venomthropes?

[roxor08]

I guess I don't understand why you think you're helping the discussion in this case Nurglitch.

You have LOTS of valid points, and very helpful information that you provide, but on the other hand, so does Devils Advocate.

This is what I get from this discussion:
Nurglitch: My bishop is better than your rook.
Devils Advocate: My rook is better than your bishop.
Voraciousapathy: My queen is better than your rook or bishop [:-P]

I will say this though: Playstyles exist.

It's why one person will choose to play Orks over picking Imperial guard. Why someone who likes to play "games" (using a general term for games that take strategy) as melee or up close and personal taking Imperial Guard doesn't make since. And vice versa. Why would someone take Orks to sit at the board edge and shoot down the oncoming enemy is difficult for me to understand.

Even yet another comparison:

Blizzard's Diablo 3 was recently released. I'm sure you're all aware, because if you're as big as nerd as me, you probably also bought it and put between 3-6 hours into it already.
There are several 'classes' to choose from:
Barbarian (melee specialist, high durability)
Monk (melee specialist, highly agile)
Deamon hunter (ranged specialist, highly agile)....

I could continue, but I hope you get the point I'm trying to make. Some people gravitate towards one 'class' or 'strategy' inherently because that's what THEY LIKE!

Just my thoughts...otherwise great discussion!

[nurglitch]

roxor08:

Helping the discussion? There has to be communication for there to be a discussion. I've consistently pointed out, to use your chess metaphor, that a bishop and a rook is better than two bishops. Somehow that's not getting across. Not a huge loss, really, but c'est la vie.

I'm not sure why it's so difficult to understand that the only useful discussion you can have about a unit is which other units it duplicates, enhances, or covers for. Not to say this other discussion about our feelings, and playstyles, and other subjectivities isn't fun, but it's not useful where the topic is the utility of Venomthropes.

I mean, it's nice that someone might like two bishops, taking for the purposes of the chess metaphor that a rook and a bishop are better than two bishops (they're not...), but whether they like it is irrelevant to how it works in the game. I might as well recommend that people paint their models red because red models roll higher on run rolls. Maybe that works for you. Maybe that's what you like. What good does that do me?

[voraciousapathy]

I'd run all-Khorne if they could pack meltaguns instead of plasma pistols, the big bunny-eared dummies.

I say I can agree with both DA and Nurglitch because I believe I "understand" the way they both think.

Nurglitch, you have a very idealized way of seeing this game. I would venture a guess that you believe there is probably, somewhere out there, a "perfectly optimized" army list for every Codex out there -- a single army which completely outstrips every other unit combination in its parent Codex, and that the only thing a player can do after they have "discovered" this optimized army is to improve as a player.

DA would argue that the "optimal list", if it indeed exists, will only ever work optimally if the player using it feels "comfortable" with the way the army plays.

The middle ground seems more appropriate: Some players are more comfortable with aggressive armies, and some are more comfortable with defensive armies, and some like a balance. However, because not all Codices lend themselves to all three general styles of play equally, not all playstyles are equally effective with every Codex.

Ideally, find an optimized army list from a Codex which lends itself to your style of play, and you will probably go far. You may even become more familiar and comfortable with other playstyles, and learn to "shift gears" afterwards.

I don't think anyone is trying to condescend when they mention "playstyles". I think you just need to explain exactly what you think we mean when WE say "playstyle".. because I know what I mean, but I'm not sure we're all talking about the same thing, here.

EDIT: I said "idealized", Nurglitch, but I think "utilitarian" would be a more accurate label. However, player comfort with approaches to a game is an admittedly subjective, but nonetheless real, factor to take into account. Just because you and I know that Venomthropes would make a certain army list function WAY better, doesn't mean the player NORMALLY playing said army list is familiar at all with how to make the most of the Venomthropes.

People have to "grow" into their armies, learning as they go. The kind of advice you're giving is wasted on newbs, and is only preaching to the choir when it comes to everyone else. You might convince people to try Venomthropes out, but they're probably going to be discouraged when their first dozen or so games doesn't seem to benefit massively from such an unusually subtle (for a Tyranid) unit inclusion.

[nurglitch]

Devil's Advocate:

No, unfortunately making the application of strategies in games subjective is not an appropriate response to people making false objective statements. There is no "best list period" or "method x is the best and only way to use y".

Trying to argue about objective things using ill-defined terms is merely stupid, not ill-intentioned. The solution is not to abandon talking about objective things, but to use well-defined terms.

Just as we can ignore stuff like "luck this" or "random that" and focus on using probability math and statistics to understand the parts of the game using dice, then there are strategies, payoffs, and all the machinery of game theory to be applied to out-strategizing our opponents.

You don't need to have played an army of Khorne Berzerkers to know what strategies to play against them. Some experience will obviously make it more a matter of intuition rather than cognition, but the rules are out there and available to anyone caring to read them and think about what they mean in the context of game strategy.

Nothing stopping you from using it to determine which army has the elements suitable for capitalizing on some aesthetic element, or getting the most competitive configuration out of a limited selection of models. Just a way of sharing information so that the advice you give me works for me, and the advice I give you works for you, and a well-defined notion of validity so that we can correct each should we err and give bad advice. Which seems handy to me, somehow.

Note that I'm not saying playstyles don't exist. Of course they do. So do Santa's seven tiny reindeer. They're just ridiculous.

[nurglitch]

voraciousapathy:

Your guess is wrong. There is no "one-true-army" in any army list. There are optimal strategies for armies chosen from those lists, and some armies have a wider range of strategic options, or better odds in particular strategies, but you're mistaking method for content. Instead of taking a pet army and trying to rationalize it, players should take ownership of how they apply armies, and that ownership is found through understanding how they should apply armies to win (or at least avoid losing if they're rational and hence consistent).

Giving new players specific advice about what to do is nice, but they're better off being given tools with which to think about the game and strategize. Too many players quit due to unrealistic expectations because they don't understand how to evaluate their play, and to both learn from their mistakes, and to validate their own conclusions.

Incidentally my bunny-marines have plenty of Melta-guns. Of course, my bunnies are Chaos Space Marines with Icons of Tzeentch, so your mileage may vary.

[voraciousapathy]

When I use the term "playstyle", what I mean is a certain strategic and tactical predilection for a particular approach to "war". Some people are more comfortable with certain styles of play.

Are you saying you really don't believe in the "Four Elements" concept of warfare? Or are you familiar with it, but dispute it? Or.. ?

EDIT: And keep in mind, I'm actually more firmly in agreement with you, after the past two posts you've made. It's a fine distinction you're making, though, between "method" and "content". It's a distinction which a lot of people aren't really going to make, or even see the point of making.

[pipsickness]

There is one absolute and undeniable fact when it comes down to venomthropes: If you have one and it is one of the 3 units left alive in your army (the other 2 being a carnifex and a zoanthrope) and you're on a killpoint game. The thing to remember, and I cannot stress this enough, is NOT. Repeat NOT to charge it into Abbadon the Despoiler. This does not end well.

[atrocity]

Jun 19, 2012 11:29:32 GMT pipsickness said:

There is one absolute and undeniable fact when it comes down to venomthropes: If you have one and it is one of the 3 units left alive in your army (the other 2 being a carnifex and a zoanthrope) and you're on a killpoint game. The thing to remember, and I cannot stress this enough, is NOT. Repeat NOT to charge it into Abbadon the Despoiler. This does not end well.

I think I just fell in love with you a little bit

[Lanesend]

pipsickness,

I don't know, man. It is the cheapest model of those three, you know.

[pipsickness]

Lanesend - true. Still an extra killpoint for those chaos monkeys though.

suffice to say this game did not go well for me...

Still managed to scrape a draw however by succesfully passing all 3 instinctive tests and running the carnifex away from abbaddon after he also squished the zoanth'.

Cue two turns of abbadon chasing a carnifex round the board to the benny hill theme.

[N.I.B.]

[pipsickness]

N.I.B. - your pic doesn't load on my browser... Is it good? hahaha

[infornography]

My experience with Venomthropes is that if your army runs around in a big clump they are a must have. Absolutely. Stick a prime with them and they don't die easily.

If your army runs like mine do with bugs running roughshod all over the place and cropping up from all corners of the map, then no, they aren't worth it. They just can't buff enough things and survive long enough to be worth it.

I would love to see them become ICs. Preferably like the terminators for space wolves. You buy one unit of them and split them across your entire army. As they are now though, I sadly have little use for them. I think they are an awesome model and have cool rules, but their radius is too small and have too little protection of their own to really be worth it.

[Hive Fleet Cthulhu]

Personally I love my Venomthropes. Especially if you are running a lot of MC's. Even if my opponent is targeting my venomthropes, at least they are not firing at say my Swarmlord/Tyrant, or even the closing in Hormagaunts.

[gigasnail]

the IC option would be useful, for sure.