Reply ouy: GaleRazorwind not getting it...

 

This is a comment from this thread about GaleRazorwind not understanding his opponent's can and will disrupt his battle plans beyond his list not having enough anti-mech, flexibility or duplicity. My comments in green :)! (is it too bright?). Fine blue :(.

*damn, just lost half of my post...* write in a word processor

You seem to be a big fan of strawman arguments. nope, you also only point out one argument, not multiples I never said anything about losing specific units, I said that after turn 4, if I didn't kill enough stuff, my units can get picked off. Usually, by the late game, 1 or 2 of my Hormagaunt squads are reduced to a few models, so they can become easy kill points. Please take the time to read what I am actually saying and stop using strawmen. Please take the time to read beyond the actual words; cognitive complexity is a requirement in arguing with me. Any army that “peaks” late-game, is not a good army. My Eldar army has lost everything except 2x Prisms and Falcon in a 1500 game by T2 and still won against an IG army that at that point outgunned it as badly as I outgun both your and Ail-Shan’s lists because there are no peaks and valleys to it’s structure.



I'll try to counter your arguments: good luck!
1) lack of fire. full stop. You deal with a mech or mobile army how again?
This is a moot point because, regardless of any lack of apparent firepower, the ranged attacks my units provide is all I need because I'm in assault by turn 2. Hey, remember how I said your opponent plays, too? Just because you have units which can get into assault by Turn 2 (which you could do better, I.e. Raveners) doesn’t mean you will be. Blocking and sacrificing work. I don't need anymore firepower for my list to work like it is supposed to. I deal with a mech army in much the same way I deal with every army. Good to know you are flexible. In turn 1, I determine target priority, and in turn 2, I deploy my drop troops in their ideal positions to take out the biggest threats to my army, and guess what, they take those targets out. It softens up my food before I start to chew, and it works. Since they have Adrenal Glands, my Hormagaunts are capable of glancing vehicles to death, and have trapped their fair share of enemy units inside their transport. While you may not like how I do it, you can't argue with the results I get. Yes I can because your army cannot consistently deal with 10+ tanks. When you start using the words “glance to death” your army is failing. Ask Orks or Necrons.

2) Tervi in HQ w/no Termaguants. Tervigons are pretty decent buffers but not worth their points outside of Troops or w/o Termaguants around unless you're running a 5 Tervi list which is only viable at 2.5k + when you can get Fex broods working. Waste of points here
I like my Tervigon as an HQ. It is great for DoW missions as I can put down two Hormagaunt squads and the Tervigon and then get a further Gant squad into the mix. My Tervigon may not always be my MVP, but he does a great job of holding the line together and taking a little pressure off some of my other units. Why? There are no Termaguants to support outside of what it poops and it’s not a Troop. People waste firepower on this sub-par HQ which is ~200 pts why? Another indication of sub-par opponents. Since you’re trying to make an in your face army with reserves you are much better off with another Tyrant. People still overestimate what a Tervigon can do, and I take advantage of that. At some point, I may have to exchange him for something else, but for now, he works just fine. So you’re saying your opponent’s are crap? Good. The Tervigon in a proper army is simply amazing. The ability to hold mid-field and cast FNP or Onslaught is invaluable to the correct army. Yours isn’t.

3) You're too focused on synapse and are paying out the wazoo for it.
I'm not focusing on synapse, it just happens that a good portion of my units have it. I take my Tervigon for the synapse Another Tyrant is better. and my Tyrant is there to provide some back up synapse (Hive Commander and Paroxysm are the main reasons I take him) First smart thing I’ve seen. if I decide to take his node elsewhere. My Zoanthropes are taken purely for their offensive capabilities, shame you’ve only got one unit and it’s your only ranged anti-tank unit…what happens when it dies? You throw hormaguants at the army? What happens if they don’t come in? You use your awesome anti-tank elsewhere to win? and if they happen to give synapse, thats great. I pay the 40 points for my Primes because I really like having the extra 6 shots and extra 6" range as it greatly increases their tank popping ability. lol what. No it doesn’t, it’s generally a waste of points. If you want synapse further upfield, give wings to a Tyrant. The extra points for the Prime don’t improve it’s combat abilities and an extra 6 shots…quivering in fear. It has no ranged-anti tank capabilities. If it does, then so do FW are effective anti-tank. Fleet > BS3 S5 shots. If you wanted to give one Prime to help support the Hormaguants/Raveners when you buy them, fine I can live with that but for improved anti-tank? What anti-tank…Trygon anti-tank is all about combat. Again, synapse is a bonus. I do have to say, I enjoy not having to worry about my Hormagaunts running away if they get ahead of my Tyrant/Tervigon, though. Flyrant.

4) Combining with number 1, you have no in your face capabilities outside of the Trygons & DoM and since you can't slow opponents with your shooting...you get dictated
Are TS+AG Hormagaunts not "in your face" enough for you? Uh no. They don’t have the guaranteed movement of Calvary or Jump Infantry (both of which you can take in your army so do it), they can be blocked by tanks and outside of your reserves are the only in your face aspect of your army. Sure hope I don’t focus fire on them. They are for me. Your problem is that you are assuming I do not have enough firepower, but is wrecking three key targets really not slowing my opponent's shooting? Nope because the whole army works and you are not wrecking 3 key targets each shooting. Again you also assume each of your shots “works.“ I have no idea where you are getting 3 from either. 1 from the Zoans…and that’s about it. Trygons & DoM & your Tyrant are not good anti-tank. See some of my anti-tank articles but Tyanids rely on suppression fire from their shooting and chomp them in CC or through simple attrition. You don’t have that so you are generally hitting on 6s in combat. You're underestimating just how devestating that is. I could end all of your Dakka-Preds or Dreads on turn 2, and then end the rest on turn 3, and that's just with my Zoanthropes and Trygons. So it is Trygons. Sorry, my AV13/12 laughs at your S5 because I’m not stupid enough to let you DS behind me. Hello players who can play and know how to defend against deep striking. You still have to deal with all of my Hormagaunts and my Tyrant and my Tervigon. My whole army is in your face by turn 2 and is destroying everything they touch. No, I have to deal with your Horamguants and if I gost first I get 2 turns to do this and if I can't kill them all I can block them with tanks (glancing to death...I'm a quiver with fear). Then I have to tie up Zoans and pop a missile into DoM and deal with the Trygons if they come in (see how this would be harder the more there is backed up by Raveners and Hormas?). Your Tyrant/Tervigon plod along later because they are slow. Tyranids can work well in waves because they can overwhelm you, this list doesn't. Backed up by 2x Tyrant and these lists really work well. 2+ reserves and pref enemy bubbles. That's in your face.

I'm going to say it again. Regardless of how you think a proper Tyranid army should work, I have found my niche with this list and I continue to get results from it. Ever since I started last year, I have tried to embody the Tyranid principles of adaptation. In every game, I am always watching to see what works and what doesn't and how to best react to any particular situation I encounter, and the knowledge I gained from this is what led to my current list. I have made almost no changes at all to my 1850 list since February (I have moved the last 10 points around to various areas for upgrades and other superficial changes) because it wins just about every time. Good for you, doesn’t make it right. I can add 1+1 and get 3 every time…well I just look stupid. As long as I continue to win with it, I see little reason to make any changes to my list. Come to Australia so you can change it after you get beat =D? Internet challenges! Don’t worry, I will pull out my Nids with some proxying Trygons and see how well my mech lists can roll it. If there comes a time when I no longer win, I will adapt and change my list.

One of the great parts about Warhammer 40K is that, with most armies, there is always more than one way to build a good army, and different people will migrate to the build that they get the best results with. Correct, but generally only with the new books. Perhaps you can't do a good job with my list because you don't see what I see. Or you can’t see what we all see. It sucks. I might have a hard time with a list you made because I don't see what you see. In the end, it doesn't really matter. In the end, being good doesn’t matter what list you play with. I have a certain style but I can and do play well with other lists because I actually understand 40k. While I enjoy the competitive side of things, I'm obeying the number 1 rule: Have fun! I have fun with my army, and I want to keep it that way. That's great and that's what 40k is all about, fun. Don't fob off your fun list as competitive though.

So any challengers in Sydney with this list or on silly Vassal? I'll use this list (IRL I'll have to proxy Trygons) and will approve my opponent's lists.

Oh and another post, maybe he missed this one!

This argument is like trying to explain Austrian Free-Market Economics to an Obama/McCain supporter. I am seeing some standard fallacies and vauge responses to a degree I haven't seen since '08. Lucky for us we see arguments like yours all the time and still jump into the boiling water to try and drum some sense into the masses.



Chumbalaya, instead of telling me my list is "terribad" and that a "solid mech list" would "roll through" me, how about you tell me exactly how you would respond to my list and tactics exactly as I have described them here (that means reading my posts, not what others are saying about my posts) with a "solid mech list" that was designed for standard tournament play (i.e. not a tailored list). Because I already did? That way I can try to understand where you are coming from so I can properly refute your arguments. Anything less devolves into petty insults. You can't properly refute this with your army, incoming mathhammer. You say you can drop 3 AV12-13 tanks (remember, I'm not a bad player and allowing you to DS your Trygons behind my lines). The chances of the Zoans killing something are around 33% w/a hood around and no cover. The chances of a Trygon destroying AV12+ at range? 0. Benefit of the doubt and AV11 = 33% w/o cover. The DoM @ S10 = <8% depending where you put your blast marker, hood and no cover. Tyrant can't wreck AV12 but AV11 = 8%. Add that all together and you're not even reaching a "100%" chance of wrecking a vehicle and you're claiming you WILL wreck 3. Sorry I didn't spell this out, I thought it was bleeding obvious.


This argument ultimately boils down to me saying, "Yes I can!" and you saying, "No you can't!". See above, you are very unlikely to wreck 3 tanks in a turn.I have posted a huge amount of information with plenty of detail, but I'm not getting any responses that have the same level of detail, because blanket statements like "you do not have enough anti-mech" or "you can't just waltz into combat every game on T2 because people can block you" you  have not refuted. There's some math, refute it. not to mention that you guys have been misrepresenting my arguments (Kirby in particular) in nearly every post you make, so while it looks like you are making a decent argument on the surface, you aren't even talking about the same things I am. Well let's see, you said you can "I could end all of your Dakka-Preds or Dreads on turn 2, and then end the rest on turn 3, and that's just with my Zoanthropes and Trygons" Guess what, you can't unless I'm handing you rear armors. Even then your chances are quite unlikely. Or how about "because I'm in assault by turn 2", hey look, blocked. You're in combat with a tank and going to glance me to death? Okay, have fun. Oh I moved away from you? And you're not in combat? Okay, have fun. Am I still misrepresenting your arguments? Again, that is a strawman argument and it is not acceptable in a debate like this. Ya, assuming your opponent has a brainstem and cognitively competent...gee sure wish our arguments had some substance!


Thud, while isolated cases of annecdotal evidence do not make a good argument, there isn't much else that can be said. How do you guys know what is good and what isn't in 40K? You probably didn't learn from a scientific textbook, actually since 40k is based on a D6 system there is quite a bit of 'science' behind it. Your Trygon can't shoot down AV12 w/o getting into rear/side facings or combat. I know this so am going to stop you from doing that. I also know how the rules and game works so there are certain things that are good and bad (i.e. mech > most foot). you learned by playing the game and gaining experience, coupled with the stories and strategies presented to you on websites or in person. Based on your experiences, you drifted towards what you determined to be the most effective builds, which doesn't mean it is. Looking back to when I played in the US the lists we ran were terrible (3rd edition) and non-optomised but in that area they were good. I see lists pretty much like that all the time at stores and the only thing that changes them is personal choice or wanting to deal with balanced lists which we make in our head using our understanding of the game and then test them. Not all of us can simply go this is good and this is bad right off the bat, correct but we don't need 30+ games to know what is effective. We already have an inkling and then we test and trial i. which ultimately boils down to a whole bunch of annecdotes collected over a substantial period of time that indicated you should use what you use now, and what you will use in the future. Personally, I try not to base my understanding of the game on isolated incidents. I base it on every single incident I have come across since I started playing that I can remember. That's good and I'm sure others do that but again there is a basis off which we base our thoughts. Some can do this more than others and some can do this less. Since we are on the internet we get to deal in a theory based world which we apply to 40k. Your theory based world seems to have your tactics working every game (i.e. in assault T2) and that you will pop X tanks every game whilst our theory is based on the hard numbers of what units are capable of and likely to do and then building a list around that knowledge (i.e. a list which can adapt, has duplicity and duality) whether it's fluffy or money wise (i.e. RBack spam is expensive and un-fluffy and I know no one who has this list IRL but it's a good list).


Playing a game or two will not provide enough information to judge the quality of a list and its strategy, but don't you think the collective information of over 30 games against different opponents and armies and lists might have some shred of credibility to it? It doesn't. Whilst what all you say may be true we weren't there for any of the games but we do know what your list tells us and that is it cannot deal with mech. We also know that relying on combat w/o good suppression fire or a very vast army (i.e. calvary/beasts) means combat is not always going to happen. My sample size makes up for the annecdotal nature of the information I am relaying to you. Back to my old gaming days in the US. I played I'd guess...over 200 games easily there and would consistently place in the top4 of leagues and tournaments in the local area. Does that mean my list was good? No. Does it mean it worked in the area that I was in relation to? Yes, which is where the whole hoopla of the metagame comes in but again since we deal in total relation to the rulebook and army books, there are limits on what works and doesn't. You need to be able handle certain lists, even if they aren't competitive because in a tournament setting you are likely to come across them.


If you'd like, I can tell you how my list has done against a wide variety of opponents. Off the top of my head, I've played against Orks, Necrons, Space Marines, Eldar, Tyranids, Chaos Space Marines, Chaos Daemons, Sisters of Battle, and Imperial Gaurd. Each battle presented its own unique challenges, but the same two strategies I have employed have remained relatively constant. And you wonder why we all jump up and down? You can have the same broad concept of a tactic but there should be great variation in how you tackle your opponent particularly if you have faced so many lists. The only army I ever had a lot of trouble against was Eldar with RoWar and Holo-Field Falcons, and this is where I am acknowledging the fact that that particular combination is my army's main weakness. You know psy defenses are common now? And that your army can't deal with mech. Saying you can, doesn't mean you can. Same with getting into combat. Saying you can, doesn't mean you will. You can improve your list drastically by dropping all your elites into all Zoans in spores or all HG and add in some Raveners. Simple changes and your list is a lot more potent (oh and drop the Tervigon). It makes you more reliable in getting to assault and you have some consistency in tank popping.


Besides, what reason do I have to lie? Do I seem like the kind of person who lies about this sort of thing? I'm sure you must have had to deal with a lot of exageration and made up occurances from people on other forums, but this is one time where you can actually trust someone. False information is not a produtive contribution to a proper debate, and would only serve to injure my cause. We don't know you. This is the internet, I don't think I have to explain further. If I do, see my thesis stuff when I put it up or google it.


I have presented my counter arguments, so now you need to counter my counter arguments we did with more than just repeating the same line over and over counter them?. If you don't get into specifics, you aren't contributing to the debate. Mathammer FTW.