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

So a bit of a rant I'm afraid, but bare with me on this one.

On one of the other Forums I frequent, I was just reminded of one of the more depressing bits of advice I've seen crop up time and again 'Unit X is very vulnerable to Unit A, and despite Unit A only really featuring in a couple of books, this means Unit X is a waste of points in all possible situations' Or well, words to that effect. Specifically this time, Stegadons being 'worthless' due to Cannons. Yes that's right. A cannon will give a Stegadon a literal and figurative headache but then, surely this is only of concern when facing Stunties or Empire? The rest of the time, they are slightly better than they used to be.

I might sound a little naiive here, but surely every unit has it's weakness, it's achilles heel. Sometimes it's more pronounced than others, but every single time it's entirely subjective. Dare I say that any player careless or inexperienced enough to take no steps to cover said weakness in deployment and manouvers kind of deserves to learn a harsh lesson. Another example, my beloved Ogre Horde units (love them!) and Purple Sun. Yep. Given half a chance, Purple Sun will chew up and spit out my big old units. So it's down to me, a little skill, and perhaps more luck than I care to admit to avoid this particular situation. Be it a Dispel Scroll, Roll, or trying to beat up the offending Wizard before he gets a chance to vomit that particular nasty, there things I can and will do to prevent it. Similar with Cannons, or any other threat. And yes, occasionally there will be situations where you close your eyes, cross your fingers, beseech the Gods, spin round three times and hope for the best. I still see this as no reason NOT to take a particular unit if it tickles your fancy.

And as an addition, there are of course those units that occupy an extremely niche, well...erm...niche in the game, where it takes a lot of skill and cunning to get the most out of them. Surely being just a game, such units should be seen as a welcome challenge to your skills as a general, rather than a hindrance to putting them in your army? Take Dark Elf Harpies these days. They lost a lot of their former usefulness in 8th Edition sure, as they can no longer wipe out units fleeing through them (one use down) and most units have a decent chance at ignoring their march blocking shenanigans (second one down!). But I can still use them to chase down fleeing units when I'd rather have my heavy hitters go and heavy hit a new unit, right in the chops.

So what is it Dakka? Why this seeming quest for the truly invincible unit? How many peoples advice on units are as objective as possible, and how many are coloured by a persons continued bad experiences with them?

Good points about the Stegadons (Treemen, or really any multi-wound model, suffer a similar short lifespan to cannons) and a horde unit of anything with low initiative (ogres, trolls, saurus, temple guard...). Can be really useful, and if you end up facing your kryptonite, well that's part of the game!

I have noticed in tourneys that people are trying really hard to have deathstar units without much of a kryptonite, and partially succeeding. If you're investing in 4 warshrines to make sure your tzeentch chosen block gets that 3+ ward, you betcha it's gonna be nigh-impossible to beat . But even though you've got an invincible unit, for a lot of the rulebook missions, there may be ways to win without ever facing it for the most part. (Although it's still an extremely devastating tactic)

Anyway, that's my $0.02

I have to agree, and the smae goes in 40k as well. its all about having the destroyer of worlds on your side and being able to throw as many dice (or as few) as possible in a turn. No one wnats stratedy any more all they want is a power list to go play agaisnt other miserable peole at a tournament and not enjoy the games they played if they lose, (and gloat exceitedly when thet get a devestating win agaisnt someone who is playing to have fun).

Though i supose its in human nature and in the essence of the game to be the best, but what people have lost sight of is the skill involved in being the best as a genral, Look at Patton and the battle of the bulge. ZHe ddint win because his tanks were the ungoldy slayers of all, he won becasue he was a tqactical genius and used his army to its full potential.

RiTides wrote:If you're investing in 4 warshrines to make sure your tzeentch chosen block gets that 3+ ward, you betcha it's gonna be nigh-impossible to beat .

You don't really any Warshrines if you give the unit the Wailing Banner. Every result except for 4 and 5(Either +1A or +1S, so still not bad) can be re-rolled!

I like to give my Tzeench sword'n'board warriors the Blasted Standard. 3+ ward against shooting is nasty.

Grey Templar wrote:I like to give my Tzeench sword'n'board warriors the Blasted Standard. 3+ ward against shooting is nasty.

It's +4.

I though the standard was a 4+ ward and Tzeench adds 1 to the ward.

Oh, I wish. The banner is +5 and MoT adds +1 to that.

Titankiller17 wrote:No one wnats stratedy any more all they want is a power list to go play agaisnt other miserable peole at a tournament and not enjoy the games they played if they lose, (and gloat exceitedly when thet get a devestating win agaisnt someone who is playing to have fun).

Sounds like someone's had some bad luck at tournaments?

I can definately say that I have faced some of the fiercest strategies AT tournaments (40k and Fantasy), and that its the anti-tournament crowd that has the real issues with losing when theres money/prizes on the line.

Back on topic. I have to agree with the OP. I tend to think of my army as a whole, if unit A is very important to my army/strategy but is completely hosed by unit B then I take unit/character/item C to try and make up for that. Whether its terradons hunting war machines or great eagles keeping that Chosen Deathstar chasing its tail all game while Teclis blasts it apart with magic, an army is more then the sum of its parts.

Mainly the biggest thing pushing this kind of play seems to be the internet. At least in my gaming group no one has come up to me and said, "No marauder hordes or chosen deathstars. Chaos knights, don't you know calvary got nerfed? You are clealy running WoC wrong." This is the kind of response you can expect from the internet instead of looking at how things work together they have some preset way of how certain armies are supposed to be and what is optimal. Sure it will help you get in a general direction, but don't take it as the only way to play.

I’ve noticed this a lot. It’s part of the excessive focus on individual units as good or bad, without worrying how that unit might fit in the army as a whole, or how that unit might work in response to the local metagame.

I think there are a few reasons for this. Some folk build their lists based on trial and error, find what works best for them and assume that must be because it is ‘best’. For instance, a guy might play in an area with loads of Dwarf and Empire gun lines, and find his Stegadon gets shot off the field very quickly, and assume this would be the same for everyone.

Other folk lean heavily on very narrowly defined mathhammer calculations, and reject units with very high vulnerabilities. The problem here is that they often ignore things that can’t be calculated, such as the odds of facing that target, or the ability of a unit to avoid that weakness in the field (through greater manoeuvre or the support of other units).

Really, I think discussions on tactics really just need to move past ‘this unit is good/bad’, because while there are undercosted and overcosted units, there are few units so overpriced as to be useless, and even fewer units so undercosted as to be mandatory for all lists. What matter is how well a unit fits within the rest of the list.

gardeth wrote:

Titankiller17 wrote:No one wnats stratedy any more all they want is a power list to go play agaisnt other miserable peole at a tournament and not enjoy the games they played if they lose, (and gloat exceitedly when thet get a devestating win agaisnt someone who is playing to have fun).

Sounds like someone's had some bad luck at tournaments?

I can definately say that I have faced some of the fiercest strategies AT tournaments (40k and Fantasy), and that its the anti-tournament crowd that has the real issues with losing when theres money/prizes on the line.

Back on topic. I have to agree with the OP. I tend to think of my army as a whole, if unit A is very important to my army/strategy but is completely hosed by unit B then I take unit/character/item C to try and make up for that. Whether its terradons hunting war machines or great eagles keeping that Chosen Deathstar chasing its tail all game while Teclis blasts it apart with magic, an army is more then the sum of its parts.

Yeah i will admit it I don't do well at tournaments, so i dont play. the reason being that the peole in my area that do play, only play to win and nothing more they dont play to have fun or enjoy the time with frineds. they only play to humiliate and gloat. Sop dont come at me with this holier than thou attitude. And i could care less about there being anyhting on the line, its when peole dicide to turn on d-bag mode and act like jerks about it like them wining acctauly means anyhting.

That was the point of what iw as saying is that as a previous poster said, most normal avg players learn through trial and error. most other people come to the internet to find a lsit someone else made that did well and then copy it to the letter and hop bandwagon to bandwagon. but thhats my opinion and that's just an abnormality fo this area,w e havee some really good and cool people that still do enjoy the game but we alos have those guys that are jsut miserable opponents.

Perhaps those of a like mind might join me in a Tactics Forum revolution? Where rather than asking 'how do I win lulz' or 'is this unit any good' we offer more general hints and tips on how to avoid Artillery, ways of weakening Death Stars etc, perhaps with more specific advice for those who ask of it?

Mr Mystery wrote:Perhaps those of a like mind might join me in a Tactics Forum revolution? Where rather than asking 'how do I win lulz' or 'is this unit any good' we offer more general hints and tips on how to avoid Artillery, ways of weakening Death Stars etc, perhaps with more specific advice for those who ask of it?

We’re trying, but it ain’t easy.

You seen how many people start threads on ‘is this unit good’ or ‘what is the best army?’

Your right about the whole achilles heel thing, every unit has a weakness, otherwise it would be unfair and everyone would use the so called invulnerable unit and no one would ever lose!