I have given some DE players problems with my guard, if only because there are just too many av12 hull on the board to deal with. My last 2k IG list had 12 av12 hulls and 1 av14. Three ravagers will at best kill three turn one, less if I went first and smoked (assuming they can still shoot after I shoot them), usually they miss a few times and a 50% chance to do anything to av12 on armor pen means usually you can count on only 1 roll on the damage chart per tank. Then you have what, 3-4 lances on raiders (so enough to take out one more tank from next turn one way or another), then some blasters scattered around that may have range to say at least stun another tank. Even best case you killed about have of say the chimera full of vets that are now halfway across the board and stunned a couple of others. Still have the hydras/manticores to deal with. If you shot them to keep them from shooting, then my vets loaded with plasma/melta are going to be near your side of the board, and you then still have three vendettas with the heavy bolters so thats 9 shots per that can hurt DE skimmers.
Of course this is never going to happen short of the DE player seizing on me. If I go first and he deployes, unless he has enough cover block LOS to all his stuff (including from 3 scouting vendettas) , even with cover saves I have enough long range shooting to kill several av10 hulls (or at least stun the ravagers so they arnt a threat and move on to transports) and my chimears full of vets have moved up 12 to get into range next turn. If he goes first I can always jsut reserve everything and have my stuff come in on a 3+ turn two due to astropath. Then I can overpower a flank and smoke alot of my stuff befor he shoots anything. S8 vs AV12 still needs a good mass of fire to kill stuff reliably, no russes means the lance rule is wasted, and DE just cant take that many S8 shots in most lists. heat lances are ok but like blasters you need to be close, which is not great vs a list loaded with plasma/melta/heavy flamers. As IG, I dont care about you assaulting me (I die anyway and I am going to make you need 6s to hit my tanks with haywires if I see you getting close) dont care about poison shots (cant hurt my tanks and kill guardsmen worse than bolters). I play eldar and DE alot and they tend to need to get lucky or have me roll horribly to have a good shots of winning, eldar because their arnt enough of them to weather my shooting, DE beause I out shoot them by a good bit but am still more durable than them and have numbers on my side.
Maybe it's just because my experience with DE are lists that have 20+ Dark Lances everytime
The following people are amazing and I love them: Wildcat, Timspork, Kias, Denada, susan, Sharp101, [GHSC]Ryctor, Matev, Matrias, ItBurns, Slapnuts, Dayspring, see317, and the unknown poster that sent me a box of Death Company! If you get them as Santees you should buy them amazing things!
Like I said, I have never seen DE not just completely vaporize a mech list, IG or otherwise. My experience with DE though is with a national tournament level player, so there is that
The following people are amazing and I love them: Wildcat, Timspork, Kias, Denada, susan, Sharp101, [GHSC]Ryctor, Matev, Matrias, ItBurns, Slapnuts, Dayspring, see317, and the unknown poster that sent me a box of Death Company! If you get them as Santees you should buy them amazing things!
dark eldar are odd. I hate them because they have given me the biggest beatings of my life, and then one game later i"m apologizing because i have not lost a single unit and he's tabled on turn 4.
Like I said, I have never seen DE not just completely vaporize a mech list, IG or otherwise. My experience with DE though is with a national tournament level player, so there is that
Let's not devolve into a dick measuring contest, but I'm 100% confident (And the numbers will back it up) that DE's primary weakness is mass AV12, namely mech IG.
Where was I dick measuring? I gave my experience, which is 100% accurate. You contradicted. I reiterated and gave an explanation for that experience. You contradicted and pulled your own dick out
The following people are amazing and I love them: Wildcat, Timspork, Kias, Denada, susan, Sharp101, [GHSC]Ryctor, Matev, Matrias, ItBurns, Slapnuts, Dayspring, see317, and the unknown poster that sent me a box of Death Company! If you get them as Santees you should buy them amazing things!
Where was I dick measuring? I gave my experience, which is 100% anecdotal
The thing is, it being a national tournament player or the scrub down the street has absolutely no effect on the numerical probability of stuff happening. Mass of AV 12 is a well recognized weakness of DE, 20 lances or no. Unless the IG player is an idiot, or the game takes place on planet bowling ball, it is literally impossible to reliably 'vaporize' a mech list, national tournament guy or no.
0
Options
CorporateLogoThe toilet knowshow I feelRegistered Userregular
It's not like the DE are the only army to have a hard time dealing with mech IG
Is my experience anecdotal? Yes. Is it 100% accurate as my experience? Yes, because I was not exaggerating or stretching any truth about it. 20+ Dark Lances in an army can and will utterly shut down a mech list. Be it destroying all the tanks, forcing them into LOS blocking terrain and making them therefore useless, or a combination of the two. Tournament players have a better understanding of target priority and importance, so the same list can give varying results to different people that play it... Which is why fail netlists are so funny.
Numerical averages and statistics in 40k are utterly useless once the game starts. They help us make informed decisions, but once dice hit the table, they mean nothing, and we all have first hand knowledge of that, I am sure. I've had a unit of marines survive 174 lasgun shots without a single failed wound. I've had 5 Lasguns kill 5 terminators. It happens. I have seen a DE list bring down 9+ chimera chassis in one turn of shooting in multiple games. I've had it happen to me.
Nax on
The following people are amazing and I love them: Wildcat, Timspork, Kias, Denada, susan, Sharp101, [GHSC]Ryctor, Matev, Matrias, ItBurns, Slapnuts, Dayspring, see317, and the unknown poster that sent me a box of Death Company! If you get them as Santees you should buy them amazing things!
0
Options
Gabriel_Pitt(effective against Russian warships)Registered Userregular
Yeah, Nax, your argument isn't working all that well. It only holds up like you're saying it does if the DE player has all the advantages and his opponent is letting him dictate all the terms of engagement once the game starts, and also assuming that the DE player is going to continually roll exceptionally well, and never have a flubbed turn to balance it out.
I'm not really even trying to make an argument, Gabe. It's happened to me, it's happened to people worse than me, and it's happened to people better than me. At RTTs, and big con tournaments, in league games, etc etc.
I'm going to actually go play 40k now. 1k necrons vs 1k IG. Huzzah
The following people are amazing and I love them: Wildcat, Timspork, Kias, Denada, susan, Sharp101, [GHSC]Ryctor, Matev, Matrias, ItBurns, Slapnuts, Dayspring, see317, and the unknown poster that sent me a box of Death Company! If you get them as Santees you should buy them amazing things!
0
Options
-Loki-Don't pee in my mouth and tell me it's raining.Registered Userregular
Yeah, the problem with lances is it only takes a few key dice rolls to go badly and you're fucked. It's why people take so many of them. They are not reliable at all.
I wish there was more of a Dark Eldar presence in our area. Neckbeards kinda skipped over that release and held onto IG, SW, BA, and GK.
I'd love to play Dark Eldar - I love their vehicles - but the whole S&M culture thing isn't really my bag.
My Kroot are going to be DE, using imperial tech. Landspeeder Storms for Venoms, modified Melta's for blasters, Missile launchers and such for other weapons. Trying to figure out what to do for a raider, thinking a Stormraven except the armor just looks to thick.
I've got reams of notes and sketches for what stuffs going to look like...it's taken some time but I'm starting to make actual headway.
Yeah, the problem with lances is it only takes a few key dice rolls to go badly and you're fucked. It's why people take so many of them. They are not reliable at all.
And that's my biggest annoyance with GW's rules in general. Warmachine has a nice bell curve on rolls.
I don't see why you can't just krootify the raider hull. Just make it like some primitive-tech hover skiff. Knock off some of the side railings, add some looted imperial bits, replace the weapons, some wood and bone pieces (look to wfb orks). imagine something along the lines of the Star Wars desert skiffs.
Assuming 21 Lances you're looking at 14 hits, 7 glances or pens, and maybe 2 dead vehicles. Less with smoke. It's certainly possible for the fatality count to be much higher and it'll definitely happen in some games, but the raw numbers aren't actually that good for taking out 10-12+ AV12 hulls that fast.
Where was I dick measuring? I gave my experience, which is 100% accurate. You contradicted. I reiterated and gave an explanation for that experience. You contradicted and pulled your own dick out
You said you know from a national champion.
So do I, and instead of naming him and playing "who knows the better DE player" I'm stating it's a fact that DE falters against mass AV. Aside from getting seized on by a strong shooting army, it's essentially their primary weakness.
So you think that just cold asserting thing is a stronger position than saying that it comes from someone who knows what they're talking about? Not exactly. Sorry, I don't believe it when folks I don't know say stuff on the internet. I'd much rather have the experience of someone with a long history of highly competitive play under their belt. It's not dickmeasuring when it has a huge impact on the reliability of the information being presented.
So you think that just cold asserting thing is a stronger position than saying that it comes from someone who knows what they're talking about? Not exactly. Sorry, I don't believe it when folks I don't know say stuff on the internet. I'd much rather have the experience of someone with a long history of highly competitive play under their belt. It's not dickmeasuring when it has a huge impact on the reliability of the information being presented.
"I know a national champion who says X"
"Yeah well I know Y national champion who says Z"
Now it's dickmeasuring about who knows the better national champion.
Everyday I wake up is the worst day of my life.
0
Options
valhalla13013 Dark Shield Perceives the GodsRegistered Userregular
No, now it's an argument between two positions with competent backers on each side.
Saying, "X player says this-" is an argument with supporting evidence.
Saying, "I know X player who says-" is akin to saying, "Check out my dick, it's so big, that's how you know it's awesome".
Aside, I didn't mean it in any sort of offensive way, Nax took it pretty personally. I didn't want to devolve this into, "I know so and so who says this", nevermind the fact that just because someone is a national champion doesn't mean their opinion is even all that great, especially when it's contradictory to the average (Not pointed at Nax, saying in general.) There are lots of people who have won events with 'shitty' lists because of matchups/players/etc. There's a lot more to this game than just lists, the best players can do well with damn near any list if they really want to.
TL-DR - Sorry if I offended you Nax. I wasn't trying to imply you were trying to act like an internet tough guy, I was trying to steer the conversation away from something that might turn into what it did.
I used the fact that both you and Nax have dealt with national champ DE players to come to a useful conclusion about the question at hand. Because of normal internet anonymity issues, I gave both of you the benefit of the doubt on issues of fact, i.e. that you really knew these guys, and did not hold it against you that you didn't name names.
Even if you don't feel that it's a good form of argumentation, I'd ask you to not discourage people, because it is quite useful to some of us.
Arguments from authority (which is what this is kind of an attempt at) are pretty awful no matter how you try to cut it. I'd be willing to bet you guys are talking about pretty different lists when you get right down to it. The metas in which these games took place are also significant because 40k is such a list building centered game at higher levels.
We don't have anything beyond arguments from authority in this hobby. The game is complex enough, the hobby diverse enough, and rigid enough(hard to switch armies) that there is no pure "scientific" method of answering a question beyond simple things that can be mathcrafted. And given the option between "people say" and "people who win national championships say," I'd like to know which is which so I can pay attention to the second and ignore the first.
We don't have anything beyond arguments from authority in this hobby. The game is complex enough, the hobby diverse enough, and rigid enough(hard to switch armies) that there is no pure "scientific" method of answering a question beyond simple things that can be mathcrafted. And given the option between "people say" and "people who win national championships say," I'd like to know which is which so I can pay attention to the second and ignore the first.
That's not the point I made. And actually, the people who tend to win big tournaments are the people who have put a lot of math and testing into the kinds of lists that they put together. Not as rigorous a process as a legit science field, of course, but they certainly aren't coming to their conclusions without a process that they go through. Regardless - "people who win national championships say," isn't even an argument to begin with. "People who win championships have shown me that their playtesting, and their actual practice games, indicate XYZ," is a very different statement.
Posts
Of course this is never going to happen short of the DE player seizing on me. If I go first and he deployes, unless he has enough cover block LOS to all his stuff (including from 3 scouting vendettas) , even with cover saves I have enough long range shooting to kill several av10 hulls (or at least stun the ravagers so they arnt a threat and move on to transports) and my chimears full of vets have moved up 12 to get into range next turn. If he goes first I can always jsut reserve everything and have my stuff come in on a 3+ turn two due to astropath. Then I can overpower a flank and smoke alot of my stuff befor he shoots anything. S8 vs AV12 still needs a good mass of fire to kill stuff reliably, no russes means the lance rule is wasted, and DE just cant take that many S8 shots in most lists. heat lances are ok but like blasters you need to be close, which is not great vs a list loaded with plasma/melta/heavy flamers. As IG, I dont care about you assaulting me (I die anyway and I am going to make you need 6s to hit my tanks with haywires if I see you getting close) dont care about poison shots (cant hurt my tanks and kill guardsmen worse than bolters). I play eldar and DE alot and they tend to need to get lucky or have me roll horribly to have a good shots of winning, eldar because their arnt enough of them to weather my shooting, DE beause I out shoot them by a good bit but am still more durable than them and have numbers on my side.
Dark Lances aren't as great as they seem. They only pen on a 5-6. With a wall of av12 I could see how he would have trouble.
I like to use my 3x Talos Haywire blaster to stun-lock transports since my army sucks to much at opening them up.
Actually, mass AV12 is one of DE's major weaknesses.
"Oh what a day, what a LOVELY DAY!"
Let's not devolve into a dick measuring contest, but I'm 100% confident (And the numbers will back it up) that DE's primary weakness is mass AV12, namely mech IG.
I had to learn things beyond sum() to come up with this: index(A1:A17, match(large(M2:M17, 1),M1:M17,0),1)
But it's good enough for now. The only issue is that I'll have to manually match up players in rounds 2 and 3. No biggie.
I have an accountant wife. Anytime I need a spreadsheet I get her to do it, lol.
Numerical averages and statistics in 40k are utterly useless once the game starts. They help us make informed decisions, but once dice hit the table, they mean nothing, and we all have first hand knowledge of that, I am sure. I've had a unit of marines survive 174 lasgun shots without a single failed wound. I've had 5 Lasguns kill 5 terminators. It happens. I have seen a DE list bring down 9+ chimera chassis in one turn of shooting in multiple games. I've had it happen to me.
I'd love to play Dark Eldar - I love their vehicles - but the whole S&M culture thing isn't really my bag.
I'm going to actually go play 40k now. 1k necrons vs 1k IG. Huzzah
You would be retiring your Tyranids if there were more Dark Eldar players. The Dark Eldar codex is like one big fuck you to Tyranids.
My Kroot are going to be DE, using imperial tech. Landspeeder Storms for Venoms, modified Melta's for blasters, Missile launchers and such for other weapons. Trying to figure out what to do for a raider, thinking a Stormraven except the armor just looks to thick.
I've got reams of notes and sketches for what stuffs going to look like...it's taken some time but I'm starting to make actual headway.
And that's my biggest annoyance with GW's rules in general. Warmachine has a nice bell curve on rolls.
I kinda want to do a unit of counts as Kroot for my DE army now too... hmmmm
Exploding collars.
You said you know from a national champion.
So do I, and instead of naming him and playing "who knows the better DE player" I'm stating it's a fact that DE falters against mass AV. Aside from getting seized on by a strong shooting army, it's essentially their primary weakness.
"I know a national champion who says X"
"Yeah well I know Y national champion who says Z"
Now it's dickmeasuring about who knows the better national champion.
So... there.
This level of competition is really silly.
Baseball is a game. What's your point?
Saying, "X player says this-" is an argument with supporting evidence.
Saying, "I know X player who says-" is akin to saying, "Check out my dick, it's so big, that's how you know it's awesome".
Aside, I didn't mean it in any sort of offensive way, Nax took it pretty personally. I didn't want to devolve this into, "I know so and so who says this", nevermind the fact that just because someone is a national champion doesn't mean their opinion is even all that great, especially when it's contradictory to the average (Not pointed at Nax, saying in general.) There are lots of people who have won events with 'shitty' lists because of matchups/players/etc. There's a lot more to this game than just lists, the best players can do well with damn near any list if they really want to.
TL-DR - Sorry if I offended you Nax. I wasn't trying to imply you were trying to act like an internet tough guy, I was trying to steer the conversation away from something that might turn into what it did.
Even if you don't feel that it's a good form of argumentation, I'd ask you to not discourage people, because it is quite useful to some of us.
That's not the point I made. And actually, the people who tend to win big tournaments are the people who have put a lot of math and testing into the kinds of lists that they put together. Not as rigorous a process as a legit science field, of course, but they certainly aren't coming to their conclusions without a process that they go through. Regardless - "people who win national championships say," isn't even an argument to begin with. "People who win championships have shown me that their playtesting, and their actual practice games, indicate XYZ," is a very different statement.