# Why do GW insist on designing "lemons"?



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

By that, I mean units that look like they're intentionally bad. Specifically Reaver Jetbikes and Scourges from the DE book, which have the option to take X melta/blasters, but not enough to truly specialize them, leaving the whole option almost invalid.

Stealth Suits (Tau) are the same.

What is the point? I thought GW wanted to sell minis.

I am forcing Scourges into my DE list because of the mathematical superiority of the Cronos in competitive environments over 3x Ravager lists, but if I was allowed 4 Heavy Support slots I would buy a box of Scourges just so I could smash it with a sledgehammer.


----------



## KhainiteAssassin (Mar 18, 2009)

first off: your wrong about Reaver Jetbikes. they may not be given enough anti tank weapons to 'specialize' in AT, because they are MADE TO BE AI first and foremost. and they do a wonderful job of being AI.

Second: the chronos is only 'mathematically' better then the ravagers if your trying to play the DE like you would SM.

As others have said in other threads and i will repeat to you here: the DE have 0 issues dealing with Infantry, as they can have a retarded amount of poison shots for very very cheap, the place that the DE lack, generally, is they lack an abundance of Solid Anti Tank weaponry, not saying that dark lances are not strong anti tank weapons they are, but we do not have any endurance on our vehicles to be able to truck along without being smart. The Chronos, Deals wonderful damage to MEQ, but we can already rip through MEQ with poison weaponry with little issues. and it only having 2 CC attacks at only str 5 makes it not very good for tank busting, the thing we lack.

Point is: you can keep saying that the chronos is better then ravagers, but its really not. the ONLY place its really useful is against masses of infantry that poison weapons can not dakka down, which is usually green tide lists, and even then, a good DE player can deal with them fairly easily.

Yes, i know, the ravager is a paper airplane that can die very easily to any small amount of gun fire. but this that is why you use your brain and not stick them out in the open where their whole army can unload on them.


----------



## Drannith (Sep 18, 2010)

I haven't played with the reavers yet but from my view of them I would take at least a unit of them, the idea of flying over enemy units getting a 3+ cover save while doing hits on them (can't remember how many hits with the upgrades and the likes) seems pretty viable to me, but then again I don't do tourneys.

As for Stealth Suits I, again, personally enjoy them but I think I use them differntly than other people do. When I play Tau most fear my stealth suits.

On the other hand you have crap units like Vespid and the others that fit into that catagory, with those I really don't understand why they put forth the effort to make nice models but have rules that makes no one really want to field them unless they make fun/just for the hell of it lists.


----------



## Diatribe1974 (Jul 15, 2010)

Don't call them lemons. Call them "Less than Desirables".

If they truly were worthless lemons, then we should officially rename them to "Corki" status. Seriously, anything named Corki is never taken seriously & instantly disregarded, yes?


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

Here is a fun fact (yes I said fact): even if your Ravagers survive til turn 4, they are useless once you run out of boxed targets. Also, they are bullet magnets that don't survive bullets.

I've done extensive proxies to back up my claim, and my win rate against SM is 74% with 1-2 Cronuses and 42% with 3 Ravs. Both a unit of 5 Scourges (of which 2 have DL) and the Cronos is more survivable than a Ravager, and neither becomes useless when your opponent is down to infantry.


----------



## kiro the avenger! (Nov 8, 2010)

_As for Stealth Suits I, again, personally enjoy them but I think I use them differntly than other people do. When I play Tau most fear my stealth suits.
_
Please can you post a tactica


----------



## KhainiteAssassin (Mar 18, 2009)

thats funny, thats golden even.

3 str 8 ap 2 weapons are 'useless' after boxed targets dissipear?

and if your w/l ratio is like that you are:
a. fighting armies with a larger then normal infantry count, let alone a heavily meched army
b. you are trying to play DE like a space marine, giving your opponent free shots on your ravagers. you are not taking advantage of TLOS, or cover saves on your ravagers. your spreading your targets, and ultimately playing like a DE noob.

Point is: I have about a 65% win rate WITH Ravagers, also despite them being shot at, 2 of them have lived till turn 6 over 70% of the time, DESPITE them being paper airplanes. its not the unit, its the player.

a chronos has to get within 18 inches of the enemy to use its vortex, closer for its syphon. it is a MC and does not have any special rule allowing it to move faster or over objects. thus any Cover between you and your opponent slows the chronos down. ADD TO THAT, that the chronos, despite being T7, has NO INVULNERABLE SAVE, and only a 3+ armor. ANYONE who knows what a chronos can do, can, and will, probably target it / them first and try to get them out by turn 2.

Point is: Ravager can be set up, and placed in advantageous places for you, the chronos needs to run into the enemy to effectively do anything. it might be a tough creature, but its still, only a 3+ armor save, and WILL be in range of practically ALL their AT ranged weaponry.

You say you win more games with chronos over Ravagers? I call bullshit on that. razorwolf lists, leaf blower lists, they would eat a chronos for breakfast before it can get a shot off. the Ravagers can both damage the razors but remain in favorable positions in order to get cover, and they provide the army with a much needed AT value.

Let me put this in perspective for you: the chronos has to rely on templates, and has little to no Anti tank value, outside of the slim chance of getting its small amount of CC attacks off after giving itsself 2 pain tokens. Thus if your opponent decides to space his models to reduce the effect of templates, a large blast that hits maybe 4 people wounding on 5s for normal MEQs, thats what, 1 wound? sure thats enough for a pain token, but pain tokens are just nice bonuses, not actually a requirement to win, in fact ive played a game where i won without ever gaining a new pain token outside of what my haemonculi give. but the point is, you might kill one enemy with the vortex a turn you can shoot it, and if the enemy lets you get close enough to fire your syphon you might get another 3 or 4 with that. but you will probably only get to use that once.

Point is: once your suprise factor with the chronos wears off, it wont be so 'omg this things op' and will go to its true place of 'its a good MEQ killer, but other things fit the role just as well from a longer distance, and can potentially get more kills purely from number of dice being rolled, and as such the Heavy support choice can be better filled with something more appropriate to fufill our weakness which is not MEQ, but AT.


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

No need to get so defensive there. You play your way, I'll play mine, and let's hope we end up across a table some time.


----------



## The Son of Horus (Dec 30, 2006)

Some units are more competitive than others. But any unit can be playable in the game and do ok when the object isn't to have an internet-optimized army list that's meant to collect prize support. In the case of Dark Eldar, for example, the Mandrakes-- they're an awful unit. But they're fun to play just for that "SURPRISE!" value at the start of the game and the models are amazing, so I play with them even though they die in a fire every single game.


----------



## KhainiteAssassin (Mar 18, 2009)

The Son of Horus said:


> Some units are more competitive than others. But any unit can be playable in the game and do ok when the object isn't to have an internet-optimized army list that's meant to collect prize support. In the case of Dark Eldar, for example, the Mandrakes-- they're an awful unit. But they're fun to play just for that "SURPRISE!" value at the start of the game and the models are amazing, so I play with them even though they die in a fire every single game.


they are on my to buy list from how amazing they look. and i will definitely use them in apoc, but I do have to agree they are awful.


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

The Son of Horus said:


> the Mandrakes-- they're an awful unit. But they're fun to play just for that "SURPRISE!" value at the start of the game and the models are amazing, so I play with them even though they die in a fire every single game.


Are you referring to the Baleblast? I assume you join them with a Haemonculi in the beginning of the game so they can shoot right away?

Try infiltrating them 14" out from the deployment zone with LoS to an enemy unit, and zoom up the Haemonculi in a Raider/Venom. Burnt chicken ahoy! Yeah, they're fun to use. I find them to be OK. They're certainly better points cost efficiency than Scourges and Reavers if you have a Haemonculi.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> Are you referring to the Baleblast? I assume you join them with a Haemonculi in the beginning of the game so they can shoot right away?
> 
> Try infiltrating them 14" out from the deployment zone with LoS to an enemy unit, and zoom up the Haemonculi in a Raider/Venom. Burnt chicken ahoy! Yeah, they're fun to use. I find them to be OK. They're certainly better points cost efficiency than Scourges and Reavers if you have a Haemonculi.


I'm sorry, but are you trolling perchance?

Mandrakes better than Scourges and Reavers? In what alternate universe? I don't mean to be insulting, I'm just flabbergasted that of all the units in the book you'd choose Mandrakes to be better than Reavers. Mandrakes have an extremely limited role and rarely if ever manage to do anything other than soak up some firepower. Baleblast is pretty good it's true, but you need to jump through hoops to get them that initial pain token by either deploying them with a Haemonculus and missing out on Infiltrate or doing some "Pleaseletmegofirstohplease" sort of trick by moving characters forward to join the Mandrakes on turn 1.

I really do wonder what sort of armies you most regularly face. I get the impression that your local meta tends toward much more heavily infantry based lists than is common elsewhere.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

I think the simple answer is that GW dont intentionally design lemons, i guess they just care about an army theme and cool models and interesting codex entries more than they care about squeezing the most devastating army out of 1500 points with maximum killyness and anal amounts of cheesey death.
Also it seems what is a lemon can be subjective as this thread clearly points out, so i guess GW does not design "lemons" its that players dont know the army or are too fixated on using "non lemons" and missing the potential of other units.


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

Katie Drake said:


> I'm sorry, but are you trolling perchance?
> 
> Mandrakes better than Scourges and Reavers? In what alternate universe? I don't mean to be insulting, I'm just flabbergasted that of all the units in the book you'd choose Mandrakes to be better than Reavers. Mandrakes have an extremely limited role and rarely if ever manage to do anything other than soak up some firepower. Baleblast is pretty good it's true, but you need to jump through hoops to get them that initial pain token by either deploying them with a Haemonculus and missing out on Infiltrate or doing some "Pleaseletmegofirstohplease" sort of trick by moving characters forward to join the Mandrakes on turn 1.
> 
> I really do wonder what sort of armies you most regularly face. I get the impression that your local meta tends toward much more heavily infantry based lists than is common elsewhere.


You don't have to jump through hoops at all. Getting a Haemon in a transport and to the mandrakes is fairly simple... I also didn't say they were better than reavers, I said they were more points cost efficient.

And I face the same Razerspam/IG parking lot as everyone else, but seek to put results beyond doubt by having units left to kill the crap that comes out of said Razers when I actually blow them up.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> You don't have to jump through hoops at all. Getting a Haemon in a transport and to the mandrakes is fairly simple... I also didn't say they were better than reavers, I said they were more points cost efficient.


It's still quite easy for it to go wrong though. If the Dark Eldar don't get first turn, the Raider gets shot down, if the Mandrakes have no good places to Infiltrate or are denied one... ehh, doesn't sound worth it.

Also, points efficiency is generally synonymous with being good hence my confusion.



> And I face the same Razerspam/IG parking lot as everyone else, but seek to put results beyond doubt by having units left to kill the crap that comes out of said Razers when I actually blow them up.


It's all kinds of late here so forgive me if I've missed the obvious, but do you mind posting up your usual list for whatever your highest non-Apoc point level games are? To confirm, I mean if your group plays between 1,250 and 1,750 points on average, could you post the 1,750 one? I only ask so I can try to understand your meaning better.


----------



## GrizBe (May 12, 2010)

bitsandkits said:


> Also it seems what is a lemon can be subjective as this thread clearly points out, so i guess GW does not design "lemons" its that players dont know the army or are too fixated on using "non lemons" and missing the potential of other units.



This basically. NO unit is a lemon. Some may not be as effieicnet as other, but if you take something point for point, theres rarely anything anymore that you'd never consider using.


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

Katie Drake said:


> It's still quite easy for it to go wrong though. If the Dark Eldar don't get first turn, the Raider gets shot down, if the Mandrakes have no good places to Infiltrate or are denied one... ehh, doesn't sound worth it.
> 
> Also, points efficiency is generally synonymous with being good hence my confusion.
> 
> ...


This, be warned it's all kinds of experimental.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

GrizBe said:


> theres rarely anything *anymore* that you'd never consider using.


Emphasis mine. Every codex since Vanilla Marines has had very few units that would never, ever be taken. With the exception of the IG codex, which is bloated beyond belief, and it shows (but even then, the good-to-bad ratio is much better than it has been in previous books).

Someone at my local club plays an army with up to 24 Reaver Jetbikes, and came 5th in the last tournament we had here (County Yorkshire).

Saying "I win X games with unit Y instead of unit Z so unit Y *must* be better than unit Z" is complete bollocks. There are too many variables for that to be a valid argument. Anything from terrain setup to player skill to opposition can affect how well certain units perform.

To give a really simple example, Burna Boyz are a bit meh. Sometimes they get taken, most of the time they get left behind. On a table with no terrain, they become orders of magnitude worse, but on a table with 90% terrain coverage (cityfight or Jungle) suddenly 3 units of 10 looks really shiny. Now realise that you could be playing anything from Gaunt Horde Of Death (tm) through to Tri-Raider Templars.

That said, some units are _generally_ better than others. Flat. BA Devs are better than SM Devs, for example. Long Fangs are better than SM Devs. Fire Dragons are better than Shining Spears. However the reason is not "I win games with this unit instead of that unit", the reason is "These are, on paper and in practicality, a better unit because of their weapons/armour/rules".

Just because you can't win games with a certain unit, does not make it crap. What makes it crap is how it is written in the codex. One is dependant on context, the other is not.


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

GrizBe said:


> This basically. NO unit is a lemon. Some may not be as effieicnet as other, but if you take something point for point, theres rarely anything anymore that you'd never consider using.


The entire freakin' Tyranid codex would like a word with you.


----------



## GrizBe (May 12, 2010)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> The entire freakin' Tyranid codex would like a word with you.


See.. now I know your a troll and i'm just going to ignore you from here on in. Calling the Tyranid codex crap just shows how completely and utterly clueless you are.


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

GrizBe said:


> See.. now I know your a troll and i'm just going to ignore you from here on in. Calling the Tyranid codex crap just shows how completely and utterly clueless you are.


Oh? Show me a Tyranid army that won a tournament and faced the other new armies since the 5th edition codex rolled out, and I'll transfer 5$ to your paypal. (I'll even apologize!)


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> Oh? Show me a Tyranid army that won a tournament and faced the other new armies since the 5th edition codex rolled out, and I'll transfer 5$ to your paypal. (I'll even apologize!)


We had a tournament last week with 6 players in it. Necrons, Footdar, IG manspam, Tau (Vespid Heavy), Ultrasmurfs with 3x Thunderfire Cannon and Tyranids. We gave up to 10 points for winning games, and up to 40 points for painting, fluff, composition and sportsmanship.

The Tyranids won.

Can I have $5 now, or has that helped everyone understand how negligible current (i.e. non-standardised and soft scoring) tournaments are in helping to underline how good a certain army is?

Tyranids have a few bad choices, a few excellent choices, and a lot of choices that can do well if you play them right and build the army properly. Overall the codex isn't the strongest, but you can still win a lot of games with them if you have a functioning brain.


----------



## GrizBe (May 12, 2010)

Sethis already covered it there.

Point is, all you need is a little brainpower and tactics and no unit is worthless.


----------



## The Sullen One (Nov 9, 2008)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> The entire freakin' Tyranid codex would like a word with you.


What? Why is that people are saying the Tyranid codex is poor? They've got Hive Tyrants, Mawlocs, the possiblity of sticking a Carnifex in a drop pod, not to mention the flank assault tactic. What's poor about that?


----------



## Hurricane (Feb 27, 2010)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> Oh? Show me a Tyranid army that won a tournament and faced the other new armies since the 5th edition codex rolled out, and I'll transfer 5$ to your paypal. (I'll even apologize!)


Two months ago I won a local tournament with my Tyranid force at 1750. Opponents included mech IG, BA jumpers, DE darklight storm, Loganwing, and some others I can't recall. The list was as follows...

Prime w/ lashwhip/bonesword - 95
Hive Guard 2x3 - 300
Venomthrope 1x2 - 110
Termagant 2x10 - 100
Tervigon w/ AG, TS, catalyst x2 - 390
Gargoylex19 - 114
Trygonx3 (one prime) - 640

Ya this thread has been pretty entertaining and all but if there were no "lemon" options in each codex then the choices would all be pretty silly imo. For instance, if scourge were allowed to take four special weapons per five models. Hell let's say any option in any codex can take four special weapons per five models (instead of the one or two usually allowed) then the game would just be silly. Purifier squads with 8 psycannons, scourge with multiple heat lances or haywire blasters, etc. It would pretty much ensure that certain squads would never be taken for any reason, and in this instance if the above change were followed, either scourge or reavers would be far superior to the other choice, but now they wouldn't be lemons so I guess that's fine...

Also, how are you finding cronos to be superior to ravagers, especially with competent opponents on the field? One of the key components of DE is their alpha strike ability and incredible mobility. Without ravagers you are losing out on sooo much fire power while the incredibly slow cronos will not get into combat with a fast opponent or a incredibly shooty opponent. The cronos would be dead weight against, mech IG, razorspam, longfang spam, jumper BA, DE, etc since it will never see combat or will be wiped off the field very early on.


----------



## KingOfCheese (Jan 4, 2010)

Another argument about Tyranid competitiveness?

Its true, the codex is not as powerful as IG, SW, or BA.
But honestly, the Tyranid codex is MASSIVELY underrated.
Main reason being is that people seem to prefer point-and-click armies rather than armies that require tactical synergy to perform at their optimum.
Almost everything in the codex is playable in a competitive environment, unlike things such as Ogryns, Possessed, etc that are just plain terrible.
Yes, the Tyranids are hard to play with, but in the hands of an experienced bug tactician they can be quite a nasty force to try to take down.


----------



## Evil beaver2 (Feb 3, 2009)

Nids arent bad at all, with the exception of a few units:

Pyrovore- Too slow to ever get within flamer or cc range without dying, and its terrible at cc. It doesnt make sence that GW would make them so useless though, considering that they got a pretty nice new model.

Lictor- Not really viable mostly because of the need of AT in elites slots, but not really too bad.

Carnifex- Overpriced for what it does, trygons are much better in my opinon. The interesting part of this is that since last codex made these very powerful, so it seems like a pretty obvious money making plot by gw to overprice carnifexes so people will buy trygons. At least theres plenty of other useful creatures in the codex you can convert them into.

I personally have been having plenty of success with my nids, my opponents are generally pretty inexperienced, but i find that most units in the codex have some use.

Chaos marines on the other hand...


----------



## gally912 (Jan 31, 2009)

kiro the avenger! said:


> _As for Stealth Suits I, again, personally enjoy them but I think I use them differntly than other people do. When I play Tau most fear my stealth suits.
> _
> Please can you post a tactica


Hahaha, oh this post is made of win. It's either delightfully hopeful or brutally sarcastic. Either way, yes-

GW do have some units that, in an environment based on winning, will never, ever be taken. 

I'm ok with that as a definition of "lemon"


----------



## Iron Angel (Aug 2, 2009)

I've wondered the same thing, looking at some units, like Pariahs, but you have to remember that even if the edition rules change the codex ones do not- In a previous edition, that unit that is a "lemon" may have been very powerful. Any Necron, Dark Eldar, or SoB player can tell you how changing an edition has morphed their gameplay dramatically and nade some units completely worthless while inadvertently making some ridiculusly overpowered. Case in point, Destroyers and Pariahs. Pariahs used to be really good CC deterrents, they could lop a Terminator in half no problem- In fact, thats was their intended purpose, with Necrons having low Initiative values they needed some sort of tank that could take that first round of abuse with a hefty armor save, strike before powerfusts can really maul them, and wipe an entire unit of elite combatants out. THen 4th came along and everyone and their mother had a power weapon, making their armor save useless and now they completely wipe in the first round of an assault. by the same right destroyers were meant to be light vehicle/heavy infantry killers. With the new 5th rules everyone takes heavy infantry and puts them in a transport. Destroyers are having a happy time easily outrunning and outgunning the transports and their contents.

What I;m saying is GW doesn't make lemons. THey make new editions which inadvertently change how useful some things are. Either way I've tangled with a few dark eldar players. There are two kinds with Dark Eldar:

The smart and the dead.

Dark eldar arent space amrines- You cant just clump them together and walk them at the enemy. Dark Eldar, from what I have observed, is a dedicated guerilla warfare army. Skirt out of range of the enemy, take advantage of cover saves, outrange, outrun. Move away from units that can deal a lot of damage and draw them into a trap where you can deal with them. Move around through terrain and dont offer clear shots. Playing a game against a good Eldar player is like playing a game of "Hide and Seek" with a bit of "Catch Me If You Can". And let me tell you, ravagers fucked my day up. Hiding all the time, so I have to chase them around with destroyers, and anything left of them gets the hell up out of there asap so I have to chase them some more. Meanwhile I face someone who walks a Cronos at my line and its gone almost instantly from being bombarded by Destroyers. A cronos has never lasted into turn 2 against my army, between Destroyers and Heavy destroyers. None of the DE players that have whipped my ass have ever taken them. Honestly the only way I ever win is by simply holding out until I roll reserves in and I plop two to three big fat monoliths down in the middle of their line and start pie playing everything in sight. They dont really have any weapons that can take out a monolith, or at least I do my best to make sure to get rid of anything that might be threatening to them before they arrive, but actually getting a good shot in against a skilled DE player is beyond frustrating.


----------



## KhainiteAssassin (Mar 18, 2009)

IA... are you trying to say you hold all your units in reserve and drop pie plates as soon as your Liths arrive?

you do know that monoliths HAVE to bring reserves in first of your 'necrons' before they can bring liths in correct?


----------



## DeathKlokk (Jun 9, 2008)

Could you explain that a bit, KA? I'm not seeing it.


OT the only units I see as totally worthless are Vespid and Chaos Spawn. Dear GOD Spawn are horrible!

I think the design team looks at what should be included and makes rules for them to match the fluff. They do not necessarily write rules to make everything OMGUberStompyouinthemud powerful.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

DeathKlokk said:


> Could you explain that a bit, KA? I'm not seeing it.
> 
> 
> OT the only units I see as totally worthless are Vespid and Chaos Spawn. Dear GOD Spawn are horrible!


Pyrovores are pretty pathetic too.


----------



## KhainiteAssassin (Mar 18, 2009)

DeathKlokk said:


> Could you explain that a bit, KA? I'm not seeing it.
> 
> 
> OT the only units I see as totally worthless are Vespid and Chaos Spawn. Dear GOD Spawn are horrible!
> ...


you have to roll for reserves every turn, you can not opt to not roll for them, and in the necron codex the Monolith rules state:

"if a unit of necron warriors is eligible to enter play from reserve (see the necron warriors entry) then they MUST emerge from the portal even if you would prefer to fire the particle whip. Only one unit of warriors can enter play from each monolith in a single turn, the necron player decides which" page 21, first bullet point at the bottom of the page.

and just to clear up any confusion heres a quote from the 5th ed stating you must roll too:

"At the start of each of his Movement phases except the
first, before moving any unit, the player must roll a dice
for each of his units in reserve" page 94 first paragraph under rolling for reserves

which would come to the conclusion that the Necron warriors come in off reserve from the portal as the monolith would be on the field, no?


----------



## DeathKlokk (Jun 9, 2008)

No. Warriors can be nominated to come in through the portal, they do not have to.


Necron FAQ:



> Q. Can units of Necron Warriors enter from
> reserve as normal or must they enter via a
> Monolith?
> A. If the players hold any units of Necron
> ...


----------



## KhainiteAssassin (Mar 18, 2009)

you are correct only on missions that allow reserves to normally be taken.

it still becomes a piecemeal setup as reserves would be forced to come off his table edge rather then through the monolith portal if he decided on that. and it still falls unto the design that the liths may not come out until a late turn, and the warriors come out first in piecemeal. As WBB is done before any reserves come out even. IE: its an unreliable way to play the game as a necron.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

KhainiteAssassin said:


> you are correct only on missions that allow reserves to normally be taken.


Er, don't all missions that matter (i.e. Standard Missions) allow Reserves in 5th?



> it still becomes a piecemeal setup as reserves would be forced to come off his table edge rather then through the monolith portal if he decided on that. and it still falls unto the design that the liths may not come out until a late turn, and the warriors come out first in piecemeal. As WBB is done before any reserves come out even. IE: its an unreliable way to play the game as a necron.


It's a terrible way to use Warriors yes, the idea is to keep them off the table for as long as possible by placing them in Reserve to limit the number of easy targets available to the enemy.


----------



## KhainiteAssassin (Mar 18, 2009)

yes, in 5th all the 'standard missions' have Reserves, but not all the missions used in tournaments and the like allow reserves, if they decided to make custom missions.

and I know what the idea behind the strat is katie. its still a piecemeal strat that has to rely on luck in order to win, especially if hes attempting to DS the liths, and if he ponders across the board, the liths will eventully be destroyed or immobalized before they get into range.


----------



## DeathKlokk (Jun 9, 2008)

To be fair I think he said "hold out long enough for the Liths to come in" which could just mean survive, not _hold in Reserve_.


----------



## KhainiteAssassin (Mar 18, 2009)

true, he did use those words, unfortunately for most cron players facing Dark Eldar, they get wiped out very fast, ive tabled cron infantry in 2 turns when they had only 1 lith, let alone 2 or 3 to reduce their numbers even more.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Why are we talking about a Necron strategy that doesn't work? I mean... it's Necrons.

Also, tournaments that design their own missions and disallow reserves suck and should be shut down by the government.


----------



## KhainiteAssassin (Mar 18, 2009)

Katie Drake said:


> Also, missions that design their own missions and disallow reserves suck and should be shut down by the government.


well a. i do not think missions design themselves, or are capable of being shut down by the government


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

KhainiteAssassin said:


> well a. i do not think missions design themselves, or are capable of being shut down by the government


Er, typo. Changed how I wanted to say what I was saying halfway through. Editing it up.


----------



## Iron Angel (Aug 2, 2009)

KhainiteAssassin said:


> IA... are you trying to say you hold all your units in reserve and drop pie plates as soon as your Liths arrive?
> 
> you do know that monoliths HAVE to bring reserves in first of your 'necrons' before they can bring liths in correct?


Negatory my friend, you can announce Necrons as walking on from table edge, and warriors are the only units held in reserve that the monolith had to bring in- Flayed ones, immortals, etc (Though why you would be holding Immortals in reserve is a mystery) did not have to be brought in through the portal. Just warriors. However, its been corrected by GW by saying that they have to be announced before the game whether they will be coming out of the monoliths or walking on from board edge. Of course, you have to do it that way once reserves roll in, you can't change your mind during the fight. Those forces are committed at that point. Any good necron player keeps his Warriors in reserves to walk on from table edge.


----------



## aboytervigon (Jul 6, 2010)

This thread is beginning too labascate quite badly or should I say its viliorating?


----------



## Scathainn (Feb 21, 2010)

Yet another thread with Metalhandkerchief bitching about something...


----------



## Iron Angel (Aug 2, 2009)

Hush tervigon! The subject has been covered and now a new topic has been exposed.

I'm not sure what you are thinking about the reserves thing, but heres as it is, th rules for holding warriors in reserve.

1: Any unit with the necron rule held in reserve counts as alive unless it is a unit of Warriors destined to come in via a portal on a monolith and all the monoliths are destroyed. Basically, if I keep at least 25% of my Necron units in reserve, even if you wipe every necron unit currently on the table, I will not Phase Out. ANy skilled necron player does this as it is essentially the best way to protect your Phase Out until you can clear the board of anything capable of chopping down your warriors easily, which DE can do very, ver easily if the enemy knows what he is doing.

2: Only warriors have to come in through the portal, not any Necron unit. THat said, they dont even have to do that now that they can walk on from table edge.

Thats basically it, all I have to do is announce all my warriors as coming on from table edge. Once reserves arrive, my Monoliths fall on your army, and you lake the AP to take down a Lith, as DLs will not cut the mustard because of the Living Metal rule. Rolling in early is actually riskier than rolling in late- As long as all I have on the board is my Destroyers and my VoD lord, both of which are infinitely mobile and have a lot of range if I couple the VOD lord with immortals (Not something I would consider doing since my Lord and my Immortals would have to be within 24" to shoot, which means if I scatter too close to you I'll be close enough for you to ride up on me and waste the whole unit in one turn of shooting- Extremely risky), and can skirt around and thin out your units before my vulnerable Warriors walk in. Thus, until reserves roll in I can play a game of cat and mouse with you, denying you shots and outranging you just as easily as you can to me, if not easier, and once the Monoliths drop in I'll use them to divide your army and scatter you, dramatically reducing your effectiveness. If I roll too early though I wont make a big enough impact to reduce your effectiveness against them. If I roll in late, I'll simply drop the monoliths next to objectives, and use the last turn to warp the Warriors to said objectives and grab them at the last minute. Ideally the soonest turn and the latest turn are both risky in that too early and you'll still have the bulk of your AI left, and too late and its going to be a scrable to get my Warriors to objectives, if I even can. The best turn to rill in is 4, but 3 will work too if I can keep you suppressed and cover my warriors- As the destroyers and the HQ/Elites are tied up playing peek-a-boo with your DE and my Liths will be a huge wall spreaying death all over the place in your army there will be little left to cover them. Its riskier than if I was playing, say, IG or SM, which I would use different strategies against, but its the best option against enemies like DE who specialize in AI and are so mobile.

Alternately, somehting i have been experimenting with that I dont do against other armies as basically everything else can take down a Monolith if I leave them sitting there, is actually leaving hte monoliths on the table as a moving wall I can slowly press in on you and just gradually crush you against the back of the table edge. THe pros: More turns to plate you with the PW. The cons: DE can very easily outrun them, so unless I space them properly you can squeeze out the sides and get away and then I'll NEVER get you with them.

EDIT: WHen I say you, I dont mean you in particular. I know thats a common term but since we are trading strategems like this in such a direct fashion I feel it is imperative I am not trying to brag or intimidate _you_ in particular or anyone else really, as its just a hobby and intimidation is kind of useless.


----------



## KhainiteAssassin (Mar 18, 2009)

IA, your talking as if you have a choice to keep units in reserve. you dont.

you HAVE to roll for reserves, you HAVE to deploy reserves when they are rolled for.

page 94 of the brb, first paragraph under rolling for reserves:



> At the start of each of his Movement phases except the
> first, before moving any unit, the player *must roll a dice
> for each of his units in reserve.* Depending on the turn
> in question, a certain result will mean that the unit has
> ...


page 94 first paragraph under arriving from reserve:



> _*When a reserve unit arrives, it must move onto the
> table from the controlling player’s own table edge
> (unless it’s deep striking or outflanking)*_. Each model’s
> move is measured from the edge of the battlefield, as if
> ...


this means you cant 'opt to hide 25% of your models away behind in reserves to cheat the system


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

KhainiteAssassin said:


> IA, your talking as if you have a choice to keep units in reserve. you dont.


I think you're confused. I don't think he's saying that you just leave your Warriors in reserve all game until it's safe to bring them out - I think he more means that you start them in Reserve, hope they don't come in until turn 3-4 when you've taken care of the majority of things that can cause serious harm to the Warriors and then carry on about your business.

Problem with this strategy is that there are a *lot* of units in any good army that can cause Warriors serious harm... if you manage to take care of those enemy units then you've probably won the game anyway.


----------



## Iron Angel (Aug 2, 2009)

Err, yes, I can. By declaring them as in reserves. Just because they arrive at different times doesnt make them not in reserves any more. If all my warriors arrive before my monoliths, I'll jsut have ot chalk it up to bad rolling and accept that game will likely be a scratch for me. It happens to the best of us. I know I said several times "When reserves roll in" in my above paragraph. I know rolling for reserves works as my most important units are always held to deep strike, which is my monoliths.

So no, I cannot hide those units indefinitely, but I can keep them hidden long enough to thin your army enough they wont get wiped out in the first turn and have a phase out forced on me on the second turn. Like I said, having those units roll in earlier is much more risky than having them roll in late. DOes that statement make sense now?

EDIT: Katie has the idea, better than she realizes unfortunately. With that much of my points off-table that means fewer targets my enemy needs to shoot at and fewer shots I can put downrange. Fortunately Destroyers are very fast, have great range, and fire very powerful weapons, so I can depend on them to last long enough to get what I need done before reserves roll in. DE is probably one of the toughest armies I face down when theres a skilled opponent across the table from me since they are so good at eating infantry. What I have to do is get rid of transports mostly, things that can just drop units on me from very close distances and ruin my warriors. The only armies I currently keep everything on the board at the very start of the game for is a green tide, and thats because I need as much firepower as I can get and usually I end upo getting overwhelmed anyway since I just can't put down enough firepower to harm it. I can hold out occaisionally with FOs but if anything with a PK or something makes it to the line I'm super boned.


----------



## KhainiteAssassin (Mar 18, 2009)

Iron Angel said:


> Err, yes, I can. By declaring them as in reserves. Just because they arrive at different times doesnt make them not in reserves any more. If all my warriors arrive before my monoliths, I'll jsut have ot chalk it up to bad rolling and accept that game will likely be a scratch for me. It happens to the best of us. I know I said several times "When reserves roll in" in my above paragraph. I know rolling for reserves works as my most important units are always held to deep strike, which is my monoliths.
> 
> So no, I cannot hide those units indefinitely, but I can keep them hidden long enough to thin your army enough they wont get wiped out in the first turn and have a phase out forced on me on the second turn. Like I said, having those units roll in earlier is much more risky than having them roll in late. DOes that statement make sense now?


well i did not mean you cant hide them in reserves, just not opt to keep them in reserves over deploying them when you roll on them. ive had a cron player try that on me is why i bring it up.

I hope the new codex for the crons removes living metal but takes away phase out for crons.


----------



## Iron Angel (Aug 2, 2009)

LM wont be taken out, its getting redone though, so is phase out. No rules are "leaving", just being remodeled to work better with 5th. Note that this is all rumor and speculation however and anything could end up happening.


----------



## DeathKlokk (Jun 9, 2008)

Sisters Repentia SUCK!

just thought we could get back OT... :victory:


----------



## Iron Angel (Aug 2, 2009)

Yeah, repentia are awful. Slightly worse than Penitent Engines...


----------



## DeathKlokk (Jun 9, 2008)

Penitent Engines are awesome...for conversions!


----------



## Kreuger (Aug 30, 2010)

Daemon prince? Obliterator? 

And yeah, Chaos Spawn are pretty useless.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> Oh? Show me a Tyranid army that won a tournament and faced the other new armies since the 5th edition codex rolled out, and I'll transfer 5$ to your paypal. (I'll even apologize!)


http://www.rankingshq.com/public/tournamentprofile.aspx?TournamentId=1467

Monies please! 

In fact do I get $5 for each one?

http://www.rankingshq.com/public/tournamentprofile.aspx?TournamentId=1891

Wheee I'll be able to fully fund my plastic crack habit from this.


----------



## TraceofToxin (Jan 26, 2010)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> No need to get so defensive there. You play your way, I'll play mine, and let's hope we end up across a table some time.


The problem is you go around preaching your way like it's competitive gospel... when you're wrong.

The majority (And I only say majority instead of all because I can't confirm it to be 100%) of high placing DE lists run 2+ ravagers. 

As Khainite has said, it's either your meta or you.

As to Reavers/Scourge, both are solid choices. Haywire blasters are one of the best weapons in our codex, giving us the ability to deal with monoliths and blessed hull landraiders, and heat lances are the only AP1 available to us.

As to "lemons", I do agree that GW sometimes puts out just completely shitty units for god knows why. Mandrakes, Pyrovores... so bad.


----------



## gally912 (Jan 31, 2009)

Some cynics might say that intentionally bad units are usually ones that exist already. As people already have models for them, people who want to win (have competitive units) have to buy the new models.

The most common example being Carnifex vs. Tervigon/Trygon


----------



## Styro-J (Jan 20, 2009)

I just can't see Scourges as anything more than another anti-infantry unit. Their Carbine/Cannon potential is strong enough. However, with Dark Lances they become way to static since they can't move and shoot those. Haywire Blasters just don't offer the damage potential that Dark Lances do in most instances. I still really like them though, as they are a pretty reliable unit. 

Any Monolith that Deepstrikes in simply offers 2+ Pie Plate free turns for their opponent. They can't shoot the turn they drop in, offering anyone a chance to get away and into the rest of the army.

Reavers are nice, I just haven't had the courage to use mine yet. They offer quite a bit of anti-infantry with the threat of a nice anti-tank sting, which means they will be shot at a lot. They put out a ton of threat and buy the rest of the army some time. Good opponents will either take them out early or ignore them until they can assault them.


----------



## TraceofToxin (Jan 26, 2010)

Styro-J said:


> I just can't see Scourges as anything more than another anti-infantry unit. Their Carbine/Cannon potential is strong enough. However, with Dark Lances they become way to static since they can't move and shoot those. Haywire Blasters just don't offer the damage potential that Dark Lances do in most instances. I still really like them though, as they are a pretty reliable unit.
> 
> Any Monolith that Deepstrikes in simply offers 2+ Pie Plate free turns for their opponent. They can't shoot the turn they drop in, offering anyone a chance to get away and into the rest of the army.
> 
> Reavers are nice, I just haven't had the courage to use mine yet. They offer quite a bit of anti-infantry with the threat of a nice anti-tank sting, which means they will be shot at a lot. They put out a ton of threat and buy the rest of the army some time. Good opponents will either take them out early or ignore them until they can assault them.


The beauty of haywire blasters is this;

Against AV12, a normal blaster has a 16% to glance and 33% to pen. A HWB has a 66% to glance and a 16% to pen. This means against AV12 fire support, a HWB is a more reliable way to suppress, while you can use normal blasters vs rhinos/razorbacks. Against Monoliths/Blessed Hull Land Raiders it gives you a huge chance to glance and an actual chance to pen.

At 2000+ points you really need HWB.


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

Aramoro said:


> http://www.rankingshq.com/public/tournamentprofile.aspx?TournamentId=1467
> 
> Monies please!
> 
> ...


I would accept this, but the first link was to a tournament with no detailed "who played who" list and had 7 players forfeit (did not show up to tournament) so far all I know he could have rolled over it on walkovers.

As for the second, it's a 9 player event, which doesn't qualify to be called any sort of competitive, and minimum player no. for a 'real' tournament is 50. Plus there is no "who played who" list for this one either, so for all I know he played 2 Ork armies and 1 Eldar army - none of which are new.


----------



## KhainiteAssassin (Mar 18, 2009)

another thing about HWB is they can double glance against AV 10


----------



## TraceofToxin (Jan 26, 2010)

KhainiteAssassin said:


> another thing about HWB is they can double glance against AV 10


Also very true.


----------



## Styro-J (Jan 20, 2009)

I'll keep my DL's for the Tank Hunting, if anything comes up that they can't handle I've always got HWGs on my Wyches and Bloodbrides to surround and down it.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

The beauty of Haywire Blasters is that from 24" away (36" threat range) your 5 Scourge can sit in cover and render your opponents 260pt Land Raider pretty useless. More so if he didn't buy it EA. Remember even Glancings can blow off weapons and immobilise. 2x shots at BS4 is pretty much a glancing hit per turn until he makes them go away - which can be incredibly useful against anything from Monoliths to Vulkan Land Raiders to Storm Ravens. Add in the chance to actually penetrate and I think if you don't have a better use for your FA slot, you could do much worse than a cheap unit of Scourge.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> I would accept this, but the first link was to a tournament with no detailed "who played who" list and had 7 players forfeit (did not show up to tournament) so far all I know he could have rolled over it on walkovers.
> 
> As for the second, it's a 9 player event, which doesn't qualify to be called any sort of competitive, and minimum player no. for a 'real' tournament is 50. Plus there is no "who played who" list for this one either, so for all I know he played 2 Ork armies and 1 Eldar army - none of which are new.


Hey you can't change the rules after setting the challenge, you just want tournies , not Competitive 50+ Player tournies. I'm beginning to think you don't actually want to pay out the monies at all and will move the goal posts constantly. You Sir are a blaggard and a rapscallion!.


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

Aramoro said:


> Hey you can't change the rules after setting the challenge, you just want tournies , not Competitive 50+ Player tournies. I'm beginning to think you don't actually want to pay out the monies at all and will move the goal posts constantly. You Sir are a blaggard and a rapscallion!.


Go read the criteria again, properly this time!


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

> Oh? Show me a Tyranid army that won a tournament and faced the other new armies since the 5th edition codex rolled out, and I'll transfer 5$ to your paypal. (I'll even apologize!)


Nothing about it being minimum 50 Player competitive tourney. You are mearly trying to find excuses, poor show.


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

Aramoro said:


> Nothing about it being minimum 50 Player competitive tourney. You are mearly trying to find excuses, poor show.


"...and faced the other new armies..."

:laugh:


----------



## Trickstick (Mar 26, 2008)

Aramoro said:


> Nothing about it being minimum 50 Player competitive tourney. You are mearly trying to find excuses, poor show.





MetalHandkerchief said:


> "...and faced the other new armies..."
> 
> :laugh:


Must agree with Metal here, you did not show that they faced said armies. Anyway, back on topic.

I think that the main reason that GW designs 'lemons', as you call them, is because the game is supposed to be a casual affair. Units are not really designed to be super competative, they are designed to tell a story. Some people choose to focus on the super-awesome-best units that they can get, which is fine. Other people love their weird dynamite cavalry, gatling tanks and flame monsters. GW have to try to please everyone, and everyone can find something that they don't like.

Also, when designing a load of units, some will obviously be better than others. Trying to rebalance them will just change the positions a bit.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

Trickstick said:


> Must agree with Metal here, you did not show that they faced said armies. Anyway, back on topic.
> 
> I think that the main reason that GW designs 'lemons', as you call them,* is because the game is supposed to be a casual affair*. Units are not really designed to be super competative, they are designed to tell a story. Some people choose to focus on the super-awesome-best units that they can get, which is fine. Other people love their weird dynamite cavalry, gatling tanks and flame monsters. GW have to try to please everyone, and everyone can find something that they don't like.
> 
> Also, when designing a load of units, some will obviously be better than others. Trying to rebalance them will just change the positions a bit.


A fact thats all too quickly forgotten by some people.
I enjoy the hobby but the gaming part has always been about the social aspect and pitting your wits against a buddy for a few hours combined with beer and pizza/curry, the results are not that important its more about spending time on a mutual hobby that can wind away a few hours on dark nights or poor weather and laugh at each other because of tactical errors or the will of the dice gods is with/against us, i dont think my swooping hawks have killed anything on purpose ever ? but they will have there day!!!


----------



## Trickstick (Mar 26, 2008)

Yeah, I remember my five rough riders sweeping a platoon much more than the many other times they have all been shot.


----------



## GrizBe (May 12, 2010)

Trickstick said:


> Must agree with Metal here, you did not show that they faced said armies.


Well considering the tournament lists given both showed Blood Angels and Dark Eldar, I'd think its a given, considering how most tournaments work, that they must have faced them at least once and beaten them.


----------



## SlamHammer (Mar 28, 2011)

Trickstick said:


> I think that the main reason that GW designs 'lemons', as you call them, is because the game is supposed to be a casual affair.


I have to disagree here. This game is not designed to be casual, it is designed to give each player something they want. Some people want a casual hang out with friends playing a low tension game. Other players want a highly competitive situation where they can test their skill and crush their opponent through a hard fought, tension filled battle. Codexs are designed with this in mind and models as well. There will always be a unit that looks competitively unplayable, but casually exciting to many players. I have the most experience with the Grey Knight Codex, so I can give you an example from there.

HEAVY SUPPORT: Purgation Squad vs Dreadnought. 

The Purg squad gets Astral Aim, a fun and quirky "bend the bullet" psychic power, but is far to overpriced to make any tourney list. However, for some players may find it awesome to shoot their opponent is hiding around the corner with a "Gotcha!" moment. On the other hand, the Dreadnought gets low priced options of 2x TLAC with Psybolts for 20 total points. This makes it one of the most efficent weapon platforms available in the game and nearly unfair against some opponents. This was strictly designed with the competitive player in mind, with full understanding that it may be spammed to get 12 Str 8, AP 4, 48", AV12, with rerolls that can fire at 3 different targets for 405pts.

Simply put, the game is not designed to be casual, it is designed to be whatever you want from it.


----------



## Trickstick (Mar 26, 2008)

GrizBe said:


> Well considering the tournament lists given both showed Blood Angels and Dark Eldar, I'd think its a given, considering how most tournaments work, that they must have faced them at least once and beaten them.


Yes but there is no proof of this fact, so it falls under reasonable doubt. It is perfectly possible that they didn't. Now I am not saying that they did, I'm not saying that they didn't. I am only saying that the links provided were insufficent to draw a concrete conclusion either way.

Edit: This argument is a bit off the point anyway. I need to add something to the topic or I will feel dirty...

Erm...

Oh yeah. Some of the units that people regard as 'lemons' would be good in a different metagame enviroment. I dare say that if someone faced nothing but KFF green tides, then pyrovores would look a bit more attractive.


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

Trickstick said:


> Yes but there is no proof of this fact, so it falls under reasonable doubt. It is perfectly possible that they didn't. Now I am not saying that they did, I'm not saying that they didn't. I am only saying that the links provided were insufficent to draw a concrete conclusion either way.


Does it really matter if it was a direct or indirect competition between the armies? For later battles that were not against a new army they were against an army that had beaten a new army, so logically are still better than that new army.


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

Dave T Hobbit said:


> Does it really matter if it was a direct or indirect competition between the armies? For later battles that were not against a new army they were against an army that had beaten a new army, so logically are still better than that new army.


That's only true to a certain extent. Some armies, especially Nids and Orks are very rock/paper/scissors against the field. I rarely if ever see Nids or Orks beat Tau, for example, but they can do well against Vanillamuhreens against which Tau definitely can't expect a victory most of the time.


----------



## Trickstick (Mar 26, 2008)

Dave T Hobbit said:


> Does it really matter if it was a direct or indirect competition between the armies? For later battles that were not against a new army they were against an army that had beaten a new army, so logically are still better than that new army.


That really isn't a logical argument. I would use the rock paper scissors comparison. Using your reasoning, if rock beats scissors and paper beats rock, then paper must be better than scissors.

The only way to compare two armies is to look at the results of fights between those two. Even then, a lot of factors like player skill, army build and a fair amount of luck come into it.

I would just like to repeat that I am not on either side here, I just like logical arguments.


----------



## Djinn24 (Jan 12, 2008)

Its called variety, its the reason Magic has 10k+ cards and purposefully prints jank.

Also only 50+ tournaments are competitive? LOL.


----------



## Iron Angel (Aug 2, 2009)

ITT:

MetalHandkerchief:
I gibe u mony if u show pruf Nids beet oter armys in torny.

Aramoro:
Lok! Beholed! I am hav pruf nids beet oter armys in torny!

MetalHandkerchief:
OH SHI- ABORT! ABORT! Engage "Operation: Bitch Out"! Time to chang rules an pley werd gaems so no have to keep my end of bargan!

Aramoro:
OH U

MetalHanderchief:
"Operation: Bitch Out" is grate success!


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

Heh. :goodpost:



bitsandkits said:


> pitting your wits against a buddy for a few hours combined with beer and pizza/curry


Jervis, get the fuck out of bitsandkits account... we all know it's you... :laugh:


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> Some armies, especially Nids and Orks are very rock/paper/scissors against the field.





Trickstick said:


> Using your reasoning, if rock beats scissors and paper beats rock, then paper must be better than scissors.


My argument was that it does not matter in the wider context: some people were implying that Tyranids were a bad army and wanted evidence that they had beaten other new armies; my point was that they were not a bad army if they could beat other armies themselves capable of beating a new army.

To map it to your rock/paper/scissors analogy: paper is not a bad choice.


----------



## Styro-J (Jan 20, 2009)

It does win more than 33% of the time.


----------



## Grokfog (May 4, 2009)

Iron Angel said:


> ITT:
> 
> MetalHandkerchief:
> I gibe u mony if u show pruf Nids beet oter armys in torny.
> ...


I fucking love this site :biggrin:

How do I sig this?


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

Grokfog said:


> How do I sig this?


(1) Take a digital photograph of your monitor
(2) Crop to just show the text you require
(3) Upload to the Internet
(4) Add to your signature using IMG tags

Or you could copy and paste the text in QUOTE tags, but that is less fun.

Of course, the whole thing is probably too long to fit in a signature, so you might have to cut bits out.


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

I am not a jerk face doody head but I might have a dead body in the trunk. If the children wills it, then so be it. Aramoro send me your paypal address. As for the apology, hahahahaha.

(_Muah_)


----------



## Iron Angel (Aug 2, 2009)

Styro-J said:


> It does win more than 33% of the time.


So do the other two choices, now that I think about it.

I think we may be on to something ground-breaking here...


----------



## Trickstick (Mar 26, 2008)

Iron Angel said:


> So do the other two choices, now that I think about it.
> 
> I think we may be on to something ground-breaking here...


I think the meaning was that paper wins more than it should because a disproportionate amount of people choose rock.


----------



## Iron Angel (Aug 2, 2009)

Assumption or no, regarding all choices evenly, paper wins 33.333(repeating)% of the time, which still conforms to the statement in question. Math!


----------



## Sephyr (Jan 18, 2010)

Both the Kronos and the other De mosntrous murderbot really should have come out a tad more expensive but either fleet or assaulting like Beast unit-types. However, they become a tad more viable in Webway Portal armies.

But yes, each codex has it's share of amazing units that either
a-do a single job amazingly well for a good price
b-do two or more things competently for a decent cost.

Hopefully, your dex will have enough of them to allow for not just one but several styles of play and builds. When they toss you a unit like Ogryns, however, and say "these are your CC specialists, now build a strategy around them!", then you're in trouble.


----------



## Styro-J (Jan 20, 2009)

I had actually considered both in that statement! (Way too much thought for one sentence) Good job, guys!


----------



## sybarite (Aug 10, 2009)

l have only started playing orks 3 week's ago so l can't say l have had much exp with them. 

But l have played 7 games and have won 6 l don't really see how there "Weak or bad". Sure there are lemons in the ork codex as there are some in every codex but 40K is lucky.

Come over to warhammer fantasy were there are some case's of %60 or more of the codex is lemon filled.

Edit forgot to add how about this one: http://www.rankingshq.com/public/tournamentprofile.aspx?TournamentId=1233 or this one with 62 people http://www.rankingshq.com/public/tournamentprofile.aspx?TournamentId=1172


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

Iron Angel said:


> Assumption or no, regarding all choices evenly, paper wins 33.333(repeating)% of the time, which still conforms to the statement in question. Math!


Unless scissors is just more prevalent for some reason outside of the mechanics. In which case your percentage drops significantly until more people start playing Stone at which point your Paper becomes more powerful.


----------



## Kreuger (Aug 30, 2010)

This is amazing. A discussion on the meta-game of rock/paper/scissors.


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

I think Orks have a genuinely good codex. And that's coming from someone who thinks codices should be full of solid gold and angel's piss or what's the bother.

There are some things you wouldn't pick up for an Ork army for competitive games, but their amount of choice is still fairly high. Their top units may not be as strong as the strongest Wolves or Knight units, and their available tactics may not be as cheesy, but they place well above the brunt of all the others on the imaginary "tier" (god I hate that word) list.

I'd say Orks are droves better than Nids, Eldar, Tau, Chaos SM, Daemons, Sisters and Necrons. That's a whole lot! Well. Maybe not a whole lot since over half of players play some form of Marines, but. Eh, not the point


----------



## Styro-J (Jan 20, 2009)

Way too many people throw Rock. I always thought it was because they just forgot to open their hand or were just too lazy to do it. Scissors is the most complicated movement, and with so many people taking rock it just seems like a bad investment. 

However, Scissors is a good investment for people that normally throw rock to use in order to counter the rock-counter that their friends may have started using (Paper, for those that don't know). In the World Tournaments it is a brave man that throws Rock in round one, for the opponent likely knows the stats and will most assuredly counter with Paper and avoid Scissors which shows its weakness against Rock. But as each player would be of a similar competitive mind state, there is a good chance that each will throw the Paper turn one. Careful not to over analyze and assume that the upper classes will throw Scissors to counter their expected Paper. Because in the early games the noobs have yet to be separated and may yet throw Rock and foil their upper division plans.

And after I B.S.'d all of that I looked it up and found this: http://www.wikihow.com/Win-at-Rock,-Paper,-Scissors and http://www.worldrps.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=256&Itemid=37

Seems I did alright.


----------



## Iron Angel (Aug 2, 2009)

Aramoro said:


> Unless scissors is just more prevalent for some reason outside of the mechanics. In which case your percentage drops significantly until more people start playing Stone at which point your Paper becomes more powerful.


This takes into a ccount the human element, which is a wholly unpredictable variable. On a purely mathematical status any of the three are of equal power. To put it simply:

FOr any game that has gone on longer than one round:
C=33.3"- (F(N*0.2))/W-(P/A)

Where:
C=Your own choice of hand
F= Your opponent's previous selection
N= the number of times your opponent has made that selection consecutively
W= the choice that is weak to the selection you plan on making
P= Your opponent's predictability (IE: When he is likely to change his hand)
A= Your own willingness to cycle your hand.

If you are unsure of your opponent's willingness to cycle or their predictability then assume the function (P/A) is zero.

In this scenario, if your opponent has chosen rock twice now and you know he never picks the same thing three times, but you know you change yours every hand, that means you will likely pick rock yourself next turn, and your opponent may know this. This is factored into the (P/A) function. In this case you may go to scissors to counter his paper. You are also increasingly likely to choose something new simply becasue your opponent is perpetually picking the same thing to avoid becoming predictable, factored into the (F*(N*0.2)) function, where N is steadily increasing. To summarize the equation.

Your base likeliness to select any choice a second time is 33.3", which is modified by your opponent's previous selection, and how many times they have made it consecutively, which will decrease your likelihood of making the same selection again. Your opponent's hand is then considered against the hand that is weak against your selection, and if different, it decreases your likelihood of selecting the same hand again as well. This part of the equation is especially important in ties, where the ante goes up considerably each time a tie is consecutively had. Then finally your odds are modified by your opponent's willingness to cycle compared to your own.


For the initial round, the equation is understandably simpler. For strangers or those you rarely play with:

C=33.3"*A
C= Any choice
A= Affinity for starting with that hand.

For those who are friends more gets lumped on:

C=33.3"*A+((N*0.5)E)-S

C= Any choice
A= Affinity for starting with that choice
N= Number of times you have battle this opponent
E= Their own affinity for a choice
S= Sureness your opponent will maintain their choice

As such, your own base likeliness is once again 33.3", modified by the choice you prefer to open with, then modified by the number of times your opponent has opened with a particular hand. THis will influence your own selection to attempt to oust your opponent first round, as will your sureness that your opponent will follow the pre-established patter of their opening round, which adds an element of a strategic gamble in the sense that your opponent may throw a curveball at you, knowing you are aware of their favored opening shot and trying to predict your own opening shot because of it- IE, they are following the exact same formula you are.

Math!


----------



## laviathan13089 (Apr 21, 2011)

omg, wtf are you guys babbling about? are you seriously doing a statistical analysis and tactics on rock paper scissors? meh, its better than complaining about chaos again. k:


----------



## KhainiteAssassin (Mar 18, 2009)

chaos suck!

and RPS is how people always end up bringing these games for some reason


----------



## Styro-J (Jan 20, 2009)

So, for some reason, Scissors is the least likely choice you'll come up against and Paper is your safest bet. The math holds true but can only stand up to so much of a degree of human error and subconscious influences. Similarly, there is the question of experience and being able to spot it that determines how you should approach each game.


----------



## Iron Angel (Aug 2, 2009)

Both of which are adequately accounted for in the alghorythms I have created. And the human variable is only mathematically calculable to a certain extent- Were it graphable to any high standard of accuracy the world would have been taken over by now. As it stands, human nature is difficult to poinpoint with 100% accuracy but I have done my best at mapping the differing potentialities for this particular instance and translating them in a way that they are associable with the individual making the calculations, allowing them to be more accurate than if they were being run by a third party.

Ultimately its as much about chance as it is about strategy in many cases.


----------



## Styro-J (Jan 20, 2009)

I simply mean that while as a part of a three choice system that all three choices should be somewhat equivalent in results from a purely mathematical standpoint. You have very well laid out an equation for competitive play, but I am personally more interested in why the tendencies seem to go one way over another. I am wondering what accounts for the somewhat astounding 4% slip in Scissor usage, is it purely the overabundance of Rock as a beginner choice?


----------



## Kreuger (Aug 30, 2010)

Well, Styro-J and Iron Angel I think you both know what this means, in the words of posterity, 


*Rock is dead!

Long live paper and scissors!*


----------



## Iron Angel (Aug 2, 2009)

One can assume, outside of a mathematical standpoint, that rock is indeed the most common opening volley, for the psychological implications that rock brings to mind- Toughness, durability, strength, etc, while scissors and paper do not conjure up these primal images. An intelligent duelist however senses this flaw in judgement, and goes for paper. This caused paper to enter a predominant state, and then scissors. More than anything the sine curve following the trend is exactly that- A trend. As one's usage becomes predominant the more clever folk progress to the level beyond it to counteract the previous measures and around and around it goes.

As has been stated the human variable is difficult to track, but trends can be observed and watched for repetitions in such a fashion. Thus I predict Rock coming back into play as a key element sometime in the near future to overcome this four percent variation present.


----------



## Styro-J (Jan 20, 2009)

Whereas I believe that Rock will remain a primary of the opening volley as I feel the game itself will change before primal connotations behind the options. And as this game will likely remain being played on a primarily informal level most people will not progress to the upper levels of game-thought. As such, I predict very little change.

Good Game!


----------



## Scathainn (Feb 21, 2010)

This may be of use to you all:


----------



## Azkaellon (Jun 23, 2009)

This is the reason the Gw codexs have been sucking


----------



## Trickstick (Mar 26, 2008)

I prefer rock-paper-scissors-lizard-spock. Far more variation and less predictability.










What was the topic again?


----------



## KhainiteAssassin (Mar 18, 2009)

the topic is GW designing 'lemons' which is a false pretense given the nature of the game in which has brought upon this huge rock paper scissors discussion.


----------



## Kreuger (Aug 30, 2010)

Yeah . . . 'lemons' isn't all that accurate a term. I think we should use the term "Chaos Spawn" instead. 

However when the chaos gods give you spawns, you still can't make lemonade (unless Tzeentch is feeling generous.)


They tried Rock, Paper, Scissors, Spock, Lizard, Chaos Spawn.

But it threw off the mix, because _everything_ beats Chaos Spawn.


----------



## Trickstick (Mar 26, 2008)

How about rock-paper-scissors-spawn-creed? Basically the same apart from everything beats spawn and creed automatically wins.


----------

