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.

I don't quite get why you want to repeat slots so often. I consider it a relatively lazy approach to listbuilding in general, but especially in the case of Eldar - Eldar units as a rule are highly specialised, and taking multiples of exactly the same unit type just means that if that unit is not the most efficient tool for the situation, you just doubled or tripled up on your inefficiency. In some cases (generally with cheap units) a repeat unit may be appropriate, but the power of the Eldar is in having a highly efficient and specialised unit for almost any battlefield situation. If you limit yourself to only one or two unit types and spam those, you give up the advantage of specialisation and just hope that the unit you picked is right for the exact situation you find yourself in.

That said, I think two or maybe three 5 man Pathfinder units are appropriate given your opponent. Monstrous Creatures are one of the situations where small Pathfinder units are likely to do actual palpable damage, and even if not, the enemy is forced to divert units to deal with them in CC or give up the objective they're sitting on. Doing so spreads his army, allowing you to use mobile elements to attack weak points and eliminate it piecemeal. If your plan is to infiltrate Scorpions with Pathfinders to give them CC support, that's well and good, but that then starts to become an expensive 'firebase' with not a whole lot of actual firepower.

You know the opponent - Tyranid lists are not as variable as they once might have been. The gunfex Godzilla lists are no longer popular, so if he intends to sit back and firefight it out, it'll be done with Hive Guard and maybe a gunfex or shooty Tyranid Warrior brood or so. I might include a backline invader unit such as the 10 man SS squads you favour, or a Warp Spider squad, to either press or divert his static elements or to destroy any backline elements he leaves behind as he presses forward. Alternatively, I might stick a strong CC unit such as the Scorpions in a Serpent and use that as a mobile assault or counterassault unit, to put out fires when he attacks or to attack his own vulnerable points.

You seem to have the idea of a firebase with Eldrad and/or guideseers directing fire from War Walkers and/or Reapers. This is good, but again, I would take multiple different firepower units to be guided. A SL War Walker squadron is incredibly powerful guided, as are Reapers and even Support Batteries, but the strength of each is in what they kill most efficiently. With guideseers having multiple options of what to guide, you can then guide whichever unit is needed at that precise time - if the gaunts are about to reach your lines, the Walkers are needed, or if you must kill the shooty Warrior/Hive Guard unit across the table this turn, the Reapers can be guided. Of course, you must anticipate that the enemy will attack this firebase with something that doesn't cross the field, such as a podding MC, Trygon, or something similar. With that in mind, you need to plan counterassault - an Avatar (who can then be Fortuned by the nearby seers) is a powerful deterrent to assault, especially if combined with a 20 man Guardian squad that can be a cotton wool pad around your firebase; it can provide insulation from podding/DSing, a cover-granting unit that conveniently has its own cover save, an extra heavy weapon that can be guided if bad luck takes out one of your firebase units, and Fearless bodies to assist in assault with the Avatar nearby. It's even a Troops choice that holds the objective if your firebase is on one.

The Vyper is much maligned, but for what it is, it is remarkably effective. It falls to any shooting, but Tyranid basic weapons lack the range and power to hurt it, so if someone wants to kill your highly mobile S6 shots that add extra firepower exactly where they're needed, they have to devote an actual damaging unit or two to killing a very cheap squadron for a turn. Whenever I use my Vypers I never regret them. There are always more important targets in an Eldar army, and if an opponent ignores them to kill Vypers for a turn, he regrets it, and if not, he regrets allowing a highly mobile unit with high Str, high volume shooting and a flexible strike envelope free reign.

Mechdar is powerful, but I think an Eldar army that can effectively combine mobile and static elements is even more so. Whatever you do, though, give thought to not repeating units and using the real power of the Eldar list - diversity.

Relic_OMO: You seem to know much more about eldar than me, so I'll not touch upon that subject :-) However, I wanted to say something about redundancy.

Very simplified: You should expect the opposing player to take out one of your units each turn. So if you field two different units, the opposing player will take out the one that is most dangerous in this situation, so you will be left with one unit of the second grade. If you however take two similar units you have two options: 1, you were lucky (or well informed) and you took two of the unit that turned out to be the best for the situation. Thus when you opponent kills one unit, you still have one very effective unit left to do the intended job. Or 2, you were unlucky (or made a stupid) and you got two units of the second grade. Thus when the opposing player kills one of your units you are no worse off than if you had taken two different units.

Ergo: Taking two similar units can be better than taking two different ones. But it cannot be worse.

As I said, highly simplified, but it illustrates why redundancy is a good thing.

Eldar=Win wrote:I'm thinking about switching out the 10 rangers for some wraithguard.
Tyranids are not going to be that fond of instant death, wound on 2+ weapons. The only problem is the range

I recommend swapping out the rangers – but NOT for wraithguard. You’ll understand why the first time you get charged by a squad of Genestealers that cost less than half the cost of your Wraithguard each. The range and low number of shots make them way too vulnerable and a decent Tyranid player will understand that - move + fleet + charge > 12".

youre definitely going to want 3 groups of 7-8 firedragons in wave serpents for nuking the monsterous creatures.

Mellon wrote:Relic_OMO: You seem to know much more about eldar than me, so I'll not touch upon that subject :-) However, I wanted to say something about redundancy.

Very simplified: You should expect the opposing player to take out one of your units each turn. So if you field two different units, the opposing player will take out the one that is most dangerous in this situation, so you will be left with one unit of the second grade. If you however take two similar units you have two options: 1, you were lucky (or well informed) and you took two of the unit that turned out to be the best for the situation. Thus when you opponent kills one unit, you still have one very effective unit left to do the intended job. Or 2, you were unlucky (or made a stupid) and you got two units of the second grade. Thus when the opposing player kills one of your units you are no worse off than if you had taken two different units.

Ergo: Taking two similar units can be better than taking two different ones. But it cannot be worse.

As I said, highly simplified, but it illustrates why redundancy is a good thing.

And yes, I agree that redundancy of role is vital to any army's success. You don't want all your antitank gone while his armour roams free. You don't want all your anti-horde gone while his waves crash on you. On paper, your analysis is also correct - you take a whole army of the two or three 'best' units, and they're either absolutely perfect, or only a little less efficient than perfect.

My argument is that this is a prime example of how theoryhammer and actual wargaming do not necessarily mesh perfectly. There are different methods to accomplish basic roles, and two different units can accomplish the same basic role (eg. antitank) while still offering different benefits and disadvantages. Lists that spam one unit type in any given role deprive themselves of the potential advantages of a different unit in that role, and thus reduce their options during actual play, which simplifies the opponent's options and lessens the opponent's chances of making a mistake.

Consider the example of two similar units in the same role: an Imperial Guard PCS with 4 meltas in a Chimera, and an IG Stormtrooper squad with 2 meltas. Both have the same battlefield role - close ranged anti armour. Both accomplish it in slightly different ways. Each of these units has different advantages and disadvantages. The PCS has: 2 more meltas, an armoured transport for protection, the extra guns on the Chimera, the option of giving Orders, and is a Troops choice, so can hold objectives. The Stormtrooper squad has: better BS, basic weapons that penetrate AP3, krak grenades, slightly better armour and CC ability (both fairly irrelevant), krak grenades, multiple deployment options (Deep Strike, Infiltrate, Scout), and is an Elites choice, which doesn't require you to take a whole Platoon as part of it. Both cost about the same. Both can do what you want them to, but both approach the job in different ways.

Most players who wanted two anti-armour melta units would look at these two units, decide which is 'better' or which fits their army better, and take two of that one. My argument is simply that if you want two units of this nature in redundant roles, you should take one of each. Your army then has different options, and can tailor its deployment and tactics to fit the exact battle in question better. Equally importantly, your opponent now has more things that he must account for, more ways he can be attacked. If he ignores one of these methods of attack, or if his army is not equipped to deal with one, you can exploit it.

Even the fact that your opponent can remove the most dangerous threat he perceives, leaving you with 'lesser' units, can be used to your advantage. First of all, your opponent can be wrong. He may perceive a grave threat from, say, your War Walkers, and focus on eliminating them. Knowing that they are an obvious threat, you can then make it as hard as possible for him to remove them (cover, fortune, range, etc.) while something he perceives as a lesser threat but in reality is not much less dangerous at all goes about winning the game. You can 'sacrifice' a unit - offer a unit that you know he perceives as dangerous, let him destroy it, for a positional advantage. Of course, you can do that with multiples of the same unit too, but if you have two of exactly the same unit, and one was in the exact situation/range/position to best operate and he then destroyed it, it is not likely that the carbon copy unit is also in exactly the same situation/range/position to similarly operate perfectly at exactly the same time. Battlefields rarely have redundancy of situation and position to exactly fit redundancy of units.

Carbon copying units is a simple way to ensure you have redundancy of role, which all armies need. My argument is that filling redundancy of role with different units increases the options and flexibility of your army, and forces your opponent to be able to deal with more kinds of problems, enabling you to exploit weaknesses in his setup or strategy.

Relying on your opponent to play poorly is not a tactic.

Relic_OMO wrote:
My argument is that this is a prime example of how theoryhammer and actual wargaming do not necessarily mesh perfectly. There are different methods to accomplish basic roles, and two different units can accomplish the same basic role (eg. antitank) while still offering different benefits and disadvantages. Lists that spam one unit type in any given role deprive themselves of the potential advantages of a different unit in that role, and thus reduce their options during actual play, which simplifies the opponent's options and lessens the opponent's chances of making a mistake.

Three small squads of Fire Dragons in wave serpents and three squadrons of War Walkers with Scatter lasers will fulfill most major shooting roles, leaving plenty of room in the list for counterassault units or long-range AT. What you dub "spam lists" rarely ever take a single selection of one unit type. They feature the "best" unit type for that given role, multiple times. You seem to be okay with meshing specialist units, but not with doing it multiple times.

Consider the example of two similar units in the same role: an Imperial Guard PCS with 4 meltas in a Chimera, and an IG Stormtrooper squad with 2 meltas. Both have the same battlefield role - close ranged anti armour. Both accomplish it in slightly different ways. Each of these units has different advantages and disadvantages. The PCS has: 2 more meltas, an armoured transport for protection, the extra guns on the Chimera, the option of giving Orders, and is a Troops choice, so can hold objectives. The Stormtrooper squad has: better BS, basic weapons that penetrate AP3, krak grenades, slightly better armour and CC ability (both fairly irrelevant), krak grenades, multiple deployment options (Deep Strike, Infiltrate, Scout), and is an Elites choice, which doesn't require you to take a whole Platoon as part of it. Both cost about the same. Both can do what you want them to, but both approach the job in different ways.

Can we use examples that actually get utilized? PCS with 4 flamers in Chimera or CCS with 4 meltas in Chimera and IG Stormtrooper squad with 2 meltas:

PCS with 4 flamers utilizes a cheap special weapon spam platform to dump 4 templates into enemy infantry for 50 points.
CCS with 4 meltas utilizes a cheap special weapon platform with BS4 to dump 4 meltas into heavy AV, either from a Vendetta (bought separately) for an alpha strike or as backfield support with the Chim wall.
Stormtroopers with meltas are put in reserves to take advantage of an accurate deepstrike with a cheap throwaway unit whose threat cannot be ignored, but whose firepower is also significantly weaker.

So looking at the units and their capabilities, we actually find that although the units and the roles are somewhat similar, there are distinct differences in both. A CCS puts more melta volume on target, at the cost of speed (versus Deepstrike) or cost (if buying other units to make maneuvers possible). Stormtroopers have significantly less volume of fire, but are a throwaway unit with no thoughts of losing scoring units, orders, or counterassault; one shot, one kill (hopefully) at infinite range.
And PCS with 4 meltas, well, that's just a poorly utilized unit.

Most players who wanted two anti-armour melta units would look at these two units, decide which is 'better' or which fits their army better, and take two of that one. My argument is simply that if you want two units of this nature in redundant roles, you should take one of each.

Except, as I just pointed out, they do completely different things within your list, and a player has to weigh what exactly they are looking for the unit to achieve and how many points/force org slots they have to allocate to that end.

Carbon copying units is a simple way to ensure you have redundancy of role, which all armies need. My argument is that filling redundancy of role with different units increases the options and flexibility of your army, and forces your opponent to be able to deal with more kinds of problems, enabling you to exploit weaknesses in his setup or strategy.

As Willydstyle pointed out, relying on your opponent to make a bunch of mistakes can justify the selection of anything, no matter how horrible. And to address your argument specifically, different means neither more or better, it just means different. If I want more alpha strike potential, the unit of Stormtroopers does 1/2 as much as a second CCS with meltas. If I want second-line Deep Strike melta fire, then CCS does nothing to help me. And PCS with meltas is as slow as the CCS with the offensive firepower of the Stormtroopers, making them a worse choice in all respects.

The overall point is that different for different sake doesn't really give you more options, it just makes your army confused.

willydstyle wrote:Relying on your opponent to play poorly is not a tactic.

No, but forcing choices and creating opportunities for him to make mistakes is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sourclams wrote:What you dub "spam lists" rarely ever take a single selection of one unit type. They feature the "best" unit type for that given role, multiple times. You seem to be okay with meshing specialist units, but not with doing it multiple times.

That's right, I'm not. I think it's lazy listbuilding, and reflects groupthink. Just as in real life, just because something is good, does not make three of that thing three times as good.

When building a list, I believe units should be specialists (with a few exceptions), and the army should be generalist. I believe in imaginative, intelligent list design - not taking any old crap and trying to make it work by relying on your opponent's stupidity, and conversely, not picking one unit that the loud guy on the internet says is best and taking three of those because that's 'competitive'. Armies like that are not, in fact, actually designed in such a way as to be able to deal with all comers - they are designed in such a way as to try to make the opponent's list irrelevant. They attempt the strategy of doing whatever they are supposed to do regardless of what the opponent has or does, to play 'your game' and not have to worry yourself with reacting or countering to your opponent. It's the classic flaw of a strategy that looks great on paper, and yet remains vulnerable because of the infinite possibilities that actually occur in real application.

I have tried the spam armies, because it would be unscientific to not test the hypotheses. I find them lacking and weak. Yes, they're better than an army that has no plan at all, and is just a collection of units you're able to make with whatever you have in the box. Yes, they're easier to play than a diverse army, because you deliberately limit your own options in favour of trying the same tactics every time, because that's what your units are supposed to do. But they're weak - when I see a weakness emerge in the opponent's gameplan, when I create or force an error or a Hobson's choice, I don't necessarily have the right thing to take advantage of it. I just have more of the same. When I see them across the table I don't worry too much - my opponent has basically already told me with his army selection what his strategy and tactics will be, and all I really have to do is blunt or avoid his strengths and attack the weaknesses.

sourclams wrote:
As Willydstyle pointed out, relying on your opponent to make a bunch of mistakes can justify the selection of anything, no matter how horrible.

The overall point is that different for different sake doesn't really give you more options, it just makes your army confused.

An army that is diverse is not necessarily confused. What you call 'unconfused', I call simplistic - a paper army that deliberately removes options and tactics to simplify playstyle and reduce the chances of you making a mistake. I suppose designing an army to mitigate the player's own lack of insight is a strategy in itself, but I don't see it as a better way or the pinnacle of strategy.

Furthermore, there is a difference in hoping that your opponent will make a mistake and creating your opponent's mistakes. This is basic game theory here, the tactics you find in any sport. When playing tennis, forcing your opponent to hit closer and closer to the line in an attempt to pass, or forcing him to attempt a difficult lob, or whatever, are examples of creating errors - putting your opponent in tougher and tougher situations and wringing the error from them. In chess, a good player presents his opponent with tough choices all the time - defend this piece or that piece, take this piece and open up the formation or sit tight and avoid conflict for now. A good player then adapts his tactics or has a plan in place to take advantage of the situation regardless of which choice his opponent makes; if he makes this choice, then I can respond in this way, if he chooses the other, I can respond in that way. All of these are basic tactics - you create situations that force mistakes or weaknesses in your opponent, or you perceive a mistake or weakness that may not be immediately obvious, and then turn the situation to your advantage. To call that 'relying on your opponent's poor play' is ludicrous.

My point is that a diverse army list gives you more options and more ability to create and take advantage of your opponent's weaknesses. Conversely, a spammy list hopes that the opponent can't take advantage of your weaknesses.

Furthermore, there is a difference in hoping that your opponent will make a mistake and creating your opponent's mistakes. This is basic game theory here, the tactics you find in any sport. When playing tennis, forcing your opponent to hit closer and closer to the line in an attempt to pass, or forcing him to attempt a difficult lob, or whatever, are examples of creating errors - putting your opponent in tougher and tougher situations and wringing the error from them. In chess, a good player presents his opponent with tough choices all the time - defend this piece or that piece, take this piece and open up the formation or sit tight and avoid conflict for now. A good player then adapts his tactics or has a plan in place to take advantage of the situation regardless of which choice his opponent makes; if he makes this choice, then I can respond in this way, if he chooses the other, I can respond in that way. All of these are basic tactics - you create situations that force mistakes or weaknesses in your opponent, or you perceive a mistake or weakness that may not be immediately obvious, and then turn the situation to your advantage. To call that 'relying on your opponent's poor play' is ludicrous.

"Spam" lists do this to a large extent in the list building stage. You create a scenario by which your opponent has no options, because all the options are identical.

Both of you are right...to a certain point.

However, if you can take two different units that will do the same task for you, they are almost always better than two identical units.

And thats because two similar units will NOT be identical, and the slight differences between them may play out to very important in the game. Even when we know the army that we will be facing, we usually wont know the exact composition of the army. And its very seldom indeed that we will knwo the layout/ type of the terrain for the game.

Two similar anti tank units may not handle forests quite the same. One anti tank unit (say lascannons) may do very well with long sight lines while another AT unit (say meltas) do much better with a lot of terrain to let them get close to the armor. Deciding before the game to go all melta and then finding the table to be completely barren across the mid ground might make one with for the las cannons. Or vice versa for a heavy forest.

It all depends on what one considers as alternatives for a particular task.



Sliggoth

sourclams wrote:

Furthermore, there is a difference in hoping that your opponent will make a mistake and creating your opponent's mistakes. This is basic game theory here, the tactics you find in any sport. When playing tennis, forcing your opponent to hit closer and closer to the line in an attempt to pass, or forcing him to attempt a difficult lob, or whatever, are examples of creating errors - putting your opponent in tougher and tougher situations and wringing the error from them. In chess, a good player presents his opponent with tough choices all the time - defend this piece or that piece, take this piece and open up the formation or sit tight and avoid conflict for now. A good player then adapts his tactics or has a plan in place to take advantage of the situation regardless of which choice his opponent makes; if he makes this choice, then I can respond in this way, if he chooses the other, I can respond in that way. All of these are basic tactics - you create situations that force mistakes or weaknesses in your opponent, or you perceive a mistake or weakness that may not be immediately obvious, and then turn the situation to your advantage. To call that 'relying on your opponent's poor play' is ludicrous.

"Spam" lists do this to a large extent in the list building stage. You create a scenario by which your opponent has no options, because all the options are identical.

Denying options is not in itself a bad strategy. Some of the most effective Eldar lists I played, involved Dire Avenger Spam. Add in 3 Fire Prisms, and that is exactly what I would consider a 'spam' based list.

Using huge sentences, and long paragraphs, does not change the fact that you can play effectively by spamming units. 3 squads of Warwalkers can bring a massive amount of firepower to the table, there is simply no doubting that. Guardian spam, alongside the Avatar and 3 WL, can be a very effective list in many situations. When it comes to being shot at, t3 units all take wounds at the same rate, and there is just no denying that. More wounds in many situations, does actually create a more effective army.

Something I am interested in putting together, would be an Alaitoc stealth force, all scorpions, PF, and WW. I see great strengths and weaknesses in the list, but it still seems like a very fun strategy to me.

Note:
Mistakes and Poor gameplay = Bad job, hence you would be relying on their bad job, to create your victories. Denying options also allows you knowledge, far beyond that which you would have in the case when you present options. Point A to B tactics, it is not complicated, and it can most definitely work.

One of the key strengths of a good spam list is that is denies your opponent a variety of types of targets. Elfzilla relies on flooding the table with high toughness models, mechdar fields a host of fast av12 vehicles and guardian/ infantry spam denies good target to melta weapons. And the units are perfectly interchangeable so that losing 1-2 units still leaves others to fullfill their role. So spam lists certainly have their good points.

But spam lists also limit a lists flexibility. And flexibility is one of the strengths of the eldar army. An elfzilla list gives up the speed of the eldar. As does a guardian spam list. Now this may be fine, if one is willing to give up flexibilty for surety then spam can help do that. Just keep in mind that it does have its limitations.

Overwhelming one aspect of your opponents army is a common tactic because it often works; and spam is relatively easy to play. But crafting a unique army can also work quite well, its just a different play style.


Sliggoth

One interesting part of spamming is that you can sometimes deny your opponent targets that her weapons will be useful against. The foot-slogging horde or swarm army is probably the most obvious example of this, as they tend to make all sorts of anti tank weapons pretty useless.

Wrexasaur wrote:
Note:
Mistakes and Poor gameplay = Bad job, hence you would be relying on their bad job, to create your victories.

Ridiculous. Once again, forcing and creating mistakes and weaknesses in your opponent's gameplan is not the same as hoping he'll be stupid. By that 'logic', it is foolish to do anything like a head fake, pump fake, or playaction pass in football, because the purpose of that misdirection is to draw a mistake from your opponent and that would be 'relying on their bad job'. This sort of pretending that everything exists in a vacuum where only your decisions and actions have any impact on the game, and your opponent's list and decisions are irrelevant, is exactly what leads to unimaginative groupthink and cookie cutter lists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sliggoth wrote:
But spam lists also limit a lists flexibility. And flexibility is one of the strengths of the eldar army. An elfzilla list gives up the speed of the eldar. As does a guardian spam list. Now this may be fine, if one is willing to give up flexibilty for surety then spam can help do that. Just keep in mind that it does have its limitations.

Exactly my point. Exactly.

To be clear, an army where one makes a conscious decision to not present certain targets does not have to be spammy. All-infantry or mechanised armies are frequently bland and cookie-cutter, yes, but they do not have to be, and indeed sometimes the player must be quite creative to come up with ways to fill all roles without taking a blend of units. I also do not believe in blanket bans on repeating any units - sometimes it makes a lot of sense, sometimes an army only really has one way to fill a certain role, and sometimes you just need to fill in an extra 80-100 pts with something useful. I advocated taking two or three 5 man Pathfinder squads to the OP, for instance. I especially do not have a problem with repeating units if the army's unit selection is highly limited, such as a Deathwing or Ravenwing army - sometimes you just have no other real options.

As a whole, though, I think spammy, cookie cutter lists give up flexibility and options in return for being easier to play and requiring less thought and imagination. It's a tradeoff that I find weakens the army. It's certainly more effective than an army with no thought in it at all, where the units don't mesh at all. But it is limited, and not as good as it could be.

Against a good player you can never "force mistakes." You can give him a hard choice between two courses of action, but there's no way you can control him and "force" him to pick the poor choice of action.

willydstyle wrote:Against a good player you can never "force mistakes." You can give him a hard choice between two courses of action, but there's no way you can control him and "force" him to pick the poor choice of action.

That sounds very pithy, but it is at best a gross oversimplification. You may not be able to 'force' the exact error of your choice, but you can apply pressure until an error of some sort does happen. You can create situations where the opponent has the opportunity to make errors. You can see errors where the opponent does not. And most importantly, you can incorporate into your gameplan the flexibility to take advantage of an error that does happen.

I don't honestly see why this is controversial. Chess grandmasters, world-class athletes, and indeed anyone who competes in any avenue at all make errors all the time. Most may not even be noticed. Many are inconsequential to the overall result. Many more are irrelevant because the opponent does not notice them or cannot take advantage of them. This is obvious, basic stuff. It is fantasy to think that 'good' players and athletes do not make errors. 'Good' players are the ones who minimise their own errors while being able to recognise and take advantage of their opponent's. 'Great' players are the ones who can create situations to drag errors from their opponents, and recognise errors when almost nobody else thinks one has been made.

Fantasising that 'good' players don't make mistakes is ridiculous. If that were true, you'd decide tournaments by having everyone mail a list in, running them through RNGs, and then mailing the winner a cheque. Basing one's gameplan around the idea that a 'good' opponent makes no mistakes is the province of armchair quarterbacks and internet generals. It's just as fantastical as someone who imagines that all opponents will be fooled by some gimmick or misdirection, which is what it sounds like you think I'm saying.

My point, then, is that a more flexible and diverse list allows a player to create and take advantage of opponent's mistakes. Conversely, a repetitious and cookie cutter list tries to pretend that the opponent doesn't exist.

Relic_OMO wrote:My point, then, is that a more flexible and diverse list allows a player to create and take advantage of opponent's mistakes. Conversely, a repetitious and cookie cutter list tries to pretend that the opponent doesn't exist.

That would happen to be your opinion, and one that you have repeated for several posts now. I disagree with that sentiment, and will continue to do so, simply because I have been able to play at top game with spam.

Ridiculous. Once again, forcing and creating mistakes and weaknesses in your opponent's gameplan is not the same as hoping he'll be stupid. By that 'logic', it is foolish to do anything like a head fake, pump fake, or playaction pass in football, because the purpose of that misdirection is to draw a mistake from your opponent and that would be 'relying on their bad job'. This sort of pretending that everything exists in a vacuum where only your decisions and actions have any impact on the game, and your opponent's list and decisions are irrelevant, is exactly what leads to unimaginative groupthink and cookie cutter lists.

Preposterous.

It is hoping they will be stupid, to rely on opponents mistakes. You could dispute whether you are actually relying on them, but if that mistake is not made, your tactic did not work. One of the main reasons spam does happen to work, is that it limits what kind of decisions your opponent can make. There are no fancy tricks, these lists just have very solid concepts, that when applied effectively, can bring enough generic force to win many games. If I happen to bring nothing but small arms weaponry, I would have to call it a poor list, but that is not the type of list I would play.

As an example...

I need AT, specifically S8 weaponry. My options are now limited to elites choices, due to the fact that I have taken up all my other slots. I can choose to bring 3 squads of FD w/ a HF Exarch, and I will know that they can generally cope with most things I would face. Personally I wouldn't use 3 squads, but I can't really say that the army would be automatically ineffective, simply because there are 3 squads of FD.

I would, and definitely have used 3 FPs to great effect. Instead of forcing myself to use a Falcon as well, trading an FP for the slot, I just use 3 FP because I know that they can cope with many things that I am bound to face. There is no infallible reason that using nothing but Dire avengers as troops, is a bad idea. You could argue that not maxing out on any single unit, and bringing a little bit of flexibility would be a good idea, in this case by getting a squad of Flamer Guardians. I agree that 3 squads of Scorpions seems a bit zealous, but they are pretty effective at what they do.

Taking one squad of as many different types of units as you can, will not make for a very friendly army for a lot of players. There are definitely ways to bring a lot of decisions for your opponent, but they are not automatically better, simply because you gave your opponent more choices. As many units in the Eldar codex are specialists, focusing on developing your army through one strong suit, instead general flexibility, will bring you a different type of game and different preferred opponents.

I will elaborate a bit further, focusing on Scorpions.

As I mentioned a few times, Scorpions specifically strike me as a bad choice to max out, at least in most lists. I noted that I would like to put together a Ninja list, and in that situation maxed out scorpions could work quite well. My alternative, if I were to keep it stylized and Ninja-like, would be to add in Harlequins due to their sneaky nature. Harlequins have different preferred targets than Scorpions do, mainly that Scorpions do better against hordes, and Harlequins do better against MCs/Elites/Transports. I would not really be bringing an alternative to Scorpions, so much as a different type of assault unit altogether.

I can't really think of an alternative to Scorpions, simply because they are almost purely an anti-horde tool. Storm Guardians may be able to provide similar tactics, but there are massive differences between the two units, as the Guardians are going to be relying on their Flamers/Warlock, to do most of the heavy lifting.

Breadth versus depth is the main argument to be had here. I suppose I am arguing for breadth, where you would basically be arguing for depth. You prefer a highly tuned army, that can respond through very complicated tactics, to most situations. Many people don't want to play that game, and that is entirely their decision, it is a varied hobby, that appeals to different people for different reasons. I like the fact that a spam army would have an aesthetically uniform quality, both on and off of the table top. Warwalkers are some of my favorite models, and if I had the option, I would complete my Ninja list this month by purchasing 6 more of them. I like that, they look great, and they are very simple to use effectively. On the other hand, I can imagine a list like that becoming a bit boring, although it would be pretty to look at on the table, so I have other units that I would be able to switch into the list.

You can play this game for many reasons, and in many different ways. There are definitely arguments to be had over what style of list is best for different gaming environments, but calling everyone who uses spam lists, "Groupthinkers", is just insulting. I got in a disagreement over a very specific tactic the other day, pertaining to WL and cover, and even though I disagreed simply because I did not see the scenario playing out as described; I still managed to avoid calling all people who use WL "Hive-minded individuals".

My thought is to out run the tyranids,because you won't have a very high chance of beating them in combat
I will take 3 Fire Prisms
Wave Serpents for the Dire avengers
and Eldrad is pretty good indeed
no scorpians

Wrexasaur wrote:

Relic_OMO wrote:My point, then, is that a more flexible and diverse list allows a player to create and take advantage of opponent's mistakes. Conversely, a repetitious and cookie cutter list tries to pretend that the opponent doesn't exist.

That would happen to be your opinion, and one that you have repeated for several posts now. I disagree with that sentiment, and will continue to do so, simply because I have been able to play at top game with spam.

Which part of the statement do you disagree with exactly? A flexible list isn't able to take advantage of more situations than a spammy list? A spammy list doesn't try to minimise the opponent? Both of these are true statements, so I suspect you just have issues with the part where I claim that a diverse approach is superior to a spammy one. And that's fine. Like I say, cookie cutter lists are effective. They're certainly easier to use. I'm glad you have success with them. Again, as I said, I found them comparatively lacking and weak, unable to exploit many situations, and unable to adapt when the opponent is good enough to perceive their weaknesses and blunt their strengths.

Preposterous.

It is hoping they will be stupid, to rely on opponents mistakes. You could dispute whether you are actually relying on them, but if that mistake is not made, your tactic did not work.

Absurd.

You seem to be suggesting that it is somehow superior to pretend that the opponent's decisions are completely predictable, and to therefore assume that the only variables are the decisions you make, rather than craft a broad strategy that is capable of responding to the opponent and exploiting any potential weaknesses or errors. One of the reasons spam 'works' is that it minimises the decisions that the player himself makes, not his opponent. Someone playing with spam chooses to limit his own possibilities and flexibility, and thus lessens the chances of himself making a mistake by not confusing himself. You say that it limits the opponent's decisions like that's a good thing. Conversely, I say that limiting the opponent's decisions gives him less chances to make the inevitable mistakes, and limiting your own list gives you less options to exploit those mistakes. Yes, the opponent's decisions are more limited, but all he really has to do is see your strategy's strengths and weaknesses and 'decide' if he wants to exploit them or not. You would of course say that only a bad player would expect an opponent to make mistakes. To which I would say that it is completely unrealistic to pretend that anyone makes zero mistakes in any game or contest, wargaming included. Furthermore, I would consider it even more unrealistic to act as if the opponent should have no influence on your tactics, which is essentially what you're suggesting - you seem to suggest that the only good tactics are ones that involve the opponent reacting in a completely predictable manner, in which case he may as well not be there at all.

As an example...

We could debate examples, but I find that too many examples let people get bogged down in examples instead of seeing the broader point. I will say that Fire Prisms, as you mention, are certainly something I would consider taking repeats of (and have), specifically because they are designed to work especially well with repeats of each other.

As many units in the Eldar codex are specialists, focusing on developing your army through one strong suit, instead general flexibility, will bring you a different type of game and different preferred opponents.

I'm not sure of your exact point here. You almost sound like you're agreeing with me. You're saying that focusing your army as a specialist instead of flexibility will let you deal with 'preferred' opponents better? I'm sure it will. My issue is with the 'non-preferred' opponents.

Chess is an interesting comparision here. In my rather limited experience a game of chess is more often lost by someone making a misstake, than won by someone executing a smart plan perfectly. I'm however not sure if that can carry a lot of bearing on the discussion over a game of 40k, since it is a game with a lot of chance involved and a lot more fluid situations.

Wrexasaur wrote:
Breadth versus depth is the main argument to be had here. I suppose I am arguing for breadth, where you would basically be arguing for depth. You prefer a highly tuned army, that can respond through very complicated tactics, to most situations. Many people don't want to play that game, and that is entirely their decision, it is a varied hobby, that appeals to different people for different reasons.

You can play this game for many reasons, and in many different ways. There are definitely arguments to be had over what style of list is best for different gaming environments, but calling everyone who uses spam lists, "Groupthinkers", is just insulting.

You are of course correct. I don't know that I would put it as breadth vs depth, but certainly it is a diverse hobby with a broad appeal, and it is unfair of me to come off as insulting. I unreservedly apologise.

I do, however, think that groupthink is the unfortunate result of a lot of internet forums, especially in opinion-based ones such as wargaming. An orthodoxy develops, and anonymous trolls are quick to attack any opinions that deviate from orthodoxy. Groupthink, or the wisdom of crowds, is not necessarily wrong. I simply suggest that it is also not necessarily right.

Relic_OMO wrote:Absurd.

Outrageous.

You seem to be suggesting that it is somehow superior to pretend that the opponent's decisions are completely predictable, and to therefore assume that the only variables are the decisions you make, rather than craft a broad strategy that is capable of responding to the opponent and exploiting any potential weaknesses or errors.

It seems like we are talking past the others points here.

I do actually run with the assumption that I can know within a broad range, what my opponent is capable of achieving. It does not boil down to what my opponent will choose to do, it is what options are available to them. I cannot assume that my sqaud of Warlocks for instance, will draw all the firepower from an army, simply because it is running headfirst into the enemy lines. I can assume though, that the option is certainly available for my opponent. I can apply this same line of thought, to a line of WS, all holding different units, alternatively holding the same units. Each tank represents potential on my part, and I can choose to diversify my options via a mix of units, but I cannot assume that my opponent will make a bad decision simply because I bring one set of options over another. The strength of a mixed bag, is in the fact that you can set up intricate offenses, that rely on your ability to fine-tune your formations, but provide your army with very specific tools in the form of a dynamic combination of attacks.

One of the reasons spam 'works' is that it minimises the decisions that the player himself makes, not his opponent. Someone playing with spam chooses to limit his own possibilities and flexibility, and thus lessens the chances of himself making a mistake by not confusing himself. You say that it limits the opponent's decisions like that's a good thing.

How would an opponents decisions not be limited by the fact that you are bringing a relatively homogeneous list? Limiting options, just as providing them, can both alternatively be entirely effective tactics. If you lose that one squad of FD, that is there just to deal with the scary LR, your done, your other units cannot do anything against it. Perhaps it won't matter, because you have other units that are equally returning damage to your opponents force, but your capability to deal with the AV14 is strictly diminished by the loss of your single squad of FD.

Conversely, I say that limiting the opponent's decisions gives him less chances to make the inevitable mistakes, and limiting your own list gives you less options to exploit those mistakes.

We could debate examples, but I find that too many examples let people get bogged down in examples instead of seeing the broader point. I will say that Fire Prisms, as you mention, are certainly something I would consider taking repeats of (and have), specifically because they are designed to work especially well with repeats of each other.

So far I have seen no specific examples from you, but feel free to point out any that I may have missed. When talking of mistakes, yet focusing on mistakes associated with specific games, outside of wargaming, it is not hard to imagine how it would be hard to understand. In short, you are applying broadly abstract examples, to provide insights pertaining to very specific situations.

Your assumed example from my perspective:

Mechdar army w/ varied elite/troops units. 2 DA squads, 1 SG, 1 FD, 1 SS, 1 HB, supplemented with 3 FP.

My example:

Same as yours, with use of DA troops only, FD for elites, and the same 3 FP.

My list would deal very well with Mech armies, as would yours in many situations, but you would be relying on your tanks very often, to act as AT. FD can deal effectively with Bikes, Transports, Heavy tanks, MC's. My list would also rely on shooting, where yours would rely more on army formations, and appropriate positioning to take full advantage of the lists flexible qualities.

As many units in the Eldar codex are specialists, focusing on developing your army through one strong suit, instead of general flexibility, will bring you a different type of game and different preferred opponents.

I'm not sure of your exact point here. You almost sound like you're agreeing with me. You're saying that focusing your army as a specialist instead of flexibility will let you deal with 'preferred' opponents better? I'm sure it will. My issue is with the 'non-preferred' opponents.

Forgot to add, "of". The strong suit in the case of FD, would be shooting tanks/MCs.

Unfathomable.

Wrexasaur wrote:

It seems like we are talking past the others points here.

Well, no, what we're actually doing is taking each others arguments to slightly ridiculous extremes to make them look silly and prove a point. Standard internet debating.

I do actually run with the assumption that I can know within a broad range, what my opponent is capable of achieving. It does not boil down to what my opponent will choose to do, it is what options are available to them. I cannot assume that my sqaud of Warlocks for instance, will draw all the firepower from an army, simply because it is running headfirst into the enemy lines. I can assume though, that the option is certainly available for my opponent. I can apply this same line of thought, to a line of WS, all holding different units, alternatively holding the same units. Each tank represents potential on my part, and I can choose to diversify my options via a mix of units, but I cannot assume that my opponent will make a bad decision simply because I bring one set of options over another. The strength of a mixed bag, is in the fact that you can set up intricate offenses, that rely on your ability to fine-tune your formations, but provide your army with very specific tools in the form of a dynamic combination of attacks.

Right, again, one of my points. Are you secretly agreeing with me?

You cannot assume something as specific as your opponent obligingly focusing his firepower on your Warlock squad. I don't assume that either. I can, however, assume that my opponent will make some mistakes. I can assume this because everyone makes mistakes, no matter how good you are, whether it be at wargaming, chess, sport, or anything in life. The question is not whether he will make mistakes, or whether I will. We both will. The question is whether I will be good enough to recognise the mistakes when they happen, good enough to recognise a potential mistake or advantage when it is presented, and whether I will have the capacity to take advantage of it. A well constructed, diverse army can, or should, always have the capacity to take advantage of any situation. A spammy army may not. Moreover, a spammy army gives the opponent less opportunities to make mistakes, because he does not have to concern himself with capabilities your army does not have.

Consider the very basic example of an army that has no blast templates. Some might consider that poor planning, but I've played against many spammy armies without them. Someone upthread was mentioning 3x War Walker squadrons and 3x Fire Dragons - it's not unreasonable to envision a spam army relying on fusion guns, scatter lasers, bright lances and catapults for all its ranged weaponry. Without blast templates, bunching up is no longer a potential mistake for your opponent. If he deploys too tightly packed, I can't take advantage of that error. If I force him to bunch up via terrain or combat or whatever, he can, without fear of repercussions. Yes, an opponent may deploy and move well and avoid bunching up even if I do present the threat of blast and templates. Unless I have the capacity to punish him for this mistake, we'll never know if he would have made it or not. Similarly, he may deploy and advance to negate the possible threat of Deepstriking or outflanking, or he may protect his flanks perfectly so that fast units cannot outposition him, or whatever - an opponent may, through skill or luck, be able to avoid presenting a weakness to all sorts of avenues of attacks, and may even be able to do so for an entire game. He may avoid the first trap or misdirection I set for him, or the second, or the third. I don't know what mistakes my opponent will make in advance. All I know is that he will make one, or more than one, and it is up to me to both recognise them, and be able to take advantage of them.

So far I have seen no specific examples from you, but feel free to point out any that I may have missed. When talking of mistakes, yet focusing on mistakes associated with specific games, outside of wargaming, it is not hard to imagine how it would be hard to understand. In short, you are applying broadly abstract examples, to provide insights pertaining to very specific situations.

My point was that I was making a broad and abstract point, and that debating examples back and forth could be counterproductive. I am still making broad and abstract points - diverse lists are better, spammy lists are limited, mistakes are a part of all games and competitions, and giving yourself the ability to exploit any weakness is not the same as hoping your opponent is dumb.

Unconscionable.

Well, no, what we're actually doing is taking each others arguments to slightly ridiculous extremes to make them look silly and prove a point. Standard internet debating.

Draw, partner.

Right, again, one of my points. Are you secretly agreeing with me?

What would the fun be without it?

You cannot assume something as specific as your opponent obligingly focusing his firepower on your Warlock squad. I don't assume that either. I can, however, assume that my opponent will make some mistakes. I can assume this because everyone makes mistakes, no matter how good you are, whether it be at wargaming, chess, sport, or anything in life. The question is not whether he will make mistakes, or whether I will. We both will. The question is whether I will be good enough to recognise the mistakes when they happen, good enough to recognise a potential mistake or advantage when it is presented, and whether I will have the capacity to take advantage of it. A well constructed, diverse army can, or should, always have the capacity to take advantage of any situation.

Sure we all make mistakes, but no WH40k list can actually take advantage of ANY situation. Some battles are simply out of your favor, specifically against those that ran the odds, and constructed a list to counter such flexibility. An ork army can be incredibly homogeneous, yet it will still bring enough krump to make your battle a difficult one. I would have a hard time saying that even the most engineered army, should be able to take advantage of any situation.

If the mission statement of your army is that of taking as many different type of units possible, without a specified strength of some kind (shooty/ assault, basically), you will have a hard time effectively applying your flexibility. Too much spam can be bad, as can too much flexibility. Redundant redundancy, and specified specificity. Neither trumps the other, but a happy medium can be reached between the two.

A spammy army may not. Moreover, a spammy army gives the opponent less opportunities to make mistakes, because he does not have to concern himself with capabilities your army does not have.

It really depends on what you mean by spam. If (as I noted before) you are taking nothing but small arms (S4/AP5, short range weaponry), you'll be bound to run into issues effectively dealing with many situations. If you choose to saturate your weapon classes, within specific unit types (FP, FD, WW, etc... for AT/Horde generically), the only real difference is that your flexibility is limited by the nature of those individual units.

If you can figure out how to bring all offense to bear, without subjecting yourself to harsh reprimand, it really doesn't matter all that much what class of unit (Infantry/Jump infantry+Bikes/Tanks+Walkers) you choose to concentrate on, nor which style you choose to game in. YMMV, again, and some are much better with certain styles of lists, while others may limit themselves to generic due to lack of experience, and others will meander amongst the different styles.

Consider the very basic example of an army that has no blast templates. Some might consider that poor planning, but I've played against many spammy armies without them. Someone upthread was mentioning 3x War Walker squadrons and 3x Fire Dragons - it's not unreasonable to envision a spam army relying on fusion guns, scatter lasers, bright lances and catapults for all its ranged weaponry. Without blast templates, bunching up is no longer a potential mistake for your opponent. If he deploys too tightly packed, I can't take advantage of that error. If I force him to bunch up via terrain or combat or whatever, he can, without fear of repercussions. Yes, an opponent may deploy and move well and avoid bunching up even if I do present the threat of blast and templates. Unless I have the capacity to punish him for this mistake, we'll never know if he would have made it or not.

Now you appear to be suggesting that lack of blasts/templates, equals a lack of options, meaning a lack of effectiveness, which I again dispute. Eldar have FP to bring those blast templates at range, and that is a pretty cut and dry spam technique. You can choose to play with one FP, but it will not have the same consistency 2 or 3 would. I can also choose to gear my WW to different roles, and bring a squad with EML if I see fit.

Denying use of units through formations, etc...

Yes, players tend to try that kind of thing. There is no explicit reason that I could abstractly support either style of gameplay (spam/specialization), through this occurrence. Having 3 different tools that work together, does not mean that 3 of the same (yet appropriate) tools could not do the same, in a different way, via redundancy vs. precision.

My point was that I was making a broad and abstract point, and that debating examples back and forth could be counterproductive. I am still making broad and abstract points - diverse lists are better, spammy lists are limited, mistakes are a part of all games and competitions, and giving yourself the ability to exploit any weakness is not the same as hoping your opponent is dumb.

It could be, but we really don't know within this context, at least not with an absolute judgment. I would suggest that it is very helpful to keep the frame restrained, so that confusion does not occur. Examples associated directly to the subject at hand, appears to me as a great way to illustrate points from either side.

Why Runes of witnessing and no runes of warding?

You need both runes vs Nids.
Read the Eldar FAQ's.

Alright you two. The deal is, you both have valid points and I, to some extent, agree with both of you. Since neither of you are wrong this arguement could go on forever simply because it has turned into an opinion. 'Spam' is a type of gameplay that works, and so does a diverse army. They can both work very effectively.