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.

Can somebody please explain the target saturation argument? I understand the prinsiple, but it really makes nå sence with the warrior unit in question.

When you use the word saturation it means the abilaty to soak up damadge. If all your units in the army are T6 multi wound with a 3+ save you will be wasting your oponents blast weapons because the blast would hit only pne unit. Also his S4 weapons would have no targets. This way you are making a lot of your opponents units obsolete. The same can be done in an IG Footarmy. Then your oponents high S weapons are wasted. Warriors function badly in this. Aditionally why not just saturate with a unit that is good even if it does not get shot?

Target saturation means that you give the enemy (too) many targets to shoot at. This means that the likely hood of the Warriors getting targeted and ID'd goes down. The opponent has to make a choice of which to shoot based on what he thinks is the highest threat.

You could drop a Prime or Red Terror at the front to avoid ID by 8, but not 10 - but yes they do eventually die.

Personally Warriors have worked well for me in the games I have used them in. I've had people target them rather than MC just because they were T4, but quite often my opponent doesn't have enough STR8 to spend on Warriors - especially if your running them into CC they only need to survive 2 rounds of shooting.
My problem with both before was lack of options - that has changed now and may run more, they are my optimal unit for ADL + Venom cover saves.

I still am not seeing the str 8 argument outside of riptides. How often to do you see long fang space wolves? In my experience they have migrated to drop pods instead. In addition if they are willing to waste their missiles on warriors with a 3+ cover save more power to them. Leave the MCs alone then.

If you have two units of 3 warriors with a 3+ cover save as well as two trygons and a mawloc just popped up and ate one of your dev squads where are your missiles going to go? You only have one turn of shooting left to decide. Lets not forget the mob of over 60 termagaunts/hormagaunts that is leading the charge.

That is less than a 1300 point army bearing down on you. Using smart model/terrain placement every unit has at least one model in range of the venomthropes(woohoo tails). Lets throw in two flyrants and 2 mobs of 30 gargoyles to round it out.

Now am I saying it is the most competitive list? Hell no, but I am using it to illustrate the concept of target saturation.

Also I think the warriors biggest problem is that they lost eternal warrior at the same time that longfang spam was at its peak. They were the next book after space wolves. That cemented a perception in the public mind. Like I said even then I was able to win against long fang spam. Its just a matter of having enough threats.

The only two losses I had with my warrior based army was to a doom of malentai that made 20 instant death saves in a row(his only model left on the board). The second was to a Leaf blower list on hammer and anvil with larger deadzones in the middle(you can guess how that game went)

Hpwever of ypu are playing on a battlefield that represents a flat freshly shaven grass field I can definitely see where the arguments are coming from.