Max GK power?

[breng77]

See how easy that was? First people are talking about how horrible Crowe is, then after an example of him actually being a pretty decent character, people are so determined to nay say him that no matter what example you put up the argument changes to "well no duh, because Crowe is way better than them". Which was my entire point to begin with. Too easy.

 

So if I can come up with one example of a unit working then it is a perfectly good unit? Regardless of if there are better choices? If that is the case then no bad units exist in this game, by your reasoning. If that is how you feel you are entiltled to feel that way, but that does not mean you are going to win games using those units against equally skilled players players using better units. It is not that Crowe does not have uses, or that he cannot do anything, but even in your example he did not make his points back, and a hand to hand specialist character taking out a non-Hand to hand unit, does little to enhance my opinion of Crowe.

 

Let me put it this way, if Crowe did not make purifiers troops would anyone ever include him in a competitive list? He does not enhance in any other way, and is not that great in combat. He is good at what he can do (kill independent characters, or Monsterous Creatures), but against most hand to hand units he is just not worth his points.

 

 

So it comes down to how much of a Crowe Tax to you consider it, would you take him without the purifiers at 80 points, 90 points, 100? Honestly I think he is about as good as a Space Wolf Lone wolf, except that he gives up a kill point, and lacks FNP, and eternal warrior.

[thade]

I don't mean to pick on you, breng...

 

So if I can come up with one example of a unit working then it is a perfectly good unit?

Of course not; however, one good example is a perfectly good counter-argument to "this unit is useless" as it demonstrates a use. That's pretty typical in logic battles: premise says X is always true, Y is shown to be an exception, thus the premise is false. When people speak in absolutes, this is how to show them there they're not actually dealing with absolutes.

 

Regardless of if there are better choices?

This statement is a loaded one as it assumes some sort of clear ranking system. There is no such thing, as I (and others) have been trying to show. Crowe is very difficult to use, and there are certainly easier choices, but it's not clear that easier is always better.

 

If that is the case then no bad units exist in this game, by your reasoning.

I can only speak for myself here, but I always operate on the premise that each unit serves some purpose; i.e. each unit is good enough at something that it's fieldable. Certainly there are units that don't work for people, and even units that may be "bad" as you say. Really it comes down, for me, to allocation of responsibility. If I try a unit and fail to kill anything with it (Crowe is a fine example, the Callidus was my previous example, Vanguard before that) or it just dies quickly taking all of its points with it, I can easily place responsibility on the unit itself, blaming it. "That unit sucks." Note that I am implicitly displacing responsibility to that unit from me. This is no different than me beating somebody and them blaming my army book, displacing responsibility of winning from me and responsibility of losing from them all to the books/armies involved. It's not that I'm ever actually a better (or worse) commander, but the codecies/lists/units involved are actually responsible.

 

If my army loses, it is not because of the list. It is because of me.

 

Otherwise, skill isn't a factor. And I definitely both think it is a factor and wish it to be.

 

There are units I am good with and units that I don't yet understand. Intrinsically bad units? I'm not familiar with those.

[breng77]

I can only speak for myself here, but I always operate on the premise that each unit serves some purpose; i.e. each unit is good enough at something that it's fieldable. Certainly there are units that don't work for people, and even units that may be "bad" as you say. Really it comes down, for me, to allocation of responsibility. If I try a unit and fail to kill anything with it (Crowe is a fine example, the Callidus was my previous example, Vanguard before that) or it just dies quickly taking all of its points with it, I can easily place responsibility on the unit itself, blaming it. "That unit sucks." Note that I am implicitly displacing responsibility to that unit from me. This is no different than me beating somebody and them blaming my army book, displacing responsibility of winning from me and responsibility of losing from them all to the books/armies involved. It's not that I'm ever actually a better (or worse) commander, but the codecies/lists/units involved are actually responsible.

 

If my army loses, it is not because of the list. It is because of me.

 

Otherwise, skill isn't a factor. And I definitely both think it is a factor and wish it to be.

 

There are units I am good with and units that I don't yet understand. Intrinsically bad units? I'm not familiar with those.

 

I agree and disagree. Skill is a factor but not the only factor. If You play an army full of tactical marines with no upgrades, and lose to me playing all landraider redeemers because you cannot hurt me in anyway, and we paly kill points you lose because of your list despite whatever skill you or I may possess. Now this is an extreme example, but there are "good" and "bad" units in this game (as much as I wish there were not) or maybe I should say better and worse, or more points efficient/optimal. It is not that it is impossible to have those units do something, or that you cannot win games through skill with those units, but you are handicapping yourself when you do and you might win more games if you took more optimal choices. IMO if he is really earning his keep your opponent has made a mistake. I have played against him and he managed not put a wound on anything prior to dying. I have played with him and had him take out a squad of 30 ork boyz in close combat. So I know that he can accomplish things, but you really need to spend time/tactics/points to get him to achieve anything of note. When there are other choices that do more for your army you cannot argue that he is "great".

 

My question still stands "If Crowe did not make purifiers troops would you take him?" If not how cheap would he need to be for you to consider him? That is the "Crowe tax" IMO, it is the difference of what crowe would be worth if he did not give you a force org change.

 

If you want a true example of a bad unit take the Tyranid Pyrovore, a unit that does nothing for the army that another unit does not do cheaper and better. Crowe is like this in many ways, there is really nothing he is good at that another unit cannot do cheaper or better, except for make purifiers into troops. This does not mean he is unplayable, just that the only reason people take him is because they want purifiers as troops. Until I see people running him in lists with no Purifiers, I will have a hard time buying that people are taking Crowe because of what he brings to the table outside of the force org change. He is decent in combat for his points, his stat line is good for 150 points, but the stances hinder his overall effectiveness, as does lack of IC rules.

[thade]

I agree and disagree. Skill is a factor but not the only factor. If You play an army full of tactical marines with no upgrades....Now this is an extreme example...

So extreme that it doesn't do real credit to your thesis. :D Still, I'm not saying you are wrong. Certainly there are ways to handicap yourself in this game, i.e. if you don't account for AV14 in a list build and lack the numbers/durability to outlast them. (For instance, many Ork players I've played against simply ignore my Land Raider; literally. And they do still win at times.) Crowe, or any single "how does this unit work?" choice may be a handicap (almost any unit you are new with is) but it will not in itself cost you the game. If you take Crowe and you lose, it is not Crowe's fault. That's my point.

 

When there are other choices that do more for your army you cannot argue that he is "great".

I'm not actually asserting that he's "great"; I'm not ranking him at all. Really my point is that he can't be quickly written off. Vanguard was for a very long time...and after two years of my championing them on this site they've gone from a uniform "they're too expensive" ranking to actually seeing some field time and getting some credit. Hammernators are very easy to apply (durable, strong, obviously points-efficient); easier but not better. It was true then; it may be true now. That remains to be seen.

 

My question still stands "If Crowe did not make purifiers troops would you take him?"

I do in fact intend to do precisely this. I haven't painted him yet though; he's late on the GK painting docket.

 

Re: Tyranids I can't speak for them; my understanding of them is very limited (I don't play them and see them rarely) and I keep seeing people say that the FAQ shafted them. It's a topic for another thread, but one I'm curious to dig into. The one player I know who uses them is very capable with the new codex; she and I have drawn literally every game we've played (one of each game type even). It's always a fun match.

[Elric the Silvercoat]

Really if he didn't have the Daemon Weapon and had IC people would use the living ;) out of him because he would be good other than that. And can we get back to the Topic of getting the Max GK Power form Libby and stuff If you want to talk about Crowe start another topic.

[breng77]

Well nids them selves are ok, but the Pyrovore is universally panned as terrible... that aside. If you make a solid list with Crowe and lose, it is not Crowe's fault, it is more a question of could those 150 points have contributed to you winning in a more meaningful way than being spent on Crowe. I'm interested to hear why you are deciding to use Crowe without any Purifiers as he is the only of the 3 Force org altering characters I cannot see fielding without taking advantage of the change. Draigo is a beast and still gets Grand Strategy, Cotaez still gets to reroll/force reroll sieze, and shoot out flankers for dirt cheap. I can see uses for Crowe, and I have run into situations where I wished I had him, but they have been few and far between.

[breng77]

Really if he didn't have the Daemon Weapon and had IC people would use the living out of him because he would be good other than that. And can we get back to the Topic of getting the Max GK Power form Libby and stuff If you want to talk about Crowe start another topic.

 

I agree about Crowe. Did you have anything else to add about the Max Gk power, I though we kind of figured out that you could get S 10 + 3 d6 to pen + grenades, + Quick silver to go at I 10 on your turn, but it will take nearly your whole army to do it. You won't fit inside most transports, and it is overkill in almost all situations.

[thade]

And can we get back to the Topic of getting the Max GK Power form Libby and stuff If you want to talk about Crowe start another topic.

Sorry to offend, Mr. Moderator-in-spirit.

 

I actually did intend to create a new thread for Crowe (see above), but the sub-topic in here persisted long enough that I felt compelled to speak (I mean, I felt responsible for it); really my purpose wasn't to defend Crowe...more to analyze/critique what I see as common unit analysis, which is just as applicable here as anywhere. Though it could also merit its own thread. ;)

[Elric the Silvercoat]

Sorry didn't mean to seem....bossy I have just had been a Mod for another Forum site and had alot of rules to have to keep in line that it sometimes comes out....I am sorry.

[thade]

Sorry didn't mean to seem....bossy I have just had been a Mod for another Forum site and had alot of rules to have to keep in line that it sometimes comes out....I am sorry.

Oh, don't sweat it, man. I mean, you were right. ;)

[Gentlemanloser]

Now, getting away from the uselessness of Crowe (and no, no one, bar someone trying to validate Crowe or running a specifically crowe centric themed list will ever use if if you don't want Purifiers as troops), and back to the topic at hand.

 

Shall we re open the can of worms about whether Mordrak and Thawn can cast powers seperate to thier unit in order to get MOAR GK power? :)

 

/devil

[Something Wycked]

Hah, don't think that's necessary, Gentleman. Strength 10 is the highest you can get to, and 3d6 is the maximum possible penetration with two Librarians. With the various grenades attached to the unit, the MOPAR issue is fairly well settled :rolleyes: