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 I've been looking at a couple of lists and I'm wondering which would you rather try to take out? List A has quantity, list B has toughness, which is more of a struggle for your usual army?
I'm just listing defensive profiles, List B has an always in cover trait hence the 2+ saves. Everything bar the infantry and artillery have fly if that makes a difference. All the infantry starts in transports or deepstrike.

List A

36 T3 4+ infantry (in serpents)
18 T3 3+ infantry (in deepstrike)
54 T5 3+ (6 wound bikes)
45 T5 4+ (5 wound artillery)
39 T7 3+ (3 wave serpents)

List B

18 T3 3+ infantry (in falcons)
15 T3 3+ infantry (in deepstrike)
54 T5 2+ (6 wound bikes)
72 T7 2+ (12 wound tanks)

In 8th edition quantity typically wins over quality, especially as player skill increases. The limited exceptions tend to revolve around auras (e.g. IH castles), stuff that can be buffed out the wazoo (GK paladin bombs, possessed bomb), and stuff that has a way to avoid being focused off the table before they can act (Deep-striking assault cents, harle bikes, seer council, etc).

Also transports are usually a waste of points in 8th, except as shields for vulnerable, high-value units that you don't want shot off the table on T1 - Dark Reapers being the most obvious example. You generally need a wave serpent for these not because you actually want to move them with it but just as ablative armor to stop them from being picked up by your opponent T1 with LOS-ignoring shooting before you can neutralize it.

I answered B, for reference, but then I've got doom and jinx available!

Doom and jinx help quantity more than quality (except for spears - but even then, it's the quantity part of spears that benefits). Guardian bombs and dire avengers get way more out of doom and jinx than dark reapers, for example. Same for guide.

In general, the offensive side of eldar powers favor stacking quantity, while the defensive side of the powers lends itself towards quality...but only for one unit per turn.

Looking at my description I'm not sure I've been clear enough in defining me question.
What I am interested in is which of the two lists would be the most difficult to destroy? List A with more wounds and more variety of toughness and saves or list B with a focus on higher toughness and saves.
Much like my intercessor load out poll I'm always interested in how people plan their armies and what guns they bring to the table.

Both lists give all of my guns plenty of optimal targets and thus don't really affect my list building that much.

Most games are won by board control, not by destroying the opponent's army. I'm not going to table either of those lists, but my object isn't to do so, so it doesn't really matter. If list B has 3 night spinners in those tanks I'd rather face list A (unless you actually took weavers for the support platforms); if it doesn't I'd rather face list B. Because the only thing in either of those lists that really matters to me is if you have indirect fire (and, to a limited degree, if one has way more volume of shots than the other).

But all this is based on playing on boards with the sort of terrain you see in most tournaments - two big Ls in the middle, three other terrain pieces per side, etc. If you just have a big empty board with unobstructed shooting lines...my list is going to lose to either of those lists by the end of T2. So again it doesn't really matter.

I guess what I'm saying is the durability of your army only matters to an opponent whose battle plan revolves around destroying it. And the more competitive you get, the less battle plans are generally based on destroying the other person's army. So the less important overall durability becomes - the kind of durability that matters is not general stats, but ability to exist on the board in key moments in key places, which generally revolves much more around terrain, positioning, unit interactions and buffs.

To folloq on from what's been said above it also depends on the mission being played and the opponent aswell.

If you opponents have lots of NLOS ignores cover or high mobility the smaller footpribt being able to hide isn't benifical.

A larger swarm has more zonning potential but it's often slower and easier for a number of lists to thin down quicker but as their was more to go through it can last.

Each list will have good and bad matches it's about managing your weaknesses and playing past them

Thanks for the feedback guys, to be fair I am pretty happy with the durability of both lists.
I was curious to see how different players lists would go about tackling them in terms of target priority, shooting what you can kill, etc. I just enjoy reading people describe how they design and envision their lists, I more wanted to start conversations, seems I failed!

 kingheff wrote:
Looking at my description I'm not sure I've been clear enough in defining me question.
What I am interested in is which of the two lists would be the most difficult to destroy? List A with more wounds and more variety of toughness and saves or list B with a focus on higher toughness and saves.
Much like my intercessor load out poll I'm always interested in how people plan their armies and what guns they bring to the table.

In general: If you don't have inv save you don't have save. And points per wound is most crucial defensive measurement. Gretchin is tougher to get rid of than ork boyz despite T2 vs T4. Also 3 pts vs 7.

You need some whacko combo's like paladins to actually be tough in terms of stats and not because you have tons of wounds for points.

Well, quality vs quantity.
Not the right question if you ask me.
You need army which can fulfill several tactical objectives.
I like an army that can combat the enemy at all threat levels.

In my Eldar army, Dark Reapers can combat the enemy at range.
Mid range fire support can come from Serpents with shuricannons or Dire Avengers say.
Short range support is viable if the enemy gets close and personal.
For this, I never go out without Fire Dragons.
Worth considering are also cc units that can stall fast moving enemy cc units say for at least for one round.

tneva82 wrote:

Spoiler:

 kingheff wrote:
Looking at my description I'm not sure I've been clear enough in defining me question.
What I am interested in is which of the two lists would be the most difficult to destroy? List A with more wounds and more variety of toughness and saves or list B with a focus on higher toughness and saves.
Much like my intercessor load out poll I'm always interested in how people plan their armies and what guns they bring to the table.

In general: If you don't have inv save you don't have save. And points per wound is most crucial defensive measurement. Gretchin is tougher to get rid of than ork boyz despite T2 vs T4. Also 3 pts vs 7.

You need some whacko combo's like paladins to actually be tough in terms of stats and not because you have tons of wounds for points.

I find statements like this interesting. Invulnerable saves on vehicles are quite rare, especially above a 5++. So if we consider list B it's been designed with everything bar the infantry to have a 2+ unless at close range. So I'm interested in how much -4 or -5 ap weaponry you normally carry to make a 2+ worse than invulnerable save?

-2AP ignoring cover mass fire is extremely common in the space marine meta. So that puts your "2+" save to a 5+. That's not nothing, but it's not great.

I disagree with the idea that only invulns matter, but the basic idea is right - that base stats aren't a very good predictor any more of how durable units are. What matters is how units actually perform when you need them to perform.

The guardian blob is the classic example of this. T3 1W 5+ save looks extremely squishy...but when you need it to, a guardian blob can have a 2+/3++/5+++ save, making it go from squishy to probably the most durable unit in the entire codex.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, quality vs quantity.
Not the right question if you ask me.
You need army which can fulfill several tactical objectives.
I like an army that can combat the enemy at all threat levels.

In my Eldar army, Dark Reapers can combat the enemy at range.
Mid range fire support can come from Serpents with shuricannons or Dire Avengers say.
Short range support is viable if the enemy gets close and personal.
For this, I never go out without Fire Dragons.
Worth considering are also cc units that can stall fast moving enemy cc units say for at least for one round.

I know what you mean but both lists have good options for this, I'm more curious which has more staying power.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:
-2AP ignoring cover mass fire is extremely common in the space marine meta. So that puts your "2+" save to a 5+. That's not nothing, but it's not great.

I disagree with the idea that only invulns matter, but the basic idea is right - that base stats aren't a very good predictor any more of how durable units are. What matters is how units actually perform when you need them to perform.

The guardian blob is the classic example of this. T3 1W 5+ save looks extremely squishy...but when you need it to, a guardian blob can have a 2+/3++/5+++ save, making it go from squishy to probably the most durable unit in the entire codex.

Is ignoring cover very common? I know it's fairly popular with craftworlds, probably not the top custom trait but a solid option. Obviously imperial fists get it but do many successor chapters or other factions choose it?