Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So somebody has paper and you have a rock. I dare somebody to place paper around my rock. After that I will then throw my rock and watch as the paper shreds itself on the ground as my rock tumbles.

You take units in groups to replace other areas of your army that are lacking. I want this unit X but I am lacking in this area of Y, thus I need to take a few units of X to make up for what I am taking Y.

What I see is that we take things in groups for the over all effect. Groups equal more dice of that area that you might need. Why take one melta gun in a vet squad? If your going to do something, do it all the way. Three melta guns have a better chance at doing what task you had set for this unit, than one. 3x3 units of oblits fills the missing role your army was lacking.

focusedfire wrote:I'm making an attempt to show what works for one army may not work for another and vise versa.

I've seen this list run as SM, BT, and DA. The strongest version was the BT, IMO. The PoMS does help but not as much as you think. BT PoMS is still BS2. Works well with the predator and to some extent the Speeders. Replace the HQs with emperors champ and a Marshal and you have a loose version of the BT list

The strong points of such a list is that it remains tactically flexible, is very fast, presents so many vehicle units that it is hard to muster the firepower to counter them, 14-ish vehicles can be a lot to try to stop.Especially when the front row pops smoke. You end up needing the equivolent firepower to take out 28 vehicles with an experience player running this list.

Weak points are the minimized troops, lack of HtH depth, light armor, and KP issues. You don't need to take out all of the vehicles, just the transports(If you can get LoS to them). Once you you crack the transports it is a matter of mopping up(Once again depending on LoS).


Now the troops can be both a strong and weak point. They have no real strength(Easily destrotyed in assault) but can be hard to root out from the Rhino wreckage(Small squads are easier to hide) in shooting.

No offence, but that's stupid. They're different Codexes...just because they have Space Marine in the name means nothing. It's like trying to run an equivalent Ork list and compare. Hell, DA should be the best at the list, with a few slight alterations, because they can have Meltaguns in a 5-man unit, where you can't in SM. BTs can ofc have MM and Flamer, but that is a touch pricey.

Can we get this back on topic?

G

Hollismason wrote:I never said which army lists.

And I never said the dare was impossible. The principle of mech is to hide your units behind (and in) some armored vehicles that all present valid targets. I think the application for tyranids, is actually nidzilla (in which tactic you place your troops behind 8 MC s).

Edit: Heh, I like the 'rock paper' analogy, but sadly paper beats rock. That's what I was looking for, I wanted someone to rise to the challenge and shoot me down with an actual build...

or failing that, personal insults, this thread got full of them fast anyways.

I am a dissatisfied Dakkaite.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Can we get this back on topic?

G

What was the topic again?

Elessar wrote:No offence, but that's stupid. They're different Codexes...just because they have Space Marine in the name means nothing. It's like trying to run an equivalent Ork list and compare. Hell, DA should be the best at the list, with a few slight alterations, because they can have Meltaguns in a 5-man unit, where you can't in SM. BTs can ofc have MM and Flamer, but that is a touch pricey.

Duh...They are different codices? I guess the first line in my post means that I think they are all the same army. Might I suggest that you read more and knee jerk less.

As for the stupid comment, no offense taken. It actually amused me. You and GBF are so focused on the list that you can't see the topic, it is like not seeing the forest because the trees are in the way. I will try to explain, the topic is about redundant spamming, the difference between redundancy and spamming, and when to apply such to any army list. There is now a fairly genric list presented as an example. You and GBF can only see and discuss what you percieve is wrong with individual parts of the list rather than the topic embodied within the list. The list has redundacy and could easily be tweeked to the point of spamming. When applying the basic layout to a different but almost identical army there is an improvement through synergy but you are unable to see the topic of when to spam being addressed within then example.

Now your reply does get to the point but not in any way you expected. Your comment about the DA's gets to the basic question of the Topic, redundant spamming. Examining this statement brings up the question, "Why would you want 5man teams of meltas when the Speeders have that covered?"
With the speeder teams and predators do you really need more anti-tank?

Could this be a case of the spamming mentality? Could this be falling into mindset that asks,"If something is good then isn't more better?"
Or to put it another way, "Can you have too much of a good thing?"

IMO, I think this build works/synergizes better with BTs due to PoTMS and that their Commanders can turn even a 5 man squad into an effective HtH unit.
Please to note that when I offer something up as possibly being better, it is with the disqualifier, IMO. I'm not so arrogant or narrow minded to believe that a certain type of build will apply to just one army or that what I percieve being the best is necessarily so.

It pretty simple really your purchasing minimum troops to maximize the number of special weapons in the case of some armies or purchasing them soley for their vehicle.

I have to totally agree with Elassar.

G

I have to completely agree with focusedfire.

I guess you could just say a good tournament army ensures that it always functions towards a specific goal and or purpose.

Elassar has pointed out the fallacies of running different chapters for this fubared list. None of them seriously boost the list.

DA - everything is more expensive. Sure the troops can bring a meltagun but in the flip side just give the sergeant a combi melta. Five man tactical squads are a waste of points in a rhino. The better alternative would be to field them in a razorback and take a plasmagun for DA or BA.

G

I have to totally agree with GBF.

I have to totally agree with Hollisman.


I've tried Hollis.

Your last post seems to get at the current thought process of creating tourny lists. I'm not saying this is right or wrong, just that it seems to be the way of things. People build overly specialized lists in order to exploit a percieved advantage.

Your previous post hit the nail on the head as to what the thought process is behind such a list. I see "competitive" players use this thought process no matter what the army.

People can start off with a basic build core that includes reduncies. This usually sacrifices a strength in one area in order to get the desired redundancy in another. The choices they make from this core determine whether it is a redundant or a spam list. But not all lists respond to the basic formula as well as others due to syngeries available from slight, or not so slight, variations in options that each army has.

That's pretty much it is coming up with just some simple questions you can ask your self when designing and building a army from concept to tabletop.

It's why I very rarely take 1 of anything other than maybe HQ because of the force multiplier when you have two of the same types.

It's a proven principle of common military strategy that 2 of something is not twice as effective but in fact 4 times as effective.


There is a cut off where what you purchase becomes to redundant to the point of hampering for instance taking to much antitank.


Also I would like to point out the following:

Space Marine x 5 with combi Meltagun w/ Assaut Cannon Razorback 175


Chaos Marine Squad x5 w/ 1 Meltagun w/ Rhino w/ Havoc Launcher 145


Tau Fire Warrior x 6 w/ Devilfish 170 to 185

6 Man Dire Avenger w/ Wave Serpent 170 to 185


10 man IG squad w/ Meltagun w/ chimera 110 to 150 ish

Black Templars x 5 etc...

Dark Angels x 5 etc...

The only exceptions to the mimimizing of squads for transports is probalby Tyranids and Necrons.

I think its interesting though that with the exception of a few armies the average price for minimized troops plus transport is all in the 150 to 170 ish range.

5 Avengers in a BL/SCan Serp is common, and is (overpriced at) a 'mere' 205 points.

That said, I don't rate that Marine squad you suggested. Combi-Melta is best on foot, which encourages aggressive use, which is bad, because there are only 5 of them. Assault Cannons are also hugely overpriced, and not even that good, IMO.

I disagree with the assault cannon being overpriced on the Razorback; 35 points is not overpriced at all in my opinion.

It was just a example though if you want base rate of 40 go ahead I guess.


It was just an example that most armies to a degree have the ability to mechanize troop choices and use a Transport to use as their firepower.


Also,

Base cost of a 5 man DireAvenger squad is 60.

Base cost of a serpent is 100.

Base of a Serpent is 90, mon ami.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I have the Codex less than a foot away, not that I need it.

The cheapest you can get one is 100 points Ie with Twinlinked shuricats should have made clearer.

lol.

You're right, but it's still overcosted, IMO.

It makes spamming not only harder, but also the most viable option, as otherwise you cannot afford enough to have any realistic redundancy - and you won't have points for all that other nice stuff either.

Well I mean really your just buying troops to pay for Transports. Now granted i only have a very small eldar continengent but.

10 Dire Avengers w/ Blade Storm Exarch w/ Minimum Wave Serpent Layout at 100 points

is @ 252 x 2 = 504

w/ Bladestorm firing twice over 4 turns is 164 shots. ( correct my math if I am wrong)

And 24 Shuricannons and 16 shurican cats from the Wave serpents.

For 480
You get 3 5 man squads w/ 3 minimum Waveserpents

You have the possibilty to fire 4 turns.

120 shots from those 5; not likely but lets just say you get lucky.

Now here is where the Tanks come in;

with 3 wave serpents minimum layout you get.

36 Shuricannons and 24 Shurican Catapolts.


So with the first a total of

180 STR 4 ( with the Shuricats from vehicl added in)

24 Shurican Cannons

and the Second

144 Shurican Cata

36 Shuricannons

The Second is 23% less firepower than the first in the range of ST4 ,but has a increase of 34% n the STR6 category.

It matters actually though that you have 4 targets with the first and 6 targets with the second.


The Lancaster rule comes into effect though because yes those first two units are awesome, but if you lose 1 of them you have lost 50 percent of your fire power.

What you have provided with the second is Target Saturation and Redundancy.

Where as losing 2 units with a even combination of troops and vehicles 1 troop ; 1 vehicle. You've lost 50 percent of your fire power.

90 Shots ST4 ; 12 ST6

An 1 troop 1 vehicle Even loss from the second

96 ST4 ; 24 STR6.

The second group is increasingly more resilient to losses and cost less than the first. It does give up 2 more KP though.

Here is where the compromise comes in why take either ? Why not take a combination of both.

1 Dire Avenger full squad @ 252

2 Dire Avenger full squad @ 160

This is 572 points or roughly 11 percent more but going to be a increasingly more effective than either squad for that point cost.

This group is going to provide the following.

Same number of shots of the second group on tanks IE

36 Shuricannons ; 24 Shurcatapults.

The groups will provide
80 from normal but ; 76 from Bladestorm or 166 which with shuricats comes to 180. the same exact as the first group but with a 24% increase in STR6 shots from shuricannons.


So basically with a mix of that "spam" and redundancy you can actually come out ahead.


By combining these two groups from the first we form a 3rd group that for only 11 percent more in cost is 3 times as resilient has the same number of shots as the first ,but in the department of survivability can hold out more.

This is the basic principle of Not putting all your eggs in one basket.

This third group provides both benefits of the 1st and 2nd into a more cohesive form for a narrow cost margin.

It does have disadvantages ; Killpoints etc.. However its going to be 3 times more survivable and if you lost a equal number from the first squad from the 3rd your firepower would not be reduced as greatly.

While you theoretically get that many shots, it neglects to take into account (as, indeed, it cannot fail to do) that DAs are T3 with a 4+, if something sneezes at them they die. If they get torrented, the Exarch can easily die. If the Serpent gets blown up, they easily die.

Also, even with Bladestorm, and Doom, and Guide, you need to roll no worse than average in order to kill a whole Tactical Squad.

THAT's why DAs aren't in any way awesome.

I am still typing up the rest of the argument I have point I am getting to it.

Elessar wrote:

Chimera_Calvin wrote:For those who think that variety is the spice of life, and spam is the king of meats, I would like to present the alterantive army builder!

hollismason is dead right with what he says and would endorse everything with one slight coda.

'Two things that do the same job do the same job.'

Everyone who writes spam armies forgets this, so let me illustrate.

LRVanquisher puts out AP2 hurt from the comfort of a MBT.
LRDemolisher puts out AP2 hurt from the comfort of a MBT.

Putting one of each does not instantly dilute your army and make it less viable than 2x LRVan or 2x LRDem.

Now, before anyone starts on about relative strengths and ranges of these two, I mention it because most IG armies take these tanks for anti-TEQ duty. The important bit is the AP2 and the rest is a bonus. Clever writing of your lists can give you the best of both worlds, with more flexibilty than pure spam.

No, terrible example, because one is a single-shot weapon designed for shooting enemy tanks badly, the other is for clearing hordes of armoured foes.

Generally speaking, HollisMason is right, and anyone who disagrees, is wrong. You may consider it boring not playing a Battleforce piece of trash list, I consider it boring to lose all the time against better lists, even when I'm a better player, because I'm not better enough/get the wrong mission/can't be bothered using terrible units for the sake of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, there ARE only 2 ways to play Eldar.

This post is the primary reason I don't bother with tournies, why would I sit around to play a game with people who aren't there to play, but to win because they have long ago lost the ability to enjoy anything without winning.

Playing to win because you don't like losing is a character flaw not something to be proud of.

Hardly.

Frankly, what makes you think those of us who enjoy Tournaments consider your absence a loss?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I play to win because why would I bother playing if I can't. I can get equal or greater satisfaction from other sources.

I can also get it a LOT cheaper, with a lesser drain on my time.

Hell, hookers are cheaper than 40k, I'm not shelling out the kind of money I do just to laugh off losing every single game because "I only play for the lawls"

That was a fairly long winded post that can be summed up rather simply with dont put all your eggs in one basket and a compromise of large to minimized squads in transports yields a better result than either categories.


Also;

I play 40k tournies because its exciting and different than normal play. I am a casual gamer tournament player meaning my favorite game is beer and 40k.,

But there is something about tournaments that brings out my competitive nature and I play better at tournaments because of it.

I dont agree with win at all cost but I do agre with dont throw the game and give it 100 percent.

If you are not bringing your best to a tournament then why go? Why play at all? That's my philosophy.

Now casual games are different matter.


Also, the old saying I don't come down to your job and slap the taco out of your hand when you are trying to work; why come here and bitch about tournament players.

Hollismason wrote:That was a fairly long winded post that can be summed up rather simply with dont put all your eggs in one basket and a compromise of large to minimized squads in transports yields a better result than either categories.


Also;

I play 40k tournies because its exciting and different than normal play. I am a casual gamer tournament player meaning my favorite game is beer and 40k.,

But there is something about tournaments that brings out my competitive nature and I play better at tournaments because of it.

I dont agree with win at all cost but I do agre with dont throw the game and give it 100 percent.

If you are not bringing your best to a tournament then why go? Why play at all? That's my philosophy.

Now casual games are different matter.


Also, the old saying I don't come down to your job and slap the taco out of your hand when you are trying to work; why come here and bitch about tournament players.

Because I can...........heard that saying before?

Do you go to sports events and cheer for both teams? There is nothing wrong with a competitive win attitude; hell my job requires it I am a paramedic.


I just don't see how it adds anything to the conversation of discussion about what makes a core army at its base competitive.

Its metagaming that is really what we are discussing we can discuss the ins and outs of specific things but really what we are and hope to accomplish is hit on that base common factor that generally makes armies successful.


It's what the discussion is some people think it lies with generalship and I think that plays a huge role but not the only role in winning.

Go OT if you are losing the argument.

G