Chaos at close combat

[the jeske]

Guys, I think Jeske might be an alien. He doesn't seem to understand humor or hugs.  

 

Anyway, as far as C:CSM and melee choices go, we don't have any great options, but that is largely due to the problems with assault in general in 6th. BA assault armies are in a similar position- delivery is tricky if not impossible, and the risk/reward benefits of assault are out of whack. It is rough to be an assault army right now.

I understand it humor very well , but laughing at something abstract is wierd at best.

 

 

 

 

I've never fought a BA army in 6th that couldn't deliver an assault unit to the right place.

with plasma being again the anti troop weapon of choice this edition deep striking near the opposing army aint a very good option for meq .And deep striking a huge LR never was a good idea + the LR would still have to sit there for a whole turn , which may have been ok if there were no necron and people didnt have to deal with IG . deep striking a LR seems like giving your opponent free kills of not just a unit , but a high cost transport also.

[Iron Sage]

Yes, but malisteen, the free hugs are from a girl who kisses girls.

as a guy, i find these hugs to be fairly priced. the delux edition is obviously from a girl who kisses boys.

:D

[Iron Father Ferrum]

 

Guys, I think Jeske might be an alien. He doesn't seem to understand humor or hugs.  

 

Anyway, as far as C:CSM and melee choices go, we don't have any great options, but that is largely due to the problems with assault in general in 6th. BA assault armies are in a similar position- delivery is tricky if not impossible, and the risk/reward benefits of assault are out of whack. It is rough to be an assault army right now.

I understand it humor very well , but laughing at something abstract is wierd at best.

 

 

 

> 

I've never fought a BA army in 6th that couldn't deliver an assault unit to the right place.

with plasma being again the anti troop weapon of choice this edition deep striking near the opposing army aint a very good option for meq .And deep striking a huge LR never was a good idea + the LR would still have to sit there for a whole turn , which may have been ok if there were no necron and people didnt have to deal with IG . deep striking a LR seems like giving your opponent free kills of not just a unit , but a high cost transport also.

 

 

I don't play IG or Necrons.  I play C:SM, Eldar, and when I'm feeling squirrelly, C:CSM.  And besides, even if I do blow up the Land Raider, it doesn't matter -- because the contents can still launch an assault in their turn.  So tell me, how did that example NOT prove my point?

[happybounce]

There is no inherent good or bad when it comes to 40k (or anything else for that matter)

The best argument against this is that, were it true, any advice (and even the forum it is written in) would be pointless

p.s. I hope you're not angry.

That's my secret, Captain--I'M ALWAYS ANGRY ;)

No my job is way too time consuming and stressful to get angry about 40k for real (most of the time)! I just like arguing about stuff on the internet. Speaking of . . .

I should explain what I mean when I say there is no inherent good or bad. I am arguing that to some degree, almost everything is conditional. This shouldn't be taken to mean that there is NO meaning--rather, that meaning exists within a variety of contexts. If something can be applied to more contexts than others, that will be "good" most of the time. So, for example, we can look at the Fast Attack options in the Chaos codex, and ask, "what's good (that is, efficient for points, particularly effective, consistently performs) against MEQ armies?" Considering that MEQ armies at any given moment make up well over half (and perhaps as high as three-fourths) of most armies played this is a relevant question, especially in a tournament scenario.

Using this context we see that there are two options with AP3 weapons. One is 160 points for 5 jump infantry; the other is 170 points for a flyer, with the option to upgrade to an AP 3 flamer for free. Both will tear apart a unit of Vanilla Marines in optimal conditions. However, the 160 point unit (Warptalons) are far more vulnerable than the 170 point unit (the Helldrake). If they show up from reserve they don't get to attack right away leaving them vulnerable; if placed on the table turn one they can be shot at with greater ease; they can be hit back in close combat; and FAR more weapons work effectively against them.

By looking at this, we can analyze that the Helldrake is more likely to do damage to multipe MEQ units by surviving longer; moreover, it is more likely that it will be able to do damage before being neutralized. It is clearly better at it's intended job than Warp Talons when equipped with a Baleflamer.

I have no problem with this. But I think a big issue for internet 40k discussions in general is to take something that's good in a specific context, and declare that it is INHERENTLY good, or somehow automatically better or a "must have". I don't think Warp Talons are the best, but I wouldn't discourage someone from playing them without a good reason because they are "bad"--and I wouldn't tell someone to take a Baledrake because it's "good" without similar reason.

I still contend that the Baledrake is not an automatic. Yes, it's very good at what it does--and it's clearly an undercosted bargain. But everyone keeps saying the four main 40k tournament armies are Necron flyers, Grey Knights, Space Wolves and Imp Guard; the Baledrake is awesome against two of those units, but NOT awesome against the other two! Moreover, if someone is running Dragowing or Loganwing, the Baledrake is going to be no more powerful than a Hellhound. Telling each other that it's "good", and the only good thing we get, encourages people to spam the hell out of it. Not only does this make the game WAY less fun when running against an army it works well against (50-75% of played armies), against an army it's not great against those problems will be compounded.

I now conclude this clever, well-thought out internet argument that no one will read.

[zyl-]

So would my C:SM.  Vindi, two plasma cannons, and two TFCs -- more templates than even that can handle.

 

You know, I would have thought that to be true as well, but in actual practice, it's very hard to get a meaningful amount of template (even large blast) wounds into one of these cultist blobs. I speak from experience. When I played against said army I used iron warriors theme, which is needless to say, pie. Perhaps I was having bad luck, but I couldn't get a shot in on them that could kill a meaningful amount of cultists before turn2, which was when they went ape:cuss on all infantry present. His army setup was actually quite a bit different than a khorn army, and the cultists he used were just screening for noise marines and obliterators in the back.

 

To the point, though. Even when he used "less than optimal" deployment for avoiding templates, I could still only get roughly 5 models under a large blast, and then he had cover saves. I'd like to play against him more to see if I was just having a hard time (it was a doubles game, and i paired with the local.. [dude who sucks]) or what.

[Nehekhare]

clever, well-thought out internet argument that no one will read.

disproven: I have read it ;)

 

I think the problem can be solved by considering that the number of conditions is not infinite. In fact, they are pretty narrow: a few deployment options, a few missions, cover or no cover, the rest is statistics and the laughter of mad dice gods. Within those set conditions, a unit's performance can be adaequately measured (e.g. the more a unit's performance becomes independent from those conditions, the more relyable it is). Although it may seem so, this measurement can never refer to inherent qualities (as there is no such thing as a quality without context), but only to qualities displayed within the given frame of reference (i.e. 40k games).   

 

That way it makes sense to give advice about certain units without claiming to speak absolute truths. It just happens that within the circumstances given by normal games of 40k, certain units perform in certain ways. Of course that leaves plenty of room for error, too ;)

 

But ultimately, to share experience and knowledge of these contextual qualities is in any case a better advice than to just say "do whatever you like" (i.e. none).

[the jeske]

 

 So, for example, we can look at the Fast Attack options in the Chaos

codex, and ask, "what's good (that is, efficient for points,

particularly effective, consistently performs) against MEQ armies?"

 Considering that MEQ armies at any given moment make up well over half

(and perhaps as high as three-fourths) of most armies played this is a

relevant question, especially in a tournament scenario.

but the drake is good against every army out there , save for a pure +2sv army and against those we spam plasma in our csm/pms/oblits . one would have to play some sort of wierd compostion tournament to not have both of those in a chaos army in 6th ed , but if that was a no go , how could a terminator army be ok .

 

same with bikes doing anti av13+ . just oblits is not enough . technicly we could take IG ally [blobs with las or vendettas with melta vets etc] and it wouldnt be a bad idea. Only it would force us to run a DP as our HQ [no bikes , no place to put a lord/sorc] or just huron [but then we lack a melee HQ] , that limits the army too much[DPs higher cost , grounding problem , vunerability to flyers and anti flyer meta etcIG+DP are not being  cheaper , because of the high tax on getting vendettas]. the bikes do 2 things at the same time [anti av , bodyguard for hq] and are cheap enough to be viable . there for they are good.

[zyl-]

Would it be acceptable to not take bikes in an army with Typhus as HQ and go triple drake? That would solve the HQ problem somewhat, though I guess Typhus builds are probably not considred tournament worthy? (no idea why)

[derpasaurus]

Has anyone considered taking a Chosen unit armed with 5 flamers? or a mix of flamers and Melta? I'm not sure how it would play out. Against hordes an 8 man squad with 5 flamers in a rhino would be brutal, even against Meq and Teq it would hurt with sheer weight of fire.

Mine are similar. 2 flamers, 2 melta, 2 power weapons. Infiltration does pretty well by that build, too. I stick Huron with them and just get up close and personal quickly, as that's where he and they both shine.

[AekoldHelbrass]

Well if we are back to talking mele, has anyone used something similar to the following setup yet?

35 mok cultists with Kahrn

I did it without MoK on cultists. Gives you plenty of extremely cheap wounds plus someone to throw into a challenge, and Khârn makes it up in wounds. Just think about it:

- cultists are so lame no one would really care for additional number of attacks

- when you have a horde of 35 you will hardly make them all to the fight, some of them will stay too far behind, so you're basically not using your MoK (because it sucks this edition, unlike edition when it gave pure +1A)

- instead of taking 35 MoK cultists you could take 2x25 cultists without MoK

 

Anyway, as far as C:CSM and melee choices go, we don't have any great options, but that is largely due to the problems with assault in general in 6th. BA assault armies are in a similar position- delivery is tricky if not impossible, and the risk/reward benefits of assault are out of whack. It is rough to be an assault army right now.

- BA have melee threat range about 20"

- BA can spam reliable melee units

- BA scatter 6" so they can make you lose your icons and characters with a little help from meltapistols, if you placed them incorrectly

 

Seriously, if you want to kick BA in melee - your only bet is zombies or Terminators. Well, maybe bikers. 

 

Would it be acceptable to not take bikes in an army with Typhus as HQ and go triple drake?

Play higher than 2000 and take 5 drakes and bikers, or 4 drakes and 2 bikers, or 3 drakes 2 bikers and spawn.

[happybounce]

clever, well-thought out internet argument that no one will read.

disproven: I have read it

I think the problem can be solved by considering that the number of conditions is not infinite. In fact, they are pretty narrow: a few deployment options, a few missions, cover or no cover, the rest is statistics and the laughter of mad dice gods. Within those set conditions, a unit's performance can be adaequately measured (e.g. the more a unit's performance becomes independent from those conditions, the more relyable it is). Although it may seem so, this measurement can never refer to inherent qualities (as there is no such thing as a quality without context), but only to qualities displayed within the given frame of reference (i.e. 40k games).

That way it makes sense to give advice about certain units without claiming to speak absolute truths. It just happens that within the circumstances given by normal games of 40k, certain units perform in certain ways. Of course that leaves plenty of room for error, too

But ultimately, to share experience and knowledge of these contextual qualities is in any case a better advice than to just say "do whatever you like" (i.e. none).

Haha I stand corrected . . . about no one reading it!

I contest that saying there is no inherent, automatic "good/bad" is not the same as saying "do whatever you like". Rather, knowing what their play style is, what their local meta is, and what they want to do with the list is AS important (if not more important) than what else is in their list. As for limited options--who ever sets up their army the exact same way, with the exact same scenery on the exact same board? Against the same opponents? I have played more games of 40k against my best friend than everyone else combined over the last 10 years, and we've never had a game that went the same, or even started the same.

I guess a lot of it comes down to what people think is most important. Like how much of a person's success at 40k is related to their list, versus their ability as a player, the choices they make in game, and luck? I think the list is a part of it but player skill and choices are far more important.

[Hellios]

I've certainly played on tables that are the same (tables with fixed terrain), and I've certainly seem games set up to be very similar to each other (In all likelihood it was not the same because models probably had a slightly different positions).

 

 

As for what is most important? Assuming you haven't made a list that is so bad that it is crippled against common foes... Luck... You can have the best list and be able to play it against any foe with your eyes shut, but if my luck is hot there is nothing you can do.

[the jeske]

 

and what they want to do with the list is AS important (if not more important) than what else is in their list

no it is not . an army with better units will work better then one with bad ones. you make an army with zerkers and another one with csm/pms and the second one will work better . one dude will take 2-3 drakes another will take 2-3 raptors , and the dude with the drakes will have a better win ratio , but that is not all, because his units are good there will be less of "my unit does nothing , my army is worthless" moments , so even losing will let him learn stuff[the dude with the raptors will only learn that he shouldnt be using raptors and he could do that by readint the codex].

 

 

 

As for limited options--who ever sets up their army the exact same way,

with the exact same scenery on the exact same board?  Against the same

opponents?

shops, tournametns[most of those have pre made terrain] , in most clubs after 2-3 weeks you played on all tables . as people go there would have to be 4-5 new people coming every week to never play against the same people . add the terrain limitation to this and I would say that most people around the world after 2-3 months play against the same people . We call those people the table top wargaming community.

[Nehekhare]

I contest that saying there is no inherent, automatic "good/bad" is not the same as saying "do whatever you like".

when nothing is good or bad (inherently or contextually), what are the criteria for good advice?

 

what they want to do with the list is AS important (if not more important) than what else is in their list. 

At least one thing can be taken for granted: every player plays the game. playing the game inherently means playing by the rules and aiming to win. that is how you play any game (why you play is up to you). By these fixed frame of reference we are able to identifiy contextual qualities and give advice.

 

I guess a lot of it comes down to what people think is most important.

 

that is something that concers why people play (like fun, fascination with certain ideas, etc.), not how. 

 

Iwho ever sets up their army the exact same way, with the exact same scenery on the exact same board?

 

Myriad possibilities, but in the context of rules, they all boil down to: cover save, open/difficult/dangerous/lethal terrain.  

[zyl-]

 

Well if we are back to talking mele, has anyone used something similar to the following setup yet?

35 mok cultists with Kahrn

I did it without MoK on cultists. Gives you plenty of extremely cheap wounds plus someone to throw into a challenge, and Khârn makes it up in wounds. Just think about it:

- cultists are so lame no one would really care for additional number of attacks

- when you have a horde of 35 you will hardly make them all to the fight, some of them will stay too far behind, so you're basically not using your MoK (because it sucks this edition, unlike edition when it gave pure +1A)

- instead of taking 35 MoK cultists you could take 2x25 cultists without MoK

 

>Anyway, as far as C:CSM and melee choices go, we don't have any great options, but that is largely due to the problems with assault in general in 6th. BA assault armies are in a similar position- delivery is tricky if not impossible, and the risk/reward benefits of assault are out of whack. It is rough to be an assault army right now.

- BA have melee threat range about 20"

- BA can spam reliable melee units

- BA scatter 6" so they can make you lose your icons and characters with a little help from meltapistols, if you placed them incorrectly

 

Seriously, if you want to kick BA in melee - your only bet is zombies or Terminators. Well, maybe bikers. 

 

Would it be acceptable to not take bikes in an army with Typhus as HQ and go triple drake?

Play higher than 2000 and take 5 drakes and bikers, or 4 drakes and 2 bikers, or 3 drakes 2 bikers and spawn.

 

As to the first answered quote, I respect your idea here, but I also do NOT see it working in practice. First off, if you split the cultists up, you lose fearless and hatred on one of the squads, which makes it far far less useful in mele. Second, the unit I suggest is using the first round of combat very very much for their advantage, and while not all of your cultists are making it in on the charge, I would still much rather reroll 2 extra attacks than not reroll two fewer attacks per model. With that said, it's already super unlikely that all 35 of the cultists are going to be living long enough to hit the charge, so the unrealisticness of getting 35 models in will be somewhat mitigated. Of course the mitigation comes at the cost of losing more expensive cultists in early game firefighting. Without thoroughly testing how this works personally (and I don't really mean mathhammer because there are just too many variables to satisfy an accurate estimate for me), I have no authoritative advice to offer other than to say "I've seen my friend wreck people with this."

 

As for the >2000 answer for the Typhus question.. my reply: Grass is green. This is to say that your answer was less than relevant to the question asked. Over 2000 may as well just be a completely different website, because it changes everything drastically.

[happybounce]

 

I contest that saying there is no inherent, automatic "good/bad" is not the same as saying "do whatever you like".

when nothing is good or bad (inherently or contextually), what are the criteria for good advice?

 

Okay.  Let me try explaining this again.  When I say no INHERENT good, I'm referring to the idea that for certain lists, you MUST take certain units--which is what the majority of "advice" I've seen online is.  Something like this:

 

"Hey guys, so I'm playing Iron Warriors, been working on the army for a while and I love the Daemon engines!  I've come up with some really cool conversions, and even though they aren't very popular I think I have a fairly competitive build.  Any advice?"

 

Response? "vehicles are bad, take 2 x2 oblits"

 

I keep trying to point out: nothing (or few things) being inherently "good"--and by that, I mean automatic for running a particular list--is not the same as being CONDITIONALLY good.  You actually give advice BASED on what is conditionally good--and to know the conditions, you sometimes have to know how they like to play, their meta, if they are playing tourneys or not, etc.  

 

And most of the things that people talk about being "inherently" good ARE conditionally good most of the time!  But that doesn't mean that "good advice" is telling people to spam the same units over and over again.  I mean there's another discussion going RIGHT NOW about the successful UK chaos tournament lists, and one of them took max CHAOS SPAWN.  Which, I would like to point out, I jokingly said would be awesome weeks ago, and no one believed me.  I win, one to nothing! ; )

 

As for the "varied styles", people aren't robots.  And maybe there are hobby stores out there that run the same exact three scenarios, and the same scenery on the same tables and don't use mysterious objectives, and everyone always runs the same list and never mixes up their unit choices or play styles.  I guess I'm just glad I've never encountered one.  

[the jeske]

 

I keep trying to point out: nothing (or few things) being inherently

"good"--and by that, I mean automatic for running a particular list--is

not the same as being CONDITIONALLY good.  You actually give advice

BASED on what is conditionally good--and to know the conditions, you

sometimes have to know how they like to play, their meta, if they are

playing tourneys or not, etc.

 

then let us look at the example . What we get in 6th . flyers . well this automaticly means defilers and ecto fiends are bad , as we dont realy get enough support units in other slots . this means we are left with dakka fiends. maybe dakka fiends with ecto head. we get some shots against flyers[bs3 doesnt matter here as we are hiting on +6 anyway] . so flyers covered. anti meq ? well we kind of a have auto cannons here and even if we take the ecto head it is still a single small blast [which would still be ok if nob builds or paly stars were dominant or at least popular armies we could offten face] . So a bit meh on the anti meq front . But the real problem starts when we look at other problem builds in 6th , the IG car parks and generaly armies that spam av13+ . against those ap 4 weapons dont do enough dmg and bs 3 actualy does hurt us here making the fiends a bit too random for the points they cost ,

All of this happens before we go in to the whole av12 walker thing . So no neither the fiends , nor the defiler is a good choice . It is a bad choice . Now someone may want to run it and there is nothing [save for scenario rules at tournaments/shops games] that can stop him from doing so . One should not mix two things . A choice being viable/non viable , with the ability of some dude somewhere to put any unit/any upgrade in to any unit . The first one we can talk about , we can compare , ponder the viability from 500 to 2500points or different scenarios . the other one we cant , because A it is irrelevant to the gaming community as a whole and B doesnt bring anything to the game as a whole . now it may bring something for painters or people doing conversions , but neither of those have anything to do with how good/bad a unit/model is . If we took the second point of view as a start of argument , then oblits would always be a bad choice , because they are butt ugly .

 

 

 

 

 I mean there's another discussion going RIGHT NOW about the successful

UK chaos tournament lists, and one of them took max CHAOS SPAWN.  Which,

I would like to point out, I jokingly said would be awesome weeks ago,

and no one believed me.  I win, one to nothing! ; )

 

no dude , that proves little . Back when 3.5 started there was a tournament where the top chaos player won with a chaozilla army [2 DPs 3 defilers 2-3 mini squads I think those were either zerkers or pms.] It was later used by people as an example that the gav dex was not a mono build , that there was at least 2 builds possible from the gav dex. But then game 4 years of playing and there were no chaozillas wining tournaments or placing high . why ? easy . match ups and luck helped  the chaozilla player to win . Now on the other hand oblits were in every chaos list , casual/GT level  1000pts and 2500pts . The same thing happens here , what do we see from the chaos lists played around the world [in tournaments , it is still too few data to be 100% sure, but lets say that  play xp can cover for date we dont have] ? drakes will be in  chaos lists that win . period . rest of the list doesnt matter much . The chaos codex has an odd scaling before 2k points , which will hurt people playing in non double foc non FW enviroments .

To say that full spawn lists are just as viable as drakes . We could need date from tournaments of different size [but of GT type] both FW/dual FoC and non FW/no dual FoC in 1500-2500 range. We can argue if they are good or bad [i have given enough arguents why they can be bad in the past and I dont want to start another off topic here] , but the stuff that is good ? oblits , drakes ? always good , no matter what list . the utility and cost those two units have are optimal . It would take some serious errate for them to become bad. And even then , they would still be our most optimal options , only our dex wouldnt be as good as it is now[which by the way doesnt mean the codex is actualy good. no dex carried by a flyer can be called a good one].

[happybounce]

To say that full spawn lists are just as viable as drakes . We could need date from tournaments of different size [but of GT type] both FW/dual FoC and non FW/no dual FoC in 1500-2500 range. We can argue if they are good or bad [i have given enough arguents why they can be bad in the past and I dont want to start another off topic here] , but the stuff that is good ? oblits , drakes ? always good , no matter what list . the utility and cost those two units have are optimal . It would take some serious errate for them to become bad. And even then , they would still be our most optimal options , only our dex wouldnt be as good as it is now[which by the way doesnt mean the codex is actualy good. no dex carried by a flyer can be called a good one].

 

Oh my god, I feel like I'm trying to argue politics with my Dad.  That guy's list is a perfect example that sometimes, in some lists, things OTHER than the two units you tell people to spam are "good".  The fact that he didn't run obliterators and drakes, and that you defended that choice, is an example of something--in this case, spawn--being conditionally good, when often they suck.  Yes, most of the time oblits and drakes are "better", but the fact that they are better more often is not the same thing as "automatic".  

 

And I understand that people WANT things to be automatic.  Warhammer is time consuming and requires a lot of love and effort and money, and not winning feels like failing sometimes, which can be frustrating.  Yes, learning tactics and actually playing the game is harder than spamming three helldrakes against a friend that plays marines.  But WHY?  Why put your friend through that?  For god's sake, just play video games or Magic cards or something. 

 

I get that people will do that stuff in tournaments, and that's fine I guess!  But tournament play is one of those "conditions" I was talking about.  The "gaming community" is not the same thing as the "win tournaments" community.  I feel sorry for people who HAVE to win a game of 40k, even against their friends, in order to enjoy the hobby.  

[Iron-Daemon Forge]

I think it time to close this topic & let some of our memeber cool down a little bit.

 

 

http://i626.photobucket.com/albums/tt347/Insane-Psychopath/close-1.jpg