Daemons.... a shift in the GK paradigm (?)

[Nehekhare]

hm, people seem to really, really like tzeentch (or suffer from stockholm syndrome regarding that WD update)...

 

Even though screamers and flamers were nerfed badly without getting cheaper, horrors went down up to 40% in kill/pts effectivity, the (special) characters are left with useless random gimmickry (seriously: staff hits itself when it kills? swap one characteristic instead of glamour? random non-psi-powers? no more save reroll aura?) the chariot is just an expensive HS land speeder that can't fire on the move (albeit that's propably going to get FAQed) and the whole mono-army gets absolutely shut down by psyker defense (or on a 6 for everyone), all I hear is "OMG divination", "they're better now against easier targets" (LOL) and "warpflame isn't that bad" (still bad).

 

What am i missing?

[Captain Idaho]

Practical experience with the new Codex. ;)

[Aethernitas]

First of - as you said we can pretty much expect a FAQ for the chariot for sure.

About the rest. What I can't stop thinking about is the Tzeentchian version of the flying circus where you have five flying MCs bombarding you with psychic powers. Kairos with his reroll and his warlord trait also works really nice with the warpstorm table - granting you a little support by raining fire from the skies or something even more powerful. The Grimoire of true names (seems like the good ol' Demonhunters didn't guard it too well :D ) works quite nice with tzeentch (especially 4++ daemons) as you have a good chance for 3++ reroll 1s or even 2++ reroll 1s. Kairos rerolls again help. The changeling can swap any OR ALL of the characteristics. You can take Horrors in groups of 10 and they have 50% chance for rolling 'Bolt of Change' which is crazy on a 90 pts unit. Flamers are actually balanced now and versus non-MEQs better than before. Screamers were also balanced as for a W 2 jetbike with those stats it reasonably prized and the focus is now more on killing vehicles than pretty much everything with a 2+ armoursave.

 

Psyker defense like the Wolfs and the Eldars or even Shadow of the Warp are relics of an old edition. They will dissapear one by one when their codizes get upgraaded. They chose to balance the new coizes according to what they wanna do with 6th edition and I'm pretty sure it will pay of. Right now it's a little unfortunate that the balance is all over the place with some aspects.

[Nehekhare]

Practical experience with the new Codex.

oh come on...

@Aethernitas: exactly. "balanced" - aka nerfed. grimoire: ignore one unit, shoot another (or the bearer). most of the codices are relics, you may be surprised with new eldar and lucky deny the witch rolls. 90pts bolts shoot once only.

[Gentlemanloser]

 

Have you seen the Codex? The stuff the Greater Daemons can get makes them horrific to face, for example.

 

Yes.

 

I've also mathhammered how easy it is for us to Force Weapon ID the Greater Daemons.

 

 

Warpflame isn't so bad as it nets free kills or an opposing unit gets +1 FNP - not a problem when you consider there won't be many models left to take advantage of it, if any at all.

 

Warpflame is /meh.  When it's attached to Flamers who are now AP4.

 

And if you do lose a Marine, a T test nets you FnP for free for the rest of the game.

 

Bonus!

 

Even if they don't stack, your strikes can easily get 5+ FnP, potentially from only losing 2 models.

[Captain Idaho]

 

Practical experience with the new Codex. ;)

oh come on...

 

@Aethernitas: exactly. "balanced" - aka nerfed. grimoire: ignore one unit, shoot another (or the bearer). most of the codices are relics, you may be surprised with new eldar and lucky deny the witch rolls. 90pts bolts shoot once only. 

Well what do you want me to say? Have you played with or against this Codex? Do you not expect a bit of time to go by before players get to grips with the Codex?

 

Honestly, and with all due respect to everyone here, you really are doing the reverse Stuart Little thing.

[Morollan]

First of - as you said we can pretty much expect a FAQ for the chariot for sure.

 

Psyker defense like the Wolfs and the Eldars or even Shadow of the Warp are relics of an old edition. They will dissapear one by one when their codizes get upgraaded.

 

I'm not so sure of that. GW had plenty of opportunity to amend these rules via FAQ and did not do so. Wouldn't surprise me in fact if SitW was made tablewide in the same way as Eldar RoW. Might help make the poor old Nids vaguely competitive! 

[Captain Idaho]

 

 

Have you seen the Codex? The stuff the Greater Daemons can get makes them horrific to face, for example.

Yes.

 

I've also mathhammered how easy it is for us to Force Weapon ID the Greater Daemons.

 

Warpflame isn't so bad as it nets free kills or an opposing unit gets +1 FNP - not a problem when you consider there won't be many models left to take advantage of it, if any at all.

Warpflame is /meh. When it's attached to Flamers who are now AP4.

 

And if you do lose a Marine, a T test nets you FnP for free for the rest of the game.

 

Bonus!

 

Even if they don't stack, your strikes can easily get 5+ FnP, potentially from only losing 2 models.

Math hammer is flawed. If I let it rule my decision making I'd not have the success with my army I do today. It's only useful when considering units in isolation and doesn't take enough factors into consideration etc.

 

But I do admit that Greater Daemons aren't as good against GK as other armies. Just not completely under powered.

 

Besides, losing 1 Marine would be a god send! Getting hit by 4D6 high strength shots is pretty dangerous. Any Daemon player will realise the application of Warpflame needs focus firing to wipe units out wholesale - not hard with how much firepower they can put on opponents.

 

Besides, since when has a small squad of models (survivors) in power armour really benefited from 6+ FNP? It's not that big a deal.

[Nehekhare]

btw thx @aethernitas for writing that up.

 

idaho, even more flawed than mathhammer may be not taking into account valid sources of information.

[Captain Idaho]

I have the Codex, so I know my information is correct...

[Gentlemanloser]

Same...

 

 

Besides, since when has a small squad of models (survivors) in power armour really benefited from 6+ FNP? It's not that big a deal.

 

Tell that to the Blood Angels! ;)

[Aethernitas]

btw thx @aethernitas for writing that up.

 

You are welcome - I still think Chaos Daemons will definitely find their place. Even with GKs as opponents. Quote me on that in 2 month or so :)

[thade]

Mathhammer is, in my mind, much like food science: it's a sad joke masquerading as a real live science.

 

You *need* to isolate variables in science in order to test hypotheses and come to adequately formed theories. This works for things like gravity, light, and mass, but we have a real problem in food science because 1. we don't understand the nitty gritty of the digestive process  (i.e. from food into fuel) and 2. there are some clear problems that fall out (like it turns out that eating foods containing beta carotene decreases incidence rate of cancer but a beta carotene supplement increases incidence rate of cancer). The core problem is that we can't effectively isolate things like nutrients because we don't understand how they connect and interact with one another.

 

The same thing happens here. You can't just pair off choice units from each codex and say "Well, clearly this unit in the Demon codex sucks now because this other unit I tailored to annihilate it from the GK codex annihilates it" because all you're doing is isolating beta carotene. Really, you need to consider that demon unit along side other combinations of demon units, in various positions and arrangements and war gear configs and, really, there's this rather large sea of interactivity that you're completely eschewing in the same way food scientists do. It's not working out for them, and it's not gonna work out for us.

 

If you're going to Mathhammer, you need to fully comprehend that your constraints are likely far too tight to apply to anything other than the example you've contrived. Put yourself in the Demon player's shoes, build a full list, and try to tackle your favorite all-comers lists that you usually field with  your own army. How can you deal with it? How can you beat your own army? Really dig into that demon codex; don't just pick a unit and weigh it against another; that's not how this game (which has massive numbers of combinations insofar as list composition) works. This game is based upon in-list unit interaction and support. (It's also about super sweet looking models and a robust if at times wonky fluff, which we're allowed to cherry pick. YMMV.)

[Inquisitor Fox]

I have a degree in economics (cost/benefit analysis anyone?) with an emphasis on statistics.  I do use mathhammer, but I feel I use it correctly.

 

I use it to decide whether I will get more "kills", on average, with a psycannon vs a psilencer against enemy infantry of differing types (hint: psycannon is your better option).

 

I use it to decide if a psybolt enhanced TL autocannon will generate more pens and glances than a twin-linked lascannon against various AV's (hint: it does).

 

I do not use it to decide if Unit X will always win a fight against Unit Y, because there are too many variables for me to isolate a single change.  I may analyze if a powersword will outperform a powermaul against a Terminator armed target (hint: it doesn't), but I don't try to predict the outcome of an engagement with it.  It helps me decide which weapon to equip my sergeant with though.

 

Mathhammer really helps to decide if Option X will outperform Option Y in a single instance.  Which gun will generate more kills, on average, in a single volley.  That's analysis.

 

Anything more is about as accurate as weather forcasting on a good day (as in, not at all).

[Nehekhare]

a rulebook isn't weather or the human digestive process. It is an artefact intentionally made by a human being to communicate a set of parameters that are based on logic and math. This logic is comprehensible because of the intent being hermeneutically understandable and replicable in the first place or in other words: the guys that designed the stuff used the same math and logic as we do to discern how something works out on the table. If it doesn't work, the game doesn't work. 

[Captain Idaho]

How do you know that? What you're saying is the design team sits around theory hammering the new releases?

 

GW themselves have stated they don't work like that and if they did they'd come up with boring net lists as army lists. The fact these things exist unintentionally by GW (they're about a good, fluffy time) means they don't work that way.

 

That's just it though, math hammer nuts don't like this Codex because they can't math hammer it to pieces with the same accuracy. Instead you'll have build redundancy and play tactically instead of build a list and letting it play itself.

 

These are good things for the rest of us mind.

[Nehekhare]

The rules themselves are based on logic because they were made by human beings to work logically. where they are not, inconsistencies are recognized by the players and questions are frequently asked.

 

math is nothing but logic applied to ideal elements.

 

Every logic is prone to fault because it is based on assumptions. You blame the logic itself, but it is the assumptions that are to be blamed.

 

no battle is ideal, but the narrower the parameters, the more ideal circumstances become, i.e. firing 100 shots with certain statistics yield more or less certain results. Of course it's not perfect, but it is the best we have, because the empirical data gained from one or even 100 battles are in no way significant.

 

Still, we form opinions and make decisions. so we work with what we have and judge each element not only by the statistical results, but the statistics themselves by the situation that they are applied to. 

 

the ability to know whether and to what degree a given general or ideal principle applies to a certain real situation is known as prudence.

[Captain Idaho]

It's one thing to make mathematical deductions of what might happen if you perform action X, but the danger we see time and again is players forget all other variables, particularly when building lists.

 

I've lost track how many games I've won with a handful of models whilst my opponent has clearly one the attrition war, all because the opponent played math hammer and had a bit of luck with it.

[thade]

It's one thing to make mathematical deductions of what might happen if you perform action X, but the danger we see time and again is players forget all other variables, particularly when building lists.

The emphasis is mine and it's really the point I'm gunning for here. Mathhammer works for vacuum scenarios which do come up (as Inq. Nic points out): when that five marine assault team needs to decide between trying to flee or charging that seven model gene stealer unit, being able to crunch some quick numbers can (and should) weigh into that decision. Taking it from there out to building the list in the first place is where you can run into problems.

[AnImA8]

I find this mathhammer discussion truly bizarre because there appear to be some weird suppositions and contradictory statements on the "anti-mathhammer" side of things... Like this:

 

 

How do you know that? What you're saying is the design team sits around theory hammering the new releases?

 

GW themselves have stated they don't work like that and if they did they'd come up with boring net lists as army lists. The fact these things exist unintentionally by GW (they're about a good, fluffy time) means they don't work that way.

 

That's just it though, math hammer nuts don't like this Codex because they can't math hammer it to pieces with the same accuracy. Instead you'll have build redundancy and play tactically instead of build a list and letting it play itself.

 

These are good things for the rest of us mind.

For starters, Nehekhare is necessarily right about the internal logic and mathematics of the game being translated to the players through the rules. Regardless of whether or not GW thinks they're crafting a mathematical theory of the game or not, they actually have to be. You cannot make a decision to go from Rending on the To Hit to Rending on the To Wound roll--as they did from 4th to 5th--without doing so based on the obvious calculus that this is a statistically weaker rule. You cannot make the similar decision to go from a 4+ FNP to a 5+ without the obvious intention of debuffing that USR as well. To suppose that GW doesn't take the internal mathematics of the game into consideration when writing new releases doesn't make any sense.

 

Now is that to say that they crunch numbers on every possible iteration of every possible scenario their new rules could be used in? No. Their decisions are more likely that they simply recognize that a rule or a set of units is too powerful or too weak, and they tweak the numbers to compensate. But the recognition that the numbers are what need to be adjusted in order to adjust the power, is definitive proof of an underlying theory of mathematics internal to the game.

 

So there's definitely nothing wrong with a player using the same internal rules and structures that guide the game to inform his decisions. What's more, I'm confused by your last statement about not being able to mathhammer the codex, and about "building redundancy" instead of building a list that can "play itself." Building a list with a lot of redundancy is an extremely mathematically based decision. The only reason you would build redundancy into a list is to guarantee that you have the sufficient numbers of a type of unit or a type of weapon to combat the opponent given expected losses. There's nothing un-mathematical about this decision. In fact, lists that are designed to be hyper-redundant are almost explicitly designed to play themselves because they saturate the field with the same types of targets to make target priority hell, and they provide enough of the same types of units/weapons to ensure that no matter what you lose, you'll still have weapons to bring to bear. Is this what you were describing in that last statement or have I misread you?

 

 

It's one thing to make mathematical deductions of what might happen if you perform action X, but the danger we see time and again is players forget all other variables, particularly when building lists.

The emphasis is mine and it's really the point I'm gunning for here. Mathhammer works for vacuum scenarios which do come up (as Inq. Nic points out): when that five marine assault team needs to decide between trying to flee or charging that seven model gene stealer unit, being able to crunch some quick numbers can (and should) weigh into that decision. Taking it from there out to building the list in the first place is where you can run into problems.

 

I really don't think that there is quite such a big problem with using math to help with list construction. I mean this is essentially like saying that you should forsake a tool because it doesn't have the scope that others made it out to have. So some people forgot the variables and initial assumptions they made when they mathhammered something out. So what? Both you (Thade) and Captain Idaho clearly are smarter than that. So why remove the math from listbuilding altogether when you can just correct the mistake?

 

It is useful for me to know that roughly 230 pts-worth of GK Terminators and 230 pts-worth of Strikes have particular pros and cons over each other, and that those pros and cons are directly quantifiable. There is nothing dangerous about claiming that if I wanted to squeeze in a shooting-oriented unit over an assaulting unit, to fit with the rest of my army, then I should take the Strikes for almost double the amount of shots. The same as there's nothing dangerous about claiming that if I wanted an assault-oriented unit instead, I should take the Terminators for the 2+ armor and free Halberds/Hammers. It would be dangerous to conclude from this comparison that I should always shoot with the Strikes, or that I should always assault with the Terminators. But this is beyond the scope of our original comparison (and isn't math or logic, but fallacy), and honestly, anyone who decides that because their math said a unit outshot a tac squad means they can outshoot anything, deserves what comes to them.

I have a degree in economics (cost/benefit analysis anyone?) with an emphasis on statistics. I do use mathhammer, but I feel I use it correctly.

 

I use it to decide whether I will get more "kills", on average, with a psycannon vs a psilencer against enemy infantry of differing types (hint: psycannon is your better option).

 

I use it to decide if a psybolt enhanced TL autocannon will generate more pens and glances than a twin-linked lascannon against various AV's (hint: it does).

 

I do not use it to decide if Unit X will always win a fight against Unit Y, because there are too many variables for me to isolate a single change. I may analyze if a powersword will outperform a powermaul against a Terminator armed target (hint: it doesn't), but I don't try to predict the outcome of an engagement with it. It helps me decide which weapon to equip my sergeant with though.

 

Mathhammer really helps to decide if Option X will outperform Option Y in a single instance. Which gun will generate more kills, on average, in a single volley. That's analysis.

 

Anything more is about as accurate as weather forcasting on a good day (as in, not at all).

Bingo! Everything we do in this game has an opportunity cost. Weighing that cost with the benefit of a choice versus the benefit of alternatives is really the basis for strategy and tactics in general.

[Captain Idaho]

Redundancy - having tactical options if things go wrong.

 

Of course there is an element of maths involved. If you go back over what I've written you'll see I'm not talking about disregarding it. I'm actually talking about the other factors not part of the equation of X taking on Y which are still relevant.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

LOL! Grey Knights, Necrons, Imp Guard, Blood Angels and Space wolves, those books are in dire need of updates (and much nerfing). This comment made my day: "Ward wrote us a great book". He wrote you a piece of so bad that people didnt like to play against it back then, and while the now balanced and good 6ed codices are comming it (notice how equal daemons, Da and CSM are in power lv as opposed to the Power creep :cusse in 5ed whichyou obviously preferred since it makes it easier for you to win), it becomes clearer and clearer how horrifyingly God-awful these Ward dexes actually are. For your info, its not daemons that are "worthless", its Grey Knights that are obscene, just like many of those horrible 5ed books.

Blah, sometimes I loose faith in the world when I read stuff written by obvious powergamers who care nothing, nothing at all for balance, and only want an instant-win army (i.e. one of those outrageous Ward dexes).

Good sir...by the power of your well reasoned, persuasive arguments, I will henceforth play only Chaos Daemons!

And it seems like they have. So far 6ed dexes are comparable in power lv. Now, we only have to wait for them to release new codexes for the horrible OP (power creep was awful, and Grey Knights is one of the worst) 5ed codices. And yes, the Grey Knights codex is is dire need of an "update". Frankly, the same is true for most works polluted by Mat Ward when I come to think of it.

As for the daemon dex. While it is not "OP powerful" like you guys seem to like here (no surprise, as you probably play Grey Knights for a reason I guess), it is certainly a better codex as it is a million times more balanced to say the least...

You are now my favourite poster

I'm absolutely certain you're just a beer and peanuts player...

Haha, good one...

Carry on tarnishing the entire sub forum. The vast majority of us were here, playing GK, with the old Dameonhunters Dex.

Probably the worst dex in the entire life of 40k.

But we all some kind of baby seal clubbing powergamers.

/golfclap

Seconded

Because the rest of the thread is 'words defending a terrible codex' and 'words pointing out how we curbstomp them even harder now', I'll just save time and offer up these simple facts;

- Daemons have no frags, outside of Slanneshi units (I assume they still have the assault+defensive grenades of last edition). I sit behind an Aegis line, or in any area terrain. Please charge me, so I can go first. If I get the charge on you, psk-out ensures I still go first.

- On the other side of the coin, Knights melee really well for their points. Purifiers, Terminators and Paladins with halberds curbstomp all but Slanneshi stuff, because our force weapons now work due to loss of EW. Add in Daemonbane and Preferred Enemy...melee is one-sided. Bloodletters get hard-countered by a Terminator blob, which is already a popular Troops choice for us anyway. Strikes deny and are efficient shooting against Daemons, although I agree they are screwed in melee with most Daemon units.

- Daemons have limited access to AP3 and AP2 ranged weapons. Flamers are now AP4, and grant random FNP too (because GW doesn't nerf xenos once, thrice I say!). Our army (barring Henchmen/IG Allies) is primarily 3+ and 2+ infantry. So, can't kill us effectively from range, outside of Soulgrinders or Ku-Gath's bomb of pus (or whatever Flyer/new kit they get that murders Marines).

- On the other side of the coin, our shooting is DESIGNED to kill Daemons. High ROF, Rending on psycannons, S5 psybolt option...hell, even dirt-cheap Acolyte storm bolters will take their toll due to 'Prescience'. Psycannons are especially relevant against Soulgrinders, which the PsyDreads suck against (can glance to death, but it will take too long). NDK and Vindicare offer other ways to get rid of the only vehicles in the Daemon army. And of course, we still have hammers sprinkled throughout our squads for a hail-mary swing in melee to end it. T3 melts to our firepower, T4 lasts only slightly longer, and of course this still doesn't take into account 'Preferred Enemy' and 'Prescience'. As a footnote, plasma cannon servitors will wipe out all but Plaguebearers pretty easily and at dirt-cheap cost.

I'm just not seeing it guys. You can cry 'cheese Knights!!1!!', you can dismiss the raw math as irrelevant, you can even claim amazing unheard synergies in the new 'dex...it just doesn't matter. They're xenos (of sorts), so at best they'll be as good as 'Crons, which is to say solid but not top-tier. Given our in-built advantages, our weaponry and abilities, and our heavy anti-infantry focus (shooting and melee), Knights have the tools to dismantle any Daemon list out there.

That said, I don't discount the possibility of a superb general making them work. We recently had a Henchmen/Sisters combo list (wasn't even optimised much really) win a major tournament. Player skill can override meta, but its gonna take someone with real skills to make Daemons competitive. Most of us simply aren't at that level of play on a regular basis, and Daemon players have been out in the cold until very recently (with their short-lived success of Flamer/Screamer spam).

[thade]

I really don't think that there is quite such a big problem with using math to help with list construction. I mean this is essentially like saying that you should forsake a tool because it doesn't have the scope that others made it out to have. So some people forgot the variables and initial assumptions they made when they mathhammered something out. So what? Both you (Thade) and Captain Idaho clearly are smarter than that. So why remove the math from listbuilding altogether when you can just correct the mistake?

That is the other extreme, sure. My concern is (as it has been) that there are players who place far too much emphasis on some myopic vacuum mathhammer and they suffer for it, either due to plainly flawed lists or something more mundane, like refusing to try a unit because they can too easily craft a hard counter for it from another codex. (The Brotherhood Champion and Callidus come to mind; I've gone on at length about both before. <3) Let me explain my overt aversion to mathhammer a bit.

 

It's over-used and overly depended upon.

 

I'm all for incorporating a little statistical know-how into tactical decisions in a game and in building a list. But, you know...(analogy time). Stats show us that a drink every day is very good for your heart, possibly due to an across the board stress reduction. "A glass of wine a day," they say. That said, health professionals in my friends and family have explained something else to me: they can never tell a patient that "a glass of wine a day is good for your health". When that comes up, they say "Yea, it's fine for you in extreme moderation," then they launch into a spiel about health detriments attached to over-use; because, if a health professional tells a patient anything remotely like "Drinking is good for you", it's been shown to (perhaps intuitively) increase usage for that patient. Grossly.

 

I wonder how ubiquitous that effect is in other arenas. We have a lot of mathhammer aficionados in this gaming scene, and rather few of them caution against "over usage"...Inq. Nic being a rather stellar exception there.

 

It stagnates list-design and eschews the game's real strengths in favor of meta.

 

Interwebz Wonder Lists have an extremely boring theme to them; they're plainly formulaic and patentedly reductionist in design.  These lists will virtually always feature multiple in-all-ways identical units, which sort of flies in the face of the idea that each of those models is (supposedly) meant to represent a warrior with like a half-century's worth of combat notched into his gauntlet. Now, I'm not saying this is endemic, of course...we certainly have players who focus on the fluff or even build web-style meta'd lists and still eagerly paint tiny little nameplates on each of their marines, but it does mean that sooooo many games are extremely similar.

 

People buy into it and use it to justify either not trying a unit that the Interwebz hates, or to explain away why a single experiment with such a unit was a failed one. It can discourage trying fun units, painting new models, and make what would otherwise be one of the most complex and massive games into what might appear to be a solved problem, because the scope has been so reduced by the meta that it just might be.

 

This game's real strength is that it allows a great deal of customization. So, when I speak out against mathhammerz, it's not because I think it should be utterly disregarded: it's because I fear that it all too often causes players to utterly disregard everything else.

[Aethernitas]

random thoughts to the last few posts:

 

Nobody denies the usefulness of math and I'm myself juggling numbers in my head all the time when it comes to dicisions about which units I should charge or which unit to shoot with which weapon.

 

While math is extremely useful only a supercomputer could even beginn to juggle all the numbers needed to convincingly simulate a warhammer game. Too many variables. That's of course no even considering playerskill. Warhammer is not chess as chess is iherently balanced and the number of possible scenarios while incredibly high itself is nothing compared to a warhammer game.

 

If you play Warhammer only for the numbers to maximize your chance of winning you chose the wrong game. Winning of course is enjoyable in any game and warhammer is no exception but to let the numbers alone dictate what raece you play and which units in what combination then for me you missed the underlying purpose - as GW have stated themselves many times,.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

@ Thade: No one is denying you can aspie out and take raw stats too seriously. I think the point of contention is that you equally can't just discard raw stats as a measure of effectiveness. Obviously, you still need to fit that unit/combo into a real legal army list, and make it work in a real game. But it does help to model what the unit can and can't handle, prior to doing that. Raw stats is one measure, in-game effectiveness is another. The real test of 'is this unit working for me or not?' is playing heaps of games with it. That way whatever its performance is, it'll average out after enough games. 

 

@ Aethernitas: I don't think anyone does, at least not consciously  You get into the game because you think X race looks cool and appeals to you, then you try and make a winning list with them. Also, as I mentioned before, if you are a superb general, you can make just about anything work. Maybe not Pyrovores :P but most things.