacking there, the armies were just straight up bad. Too many things had to go right for you and wrong for your opponent to have a consistent chance of winning. An IH army before codex 2.0 has no chance of winning against an IH army using the supplement (assuming both players can read). I'd take my chances against any of the top players in this matchup so there's only so much gitting gud you can do.

The best armies in the game combine efficient units with effective units. The toolbox that an army provides is just as important as the mathammer at the highest levels of the game. Jim Vessels chaos list combined some of the most durable units with some of the jankiest units. Custodes grav tanks were efficient and janky, ynarri was the king of efficient jank. The ability to have units reliably do what you need them to do is vital to winning 40k and two of the things you need to reliably need units to do is kill things and not be killed by things. That's not the only thing you need but it's one of the few things that is controlled by the design of the units.

The outlying units on the power curve need to be brought back down so we have a game where tactical decisions and gameplay matter. Where people like Brandon Grant and Siegler can use their robot brains and really good movement phases to decide a game instead of just getting blown off the table by hyper efficient IH shooting.

But that balance is also needed down the line at my mid-table matchups where someone doesn't lose the game because they brought hellbalsters and a landraider. The stark differences in efficiencies within codexes and between codexes is something that GW can control but doesn't for a ton of tin-foil hat reasons and I think that's what I usually complain about in these balance discussions.

I'm not whipping anything out. You are making baseless assumptions.

"So then you agree that 40k isn't about 'there is no scissors paper rock, there is only bigger rocks',"

I think it's partially this, because you can't build in counters to everything in any list. I think there are still too many false choices in the game.

Take the Contorted Epitome as an example. It's not particularly killy, but the utility it provides is through the roof, both in defending against psychic powers and changing the dynamic around countering melee units. How do you value that?

Also, there's plenty of times when 10 mortal wounds are markedly inferior to better psy weapons. The concept of "wasted" or "effective" wounds has already been discussed earlier in the thread. Maximum damage is not always what wins you games. I'd rather kill a crucial target than do more spread-out damage to the enemy army.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Yoyoyo wrote:
That whole spiel is based around the idea there are no rock-paper-scissors mechanics in 40k, only rocks and better rocks.

I think this highlights the problem best. People don't see utility. The power of marine books leads people to the "rocks and better rocks" mentality.

To be fair, sometimes a rock is big enough that it can smash anything and not care. Marine codexes are really big rocks.

Martel732 wrote:
"I was able to really see the value of units beyond numbers. The balance you have to strike between having enough teeth, while also making yourself a challenge for your opponent to navigate around upon the board, and also having enough tools tricks and utility on the board, is what you need to leverage the options you have that your opponent doesn't"

This kinda sounds like buzzword soup. Don't all these things boil down to numbers and special rules? So you are really talking about leveraging special rules?

No, obviously not. What is the one thing, the number one thing you complain about on these boards day in and day out?

How would a game go if your opponent took their models and deployed them base-to base in old pre-7th ed deep strike formation, and tried to play the game the same way?

Would you have an easier time than if they deployed their units in straight lines, bases 31mm apart, preventing you from moving through them?

People on this forum spend basically all their time trivializing every single aspect of the game that is not a simple mathmatical comparison of how many models of unit X can weapon Y kill, when pretty much any mission format whether that's ITC or CA2019 scores the majority of its points or all of its points based on units moving to a location and securing an objective.

Damage and Durability numbers tell you basically nothing about how a model actually scores you points and wins you games. A model's capacity to move to an objective, prevent opposing models from moving, and secure objectives over enemy units is how models express the majority of their in-game power, and none of that can be mathhammered.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Take the Contorted Epitome as an example. It's not particularly killy, but the utility it provides is through the roof, both in defending against psychic powers and changing the dynamic around countering melee units. How do you value that?

Also, there's plenty of times when 10 mortal wounds are markedly inferior to better psy weapons. The concept of "wasted" or "effective" wounds has already been discussed earlier in the thread. Maximum damage is not always what wins you games. I'd rather kill a crucial target than do more spread-out damage to the enemy army.

The mathhammer crowd will never not see super-smites as the superior option, because there is no way you can simulate the limitations of smite relative to the psy weapon boost (range, the opponent's capacity to deny, the risk of perils, the other powers you give up to smite, and biggest of all the requirement that the closest enemy unit be targeted cannot be simulated through math.)

The psi weapon boost causes any given GK squad with a single psilencer to deal .666 more damage on average against any target where they gain a wound shift from the str (e.g., an Imperial Knight or a Primaris Marine). The smite boost causes them to deal 1 more damage. On paper, that means you should always take the super-smite. But all I need to attack that knight is to have my squad within 24", and to smite it I need to be 18" away AND it needs to have no screen in the psychic phase (which means I had to kill the screen last turn, I can't shoot them out of the way first).

It also ignores that I can pop psybolt ammo to make my storm bolters also count as psi weapons and deal 2 damage, and I can pop Bring Down the Beast to up my wound rolls from .333 to .55. A 10-man squad with 2 psilencers that drops BDTB and psybolts deals 17 damage to an IK, and Rotate does nothing to stop it.

 DominayTrix wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Yoyoyo wrote:
That whole spiel is based around the idea there are no rock-paper-scissors mechanics in 40k, only rocks and better rocks.

I think this highlights the problem best. People don't see utility. The power of marine books leads people to the "rocks and better rocks" mentality.

To be fair, sometimes a rock is big enough that it can smash anything and not care. Marine codexes are really big rocks.

those marine codexes also have to play vs other marine codexes, where math is no longer enough, and the person winning the tournament is the person who did more than press the most calculator buttons.

"People on this forum spend basically all their time trivializing every single aspect of the game that is not a simple mathmatical comparison of how many models of unit X can weapon Y kill, when pretty much any mission format whether that's ITC or CA2019 scores the majority of its points or all of its points based on units moving to a location and securing an objective."

I still think its'a combination of factors, of which math is a large one. The cheaper the screens, the easier it is to make a mockery of BA.

I like that ITC introduces a mathematical consequence for infinite <hyperbole> cheap screens.

Martel732 wrote:
"People on this forum spend basically all their time trivializing every single aspect of the game that is not a simple mathmatical comparison of how many models of unit X can weapon Y kill, when pretty much any mission format whether that's ITC or CA2019 scores the majority of its points or all of its points based on units moving to a location and securing an objective."

I still think its'a combination of factors, of which math is a large one. The cheaper the screens, the easier it is to make a mockery of BA.

I like that ITC introduces a mathematical consequence for infinite <hyperbole> cheap screens.

There aren't enough facepalms in the world...

You and Slayer-Fan are making the same error, and it's an error that's directly linked to your completely incorrect view about the value of hordes. All damage is not equal. You're far too concerned with the raw numbers and not nearly concerned enough about where damage is applied. Your approach is akin to Angron and his World Eaters rather than the more tactically nuanced approach of the Blood Angels. You don't measure a unit's effectiveness purely by the number of wounds it can dish out, you measure it by how efficiently it can dish out wounds to the things you actually want to kill.

" you measure it by how efficiently it can dish out wounds to the things you actually want to kill."

Which my opponent can physically prevent with clever placement. I care where the damage is applied. But until most enemy screens are handled, they can keep moving them in the way.

Isn't the very obvious answer here 'play to the mission'?

Most of the 5-1 BA lists we've seen lately have a lot of Scouts and Infiltrators. If you physically block him from reaching midfield objectives, what do you care if you're stuck in a quagmire on the edge of his DZ?