Trash drops: use them or not?

[Nihmwit]

Trash drops: a small, expendable, cheap, throw-away unit to be deployed first, thus delaying the deployment of your important units, thereby allowing said important units to be deployed in response to the opponent's important units.

Okay, not all that clear a definition, but you guys get the idea.  I've seen alot of folks mention the use of these units (frequently, they double as redirectors or speed-bump flank protection).  My question is: how many of you a.) use them, and b.) think they are a vital part of your game.

Personally, I do not use them.  I go for the very small number of units, finish deploying first and get +1 to go first strategy.  Yes, this frequently gives me something of a handicap during deployment, but I look at it as also giving me the initiative.  By placing my important, hard-hitting units first, I am indirectly dictating where his units will go.  Either my opponent will place them out of the way, in safety, or they'll pick up the gauntlet and place themselves in a position to challenge my heavy hitters with their own.  I always try to deny a flank, typically use my toughest unit to bait my opponent, and then set up supporting counter-charges (just in case things go bad  ).  Getting that +1 has frequently made the difference in me getting to go first, which in turn gives me first chance to charge (unlikely, but still), first chance to maneuver (and ogres move fast), first magic phase (so my buffs are in place), and first shooting phase (I'm a bit of a leadbelcher nut).

Risky, but that's just my preference, and it's served me pretty well.  How about you folks?

[rothgar13]

3 Sabretusks, 2 Ironblasters (while not strictly a trash drop, their ability to move and pivot means that initial placement doesn't really matter much), and a unit (maybe 2) of Trappers for me. If you don't play the deployment game against armies that have quality chaff, you will struggle to see meaningful combat on anything resembling favorable terms.

[sitaavanu]

2 saber tusk and 2 gnobs (10) with trappers or 1 gnob (20) with trappers are usually the first things in my list.  Add in 2 Ironblasters which aren't really 'trash' but their deployment is not usually important helps to ensure my important drops are lined up well agaisnt my opponent.

In my WE list I always take 2 eagles and usually 3 units of archers (small cost and ranged means their deployment isn't as vital).  So on average I am taking about 5+ chaff units.

[Alanir]

Agreed with Rothgar in that any army I make has at least four 'trash drops' built in for other purposes than deployment. I do enjoy the +1 to go first with ogres, but a third of the time my opponent has scouts anyways and just gives that up. I addition, I have been running a horde lately and need them to have at least one important unit to go after. Seven drops in is generally enough, but if I had to drop the horde at fifth position I might be severely out-maneuvered.

Edit: And apparently I agree with sitaavanu as well =)

[Hedstone]

Trash drops: a small, expendable, cheap, throw-away unit to be deployed first, thus delaying the deployment of your important units, thereby allowing said important units to be deployed in response to the opponent's important units.

Okay, not all that clear a definition, but you guys get the idea.  I've seen alot of folks mention the use of these units (frequently, they double as redirectors or speed-bump flank protection).  My question is: how many of you a.) use them, and b.) think they are a vital part of your game.

Personally, I do not use them.  I go for the very small number of units, finish deploying first and get +1 to go first strategy.  Yes, this frequently gives me something of a handicap during deployment, but I look at it as also giving me the initiative.  By placing my important, hard-hitting units first, I am indirectly dictating where his units will go.  Either my opponent will place them out of the way, in safety, or they'll pick up the gauntlet and place themselves in a position to challenge my heavy hitters with their own.  I always try to deny a flank, typically use my toughest unit to bait my opponent, and then set up supporting counter-charges (just in case things go bad  ).  Getting that +1 has frequently made the difference in me getting to go first, which in turn gives me first chance to charge (unlikely, but still), first chance to maneuver (and ogres move fast), first magic phase (so my buffs are in place), and first shooting phase (I'm a bit of a leadbelcher nut).

Risky, but that's just my preference, and it's served me pretty well.  How about you folks?

I would think you dont get the charge as often as you like and you get flanked a lot by this strategy.. and if that's not the case, you might need better competition?

Also by placing your big units first like that, your opponent should be placing his best match ups exactly where he wants...

[Darkminion]

I usually play 2400 points. My core is mainly 10 Ironguts with full command and banner of discipline for an even 475 points. This leaves me with 125 points to fill in for Gnoblars. I fill this in in different ways, with or without trappers, but usually 2x10 naked Gnobs and 1 unit of 20 trappers.

Further I put in as many sabretusks as possible. Most times this is 2 due to tourney rules around here.

Next to these guys Indeed the Ironblasters can be put on the table giving next to nothing away to your opponent. If he still has units to put in, then come my 2 units of 2 mournfang.

In short, yes I use 'trash drops'. deployment for me is a very important part of the game. If my opponent puts in 3 horde units on the board he is more then welcome to get the +1 for who starts first, no problem for me there. I simply get to pick which one I handle first, which one I keep away until I am ready with the first and which one I will shoot to bits. This is a bit black and white offcourse, but those small cheap units can really win you the game.

Also, a simple +1 gives no garantees for the first turn. It is still just a single roll in which I only have to roll one point higher then my opponent. for me at least in many games I play, it happens very often that I may still begin the game eventhough only half my army was put on the table when my opponent was finished.

Next, although having the first turn can be nice, so can having the last turn in the game. Knowing throughout the game that you will have the final word in the match can really give you an edge when around turn 5 people start to calculate what they can still and cannot do anymore. Having the last turn can be very nice!

D...

[Nihmwit]

You're right, first turn charges are a very atypical thing, but they do happen on occasion.  As for being flanked; no not really.  I don't field 'chaff;' with the exception of the leadbelchers, the only unit's I field are heavy hitters.  The prospect of hitting my main-line fighting unit in the flank, and then facing a flank charge YOURSELF by 8 maneaters, or 9 bulls led by a character is typically all the discouragement I need to prevent flank charges.  As for redirectors and chaff, I rarely have trouble blowing it out of the way with ironblasters, leadbelchers, and/or maneaters.

As for the quality of players I face, I'm the newest player there.  There are a fair number of casual players in my league, and then the top division is full of some of the nastiest players in the SoCal region.  I occasionally play some of them for learning games and to pick up dirty tricks  , but overall I'm the new guy in a fairly broad range of talent.  Doing pretty well so far.

[grey templar]

Sabres and Ironblasters do this job for me.

By the time they are deployed I will have a really solid idea of where my opponent's things are going to end up.

At 2500+(most of my friendly games and nearly all tournaments) my opponent will be running short on room as most other armies Chaff still has a fairly large footprint compared to Sabres and Ironblasters.

This creates lots of open space in my zone and less in his. So I have an idea of where he will be forced to place his units, especially considering the terrain layout and deployment type.

Dawn attack and Blood and Glory in particular will limit many armies deployments. With Dawn attack you know where everything is going to be(left, center, right) or close enough. Blood and Glory is a narrow deployment zone so it can be a squeeze.

[Davespaceman]

I have never thought about the ironblaster being a 'trash drop' thanks

[Gongoro]

2 Sabretusks and an Ironblaster help me to see where the opponent is setting up.  I am expecting to play High Elves in our Border Princes campaign next.  I think I might drop in a Giant for a fourth drop.  He's mildly psyched out by the size of the models in play, so I figured it couldn't hurt to drop in something larger.

I'm still getting the hang of leaving enough room in deployment for my own battle line, though my Slaughtermaster and BSB now usually end up in a "Quarterback" position for a quality leadership bubble.

[St. EvO]

I use "trash drops" frequently. My units of choice (under 3K) are three sabertusks and an ironblaster. They give me a wealth of options in seeing the board take shape and allowing me to preemptively dictacte what the matchups will be.

The concept I always strive for is the rock and hard spot. Today for example my opponent tried to deny a flank against me. I had 4 placements to see nearly his entire plan and proceeded to play his army for him through movement and matchups. After all units were down I placed Maneaters on the flank. Leaving him with very difficult decisions. To ignore the flanking unit and incoming sabertusks left his support units open to be demolished. To deal with them promptly allowed the bulk of my force to cross the board unscathed. Neither option being good for him, but excellent for me.

Ogres have a very interesting ability to "control" the movement phase, and that will start with the deployment phase. So it is in that respect that "trash" drops are anything but.

[newsun]

I've recently been holding my chaff for last drops as this will likely draw out their counter to my nasty units and I would rather know where they are based on this and be able to counter with my chaff redirectors. Also often I have been just putting Mournfang dead center as they can reach many things from there and if they put all their chaff central, it can allow me to divide their line with their own junk on occasion.

[Wildcard]

I'm on record as saying that it isn't the mournfang or the ironblasters that make our army competitive, it's the sabretusks.

Having three cheap mobile deployment drops, essentially eagles for our intents and purposes, gives us the ability to dictate deployment.  Added to small gnoblar tripper units, this lone makes our army great.

Ironblasters and mournfang are just nifty additions that kick butt.

Trash drops???  No sir!!!  Best drops in the list!!

[Deroga]

 have adopted a kind of 'reverse' deployment strategy, where i deploy my main units first, and then reactively deploy supporting units. The main reason for this is because of how i generally build my lists. Almost every army i own follows the following basic list building strategy...

General
BSB
3 Healthy size combat Infantry blocks (majority of my points)
Supporting units (chariots, cavalry, fast cav, skirmishers, monsters, etc.)


I have time and time again tried to deploy the supporting units, which includes trash, first so that i can reactively deploy my main battle line, but the main battle line almost always ends up in the same spot, in the middle of the board, with the bsb and general deployed in the center unit, which is usually a specific unit that was taken to bunker the bsb and/or general, with the 2 additional combat units deployed on either side of the bunker. This is where my main battle line can get full BsB + General coverage, and generally maneuver the most effectively. Lets face it, if you play against a Warrior of Chaos army that has a unit of 24-30 Warriors and 2 units of 50-60 Great Weapon Marauders, do you really not know where the units are going? lol. Same can be said about a Slaan + Temple Guard with 2 units of Saraus/Skrox.

What the OP states about indirectly dictating where the opponent deploys is what i have found to generally be true. I start by deploying my 3 main battle units, with the most elite unit bunkering my General and BSB in the middle of the board, and the other 2 (usually) identical combat units on either side of the bunker. By doing this i have set the place for the main battle, and usually dictate that my opponent will deploy their most killy/survivable unit in the center of the table directly across from my bunker, with other combat units or combat supporting units to face of with my other 2 combat units. Generally, what i have described above almost always happens.

Now, after the enemy has deployed trash and, usually, supporting units, and now that i know where the main battle is going to take place, i then deploy my supporting units to counter his supporting units and trash redirectors, assist one of my flank combat units that got paired against a solid counter, as well as assist on, usually, a flank that i want to roll up. As long as a list has reliable means to remove enemy trash/redirecting units, you don't have to try to out deploy your opponent by taking excess trash units.

I want to emphasize that my deployment strategy is not necessarily necessarily better than the common 'trash first, combat units second' strategy, but that for particular list builds, i have found it to be far more effective.

[Gongoro]

I have adopted a kind of 'reverse' deployment strategy, where i deploy my main units first, and then reactively deploy supporting units.

I like this.  If we deploy in a proper battle bubble, with good Ld support, then we force the enemy to react to what's coming.  You could then use support units to try and disrupt the opponent's counter-strategy.

[Darkminion]

I have adopted a kind of 'reverse' deployment strategy, where i deploy my main units first, and then reactively deploy supporting units.

I like this.  If we deploy in a proper battle bubble, with good Ld support, then we force the enemy to react to what's coming.  You could then use support units to try and disrupt the opponent's counter-strategy.

I do not really agree with this. You do not 'force' your opponent to do anything. In the before example of the three combat blocks for instance, why would he set up in front of those, when he could simply deploy his main combat unit to engage for example the most left unit first, and thereby completely negate the thread of the most right unit?

D...

[Gongoro]

It's attempting to force a reaction.  I prefer to try and get my opponent to react to me rather than my attempting to react to him.

Unless his units are right speedy, failing to set up something suitable in front of my combat blocks means that those blocks are through his line and in his flank come turn 3.

[Lexy]

The main advantages of having few drops are:
- higher possibility of getting to go first.
- you have to deploy with a plan.
The latter one is also handy in this, that you don't have the opportunity to react and you have to stick to your plan.

In this case, you stick to a plan your army is created for and your army is not doing something it is mediocre in.
Also on the other hand, with a lot of drops you can play the reaction game.

[Gralph Boarbiter]

Personally, my Ogre army has no trash drops, and I would never think of taking less than effective things because they are cheap.  Gnoblars need not apply, for example. 

That said, I do run 3 sabertusks and 2 Ironblasters, but I would hardly consider either of them to be trash.  10 Gnoblars?  Useless.  1 Sabertusk?  Incredibly useful.

[Darkminion]

Gralph, why do you consider Gnoblars useless? I find them incredibly usefull and don't leave ome without them in most games.

The only type of match where I may consider them less usefull is if I would build a pure combat list that only wants to march forward as fast as they can, then their lesser movement might be a problem, but even then I might find use for them.

I'll sum up some things on why I do find them usefull:

- Deployment domination (well, already known in this thread)

- Fanatic hunting

- Mangler Squig killers

- Lone character trapping (10 gnobs hold on lone killer characters pretty well, especially with regen on them)

- Fleeing unit chargers (Oh? your fleeing? keep doing that!)

- Protecting Leadbelchers and Ironblasters (bumb, bumb, bumb...boom, hur hur hur)

- Dominating the movement phase (redirecting, force charging, etc)

- Trapper psychology (Nah, might do nothing to your knights......but then again, those dice can be tricksy huh?)

- Taking heat (I know you really want to shoot my Ironguts now don't ye? But if you do, those Gnobs will still be there next round mate!)

- Scout/Fast Cav march blockers (Roll those LD checks!)

- Fielding Gnoblars makes some tourney judges very happy and might earn you an extra point on army painting and assembly points (I know, doesn't make sense, but it really happened)

- Gnoblars are cool

- etc


Well, there's some stuff. Can keep going, but it is obvious I see them as very usefull. Why do people find them useless??

D...

[rothgar13]

If you favor the Guthorde and you don't bring Leadies, and you plan on using the Chariot half of the Ironblaster as much as the Cannon half, Gnoblars frankly aren't all that useful. Minimum Core is obviously not an issue when you have a Horde of Ironguts, Sabretusks sit on Mangler Squigs much more efficiently than they do, and small units of Mournfangs are better flank guards/heat magnets/chasedown troops than Gnoblars could ever dream of being. So yeah, conditional utility.

[Darkminion]

I agree with you Rothgar and yes in the type of list you mention they are of less value. And offcourse I agree that sabretusks can perform almost any of the gnoblars (min unit)  tasks much better.

And I can find myself in the conditional utility you mention.

I do think however they are never a useless choice in any list. Even if their utility is conditional having a 25 point unit with 10 wounds that never causes panic in anything on the table is never useless.

D...

[Gralph Boarbiter]

I do think however they are never a useless choice in any list. Even if their utility is conditional having a 25 point unit with 10 wounds that never causes panic in anything on the table is never useless.

When those ten wounds contribute absolutely nothing to a game, those points would be better invested elsewhere.  At the current time, I can think of nothing that Gnoblars would add to my list that isn't already far better-covered, and it is only in a very specific Ogre army that I could imagine Gnoblars being better than having almost another Ogre, for example.

If you are playing the gunline-style Ogre army, then sure, take them, but otherwise, you're "winning" the deployment phase by wasting points during the rest of the game.  I just cannot see the point at all.