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.

Theorizing the new Space Wolves and the recent discussion here ( http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/257828.page ) has made me consider this subject.

First, what is a "MacGuffin", in literary terms it refers to "a plot element that catches the viewers' attention or drives the plot of a work of fiction."

Interviewed in 1966 by François Truffaut, Alfred Hitchcock illustrated the term "MacGuffin" with this story[2]:

"It might be a Scottish name, taken from a story about two men in a train. One man says, 'What's that package up there in the baggage rack?' And the other answers, 'Oh that's a McGuffin.' The first one asks, 'What's a McGuffin?' 'Well,' the other man says, 'It's an apparatus for trapping lions in the Scottish Highlands.' The first man says, 'But there are no lions in the Scottish Highlands,' and the other one answers 'Well, then that's no McGuffin!' So you see, a McGuffin is nothing at all."

Taken from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacGuffin

In 40k terms, a MacGuffin unit is a unit that presents a threat with a theorized negative impact on your opponent, and causes your opponent to react to it. It "drives their story" in terms that are favorable to you.

Perfect example of this is Space Wolf Scouts. They are a unit that in simple game terms are not all to write home about. YTTH has already declared them as bad. But what they bring to the table is forcing your opponent to react to them. The very fact that a Meltagun can show up right behind you means you need to do something about that, and the theorized reaction to them by your opponent can help define the capabilities of your own list. If you have a list with enough firepower to tackle them piecemeal if they come from reserves, just as you have enough assault to counter charge their mad dash from their own table edge, you can see where the winning strategy is.

Making your opponents react to you by the use of cheap "MacGuffin" units adds to the tactical diversity of your own list.

Other examples of MacGuffin units:

Thunderfire Cannons
Land Speeder Storm
Lone Wolfs

And many more. What do you think, am I talking out my rear or is there some validity to this.

I agree that such units definitely exist, Mahu. But I'm not sure that McGuffin is the best metaphor.

Because units like Space Wolf scouts or LS Storms do have some capability, and they can sometimes be game spoilers in certain situations. I don't think that it's so much that they are devoid of anything (like a McGuffin is), but that they have a psychological impact on the opponent that's *out of proportion* to their actual capabilities.

(And then add to that the fact that if you wanted to use "McGuffin" in an actual conversation, you'd almost always have to define it as you have done here, so that makes it less practical for communicating an idea.)

So maybe a more apt metaphor would be something like how certain animals have a scary display that substitutes for actual fighting ability. The Pacific Mantis Shrimp unit or something. Frilled lizard? Hawk moth?

I think your concept, however we call it now, is a sound one. However, I'm not sure it's correct to call a unit "bad" (SW scouts) when their MacGuffin status actually comes from being able to hurt units that are dumb enough not to do anything about the MacGuffins. SW scouts have a meltagun able to fry that darn expensive Paskcutioner hanging in the backfield.

Another unit of this kind is the Scout Sentinel, in my opinion. It's cheap and, compared to other full battlefield units, it is rather weak. However, an opponent needs to either calculate the outflanking of the sentinel into his movements, making his actions more favorable to you if you do it right, or he will suffer the consequences. Because a lone scout sentinel can tarpit non-AT infantry forever or even kill them in CC or it can take shots at side/rear armour of expensive/important vehicles or it can simply contest an objective in the endgame.

It's raw battlefield power is low, the destructive potential and resilience is no real threat to the enemy. However, the outflanking capability increases its tactical potential in a way that I find it actually quite useful.

You just reminded me of the classic "McGuffin" - the Callidus Assassin and it's new bestest buddy, Sly Marbo...

...with the difference that Sly Marbo will absolutely wreck something when he pops up and there's not much the enemy can do about it.

In my experience, Callidus Assassins earn their points back in almost every game, often with their first round of shooting and assault.

Because units like Space Wolf scouts or LS Storms do have some capability, and they can sometimes be game spoilers in certain situations. I don't think that it's so much that they are devoid of anything (like a McGuffin is), but that they have a psychological impact on the opponent that's *out of proportion* to their actual capabilities.

I think a capability to be dangerous, but a possibility of failure to accomplish a goal would essentially make them "meaningless" in a theoryhammer environment.

It's essentially the argument against Space Wolf scouts, they are not guaranteed to accomplish their mission, therefore they are a crap unit.

A MacGuffin unit is one that represents a serious threat if not taken into tactical consideration, but can be easily avoided. So their purpose is to drive that tactical consideration into your opponents plans. Therefore, their reason to exist in a list is to provide that consideration, therefore what they do in a game can be meaningless.

(And then add to that the fact that if you wanted to use "McGuffin" in an actual conversation, you'd almost always have to define it as you have done here, so that makes it less practical for communicating an idea.)

Yeah, but it is cool sounding, and most of the time I am not explaining my strategy to an opponent in high level terms. This is all a discussion of theory. And terms like these exist solely in internet discussions.

I think your concept, however we call it now, is a sound one. However, I'm not sure it's correct to call a unit "bad" (SW scouts) when their MacGuffin status actually comes from being able to hurt units that are dumb enough not to do anything about the MacGuffins. SW scouts have a meltagun able to fry that darn expensive Paskcutioner hanging in the backfield.

I agree, MacGuffin's have to be a big enough threat for your opponent to take into consideration and plan their strategy around them.

Another unit of this kind is the Scout Sentinel, in my opinion. It's cheap and, compared to other full battlefield units, it is rather weak. However, an opponent needs to either calculate the outflanking of the sentinel into his movements, making his actions more favorable to you if you do it right, or he will suffer the consequences. Because a lone scout sentinel can tarpit non-AT infantry forever or even kill them in CC or it can take shots at side/rear armour of expensive/important vehicles or it can simply contest an objective in the endgame.

I can see your point, if only Sentinels could actually threated vehicles too, in the current Metagame I would say they are too situational to serve as an effective MacGuffin unit.

You just reminded me of the classic "McGuffin" - the Callidus Assassin and it's new bestest buddy, Sly Marbo...

I agree, most armies will not be outside of tanks when they see any of those.

Mahu wrote:
I think a capability to be dangerous, but a possibility of failure to accomplish a goal would essentially make them "meaningless" in a theoryhammer environment.

It's essentially the argument against Space Wolf scouts, they are not guaranteed to accomplish their mission, therefore they are a crap unit.

A MacGuffin unit is one that represents a serious threat if not taken into tactical consideration, but can be easily avoided. So their purpose is to drive that tactical consideration into your opponents plans. Therefore, their reason to exist in a list is to provide that consideration, therefore what they do in a game can be meaningless.

Now I'm confused. Are you saying that Space Wolf Scouts are not a McGuffin unit? That they're just crap?

Or are you arguing that units, like Space Wolf Scouts, that are often considered crap are not actually total crap because they force the opponent to react in a particular way or limit something the opponent can do?

I'd be inclined to agree with the second one. I've been seeing more and more in 5th edition where VPs don't matter how the notion of considering only units that can "kill their points worth" is a very limited way of looking at list building.

I am arguing the second.

Mahu wrote:Perfect example of this is Space Wolf Scouts. They are a unit that in simple game terms are not all to write home about. YTTH has already declared them as bad.

This makes perfect sense actually.

YTTH declares orks bad.
SWS are approximately = Ork Kommandoes.
Therefore, YTTH declares SWS bad

YTTH is irrelevant.

That said, there's something relevant about the notion that many Warhammer players are risk-adverse, and will prefer more predictable units to more potentially powerful units if the expected value of the unit is the same.

If the Space Wolves have (I don't know, by the way) a way of enhancing the celerity of reserve units showing up like Space Marines (Tigurius) or Imperial Guard (Astropaths?), then Scouts could be useful as a distraction from the frontal assault, or the assault for which the frontal assault is the distraction. Or if you took them in quantities of 3+ units. I don't believe they have Land Speed Storms, which isn't so good. It might be an idea to outflank with Sniper Rifles and a Missile Launcher, so if they arrive late they'll arrive when that kind of firepower is most useful, rather than getting wiped up earlier in the game or having to spend time moving to engage their targets.

Something to point out is that a MacGuffin unit is only useful insofar as it forces your opponent to change their strategy, and if they have accounted for units like Wolf Scouts in their strategy, then the Wolf Scouts aren't useful for disrupting their strategy.

Nurglitch, you raise some great points.

An example of that is Chaos Lord Deamon Weapons. Some people can't stand even the possibility of wounding your own guy, but every time I have fielded them, they have cleaned house in an assault. Some people are afraid of risks with their units.

Something to point out is that a MacGuffin unit is only useful insofar as it forces your opponent to change their strategy, and if they have accounted for units like Wolf Scouts in their strategy, then the Wolf Scouts aren't useful for disrupting their strategy.

Yes, but it is really hard to fully take into account a unit that can show up on any table edge 66% of the time. My argument is that the very nature of your opponent having to adapt their strategy to them immediately places you in a better position, thus justifying their use.

I think my point is that good strategists don't let the opposing player disrupt their strategy. Put another way, you don't have to disrupt your strategy to account for units like Wolf Scouts.

It's like the Prisoner's Dilemma. In the original single-iteration version you should defect regardless of whether your opponent co-operates or defects and the wise strategist knows this. Now, your opponent should also know this: does this mean you should account for the fact that they might co-operate? Yes, but in accounting for both options open to your opponent, it turns out that you should defect regardless of which strategy they might choose.

You have pointed out that there are units that can make your opponent react to them such as how they deploy. That is the first point, but you need to show some examples to make the all important second point - that being how will you take advantage of your opponent's reaction? Okay so your opponent has deployed in such a manner that their armor is not threatened by a squad of wolf scouts but what if they did so in such a manner that it does not really net you any real advantage? In the example of a squad of wolf scout I would assume that you are hoping your opponent deploys closer to you so that there will be less distance to cross to reach close combat. A smart opponent might decide to just hold their entire army in reserve and wait to see what happens. If the wolf scouts come in from reserve too early then they have been effectively nullified and the net gain is zilch.

Sentinels, SW Scouts, and other unconventional units serve a tactical purpose as opposed to simple points efficiency.
A single autocannon Sentinel is hardly a threat. Three of them camped in cover on your opponents side with cammo netting become a big nuisance. An assault based army would have to choose to take the fire, or send a unit back to deal with them. Both of which are bad choices for the assault army, especially if they left a minimal troops choice to hold their objective.

SW scouts, while they are not as armed as they used to be still have value to an 12 range based army like SW. Their deployment allows them to hit and disable heavy firepower units like tanks or artillery that otherwise would need multiple GH squads to take on.

And they cannot be shot down before they get a chance to strike.

While the points shavers can argue over better places to get melta or assault, they often overlook the spoiler value of units like these.

2 CSM Dreads w/ TL heavy bolters marching shoulder to shoulder straight down the field, if they go crazy they'll just ping each others armour?

... buggerit it go 3 dreads

They won't even attack each other unless one Dreadnought starts the turn inside one of the 45 degree line of sights from the Fire Frenzy Dreadnought's weapons. So side by side is pretty safe. Single file, echelon left/right, or leaping overwatch, on the other hand, is begging for a little bit of fratricide.

I agree with the majority of your points with regards to units that force your opponent into a different playstyle.

Lash Princes, Deathstrike Missiles, and Drop Pods are other 'MacGuffin' elements that can force your opponent to alter their behavior because of the consequences should these elements work perfectly.

The thing is, though, is that the better your opponent is, the less this stuff will alter their gameplay, or the less the alteration will affect their ability to play effectively.

I think the real use of understanding 'Macguffin' theory is knowing the units, their abilities, and also their limitations, and having a reasoned approach to your own gameplay as opposed to falling for the Macguffin trap.

Honestly I think the theory is best applied to those units your PARTICULAR opponent will react to.

While not a MacGuffin at this point, if you know your opponent has had recent or traumatic battles against, lets say, a Wraithlord (LR's, Death Company, Nob Bikers, all might work too) they will do everything in their power to either avoid or destroy that thing.
Exploiting that is just taking advantage of your enemy's mistake, of assessing threats based on personal emotion versus current or general strategic use.

I'd put the elite DH inquisitor with 2 mystics in this category.

They may not do anything, but particularly when deployed in a transport, they make everyone think twice about deepstriking in that roughly 30" diameter area where they're likely to get shot.

Sure, except for daemons, the opponent can always decide not to deepstrike. But then he isn't deepstriking.

I think the proper term for such units is Disruption rather than McGuffin. Disruption units make your opponent alter his strategy around certain units such as DH Mystics, Officers of the Fleet, Psychic Scream.

What Stelek does not like about the SWS is that there is a random element that makes them unreliable for outflank. I dont trust putting my strategy based on a few dice rolls and try to minimize the randomness of my army. The same reason why many people take Vulkan, Autarchs, Astropaths, etc.

So is MacGuffin a term for any distractionary threat, or does it refer only to credible or non-credible threats?

I ask because I think there's a lot of variety of tactical thought when it comes to use of contingents (arguing that your main force is one contingent, your "MacGuffin" representing another contingent). Some believe that each contingent should be equal, or potent in a singular goal, or so small as to be sacrificial.

If I've interpreted your original concept correctly, I believe MacGuffin refers to the latter.

So, if I'm right on that, my opinion is that they can be useful, but I'm not into sacrificial units. I like to split my force into battlegroups of complementary capabilities (as opposed to identical) so as to be capable of operating independantly.

Metagame wise, this lets me just combine battlegroups for quick and easy list building.

Playing Blood Angels 1500? Plasma convoy + Raider boys + Fast armor hunters. Tyranids 2K? Flame and purge core + tough gunline + mobile plasma pack.