|
|
Post by nurglitch on May 17, 2012 2:39:40 GMT
Why is that a problem?
|
|
|
|
Post by Voice of Reason on May 17, 2012 2:56:51 GMT
I dunno about you, but I tend to put units in my elite slot that are durable and actually do heavy lifting. The slots are too valuable to put anything less there. Zoanthropes, Doom, Hiveguard, Yealers - no matter the list, it's almost always full.
Putting a critter in there that is difficult for me to hide and generally becomes a high-priority target that's dead by the beginning of turn 2 means that's less vehicle-killing, armor-rending, soul-sucking power that I can bring to the table.
I'm not in the habit of putting points down on the table whose entire purpose is to die.
|
|
|
|
Post by nurglitch on May 17, 2012 12:09:10 GMT
And so you believe that if you took another brood of Hive Guard or Zoanthropes they would be durable, low-priority targets that are easy to hide, and that would do the vehicle-killing, armour-rending, and soul-sucking?
The purpose of Venomthropes isn't to die, it's to provide a defensive bonuses to your army. If they die, then you don't lose any punching power, and if they don't die, then your opponent's offensive is blunted.
And while you might be inclined to take three broods of Venomthropes, they're not exclusive with other Elite choices. Take one brood and you have enough. You still have room for whatever other units you might want.
|
|
|
|
Post by Voice of Reason on May 17, 2012 12:59:08 GMT
In a few words: more or less, yes. By evening out the apparent threat of the units on the table it makes the opponent's target priority more difficult. **edit: sorry, I was just barely awake, and forgot to add this: If you take the venomthrope, each slot telegraphs the method your army will perform and practically hands the opponent the battlefield initiative. between 1 unit of 3 hive guard, 1 unit of venomthropes and 1 unit of 10 Ymgarl genestealers, you generally know who to shoot, depending what type of army you're playing. Mechanized? kill the hive guard. infantry assault? kill the venomthrope. Infantry gunline? kill the Ymgarl. Worse, none of those units REALLY do a great job of providing redundancy for each other: Hiveguard are great at killing vehicles and ok at wounding the occasional MC. Ymgarls are great at killing infantry, good at MCs and ok at vehicles Venomthropes are great at killing... nothing. (assaulting hordes... maybe?) but then you throw in Zoanthropes and they bridge the gap - they're great at killing Vehicles, good at wounding MCs and infantry. You can also double up on any of those (except venomthropes) to expand your threat on the opponent's army. I guess it all comes down to my design philosophy. Venomthropes just don't fit into it, as well as being too soft, too weak, and too expensive in the Force Org. **edited for clarity after I had my tea  |
|
|
|
Post by nurglitch on May 17, 2012 13:45:06 GMT
My design philosophy in general is that all armies in Warhammer 40,000 have to balance three properties: (1) Flexibility, (2) Redundancy, and (3) Synergy while trying to maximize them. They need to be balanced between the army and the unit level. Redundancy at a unit level, for example, means including more bodies. Redundancy at an army level involves duplicating units (strong redundancy, aka "spam) or taking units can can perform in same roles (weak redundancy). And so forth.
For Tyranids, and xenos in general, I've come to believe that they need more synergy at the army level to compensate for the fewer number of units. Orks need Kustom Force Fields, Eldar need Runes of Warding, and so on. Tyranids look like they can stack synergistic elements up the multi-anus, but that's really just giving us control of where and when we want the element to take effect. Just as we can stack the Alien Cunning rule on top of Hive Commander and Pheromone Trail, we only really need one for the +1 bonus, and then it's the choice of whether we want to increase accuracy of outflanking, to add outflanking units, or to time our reserves (amongst other considerations). Likewise we have access to lots of defensive bonuses and different ways of obtaining them.
Hence Venomthropes fit into some armies and not others, but as a rule of thumb you don't need more than one unit when you do. If you really want to push the redundancy aspect, you're better off investing in a screening unit, or Catalyst from a Tervigon, since the Spore Cloud bonus doesn't stack with itself, and Venomthropes help preserve the shooting you have rather than add to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Voice of Reason on May 17, 2012 15:09:21 GMT
I reject your design philosophy on the basis that your statement really doesn't make sense.
Your basic idea on these pillars is fairly sound.
Flexibility
"Strong" Redundancy (spam)
"Weak" Redundancy (different units, similar roles)
Synergy
However, here are the problems:
First, let's start by defining Flexibility:
1. Force Flexibility is being able to use your force to effectively counter and defeat a wide variety of threats (ideally any that you encounter) and achieve any objective necessary to win the game.
2. Kustom Force Fields, Runes of Warding, Venomthrope spore clouds are NOT synergy, or if they are, it's incidental at best. They are buffs or upgrades, in the form of a unit, provided to all surrounding units or to the army as a whole. While it could be argued that it's still a form of synergy, it's the easiest, most simple form that you could attain with the minimal effort. It's also by far the easiest to disrupt.
Stronger synergy are things like joining a Warrior Prime to Warriors. Putting Obyron into a unit of Wraiths and teleporting them across the table on turn 1, then letting them charge on turn 2 while Obyron 'ports back to Zandrekh and a large, safe unit. Using gargoyles and a Flyrant to support each other. Want synergy with a venomthrope? Use it alongside a Tervigon with all the bells and whistles and 60 devourer gaunts in your Tyranid defensive gunline. But to take a venomthrope in an aggressive assault force (most tyranid lists) is wasteful.
3. "Strong" redundancy reduces your Flexibility by definition. By spamming units, you're spending more of your resources that do the same thing - even if what they can do is a lot of different things, no unit is perfect and is able to cover all the bases. Spamming units means you're you're REALLY GOOD at some things, but it also means you're not covered somewhere. Worse, you're telling your opponent EXACTLY what's going to happen, giving him an advantage. If he knows how you're going to use one unit and how to deal with it, he knows that about ALL those units.
4. "Weak" redundancy increases your Flexibility, again, by definition. Taking (for example) the Zoanthrope, the Hive guard, and the Yealers gives you that flexibility: all three units can kill vehicles - some are better at heavy vehicles, some at medium, all at light. Two of the units are good at killing light to heavy infantry, all three units are good at killing MCs to varying degrees, and so forth. It's more difficult to balance this kind of redundancy, but I really think the rewards are greater: Your list isn't going to automatically telegraph how it works, and you've got a better chance of being covered when someone breaks out with something that's really off the wall.
Because of the above, I actually think your "Strong" and "Weak" modifiers are misplaced.
I fully agree that venomthropes are good in some armies and not others - but honestly, they're only good if:
A: your natural inclination is to play conservatively and defensively
AND
B: your local meta includes a great deal of aggressive, assaulty armies
|
|
|
|
Post by nurglitch on May 17, 2012 15:50:18 GMT
Runes of Warding, Kustom Force Fields, and Spore Clouds are, by definition, synergistic as they pertain to synergy. Synergy, according to dictionary.com, is the interaction of elements that when combined produce a total effect that is greater than the sum of the individual elements, contributions, etc.; synergism.
Put a Big Mek with a Kustom Force Field in a mob of Orks and the unit receives a Cv5+, and the Big Mek gets a meat-shield that withstands shooting better. Both units are better off for being in combination with a Kustom Force Field. Ditto for the Runes of Warding: The Runes of Warding in an Eldar army protects the army from enemy psychic powers, enabling the army to prevent the Farseer from being killed by conventional means. Likewise the Spore Cloud provides a defensive bonus, a defensive bonus which pays off when a unit like Hive Guard survives extra turns to destroy extra enemy units.
Beyond the Spore Cloud, the Venomthrope offers a cheap source of Lash Whips for engaging units in cover, or with lower Initiative Tyranid monsters. The Toxic Miasma likewise helps Tyranid units chew through large units like Imperial Guard Platoons, Tyranid Broods, and Ork Mobs. But again the close combat defensive function of the Spore Cloud aids an aggressive Tyranid army with moving within the charge range of an enemy.
The fact is that charging Tyranids first is a good idea until you have to pass a ton of Dangerous Terrain tests, and the survivors don't get the bonus attack for charging.
On a side note, I think you fail to understand how flexibility, redundancy, and synergy interact. A unit can be a flexible generalist. Strong redundancy, spamming it, can lead to flexibility at the army level. Likewise a unit can be specialized, like the Tyranid Elite choices, and spamming it can lead to less flexibility at the army level.
Yet if the general unit doesn't have much synergy with its clones, then the resulting army will operate sub-optimally. Likewise if the specialists synergize, they can be more flexible at the army level. Which is what the Venomthrope brood does. The choice of taking a Venomthrope brood instead of the other Elite choices is essentially choosing between a 50% chance at $2 and a 33% chance at $3, whether I need to pick up additional dollars from elsewhere to meet a threshold of $5, the Venomthrope choice, or an additional chance at $2-$3, the Hive Guard choice. Alternately I can reduce the likelihood of getting that additional change and compromise with Zoanthropes if I don't have the Synapse elsewhere, and so on.
The point is to balance the three properties so that they are optimized, not to offset them against each other. This has nothing to do with any "natural inclination", "local meta", or "play-style", it's a fact of how the game works. I mean it's clearly very wise of you to hedge your bets by casting the facts of the matter as subjective, because you can't be wrong that way, and you won't lose any face when mileage varies. But I prefer to risk being wrong so I can learn from it, and prefer to use Venomthropes when my army has a big Venomthrope-shaped hole in it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Voice of Reason on May 17, 2012 16:28:20 GMT
Runes of Warding, Kustom Force Fields, and Spore Clouds are, by definition, synergistic as they pertain to synergy. Synergy, according to dictionary.com... Fair enough - I simply disagree. With a broad enough definition, putting Devilgaunts behind Genestealers is synergy. My point is that that's all perfect in an ideal world. But, Tyranid assault units generally outrun the slower venomthrope, so there's no benefit to the lash whips for them. Defense against being charged is great until someone knows there's a venomthrope or three in the army they're about to charge. One round of shooting later and the benefits of the venomthrope are gone. FOR ME, it's too big of a risk - because of my meta and because of my army build and playstyle. If the venomthrope works for you, great. But just like I can't say it's a terrible unit and no one should use it, you can't say it's a perfect unit and everyone should use it. No, I get it. I really do. What you say is true, but only up to a certain point, which you cover here: Meanwhile, we're saying the same thing here: actually, it has everything to do with it. It goes back to people using netlists that they just don't "get" - it can be a super-powerful combination, but if the netlist doesn't fit with their playstyle, you're not going to do well. Same with local meta - if the local meta is all orks and gunline guard, then taking a venomthrope is probably a good thing. OTOH, if your local meta is Razorspam, flamers, LR Redeemers, and venomspam, then I can't imagine venomthropes being a huge benefit. Maybe you're looking at the meta from a more competition level, where it tends to homogenize across a region. Or maybe your local meta leans towards open tables and assaulty armies. I don't know. I'm done with larger competitions these days. Maybe sometime later I'll get back to it, but for me, my local meta includes tables where it's easy to get a 4+ cover save, and mostly shooting armies who don't really like to assault tyranids. So venomthropes only suck up points and absorb a FOC slot that I could better elsewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by nurglitch on May 17, 2012 16:49:33 GMT
Except I'm not saying that Venomthropes are a perfect unit, or that they should go in every competitive army. I'm pointing out when to include a brood of Venomthropes in an army, and providing the framework I use to give that advice.
And yes, of course positioning units is synergistic. I distinguish between rules-synergy, or things like the Hive Commander rule giving all units a bonus to their reserve rolls, and basic synergy, or the synergies obtained through tactics. In between are synergies that depend on a combination of tactics and rules. Having a brood of Tyranids within 6" of another brood can be useful in terms of screening, providing cover, or what-have-you, but that synergy increases when that brood is a brood of Venomthropes.
Yes, implementing tactics in games uses rules too, so consider it special-rules synergy and basic-rules synergy if it makes you feel better. Or army vs game synergy, or whatever variable term you want to use.
Positionally speaking, with no guns to speak of Venomthropes can move and run almost with impunity, just as they can go to ground whenever your opponent threatens them with heavy weapons. If you have to go to ground, then you can leave a tail of models from your units to maintain that 6" synergy range, just as you would with Brood Primogenitor or Old Adversary.
I look at the game from the perspective of winning any game against any opponent given the rules in the rulebook, from the perspective of game mechanics and thus the capabilities of units in the game. Knowing the capabilities of the Venomthrope brood, and knowing the capabilities of all other units in the game, and knowing all the interesting ways that people use them pretty much maps out the game-space such that dominating strategies can be identified - in other words some strategies work best regardless of who you're playing against, what they decide to do, and what army they've chosen to use.
The notion of play-styles is just ridiculous. You might as well claim different styles of moving rooks in Chess. "I like to move them laterally, it's my play-style." "Bro, I love moving them vertically, it's how I roll!" No, you move the rook laterally or vertically as necessary to win the game.
Which isn't to say that it isn't perfectly valid to make sub-optimal choices for the sake of your own personal aesthetics and such, just that it's basically folksy blarney, and irrelevant to winning games of Warhammer 40,000 with Tyranids.
|
|
|
|
Post by drakiskier on May 17, 2012 17:06:26 GMT
wow.. this thread has become a hot topic for these two!
There are times i field Venomthropes, and times i dont. if i do, im generally keeping it kissing the rear of a tfex as it marches up the center of the board, limiting the LOS that the enemy can get on the venom, while it still gives the cover to the MC. i almost never take more than a single venomthrope in a squad though, because taking more than that increases the threat potential of it beyond the rest of the army.
i try to play balanced lists, and by that i mean that no ONE target is a higher threat than the rest, allowing the enemy to focus fire too much. And the 'offence lost' for taking a venomthrope in my army is generally offset by me taking a harpy. try trudging an acid spray tfex down the center of the board with a single venomthrope behind it, and a HVC harpy behind that. see which model the enemy targets the most.
|
|
|
|
Post by Voice of Reason on May 17, 2012 17:08:31 GMT
So we're just saying the same things in different ways, really. Except for this. The notion of play-styles is just ridiculous. You might as well claim different styles of moving rooks in Chess. "I like to move them laterally, it's my play-style." "Bro, I love moving them vertically, it's how I roll!" No, you move the rook laterally or vertically as necessary to win the game. B.S. Chess players have playstyles as well. Some lean on rooks, others on bishops, others on knights and so forth. Some prefer to feint, others prefer to hammer at their opponent. People think differently, and the way they approach problems, games and so forth is different. Some people are able to break or transcend their playstyle or natural inclination, others have a harder time with it. in my local meta, I know more than a few people who have tried and tried to play aggressive assaulty armies, but they fail because they're too conservative/defensive. Other players try to play shooty armies but fail because they just don't get target priority or their first instinct is to charge and deny the opponent the charge bonus. The most successful players are the ones that can make the army they are building work with their own personal inclination and play style. Players and playstyles exist. Call it whatever you want. |
|
|
|
Post by nurglitch on May 17, 2012 17:25:07 GMT
No, we're really not saying the same thing in different ways. But I've said my piece. I'll let people get back to the personal anecdotes and back-slapping.
Incidentally, calling the notion of play-styles "ridiculous" is calling it whatever I want...
|
|
|
|
Post by voraciousapathy on May 17, 2012 18:11:04 GMT
I'm kind of inclined to agree with both Nurglitch and DA.
Venomthropes don't really fall over dead from heavy weapons -- You can easily augment their durability by running up to the nearest chunk of central area terrain, spread out to maximum coherency, Go To Ground, and even add a Tyranid Prime to soak the first S8/S9 shot. 3+ cover and wound allocation means your cover save generators should soak a LOT of high-strength, low Rate of Fire shots. Buckets of S7 and S6 will definitely flatten them in short order, though, so Psycannons and Scatter Lasers are the real culprits, here.
Playstyles exist. That's all I have to say on that one.
Venomthropes DO promote synergy -- but I really think my primary use for them was always to make my hordes of spawned Gants less appealing to charge and shoot at -- a 5+ cover save out in the open, combined with Feel No Pain from a Tervigon babysitter, and all the Venomthrope buffs, tend to make my screening unit unpleasant, and difficult to dislodge. Also, being able to move FREELY without being slowed down by terrain AT ALL is another huge benefit that is hard to quantify: you spend less time getting from Point A to Point B, and you take less damage on the way.
However, do they have a place in an aggressive army? Well, yeah. They can work -- I've won quite a few tournaments with 1 squad of Venomthropes, and 2 squads of Ymgarls. That being said, I like having a 3rd squad of Ymgarls a lot more, nowadays. They're not subtle, but having 700 points of Super-Genestealers appear wherever you want, morphing something useful, fleeting, and charging, is much more about compounding an assault army's strength, rather than shoring up a weakness... Though in a way, Ymgarls being able to hide in terrain and charge before anyone can shoot them is a very nice inherent defense -- that's around 700 points of close-combat specialists that your opponent cannot hurt until they have a chance of doing their job.
700 points guaranteed to survive until they hit the front lines.
Finally, combining a bunch of generalists in order to achieve synergy is doable: look at Plague Marines. They're "okay" in damage output, carrying a bolter, pistol, and CCW. They're "okay" in Tank-Hunting, carrying a powerfist, krak grenades, melta guns, and even a combi-melta. They're good in durability (T5, Fearless, Defensive Grenades, Feel No Pain, Transport Option), and they're scoring.
Six squads of 7, all in one spot, is quite a bit of overlapping "We can all do this job decently".
That being said, armies like Grey Knights do this better, and playing second fiddle isn't really a winning mentality.
I like to capitalize on my strengths. Tyranids like close combat. So, I take as much of that as I possibly can, and go with the flow.
Works for me, but maybe it's just my playstyle.
|
|
|
|
Post by nurglitch on May 17, 2012 18:53:27 GMT
I gotta admit, I like the way this playstyles meme works. If anyone asks for advice we just condescend without being informative. It's so much easier than trying to help people. I think that's going to be my standard advice from now on. After all, why give people advice they can use when I can brag about how big my ovipositor is?
|
|
|
|
Post by Voice of Reason on May 17, 2012 19:07:13 GMT
I gotta admit, I like the way this playstyles meme works. If anyone asks for advice we just condescend without being informative. It's so much easier than trying to help people. I think that's going to be my standard advice from now on. After all, why give people advice they can use when I can brag about how big my ovipositor is? Actually it's just the opposite. acknowledging to the existence of playstyles means that you can't just say "this is the best list, period" or "method X is the best and only way to use unit Y" Recognizing that playstyles exist forces you to include more information, if you plan on giving a quality response. Finally, combining a bunch of generalists in order to achieve synergy is doable: look at Plague Marines. They're "okay" in damage output, carrying a bolter, pistol, and CCW. They're "okay" in Tank-Hunting, carrying a powerfist, krak grenades, melta guns, and even a combi-melta. They're good in durability (T5, Fearless, Defensive Grenades, Feel No Pain, Transport Option), and they're scoring. Six squads of 7, all in one spot, is quite a bit of overlapping "We can all do this job decently". That being said, armies like Grey Knights do this better, and playing second fiddle isn't really a winning mentality. No doubt - but then again, you can also argue that all Nurgle or all Khorne are non-standard lists that are not seen very often, so one of the reasons they do well is because after you take out the units that CAN handle them, the rest of the opponent will fold. Heck, an all Khorne army arguably does it better than a Nurgle army what with their lower point cost, more attacks and Str 9 power fists - but then, it's also a more aggressive army than the durable all-nurgle list. but that's probably just my playstyle, too. |
|
