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.

Maybe he meant 15? 35/15*100= ~233?

Even 230 is a lot for a tac squad, Transports are in general the best part of 20% of the cost of the tac squad. Trying to pass them off as 5% makes your entire point seem silly at best.

Gah, too tired last night. A standard tac squad plus rhino (bare) is about 235, so more like 20%.

Still doesnt alter that the transport is hideously effective for its points costs, and despite your attempts it doesnt effect the other points - that CS marines are far easier to kill than one single 10 man unit, especially when it comes to combat.

Still doesnt alter that the transport is hideously effective for its points costs, and despite your attempts it doesnt effect the other points - that CS marines are far easier to kill than one single 10 man unit, especially when it comes to combat.

I never disagreed with that. My issue with your argument for KPs is that you appear to work for GW. By that I mean you appear to be under the impression that Space Marines are the only army in existence. Your issues with MSU armies and how effective they are in mission games seems entirely based around ho wthe SM army works.

MSU isn't the most effective build for say Orks or 'Nids. IG can still do it and the KP mission does nothing to deter them. Tau are forced down that route regardless of mission. Eldar are likewise happy to go down the MSU route for any mission type (DABU for instance).

So basically the only army KPs really balance out the MSUness of are space marine armies who these days are in general forced to take fuller squads anyway by their army lists.

Sorry, I used SM as an *example* of an army. If you bothered to read the earlier posts you would have seen that others were considered.

Dark Eldar struggle in KP missions if they go the MSU route that is SO effective in the objective missions, as they spam lots of cheap KP in both the vehicles (AV10 open topped sucks....) and the 6 man troops with naff-all saves inside.

pure MSU may not be the most effective build for Orks, but if you told them they didnt have to worry about KPs you would see more small grot / boyz units to fill all 6 troop slots. Its nonsensical to think otherwise - objectives are the equivalent of VPs, in that MSU (pure or otherwise) DOES yield advantages over bigger squads. The only-shoot-at-one-unit rule in 40k ensures that.

Tau are "forced" down the MSU route? How? Are they "forced" to take 6Firewarriors? Making unsupported claims doesnt help your argument, especially when they are as....unclever as that one. Eldar tend to use 3man guardian bikes that *all* they do in KPs is turboboost - because they consider the risk worth it in objective missions.

IG can mitigate some of their KPs, but only by taking large infantry platoons in the first place - which is hardly the most effective build.

"So basically" your conclusion is as unsupported as the rest of your arguments. Again.

Have you ever played Tau? They are forced down the MSU route because most of their units only come inrelatively small sizes. Not troops MSU but the whole army MSU whilst their vehicles generally count as double the KPs of anyone elses.

So if the annihilation wasn't there we'd seafew more smalish grot/boy mobs in Ork armies. I really don't see why thats a bad thing.

Eldar don't just pick small jetbike squads they'll generally fill out their troops choices with min dire avenger squads in vehicles as well. They are still chosen as an MSU army regardless of annihilation.

Similar thing with IG their MSU units are also generally their most killy so going down the MSU route has no draw backs in either objective missions or KPs. I've yet to see a mech IG list that struggles in annihilation missions.

So your great balancing mision doesn't have a realistic impact on how armies are built for any codex except the ancient Dark Eldar that are about to get refreshed anyway...

Sorry, you've lost me. MSU means "taking the smallest unit sizes you can get away with" - it doesnt mean that "my max unit size is small so Im calling it MSU!"

You have a different definition, clearly.

And my argument was about TROOP MSU. TROOPS - you know, those things that claim objectives? The most pertinent things to be talking about in a discussion about MSU?

Sigh.

MSU for IG - that would be taking PLatoons with only a PCS and two troops. Otherwise it isnt MSU. Are you suggesting 10 man basic guard are as killy as, say, 10 veterans? Theyre cheaper, and would fit the MSU idea, but they arent "more killy"

It has an effect on:

1) Space Marines. As I've proven and you have yet to even attempt to refute.

2) Chaos Space marines - infinite, cheap scoring daemons is good, apart from KP missions! Who'd have thought. So they dont really get taken, maybe one unit.

3) Orks - the standard 4BW woudl have more grots - but they bleed kill points. So they dont.

4) Eldar, or at least the top armies, pack at least one 3 man jet bike to grab objectives. They dont use min dire avengers, they use squads of 10 in wave serpents. You again show your lack of knowledge here. shocking that!

5) Tyranids. The 2+ tervigon army would be much more effective (and thus taken more) if it wasnt for killpoints. On average geenrating an average extra 2KP per Tervigon kills off an otherwise excellent choice. Same for cheap warrir squads, who are excellent at sticking and 'spitting at range.

So, thats 5 armies, plus DE which makes 6 - and DE ARENT getting refreshed anytime soon. 2011 at earliest.

Sorry, you've lost me. MSU means "taking the smallest unit sizes you can get away with" - it doesnt mean that "my max unit size is small so Im calling it MSU!"

You have a different definition, clearly.

My definition of MSU is having lots of small units, as in multiple small units, regardless of what the unit maximum was.

Would an army say have a max unit size of 3 for all its infantry and you took 6 troops choices all with just 3 models, then that would be an MSU army...

How are 10 IG veterans not an MSU unit? So say the IG player has 5-6 mechanised squads of 10 veterans, how is that not MSU? There's lots of small units and lots of KPs...

1) Not really the codexes force this issue far more than any perceived benefit in the KP mission. The only area that annihilation genuinely effects SM builds is in fast attack where you can be tempted to take squadrons of speeders (or attack bikes) rather than 3 units of 1, but most poeple stilll stick to the units of one...

2) OK fair enough of all the SMs codexes Chaos are the most effected by this, another old and out of date codex too. Still doesn't stop people spamming small units of plague marines though does it?

3) Woo hoo the standard 4 BW list would have more grots, not sure why this is an issue we need to have a mission to balance out...

4) They also use min Dire Avengers in Serpents and Falcons. It is frighteningly effective in Objective games (you try to stop 6 vehicles capable of moving 36" from scoring only all the objectives). Seriously have you never come across DAVU? I tend to see JBs however usede in squads of 6 more often but 3 is also common.

5) Tervigon army gets so nailed by Jaws that it is not a viable build unless you know you're not against Space Wolves. Yes it spews out KPs yes people were terrified of it at first but deu to the damage the Tervigons do to their progeny and how ineffective they are at actually damaging Mech the list in practice is far less effective.

I'd heard the DE had been announced for this summer and that the book was already in print.

FlingitNow wrote:My definition of MSU is having lots of small units, as in multiple small units, regardless of what the unit maximum was.

Except that isnt what MSU means. MSU, coined in 4th, means taking minmal points to get the maximum possible from the unit.

So 4th ed marine codex let you take a heavy and special at 6 man unit size - the infamous Las/Plas team. So the Maximum Effectiveness was to have 6 man teams - the other 4 men did not add to the killing power in the unit when that was already 50% of the way to another las plas team.

FlingitNow wrote:Would an army say have a max unit size of 3 for all its infantry and you took 6 troops choices all with just 3 models, then that would be an MSU army...

Except it isnt necessarily - if, for example, units of *2* was more points efficient than units of 3 (say, the third didnt give you a good weapon but the first two do) then 6 units of *2* is an MSU army.

This is because "small" is too arbitrary - 3 Wraithlords is not the same as 10 IG, so pure numerical comparison of "how many members" is not valid.

FlingitNow wrote:1) Not really the codexes force this issue far more than any perceived benefit in the KP mission. The only area that annihilation genuinely effects SM builds is in fast attack where you can be tempted to take squadrons of speeders (or attack bikes) rather than 3 units of 1, but most poeple stilll stick to the units of one...

See above for what MSU actually means. A 5 man unit in razorback i a more effective troops choice, if only objective missions are considered, than the 10 man unit as you get more firepower for your points, and you dont care about kill points. This leaves you with more points for TH/SS & TLC termis, the REAL killy parts of a sm force

FlingitNow wrote:2) OK fair enough of all the SMs codexes Chaos are the most effected by this, another old and out of date codex too. Still doesn't stop people spamming small units of plague marines though does it?

8 man units isnt "smal" - small is *5* man units with meltas. ANd it isnt spam - you dont see more than 3 units at 1500, if that.

Also, CSM old and out of date? How exactly is it out of date? Its 3years old....

FlingitNow wrote:3) Woo hoo the standard 4 BW list would have more grots, not sure why this is an issue we need to have a mission to balance out...

Sigh, see above for what MSU means. The designers SPECIFICALLY said they wanted to reduce the incentive (as in, you get a massive advantage for doing so) in taking small units of troops. You dont see the need, but youre not GW so your opinion is, frankly, unimportant on this matter.

FlingitNow wrote:4) They also use min Dire Avengers in Serpents and Falcons. It is frighteningly effective in Objective games (you try to stop 6 vehicles capable of moving 36" from scoring only all the objectives). Seriously have you never come across DAVU? I tend to see JBs however usede in squads of 6 more often but 3 is also common.

Yes, however it is less common and far less effective than the Scatter alser squadrons. And that is the point - you *do* get the armies, and they *are* good - but they have a weakness when it comes to kill points, so you see other, different builds. A weakness that some people think is worth it - but someone fluking double 6s is all it takes to seriously ruin your day.

And have you noticed how this is far different to the trifalcon supreme build that was by *far* the most prevalent tourney build? Now, with you having to consider objectives *&* killpoints there is no single build to rule them all.

Which is a good thing.

You really see guardian jetbikes in groups of 6? Im talking guardians, not jetlocks here....

FlingitNow wrote:5) Tervigon army gets so nailed by Jaws that it is not a viable build unless you know you're not against Space Wolves. Yes it spews out KPs yes people were terrified of it at first but deu to the damage the Tervigons do to their progeny and how ineffective they are at actually damaging Mech the list in practice is far less effective.

Sorry, what troops kill mech in Nids? Oh, genestealers - thats it. No, the 2+ tervigon army s killed by kill points far more than SW would do - because getting that SW in combat isnt exactly difficult is it? Nids really *sucK* at fast moving combat creatures...oh wait.

And theyre cheap enough to leave you plenty of room for mech killers - zoeys and hive guard.

FlingitNow wrote:I'd heard the DE had been announced for this summer and that the book was already in print.

Nope, try again. No announcement, and having 4 GW managers as close friends even they dont think it is until next year. Now its possible that *all* of them have been lied to, but its unlikely. Same as Inquisition isnt, currently, happening at all.

Dont really want to be too nitpicking here, but saying rhino's are immune to str4 weaponry isnt true. Granted, one does need to fire at the rear arc but it is possible to glance the rear av 10 with a str 4 weapon. Not easy nor a high percentage idea, but the word immune means 100% no way impossible....

Came to mind because just a couple weeks ago ended up using a unit of bladestorming DA against a rhino, since their primary target failed ALL of their saves vs a fire prism blast. The rhino took 4 glancing hits which (since it had already had its weaponry destroyed) ended up being enough to double immobilize/ wreck it.


Sliggoth

Sliggoth - I already qualified the "immunity" statement. Your oppponent shouldnt be able to get AV10 shots on yo unless you cooperate with them

Well, there is cooperation and then there is cooperation. A fast transport dropping off troops with an 18" range gives a 30" trheat radius, so the rear armor is going to be vulnerable unless the SM player is keeping the rhino at home.

And that doesnt begin to discuss the problem of boyz assaulting the rhino, also all at str4.

Perhaps the word used should be more...resistant or some such. There really are a lot of times that the rear armor can become a target Immune without cooperation also would be pretty rough around drop pods....


Sliggoth

Or if he wants to diembark some meltas close to said enemy.

I really wouldnt have mentioned it at all, except that the immune/ cant be hurt by str4 shots was raised more than once.....and the qualifier of Unless the SM player is a moron.....is maybe a bit overly strong as well, heh.



Sliggoth

You dont have 30" threat range, you have a 12" move plus 18" arc from where youve moved to. And that 12" move will struggle to put you in the rear arc unless the SM player cooperates.

I also said S4 shooting....

Str 4 shooting = DA shooting with an 18" range, yes. And since more than a few SM players who arent morons will indeed use their rhinos to advance....its really not very hard at all to get a shot at the rear av. Particularly if the serpent moved flat out the previous turn up a flank. Yes, you did say shooting, along with using the terms immune and moron. In a later post you simplified it to simply saying that the str4 shots cant hurt the rhino.

Its by no means a good use of the DA squad to burn their shoots on the rhino, but its also by no means a moronic SM player who leaves his rear armor open to a str 4 shot if the tactical situation calls for an advance. After all, its one of the reasons to go mech in the first place. An advance of several rhinos on an objective is a rather common sight in many games, and while the rhinos have little to fear from str4 weaponry its that fact that will often have the SM player advance them in the first place!

Its actually often a GOOD SM player who will advance his rhinos if the only thing that can hit his rear armor ir str4 weaponry. Its not going to have a high hit or kill probability, hence it is an acceptable risk in many cases. But it most certainly isnt immune to str4 fire. And the SM player who exposes his rear av of 10 to str4 fire is most probably accepting that there is a chance the rhino could take damage.


Yes, a rhino is very tough to hurt with str4 shots; but its not immune, a rhino can be hurt and it doesnt take a SM player who is a moron to allow those shots to occur.

Just a suggestion to turn down the hyperbole a notch is all.


Sliggoth

You're assuming there is no terrain.

The WS 12" move is *very* easy to determine where it can drop troops, so you ensure that your VERY narrow rear arc is not in that threat zone.

Im making no assumption at all about terrain. Terrain does however give the serpent cover (which it can then fly over) so it often becomes even easier to position a serpent in a location where it is on the flank of the opposing force.

Are you suggesting that if on the first turn a serpent with DA sped 24" across the field, a SM player should then spend a great deal of though moving his rhino strike force so that no rear av can be exposed to the serpent? That would be a tremendously easy way for an eldar player to hamstring any SM assault force if such a serpent were truly something to be avoided.

A SM player certainly wouldnt need to be a moron (as you suggested) to shrug off the danger of a unit of DA to his rear armor if he is plaaning on launching a wave of rhino's across the field in an assault. Of far more concern should be the heavier weaponry arrayed ahead of him, the scatter lasers and bright lances.


Lets face facts. There certainly are many times that a competent SM player will ignore a potential str4 set of firing to his rhinos. And by no means is a rhino immune, or or 100% not going to get killed by str4 weaponry as you stated in your next post.

You made excellent arguements about the strength and flexibility of a mech force in 5th edition. You are spot on about how the speed of such a force is so important. Just dont weaken your line of reasoning by trying to wander off with the idea that only a moron of a sm player would expose his rear av to str4 weapon fire. A competent sm assault player should shrug off the danger of str4 fire since even if it wrecks/ immobilizes the rhino the passengers have already moved 12" towards their goal. A rhino is often just meant to last long enough to get its troops to the objective, it provides some ablative armor on the way across the field and if it dies to str4 weaponry then it is still doing its job of protecting its cargo for one more turn. Yes, its nice to be able to protect the rear armor by moving along terrain, no it isnt always possible or even the best idea tactically if it slows the unit's move a few inches.

Just dont pretend that str4 CANT kill a rhino, or that its only a moron of a sm player who chooses to risk his rhinos in order to win the game.

Its a perfectly viable strat to spend a rhino to get an enemy squad into a more vulnerable position. Lure a DA squad out of their serpent by losing a rhino? Good exchange. Same with drawing a drop pod tac squad down to a more exposed landing.

Especialy now with the souped up BA rhinos, moving 18" and exposing the rear armor is going to be second nature to that sort of turbo assault army.

Sliggoth

So 4th ed marine codex let you take a heavy and special at 6 man unit size - the infamous Las/Plas team. So the Maximum Effectiveness was to have 6 man teams - the other 4 men did not add to the killing power in the unit when that was already 50% of the way to another las plas team.

But 5th Ed did nothing to stop this build from being effective. That was still the best way to build tac squads until the CODEX came out and stopped you. That is my point the KP mission has not had any impact on how people build armies. It has just screwed over a few army lists and crumpt up a few more interesting builds whilst doing NOTHING to stop the optimised lists from working the same way and still being effective. The objective missions are what have effected how people build their armies and the move towards more troops choices.

FlingitNow wrote:But 5th Ed did nothing to stop this build from being effective. That was still the best way to build tac squads until the CODEX came out and stopped you. That is my point the KP mission has not had any impact on how people build armies. It has just screwed over a few army lists and crumpt up a few more interesting builds whilst doing NOTHING to stop the optimised lists from working the same way and still being effective. The objective missions are what have effected how people build their armies and the move towards more troops choices.

So, 1) you can admit you didnt understnad what MSU means? Just to get something actually straight from you for a change...

2) Las plas teams certainly DID change, as they were too easy to kill for kill points.

The codex *has* stopped 6 man las/plas teams by just removing the option. Your ignorance of their phase out before that isnt my problem here.

Edit: I love that you complained that I "worked for GW" becausae i was obsessed with SM, yet you refuse to attempt to refute the other points and keep going back to just space marines. It's quite amusing.