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.

 Blackie wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

If your argument is you could have played the game better than Sean Nayden, or Ork winrates are fine according to the data you've missed the point completely.

My argument is that Nayden's list wasn't an optimized one, but a gamble. He gambled and he lost.

The list the Orks played in the semi was a different style of DE list with the same result. Care to try another explanation that hasn't been debunked?

 Ordana wrote:


Here is the same army in the semi final also fighting Drukhari. Drukhari hides his army behind terrain. Orks go first.

As I said that ork list was a tailored list against drukhari, no wonder it does pretty good in general against that faction. I also don't see the drukhari list, Nayden's one was so skew that his results shouldn't apply to all the other drukhari players.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slipspace wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

If your argument is you could have played the game better than Sean Nayden, or Ork winrates are fine according to the data you've missed the point completely.

My argument is that Nayden's list wasn't an optimized one, but a gamble. He gambled and he lost.

The list the Orks played in the semi was a different style of DE list with the same result. Care to try another explanation that hasn't been debunked?

Did he lost 1800 points in one turn? Because when orks lose 1000 points in turn one, even against a non tailored list, no one ever complained about that. What part of the rock/paper/scissor attitude that is so frequent in tournament gaming since forever don't you get?

Same-ish ork list was easily countered by tyranids in a batrep that was recently posted, and tyranids are pretty near the bottom tiers. So, was that ork list OP in the first place or was the combination of tailoring, all or nothing opponent and bad rolls that made those games so one sided?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:


The big difference is that Orks are an all or nothing army, they offest 'extra' dakka by poor accuracy. Despite all the talk they never really had the firepower until now, not since 2nd ed anyway.

Difference than what? That drukhari list was the book definition of an all or nothing army.

 techsoldaten wrote:

macluvin wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
You're doing a crap job articulating your points in this thread, and this kind of condescension doesn't help.

Thank you Catbarf. I value your opinion.

I mean you made the point that the problem was that the drukhari made a bad tactical decision and catbarf produced a similar situation where the drukhari player tried to be more defensive and still lost their win conditions in their army in the first turn, whereas your opinion really doesn’t have any support from evidence and is purely your preference. You are allowed to enjoy the game in its current form and I sincerely hope you do, and you may have tried to make the argument that you and others extract joy from theorycrafting and breaking the game, or like others have stated you need to make further restrictions or structural changes to the game but with these changes it is good, which isn’t really disagreeing with the contrary opinions. Instead you chose to be pretty disrespectful to players on the receiving end of this issue we are discussing and have engaged in bad faith arguments of trying to deny or mitigate the facts supporting the argument contrary to your opinion.

It would be easier to defend catbarfs comment at you had they been more tactful but I certainly don’t believe catbarf is wrong.

Pretty sure I've been pointing to evidence throughout this thread.

https://www.40kstats.com/faction-breakdown-report

Orks don't steamroll Drukhari. What happened in the video is an outlier compared with overall tournament outcomes, which have Drukhari winning > 60% of the time in matchups against Orks. Have not seen anything to suggest losing 90% of your army in the first turn is a common occurrence. It's reasonable to expect better performance from Orks if they are capable of reliably doing this in game.

I appreciate your commentary about my comments, Macluvin, and value your opinion.

I'm ignoring your linking of this data personally because it's just...not what the thread is about. This isn't an "Orks OP Nerf Orks" thread. Orks are obviously not OP by the numbers, and that actually makes the overall point of the thread MORE obvious - one of the best players in the world, playing the strongest army in the world, can get instantly wiped in a single turn.

The barriers between you doing your absolute peak potential damage and the normal amount of damage you should expect to do in 9th edition are lower than in any other edition I've played. 8th definitely did take the cake when it comes to what the value of that absolute peak damage actually was, because it had more stratagem wombo-combos you could pull, but 9th edition a lot of units can just instantly destroy their target without even using any stratagems at all, just declaring a thing they get to declare and blowing something away, doing the same damage that units in 8E would have to blow 4-5 CP on several strats to match.

I mean, unless we go back to how armies were in like 5th, lethality isn’t going to decrease ever. We’re in the cycle of wanting cooler and cooler rules for our dudes, which just adds more and more bloat and big numbers.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
I mean, unless we go back to how armies were in like 5th, lethality isn’t going to decrease ever. We’re in the cycle of wanting cooler and cooler rules for our dudes, which just adds more and more bloat and big numbers.

Ugh, are we? Is this a thing the players want and are somehow at fault for it?

Even if it is a 'cycle', that doesn't prevent streamlining and adjustments from coming. Threads about fewer weapon profiles and less absurd numbers is something I see more often these days. We'll see if it lasts once chaos, eldar and tyranids get theirs, but I really don't think this discontent with the state of the game is going to go away.

Everyone’s become accustomed to all this gak. Try seeing how people react if you told em that their most special rule is just +1 strength on charge and that all their guns only do 1 wound.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
I mean, unless we go back to how armies were in like 5th, lethality isn’t going to decrease ever. We’re in the cycle of wanting cooler and cooler rules for our dudes, which just adds more and more bloat and big numbers.

I mean, I will remind folks there was a point mid-8th edition where the meta was "put almost your entire army into turn 1 deep strike, literally murder a giant chunk of the opposing army turn 1"

They put in a blanket restriction:

-no more than 1/2 your army in reserves (unless youre space marines of course, And They Shall Know No Rules)

-no deep striking turn 1

-no more than 3x of any non-troop unit

There's no reason they couldnt reduce lethality by buffing terrain, increasing the distance armies start apart from one another, even if youre getting real crazy the good old "kiss of death" that is "This rule is narrative only"

Remember Vigilius detachments?

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
Everyone’s become accustomed to all this gak. Try seeing how people react if you told em that their most special rule is just +1 strength on charge and that all their guns only do 1 wound.

There is an incredibly broad spectrum of possibilities between this ridiculously and illogically displaced extreme and where we are now...

 the_scotsman wrote:
I'm ignoring your linking of this data personally because it's just...not what the thread is about. This isn't an "Orks OP Nerf Orks" thread. Orks are obviously not OP by the numbers, and that actually makes the overall point of the thread MORE obvious - one of the best players in the world, playing the strongest army in the world, can get instantly wiped in a single turn.

The barriers between you doing your absolute peak potential damage and the normal amount of damage you should expect to do in 9th edition are lower than in any other edition I've played. 8th definitely did take the cake when it comes to what the value of that absolute peak damage actually was, because it had more stratagem wombo-combos you could pull, but 9th edition a lot of units can just instantly destroy their target without even using any stratagems at all, just declaring a thing they get to declare and blowing something away, doing the same damage that units in 8E would have to blow 4-5 CP on several strats to match.

Thanks for that, but it really seems you (and a bunch of others) are ignoring arguments that contradict your own, ganging up on people who take the time to point them out, creating multiple threads to advance your viewpoints and doing a lot of anti-social gatekeeping along the way.

It's not that I'm unsympathetic to what you have to say, I've had similar thoughts since the start of 8th. But there are problems with the argument about lethality that become apparent when other information is considered.

The video at the start of this thread does not demonstrate the point you and others have claimed. On a technical basis, the 90% lethality threshold could have been avoided by making different decisions - the most obvious of which would have been to put 200+ points of units into reserve. On a tactical basis, my impression was that the Drukhari player's first turn was extremely aggressive and left him exposed to a counterattack that drove the destruction of his forces to 90% (which, btw, is an extremely Drukhari thing to do.) The fact that he's a competitive player has been used to make the claim that this was the only possible response, which carries a lot of implications. If that is the only possible response - to go all in at a high risk of having your entire army wiped out - we should be seeing the same outcome in a lot of games from players at different skill levels.

But we don't. Orks mostly lose to Drukhari in competitive play.

Why Orks mostly lose to Drukhari is a very important question that has seriously implications for any argument about lethality. If the Drukhari player made the only play possible, then other players should be seeing and doing the same thing. And if the game is so lethal, and Orks are so almighty powerful, we should be seeing the same outcome - a loss on the part of the Drukhari player - frequently. An overwhelming advantage should be apparent from the data that tells us how frequently the Orks overwhelm the Drukhari, or how often the gambit displayed in the video actually works for a Druhkari player.

But we don't. Orks mostly lose to Drukhari in competitive play. When the lists themselves are reviewed on BCP, there's a mix of Ork speedwaagh list along with others that aren't purely mechanized. When you look at the Drukhari lists, there's high variation of unit types, cabals, flyers without an obvious, apparent must-take between most list. While I didn't take the time to correlate outcomes with list composition, I don't think the data would reveal speedwaagh lists win at an extraordinarily higher rate than others in general. They might perform better against certain factions, but I'd leave that up to someone else to do the work. Would love it if someone would pick this up as a pet project.

So forgive me for saying this: the examples being cited in this thread don't seem to prove much about lethality. The player in the video could have made different decisions to avoid the 90% threshold cited in the thread title, that's true technically and could be true tactically. The data about competitive matchups does not suggest Orks are capable of doing this reliably across matchups with Drukhari players or other factions. In other words - a couple of games have been cherry picked to make claims that don't bear out when the totality of games are considered.

This suggests the concept "lethality" is not useful as a heuristic for evaluating 40k as a game, it's simply an observation about specific games or players. The competitive player you keep pointing too clearly has a penchant for playing highly lethal games that emphasize removing large chunks of armies early in the game. That's great, I appreciate the fact 40k is such a sophisticated game it allows for this style of play. But it has little significance beyond his particular playstyle, it can be empirically demonstrated not many people play the game that way (and never would.) There are other competitive players with a style more focused on defense, board control, etc. Nick Navanati comes to mind, I remember watching some videos where he uses Cultists to block out a board against a Space Marine player that involved some really innovative play that allowed him to box in most of his opponent's army early in a game. IIRC, there were only minor loses in the first turn, < 5% of each army. (Were I to contrast the two playstyles, it would be like watching World Eaters versus Iron Warriors.)

The reason playstyles are not useful is there's a much larger pool of casual players who play without a well-defined one. The thing to remember, competitive players are outliers, they process the game differently from the majority of other people and that's what allows them to be successful. It's not that they're better, or that they have some special insights only available to a certain class of people. It's that they dedicate a significant amount of time and effort to the game and develop a talent stack they bring to games that is unique. It can't be boxed up and shipped off, there's not a substitute for practice, practice, practice.

While I've never played Nick Navanati, I've played people he's tutored and people who copy lists he's brought to tournaments. They're very good, they know their armies, they make optimal unit selection in list building, they come to the game with every advantage anyone could wish for. But do they know how to respond when I deploy my army on my table edge, don't move and control the board with 26 lascannons with full rerolls to hit? Or when I sacrifice 40% of my army first turn to clear screens and make way for 90 Bloodletters coming in turns 2 and 3? Or when I confine them to their table edge with 2 Daemon Primarchs and 5 Sorcerers while a Nurgle detachment sits on objectives all game?

No, they don't. Playstyles are not very important for players confronted with a novel challenge, experience dealing with a similar situation (direct or observed) is what allows players to execute against them. A competitive player like Nick has probably played so many games he knows how to respond, but his pupils are another matter. They're in the process of developing a playstyle and are probably thinking in terms of a set of tactics that are not closely tied to strategy. Worse for them, I know how Nick plays and can probably spot the weak point in their list before they deploy. My experience has been they're at a huge disadvantage until they get a lot of games in.

So it's not useful to generalize observations about the Drukhari player's style of play to the level of problems about the game of 40k itself. The Drukhari player has a high ranking and certainly deserves some admiration, but the vast majority of players - > 98% - are incapable of that level of play. They will never have the time to dedicate to reaching it and would encounter a massive amount of discouragement trying to do so. The one thing the video in the original post demonstrates very well is the downside of all-or-nothing stunts. The average player could never pull off what he was trying to do - for that matter, that top ranked competitive player could not make it work. Lionizing this as a model of good play seems cruel and sadistic since it's not achievable for most people. It would be far better to make it harder for players who optimize around all-or-nothing playstyles then to establish some cap on damage applied for doing something stupid.

The constructive part of the message is this. When people are talking about lethality, they are talking about how the rate at which units get destroyed being too high. That involves a lot of factors, and it might be easier to support arguments that can be generalized beyond the actions of specific players.

Like obscuring terrain and units. One simple way to decrease the rate of unit destruction would be to make it harder to shoot units who are behind others. Force opponents to destroy what's closest to get to what's behind, soak up some shots.

Like fragility. Tanks seem too fragile, it's too easy to destroy them. Fragility could be addressed about bringing back the vehicle damage chart, creating a floor for weapons capable of penetrating armor, special rules for vehicles, etc. This would address the key issue (the rate of unit loss) without blanket limits to how much damage could be dealt.

Like toughness tests. it might make sense to tighten up the to wound chart a bit. There should be more of a difference between T4 and T5, that would alone would reduce by a significance percentage.

There's so much bound up in the idea of "lethality," it might not be useful as a unitary concept. Even if you were to separate it from the actions of a small handful of competitive players and put some kind of max damage cap in place, all the smaller issues still exist.

*shrugs shoulders*

^ Very much this.

Also, a few changes to cover (not obscuring, I mean actual cover) would make the game a lot less lethal.

So it's not useful to generalize observations about the Drukhari player's style of play to the level of problems about the game of 40k itself. The Drukhari player has a high ranking and certainly deserves some admiration, but the vast majority of players - > 98% - are incapable of that level of play. They will never have the time to dedicate to reaching it and would encounter a massive amount of discouragement trying to do so. The one thing the video in the original post demonstrates very well is the downside of all-or-nothing stunts. The average player could never pull off what he was trying to do - for that matter, that top ranked competitive player could not make it work. Lionizing this as a model of good play seems cruel and sadistic since it's not achievable for most people. It would be far better to make it harder for players who optimize around all-or-nothing playstyles then to establish some cap on damage applied for doing something stupid.

You're misunderstanding this entirely then. This isn't lionizing, its pointing out that this is going to be even worse in normal games between average players.

The constructive part of the message is this. When people are talking about lethality, they are talking about how the rate at which units get destroyed being too high. That involves a lot of factors, and it might be easier to support arguments that can be generalized beyond the actions of specific players.

Most people here are generalizing. You're the one stuck on this specific instance.

... who has tabletop simulator because I think that’s going to be the only way to settle this argument.

Voss wrote:

So it's not useful to generalize observations about the Drukhari player's style of play to the level of problems about the game of 40k itself. The Drukhari player has a high ranking and certainly deserves some admiration, but the vast majority of players - > 98% - are incapable of that level of play. They will never have the time to dedicate to reaching it and would encounter a massive amount of discouragement trying to do so. The one thing the video in the original post demonstrates very well is the downside of all-or-nothing stunts. The average player could never pull off what he was trying to do - for that matter, that top ranked competitive player could not make it work. Lionizing this as a model of good play seems cruel and sadistic since it's not achievable for most people. It would be far better to make it harder for players who optimize around all-or-nothing playstyles then to establish some cap on damage applied for doing something stupid.

You're misunderstanding this entirely then. This isn't lionizing, its pointing out that this is going to be even worse in normal games between average players.

The constructive part of the message is this. When people are talking about lethality, they are talking about how the rate at which units get destroyed being too high. That involves a lot of factors, and it might be easier to support arguments that can be generalized beyond the actions of specific players.

Most people here are generalizing. You're the one stuck on this specific instance.

No. There is no misunderstanding.

The Drukhari player in the original video played an all-or-nothing strategy. The loss of 90% of his forces is a consequence of his actions.

This aggressive playstyle is not feasible for a non-experienced player, it leaves the army too exposed. Players trying to learn to play this way would lose most of their games and switch playstyles or leave 40k entirely. A small number of masochists might pursue it despite the consequences, but very few of them would ever develop their skills as a player.

That's just psychology, no one enjoys receiving punishment. The ones that do are motivated by something other than success.

I'd also say, there can only be so many people who play this aggressively. Were it to catch on too widely, other players would develop hard counters. We might be seeing that with the Ork list.

Even if the Drukhari player made a tactical or strategic mistake, is it okay for ONE mistake to result in a instantaneous, complete, absolute blowout loss?

Rihgu wrote:
Even if the Drukhari player made a tactical or strategic mistake, is it okay for ONE mistake to result in a instantaneous, complete, absolute blowout loss?

Would not reduce the game to a single mistake.

Would call it a very aggressive playstyle. Either the Ork assault was going to be disrupted or the Drukhari force would be left completely exposed.

The game was an either / or. Or won.

Spoletta wrote:
^ Very much this.

Also, a few changes to cover (not obscuring, I mean actual cover) would make the game a lot less lethal.

You type this like you're disagreeing with my overall sentiment and like the exact thing that I've been advocating for this entire time isn't EXACTLY the kind of stuff Tech laid out in their response and your agreement

I put the whole thing I'd do in the Proposed Rules section a couple days ago. The executive summary is:

1) Remove the terrain keyword system in favor of all terrain having the same rules.

Any edition ever where terrain has had multiple different rules, players have ALWAYS defaulted to applying whatever the 'strongest' terrain type is to literally everything on the battlefield. "everything is a ruin" or "Everything is a "battlescape"" or back to "everything is a Ruin" in 9th.

Just...give it all the same rules. Make them good rules. My suggestion is have normal cover (+1sv) be a highly bonus that's very easy for basically any unit to achieve, and have any terrain piece be considered "Large" if it's twice the height or more of the unit claiming cover, and Large terrain pieces are Obscuring if they're over 1" away from both attacker and target, or grant -1 to hit on top of +1sv if theyre within 1" of the target but not the attacker.

That, combined with a 'modifiers from terrain/movement/weapon type are exempt from the +1/-1 cap and are applied separately' would allow for a much lower bound on what a sub-optimal target is in 9th edition. Shooting over a barrel, under an overhang, through a window at maximum range at a target unit you can only see 1 bit of 1 model of would suddenly mean "-1 to hit, +1 to sv, and you can only kill just that one model" as opposed to now where if none of that terrain is Obscuring, you're probably shooting the whole squad as if they were totally exposed.

 the_scotsman wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
^ Very much this.

Also, a few changes to cover (not obscuring, I mean actual cover) would make the game a lot less lethal.

You type this like you're disagreeing with my overall sentiment and like the exact thing that I've been advocating for this entire time isn't EXACTLY the kind of stuff Tech laid out in their response and your agreement

You say a lot.

Voss wrote:

So it's not useful to generalize observations about the Drukhari player's style of play to the level of problems about the game of 40k itself. The Drukhari player has a high ranking and certainly deserves some admiration, but the vast majority of players - > 98% - are incapable of that level of play. They will never have the time to dedicate to reaching it and would encounter a massive amount of discouragement trying to do so. The one thing the video in the original post demonstrates very well is the downside of all-or-nothing stunts. The average player could never pull off what he was trying to do - for that matter, that top ranked competitive player could not make it work. Lionizing this as a model of good play seems cruel and sadistic since it's not achievable for most people. It would be far better to make it harder for players who optimize around all-or-nothing playstyles then to establish some cap on damage applied for doing something stupid.

You're misunderstanding this entirely then. This isn't lionizing, its pointing out that this is going to be even worse in normal games between average players.

The constructive part of the message is this. When people are talking about lethality, they are talking about how the rate at which units get destroyed being too high. That involves a lot of factors, and it might be easier to support arguments that can be generalized beyond the actions of specific players.

Most people here are generalizing. You're the one stuck on this specific instance.

^also this. The reason I made this thread was frustration towards the amount of 'git gud/your opponent's just a dick dont play dicks' in the "new player, got destroyed in 1 turn" thread. I wanted to point out that, no, this newbie wasn't just an idiot because really really good competitive players get exploded in one turn on the reg, and also no, an opponent who took a list that was literally "10 space marines, a captain, and a dreadnought" and played by the rules as written was not being an especial dick to this newbie.

Newbies are the EXACT people who will not know things like 'oh, if I play by this rule as it as written, we will always have a gak time.'

it takes a TON of metaknowledge currently to set up a good, fun game of warhammer 40,000. You cant just throw down two armies on a table with some trash on it for terrain and have a good game, everything goes kaboom in like 2 turns and the players sit there asking "wait...was that it?"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I grew up religious, I know people who waited until their wedding night, so to speak, and conversations with people who really got hyped for 40k from lore videos online, bought 1000-2000pts of stuff and then tried playing their first game of 9E say SHOCKINGLY similar stuff to those poor newlywed couples.

 the_scotsman wrote:
^also this. The reason I made this thread was frustration towards the amount of 'git gud/your opponent's just a dick dont play dicks' in the "new player, got destroyed in 1 turn" thread. I wanted to point out that, no, this newbie wasn't just an idiot because really really good competitive players get exploded in one turn on the reg, and also no, an opponent who took a list that was literally "10 space marines, a captain, and a dreadnought" and played by the rules as written was not being an especial dick to this newbie.

Newbies are the EXACT people who will not know things like 'oh, if I play by this rule as it as written, we will always have a gak time.'

it takes a TON of metaknowledge currently to set up a good, fun game of warhammer 40,000. You cant just throw down two armies on a table with some trash on it for terrain and have a good game, everything goes kaboom in like 2 turns and the players sit there asking "wait...was that it?"

Instead of all that: tell them overly aggressive play is a bad idea.

99% of their problems will go away.

Basically, don't be like the Drukhari player in the video. Bad role model.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:
^also this. The reason I made this thread was frustration towards the amount of 'git gud/your opponent's just a dick dont play dicks' in the "new player, got destroyed in 1 turn" thread. I wanted to point out that, no, this newbie wasn't just an idiot because really really good competitive players get exploded in one turn on the reg, and also no, an opponent who took a list that was literally "10 space marines, a captain, and a dreadnought" and played by the rules as written was not being an especial dick to this newbie.

Newbies are the EXACT people who will not know things like 'oh, if I play by this rule as it as written, we will always have a gak time.'

it takes a TON of metaknowledge currently to set up a good, fun game of warhammer 40,000. You cant just throw down two armies on a table with some trash on it for terrain and have a good game, everything goes kaboom in like 2 turns and the players sit there asking "wait...was that it?"

Instead of all that: tell them overly aggressive play is a bad idea.

99% of their problems will go away.

Basically, don't be like the Drukhari player in the video. Bad role model.

Do I really need to yet again link you the semi finals where a Drukhari deploys his entire army in cover and loses almost all of it before its even his turn?

Nor have you explained how reserving a bunch of the army would help in any way, shape or form other then to delay the inevitable death by a turn and how those units will be screened out from accomplishing anything when they arrive.

Ah. One of the best competitive 40k players in the world is a bad role model for how to be good at the game and vague advice that explains almost nothing will make newbie problems go away... especially considering that the ork list was also really really aggressive.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:
^also this. The reason I made this thread was frustration towards the amount of 'git gud/your opponent's just a dick dont play dicks' in the "new player, got destroyed in 1 turn" thread. I wanted to point out that, no, this newbie wasn't just an idiot because really really good competitive players get exploded in one turn on the reg, and also no, an opponent who took a list that was literally "10 space marines, a captain, and a dreadnought" and played by the rules as written was not being an especial dick to this newbie.

Newbies are the EXACT people who will not know things like 'oh, if I play by this rule as it as written, we will always have a gak time.'

it takes a TON of metaknowledge currently to set up a good, fun game of warhammer 40,000. You cant just throw down two armies on a table with some trash on it for terrain and have a good game, everything goes kaboom in like 2 turns and the players sit there asking "wait...was that it?"

Instead of all that: tell them overly aggressive play is a bad idea.

99% of their problems will go away.

Basically, don't be like the Drukhari player in the video. Bad role model.

While I'm 100% on the side of poor decision making and army exposure leading to punishment and a lost game, the consequences of the poor decision don't have to be immediate single-turn annihilation. Imo the game would be better if it still took a number of turns to let that play out.

 Ordana wrote:
Do I really need to yet again link you the semi finals where a Drukhari deploys his entire army in cover and loses almost all of it?

Nor have you explained how reserving a bunch of the army would help in any way, shape or form other then to delay the inevitable death by a turn and how those units will be screened out from accomplishing anything when they arrive.

No, but thank you for the offer.

Cherry picking videos isn't particularly interesting for me. Please feel free to fetishize about it on your own.

Drukhari beat Orks > 60% of the time in competitive matchups. Maybe instead of waiting for me, go to BCP and look at winning lists? Just the unit selection tells you a lot about what works and what doesn't.

A few of the players have recapped their games on Facebook, blogs, club sites. Maybe track some of those down and see what they actually did?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

macluvin wrote:
Ah. One of the best competitive 40k players in the world is a bad role model for how to be good at the game and vague advice that explains almost nothing will make newbie problems go away... especially considering that the ork list was also really really aggressive.

Top rated competitive players in the world come and go. Wouldn't put too much into it, just means he's played a lot of games.

Orks seem to be a hard counter to his playstyle. Let's see how he adapts.

Still no explanation on how reserves would have saved the drukhari players... in either instance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And cherry picking arguments is no interest to me.

 Insectum7 wrote:
While I'm 100% on the side of poor decision making and army exposure leading to punishment and a lost game, the consequences of the poor decision don't have to be immediate single-turn annihilation. Imo the game would be better if it still took a number of turns to let that play out.

Command: Brother Nihilus, we have reached 50% casualties for this moment in the battle. Cease firing your bolter until the opponent has caught his breath!

Brother Nihilus: You keep saying that. But the opposing forces are still standing out in the open, exposing their posteriors!

Command: Rules of engagement prevent us from sanctioning dimwits too extremely. You have your orders.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

macluvin wrote:
Still no explanation on how reserves would have saved the drukhari players... in either instance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And cherry picking arguments is no interest to me.

Explain what you mean by saved.

Is it prevent 90% casualties in the first turn, or is it win the game?

I mean you keep saying the drukhari should have put 200+ points in reserve. How would that have actually changed the outcome?

macluvin wrote:
I mean you keep saying the drukhari should have put 200+ points in reserve. How would that have actually changed the outcome?

\

Answer the question before I respond.

Does that mean how would I have avoided losing 90% of my army first turn, or how would I have won the game?

 techsoldaten wrote:

macluvin wrote:
I mean you keep saying the drukhari should have put 200+ points in reserve. How would that have actually changed the outcome?

\

Answer the question before I respond.

Does that mean how would I have avoided losing 90% of my army first turn, or how would I have won the game?

I'll answer for macluvin, if I may, with an answer that doesn't miss the point of the whole thread.

What could the Drukhari player have done to prevent the game from entering an un-winnable state (for themselves) in the first shooting phase of their opponent's in the game?

Rihgu wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

macluvin wrote:
I mean you keep saying the drukhari should have put 200+ points in reserve. How would that have actually changed the outcome?

\

Answer the question before I respond.

Does that mean how would I have avoided losing 90% of my army first turn, or how would I have won the game?

I'll answer for macluvin, if I may, with an answer that doesn't miss the point of the whole thread.

What could the Drukhari player have done to prevent the game from entering an un-winnable state (for themselves) in the first shooting phase of their opponent's in the game?

You're not the one who keeps pretending he asked something else every time I answer one of his questions.

So I'll get back to you after he responds.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
While I'm 100% on the side of poor decision making and army exposure leading to punishment and a lost game, the consequences of the poor decision don't have to be immediate single-turn annihilation. Imo the game would be better if it still took a number of turns to let that play out.

Command: Brother Nihilus, we have reached 50% casualties for this moment in the battle. Cease firing your bolter until the opponent has caught his breath!

Brother Nihilus: You keep saying that. But the opposing forces are still standing out in the open, exposing their posteriors!

Command: Rules of engagement prevent us from sanctioning dimwits too extremely. You have your orders.

Oh my mistake, I thought I was entering a serious conversation with reasoned debate, my bad!