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.
Well, for Tau you can either go 12x3 or 6x6 units of Firewarriors, if you are trying to use less than 400 points on troops, tho i personally would have them 12x2 and 6x2 ( 36 FWs only for examples )
But personally i would love to include FW, as they have some of the only good optional choices for a few races in a few of their slots, in Taus example, Turrets as Troops, and the Baracuda and the Remora as Fast Attack which is way better than the default flyers.
I tend to use two rules of thumb. If your troops are good, you build your army around them. If your troops suck, you take as few as are necessary to score you objectives.
For the former, see IG blobs, Kroot, Terivgons and Termagants, Dark Eldar Warriors, and Wraithguard
For the latter, look at every variety of Space Marine, including Chaos and Grey Knights, or Necrons.
Blob squads will probably see a dip in popularity with Tau able to take cover dependant light infantry off the table with a shovel, but a pair of 50 man blobs led by Space Marines is still a solid backbone of an army.
I've been messing around with a Codex:IG interpretation of the ABG, using a mix of Russ hulls and the bare minimum number of MechVet squads and I think the only problem the list has is that I've spent way too long playing power armor and haven't properly adjusted my mindset yet. For straight up garagehammer, using terrain set up via the rulebook method, playing straight win/loss against a single opponent, it works kind of well.
The army runs into a challenge when it loses the strategic initiative (ie I have no say in dictating the terrain I'm fighting over), when it has to try to win by a margin, or when it has to deal with denying one avenue of victory while exploiting another.
Nafarious wrote: I think the idea of min/max is very important in some armies. Especially with the Tau. A minimum amount of fire warriors to hold objectives with a maximized amount of fire power.
I tried this route and was impressed, but still found myself wanting to at least have 6 troops. For me it's all about being balanced and having numerous troops squads helps me achieve that, regardless of format.
I don't build a list for tournament A, then change it for tournament B. Once I finalize a list, that is my list and i'll stick with it regardless of format. A good list should be able to handle various missions.
I do something similar. I have been running the same Tau list that everyone said wouldn't work since the new codex came out.
I'm sorry if this thread is considered resolved, but I just slogged through the 8 and a bit pages while taking notes and I wanted to share my thoughts. Sorry if it feels like I'm dragging stuff up, but I kept making notes as I went instead of at the end. I'm sorry that it's a wall of text, I'm going to spoiler it and you can read it or ignore it.
First, the basic tactic is the OP is describing is a well-known army list type (like MSU or Alpha Strike) with a not well known name. I'm not sure if this has been posted here or not, but the first reference I saw of it was on BoLS (link) where it was called "Maximum Threat Overload" or MTO. I think everyone in this thread agrees that MTO is strong for CSM, Daemons, Necrons, Tyranids and perhaps Eldar pending some ironing out of the MSUWS lists. For the purposes of discussion, I was to identify the ideas supporting the OP as "pro-MTO" and the ideas against it as "anti-MTO."
I wanted to preface any further discussion with a few observations I noted while reading the whole thread:
Spoiler:
- The IA thing came up near the end, but was a sticking point early in the thread as well. The trick when discussing IA is that it's not universally included into games (regardless of whether it should or shouldn't be), and that GW has purportedly stated that they are not interested in balancing the game around tournament play which is an interesting stance to take when you're marketing a competitve game. I am going to discuss non-IA lists (with at least 2 scoring units) because that is the most useful discussion to most forum members.
- The pro-MTO people are not arguing that troops choices are inherently bad, just that taking a unit with the intention of scoring is not as good as adding more firepower. Alternatively: if an army's troops have low firepower, spend the minimum amount to fulfill FOC requirements then spend the rest on stronger units
- As a corollary to the previous point, pro-MTO people are not saying that Troops are bad because they take a Troops slot on the FOC - especially when they originally came from a different section of the FOC (such as Elites). The anti-MTO people have pointed out that some units, such as Paladins and Biker Nobz are not played unless they are Troops and can score which indicates that these units are often taken to be durable scoring units and not just because they are bigger threats than Troops. It has also been suggested that these lists might benefit from allied troops (such as scoring Paladins with Guardsmen blobs).
- Everyone agrees that marines are inefficient and that SM/CSM should only take 2 minimum-size squads (or scouts/cultists), or only take them if you have a goal (like in a drop pod list). The discrepancy is that anti-MTO advocates would likely ally in more troops in order to secure objectives, but pro-MTO would spend these points on bigger guns. It is not fair for either side to suggest that the members of the opposite camp would take a bunch of marines because of more troops/threats or any other reason.
These things came up a few times and I've seen some people's opinions repeatedly misrepresented because the argument gets simplified to "minimum points on troops" or "maximum points on troops".
My own opinions on the necessity of scoring units are in here:
Spoiler:
Some things I wanted to mention about the content of the discussion is that the only objective data we can get is games played. Winning or losing and with what is score IS objective data, but your interpretation of why the game was won or lost is subjective as is any discussion on the subject without evidence. It would be nice to see the tournament list in the OP so that we can understand what is being discussed. If possible, it would be nice if someone could come up with a non-IA army because IA is not accepted at every tournament, but it's not necessary. It would also be incredibly valuable if someone could play more games of these types of armies with non-tradition MTO armies (traditional are CSM, Daemons, Necrons and Tyranids) and post battle reports to see if this applies universally and why.
One other thing is that, to me, I think that killing the two scoring units on the first turn is probably a trap. It looks like these types of lists generally plan to table the opponent and have incredibly squishy scoring units which don't intend to leave the backfield and wil GTG in cover, making them harder than they need to be. The scoring units are not a credible threat and it seems to me that the strategy should be to go for the highest output unit in order to stymie the amount of damage received and only target scoring units when scoring becomes the objective in later turns. ie. If you focus the enemy's Penal Legions in cover and their LRBT shells your wraithguard in the next turn then your target priority is probably off. I think that you should be able to recognize this type of MTO list before deployment and understand that they don't want to score as much as they want to table you or contest with VP advantage and play accordingly. In most army lists, denial units will be not much tougher than scoring units (they often aren't) but they will cost more which means it might be more effective to remove the highest threat as early as you can.
There is some discussion as to whether or not CWE, DE and Tau troops are "inherently bad" and the real answer is that they can be, but don't have to be. CWE troops are incredibly cost effective for what they're capable of and can be played on foot or in minimum quantities in order to field WSs. This does not mean that it is better to field Fire Dragons than Guardians because Guardians are more effective per point against certain targets and are a cheap way to field WS. Basically, If you have 2 squads of Fire Dragons, it's not always better to prune from troops in order to field more Fire Dragons. DE lists probably can't survive without troops with certain possible exceptions. Tau troops are also situational and must compliment the army is order to perform effectively. It is possible the Tau MTO is strong, but I doubt that it's the only strong option or even the strongest one. Generally troops from these three armies should not be discarded as "inherently bad" and probably shouldn't feature in this discussion.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned is that MTO is not the first army list type which has the goal of tabling the opponent. DE Alpha Strike and any Flyer spam list is not a strong threat against objectives, but will seek to either table you or rack up a lot of secondary objectives and contest in the last turn. Some armies are doomed to be picked apart if they try to fight a head-on battle, but can succeed by spreading out their units and moving tactically to secure primary and secondary objectives while losing units every turn. In fact, this tactic can be employed against any army which you won't beat head-on to varying degrees of success. MTO type lists do not have this option available to them because of their low amount of scoring units and are forced to table their opponent or lose.
Secondary objectives have been mentioned periodically but not really hashed out. In large point games (1500pts+, I'm looking at 2000pts here), it becomes quite easy for the army which goes first to secure first blood. It seems that this MTO list relies on getting first blood, but first blood is often given up by vehicles which will likely feature in most MTO lists. The best chance an MTO list has of getting first blood is to get the first turn, but if the other army gets first turn then they will likely secure first blood if 1200pts shoot at the same thing. Having 1700pts of high power units doesn't help secure first blood if you don't go first. Also having low amounts of scoring units is likely to make Linebreaker hard to achieve and I think that most games I've played in have either resulted in HQs being traded or both surviving (this varies by army though). Essentially, MTO cannot guarantee secondary objectives even if it has a reliable method of contesting objectives. But if the MTO army gets 1st turn, then it's harder to make a last-turn move to secure objectives on account of having fewer units on the table which means that they might lose by a wider margin if they do get 1st turn. IMHO it seems as though the plan with these MTO type lists is to table the opponent and fight for objectives only if it becomes clear that they won't be able to finish the opponent by turn 5.
Another hokey thing is that boards with more cover will likely favour the non-MTO army because they have more scoring units which can take cover or hide behind BLOS and survive the war of attrition against fewer units. But having less cover does not necessarily benefit the MTO army, rather it favours the codex which is better without cover. This is an odd interaction and forgive me if I read this wrong. Certainly a large guard blob will suffer against tanks if there isn't ANY cover on the board, but harder armies like SM and Crons aren't hit as hard.
It seems that if the discussion won't consider the tournament environment, then it is a less useful discussion. I think the most important thing to consider is that most tournaments do care about the margin of victory even if they use the BRB match rules because this is the only way to choose a victor out of a set of undefeated players. Even if this type of MTO list wins every game, then it is not likely to win the event if it wins by 1 VP every game. If you don't consider tournaments at all, then you are likely looking at LGS or basement-hammer which is prone to list tailoring. This is fine, but it eventually leads to the scenario where your buddy brings a list just to crush you and it has little to do with the viability of your list in a vacuum.
What I think I'm going to take away from this thread is, whether your are pro- or anti-MTO, you agree that it is very inefficient to invest in troops if their only goal is to sit on an objective. But it looks as though for most armies that this isn't an issue because they will used the most valuable slots of the FOC and still take 4+ troops. I think that most MTO players will have a new appreciation for scoring troops, and if you're the type of player who runs maxed units then you will now understand how taking away special weapons to spend elsewhere can increase your army's strength or utility.
As Hollowman stated, the real title of this thread should have been: "Is scoring less important than commonly believed?" and the response is mixed. I think the point of the thread is that tabling your opponent may be a viable alternative to fighting for objectives all game.
At higher points levels, where most lists will have their FOC nearly maxed, the question becomes: "Is it worth taking allies in order to field more troops instead of using 1 or 2 of my Elites or Fast Attack slots?" and the answer is that it depends on what troops you can field and what exactly is in your Elites and Fast Attack options.
PS: Does anybody have an official statement from GW saying that FW rules are a part of the game? My personal grief with the FW rules are that, as a Canadian xenos player, I can't convert the models from scratch so I need to get FW box sets. The last Games Day in Canada was in 2009, and since then I either have to go to the States (not an option) or I have to order online which is an expensive option for me. If GW wants FW on every tabletop, then it would be a great boon if they carried it in their stores. I suspect that the real reason that FW would say that FW is legal is that they are financially involved in it and not that they care about the impact it has on the game. But I like a lot of the stuff and I wouldn't mind if it was legal in tournaments.
Because of all the naysayers suddenly turning it into a FW debate. This thread was derailed by others, not the OP.
This. People went after Peregrine because he plays a Forge World army list and, for some reason, tried to invalidate his input because of that. It makes 0 sense.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
Because of all the naysayers suddenly turning it into a FW debate. This thread was derailed by others, not the OP.
This. People went after Peregrine because he plays a Forge World army list and, for some reason, tried to invalidate his input because of that. It makes 0 sense.
I am SURE that there's a Latin phrase for when people do that...I'm not sure what it is just now...
I was trying. There was some debate a few pages back about whether or not Ailaros was an intellectual snob for using the phrase 'ad hominem."
Anyway, this whole idea is very appealing to me. As Martel has noted a great many times, the Blood Angels troop choices are pretty terrible (even by marine standards). I currently minimize their crumminess by keeping them inside a razorback, but I rather like the idea of keeping that to two garbage units and then being able to afford filling out my HS and FA slots. I'm not sure how great it might work, but troop poor codexes need to think outside the box to keep winning.
Because of all the naysayers suddenly turning it into a FW debate. This thread was derailed by others, not the OP.
This. People went after Peregrine because he plays a Forge World army list and, for some reason, tried to invalidate his input because of that. It makes 0 sense.
I am SURE that there's a Latin phrase for when people do that...I'm not sure what it is just now...
Not to sound like an intellectual snob, but when people pick on an issue unrelated to the point you are trying to make then that is called a Red Herring.
I was trying. There was some debate a few pages back about whether or not Ailaros was an intellectual snob for using the phrase 'ad hominem."
Ugggh. Please re-read my response. Being intellectual has nothing to do with the activities and responses here. My qualm is that people far too often feel as though they can weasel out of a disagreement by throwing out terms from a high school debate lexicon.
As for the Forgeworld stuff, it has little to do with this thread (besides the idea of "house rules"). The truth is that there is no "one correct" way to play 40k. Min troops work for some armies. For most, they don't. In addition, this strategy often places one in an uphill battle so to speak. That being said, it can work. The main disagreement is to the frequency of effectiveness. At this point, you either agree, or you don't. Both sides have spoken ad nauseam about it (see, I have no problem with Latin phrases )
2nd Place 2015 ATC--Team 48
6th Place 2014 ATC--team Ziggy Wardust and the Hammers from Mars
3rd Place 2013 ATC--team Quality Control
7-1 at 2013 Nova Open (winner of bracket 4)
Not to sound like an intellectual snob, but when people pick on an issue unrelated to the point you are trying to make then that is called a Red Herring.
But it really wasn't a Red Herring. Context is everything when discussing and idea such as this one. The meta that includes IA is very different from the meta that doesn't. Particularly when you can garner some very efficient damage units out of IA, it becomes significantly more relevant to forego the less then inspiring troop choices. Of course, on the flip side, there are a handful of more efficient troops out of IA.
This doesn't mean it is right or wrong to discuss it either way, merely that it needs to be clear which parameters we have set. It is well known on this board that Peregrine operates within a meta that includes IA. I don't think there is anything wrong with discussing such a detail in the context of an idea that he is presenting.
I was trying. There was some debate a few pages back about whether or not Ailaros was an intellectual snob for using the phrase 'ad hominem."
Ugggh. Please re-read my response. Being intellectual has nothing to do with the activities and responses here. My qualm is that people far too often feel as though they can weasel out of a disagreement by throwing out terms from a high school debate lexicon.
As for the Forgeworld stuff, it has little to do with this thread (besides the idea of "house rules"). The truth is that there is no "one correct" way to play 40k. Min troops work for some armies. For most, they don't. In addition, this strategy often places one in an uphill battle so to speak. That being said, it can work. The main disagreement is to the frequency of effectiveness. At this point, you either agree, or you don't. Both sides have spoken ad nauseam about it (see, I have no problem with Latin phrases )
From my reading, it wasn't really an ad hominem attack either. You just said that Ailaros plays with certain game limitations and plays devil's advocate in every thread, so you find it hard to find his arguments credible. This is valid and it's not like you outright called him stupid, just that his opinions are for a version of the game which most forumites won't be playing. To Peregrine you just said that his argument relies on using IA armies which are not universally accepted at every table, and thus might not be valuable in a context where a player is unable to choose between vanilla IG or Armored Company. Then Ailaros got defensive and claimed ad hominem fallacy, asked if JGrand felt like a big man then presented a reductio ad absurdum as a rebuttal (more latin!).
ShadarLogoth wrote:
Not to sound like an intellectual snob, but when people pick on an issue unrelated to the point you are trying to make then that is called a Red Herring.
But it really wasn't a Red Herring. Context is everything when discussing and idea such as this one. The meta that includes IA is very different from the meta that doesn't. Particularly when you can garner some very efficient damage units out of IA, it becomes significantly more relevant to forego the less then inspiring troop choices. Of course, on the flip side, there are a handful of more efficient troops out of IA.
This doesn't mean it is right or wrong to discuss it either way, merely that it needs to be clear which parameters we have set. It is well known on this board that Peregrine operates within a meta that includes IA. I don't think there is anything wrong with discussing such a detail in the context of an idea that he is presenting.
I agree that it wasn't really a Red Herring. After reading the whole thread within the context of the Armored Company list, it seems like the original proposition was most accurately that Armored Company IG outperform vanilla IG on account of how many more threats are fields and the ability to table an opponent. The problem is that not everyone will allow this list at their table (whether or not they should), the idea was presented like every army should consider dropping scoring units in order or killing units. Most people wanted to discuss an non-IA list (which even the OP seemed fine with), but discussion kept looping back to where the points coming from Troops are going. It later became evident that they don't have anywhere to go unless you play the Armored Company list, and that most of the new ground covered in this thread only relates specifically to Armored Company list because any army which can play MTO is probably already doing it. So what appeared at first to be a Red Herring (people are arguing that IA isn't always included in games), turned out to be the crux of the argument (and IAIG list might be stronger than vanilla on account of the ability to field more tanks). I don't think that was the intent of the OP, but after looking at what IG can do with their points, it seems that they don't have an option except to play a lot of troops (unless we actually see some demo army lists).
For BA, 5 men in a TLHF razor with a hand flamer and flamer are not a horrible substitute for assault. Can it hold the jock strap of plague marines or even Kroot? No. But I'm dancing as fast as I can for Sangiunius here.
Are troops worth it anymore? It depends on your strategy, meta, list, army and points value. I think players should try things out for themselves before deciding what's good and what isn't unless money is tight.
Speaking from experience, my troops have done well right up until the point where I try to cap an objective. Then they die horribly to anything that looks at them funny. If your guys aren't good at killing stuff then minimize the amount of points you are dumping into them. Scoring objectives isn't that crucial if you have the firepower to deny your opponent his scoring abilities.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'd take Mechvets even if I didn't have to. They destroy deep strikers before they can do too much damage (Thank god for GW banning assaulting from Deep Strike /sarcasm). I just don't honestly value them as scoring units as much as BS4 Plasma/Meltaguns/Lascannons/Autocannons.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/06/26 05:56:40
Thought for the day: Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
30k Ultramarines: 2000 pts
Bolt Action Germans: ~1200 pts
AOS Stormcast: Just starting.
The Empire : ~60-70 models.
1500 pts
: My Salamanders painting blog 16 Infantry and 2 Vehicles done so far!
Anyhow, as a Black Templars player, troops haven't been "worth it" for a long time. I usually fill out my lists with one 20-man squad to have a somewhat resilient scoring unit for midfield objectives and then add 2 5-man troops who hide somewhere safe. I've had lots of problems with having too few troops to claim objectives, but every time I try to increase the number of troops I lose out on too much dakka/stabbing. Only being able to take one special weapon and no combi-weapons really hurts.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
Hope this isn't thread necro but I have a practical question on this subject:
at 1600 I am debating between
A) 4 units of Mech Vets in Chimeras
B) 3 units of the same, by dropping one I can basically take a pair of Colossi vs a single one (along with being able to fully kit out an Executioner with plasma sponsons and hull LC)
Thoughts on this reduction of scoring vs the increase in killing power??
I was trying. There was some debate a few pages back about whether or not Ailaros was an intellectual snob for using the phrase 'ad hominem."
Ugggh. Please re-read my response. Being intellectual has nothing to do with the activities and responses here. My qualm is that people far too often feel as though they can weasel out of a disagreement by throwing out terms from a high school debate lexicon.
As for the Forgeworld stuff, it has little to do with this thread (besides the idea of "house rules"). The truth is that there is no "one correct" way to play 40k. Min troops work for some armies. For most, they don't. In addition, this strategy often places one in an uphill battle so to speak. That being said, it can work. The main disagreement is to the frequency of effectiveness. At this point, you either agree, or you don't. Both sides have spoken ad nauseam about it (see, I have no problem with Latin phrases )
From my reading, it wasn't really an ad hominem attack either. You just said that Ailaros plays with certain game limitations and plays devil's advocate in every thread, so you find it hard to find his arguments credible. This is valid and it's not like you outright called him stupid, just that his opinions are for a version of the game which most forumites won't be playing. To Peregrine you just said that his argument relies on using IA armies which are not universally accepted at every table, and thus might not be valuable in a context where a player is unable to choose between vanilla IG or Armored Company. Then Ailaros got defensive and claimed ad hominem fallacy, asked if JGrand felt like a big man then presented a reductio ad absurdum as a rebuttal (more latin!).
I don't see how someone playing devil's advocate allows someone else to validly call them out on it. It wasn't even stated why those limitations are valid for the context of this thread. Fliers, afaik, can never become troops. In the question of whether troops are worth it are fliers to be considered? This is another red herring. Fliers? Who talked about fliers? This is about the worthiness of troops.
IA not being accepted isn't a valid argument either. The question is in regards to troops being worthy whilst using an example of a tournament as a eureka moment. People associated that moment with peregrine and his/her previous views and preconceptions based on those views, distracting them from the main question and invalidating that question based on those perceptions.
ShadarLogoth wrote:
Not to sound like an intellectual snob, but when people pick on an issue unrelated to the point you are trying to make then that is called a Red Herring.
But it really wasn't a Red Herring. Context is everything when discussing and idea such as this one. The meta that includes IA is very different from the meta that doesn't. Particularly when you can garner some very efficient damage units out of IA, it becomes significantly more relevant to forego the less then inspiring troop choices. Of course, on the flip side, there are a handful of more efficient troops out of IA.
This doesn't mean it is right or wrong to discuss it either way, merely that it needs to be clear which parameters we have set. It is well known on this board that Peregrine operates within a meta that includes IA. I don't think there is anything wrong with discussing such a detail in the context of an idea that he is presenting.
I agree that it wasn't really a Red Herring. After reading the whole thread within the context of the Armored Company list, it seems like the original proposition was most accurately that Armored Company IG outperform vanilla IG on account of how many more threats are fields and the ability to table an opponent. The problem is that not everyone will allow this list at their table (whether or not they should), the idea was presented like every army should consider dropping scoring units in order or killing units. Most people wanted to discuss an non-IA list (which even the OP seemed fine with), but discussion kept looping back to where the points coming from Troops are going. It later became evident that they don't have anywhere to go unless you play the Armored Company list, and that most of the new ground covered in this thread only relates specifically to Armored Company list because any army which can play MTO is probably already doing it. So what appeared at first to be a Red Herring (people are arguing that IA isn't always included in games), turned out to be the crux of the argument (and IAIG list might be stronger than vanilla on account of the ability to field more tanks). I don't think that was the intent of the OP, but after looking at what IG can do with their points, it seems that they don't have an option except to play a lot of troops (unless we actually see some demo army lists).
It is a red herring because it was designed, knowingly or no, to distract from the main question. Are troops worth it? You yourself are focused on the IA aspect and have failed the see the herring. Justifying the blindness of it's existence to others as well. You also seem the suggest that tanks are powerful. In 6th? Really? They're fluffy at best.
Non nobis solum.
Oh yeah, don't forget the fallacy fallacy. People seem to be falling into that trap. In fact let's all become expects and read wikipedia. It's so wonderful being able to be a savant in an age of easy information.
My opinion on the original matter is this: The current role of troops is to unlock killy things (2 troops minimum being the key role here, scouts for space marines being the ideal example) or to be killy themselves (through unlocks, ala necron fliers, or by being themselves vis a vis space wolves, terminators, monstrous creatures et al). Current rule book missions and newly released codices do not favour troops being a primary compoment of a force unless those troops themselves are not just for holding objects. In DA we have Terminators, Bikes and DoV Tac Marines, all killy and required to do more than just hold objectives at generally much better rates than scouts. In CSM the troops on offer generally do more than just sit on the side line, even the lowly cultists role is to be a tarpit (of their killy units) or bodyguard, rather than scoring alone. Daemons we have nurgle troops but they're generally taken in minimal units to be able to max out on the killy stuff. Tau? Stupidly killy. Troops here hold objectives second to shooting the crap out of stuff. Kroot infiltrating with rapid fire snipers and fire warriors with S5 out of the wazoo with lots of lists trying to maximize killing potential to objective holding. Eldar? Again, the troops are used as killy in their own right or to unlock vehicles (in this case, hard to kill wave serpents with god knows how many weapons on top).
Troops, as they are now, are to be used to get stuff done during the game. If they survive long enough to hold an objective then they've not been a high enough priority to target, a couple of shots thrown near the end of the game after the threats are taken care off.
It is a red herring because it was designed, knowingly or no, to distract from the main question.
How could it be "designed" if it wasn't done so knowingly?
And, again, it wasn't a red herring. It introduced a very relevant piece of context to the discussion. The meta Per plays in is quite different then the meta most competitive players play in. If you only bring two MSU scoring units to Nova or Adepticon, you are going to get rolled, simple as that. Highly competitive players will quickly remove your modicum of scoring potential and then GtG on their objectives and call it a day.
However, if you are playing in the "strictly by the book+IA meta..." then the strategy may or may not pay off. I doubt it. I still think good players are going to exploit your lack of scoring potential, but it's still a different paradigm and needs to be properly treated as such.
In 6th? Really? They're fluffy at best.
AV14 Tanks are quite good in 6th, and some people are calling the Wave Serpent overpowered. Of course, relative to the current discussion, this may indeed be a red herring .
Oh yeah, don't forget the fallacy fallacy. People seem to be falling into that trap. In fact let's all become expects and read wikipedia. It's so wonderful being able to be a savant in an age of easy information.
Some of us a formally educated in rhetoric and like to encourage sound, rational, and logical discussion. Don't be so dismissive.
Troops, as they are now, are to be used to get stuff done during the game. If they survive long enough to hold an objective then they've not been a high enough priority to target, a couple of shots thrown near the end of the game after the threats are taken care off.
This just isn't how it works in the highly competitive scene. There is a reason Warriors in Night Scythes and Windrider Jetbikes are so popular, and in most cases ALL these units do throughout the course of the game is score. You win games by playing the mission and scoring. Trying to table your opponent is not a reasonable goal when playing against competent players. It just isn't.
It is a red herring because it was designed, knowingly or no, to distract from the main question.
How could it be "designed" if it wasn't done so knowingly?
Do you know your own mind at all times?
And, again, it wasn't a red herring. It introduced a very relevant piece of context to the discussion. The meta Per plays in is quite different then the meta most competitive players play in. If you only bring two MSU scoring units to Nova or Adepticon, you are going to get rolled, simple as that. Highly competitive players will quickly remove your modicum of scoring potential and then GtG on their objectives and call it a day.
However, if you are playing in the "strictly by the book+IA meta..." then the strategy may or may not pay off. I doubt it. I still think good players are going to exploit your lack of scoring potential, but it's still a different paradigm and needs to be properly treated as such.
Did I mention IA other than to dismiss it as a herring? Strictly by the book, I believe, should be the de facto setting. House ruled tournaments such as Nova or Adepticon require the adjusted thinking by that argument.
In 6th? Really? They're fluffy at best.
AV14 Tanks are quite good in 6th, and some people are calling the Wave Serpent overpowered. Of course, relative to the current discussion, this may indeed be a red herring .
The wave serpent has got a constant cover save and it reduces pens to glances. It's fast. It's got 12/12/10. It can take really killy guns and can be spammed. The units inside them can also be very killy, in the form of wraiths or fire dragon things.
AV14 Is only scary if you forget they cost, for "killy" ones, 200+ points for Russes (which are very slow), or 500+ for loaded LR's.
Oh yeah, don't forget the fallacy fallacy. People seem to be falling into that trap. In fact let's all become expects and read wikipedia. It's so wonderful being able to be a savant in an age of easy information.
Some of us a formally educated in rhetoric and like to encourage sound, rational, and logical discussion. Don't be so dismissive.
We're debating who used what fallacy on the internet. Anonymouty almost gaurenteed. You take everyone as a lay person and be surprised when they roll something out which isn't easily googleable or you go around thinking that everyone's a savant.
Troops, as they are now, are to be used to get stuff done during the game. If they survive long enough to hold an objective then they've not been a high enough priority to target, a couple of shots thrown near the end of the game after the threats are taken care off.
This just isn't how it works in the highly competitive scene. There is a reason Warriors in Night Scythes and Windrider Jetbikes are so popular, and in most cases ALL these units do throughout the course of the game is score. You win games by playing the mission and scoring. Trying to table your opponent is not a reasonable goal when playing against competent players. It just isn't.
Both of those units are either killy in their own right (jet bikes) or unlock fliers.
Of course, but I don't see a single skeptic response that shows skepticism
So you are saying it was a subconscious "design" to be a red herring? But it was a conscious design to submit context. Where ever you decide to place the goal posts here doesn't make it a red herring.
Did I mention IA other than to dismiss it as a herring? Strictly by the book, I believe, should be the de facto setting. House ruled tournaments such as Nova or Adepticon require the adjusted thinking by that argument.
Your mentioning of IA has nothing to do with the original discussion, where the accusation of red herring took place. That accusation was the one I was refuting.
And "your beliefs" are only relevant to you. Many, probably most, people on this board talking competitive tactics within the context of tournaments. So there is no defacto setting. Context needs to be made clear in each individual discussion.
The wave serpent has got a constant cover save and it reduces pens to glances. It's fast. It's got 12/12/10. It can take really killy guns and can be spammed. The units inside them can also be very killy, in the form of wraiths or fire dragon things.
AV14 Is only scary if you forget they cost, for "killy" ones, 200+ points for Russes (which are very slow), or 500+ for loaded LR's.
Cool. That has nothing to do with your original assertion that tanks are only fluffy.
We're debating who used what fallacy on the internet. Anonymouty almost gaurenteed. You take everyone as a lay person and be surprised when they roll something out which isn't easily googleable or you go around thinking that everyone's a savant.
Um, I think when someone demonstrates they clearly understand the words they are using by using them correctly, you don't question it and move on. If someone tries to use a word incorrectly, you are at liberty to point that fact out.
Both of those units are either killy in their own right (jet bikes) or unlock fliers.
Jet Bikes aren't particularly killy in their own right, and you don't just take Warriors to unlock fliers. Otherwise you would take Immortals, or Deathmarks, or some other more killy unit. Warriors are specifically taken in this regard do to their efficient scoring. In most cases they do nothing but hide on board till turn 5 and score, making them quite relevant to this discussion.
I was trying. There was some debate a few pages back about whether or not Ailaros was an intellectual snob for using the phrase 'ad hominem."
Ugggh. Please re-read my response. Being intellectual has nothing to do with the activities and responses here. My qualm is that people far too often feel as though they can weasel out of a disagreement by throwing out terms from a high school debate lexicon.
As for the Forgeworld stuff, it has little to do with this thread (besides the idea of "house rules"). The truth is that there is no "one correct" way to play 40k. Min troops work for some armies. For most, they don't. In addition, this strategy often places one in an uphill battle so to speak. That being said, it can work. The main disagreement is to the frequency of effectiveness. At this point, you either agree, or you don't. Both sides have spoken ad nauseam about it (see, I have no problem with Latin phrases )
From my reading, it wasn't really an ad hominem attack either. You just said that Ailaros plays with certain game limitations and plays devil's advocate in every thread, so you find it hard to find his arguments credible. This is valid and it's not like you outright called him stupid, just that his opinions are for a version of the game which most forumites won't be playing. To Peregrine you just said that his argument relies on using IA armies which are not universally accepted at every table, and thus might not be valuable in a context where a player is unable to choose between vanilla IG or Armored Company. Then Ailaros got defensive and claimed ad hominem fallacy, asked if JGrand felt like a big man then presented a reductio ad absurdum as a rebuttal (more latin!).
I don't see how someone playing devil's advocate allows someone else to validly call them out on it. It wasn't even stated why those limitations are valid for the context of this thread. Fliers, afaik, can never become troops. In the question of whether troops are worth it are fliers to be considered? This is another red herring. Fliers? Who talked about fliers? This is about the worthiness of troops.
IA not being accepted isn't a valid argument either. The question is in regards to troops being worthy whilst using an example of a tournament as a eureka moment. People associated that moment with peregrine and his/her previous views and preconceptions based on those views, distracting them from the main question and invalidating that question based on those perceptions.
I'm not exactly sure where this is coming from but I think you talked about flyers just here and I don't recall seeing it before. Perhaps you could quote some relevant text so I have a better understanding of what you're trying to say? Or perhaps I just misunderstand you. After reading the OP's posts, I think the real question he was asking is whether filling up on Troops is better than the alternative of taking from other FOC options rather than just "are troops worth it?". I don't know if I've stated my opinion on the matter or not.
Not to sound like an intellectual snob, but when people pick on an issue unrelated to the point you are trying to make then that is called a Red Herring.
But it really wasn't a Red Herring. Context is everything when discussing and idea such as this one. The meta that includes IA is very different from the meta that doesn't. Particularly when you can garner some very efficient damage units out of IA, it becomes significantly more relevant to forego the less then inspiring troop choices. Of course, on the flip side, there are a handful of more efficient troops out of IA.
This doesn't mean it is right or wrong to discuss it either way, merely that it needs to be clear which parameters we have set. It is well known on this board that Peregrine operates within a meta that includes IA. I don't think there is anything wrong with discussing such a detail in the context of an idea that he is presenting.
I agree that it wasn't really a Red Herring. After reading the whole thread within the context of the Armored Company list, it seems like the original proposition was most accurately that Armored Company IG outperform vanilla IG on account of how many more threats are fields and the ability to table an opponent. The problem is that not everyone will allow this list at their table (whether or not they should), the idea was presented like every army should consider dropping scoring units in order or killing units. Most people wanted to discuss an non-IA list (which even the OP seemed fine with), but discussion kept looping back to where the points coming from Troops are going. It later became evident that they don't have anywhere to go unless you play the Armored Company list, and that most of the new ground covered in this thread only relates specifically to Armored Company list because any army which can play MTO is probably already doing it. So what appeared at first to be a Red Herring (people are arguing that IA isn't always included in games), turned out to be the crux of the argument (and IAIG list might be stronger than vanilla on account of the ability to field more tanks). I don't think that was the intent of the OP, but after looking at what IG can do with their points, it seems that they don't have an option except to play a lot of troops (unless we actually see some demo army lists).
It is a red herring because it was designed, knowingly or no, to distract from the main question. Are troops worth it? You yourself are focused on the IA aspect and have failed the see the herring. Justifying the blindness of it's existence to others as well. You also seem the suggest that tanks are powerful. In 6th? Really? They're fluffy at best.
Non nobis solum.
Oh yeah, don't forget the fallacy fallacy. People seem to be falling into that trap. In fact let's all become expects and read wikipedia. It's so wonderful being able to be a savant in an age of easy information.
I think the title is probably more likely a red herring than the content, and there have been a few people who have mentioned that the title isn't exactly what Peregrine was trying to argue. I'm not arguing that tanks are powerful or not powerful in 6th edition. My stance is that the premise for the thread is weak until I see what the troops are being sacrificed for, and I think that this thread only makes sense if you understand that the OP is planning to play an armored company instead of a vanilla IG list and this is how he's able to move more points to vehicles than the FOC will likely allow. I think this lost a lot of people because IA lists might not be allowed in their preferred gaming environment (whether their gaming group, FLGS or at tournaments), regardless of whether or not they should be. In fact, I don't know if I've stated a real opinion in all of the text you've quoted apart from the tangential red herring debate, and the ones you think I've made have been misrepresented.
As ShadarLogoth said, the so-called red herring was a relevant piece of context and modified how everyone understood the discussion. Without this information it was confusing what the alternative to troops were when it was shown that a standard 1850pt IG list could have Fast Attack and Heavy Support completely filled and then some.
Blaggard wrote: My opinion on the original matter is this: The current role of troops is to unlock killy things (2 troops minimum being the key role here, scouts for space marines being the ideal example) or to be killy themselves (through unlocks, ala necron fliers, or by being themselves vis a vis space wolves, terminators, monstrous creatures et al). Current rule book missions and newly released codices do not favour troops being a primary compoment of a force unless those troops themselves are not just for holding objects. In DA we have Terminators, Bikes and DoV Tac Marines, all killy and required to do more than just hold objectives at generally much better rates than scouts. In CSM the troops on offer generally do more than just sit on the side line, even the lowly cultists role is to be a tarpit (of their killy units) or bodyguard, rather than scoring alone. Daemons we have nurgle troops but they're generally taken in minimal units to be able to max out on the killy stuff. Tau? Stupidly killy. Troops here hold objectives second to shooting the crap out of stuff. Kroot infiltrating with rapid fire snipers and fire warriors with S5 out of the wazoo with lots of lists trying to maximize killing potential to objective holding. Eldar? Again, the troops are used as killy in their own right or to unlock vehicles (in this case, hard to kill wave serpents with god knows how many weapons on top).
Troops, as they are now, are to be used to get stuff done during the game. If they survive long enough to hold an objective then they've not been a high enough priority to target, a couple of shots thrown near the end of the game after the threats are taken care off.
I think that this is, to some degree, what most people have concluded in this thread. That there is no point in sinking a lot of points into troops which aren't going to contribute outside of scoring. The only exception is that every army should probably plan to score, so making minimum investments into a lot of troops (whether they be IG blobs or at least 4x10 cultists or whatever) in order to be able to claim objectives in case your main plan of tabling the opponent with a lot of guns (as Peregrine argued might be a superior strategy to surviving until the end of the game to score) doesn't pan out. I think everyone agreed that there should be a balance in list design between killy units and scoring units and that it's up to the player to find this balance. Everybody feel free to correct me if I've misrepresented your opinion.
Of course, but I don't see a single skeptic response that shows skepticism
So you are saying it was a subconscious "design" to be a red herring? But it was a conscious design to submit context. Where ever you decide to place the goal posts here doesn't make it a red herring.
The herring here is to focus on the "design" part of the statement. What if I were to have used the sentence "it is a red herring because it distracted people from the main question?"? We throw out the word designed and it still means the same thing except there's no accusative tone regarding the perpetrators.
Did I mention IA other than to dismiss it as a herring? Strictly by the book, I believe, should be the de facto setting. House ruled tournaments such as Nova or Adepticon require the adjusted thinking by that argument.
Your mentioning of IA has nothing to do with the original discussion, where the accusation of red herring took place. That accusation was the one I was refuting.
I mentioned it because you did.
And "your beliefs" are only relevant to you. Many, probably most, people on this board talking competitive tactics within the context of tournaments. So there is no defacto setting. Context needs to be made clear in each individual discussion.
I agree that there is no de facto and that my believes are only relevant to me. However if that de facto was in place then only clarification would be required when discussing things outside of that de facto. It was made perfectly clear that the discussion was not about Nova or Adepticon but what is written by GW.
The wave serpent has got a constant cover save and it reduces pens to glances. It's fast. It's got 12/12/10. It can take really killy guns and can be spammed. The units inside them can also be very killy, in the form of wraiths or fire dragon things. AV14 Is only scary if you forget they cost, for "killy" ones, 200+ points for Russes (which are very slow), or 500+ for loaded LR's.
Cool. That has nothing to do with your original assertion that tanks are only fluffy.
How do you figure that? I was listing reasons why a better vehicle is better while AV14 generally isn't good for killing. They're a fluffy unit because you can get better units for the cost.
We're debating who used what fallacy on the internet. Anonymouty almost gaurenteed. You take everyone as a lay person and be surprised when they roll something out which isn't easily googleable or you go around thinking that everyone's a savant.
Um, I think when someone demonstrates they clearly understand the words they are using by using them correctly, you don't question it and move on. If someone tries to use a word incorrectly, you are at liberty to point that fact out.
But the usage of the term red herring wasn't used incorrectly.
Both of those units are either killy in their own right (jet bikes) or unlock fliers.
Jet Bikes aren't particularly killy in their own right, and you don't just take Warriors to unlock fliers. Otherwise you would take Immortals, or Deathmarks, or some other more killy unit. Warriors are specifically taken in this regard do to their efficient scoring. In most cases they do nothing but hide on board till turn 5 and score, making them quite relevant to this discussion.
Warriors being ~120 points cheaper than immortals allowing you to purchase more killy things in the other slots? Deathmarks taking up even more points? Jet Bikes are very killy with the new pseudo-rending rules. They're also cheap, spammable and tough.
fuhrmaaj wrote: I'm not exactly sure where this is coming from but I think you talked about flyers just here and I don't recall seeing it before. Perhaps you could quote some relevant text so I have a better understanding of what you're trying to say? Or perhaps I just misunderstand you. After reading the OP's posts, I think the real question he was asking is whether filling up on Troops is better than the alternative of taking from other FOC options rather than just "are troops worth it?". I don't know if I've stated my opinion on the matter or not.
I've no idea. I think it's time for bed.
I think the title is probably more likely a red herring than the content, and there have been a few people who have mentioned that the title isn't exactly what Peregrine was trying to argue. I'm not arguing that tanks are powerful or not powerful in 6th edition. My stance is that the premise for the thread is weak until I see what the troops are being sacrificed for, and I think that this thread only makes sense if you understand that the OP is planning to play an armored company instead of a vanilla IG list and this is how he's able to move more points to vehicles than the FOC will likely allow. I think this lost a lot of people because IA lists might not be allowed in their preferred gaming environment (whether their gaming group, FLGS or at tournaments), regardless of whether or not they should be. In fact, I don't know if I've stated a real opinion in all of the text you've quoted apart from the tangential red herring debate, and the ones you think I've made have been misrepresented.
As ShadarLogoth said, the so-called red herring was a relevant piece of context and modified how everyone understood the discussion. Without this information it was confusing what the alternative to troops were when it was shown that a standard 1850pt IG list could have Fast Attack and Heavy Support completely filled and then some.
It's 4am, what I think you're wanting is to see Peregrins list?
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/07/06 03:15:22
The herring here is to focus on the "design" part of the statement. What if I were to have used the sentence "it is a red herring because it distracted people from the main question?"? We throw out the word designed and it still means the same thing except there's no accusative tone regarding the perpetrators.
I see what you mean. The IA discussion became a red herring, but the only purpose of mentioning it originally was to properly inform to readers of the paradigm Per operates in.
I agree that there is no de facto and that my believes are only relevant to me. However if that de facto was in place then only clarification would be required when discussing things outside of that de facto. It was made perfectly clear that the discussion was not about Nova or Adepticon but what is written by GW.
Then he should have mentioned it in his title, or at least his OP, which he did not. On the other hand, he makes several references to "competitive," which most people think means "tournaments" yet Per disregards all tournaments because of his silly notions regarding "house rules."
How do you figure that? I was listing reasons why a better vehicle is better while AV14 generally isn't good for killing. They're a fluffy unit because you can get better units for the cost.
But you can't get better units then Wave Serpents. You pointing out why you can't only helps my argument.
AV14 is good at surviving, and the longer it does so the more it kills. It also generally brings other things to the table like resilient LOS, and mobility for other units. Factors people all to commonly don't include in their online discussions, where we pretend that the first turn alpha strike is the only matter pertinent to the discussion (an assumption that runs common to the proponents of the OP's idea).
But the usage of the term red herring wasn't used incorrectly.
It was and it wasn't. The discussion itself became a red herring, the original mention of Per and IA, however, was not a red herring. It was context.
Warriors being ~120 points cheaper than immortals allowing you to purchase more killy things in the other slots? Deathmarks taking up even more points?
You're arguing my point for me and don't even seem to realize it. You keep saying that killier troop choices are inherently better, and that scoring alone isn't enough. Warriors are a pretty clear exception to this rule.
Jet Bikes are very killy with the new pseudo-rending rules. They're also cheap, spammable and tough.
They are not cheaper then Guardians, which, if taken, would allow for "more killy things in the other slots." You just contradicted yourself in four short sentences.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/07/06 03:22:32
ShadarLogoth wrote: On the other hand, he makes several references to "competitive,"
No I did not. Go back and read the OP, I used the word "competitive" exactly twice: once to describe my opponent's list (a competitive Necron/GK list), and once to state that the event in question was NOT a hardcore competitive tournament. Other people just assumed that if there's any strategy discussion it must be about competitive events with no-FW house rules played at 1850 points.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
)
The Empire 
1500 pts
: 
.
