Librarium Online Forums banner

Draigo armies vs Crowe Armies

5K views 59 replies 12 participants last post by  jy2 
#1 ·
What are the thoughts of experienced GK players on draigo and crowe armies?

As a new player it seems to me that crowe is better for smaller points armies whilst Draigo works best with more points, thoughts?

how do paladin armies compare to purifier armies throughout the points range?
 
#2 ·
Yeah, Draigo doesn't really work below 1500. When a single model is a quarter of your points, that's a bad army.
 
#3 ·
I agree Draigo is about 19 models at 2k, which is quite a low model count but has been proven to work. Once you start going down in points it becomes a dangerously low model count.

Crowe on the other hand is a much cheaper HQ to begin with Less then half the cost of Draigo if i recall. That gives you more space for more guys at lower points and puifiers are far less expensive.

The problem however is actual $ cost. I am not sure about the new prices, but when i was looking at the old prices buying a Draigowing Army is less expensive. Especially if your running your purifiers are in brand new rhinos/Razorbacks. Here is what i came up with.

~$335us for 2000pt Draigowing at old prices 3 terminator boxes 3 dreadknights and Draigo
~$425us for Crowe 30 purifiers and 6 razorbacks

Now as far as a Draigowing vs Purifier list... i cant say for sure, there are only 2 other GK players in my club and they are both running all around lists and not a theme list. My thoughts on it is that there are twice as many bodies in the purifier list and thats twice as many storm bolter/psycannon shots when in range. 2+ saves will fail at some point... Now in CC Draigowing has some advantage of atleast being able to roll an invulnerable save with every model, vs Crowe being the only invulnerable save in the purifier list. Sadly however Draigowing will be just removing expensive models if they do fail saves, 2 wound Paladins and 4 wound Dreadknights still die to activated force weapons.



~Syko
 
#4 ·
Thanks guys, sound advice. It's kind of a shame about the high points cost of paladins with them being so cool, don't get me wrong I like the knights for the challenges they present in force-building, but It seems that they more expensive than they should be points wise, I mean I can't imagine a single squad of paladins really being capable of beating a tiny army of marines at equal points cost. I don't know that from experience but really? Even the cheapest squad of 5 paladins at 440 points is near to thirty marines!
 
#7 ·
You have those points very wrong, 5 paladins base comes nowhere near 440 pts. For example my optimal paladin squad of 5 paladins with 2 psycannons and an assortment of force weapons clocks in at 315 pts. Still quite a bit of points, but it really does have the ability to fight well, especially with the use of halberds so you can kill opponents before they get to attack.

The key to successful draigowing is trying to make the opponent fight on your terms, use fast dreadknights and movement to engage one part of your opponents army at a time. Go completely head to head and that is when the paladins come into danger of getting drowned in bodies.
 
#5 ·
I dont do Math hammer so i cant give accurate stats but i would put 5 paladins against 30 marines, hopfully not all at one time, but even 30 vs 5 Stock Paladins are going to take down most of the marines before they are all gone.

Paladins have 2 shots at 24" and can assault, bolters are great until you want to assault then they are stuck in place.

The Paladins are WS5 so rolling 3s to hit, gonna use hammerhand cuz they are only marines and dont have multi wounds, so rolling even more 3s to wound. They are power weapons, so no saves, each round of CC my guestimate is about 9 dead marines on the charge, 6 with out Charge. By the time the 30 Marines get past the 2+ save to kill all 5 paladins i think there will be less then 6 Marines left.

All this is assuming no upgrades, Paladins do get Halberds and Hammers for free... If they took Halberds the Marines are toast before they can even think of swinging.

Just my out look on things, ofcourse poor rolling will kill any army, one combat round i had to roll 6 armor saves, and i rolled 4 1s.... so anything is possible.




~Syko
 
#6 · (Edited)
There are a couple things to consider when comparing these two armies, as I am currently in the process of making a final decision between the two myself.

I think of draigowing and I go by the number of wounds, not the number of models on the board. Yes instakill weapons can make a joke of multiwound models, but with the ability to abuse wound allocation you can usually manage to put all the instakill wounds on one model and even then you still get an invulnerable save. This balances it out in my mind and lets me go by wounds. Thinking this way, the typical draigowing list at 2k has 30-40 terminator wounds, and 8-12 toughness 6 terminator wounds, not to mention draigo's own 4 wounds. Thats alot of wounds to go through that have amazing armor and invulnerable saves.

With shooting, the Crowe army has more stormbolter shots and when standing still has more psycannons shots, however when is your army just standing still? Especially a mounted army like a purifier list. Paladins on the other hand are constantly on the move and still get to fire the heavy version of the psycannon due to their terminator armor. In CC I tend to think they balance out a bit, purifiers get more attacks and cleansing flame, but ALL of a paladin squads attacks are force weapons and they have a higher weapon skill.

Honestly I really think it balances out over all, and comes down to what you want to play and who are you playing against. Both lists are very effective and both have some different strengths and weaknesses. Crowe lists do better against horde armies, and are more mobile with transports. Draigowing crushes other elite lists and has the additional factor of not many people build lists with plans to go up against an entire army of 2+/4-5++. Draigowing also gets to benefit from The Grand Strategy which can mess with opponents.

In a super competitive tourney, Crowe lists might actually do slightly better because crowe lists tend to be able run successful MSU builds and to have the points and FO slots to take psyfleman dreads for anti-transports in this age of mech.
 
#8 ·
Excellent points all round thankyou humanoid typhoon and very helpful info on the two army types.

Im surprised to hear it but I don't doubt you that paladins could take on the marines; and your exactly right about picking off your enemy of course and using strategy, which is always the reality of the game, so well argued.

I knew I'd be wrong on points value there as I dont know basic paladins off the top of my head so I was thinking of 5 fully kitted out paladins and was being lazy with language.

Im thinking of eventually having a large GK force which allows me to pick a small paladin force, or a small purifier force for smaller games but which works as one larger army for bigger battles. That way you can play either when you feel like it. I imagine a lot of people do that with grey knights.
 
#9 ·
I would also keep in mind that you don't always have to commit your entire army to paladins simply because you include Draigo. Many players use grand masters as their HQ choice and equip them with an extra grenade option and some servo skulls which brings the cost to around 200 points. Draigo is only 70-75 points more, maybe even less if you really trick out your GM. However, for those points you get +1 ws, + 1 str, +1 toughness, +1 attack, storm shield (3+ inv), eternal warrior, a flamer psychic attack, and his fancy daemon killing sword. Placing str 8 + weapon attacks that would insta kill other infantry on draigo will quickly make up for his extra cost, so consider his awesome stats a free bonus.

Moving to my point, a fairly standard army could incorporate Draigo and 5 man paladin squad quite easy. It would cost 590-665 points on average with a standard set up depending on if an apothecary is taken. A grandmaster with 3 servo skulls and grenades with 5 terminators with psycannon will cost 430 points. It averages out to 200 points to upgrade to Draigo and the paladins. Many feel as though you are now compelled to take additional paladins as your troops to justify these costs when in reality in terms of units all it would sacrifice is a 5 man strike squad in a rhino. I can guarantee that Draigo and 5 paladins will far exceed the performance of a GM, 5 termies and 200+ of stuff **on average**. I understand some armies are built a certain way and have no room for Draigo etc., but I find most standard grey knight builds can swap out this unit for that - it all comes down to preference.

Just some points to consider! :)
 
#10 ·
Well, me and my buddy got to give this a go a couple of weeks ago. My 2.5k DriagoWing army versus his 2.5k Crowe Ard Boyz list. We played one of the 2010 scenarios.

Ending result was 23-0 DriagoWing. He had nothing but a PsyRifleMan left on the table, which was running away.

Granted, this was the two armies facing off against each other. Against other opponents they are both strong builds and a ton of fun to play. I prefer running DriagoWing, but am currently working on amassing PAGKs for my Crowe army.
 
#11 ·
wow thats a surprising result for the draigowing from zagman, I would have expected them to be a little more even than that as a guess. Of course when your playing games where scoring troops count, the purifiers are more mobile unless you mount the paladins which is hard for small points, thought I don't doubt both can do equally well in such games.

As for kzqq I completely agree though I have no play experience with the GK yet, Im now waiting for my 1st GK army to come in the post, but I am starting out with a grand master which I plan to field in games from 1000pts up, and in my 1500 im fielding 5 paladins and 15 purifiers as well as my grandmaster, coteaz and 20 acolytes in power armour with bolters.
 
#12 ·
Honestly, not really that surprising of a result. His psyriflemen dreads were basically useless. He had no ID outside of a MM on his crusader and his NFWs(which were made essentially useless by my hood on the rare occasion we ended up in CC). We were both 24" armies, I was able to keep him at range and basically force him to fire on the move. a Paladin is as resilient as 4 purifiers at range. And with wound allocation, I wasn't losing key models nor combat effectiveness.

By the way, it was an objective game, I won 4 objectives to 0. I was a bit lucky and had 4x5 scoring paladinssquads and 3 scoring dreadknights with personal teleporters.
 
#14 ·
Your hybrid list is for 1500 points. Now, I'm estimating the point costs but...

Grand Master and 5 Paladins - about 550 - 600 pts
15 Purifiers with minimal upgrades - about 380 pts
cortez + 20 acol - about 340 points

As of now (around 1350points), your army isn't very intimidating. Your opponent just has to sit back and wait for you to come to him as your units start getting blown to pieces.

It's fun at times to field a diverse army, but I recommend streamlining/focusing your list.
 
#15 ·
Yeah I know it's lacking yet, it's literally the first GK ive bought n im short for cash just yet. Im hoping that by adding two dreadnoughts, a vindicare, and crowe as well as mounting up with two chimeras, 2 stormravens and 3 razorbacks. That'll give me a fair few lascannons and enough speed to operate efficiently. Which I hope will give me a good battleforce with options when it comes to smaller matches.
 
#16 ·
Umm.... There are a lot of other army builds than Draigo and Crowe, you know! :rotfl:

Anymore, I just lurk this forum. Nobody seems to have any interest in playing anything but pure Draigo or pure Crowe armies. At lease a pure Crowe/Purifier army can be badass, but I remain mystified at the scandalously awesome results Zagman is reporting with his Draigowing. I've proxied his army and ... it just doesn't work against good opponents with good armies in my experience. Noobs and crap armies get their heads bashed in easily and quickly, but balanced Guard and Marines and DE (for examples) maul it to pieces. My own GK army does much better against these opponents than pure Draigo. Earlier someone said you'd be better off using Draigo and Paladins in a more limited fashion. Like, just taking one Paladin unit as well. This is good advice, by my way of thinking!

Anyway, that's a bit beside the point. I'm just disappointed that nobody seems to think much of building armies without splurging a ton of points on the big boys. MSU GKs, anybody? Heck, I don't run Crowe, Draigo, a GM, or even a Libby and I get a damn fine army out of the deal. Makes me sad that nobody else wants to do anything but play with either Draigo or Crowe. There's nothing to talk about here! :(
 
#22 · (Edited)
[MENTION=10530]number6[/MENTION] Managed to get in a 2.5k game today against my good friend's balanced Marine list. Hes considered the best player at our LGS and we usually have some tough matches against each other. I haven't faced this army before, and he has faced mine before with his DE, GK, and Orks. I managed to bring my camera and will attempt my first real battle report in the next day or so. Not to spoil anything, but my DriagoWing didn't bring their "A" game, not saying they lost...or did they. The report should show some of the major weaknesses of DriagoWing and how a skilled player can exploit them.

You are very right that there are many ways to run successful GK lists that do not include special characters. Though, the point of this discussion as I understand it is to compare two popular themed lists, of which there are many incarnations. Also, comparing DriagoWing versus a Crowe list is tricky. Mainly due to inherent advantages and disadvantages of of comparing how they fare against each other, and how they do against others.

EDIT: Here is the link to my battle report http://www.librarium-online.com/forums/40k-battle-reports/212195-2-5k-driagowing-vs-sm.html
 
#17 · (Edited)
Both are fine builds. Zagman's results with his Draigowing has really surprised me. I've gone from being a skeptic to a believer in his build. Still, as number6 pointed out, there's more than those 2 builds in the GK codex. I shall go briefly over 3 builds.

Draigowing
This is the GK equivalent to the ork Nob bikers army. It relies on basically 2 main hammer units (or deathstar units) to basically pound the enemy into submission. This is NOT a balanced GK build. Now I'm not saying that is necessarily a bad thing. I'm just saying that it is less equipped to handle a larger variety of enemy builds than, say, a purifier list. Lists such as these normally tends to end in 2 ways - either they will table the opponent (or close to) if the opponent doesn't bring a balanced army or they themselves will get tabled (dominated) by another good, balanced army. Fortunately, they can handle a wide variety of builds.

They will have problems with highly mobile armies (mechdar), armies with volume of fire/attacks (ork green tide, tyranid swarms, genestealers), massed S8 AP1/2 weapons (melta-spam, lance-spam, demolisher tanks), assault-terminators (Deathwing) and mech-MSU (they don't have the volume of fire to take down a lot of vehicles).


Crowe-Purifiers
This is a more balanced build than Draigowing and better equipped to handle a wider variety of armies. However, it is not perfect either. It does have problems with certain builds due to it's lack of low-AP weaponry: terminator builds (deathwing, Draigowing), tyranids supported by Shadows in the Warp (they have trouble against FNP monstrous creatures and hordes when they can't get off Cleansing Flame) and AV 14 (land raider-spam).


Coteaz-mixed list
This is probably the most balanced GK list that I've seen up-to-date. It can handle all builds. It's main weakness is Kill Points against another shooty MSU build (long fang-spam, GK psyfleman dread-spam, shooty IG). It goes something like this (at 2K):

Coteaz
3x5 Purifiers - 2x psycannons, 2x halberds, hammer, rhino
3x3 Warrior henchmen - 3x meltas, chimera
3x5 Strike Squads - 1x psycannon, Bolterback w/psybolt
5x Interceptors - 1x psycannon, hammer
3x Psyfleman dreads
 
#18 ·
STILL TOO LIMITED! There's more than Coteaz, even!

You don't need any special character to lead your army to get a good one.

If you truly think there's only 3 cookie-cutter versions of the army.... I think I might cry. :(
 
#20 ·
Sorry, number6, but I don't consider crap-builds in my discussions....unless we're specifically talking about crap-builds.


First off, it is a little pre-mature to discuss "viable" or "competitive" builds until we see some tournament results.

As it is, this post is deviating from it's original intent - to compare Dragio with Crowe armies (and, 'yes' I believe I am the one to blame for this, sorry).
You don't need tournament results to see/understand how a build will do. And I don't see how I am taking this off topic. I am comparing the 2 builds with each other as well as with a 3rd build to show the OP that it's just not Draigowing or Purifiers as decent builds. There are others.
 
#19 ·
First off, it is a little pre-mature to discuss "viable" or "competitive" builds until we see some tournament results.

As it is, this post is deviating from it's original intent - to compare Dragio with Crowe armies (and, 'yes' I believe I am the one to blame for this, sorry).
 
#21 ·
Hey number6 you could have always slagged off my acolyte list above, that aint a cookie cutter build!
Ah im just kidding, I agree with number6 in that warhammer is of course about fun, you cant let competition be the sole sculptor of your army, do whats appealing.
In the same respect your unlikely to have as much fun as you could if you always lose,
but I don't think number6 was complaining that people arent making armies that lose every time.
 
#23 ·
My models for DraigoWing should be arriving soon. I'm mostly playing it because it's a complete 180 from my other army, IG - either mech or foot, you can't get much more different from that than DraigoWing. Also, the thought of only having to paint 25 models is strongly appealing.
 
#25 ·
This coming Thursday, I am going to pit my purifier-dread-spam knights against a paladin army. My opponent doesn't use Draigo. Instead, he takes Coteaz, librarian, henchmen in chimeras and 15-20 paladins. I actually feel that this is a slightly more balanced build than a pure Draigowing because the henchmen helps to balance out the low-model count that are paladins.

I suspect that it's going to be a very educational fight...for my opponent. Heh, heh....

Of course I will be doing a battle report on it.
 
#28 · (Edited)
Wait til you go up against Dual lash with 9 oblits. Or how about when you go up against mechdar with Eldrad. It's balanced but it still has a weakness. Everything does.

BTW, drop 2 hammers from each of the interceptor squad and give them psybolt ammo instead and you're golden.

PS - Oh, I forgot about Psyker Battle Squad IG.
 
#29 ·
Wait til you go up against Dual lash with 9 oblits.
You can't be serious. This list will chew that list up seriously quickly. It doesn't have nearly enough firepower or assault power. It can't target enough units to kill this list.
jy2 said:
Or how about when you go up against mechdar with Eldrad.
Aaaand... so what? I mean, a good mechdar list with Eldrad, yeah sure, GAME ON! :rotfl: But you make it sound like Eldar just has this list's number. You clearly don't understand how it works.
jy2 said:
It's balanced but it still has a weakness. Everything does.
I will NEVER claim that any army list is unbeatable. Clearly, this list is also beatable. But it will also seriously kick the crap out of 90+% of the army lists posted anywhere on LO or most other web forums. Only a really high-quality build of equivalent focus and efficiency can seriously attempt to combat this army. I have seen such lists out of the Eldar codex. I've seen them out of every codex. And in these matchups, neither this list nor these other lists have clear advantages.

But this list has a clear advantage over about 90% of what you'll find here on LO in any army subforum, I guarantee you that. This is what a truly competitive army list looks like.
jy2 said:
BTW, drop 2 hammers from each of the interceptor squad and give them psybolt ammo instead and you're golden.
This comment proves that you don't understand how the list is intended to function. In no way, shape, or form can this list survive the loss of those hammer attacks.
 
#34 · (Edited)
Reducing your effective range down to 18". Thats 6 psycannons spread across 3-6 units(interceptors) which have any chance at taking their skimmers down. 18" is within assault range and poisoned weapon range of just about everything they have, and since you are neither running around with I6 or multiple attacks, they won't be opposed to CC with you. Otherwise, it will be a while before any of your other units will get into range. They have range, mobility, and likely a CC advantage over you.

IG has many many options available to handle a list such as that. Front AV14 is very tough for psycannons to take down reliably and you certainly can't rely on those hammers for AT, not to mention the weaponry they can equip. Yes, you can shunt, but against AV13, psycannons are only marginally better and you only have 6, who will have to shunt to be effective. Access to cheap special weapons, a range advantage, and volume of fire in their favor.

You failed to answer my question. Have you put this "top tier tournament build" on the table yet?

DriagoWing will actually fair rather well against that list. Both are mid ranged firepower armies, but DriagoWing has wound allocation, and a 2+ save. Both armies have a mobile component, Interceptors versus PT DKs. In assault, the assaulter will have the advantage. Choosing between hammerhand and force weapons will be difficult as you aren't likely to get many saves through the invuln saves. I didn't say DriagoWing will win routinely against it, just DriagoWing isn't out of the running. You simply don't outclass them in Shooting, Mobility, or CC. It would be a solid match which would get even better at the 2.5k mark.

I understand what you are saying. And using your scale of "balanced competitiveness" that interceptor army fairs well? You will have difficulty dealing with AV14. And you do not have a significant CC threat. You shooting is limited by your 24" range. Don't get me wrong, i believe that list would be affective in most setting, but it is certainly beatable by a variety of armies.

Glad we agree on something ;)

Edit: Simple melta spam, ehh? It takes 95 BS4 melta shots to wipe my 2k DriagoWing army. That is without cover obviously. That is a lot of high strength low AP weaponry. Most armies, unless kitted for that specific purpose will be able to deliver the required firepower over the course of a game. IG and DE can easily bring the right kinds of firepower to bear, most other armies don't have it in abundance. There is nothing simple about requiring that amount of melta equivalent firepower. I did face one list which had 2 TLLC, 2 Demolisher Templates, an Orbital Bombardement, 4 MMs, 3 meltas, THSS Termies, Calgar, a Hood, hidden power fists, Ven Dreads. Every unit in that army I faced was capable of IDing a paladin.

Tarpitting, how is that a codex independent army template? Outnumbered over 6:1 and 30man ork mobs couldn't seem to do it, neither could DE witches. Ven Dreads have done a pretty good job at tar pitting paladins, and I do everything in my power to stop that from happening. An IG blob could do it, Kroot could, Orks can if the paladin squads are small and misplayed. Not many other armies have access to inexpensive enough units for tarpitting let alone having it be a viable tactic for most of the armies out there.

I have never made the claim that DriagoWing was totally balanced nor highly competitive, in fact I said it was a semi competitive army. I have routinely said that it won't be a tournament winning build, but I have said it is a blast to play and has proved to do surprisingly well. Most armies just don't have enough of the right kinds of firepower to stop it and good plan ensures that the sources of that firepower is going to be the first to die.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BarnyCarhamich
#35 · (Edited)
What do 6" do against multiple orbital strikes? You are focusing so strongly on the interceptors that you've forgotten totally about them. Anybody that intends to stay put in their deployment zone will get pounded by the strikes and 30 assault marines will be in their face.

DE cannot escape the strikes. If they do, they inevitably come into range of the rest of the army. They also cannot escape the interceptors. Night shields is meant to nullify melta gun double dice. It will have no effect on jumpers with pyscannons and stormbolters. And because they will be forced to move, they will also inevitably still be in range of the midfield psycannons on the striker units as well.

The orbital strikes force people into the midfield, where all GK armies are strongest. Midfield play is the designated playground of the GK codex, it's the built-in strength of the codex. And the interceptor army is no different. Do you really think DE can just out assault all those Marines with power weapons? Have you counted the number of hammer attacks available?

I play DE with my own army list, and I can beat them in assaults without a crap ton of halberds. This army is WAY more assaulty than my list. I am not concerned for its ability to beat down DE.

The army is built to succeed in assaults without having to go first. I should have thought this was obvious.

IG armies that stay put and try and shoot their way to victory are just meat for the 27 hammer attacks the Interceptors get on the charge ... plus the orbital strikes and psycannons. They will have to move if they want to have any hope of staying alive. Otherwise, multi-charges will obliterate IG parking lots.

That said, I have no doubt that quality DE and IG armies can beat the list. Tactic and counter-tactic will make for a very entertaining game, I am sure! But I absolutely deny any claims that it's a forgone conclusion as you and jy2 seem to think. Neither of you appear to understand how it's designed to work. :(
You failed to answer my question. Have you put this "top tier tournament build" on the table yet?
No. ;) Is that truly necessary in this case? Or am I the only person capable of seeing how the list plays out tactically? :rotfl: I do play a lot of 40K, and I do play a lot of Grey Knights. That experience counts for ... exactly nothing? :rotfl: Is not list-building a skill we develop and employ to know what is or is not "good"? I like to think this is something I am actually quite good at.
Zagman said:
DriagoWing will actually fair rather well against that list.
I don't see how. your DKs will get smashed by hammers. Either that, or you don't get them into assault and just waste them. They don't have any guns, do they? ;)

And beyond that you have a maximum of three units you can target with a limited number of shots. Again, this is part of the problem with your list, and why I don't consider it anything but beer-n-pretzels. It's not even semi-competitive. You don't generate enough of a shooting phase to be competitive. MSU armies can throw bones to your paladins anytime they need to slow you down.

Just last night I played against a Draigo army with my Tyranids. I shot and assaulted one unit dead in two game turns and swamped the other two units until they died as well. I had 70% of my VPs in units still on the table at the end of the game and he was all but tabled (one dreadnought and Draigo himself left alive at the game's end).

Just imagine what could have been accomplished if I'd had access to melta weaponry!

People say that Tyranids are an easy kill for most any GK army, but if the lauded Draigowing build can't even put up a decent fight against one of its easiest matchups, I find myself not believing claims that it's "competitive" in any way.
 
#36 ·
Good thing you don't have any orbital strikes in that army then. ;) If you are withing 18" of DE to fire psycannons, you are within their effective rapid fire range and assault threat range.

I never said that it was a "forgone conclusion" that certain IG and DE builds will win. But I would put the odds at over 50:50 with a competent general.

Theoryhammer is all well and good, but if my years playing 40k and other wargames have taught me anything is that theory only goes so far, you have to put things on the table and see how the myriad of other variables play out. Plain and Simple.

DKs have Heavy Incinerators and are meant to assault wounded squads and contest objectives. Hammers do indeed hurt them.

The list still has 6 relentless psycannons at 2k.

A simple "I've just beat a kind of similar army" anecdote doesn't really prove much. I know nothing of his list, your list, his skill, or how the game played out. Obviously is a very different build as he had a dreadnought. Fishy story with no context just to prove a point...
 
#37 · (Edited)
Good thing you don't have any orbital strikes in that army then. ;)
*facepalm* Strike that. Convert to "conversion beamers". Thank you. :rotfl:
Zagman said:
But I would put the odds at over 50:50 with a competent general.
How much over 50:50? 50:50 is all I demand out of any list.
Zagman said:
The list still has 6 relentless psycannons at 2k.
Shooting at a maximum of 3 targets per turn. That's just not enough. :( Especially when most armies -- of which my 'nids are just one example -- can silence the guns right quick.
Zagman said:
Fishy story with no context just to prove a point...
No different from me questioning the quality of your opponents and their lists, is it? ;) You claim they're excellent opponents with great lists. I look at the lists and read the reports and come to the opposite conclusion entirely.

Which is to say: I actually agree with your incredulity. :) It's why I try to avoid pulling out the "I beat this so I'm right!" argument. I did it above only to add some measure of credibility to my claim that Draigowing doesn't work. It's AT LEAST as valid as your opposite claim, therefore, yes? ;)
 
#38 ·
number6, you must really enjoy sidestepping counter points and twisting other's words.

Anything over 50:50 is and advantage. You have claimed that only the best and most optimized lists can hope to go toe to toe with that list, neither having the advantage. You make very bold claims for someone exercising theoryhammer.

There are more than 3 shooting threats thanks to the Heavy Incinerators. Also, each of those threats is brining significant firepower upon each target with an effective 30" range. Your aforementioned list brings a comparable amount of firepower on the move with a reduction in durability.

How would Nids "silence those guns right quick"? Seriously, how? Without and significant ID firepower coupled with most of their units being unable to stand in CC. How is this such a simple feat? Wound allocation and paladin durability makes that quite difficult to do for most armies.

I have attempted to give more information and try and not using such things in arguments. I prefer to illustrate with has happened in my experience.

I have never ever stated that DriagoWing is a tournament caliber army, ever; contrary to your insinuations. It is strong enough to play in semi competitive environments.

The effort you spend on your superior attitude could be much better spent taking a page out of jy2's book in creating well written illustrative battle reports. That would be a much more efficient use of your impressive list building skills and exceptional opponent base.
 
#39 ·
Anything over 50:50 is and advantage.
Which is why I asked how much. And also, why?
Zagman said:
There are more than 3 shooting threats thanks to the Heavy Incinerators.
1. If you want to bring the HIs to bear, you will be in charge range of hammers.

2. While capable of causing significant wounds, full 2" gaps will help reduce it, and everybody gets their PA save as well. Given the 1 turn each DK might have to fire before being killed by hammers, this is not a great concern.

3. Mech armies couldn't care less about HIs. Since mech is the norm in competitive environments, this is the baseline against which you measure effectiveness. My point stands: you have 3 shooting units max. This is not enough.
Zagman said:
Also, each of those threats is brining significant firepower upon each target with an effective 30" range. Your aforementioned list brings a comparable amount of firepower on the move with a reduction in durability.
Same or better firepower with significantly greater mobility. Advantage Interceptor build. "Durability" depends on how you define it. Against outright wounds from anti-infantry weapons, the Paladins are the clear winners. But against swathes of firepower, the MSU army wins. (Any MSU army, not just the Interceptor army.) The reason is because the focused unit army like your Draigo army pours points into very few units. Thus it can only damage 3 units at a time. MSU armies can absorb the losses of so few units and keep on clicking at near capacity.

I tend to favor the "durablity" offered by MSU over the "durabilty" offered by rock units. I tend to think MSU is, generally speaking, more potent tactically, more flexible, and more capable. It appears you disagree.
Zagman said:
How would Nids "silence those guns right quick"? Seriously, how?
In my game two nights ago I dropped the Doom down next to one unit, drained a few wounds off, and then charged into combat with them. Stuck in combat, can't shoot, 3++ prevented it from dying. Next turn boosted gants swamped them. Combined with more soul siphoning ... end of unit.

Another unit I nailed with a Mawloc, stripped half of their wounds away so they became just normal terminators. They destroyed the mawloc with shooting and a follow-up assault, but that kept them in place long enough for boosted gants and trailing genestealers (w/Broodlord) to chomp them.

The rest of my army went after the rest of his army, which consisted of a 3rd Paladin unit (w/ Draigo) and psyflemen. It wasn't pretty for the GKs as I had a lot of MCs, guns (including a Tfex and hive guard), and gribblies running around. Many more points and many more units vs fewer points and fewer units. Barring exceptionally awful dice luck on my part, the end for them was a foregone conclusion.
Zagman said:
Without and significant ID firepower coupled with most of their units being unable to stand in CC. How is this such a simple feat? Wound allocation and paladin durability makes that quite difficult to do for most armies.
I suspect it's both because people don't build proper armies and because they fail at both proper target priority and army unit coordination.
Zagman said:
I have never ever stated that DriagoWing is a tournament caliber army, ever; contrary to your insinuations. It is strong enough to play in semi competitive environments.
Well, you keep using the word "competitive" in combination with "Draigowing". Even the "semi-" doesn't hide the fact that you actually think the army is good for something. :rotfl: I disagree. I am totally willing to agree to disagree with you on this one. But will also continue to debate it with you as long as you are willing to keep trying to convince me otherwise. I'm not gonna change my mind, just so you know. ;) I don't expect to change your mind, either. The debate exists for others to read and draw their own conclusions.
Zagman said:
The effort you spend on your superior attitude could be much better spent taking a page out of jy2's book in creating well written illustrative battle reports. That would be a much more efficient use of your impressive list building skills and exceptional opponent base.
I have written a few batreps and posted them on LO. (Go the the batrep subforum and search for topics started by me.) They take upwards of 3, 4, or more hours to write. And that's without taking pictures, which I am loathe to do while focusing on the the game. 10 minutes to post here, or multiple hours to write a batrep....

I just think I have better ways to spend my time than that, is all. :rotfl: You already stated you don't trust batreps anyway, trying to persuade you is not my real goal... what's the point, exactly? ;)

Cole Markgraf is a regular opponent of mine. Ask him if you don't believe me. ;) And he beats me more than I beat him. Which should come as no surprise, since I readily admit he's a stronger player than me. But I do win games agaisnt him, and have even beaten his winning armies.

The real question is: why is this kind of information important to you? Why do I have to show off my game prowess to get any kind of credit from you? Very curious to me. If we both recognize each other as skilled players of the game, our tactical discussion should suffice to "prove" anything we need to know about our understanding of the game and our armies.
 
#40 · (Edited)
wouldn't 50:50 literally be "semi-competitive?" Haha! Number6, I think you really discredit your own points just by the manner in which you state them. I feel like your posts are commonly dripping with some pretty condescending remarks and a lot of overly-assured statements of opinion-as-fact, as well as a handful of contradictions. most of these questions boil down to a matter of style and preference, and don't really warrant that kind of domineering attitude. If Zagman is kicking the crap out of his LGS with his draigo list, then all that he can do is report that fact. He's not saying, "This is the ultimate list, all of my opponents are amazing, I'm also amazing." He just says, "hey, I've been having success with this list, that I've built and actually played." Considering that this thread is about someone asking for players preferences between draigo and crowe, that seems like a pretty legitimate statement.

I think you're totally right that there are other solid builds! Great! Build one, post it, and say how you did with it. You don't have to make some huge batrep if you don't want to. Just post the list, post your opponent's, and say how it went, and maybe who the MVPs were. Not really that complicated.

That list you posted looks like it'd be really fun and probably pretty tough! But I also think that you should build it, and play with it, before you slam Zagman and his entire gaming group. But while we're on the topic of "who you've been playing"...

I think that nids are really one of the ideal opponents for GKs, with our high powered incinerators for hordes, and psycannons and NFWs for the invul-lacking MCs: but that's just me and my experience so far (maybe my LGS sucks too...but I think that's precisely the application those weapons are designed for).

Mech armies, with av 10 rear armor care plenty about heavy incinerators, more about DCCWs and hammers, even more about psycannons. Considering the proclivity mech players have for Castle-ing their transports for line of sight purposes, a S6 template can cover several rear armor positions at a time.

The reason your combat prowess is important is because that's the point of the game. If you're going to say that your list would kick the crap out of someone else's list, then point to some evidence that that is the case. The fact of the matter is, the 40k universe is decently well balanced. To my knowledge, there are no auto-win lists. You sort of acknowledge that, when you say "All I ask if 50:50 of my armies," but then you make a series of statements about easy X would be to counter, and how bad this other thing is, and how awesome this list I made would be if I used it. I really do agree that sometimes the army list section can get pretty single-minded, when it doesn't have to be, but that's a point you could make a little more diplomatically. That aside, right now Crowe and Draigo lists seem to be doing pretty well in our little community here, and that's what this guy was asking about.

I will say to the OP here that I just tried Zagman's 3 NDK Paladin list the other night against a pretty skilled, pretty tough dual lash whip opponent, and it was successful and really fun. It concluded for me definitively that it is the best list and all others suck, and that I am awesome and excellent! ...jk.
 
#41 ·
Theoryhammer. Put that list on the table against your better opponents and see what happens. Arguing over a theoretical list is getting pointless.

HI range does not guarantee charge range of hammers. Even being withing charge range of hammers does not guarantee death, though there is a clear advantage for GKSS and Interceptors. The DKs wouldn't want to play a tip toe match with the Interceptors anyway, theyd be much better at harassing and Incinerate/charging your GKSS on objectives as well as silencing your conversion beamers in the process.

All of our banter has been assuming objective based missions, we cant discount KP missions where the lower unit counts is an advantage for DriagoWing. And in that scenario, "Rock" Durability is far more effective than MSU Durability.

Now you have told me how you did it and no surprise, it was due to solid tactics on your part. Sounds as if your opponent made some mistakes, but obviously I didn't watch the game and only have what you tell me. I have no intention of of insulting your opposition, there are many factors and bits of information I'm not privy to, which is where detailed battle reports become invaluable. Did you actually manage to hit the entire unit with a Mawloc...shame on your opponent if you did, at least thats you how describe it.

Sounds like you flat out outplayed your opponent. Was your skill that exploited the weakness in his army, or was his list just that much more inferior to your own? I believe that DKs would have been a better option for him in that scenario especially with the versatility that HIs bring to the table.

Peoples lists and their skill level are obviously huge determinants of game outcomes, nothing new here.

Maybe I should define semi competitive then, since we've already established that we seem to have different definitions. A semi competitive army should able to play moderately well against a variety of armies and builds short of optimized tournament quality lists and tailored armies. Apparently we are going to agree to disagree then.

You have mistaken a few compliments as attacks, I think you are a skilled and experienced player and value your opinions and experience. I in fact agree with the vast majority of what you say in gross across a multitude of different topics. I have never asked you to prove your skill or experience, its obvious. I do trust battle reports, not one sentence blurbs used to prove a point. That being said, you do have a very superior attitude which often times detracts from what you are trying to convey or the advice you are attempting to give.

Tactical discussion and TheoryHammer proves little, remember the scientific method. Hypothesis, Experiment, Results, then Conclusions. Don't jump from Hypothesis to Conclusions, even when its appears to be a valid hypothesis that is well supported.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top