1,800 points of models removed in one turn in GT final

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.

**macluvin**

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?

**techsoldaten**

Insectum7 wrote:
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!

Don't mistake exposition for a lack of reason.

One solution that's been discussed is to cap damage per turn. Would be kind of like that.

If a player chooses to expose their entire army to mine, I should probably be allowed to do all the damage I want. Caps are a poor solution.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

macluvin wrote:
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?

Stop reframing the question.

You do this constantly and don't recognize the answers when I take the time to respond.

I think it's frustrating you quite a bit, and I do actually care.

**Insectum7**

techsoldaten wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
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!

Don't mistake exposition for a lack of reason.

One solution that's been discussed is to cap damage per turn. Would be kind of like that.

If a player chooses to expose their entire army to mine, I should probably be allowed to do all the damage I want. Caps are a poor solution.

Hi. I never mentioned anything about a "cap". Overall reduction in potential damage gets to the desired effect.

**techsoldaten**

Insectum7 wrote:
Hi. I never mentioned anything about a "cap". Overall reduction in potential damage gets to the desired effect.

What's the difference between limiting the total amount of potential damage and a cap on damage?

**Da Boss**

Can you not figure that out yourself?

**Spoletta**

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

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.

I disagree with with this specific event being an issue.
I don't disagree with there being a problem of lethality in the game.
Also, I like terrain keywords. They make different battlefields... different. I just think that the current cover doesn't matter enough, especially if you don't have a power armor. I guess I will answer directly in your thread though, don't want to derail this one.

**techsoldaten**

Da Boss wrote:
Can you not figure that out yourself?

Obviously not. I assumed they meant the same thing.

**Insectum7**

techsoldaten wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
Hi. I never mentioned anything about a "cap". Overall reduction in potential damage gets to the desired effect.

What's the difference between limiting the total amount of potential damage and a cap on damage?

Right, so I'll go back to my "not a serious response" take. But for brevity let's just say that one feels organic while the other feels artificial.

**macluvin**

techsoldaten wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
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!

Don't mistake exposition for a lack of reason.

One solution that's been discussed is to cap damage per turn. Would be kind of like that.

If a player chooses to expose their entire army to mine, I should probably be allowed to do all the damage I want. Caps are a poor solution.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

macluvin wrote:
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?

Stop reframing the question.

You do this constantly and don't recognize the answers when I take the time to respond.

I think it's frustrating you quite a bit, and I do actually care.

Then answer the question.

**techsoldaten**

Insectum7 wrote:
techsoldaten wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
Hi. I never mentioned anything about a "cap". Overall reduction in potential damage gets to the desired effect.

What's the difference between limiting the total amount of potential damage and a cap on damage?
Right, so I'll go back to my "not a serious response" take. But for brevity let's just say that one feels organic while the other feels artificial.

Let's stick with sincere desire for clarity and precision in terminology.

I understand the sentiment but don't understand the difference.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

macluvin wrote:
Then answer the question.

You're question was:

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

My response was:

techsoldaten wrote:
Explain what you mean by saved.

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

Then you asked:

macluvin wrote:
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?

There's 3 different questions there, and I'm genuinely confused what kind of response you are seeking.

Are you asking me how to prevent 90% casualties turn one?

- or -

Are you asking me how to win that game?

- or -

Are you asking me what the Drukhari player could have done to prevent the game from entering an unwinnable state in the first shooting phase of their opponent's in the game?

The response to each one would be dramatically different, and I'd rather not be guessing at what you're after.

**macluvin**

Then answer all three.

**Voss**

techsoldaten wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
techsoldaten wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
Hi. I never mentioned anything about a "cap". Overall reduction in potential damage gets to the desired effect.

What's the difference between limiting the total amount of potential damage and a cap on damage?
Right, so I'll go back to my "not a serious response" take. But for brevity let's just say that one feels organic while the other feels artificial.

Let's stick with sincere desire for clarity and precision in terminology.

I understand the sentiment but don't understand the difference.

'Fewer attacks for less damage' vs 'You magically (for no apparent reason) can't do more than X damage' where X is 10 or 20 or whatever arbitrary value cap.
One makes lasguns feel like lasguns, and the other means... lasguns in Platoon Charlie simply stop working after Platoon Bravo kills 20 orks. Its absolutely senseless.

**techsoldaten**

macluvin wrote:
Then answer all three.

Sure, but one at a time, so you can have a chance to respond. Just tell me when you are ready to move on.

Are you asking me how to prevent 90% casualties turn one?

Simple. Put 200+ points into reserve and deploy appropriately so you cannot be tabled.

Alternately, play more defensively and don't leave your entire army out in the open.

Some combination of the two could have cut casualties down significantly.

**Galas**

Lets move Nanavati and Sean Nadyen, techsoldaten and half the ork players of dakkadakka have come to teach you how to play.

I have yet to see a poster that arguess in more bad faith, and that is more pedantic than you.

And I saw Peregrine. But at least Peregrine most of the time was actually right, even if he came as an ass about it.

**addnid**

Galas wrote:
Lets move Nanavati and Sean Nadyen, techsoldaten and half the ork players of dakkadakka have come to teach you how to play.

I have yet to see a poster that arguess in more bad faith, and that is more pedantic than you.

And I saw Peregrine. But at least Peregrine most of the time was actually right, even if he came as an ass about it.

As an Ork player and dakka naît, please do not to not associate me/us with techsoldaten. I can assure you he doesn’t speak for half the ork players on dakka. Probably not even 1%. Galas what gave you the idea he spoke for many ork players here ?

Though I must say I am not a fan of the list Sean Nayden played (but apparently he was bored of the regular top drukhari builds, he more or less said so I recall).

**Klickor**

Sure you can't lose over 1800pts turn one if you only deploy less than 1800. Way to try to win this argument on a technicality.

But if we use lethality as a % of points on a table the Ork player would now have been able to kill 100% of the points deployed which is even worse than "just" killing 90%.

If Sean was really good he could have put half his models in reserve and not put them on the table until his turn 3 making it a 3 turn tabling. Or do you lose now if you have 0 models on the table and rest in reserve? Can't remember since I never reserve that many units. This easy pro gaming move would have made his army 3x as durable!!!! The game would just end 2000pts Vs 0pts instead of the 2000pts Vs 0pts!!

**macluvin**

techsoldaten wrote:
macluvin wrote:
Then answer all three.

Sure, but one at a time, so you can have a chance to respond. Just tell me when you are ready to move on.

Are you asking me how to prevent 90% casualties turn one?

Simple. Put 200+ points into reserve and deploy appropriately so you cannot be tabled.

Alternately, play more defensively and don't leave your entire army out in the open.

Some combination of the two could have cut casualties down significantly.

Alright. I suppose someone could math hammer out how that would have gone but my wager is still irrevocably crippled considering the issue was the overwhelming amount of flyers and buggies that don’t care about terrain and have a lot of mobility. Technically speaking if you only leave 1600 points on table I can see how only 1600 points instead of 1800 could get blasted off the table and I can definitely understand that some portion of the ork’s firepower would not have been utilized should some of the drukhari stayed behind LOS. Technically I will say you are right for this question.

**techsoldaten**

Klickor wrote:
Sure you can't lose over 1800pts turn one if you only deploy less than 1800. Way to try to win this argument on a technicality.

Yes, it is a technicality. I've described it myself that way multiple times.

Let's remember what we're solving for with this question. The title of the thread is "1,800 points of models removed in one turn in GT final." Right now, I'm only concerned with how to avoid that outcome.

My answer is not purely technical. Sean's playstyle is very aggressive, he left his army exposed to the full fury of the Orks when it was their turn.

Simply playing a more defensive game could avoid losing 1,800 points of models in one turn. Deploying differently, placing units in positions that block LOS for key units, grabbing cover, etc, along with reserves, would have made this outcome less likely.

Was it the best strategy for winning the game? That's a different question. But these points should be clear before moving on.

Klickor wrote:
But if we use lethality as a % of points on a table the Ork player would now have been able to kill 100% of the points deployed which is even worse than "just" killing 90%.

Given Sean's playstyle, maybe.

If he was going to move forward with everything he had, sure, the likelihood of a tabling increases by putting units in reserve.

Are you saying it would have been impossible to decrease casualties with a different deployment / movement in the first turn? Not sure I buy that/

Klickor wrote:
If Sean was really good he could have put half his models in reserve and not put them on the table until his turn 3 making it a 3 turn tabling. Or do you lose now if you have 0 models on the table and rest in reserve? Can't remember since I never reserve that many units. This easy pro gaming move would have made his army 3x as durable!!!! The game would just end 2000pts Vs 0pts instead of the 2000pts Vs 0pts!!

Durh hurh hurh.

**macluvin**

Tech are you ready to answer the next question?

**the_scotsman**

What's fun about this forum is if you are annoyed that too many people are dis cussing a thing, you can spam posts in every thread about the topic trying to flame bait until it gets locked.

**Insectum7**

techsoldaten wrote:
Klickor wrote:
Sure you can't lose over 1800pts turn one if you only deploy less than 1800. Way to try to win this argument on a technicality.

Let's remember what we're solving for with this question. The title of the thread is "1,800 points of models removed in one turn in GT final." Right now, I'm only concerned with how to avoid that outcome.

Well gee I suppose one possibility could be to make units less lethal. . . I'm not sure anybody has suggested that yet though. Thoughts?

**Galas**

addnid wrote:
Galas wrote:
Lets move Nanavati and Sean Nadyen, techsoldaten and half the ork players of dakkadakka have come to teach you how to play.

I have yet to see a poster that arguess in more bad faith, and that is more pedantic than you.

And I saw Peregrine. But at least Peregrine most of the time was actually right, even if he came as an ass about it.

As an Ork player and dakka naît, please do not to not associate me/us with techsoldaten. I can assure you he doesn’t speak for half the ork players on dakka. Probably not even 1%. Galas what gave you the idea he spoke for many ork players here ?

Though I must say I am not a fan of the list Sean Nayden played (but apparently he was bored of the regular top drukhari builds, he more or less said so I recall).

I'm sorry, I should have been clearer. I was not lumping orks players with Technosaldean.

But I have to say is a little sad to see so many ork players come to defend something like this. Is the last group of players I would have expected it. Not because orks are OP or anything but the game is bonkers bananas. Thats clear for everybody.

**H.B.M.C.**

Is he really framing the complete annihilation of the Dark Eldar army as being the Dark Eldar player's fault?

**Unit1126PLL**

Anyone still doubting Techsoldaten is a troll yet?

There's video evidence of a "more defensive" Drukhari player getting crushed

There's no clear line of causality between "reserving all your stuff and deploying defensively" and "not getting utterly crushed by the ork shooting"

And there's several people telling him he's wrong (including evidence)

At this point, I'm not sure whether he's just inept and incapable of changing his mind (to a nearly unbelievable degree) or whether he's genuinely trolling.

**Aenar**

the_scotsman wrote:
What's fun about this forum is if you are annoyed that too many people are dis cussing a thing, you can spam posts in every thread about the topic trying to flame bait until it gets locked.

It's not going to help in avoiding nor retarding the nerfbat, though.
One can live in denial and try to debate the issue as much as one wants, but numbers and facts rarely lie.
GW's game designers may be slow as snails in reacting to broken interactions, but sooner or later the issues get fixed. It will happen for AdMech, for DE and for Orks too, just like it happened many times before in other cases.
It's better to just accept it, enjoy the brokenness while it lasts and then be ready to move on.

**Dysartes**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Is he really framing the complete annihilation of the Dark Eldar army as being the Dark Eldar player's fault?

Seems to be, yes.

**Tyel**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
Anyone still doubting Techsoldaten is a troll yet?

The problem with the internet is that its hard to tell when people are trolling or just genuinely disagree.

I have a real problem with this idea that Nayden's play was an all in and he deserved to be near tabled for rolling some bad dice for movement to punish him for his temerity.
Because I don't think 40k works that way.
Saying "actually, if you'd kept stuff off the table, it couldn't be killed", insert tapping head meme pic here, is obviously correct - but equally sort of daft.

If Nayden had parked his entirely army in the corner it might have taken 3 turns to die - but you've completely abandoned winning the game. So... yeah, unsurprisingly not the way forward.

If Speedwaagh units were *meant* to hard counter say venoms, and Ad Mech were meant to hard counter Dreadnoughts then there might be some justification - but 40k doesn't really work that way either. Metas emerge because of the underlying probability - but its just random rules thrown at random rules.

Basically what we need is for everyone to play DG.

**Orlanth**

Blackie wrote:

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.

You took a single line from a long post and removed the context.

Drukhari are not all or nothing, there is a lot of mitigation byt play. They are hard hitting and fragile but that isnt all or nothing, as they have a number of assets to their vulnerability. Hence the high win rate, mnuch is dependent on skill.

Orks are all or nothing, they are an unsubtle army with relatively few tricks, though they had more that before, they have massive firepower or at least the potential for massive firepower, but poor accuracy makes volleys unpredictable. Large number of dice on low odds doesn't average out as much as provide clumps of extremes, that in turn may even out over multiple turns of shooting but you get extreme results on the short term.
Combine that with overgunned and underpointed fast attack units that are spammable as lists of their own and you get a very random shooting phase. Vast volumes of dice will normally end up getting a mix of results, but there is a chance the entire army will whiff or slaughter the opponent in a single turn. While any army is capable of this, dice are dice, orks have a tendency to have skewed shooting results.

**techsoldaten**

macluvin wrote:
Tech are you ready to answer the next question?

Yes, but I'd like to finish dinner first. My daughter needs help on her homework, and it's my turn to read to her.

So this might need to wait until tomorrow.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Is he really framing the complete annihilation of the Dark Eldar army as being the Dark Eldar player's fault?

Yes. But it's not that simple.

I'd prefer to spell out my thoughts in detail and be pilloried for thinking such things.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel wrote:
If Nayden had parked his entirely army in the corner it might have taken 3 turns to die - but you've completely abandoned winning the game. So... yeah, unsurprisingly not the way forward.

It sounds like you think the Drukhari player deserved a chance to win the game. What, specifically, makes you think that?

**JNAProductions**

techsoldaten wrote:
Tyel wrote:
If Nayden had parked his entirely army in the corner it might have taken 3 turns to die - but you've completely abandoned winning the game. So... yeah, unsurprisingly not the way forward.

It sounds like you think the Drukhari player deserved a chance to win the game. What, specifically, makes you think that?

Because in a good wargame, your fate shouldn't be determined entirely by what models you bring-you should ALWAYS have a chance.

If you bring a skew list and face a counterskew list, sure, it should be an uphill battle. But not a set-in-stone one.