Slayer-Fan123 on Dakkadakka.com

[Lord Hanaur]

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/240/669194.page

 

Just thought you'd all like to know how terrible you are at 40K.  Apparently you're all Gak opponents.

 

Hilarity.

[Psilence]

What happens on dakka, stays on dakka ;)

 

I'd leave it there.

[Aventine]

Why are you re-posting your trolling of a bunch of Dakkites here?

[Xavier319]

Unorthadoxy

[pretre]

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/240/669194.page

 

Just thought you'd all like to know how terrible you are at 40K.  Apparently you're all Gak opponents.

 

Hilarity.

That's a little misrepresentation of the arguments going on there. Also, highlighting results of the night lords at the Extralife event is a little disingenuous since all your opponents specifically were told to bring soft lists. Heck, I went into the event trying to lose.

[fluger]

LH, I've come to appreciate you in real life, but your online persona is...not necessarily grating, but  you tend to present things in a way that is very off-putting.  

 

I was bored so I read through that thread, and I'll tell you one thing, if you want people to take you seriously, win BIG tournaments.  I agree with most of your points up to a point and I've seen you wield weird armies with precision and panache, so I know you're not some blowhard.  HOWEVER, saying that winning events won't prove anything, I whole-heartedly DISAGREE.  I legit don't take most people seriously until they win a big event (50+ people) or at least place well, and lots of people are in the same category.  Winning 3 games at an RTT means VERY LITTLE compared to winning out in a 5 round event for lots of the same reasons you mentioned.  Over time, standard deviations take over, which is why lists that aren't relying on gimmicks or some One Weird Trick tend to outlast and advance.  In the realm of BIG events, there's a reason Math becomes the deciding factor, because if you add more variables, the more reliable lists have better chances.  

 

I think your advice is fine for people trying to play in most NORMAL settings, but to argue that Night Lords is AS COMPETITIVE as Eldar is spurious.  Yes, you can make a list that is functional within the framework you have created, but the odds of that list, even in your hands, winning a big event is REALLY unlikely (to be fair, the odds of ANYONE winning a big event is really unlikely as the nature of a big event goes).  

 

Take Stelek for instance, I always considered him a complete buffoon because his view on 40k seemed so skewed and he refused to do big events.  When he finally DID play in a few big events, he did well, and his credibility in my mind went way up.  That's not to say I agreed with him 100%, but I took what he said with more weight.  

 

If you're going to crusade on internet forums about a particular play style you have to understand people are going to be skeptical, and there IS a way to prove it:  Big Events.  Heck, TSHFT is just around the corner and that's a big enough event that is local.  

 

Anyway, just my two cents.  I have respect for you and your community building mentality and your skill as a general, but I think you could do with some PR work.  :D

[InfestedKerrigan]

Chaos blows, despite WestRider forgetting.

[InfestedKerrigan]

In all seriousness, though, after reading those 12 pages, it seems that your opening statement that CSM can beat any list is a bit misleading.  I've won plenty of events in my time.  I've never won, or placed well, at a GT type event.  Well, I got 4th in first round of Hard Boyz the one year I decided to participate, and after the Judge made a call in favor of my opponent (his son), I got 4th instead of 3rd.  [big bad swear word] that guy.  Anyway, I don't believe for one moment that my skill as a general enables me to beat top tier players with top tier lists.  Your statement suggested that CSM can beat top tier players with top tier lists. 

 

I believe the majority of those 12 pages, and this thread included, could've been avoided by simply putting

 

"CSM with the right tools and general can play effectively against most lists.  If you find yourself failing repeatedly, try changing your tactics IN ADDITION to looking at changing your list." 

 

Majority of your argument on the page was subjective based on your skills as a general, regardless of lists.  My take away from what you said was that any codex can be effective with an effective general familiar with his tools and the tools of his enemy.

 

That is not the same as "CSM can be a good book" which is what the argu....discussion seemed to be more focused on.  CSM is not a good book.  It hasn't been a good book since 3.5. 

 

I dunno.

 

I'm sorry you came here to commiserate, and instead got more of the same feedback.  Hopefully, more constructive than it was on DD. 

[Lord Hanaur]

LH, I've come to appreciate you in real life, but your online persona is...not necessarily grating, but  you tend to present things in a way that is very off-putting.  

 

I was bored so I read through that thread, and I'll tell you one thing, if you want people to take you seriously, win BIG tournaments.  I agree with most of your points up to a point and I've seen you wield weird armies with precision and panache, so I know you're not some blowhard.  HOWEVER, saying that winning events won't prove anything, I whole-heartedly DISAGREE.  I legit don't take most people seriously until they win a big event (50+ people) or at least place well, and lots of people are in the same category.  Winning 3 games at an RTT means VERY LITTLE compared to winning out in a 5 round event for lots of the same reasons you mentioned.  Over time, standard deviations take over, which is why lists that aren't relying on gimmicks or some One Weird Trick tend to outlast and advance.  In the realm of BIG events, there's a reason Math becomes the deciding factor, because if you add more variables, the more reliable lists have better chances.  

 

I think your advice is fine for people trying to play in most NORMAL settings, but to argue that Night Lords is AS COMPETITIVE as Eldar is spurious.  Yes, you can make a list that is functional within the framework you have created, but the odds of that list, even in your hands, winning a big event is REALLY unlikely (to be fair, the odds of ANYONE winning a big event is really unlikely as the nature of a big event goes).  

 

Take Stelek for instance, I always considered him a complete buffoon because his view on 40k seemed so skewed and he refused to do big events.  When he finally DID play in a few big events, he did well, and his credibility in my mind went way up.  That's not to say I agreed with him 100%, but I took what he said with more weight.  

 

If you're going to crusade on internet forums about a particular play style you have to understand people are going to be skeptical, and there IS a way to prove it:  Big Events.  Heck, TSHFT is just around the corner and that's a big enough event that is local.  

 

Anyway, just my two cents.  I have respect for you and your community building mentality and your skill as a general, but I think you could do with some PR work.  :D

 

i mean I did well at my only TSHFT.  3 of the 4 players I played took their respective divisions I think so i had to run the gauntlet.  3-1-1.  Pretty good for a first go.  Lost in a mirror match.  Went to the Seattle GT a couple times.  lost a game at each one.  Got my only loss at one of them on the flukiest thing ever.  ugh.  never forget that.

 

Paint will never let me win.  So I'm not going to a big event as a rule.  I'd be a donor.  Could win all five and it wouldnt mattr.  I had to have cornea trnsplants.  Do the math!  Even when i fully painted and based, fully decal'd my sisters and all that drek, they shafted me on paint score and i had to have a judge regarde it after it was all over.  Dumb.  Dude didnt even give me the base points for fully painted.  WTF.

 

But the big thing is:  dont be coming at my "meta".  Thats just bullshizl.  THATS what made me mad.  THAT'S what i didn't like.  I'm ued to the abuse here and other places for doing things differently, but that meta argument just pisses me off and insults a lot more people than me.  

 

Just my take on it.

[Lord Hanaur]

That's a little misrepresentation of the arguments going on there. Also, highlighting results of the night lords at the Extralife event is a little disingenuous since all your opponents specifically were told to bring soft lists. Heck, I went into the event trying to lose.

Good times.  It doesnt matter.  Won a tournament the next day also.  So I was on a roll.  But its the disrespect towards my opponents that i cannot stand.

[indytims]

The argument where total strangers bang on your meta is a straw man. They have no clue if your meta is strong, weak, or somewhere in between and can only make wild assumptions based on their own anecdotal evidence.

 

For whatever reason, people in general seem to prefer to tear someone down - than build them up. I.e. most of those posters, not knowing you OR your meta, are more apt to look at your successes and decide it's your meta that sucks - instead of simply admitting, "Hey... maybe this guy is just pretty good." I don't know what it is, but people in general seem to feel more comfortable criticizing than praising. But maybe that's just me being jaded on humanity as a whole. ;)

 

Granted, the chaos book isn't the strongest out there. But I definitely do not agree with the notion that 'top tier players with top tier lists are unbeatable'. We're rolling dice - therefore -anyone- is beatable.

 

It just might not be very -likely-. ;)

 

But I've seen this argument in forums for almost every game I've been apart of. Confrontation, 40K, WM, Infinity - doesn't matter. Someone at some point states they've had success with a certain tactic/army/list/mode/etcl, and someone in a state of disbelief invariably insinuates (or flat out claims) that your opponents must just plain suck, as a method of explaining-away the success that was mentioned. It's a weaksauce argument, in my opinion, meant mainly to antagonize and rile you up. In this case - it worked, especially when the guy saying it really had nothing else to say.

 

"Well... maybe your friends suck." 

 

/eyeroll

 

But that's just my 2 coppers.

 

-Tim

[AbusePuppy]

Paint will never let me win.  So I'm not going to a big event as a rule.  I'd be a donor.  Could win all five and it wouldnt mattr.  I had to have cornea trnsplants.  Do the math!  Even when i fully painted and based, fully decal'd my sisters and all that drek, they shafted me on paint score and i had to have a judge regarde it after it was all over.  Dumb.  Dude didnt even give me the base points for fully painted.  WTF.

 

You do know that most events- including TSHFT, Guardian Cup, Storm and Harvester both, BAO/LVO, and more others than I care to count score painting and generalship separately, right? I've never won best painted, and I usually only do mediocre in best overall (painting lots of identical minis doesn't appeal a lot to me), but I've won best general- or taken spots near the top- plenty of times. You can compete on whatever basis you prefer, and the required three-color standard that most tournaments enforce is almost trivially easy to achieve, regardless of your skill level. And that's not even getting into potential for painting on commission, if you're into that.

 

Fluger speaks truth: if you want people to take your opinion as a competitive player seriously, you've gotta go to events and show folks your money is where your mouth is. That doesn't mean it's impossible to be right without playing in events, but nothing succeeds like success. If you start winning (or even placing near the top) consistently with CSM or other books that are classically considered bad, people will take notice and be a lot more willing to what you have to say.

 

Of course, no one is saying you have to go out and prove yourself right, but if you're not willing to do so, they don't have any more reason to listen to your view of the game than you have to listen to theirs, now do they? There's a million reasons why people don't win events: they don't have the time (or money) to attend, their army is subpar, their generalship isn't up to snuff, their understanding of the rules is poor, etc, etc, etc. But there's really only one reason people win big events: because they're good players with good lists. It's really that simple.

 

 

But I've seen this argument in forums for almost every game I've been apart of. Confrontation, 40K, WM, Infinity - doesn't matter. Someone at some point states they've had success with a certain tactic/army/list/mode/etcl, and someone in a state of disbelief invariably insinuates (or flat out claims) that your opponents must just plain suck, as a method of explaining-away the success that was mentioned. It's a weaksauce argument, in my opinion, meant mainly to antagonize and rile you up. In this case - it worked, especially when the guy saying it really had nothing else to say.

 

While this may be true, the reverse case also holds water- the "I have won X games with this army/tactic/list" poster is often insinuating that the fact that they have won (or won a certain number of games, or have a certain win record) somehow proves, in absentia of any other information, that their creation is awesome and they are a fantastic player. If you remember Black BlowFly that posted to BoLS pretty regularly back in the day, he often made such claims- but when he posted battle reports, his opponents were incompetent to the point of being self-defeating, such as the GK player who disembarked all of his troops into an empty battlefield just in time for BBF's whole army to Deep Strike around them.

 

A win record alone proves nothing.

[fluger]

As an example, I've been advocating for lictors for years, but no one took them seriously until Lictorshame won two big events. I wasn't wrong, but I wasn't validated until it happened.

[pretre]

This is why I try never to use my win records to make points about lists/posts. I never play in big events.

[Xavier319]

There is something to this, but this is the internet. I bring orkz to events, hell I'm going to the next Adepticon with them. I fully expect people to underestimate them, and treat them as a joke. I have a few tricks, solid strats and good units that I have found work against a variety of opponents, and can hang in there with the 'big boys' as well. The point though, is that you have to couch your statements. I'm supremely confident in my ability to beat any list, through psychology, tactics, strategy or sheer luck (orkyness). However, that does not mean I think I WILL win every game, I know I wont, just that I CAN. I'm a reasonably skilled player (When i'm not drunk), I build solid lists using units that a lot of people don't consider or see often, and that gives me an edge. But I agree with a lot of what was said, My little bit there, I couched it. I CAN win against any opponent, but I don't think I will win every game. Orkz are competitive, and can beat armies like tau, or eldar, or space marines... but they are not as innately competitive as those armies. Those armies have the prices, units and ease of use that make them truly all-around competitive in any environment.

 

In the end, present yourself as less arrogant, more humble, and let your innate skill as a player show through. I actually like you in person, but your online persona both amuses and irritates me. Let who YOU are shine through.

[fluger]

Another thing that I think Xavier hit on that LH kinda orbits around is that a lot of what works for one general doesn't work for another.  A lot of that comes down to reps and having LOTS of gaming experience.  LH does weird stuff that others don't, but it works for him because he's done it enough times to make it effective.  Xavier sent me his Adepticon list to review and I looked at it and thought, "I'd get murdered if I played this!"  And I'm an Ork player!  I think it's important to understand your style of play and steer into the slide.  Every time I've tried to be tricksy and play elite armies, I've gotten beat...HARD.  Now, I could keep trying and get to be effective with those armies, but I don't have the time.  I instinctively GET running hordes and that's how I play.  

 

My point, is that a lot of the advice that you give, LH, is only effective because YOU know what you're doing with that list.  The reason "net lists" are popular is because they tend to be self explanatory.  Usually though, the winning lists of big events are variations on netlists with some kind of tweak or personal touch that takes them to the next level.  

[indytims]

While this may be true, the reverse case also holds water- the "I have won X games with this army/tactic/list" poster is often insinuating that the fact that they have won (or won a certain number of games, or have a certain win record) somehow proves, in absentia of any other information, that their creation is awesome and they are a fantastic player. If you remember Black BlowFly that posted to BoLS pretty regularly back in the day, he often made such claims- but when he posted battle reports, his opponents were incompetent to the point of being self-defeating, such as the GK player who disembarked all of his troops into an empty battlefield just in time for BBF's whole army to Deep Strike around them.

 

 

 

Good point - but it seems people tend to jump to this explanation first, rather than consider that the guy could just be a good (or really good) player. At least in my interwebz experience, that's what I've seen.

 

The tone of the conversation is important, and each person can take it differently. I didn't get the impression that the op was insinuating that their creation was awesome and/or that they were a great player (I didn't see his record mentioned until this thread after he was defending himself, unless I just missed it). What I got was, 'Hey, you -can- win games using the codex as-is', which is obviously true. He used his anecdotal evidence to support it, which of course some people won't ever accept until he plays in a 'bigger pond'.

 

I could very well have misinterpreted the op's message, though. I'm telling you - don't get old. ;)

 

And Fluger makes a good point too, what works for one person just might not work or gel for another.

 

-Tim

[Lord Hanaur]

You do know that most events- including TSHFT, Guardian Cup, Storm and Harvester both, BAO/LVO, and more others than I care to count score painting and generalship separately, right? 

 

Fluger speaks truth: if you want people to take your opinion as a competitive player seriously, you've gotta go to events and show folks your money is where your mouth is. That doesn't mean it's impossible to be right without playing in events, but nothing succeeds like success. If you start winning (or even placing near the top) consistently with CSM or other books that are classically considered bad, people will take notice and be a lot more willing to what you have to say.

 

Of course, no one is saying you have to go out and prove yourself right, but if you're not willing to do so, they don't have any more reason to listen to your view of the game than you have to listen to theirs, now do they? There's a million reasons why people don't win events: they don't have the time (or money) to attend, their army is subpar, their generalship isn't up to snuff, their understanding of the rules is poor, etc, etc, etc. But there's really only one reason people win big events: because they're good players with good lists. It's really that simple.

 

 

 

While this may be true, the reverse case also holds water- the "I have won X games with this army/tactic/list" poster is often insinuating that the fact that they have won (or won a certain number of games, or have a certain win record) somehow proves, in absentia of any other information, that their creation is awesome and they are a fantastic player. If you remember Black BlowFly that posted to BoLS pretty regularly back in the day, he often made such claims- but when he posted battle reports, his opponents were incompetent to the point of being self-defeating, such as the GK player who disembarked all of his troops into an empty battlefield just in time for BBF's whole army to Deep Strike around them.

 

A win record alone proves nothing.

 

I wasn't aware that paint wasn't part of those bigger ones.  It has always been for the most part accounted too heavily for me to have any shot at it and that was made especially clear in the GT's.  That actually kind of excites me.

 

But you have to understand why I gave up on going to them.  I went 5-0 in a 5E tournament (the dreadful kind that used the Masscre scoring system for those who remember that BS) with Tau Empire when it wasn't such a cool codex over in Georgia and do you know where I placed?  8th overall out of 75.  I got the booby prize of Best General, so I guess that's cool, but...  My paint was that big a deal.  When i played at my friends club 6E event in Florida, which was about 50 people, I went 5-0.  I didn't get Best General because of the way they scored the Best General (that was fine, rulez is rulez but it was still fun).  Wanna' know what position I got?  7th overall. and there were less people!  You can see my painting frustration. 

 

So thanks for that info, That is very interesting.  I had taken it for granted frankly that they all did.  It has stopped me for a pretty long time.  I spent some money going to those other events so it was deflating to see 7th and 8th place after all that, as you'd imagine.

 

As for going to TSHFT:  I have proof positive that winning won't change anyone's mind Abusepuppy.  I don't think 5-0 at TSHFT is going to matter.  I've done it at 4 significant sized events (and to be fair you rarely see 5 games at anything smaller than 50 players anyways).  That's four more times than most.  Not good enough.  Some say they don't care about the RTT wins even though its the majority of their own tournament experience and utterly discard casual games no matter the opponent.  Weird.  Some claim they don't care about the Ard Boyz wins.  Okay fine.  A single loss at each of the GT's I went to?  Didn't move the dial either.  In fact it appears that any game played outside of Adepticon literally doesn't matter! Lol.  Boy are there going to be some bored gamers next year with nothing to do when I tell them the bad news!  Hehehe.

 

So yeah I could go to TSHFT.  I really like Zhen and would do it to support his brain child.  But If I go 5-0, it'll be just another big event most don't recognize.  If I lose, it will be just another reason not to listen to me.  Ironic, am I right?  it's not Adepticon but they sure will count that loss.  Lol.

[pretre]

People recognize big events, even if you don't think they do. 5+ game ITC events are what you need to move the needle. And in this edition, 'Ard Boyz is a bit out of date.

[Lord Hanaur]

There is something to this, but this is the internet. I bring orkz to events, hell I'm going to the next Adepticon with them. I fully expect people to underestimate them, and treat them as a joke. I have a few tricks, solid strats and good units that I have found work against a variety of opponents, and can hang in there with the 'big boys' as well. The point though, is that you have to couch your statements. I'm supremely confident in my ability to beat any list, through psychology, tactics, strategy or sheer luck (orkyness). However, that does not mean I think I WILL win every game, I know I wont, just that I CAN. I'm a reasonably skilled player (When i'm not drunk), I build solid lists using units that a lot of people don't consider or see often, and that gives me an edge. But I agree with a lot of what was said, My little bit there, I couched it. I CAN win against any opponent, but I don't think I will win every game. Orkz are competitive, and can beat armies like tau, or eldar, or space marines... but they are not as innately competitive as those armies. Those armies have the prices, units and ease of use that make them truly all-around competitive in any environment.

 

In the end, present yourself as less arrogant, more humble, and let your innate skill as a player show through. I actually like you in person, but your online persona both amuses and irritates me. Let who YOU are shine through.

Well I was fine for 8 pages of that thread, dodging the barbs.  Then I rose up.  I will always stand up for friends.  Always. I get baited when it comes to that.  No ones perfect.

 

What i sense online is that you can rarely make a claim without someone suggesting you made a claim ten times larger than you did.  If you read my (what i think was) rather humble run down on the army and its faults and strengths, and it was lengthy enough to give the general tactica too, I was not putting on airs.  I put all the usual disclaimers out there.  

 

This was spillover from me trying to explain IG blobs to people on another thread.  So theres that.

[Lord Hanaur]

People recognize big events, even if you don't think they do. 5+ game ITC events are what you need to move the needle. And in this edition, 'Ard Boyz is a bit out of date.

Ard Boyz was just an example.  I wouldn't put too much weight on that.  All significant community events at the time they happened.

 

 Other than the REALLY big ones,I would end up having to explain to them what TSHFT is, as surely as i would have to explain to you what the tournaments were in Florida.  So if we're talking about Dakkadakka context  which is people all over the universe, do you really think they might know?

 

 

It's kind of like OFCC too.  No one knows what that is unless I tell them about it.  Heck there's locals that don't know!  That was the thrust of AgentP's attempts at the Captains meeting  to get the OFCC brand out there.  I thought it a very wise idea, so hopefully that's happening.

[pretre]

Ard Boyz was just an example.  I wouldn't put too much weight on that.  All significant community events at the time they happened.

 

 Other than the REALLY big ones,I would end up having to explain to them what TSHFT is, as surely as i would have to explain to you what the tournaments were in Florida.  So if we're talking about Dakkadakka context  which is people all over the universe, do you really think they might know?

 

 

It's kind of like OFCC too.  No one knows what that is unless I tell them about it.  Heck there's locals that don't know!  That was the thrust of AgentP's attempts at the Captains meeting  to get the OFCC brand out there.  I thought it a very wise idea, so hopefully that's happening.

People won't know what TSHFT is particularly but when you say it is a 50+ person ITC event with 5 games, that gets their attention.

[Lord Hanaur]

People won't know what TSHFT is particularly but when you say it is a 50+ person ITC event with 5 games, that gets their attention.

I see!

 

Which kinda goes to my point.  So now i'm really depressed.  Lol.  All hope is lost.

[fluger]

It's kind of like OFCC too.  No one knows what that is unless I tell them about it.  Heck there's locals that don't know!  That was the thrust of AgentP's attempts at the Captains meeting  to get the OFCC brand out there.  I thought it a very wise idea, so hopefully that's happening.

 

I'm trying with my little events!  :D  

[Lord Hanaur]

I'm trying with my little events!  :D  

Boom.  Winning!

 

Speaking of that, I finally heard back from AgentP on why the OFCC didn't contact me about the Ambassadorial tournament.  Ran into him at the tournament I took Adepta Sororits to last weekend.  Got a chance to kibitz with him about it.

 

Well, get the tournament up to 50, Fluger.  You have til December.  Apparently I need to win another damn big one just so dudes like this...  Dakka guy will listen.  They go mute, I'm told, unless I re-up my "Winners circle membership" at the 50+ club every quarter or something.  Le sigh.

 

Although consider this:  if we removed all threads and responses from Dakka members except those who have gone undefeated at a 50+ event...  There would be just a few of us.  I wonder where they would all go?