Dark Eldar and Marine Envy

So, if there's one thing I'm absolutely right about in all of 40k, it's that Dark Eldar are not a Marine army.

Duh, right? So why does everyone try to make them out to be a Marine army? Why do you want to build and play them like marines? We shouldn't want to be marines, we're so much cooler than them! We have fast vehicles, crazy guns, awesome CC options, power from pain, and women. Geneseed doesn't work without a Y chromosome, hasn't since rogue trader. The marines should want to be US.

I play chess, go, othello, checkers, you name it. I used to play Magic: The gathering. This is like any other strategy game, and the random element doesn't make the difference you think it does. Yes, that queen will always capture the enemy piece, no die rolling. But in Warhammer 40k, dice are just part of the strategy. I play cards too, casually. Warhammer is less like craps and more like blackjack - you don't win by playing the odds. You win when your strategy successfully turns the odds in your favor.

So, we really have three archetypes of army.

Marines: The few, the power armored. Marines are generalists. Everyone's good at everything, wargear only makes them better at certain things, without making them worse at others. Marines can adapt and change on the go, and are at their best when the enemy is at their worst. When building marine lists, efficiency is key. You want MSU all the time and the most bang for your buck, because you're paying premium for the package deal. Your job isn't to have a grand scheme, but to beat the enemy at their own game.

Horde: Marines play the numbers game. The Hordes are the numbers. First, they stop caring about their dice and make you worry about yours. An ork may fail his armor save four times as often as a tactical marine, sure. But 4 orks are worth more than that marine is. A dead Dire Avenger is a tragedy, 4 dead guardsmen is a statistic. So, once you're totally dependent on the dice, you're already in a rut, because you're not managing the odds, they're managing you. But to add injury to insult, the Horde makes you roll dice. And keep rolling dice. By overwhelming you with critical decisions, you could have the best luck in the world, but all your Assault Terminators will still die, statistically average.

Finesse: That's us. And those stick-in-the-mud craftworlders. Oh, and those weedy little blue birdfish with the robots and the stick-guns, but nobody cares about them. We have the elite numbers of the marines. But our stats resemble the hordes. So we have both their weaknesses, what gives? Our transports, wargear, and rules are all advantages. The numbers are against us, but they don't have to be. With tools like strategy, position, and mobility, we can directly alter the flow of the game. When we win, it's not just because each unit did its job so much as the army worked cohesively. A bad opponent will blame the dice for his loss rather than the DE player, but you and I know that it was all us. By using board control to decide when, where, and for what occasion dice were rolled, we made the odds work for us. You can shoot his entire army with the right tool for the right occasion, but can he do the same to you? No. By using position and movement carefully, we decide what they can do when. For the finesse army the struggle isn't with the dice, but with the other player. At stake is the flow of the game itself, who is white and who is black, who leads and who follows.

I mentioned M:TG before. If you've been following along, and you're at all familiar with the WotC tournament scene, it should be a bit familiar. The three armies correspond to the three types of winning decks: Control, Aggro, and Tempo, in that order.

If that last bit's gibberish to you, fine. The point stands though. How will YOU play your army?

How does being finesse deny us the ability to be Horde or MSU?

As far as I can tell "finesse" in your discussion here equates to maneuverability (which our MSU certainly has in spades and, which if we opt to go horde, theoretically we have good horde manuverability...though I'll agree we don't Horde well) and using the correct weapon versus the correct unit (which is just basic good targeting) so I think I'm missing the gist of your theory.

MSU is a tactic. Marines are reliant on it, it's built into their books (except chaos). Finesse use it when it suits them. It's the difference between mandatory and optional.

I don't know how you're using horde. Here, horde with a capital H is a term I'm using to describe something specific that I defined here. The conventional term to describe an army list that leans towards tons of vehicles or lots of huge squads is horde, which is more or less how I use it here. I'm not sure what your use is - it may well be conventional in your local scene, but I clearly define Horde for the purposes of this explanation here.

It may help if you pretend this is the first time you've heard any of these words used regarding warhammer, except the GW trademarked ones.

Okay, so Horde is spamming of things (which seems close to MSU in my mind, that's what the 'Multiple' is there for.)

But let's clarify;

Marine/MSU = specialized squads (and multiple specialized squads?)

Horde = Lots of mech and/or lots of infantry.

Finesse = using maneuverability?

I'm probably still getting something wrong, because Finesse doesn't seem to have any issues being paired with either 'Marine' tactics or 'Horde' tactics as defined here - am I wrong with the definitions?

I agree with you tha the best tool of the DE is speed and maneuvering power, that is awesome and I agree with it. I think we're you're losing me is saying that DE are not like Marines (I totally agree) but not really being clear on how DE players are playing 'like' Marine players. That's the part I'm getting fuzzy on.

Help? (hope my confusion makes sense)

isn't the crux of this running 5 man Warrior, or 4 man Trueborn in Venoms rather than bigger squads in Raiders with a wider range of weaponry? i.e. Blaster spam via MSUs which is akin to Marine's Melta spam in a Razorback?

I've never heard of Mech being Horde. I've only heard Horde referring to Nid and foot Guard and Ork. No other army really does Horde much.

Also, you listed the three types as Marines, Hordes, and Finesse and then say this:

Quote :

Marines play the numbers game

I think if you are going to try to systematically categorize the armies you are better using three tiers of Speed, Range, and Focus.

Wych Cult (Fast, Long Range, Combat)
Gunline Guard (Slow, Long Range, Shooting)
Sisters (Quick, Short Range, Shooting)
Orks (Fast, Short Range, Combat)

But it leaves a lot of room for fooling yourself and you are just better off knowing as much about the book and builds in it as possible.

As to playing DE like Marines, not sure what you mean. Marines move up into midfield and try to hold it while shooting and doing a little counter attack (Quick, Medium Range, Balanced). Anyone moving their DE up into midfield and dumping them are either going to learn fast not to do that or lose a lot of games (or quit).

I'm with a1elbow on a lot of this.

I've seen Marines use MSU (Razorspam) but they do a lot of lists that are not MSU. If anything I would classify "Marine list building" as always taking minimal Troops and lots of Elite/Fast/Heavy slots - which works well for Marines and terribly for DE in my opinion, as I think we need lots of Troops (and our Troops are really good too, unlike those terribad Tac squads).

Marine strategy varies, and I've seen some Marine strategies I think DE can do (and even do better) but Preacher is losing me on what the clarity point is here.

a1elbow: Three-tiered what? So, make your own thread - you all seem completely confused, rather than give up and say "well this is what I think and I expect you to care even though I don't.", maybe it would be better to separate this so nobody gets either more confused with the other. Do you really want my nonsense in your nonsense? This isn't nearly as delicious as chocolate an peanut butter.

I'm not disagreeing with you. "But it leaves a lot of room for fooling yourself and you are just better off knowing as much about the book and builds in it as possible." So, don't fool yourself. This is not just for the sake of expounding upon comparisons and contrasts between armies. The idea is, if you understand this, it will change how you play any army for the better.

Thor665: Stop fixating on MSU. If I gave you a book about factory operation and managment, which you (I assume) no nothing about, what would you do? Look for familiar terms and try to assimilate it in terms of what you already know? If you already knew about factory operation and managment, why would you need to read the book? Obviously, it's not assimilable to pre-existing knowledge.

So, how do you make sense of it? Pick out the main idea: Dark Eldar don't play like Marines. Next, figure out how each paragraph supports this assertion: the first one explains the issue, the second gives background. 3-5 give descriptions of three larger categories of types of lists. the final one compares it to a similar phenomenon in another strategy game.

This is already helpful, by organizing the post's structure, it already makes more sense. Paragraphs 3-5 outline the meat of the theory, that is, what members of each big group have in common - their methods, tools, and conditions of winning. Paragraph 2 defines winning as managing the random element in the game.

Marines are MSU reliant, yes. But the other two can use MSU effectively too. That's a minute fraction of the paragraph on marine armies, which are armies of high-cost dudes with t4 3+.

Hordes are "A large group or crowd; a swarm; mass; gang; multitude." So this means armies with lots of weak, low-costed models. Did you really miss that? Sorry, I didn't think that needed explanation.

10 razorbacks or venoms is a lot. 10 chimeras and 8+ more non-transport vehicles is a Horde. See? Because there's a bunch of them! Like there are a bunch of guardsmen/orks/gaunts!

Read Finesse more carefully. I can't make that simpler. Go back and re-read all of them, I haven't saved you any time, you're reading more so when you re-read the first post it will make sense this time. It should be a lot more obvious how so many people seem to treat Dark Eldar like Marines, once you establish the differences between Marine and Finesse armies.

SirTainly: No. Not at all, I run both those squads often. Why are you all so fixated on MSU? That's probably the least important thing I mentioned.

PreacherOfDeath wrote:

So, how do you make sense of it? Pick out the main idea: Dark Eldar don't play like Marines. Next, figure out how each paragraph supports this assertion: the first one explains the issue, the second gives background. 3-5 give descriptions of three larger categories of types of lists. the final one compares it to a similar phenomenon in another strategy game.

I'm not trying to be difficult. I will admit maybe I'm too dense to understand your post - but maybe your post isn't written as clearly as you think it is if three people are being confused by it. I'm asking questions to try to understand what you're saying.

I don't think you have properly outlined the issue.
I understand that your issue is "Marines play different than DE"
I totally agree with that.
But, you then say players are playing DE like Marines. Then you discuss two strategies that Marines can use (and they are strategies any army can use) and counter that we play finesse, but admit finesse can use both of the Marine strategies...so all I'm getting is that I *can* play like Marines as long as I use finesse. And all finesse is defined as is - limiting enemy targeting opportunities, and Marines play like that if they're smart (they can't do it as easily or as well as us, but they can do it.

PreacherOfDeath wrote:

10 razorbacks or venoms is a lot. 10 chimeras and 8+ more non-transport vehicles is a Horde. See? Because there's a bunch of them! Like there are a bunch of guardsmen/orks/gaunts!

I would like to point out, that it's a little odd to expect people to intuitively understand that 10 is "a lot" and 18 is "a horde" if you don't tell them.

PreacherOfDeath wrote:

It should be a lot more obvious how so many people seem to treat Dark Eldar like Marines, once you establish the differences between Marine and Finesse armies.

I absolutely agree with this.
But I did read the first post more than once and I do not see it offering a clear compare/contrast with Marine armies. I am not alone in this, so at least if I'm dumb, so are a lot of people, and at that point it might be helpful to have the text cleared up a little?

As a suggestion; I think it would be really helpful to maybe explain specifically how DE players are playing like Marines. Then explain also how Marines cannot do the finesse thing. Because, as I understand the way you wrote finesse, any army is capable of doing it to some degree or another. That's what's really leaving me confused as to the point. You admit DE can use some of the Marine tactics (MSU, Horde, ect.) but if we can use MSU/Horde and still use finesse, then what's the problem with building like a Marine? So the problem would then not be strategic (building like a Marine) but tactical (playing like a Marine) though I personally think I know a fair number of Marine players who play with Finesse as you've described it.

If this annoys you to the point of just saying 're-read the first post' then don't worry about it, I'll just not understand and move on. But I'm asking you questions because I want to understand and I don't.

You've handed me the manual on factories, now please help me read it.

Ok. Let me try this. Give me a sec, I'll edit this in 30-90 seconds.

But in Warhammer 40k, dice are just part of the strategy. Warhammer is less like craps and more like blackjack - you don't win by playing the odds. You win when your strategy successfully turns the odds in your favor.

^This^

The key. Everything that follows will touch back to this.

Marines
Marines are generalists. Everyone's good at everything, wargear only makes them better at certain things, without making them worse at others.

A tactical squad is 4s across the board. 1 wound, LD9, 3+ armor. Bolters, pistols. Already, even now, with no wargear and 90 points for 5 dudes, they're already comparable to 5 of another army's troop models at whatever they do best.

Tau FW shoot 30" S5 AP5. Marines shoot 6" less, 1 strength less. The extra points make them stomp fire warriors in combat.

A Wrack has 2 attacks without charging, 4+ poison, WS4, I4, T4, FNP. It survives, and fights back. Marines lose an attack, FNP, and poison. The extra points get you S4, real armor, and you can shoot, almost as well as the Fire Warrior.

A genestealer... I don't remember their statline offhand. But, a similar situation occurs. The Space marine won't get stuck in as quick, and less attacks, but he'll survive and be able to shoot.

Marines can adapt and change on the go, and are at their best when the enemy is at their worst.

So, the strategy isn't MSU. MSU is great, I love it when you're guide says it's a good idea. I plan to link to said guide frequently, it ought to be stickied. The strategy is before MSU, beyond any given list: If you have a marine, don't get in a shoot-out with the fire warrior. Don't try to charge headfirst into the genestealers. Don't try to tarpit the wracks.

Tarpit the fire warriors (why is he outside his fish anyway?). Shoot the genestealer (I miss extended carapace SO MUCH). And hit the wracks fast and quick.

All this is pretty basic. But whereas xenos get into this rock-paper-scissorhands nonsense, the marine can do each, mediocre. The marine sees the rock, paper, and scissors, and melts them all in one blow. The marine becomes an imitation of the worst thing imaginable for each.

When building marine lists, efficiency is key. It's easy to turn a single squad into the swiss army knife from rambo hell. You want MSU all the time and the most bang for your buck, because you're paying premium for the package deal. Your job isn't to have a grand scheme. Just stop theirs. If you don't MSU and always "make your points back" you're paying for the corkscrew on a swiss army knife and you don't need help uncorking wine anyway. You can't afford specialists, everything must be EFFICIENT. Thus, instead of being able to enjoy big squads or trueborn-type things, you're forced to spam the same highly efficient choices. By spam I mean beyond simple redundancy.

So, the title indicates that the offenders are using this way of managing odds to play dark eldar. it doesn't work, obviously. Some people don't seem to get that, because of playing non-competitve opponents at tournaments and local places, and being able to beat them. The wrong strategy is still strategy.

---

So we agree orks are hordes? and nids too? necrons and guard are harder because necrons are a bad horde - though they use the same tactics, somehow, and tons of vehicles doesn't seem hordelike.

18 isn't a ridiculous number, unless 10 is a big number. Being 180% more than "a lot" of something qualifies a horde, IMO.

1 chimera isn't the end of the world. A whole vet squad is disappointing, but acceptable if they kill something you care about more. You lose a ravager to early? Short a predator? dead falcon? Could be GG. Because they're beating your strong pieces with pawns, every 1:1 trade is in their favor. And they make you roll SO MANY DICE. A 3+ on one die is a 2/3 chance. so is a 5+ on 2 dice. But only the 2 dice have the potential to succeed twice.

And we use this tactic too, just like we use MSU. Venom Blades or Agonisers? Splinter Cannons instead of Disintegrators?

---

What does finesse do? Cut the odds out entirely. I can't explain this abstractly any better, that's my fault. Have examples.

You have a ravager, 3 DL. It's mathematically the best means of destroying a tank at range, ok. What goes on the ravager? Probably Night shields and/or flickerfields. But that's 20 points more! Can we avoid this?

The Marine player looks at the vehicle. It's armor 11/11/10 and open-topped; this thing is supposed to be good? Where's my predator? If they love the models/fluff, they'll try to optimize efficiency.

Night shields are hard to quantify for the marine player. "I guess they negate melta?" If there's points, they go on.

Flickerfields increase survivability by 33% for cheap. DEAL!

The player using finesse tactics approaches this differently.

The ravager is a fast skimmer with aerial assault. So it can redeploy easily. Why is that good? It can start in cover from everything that can hurt it except its target, with a FREE 4+ cover or blocked LOS. If its position is compromised or its job is done, it moves a foot away to the next target, or gets a flat-out move to draw fire/get to a better spot/block movement. Usually it shouldn't do these things if there's a vehicle on the board, but if it survives past turn 3. these are options. See, a ravager is best for de-meching. Once you start to take control of the match, it becomes less necessary for doing this.

So, cover is free. 36" range. With correct placement, you either get 4+ cover, or deny the opportunity to shoot the ravager altogether, by managing threats and available LOS. If the dice aren't rolled, you can't fail the save. Flickerfields become superfluous.

Night shields are better now. Assault cannons and 24" weapons, rapidfire and otherwise, now need to be 18" away to shoot you. Two things happen as a result:
1) You can eliminate return fire from certain weapons ENTIRELY. No 4+ cover can be failed if you're OUT OF RANGE. Here, you tell your opponent what their options are; ignore the ravager and lose armor, or ignore another threat and chase my fast skimmer. Nowhere in here is the option "do what you originally inetended." YOU dictate the flow, this is what I mean.

2) So, 18". What has an 18" range? Blasters and Heat lances? Assaulting beasts? Thought so! Here, synergy is important - since every squad doesn't have the same statline, rules, and wargear, synergy is SO important. Use the ravager to tell your opponent what they should do with their prime target for these "parasite" units, like beasts or trueborn. Will you chase my ravager? Beasts assault you then. Will you ignore my ravager and deal with the CC threat in front of you? Lose a tank.

But night shields aren't necessary here, they just make things easier. You may well spend them elsewhere, but the baiting becomes more difficult.

I think this example will help articulate what abstract theory can't. It's not perfect, but it sure looks better.

PreacherOfDeath wrote:

SirTainly: No. Not at all, I run both those squads often. Why are you all so fixated on MSU? That's probably the least important thing I mentioned.

Sorry to have misunderstood you - but in my meta, Marines are mostly MSU..so to play like them is to do that.

I agree. Why don't genestealers MSU well, and hive guard do? Every marine book thing MUST use MSU. This is a theory why.

Hm.....let me throw in my two cents here.

Any army can benefit from maneuver and attrition warfare. Every armed force wants the best possible efficiency in killing something, and that often means that there are some approaches that will be most effective. One can never ever be in one permanent state, and thus will seek to combine the flexibility of both into their battleplans.

A Dark Eldar player will not play like a Marine player, that is inherently true. But we do have the ability to dish out a significant amount of damage throughout many platforms for cheap that rips apart better things. The sad thing about us is that we do not have the durability that enables us to keep this for long and hence we need to have a perfect concert in one go to rip the balls out of our opponent in the most painful way possible.

Since you mentioned MTG, I would say that the way Dark Eldar plays is akin to a (if the type of deck is even possible in MtG, but would help in explaining in Magic terms as to how the Dark Eldar plays) an Aggro-Control-Combo Vampire Black-Blue Deck. We need to put the pressure in early, and we need the right combo to break apart our opponent and in order to do that we need a full command of the board with our speed and lethality. We prefer to kill things apart or counter them to oblivion, but at the same time we value deception and maneuverability in our battleplan. And we do it at all cost.

We need some of the MSU and horde elements as this would help us have a school of ravenous sharks to rip the throat out of our opponents. We need the numbers as we are frail and survival in numbers is paramount. We definitely need the speed to control the board and also to increase our survival by either running away or getting closer for the kill.

Our weapons are strong and powerful, but we need lots of them to make the difference. Spamming good weapons is always a wise option, and if you can do so cheaply, then why not spam them in numbers? IF the squad that is carrying them only needs a certain amount of men to carry it, then do it because it is efficient. If you can complement their role with something that covers their weakness, it is just perfect. There is a reason why some configurations are taken for a reason (Here's looking at you blasterborn).

Flickerfields are a deal because most tournaments will stick you on 1-2 tables that are so bereft of cover that works for skimmers as to cause tears in my eyes.

Okay, I grok your definition of MSU (dangerous to use your own personal term in a way that is commonly used within the parlance of the game. It would be like if I suddenly started calling all my good tank hunting units Death Stars because they blow up stuff - yeah, people would eventually get it but I'm needlessly complicating life.)

Your discussion is mostly one of finesse and why it's good. I actually don't think you make a good point for explaining how DE players are mistakenly playing like Marines - but your basic breakdown of finesse how and why it is good is pretty spot on and a solid discussion.

Thanks for the clarification.

Note: caps lock is used as emphasis, I don't feel like hitting the bold button. I'm not upset or angry, just disappointed, and I need some way to stress main ideas and key words quickly.

Again, I'm NOT redefining MSU AT ALL.

MSU is a theory regarding unit size. This is a theory about overall list construction and playing the game.

All 3 use MSU in some way. Marines are dependent on MSU, because it involves raw efficiency. Hordes and Finesse don't REQUIRE it.

Some people smoke, and enjoy it. They can stop any time. Other people smoke too much, and are addicted, unable NOT to smoke. Space Marines are addicted to MSU, but AMONG OTHER THINGS. MSU is NOT the sum total of all tools available to Marines. Think beyond this.

Crisis_Vyper wrote:

Hm.....let me throw in my two cents here.

Every armed force wants the best possible efficiency in killing something, and that often means that there are some approaches that will be most effective. One can never ever be in one permanent state, and thus will seek to combine the flexibility of both into their battleplans.

Don't understand the last sentence, it's vague.

I appreciate your opinion, whether it's right or wrong it's directly opposite what I'm saying, and an example of the Marine Envy I'm describing.

"best possible efficiency in killing something" and "most effective approach" are Marine Army goals.

Not every armed force wants this, that's not correct at all. Imagine we're at NOVA, playing the mission where KP are tertiary objectives. If you're beating me in kill points 3:1, but I have 2 table corners contested and 2 taken, 1 objective contested and 4 taken, it doesn't matter that you ground me to a pulp - I still have a major victory.

Even in kill points, killing efficiency is useless if I play finesse and don't give you an opportunity to kill me in the first place. If I play horde I will feed your efficient killers trash squads all day and wear you down in-game and psychologically.

Quote :

But we do have the ability to dish out a significant amount of damage throughout many platforms for cheap that rips apart better things. The sad thing about us is that we do not have the durability that enables us to keep this for long and hence we need to have a perfect concert in one go to rip the balls out of our opponent in the most painful way possible.

Right. Marine armies do. Space Wolves do. Grey Knights do. Orks don't. Chaos Space Marines do.

If you just want to run an efficient army, play one of them. Really. I'm not trying to be harsh, but just run the numbers on efficiency. Why would you EVER want our inefficient and flawed troops over the ubiquitous Combat Sqaud, if efficiency is all that matters. If crunching numbers can't show you this, check your math.

Quote :

Since you mentioned MTG

I played Vintage years ago. I sold all my cards. It's just there as reference, to show where I'm getting these crazy ideas from. I don't know how your favorite deck works, and it's too specific for me to care, sorry. This is about archetypes.

Quote :

We need some of the MSU and horde elements

Stop it. PLEASE. I don't understand how you can look at everything, pick out a couple of familiar words, and ignore the rest. Either my English is worse than I thought (possible), or there's some reading issues here.

MSU DOES NOT EQUAL MARINES. MSU DOES NOT EQUAL MARINES. MSU DOES NOT EQUAL MARINES.

I will keep beating my fists until this makes sense. MSU is like a Boltgun. It's something that Marines MUST USE, but others CAN use. If you can't figure out the other tactics and tools they use from my explanation... I don't know what to do.

As for Horde armies, what do you want to call it? Pick another word that characterizes the whole dynamic of overwhelming a foe with numbers rather than quality. ANY other word. I don't care, as long as I know that you mean the same things when you're complaining about people treating your Imperial Guard like a Marine army instead of Bacteria army.

The panda eats shoots and leaves.
The panda eats, shoots, and leaves.
Really, this idea is a lot easier to understand than that, and you don't have to worry about murderous pandas.

PreacherOfDeath wrote:

"best possible efficiency in killing something" and "most effective approach" are Marine Army goals.

Not every armed force wants this, that's not correct at all. Imagine we're at NOVA, playing the mission where KP are tertiary objectives. If you're beating me in kill points 3:1, but I have 2 table corners contested and 2 taken, 1 objective contested and 4 taken, it doesn't matter that you ground me to a pulp - I still have a major victory.

The most effective approach in a objectives game is to claim the objectives and prevent your opponent from claiming his.
Having the best possible efficiency in killing something will remove enemy units who can claim objectives, and also remove enemy units that will try to kill the units you have to claim objectives.

PreacherOfDeath wrote:

Why would you EVER want our inefficient and flawed troops over the ubiquitous Combat Sqaud, if efficiency is all that matters. If crunching numbers can't show you this, check your math.

Because you're equating adaptability with efficiency and they're really not the same. Incubi or Wyches are more efficient at assault than Marines. Marines are more adaptable and have better shooting - but that doesn't make them more efficient, it makes the Marine player have to pay a lot for things he's not using them for, which actually makes them less efficient.

It's like if I were to buy an Agoniser and Sybarite for a squad of 10 Warriors...and then also buy them a dark lance and place them in some ruins and shoot at tanks. Am I getting a more efficient squad because they are now better at assault? Or am I simple getting a more adaptable squad at a more expensive cost?

What does being able to get from one spot on the board to another faster than you can from the same distance away have to do with killing? Especially when it involves hiding, drawing your foe into a bad position, or taking an unclaimed objective?

There's a commercial on TV right now. A guy walks into Verizon with a utility belt full of electronic gizmos and gadgets. The Verizon guy sells him a small little phone that replaces all the things on his big clunky utility belt, and the subliminal message is that the guy with all the specialized things is a loser.

Do you want to carry around a custom gaming PC, a 50" flatscreen, a wireless access point, a generator, a PS3, a Garmin, an iPod, a watch, a calculator, a calendar, a rolodex, a telephone, pen, paper, and carrier pigeon? Or would the smartphone be more efficient?

Imagine an army like this, compared to an army of "smartphones". Obviously, one smartphone is all you need IRL, but imagine the redundancy! (a Marine tactic that they rely on, we can use, and is NOT MSU) Which would win, do you think? Which would be more efficient at killing the other?

I'm not sure, if I got everything right, but I think Thor is right, the problem is not the idea itself, but the confusing use (or even missuse) of some terms makes it hard to see what's meant.

To sum up, what I understood:

There are three types of armies.
These differences are not tactical, but rather strategical, so it's not about what role a special unit will fulfill, actually in the game, but what your army is about in general.

The first type is called 'Marines', I'd call it 'Generalist', Space Marines are THE archetype, and all armies of this type are marines of some sort.
These armies' advantage is, that all units are good at everything, not exceptional, but good.
The result is that they are drawn to small lists in general and MSU in particular.
Their strength is, that they can outperform every enemy in some way, they can't outgun firewarriors or beat genestealers in melee, but they can beat the first in melee and shoot the latter.

The second type are 'Hordes', I don't know, but maybe 'numerous', generally speaking, they are bad at everything, or at least in some key attributes. (Orks for example have WS and T 4, but no BS to speak of, lousy I and crappy armor)
But, and thats the point, they're dirt cheap, maybe every one of your's can kill 5 of mine, but I can field ten times more, for the same points.
While 'Hordes' normally are associated with great numbers of infantry, this type includes parking lot style lists, that are filled with mediocre, but cheap vehicles.

The third army is 'Finesse', these armies have units that are as expensive, as the first type's (or even more expensive), and attributes as bad, as the second's. (or even worse)
But every unit has (or should have, yes Hellions I look at you) one speciality, in wich they outshine most other units.

You say efficiency is key for marines, but I'd say marines can't care less about efficiency, their squads aren't efficient, they are generalists, they expend points they might never use, a unit of marines that fights genestealers spent points for cc-potential, they never use and marines fighting firewarriors spent points for shooting they could have saved.

A finesse army on the other hand has to be efficient. As thor said, we don't buy Sybarites with agonisers, PGLs and ghostplate armours, because Warriors excel in shooting and don't in melee.

So playing or not playing like a marine is IMHO less about efficiency and more about priorities. A marine player can shoot Wyches and assault Warriors, while our warriors shouldn't try to assault and our wyches shouldn't try to shoot, and we have neither armour, nor numbers to grind through unfortunate situations. So we have to plan in advance, and use our speed and wargear to bring our strengths to bear, where they are effective.

Ok, that's most of it. Thanks a lot!

Fine, call them generalist. Even though generalists include all marine books, and there are no generalists that aren't marines. The reason they're "efficient," to me, is that when you're equipping and playing generalists, you're trying to minimize the underutilized strengths and maximize the potential of the ones you're embracing. In thermodynamics, efficiency has to do with getting back the energy you put into a system. Because of entropy, you never get all the energy back as work. However, the goal is to set up reactions that minimize lost energy (Weapon skill and Strength in double-tapping boltguns) and maximize work (adding a combi-melta).

Numerous is an adjective, but if you want to use it as a noun, I really don't mind. The point is... what would you have called it if you wanted a noun? "Masses"? "Swarms" to me doesn't convey chimeras either.

That's half of finesse. So you've got all these tools on your belt, Batman. How do you beat the Emperor's Droids/Blackberries?

Use the common theme (mobility for us, range and MSJ for Tau, I feel like Eldar is special rules that deny the enemy certain things) of the entire army to limit the enemy's ability to use their probability altering trick. DON'T take on the entire Imperial Guard at once. DO break them up into manageable sections, and force your foe to prioritize her own squads. DON'T let the space marines adapt to your army. DO force them to accept your match ups; these squads are the only ones who can even shoot the Ravager, I get to hit rear/side armor on your Predator, my Incubi get to attack that combat squad and these devastators can't shoot back. Your job is to make sure the Wyches need 4s to Wound re-rollable, not 5s to wound, or that the Wyches have 4+ saves, not 6+.

Does this make more sense? Again, if you're still confused, I agree with everything Tiri Rana said, however Tiri Rana only repeated most of the original idea, not quite all of it. This is the rest.

You're right, my bad. Like I said, I haven't played Magic in so long. I sold all but one deck 3 years ago, and I sold my SuiBlack in November to buy NEW DARK ELDAR!!! No regrets. I love new Wych models, I made it my personally mission to get people to start DE and try running 9 wyches with a haemonculus for the first few weeks that book was out to get people to try the new rules and thank Jes Goodwin for fixing the models by buying GW product. I HATE old wyches.

Sorry, off-topic.

So let's get this straight now shall we?

Quote :

Don't understand the last sentence, it's vague.

I appreciate your opinion, whether it's right or wrong it's directly opposite what I'm saying, and an example of the Marine Envy I'm describing.

"best possible efficiency in killing something" and "most effective approach" are Marine Army goals.

So.....If I put Flash Gitz into a list where I could get a squad of Lootas which are much better at killing things, I can call it sticking to the Man a.k.a Marine Envy?

Seriously, this is a weak argument. Everyone wants a good list, no matter if they want it to be fun or be competitive as hell. So denying the idea of common sense is just bad, really bad.

Quote :

If you just want to run an efficient army, play one of them. Really. I'm not trying to be harsh, but just run the numbers on efficiency. Why would you EVER want our inefficient and flawed troops over the ubiquitous Combat Sqaud, if efficiency is all that matters. If crunching numbers can't show you this, check your math.

Because you just want to have fun from time to time? Either that or you could put something on another slot that is much more threatening.For example, Grots are utterly useless except to fill up a cheap troop choice and also to act as a screen of cover saves if you want an example of efficiency. IF you want efficiency, the grots are somewhat bad as they are essentially not a threat at all and are just annoying asses.

Quote :

I played Vintage years ago. I sold all my cards. It's just there as reference, to show where I'm getting these crazy ideas from. I don't know how your favorite deck works, and it's too specific for me to care, sorry. This is about archetypes.

I would agree, as I played Magic during the Arabian Nights set. And honestly I do not even give a flying rat's butt about Magic as I think it is a really tedious game without visual effect.

I would personally choose a better example for archetypes, but alas I am playing around with your crazy idea. And in the idea of playing with your keywords, I use it to describe a Dark Eldar army in motion. So I am sorry if I am using your vague Magic references to explain to you how Dark Eldar looks like.

Quote :

Stop it. PLEASE. I don't understand how you can look at everything, pick out a couple of familiar words, and ignore the rest. Either my English is worse than I thought (possible), or there's some reading issues here.

MSU DOES NOT EQUAL MARINES. MSU DOES NOT EQUAL MARINES. MSU DOES NOT EQUAL MARINES.

Likewise, I could not understand your point about your categories as you are spliting everything as a monstrously distinctive element. If you want a serious discussion, the terms need to be significantly clearer and there should be a respectful understanding of the grey areas.

MSU is just that, multiple small units. And sadly enough, that does not mean it is a generalist. It just means that one wants to have the best bargain for the cheapest price. I do not think you understood me as well, and I guess we are both somewhere in an impasse of this 'MSU' idea.

Quote :

I will keep beating my fists until this makes sense. MSU is like a Boltgun. It's something that Marines MUST USE, but others CAN use. If you can't figure out the other tactics and tools they use from my explanation... I don't know what to do.

Likewise, the perception that Marines must go MSU is also a myth. Marines can work without the need of MSU. It is just that Marine players tend to lean towards having a list that would cost the least trouble to them and allow them to break even with the rest of the armies around.

Quote :

As for Horde armies, what do you want to call it? Pick another word that characterizes the whole dynamic of overwhelming a foe with numbers rather than quality. ANY other word. I don't care, as long as I know that you mean the same things when you're complaining about people treating your Imperial Guard like a Marine army instead of Bacteria army.

Spamfest?

Quote :

The panda eats shoots and leaves.
The panda eats, shoots, and leaves.
Really, this idea is a lot easier to understand than that, and you don't have to worry about murderous pandas.

So this is just a way to say that everyone would understand some things the first time they see it? .

There's a principle called the K.I.S.S Principle and it would be appreciated that more thought is put into this to begin with so that there will be much less confusion and for your part, frustration over the whole topic.

Ok so I think I am missing something or not getting whole picture.

much of what PoD is saying sounds like common sense tactics or I'm just to dense to understand what he is saying.

I'll use the IG example. Only a fool would go head on into an IG army, and yes they are out there, firmly believing thay can take out the leman Russ with nothing more than a krak grenade and faith in the Emperor.

Common sense tactics would dictate you find a weak spot and exploit it.

I don't see any finesse in this approach...

To me, strategy comes into play in building my list. I pick and chose units based on what I can reasonably expect to face and those choice will dictate what I can do in my games.

Finesse basically dictates how forgiving the army is. DE is not very forgiving of mistakes. IG, they can screw up all day and still make a rough game of it. it doesn't take much skill to point and shoot.

I have lost games having made 1 single mistake, even in deployment.

How does tis relate to MSU, I don't see the connection.

MSU is a strategy used in your build, to my understanding. You pick and chose for survivability and then you r tactics come into play in the game.

I know a number of marines who don't MSU and they are still very tough to beat. They know their lists and they know what to do with them.

I played Marines ( and really who did'nt at one time or another) and MSU was not something I ever used. My marines were an vending machine. It would take a beating and keep on going and it did'nt matter who or what I played, it function the same way every time.

I ran the much maligned 10 Tac squads with razorbacks, combat squaded so I could support my advance. A couple of Thunderfires, a vindi and a big honking Terminator Deathstar with Pedro and a chappy in a LRC. It was a tough as nails list that would wear my opponents down by attrition.

I'm not going to say I won every game, but every game I lost was close.

What I am saying is that I don't really get how marines have to MSU to be competitive, if that is what your saying.

One of the guys I play locally is ranked in the top 5 in the nation and he does not MSU. Not even close.


so shifting gears here, efficiency is also something that comes into list building. I disagree that the only efficient builds for marines are MSU builds, if I read it correctly because I am confused on a lot of the points.

I get not taking a power fist on a Devastator squad, and yes they do take to deal with the magical Demon that will assault them in turn 1. I'd just shoot it personally, but I digress. Thats a waste of points and for 99 out of 100 games useless.

Each unit should be maximized to do its job. A flamer and a missile launcher in a tac squad mounted in a Lascannon Razorback is efficient. You have anti-troop, some middle AI/AT with the ML and dedicated AT with the Razorback. You could argue the flamer is worthless and so is the ML, but they are free and while not as good as a Melta Lascannon combo, they are free.

DE and other Xenos, as best I can tell, seem to be more specialist than their Imperial counterparts.

It is pretty pathetic to take a 20 man unit of warriors to get 2 DL when you can take 3 trueborn and get the same thing. True the 3 man will die much sooner but you can make better use of cover with 3 guys instead of 20. And I use the 20 man example as an extreme, where are you going to hide 20 guys on your typical tournament game table. I've played on tables with lots of craters and a hill. It makes me a sad panda.... Especially facing IG...very sad ...sniff sniff

It very well maybe that I am way out in the sticks here, but I tend to view it like this

Strategy --> List building ( putting your tools in the tool box)
Tactics --> Deployment and playing the game ( using the right tool in your tool box)
Finesse --> How many mistakes I can make and still be able to win ( I grab a socket wrech when I need a hammer)
Efficiency --> goes into all three of the above.
1) No wasted points in my build
example: Thunder hammer on a sniper scout sergeant or grisly trophies & Chain snares on Ravagers

2) Putting the right units in the right places to maximize their function
Example: Do not deploy ravagers in the open head up with Long Fangs

3) not to overkill or underkill an enemy so I can keep my units alive while killing my opponents.
Example: Using a 10 man incubi unit to take out scouts instead of charging Devastators with heavy Bolters.


Am I correct or am I totally missing the point?? Halfway maybe?? This makes sense to me, but I'm a simple guy and big words confuse me.

I think the OP was slightly off the mark. Yes those armies can fit those styles, but it's more an army and playstyle combination than this army fits this hole.

It's true, there are some armies where you have to play a certain way, they are getting less and less though, and generally those are the books that people shy away from - necrons, tau, demons. I think this is mostly because it is easy to apply a catchall way to beat the army.

Certain books do tend towards certain strategies but they aren't the only way to win, but since most people are lazy and don't want to learn the army they'll fall back on internet lists, like the MSU, razorspam, and Vulkan lists. The idea isn't new it's just more widespread because of message boards and large scale events that get well published on blogs, "person A uses the same army as me, and person A won and I didn't; person A has squad X, I need squad X." I remember seeing it happen at local tournaments all the time, I even started to design lists around it. Someone won with a particualr list, I built to beat that list because I know I'd see atleast 3 of them next time.

The best results will come when you learn how to mix those playstyles with your codex. Even more so when you show up with something that combines the book and playstyle in a way that nobody expects. Ask the poor Ard Boyz players who had to face my girlfriend and her 30 fortuned wraithguard with conceal.

I have plenty I would like to say, but mostly the tone of the OP puts me off. I've been playing GW for most of my life and have played 40k and DE since the day they came out. I appreciate any healthy debate or learning experience, but statements like this:

Quote :

The idea is, if you understand this, it will change how you play any army for the better.

might work on a blog where people come to get your opinion (see: YTTH), but on a public forum where no one knows you, they are just rude. Your whole tone through here has been very condescending. No need for that, no one is trying to blow you up, just to understand where you are coming from.

As to the thread itself, I still disagree to much of what you said.

As I said previously, and please don't take offense, I think most of what you are saying is basic information for any army. If you are a Vanilla Marine player and you are playing an Ork Horde, you don't just run up and get in front of it any more than a DE player would. The smart Marine commander will get himself as far out of the Ork's range as he can while still allowing him to operate. Alternately, a smart player with a faster combat army will look to impede part of an opponent's army and attack the other part.

40k is a game of range and I think that is the point of your post. It is something players should learn early in their experiences or they are in trouble. Don't take it personally that many people on here don't feel like they got as much out of your article as you imagined they would.