Abusing army threat management thresholds

[Exarch Thomo]

I would disagree with your analysis of Krox's theory being a CYA (that term is brilliant) style approach as oppossed to the TAC approach - essentially they are the same thing when it's broken down (but maybe I'm just simplifying too much).
He's approach is to avoid overloading on specialists but instead retain a few specialist roles backed up by numerous flexible units. Sure, some armies can do this better than others (Eldar for example are made up almost entirely by specialists and it then becomes the manner in which you use them that gives you situational flexibility).
There is a vast difference between overloading, TAC and CYA. Overloading leads to more weaknesses being created, if something comes up that you can't deal with then you are effectively neutered. CYA and TAC are almost the same in my opinion, but maybe that is influenced by my personality and playing style - I prefer to run a flexible list supported by a few specialists that allow me to deal with almost anything and effectively cover my A. (Does that make me a TACCMA list constructor?)

[kroxigor01]

Originally Posted by psichotykwyrm

I think that what sums it up perfectly is that the "Overload" method's purpose is to limit the opponent's options, and therefore neuter his army. My "TAC" method might be described as a defensive version of the same theory, to give yourself enough option so that your opponent can hopefully not be able to place limits on (or neuter) you.

If you can write an army list that can deal with and not have one unit be useless when facing:

• 3 Falcons and 3+ wave serpents (all with occupants of course)
• 140 imperial guardsmen (who could all be deep striking)
• 180 shoota boyz
• 3 Hammerheads, 4 Devilfish and 8 Crisis Suits
• 6 Assault Marine Squads of 10, 2 of which have chaplins
• 8 TMC
• ~80 Min Maxed Marines (I am guessing at the numbers here)
• An Armoured Company
• 160 Guants
• 90 Black Templars
• 3 Monoliths
• A Deathwing Company
• 24 Ravenwing Bikes, 4 Attack bikes and the Master of the Ravenwing

And you will have overcome Overloading.

NOTE: You can still win battles against Overloaded lists your are not prepared for but you are at a significant disadvantage.

[Moglun]

I think that Kroxigor's overload army is actually defensive, and psycho's TAC army is actually offensive. The overload army relies on being too hard for most armies to kill; the TAC army tries to have the tools to destroy any enemy.

Semantics aside, this is a very well written tactica, and I commend you. Such an army could lack flexibility, and while it may be strongly resistant to certain elements of your enemy's army, it will also be extra vulnerable to other elements (you don't need many antitank squads to take out an all vehicle army, for example). Nonetheless, a sound foundation for army building, in my opinion.

[kroxigor01]

Originally Posted by Moglun

I think that Kroxigor's overload army is actually defensive, and psycho's TAC army is actually offensive. The overload army relies on being too hard for most armies to kill; the TAC army tries to have the tools to destroy any enemy.

Yup. Although it is possible to overloaded a TAC list so they are not really polar opposites.

Semantics aside, this is a very well written tactica, and I commend you. Such an army could lack flexibility, and while it may be strongly resistant to certain elements of your enemy's army, it will also be extra vulnerable to other elements (you don't need many antitank squads to take out an all vehicle army, for example). Nonetheless, a sound foundation for army building, in my opinion.

These armies can indeed be VERY inflexible but are almost impossible to wipe out unless the enemy has feilded more 'anti your main unit type' units. Remember that if you play well you should kill most of their anit tank/infantry/skimmer units by turn 3.

[psichotykwyrm]

Originally Posted by Exarch Thomo

I would disagree with your analysis of Krox's theory being a CYA (that term is brilliant) style approach as oppossed to the TAC approach

Reread the previous discussion dude. I never once labeled Krox's idea as CYA. If you were paying attention, you would have read that the CYA is a way of describing what most people would think of as an "All Comers" list, where each unit has one inflexible role.

In summary, CYA and TAC were different ways of approaching a balanced list. reread my posts and you'll see.

For any and all others, I am not debunking/attacking Krox's article. In fact, I am affirming its validity, and pointing out that his principles can be used to help players develop the "True All Comers" list...

[psichotykwyrm]

Originally Posted by kroxigor01

If you can write an army list that can deal with and not have one unit be useless when facing:

• 3 Falcons and 3+ wave serpents (all with occupants of course)
• 140 imperial guardsmen (who could all be deep striking)
• 180 shoota boyz
• 3 Hammerheads, 4 Devilfish and 8 Crisis Suits
• 6 Assault Marine Squads of 10, 2 of which have chaplins
• 8 TMC
• ~80 Min Maxed Marines (I am guessing at the numbers here)
• An Armoured Company
• 160 Guants
• 90 Black Templars
• 3 Monoliths
• A Deathwing Company
• 24 Ravenwing Bikes, 4 Attack bikes and the Master of the Ravenwing

And you will have overcome Overloading.

NOTE: You can still win battles against Overloaded lists your are not prepared for but you are at a significant disadvantage.

Excellent examples. But I have just one question, krox: Exactly how do you define useless? Are you basing usefulness on a kill-for-kill ratio or just general utility? Is a unit considered useless when it becomes destined to die, or when it has difficulty or inability to taking down certain other units?

Though I'm not sure that the 3 Monoliths would be that much trouble, you could probably just ignore those ~700pts and focus on the necrons for phase out. Maybe I'm just nit-picking that one...

[Left of West]

Well, to take a very extreme example, against an Armoured Company list with nothing but Lemann Russ tanks and Hellhounds, squads of Firewarriors are basically useless. They just can't hurt anything that the enemy has on the table. The only thing they'll do is run towards an objective.

The AC list is a classic example of overloading--and it overloads so well as to basically be unfair because of it. If you have nothing but tanks with FA 14 and SA 12, a huge chunk of your opponent's stuff--that which is only set up to kill non-vehicles--will simply have nothing to do. You'll effectively be fighting your whole army of tanks against whatever portion of their army is anti-tank, and the rest of their units will be almost entirely irrelavent.

[kroxigor01]

Left of West basically covered my answer psichotykwyrm.

I do have some things to add though.

Uselessness can be both not being able to harm anything period or not being able to kill things effectively enough for the enemy fear for the saftey of one of thier units because of them. Firewarriors against tanks. Conscripts against Terminators. Missile Launchers against Monoliths. Any close combat unit with less then strength 8 and no grenades against a tank. Broodlord Genestealers against Ravenwing Bikes (they just can't catch 'em!). And the list goes on.

Yes the 3 monolith list is probably the most useless out of all my examples (mabye tied with the Deathwing company). Although they could jsut hide all their warriors behind terrain till their monoliths have stomped on the enemy batteline (I would think they would deep strike them right onto the enemy line firing Gauss at every unit within 12") then start teleporting units through them rapid firing any units still alive.

[Aun'la]

How do we get this thread stickied? Seriously, it's great!
Kudos to Kroxi for starting it and all the great contributions

[Atma]

Originally Posted by Left of West

Well, to take a very extreme example, against an Armoured Company list with nothing but Lemann Russ tanks and Hellhounds, squads of Firewarriors are basically useless. They just can't hurt anything that the enemy has on the table. The only thing they'll do is run towards an objective.

The AC list is a classic example of overloading--and it overloads so well as to basically be unfair because of it. If you have nothing but tanks with FA 14 and SA 12, a huge chunk of your opponent's stuff--that which is only set up to kill non-vehicles--will simply have nothing to do. You'll effectively be fighting your whole army of tanks against whatever portion of their army is anti-tank, and the rest of their units will be almost entirely irrelavent.

While true, firewarriors are not that useless since a properly mechanized Tau list could get behind those tanks and give the firewarriors a shot at that lovely rear armor. Very few vehicles have RA above 11.

Some armies are better at overloading than others. For example, IG CAN load up on vehicles (3 leman russ tanks, 3 hell hounds, 6 chimeras). However, the fact that their transports aren't skimmers plays against them. A single penetrating hit automatically causes all embarked to pour out.

Non-transport, non-skimmer tanks are incredibly slow as well. They CAN move fairly well, but because of the need to fire most, if not all, of their weapons, they very rarely move very far. Vehicles like the short ranged hellhounds and Immolators will have to advance and will be able to be ignored for at least a turn by anti-tank fire.

Vehicles are, of course, crippled by the fact that they don't need to be destroyed to be rendered inoperable for at least a turn. A successful glancing with guarantee that a vehicle will not be able to shoot at all. Also, many vehicles will lose most of their effectiveness with the loss of a single weapon (Exorcists with the launcher, speeders with the assault cannon, basilisk with its cannon, etc).

3 monoliths can be very devastating, if properly used. On a point for point basis, they're not very strong, but some of the best ways to deal with Necrons is in close combat where they're vulnerable to save-denying weapons, losing combat and being wiped out, and so on. Necrons using a 'fish of fury' tactic with Monoliths will create a large swath of charge-denying buffers. The fact that their basic troops are already so deadly to vehicles doesn't hurt nor does the Lord's ability to VoD troops behind assault lines to pop vehicles.

All in all, I do like the thread, but it seems to me that it's just another facet of designing your list to specifically face another opponent. For example, an Armored Company wouldn't fight against Necrons nor would a skimmer heavy Eldar army (from my experience). Likewise, I doubt assault marine heavy armies would go toe to toe against Orks and Tyranids. You can try to abuse threat managements with the same list against multiple opponents and armies, but it just won't work a lot of times.