Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums - Reply to Topic
Thread: Chaos, I don't get it, help this poor fool. Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
09-27-10 02:39 AM
Syko515
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordWaffles View Post
Already reported, perhaps a new thread entitled "Successfully tried tson lists" should be made?
THAT sounds like a plan!
09-26-10 11:09 PM
LordWaffles
Quote:
Originally Posted by Syko515 View Post
i quote this as a way of saying WTF to everyone involved in this retarded argument. not only does none of this help the original poster but it doesn't even deal with the original posting subject matter. can we get back on topic please instead of listening and indulging the rantings of people who wish to infight. or i can start reporting people to mods.
Already reported, perhaps a new thread entitled "Successfully tried tson lists" should be made?
09-26-10 10:25 PM
Syko515
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordWaffles View Post
If you can't physically obscure a unit of infantry, you either just deep striked, played a gamble that failed, or are just bad. Period. Seeing that I can always manage to get my troops into cover, I now challenge you to do the same.

Instead of rallying cries of "HAX" why not try to accomplish that which I put forward. I tried the tson armies when they were new, and knew them to be false hopes, now instead of hearsay, why not try my way before invalidating it the way I tried yours so long ago?


It's all about sizing up the field and running duplicate units of the same height. DPs can draw cover from rhino chassis, obliterators(if posed right) and larger tanks(raiders). Vehicles do the same thing, vindicators can get cover from advancing rhinos, predators can shoot the turret over the rhinos while gaining cover, and land raiders can obscure each other if you have three and one's in the lead.

It'd be more decisive with pictures, true, but you get my point.



The only face smashing I've seen by Tson armies is when they smash their own face into the table, repeatedly.



Before you go on to quote supposed hypocrisy, you should make note not to do it yourself(IE: Running back into an argument for last minute mud slinging)

Second, it's a quote from a same-strength codex(Black Templar) it lacks the lash, oblits, plagues, and chosen. Everything is relied on either infantry or land raiders, so it forces you to find cover or die. By playing a statistically weaker army, I find my skill at the game is much more improved by tournament time. Conversely I ditch all the mathematically weaker armies at tourny time so I can rock face.(Fun for fun competitive for competitive).

The quote represents the only usable special rule the codex uses. I find it paramount to this discussion, hence why I used it. By not using the "AACNMTO" you become a better player by being forced to fight for every inch, but at tournament time you pick up a good list with that rule in play and rock face.

In short, play the worse codexes during the off season, don't gimp yourself on the big games.

And armies that fail mathhammer generally do suck
i quote this as a way of saying WTF to everyone involved in this retarded argument. not only does none of this help the original poster but it doesn't even deal with the original posting subject matter. can we get back on topic please instead of listening and indulging the rantings of people who wish to infight. or i can start reporting people to mods.
09-26-10 08:32 PM
LordWaffles
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurrent View Post
I'm just having fun as well, I enjoy a good argument. One could easily say that this entire discussion is valid or invalid, however neither equate truth. I would like to see where lord waffles will prove that every unit will have a cover save 100% of the time in 100% of world wide games played.
If you can't physically obscure a unit of infantry, you either just deep striked, played a gamble that failed, or are just bad. Period. Seeing that I can always manage to get my troops into cover, I now challenge you to do the same.

Instead of rallying cries of "HAX" why not try to accomplish that which I put forward. I tried the tson armies when they were new, and knew them to be false hopes, now instead of hearsay, why not try my way before invalidating it the way I tried yours so long ago?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurrent View Post
but then what about MC's and vehicles? they aren't in squdrons all the time so how do they benefit from this same measure...
It's all about sizing up the field and running duplicate units of the same height. DPs can draw cover from rhino chassis, obliterators(if posed right) and larger tanks(raiders). Vehicles do the same thing, vindicators can get cover from advancing rhinos, predators can shoot the turret over the rhinos while gaining cover, and land raiders can obscure each other if you have three and one's in the lead.

It'd be more decisive with pictures, true, but you get my point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurrent View Post
Either way MoT armies can be competitive such as the one IntereoVivo just posted above. I've seen others slightly different, but that list smashes faces quite well.
The only face smashing I've seen by Tson armies is when they smash their own face into the table, repeatedly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloodcuddler of Khorne View Post
EDIT:

I know I said I was done arguing, but I just have to say this....

"Those who accepted any challenge, no matter the odds"? From the person arguing that you have to mathhammer through the odds or you suck? I smell a bit of hypocrisy.
Before you go on to quote supposed hypocrisy, you should make note not to do it yourself(IE: Running back into an argument for last minute mud slinging)

Second, it's a quote from a same-strength codex(Black Templar) it lacks the lash, oblits, plagues, and chosen. Everything is relied on either infantry or land raiders, so it forces you to find cover or die. By playing a statistically weaker army, I find my skill at the game is much more improved by tournament time. Conversely I ditch all the mathematically weaker armies at tourny time so I can rock face.(Fun for fun competitive for competitive).

The quote represents the only usable special rule the codex uses. I find it paramount to this discussion, hence why I used it. By not using the "AACNMTO" you become a better player by being forced to fight for every inch, but at tournament time you pick up a good list with that rule in play and rock face.

In short, play the worse codexes during the off season, don't gimp yourself on the big games.

And armies that fail mathhammer generally do suck
09-26-10 05:29 PM
Syko515 actually with my thousand sons i find its best to use units you wouldn't nrmally think of. for a 1000 point game i rock the following:

Chaos Sorcerer - mark of tzeentch, warptime, winds - 185

9 thousand sons- winds -274
rhino- havoc Launcher - 50

9 thousand sons - doom bolt - 254
rhino - havoc launcher - 50

Predator - twin linked lascannon, lascannon sponsons, deamonic possession - 185

this was my last tourney army , well the one before the doubles tourney where i took nids, and i came in 2nd due to a tactical mistake, not a fault of the army. i walked away with 2 massacre's and a major victory instead of a massacre because i forgot to finish off a one man unit in KP.
09-26-10 12:11 PM
Flame80010
Quote:
Originally Posted by ROT View Post
I hope to God your not asking me to NOT run Berserkers?

That would just be a pointless request
nah he was talking to waffle
09-26-10 11:27 AM
ROT I hope to God your not asking me to NOT run Berserkers?

That would just be a pointless request
09-26-10 08:25 AM
Bloodcuddler of Khorne Whoops! I always run my CSMs in 10s so often that I keep forgetting about that. Aw well, minor adjustment.

The only problem is getting a champion, and then a pfist in it, is 40 points. I kept trying but I couldn't find anything I wanted to take the points out of.


EDIT:

I know I said I was done arguing, but I just have to say this....

"Those who accepted any challenge, no matter the odds"? From the person arguing that you have to mathhammer through the odds or you suck? I smell a bit of hypocrisy.

Okay then, how about this for a challenge... at your next tournament, play CSM, but do not take a single lash or warptime prince, plague marine, berserker, chosen or obliterator. If you want to prove that you're not just full of it and actually have skill beyond the ability to use a calculator, see how you do with what you consider crap.
09-26-10 01:53 AM
Kurrent I'm just having fun as well, I enjoy a good argument. One could easily say that this entire discussion is valid or invalid, however neither equate truth. I would like to see where lord waffles will prove that every unit will have a cover save 100% of the time in 100% of world wide games played. They again, it would depend on how he defined unit, cover, etc. Could one say that 50% of my squad if covered by the other 50% if I played them is a solid block? I mean you can't see at least 50% of my units in the squad with TLOS because the first people in line obviously block LOS to the ones behind them. -add in sarcastic comment here- That must be how he explains 100% of units have 100% cover, but then what about MC's and vehicles? they aren't in squdrons all the time so how do they benefit from this same measure...


Either way MoT armies can be competitive such as the one IntereoVivo just posted above. I've seen others slightly different, but that list smashes faces quite well.
09-26-10 01:33 AM
Inquisitor Malaclypse
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordWaffles View Post
The definition will be "Those who accepted any challenge, no matter the odds, may earn this prestigious title" Besides, I'm god-damned awesome.
i appreciate that i no longer have to take you seriously.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whizzwang View Post
God bless you ignore function
ditto.

don't let what any one has said about your list discourage you from your idea. i know for a fact non-Lash builds win games because i've seen different players win with different builds at different stores. and yeah, those builds have won tourneys.

the idea that there is only one perfect build for CSM (or any army in 40K really) is stupid, and certainly not true. mathhammer and theoryhammer be damned, i believe what i've seen more.

good hunting.
This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome