Formations, dataslates, inquisition; the fall of the codex paradigm

sorry guys, no picture this time. Just a quick post.

The internet is filled to the brink with articles on how escalation, dataslates etc. are changing the game but there is one thing, I'd really like to take under the spotlight. This article (over on 3++) is well written imo, and the end pretty much reflects how I feel.

People are worried about how formations, allies and all sorts of detachments are breaking up the traditional FOC and codex divisions that armies have had. 15 broadsides frightens people as some of the best units in the book are allowed to be spammed even further (and buffed for no extra points). Finland took a 9 broadside, 3 riptide list to the etc this fall. We realised that alot of the other lists (that featured 3-6 riptides and even only 2 riptides) were just better allround lists. Now sure, a 15 broadside tau gunline is gonna just win some matchups outright, but it will leave more opportunities for its opponents to utilise to work around the list and win it. Those same opportunities that could be utilised against our 9 broadside list at the ETC. Recently, Eetu (one of our ETC players) brought a 6 serpent, double wraithknight list to a tourney. He did pretty bad. The list spammed units that seemed great in the book, but fell short on the table.

So if we follow the assumption that variance adds strength (although I have learned that this is not ALWAYS the case) what is the actual effect of the lack of FOC and codex distinctions? Added diversity. More way in which to fit units into your army. We all know that most codices have some highly contested foc slots, and some that are seldom used. This changes that. Although you could argue that all armies will feature the same units due to the lack of codex distinction anymore, that same could have happened before. Why didn't people play with the exact same armies before?

The underlying idea here is that all these changes haven't changed the missions being played, nor the points you have to spend on your army. It has simply allowed players more freedom in choosing what they bring to the table. The fact that formations get special rules for free, and the dataslates are ridiculously priced is besides the point, GW has always been like that.

Oh, but don't get me started on strength D.

Alternative deployment: finding the right dosage

Stole my opponent's skyshield t1 at the ESC.

Generally when browsing through the internet, you see 2 kinds of lists: lists that don't consider deployment options like deepstrike, infiltrate, outflank etc., and lists that are built around the concept of alternative deployment. In my gaming philosophy, having the option to utilise things like deepstrike and infiltrate really open up ways to adapt into matchups, something that you might find super useful in a TAC list. However, over usage generally leads to gimmicky lists. I'd divide the effects of alternative deployment into three groups: (1) Giving board control outside your deployment zone before t1, (2) postponing the commitment of your assets and (3) opening up new attack vectors.

The first group is pretty simple, but can be game changing. Fleshhound spam utilises scout moves to already ensure midfield presence on t1 and reduces the distance required to cross towards enemy lines. Basically, you could say scouting takes away a whole shooting phase from your enemy. This is a pretty "crude" tactic in that it's pretty straightforward and one dimensional. Shadowsun + broadsides infiltrating can place your unit in better terrain, give you better shooting lanes or just place your unit withing range of your enemy, no matter how far back he deployed. I'd still say that the biggest advantage of gaining board control outside of your deployment zone from the get go, is in countering these sorts of moves, counter infiltration and scouting. You don't need anything flashy for this, in fact sacrificial units are often the best units for this purpose. Did anybody else notice the 13 flayed ones running around in Hesselberg's wraithwing in the Adepticon finals? he said he'd taken the unit partly for this exact purpose.

Postponing commitment takes a couple of forms. Rule number 1, if your unit has the infiltrate special rule, always infiltrate. If you're deploying first, or your opponent has infiltrators, you can wait and see how he deploys, and react to that. However, any unit can fit into this group, just by being placed in reserves. Your opponent has to react to the possibility of reserved units coming in from anywhere on your table edge (or elsewhere, depending on whether they can outflank/deepstrike). Jevgeni, the Russian Ork/Tau player, placed his riptide in regular reserve (spearhead deployment) during the last round of the ESC against me. This forced me to infiltrate the big kroot squad to block off a portion of the boardedge (6" in so he couldn't jump over), to ensure that he couldn't come on at an angle that wouldn't allow my broadsides cover against the str8 ap2 blast he had. Reserving always puts you at a disadvantage on the early turns, as you have less points on the table, so if you don't take this into account when building your lists, you might not be able to take advantage of reserves, even when it might give you a distinct advantage.

Have you ever deepstruck a riptide? In some matches I've opted to deepstrike him, bringing a pretty resilient threat somewhere in my opponent's backfield, without needing to first hop over his advancing elements. Deepstriking and outflanking can help you bypass parts of your opponent's army, and add new vectors with which to engage. Against some lists, this can shake up their playstyle/strategy. Andrew from Team USA raped our Tau player's backfield in a mirror match at the ESC with about 90 kroots coming on from Joonas' board edge (with the help of a positional relay on his riptide).

Most players would agree with the above ideas in theory, but find it to be less useful in practice. Then again, some people build lists totally around this concept (sometimes referred to as null deployment lists). In my opinion, alternative deployment is something to never count on (and shouldn't be used in every game) but completely neglecting them would be just as stupid. There ARE situations in which these tactics work really well, and trying to keep the option open when building your list adds versatility. It's all about balance.

Unit sizes, footprints etc.

I came up with this topic when I was considering units for a Chaos Daemons army I'm planning on taking to the next tournament in Hyvinkää (it'll be a cool lost and the damned style army with ig allies but not necessarily the most stable list to play). I was comparing fiends and seekers. On paper, seekers come with way more attacks, don't suffer from instant death etc.. Most lists would include seekers. However, fiends have the nice advantage of a way smaller foot print (easier to avoid focus fire and hide behind losblock), and can stack more wounds into a smaller area on the battlefield.

Larger squads often have the problem of needing to spread out over a wider area. This was already true in 5th. Squads like Ork boyz (or seekers) rarely got to shoot all their shootas or attack with everybody in combat. In 6th, this has become even more significant due to the new wound allocation system. If you want to be in a position to push a certain way next turn, you need to stack more models there or your opponent's shooting might push you too far back. We in Finland try to always work in a blast or two to force your opponent to spread out. It can have a HUGE impact. My Orks really liked playing against crons, because they rarely had any template weapons. Against anything with blasts, your boys were just less effective.

Smaller squad sizes also don't always mean decreased durability. Multiple wounds, better toughness or saves can make up for that. If you have more durability on one point of the battlefield without needing to stack more models, that can work in your favour. I'd say this is most important with assault units. Losing even one model might increase your charge range drastically with how random charge lengths work. I guess that's one of the reasons 90% of CC units in the meta are multiwound models. 

That's not to say that there aren't pros to larger footprints. Some armies play against flyers just by denying effective movement lanes (yes 90 gargoyles, we're looking at you). Sometimes you might need a longer bubblewrap. You might be able to hold one objective and contest another with the same unit. In 5th, when tank shock was the bane of armies like daemons, charging a strung out big daemon unit could block off contesting. But with the way 6th ed wound allocation works, and how a lot of contesters can now move large distances in the shooting phase, there needs to be a good balance. A larger footprint generally means you're giving up your positional strength at a single point, and spreading it thinner amongst a larger area.

Mathhammer and reality; Effects on listbuilding

Mathhammer is a tool often used to evaluate in game decisions and unit choices. Although crunching numbers is relatively easy in-game, where you know the exact situation and variables, mathhammering during your listbuilding process is often viewed as equally productive. However, simple choices such as the positioning of your models can completely change around the expected outcome (this is especially true in close combats, where having to charge through cover or get singled out into a challenge can make all the difference). I'm going to spill out some thoughts in no relevant order on this very topic.

Mathhammer and listbuilding most often coincide with netlists. These sorts of lists have been built using the theoretically most powerful and cost efficient units in a given codex, maxed out. This will give the list builder the impression that his list will have the highest probability of success. In my experience, these lists often rely on certain factors going their way. The mathhammer has been calculated expecting certain variables. Not only this, but the lack of diversity means that there is a lack of diversity in the threats you'llbe facing. A more uncoventional list will most likely include choices that are not the most cost efficient choice on paper, inclining that the listbuilder has not been solely (or even primarily) relying on mathhammer. Netlists are often more one-dimensional.

What does this mean? As an opponent, you have a clear idea of how that netlist is going to try to win. I've often read on the internet of evaluating your opponent's most likely path to victory and countering it (I think I first read this on 3++). With a spammed out list, this is easier. There are few netlists that are truly flexible. The units it spams may be multipurpose and effective in more than one phase of the game, but they are still the same unit, with the same characteristics.

Once we begin to consider how we are going to counter our opponent's path to victory, it is equally important that your own list has more than one way to play the game. 40k has at times been called a game of rock paper scissors as different spam lists duke it out and hope to come out on top in the round pairings. This is because the less different choices you have, the less variables you control as you are restricted to a certain type of play. Differing deployment options, range bands and mobility will dilute your list in a certain field, but allow you more avenues to take over the course of the game. This is especially true now that 40k is primarily a shooting game. Take away 2 turns of your opponent's shooting and the expected amount of damage he will deal over the course of the game reduces drastically. With more units left towards the end of the game, you may be left with more options to contest, control or saturate certain parts of the battlefield.

Although I feel that theoretically a less spammed out list is better than copy paste, we have to remember there are way more factors when it comes to list building. Some playstyles lend in to aggressive dominance of a certain phase, it's really more about what kind of a player you are. However, it is important not to be blinded by mathhammer both when building your own, and evaluating your opponents' lists. There are many variables that can turn the tables, synergies that may not reveal themselves at first glance.

VIDEO: Playing around flyers....

Hey, trying out something new. Audio is terrible and editing is minimal, but when writing up this post I thought it would be better to show some concrete examples. What better then through an actual competitive match? Original video by the 11th Company.

Ruin corners, CC threat ranges and LOS

Just a quicky on a pretty fundamental change in 6th. You need line of sight to declare a charge. In certain instances this can have a dramatic impact. Utilising losblock with your assault units not only blocks you from shooting, but also from other charges. Jabbdo was toying around with scarabs behind a defence line at one point. Can't charge them 'cause you can't see them. Ultimate bubble wrap. Turned out it wasn't quite that simple. None the less, things like the corners of ruins (without windows) are perfect for counter attack units. This distorts threat ranges, possibly turning a stand off in your favour. In 5th, placing units inside terrain had a similar kind of impact (and charging through difficult terrain is even more brutal nowadays) but not being able to charge units behind walls or around a hill is even better. beasts/cavalry and wraiths that are the go to fast cc units of 6th might ignore terrain, but they don't ignore the requirements for los.

Random Charge Distance: The Pros

Especially when 6th came out, a lot of people were discouraged by the newly added mechanic, random charge length. Many people point to how it makes assault units unreliable, nerfing cc armies. However, there are also some good sides to it. How has random charge distance changed the nature of cc units/armies?

Premeasuring allows us to decide just how far away we want to be from a given target. When you are playing a cc unit, how far away does your opponent come with his troops? Does he go for the safety of 18.1"? Probably not, but how close would you go? I think a lot of people see 16" as a fairly safe distance. The charging unit needs to roll 10 on his 2d6 to make it into combat. But lets compare this to threat ranges in 5th. A basic infantry unit had a threat range of 12". It was a sure 12" but it is still clearly less then 16". CC units in 6th make strong area denial units, because your opponent will generally prefer to avoid coming too close, even if the risk of actually getting charged isn't so big.

This doesn't mean that a pure cc list is epic winning, but a combination of cc threats and shooting is very viable. I'd say you generally want a cc unit that can still provide range firepower (shoota boys are hot in 6th). I tried experimenting with foot th/ss. It sure provides are denial, but is too much points for what it's bringing. If the cc unit has a larger threat range (jump infantry, beasts etc.) then It's even better. Perhaps then having a dual function as a shooting unit is not as important (e.g. spawns, wraiths, scarabs).

In a game where are control generally wins you the mission, cc units are still very potent. The nature of cc units has somewhat changed for sure, but in a supporting role cc units are important, and got a nice boost in 6th imo. On top of that, the new way assaults work in 6th are very interesting, and the assault phase is imo the most interesting one.

Potential vs Probability

I've talked a lot about probability and how important it is when building a list and making decisions in game. However, potential is something that is often more difficult to interpret, because it relies on you going against the expected value.

Potential has less of a significance in list building but there are certain cases in which it can be utilised. Generally units that rely on potential are referred to as fear factor units, and it is the basis of deathstars. Deathstars in itself don't go against the expected value, they have the ability to dish out a lot of damage and soak up some in return. However, if you consider the entire game as one big probability tree, relying on single units can start to turn slightly risky. That's why nobody advocates pure deathstar lists, you always need supporting units. This leads to an interesting playstyle. We can take the American ETC 2012 Ork list as an example (I believe the guy also won the ESC). It's a green tide with a big squad of nob bikers and warbosses. He forces his opponent to deal with the deathstar (and pretty fast) whilst the 120 or so boys push up and are still a problem to your opponent. Your opponent has to destroy that unit because it has the potential to rip his entire army apart.

This can also be utilised on a smaller scale with units such as leman russ executioners or shokk attack guns. They aren't so crazy, but still something your opponent has to play against (e.g. spread out his units to minize the amount of hits) because they can potentially harm him pretty bad. It's a fine line between having a good potential unit and a shit army. Still, it's good not to be too fixated on pure probability.

In game decision making is even more linked with potential. There are always the "easier" options, and I see people often advocating destroying the easy targets first with target priority. However, in my opinion the probability of success should always be contrasted with the benefit of a given outcome. I played a game against Jabbdo a couple of days ago where I forced a morale test on his destroyer lord and immortals. He failed ld10 twice in a row and ran off the table. Then I was able to use his scarabs as a springboard for troops and coupled with deepstriking reserves I was suddenly all over his objectives. The destroyer lord and 10 extra immortals might have made all the difference. Now I was able to win with max points.

It wasn't very likely that he would fail ld 10 twice in a row, but what did I lose by trying? A couple of random shots that probably would have killed the same amount of models from other units. It's good to know your probability but you shouldn't read it like the bible. There are other factors that should be weighing in on your decisions.

How many flyers should I take?

Pic has nothing to do with the post this time, but another comissioned Ultramarine model I did.

Still haven't played enough 6th but after a big tournament in Finland (Turku Fanatic) something can be said about the meta we have and how we could possibly counter it. This led me to thinking about flyers. Flyers were in 2 of the top three armies (the third army being Joo-o with his 27 or so screamers).

In my opinion, if you have an army that can deal with flyers without having any flyers of its own, you're in a much better position to win the game. 3 decked out gunboat gk stormravens dish out a lot of shots, but you probably have 1-2 turns time to shoot at the other guy when he has less stuff on the table. This means that 100% of your army is fighting about 50% of your opponents. If you can put a dent in him in the early turns you might be at an advantage.

The problem is that most lists in Turku Fanatic were not very active early in the game. I was actually talking about this with a fellow ETC player today, considering DE Venomspam as a pretty nice counter to the current meta. This means that most players will want to go second and that flyer armies aren't hit hard early on when they still don't have their stuff on the table. Consider more mobility. Consider, dare I say, transports. Just do what GK did in 5th. Drive up 6" and disembark 6". You're more likely to be in range early on. Or if you can, buy long ranged weaponry. I might be completely wrong but I thought I should write up something after being awol for so long, and wanted to add a new point of view for the internet. 

On 6th Ed Armylists

So, after a few (yet not nearly enough) games of 6th and some thinking I thought I'd throw out a couple of thoughts. Mainly on how 6th has changed what we should be bringing into our lists. This is not an absolute truth, just how I see 6th at the moment.

I talked about how transports had taken the role of gunboats in 5th. IMO, they don't cut it in 6th. There are a couple of reasons. First off, they're non-scoring and non-denial. Basically, this means that if your opponent's list can shrug off those shots that you're putting out, that vehicle is doing almost nothing. There are some things that vehicles are still good at (road blocks and losblock if you're not xenos) but they are certainly not what they used to be. Second, a cheaper tank (rhino) can do those same two things (road and losblock) for cheaper. Ofcourse, transports are also begging to give away first blood (which can be a crucial victory point). I don't see MSU thriving like it did in 5th, because the infantry won't survive without tanks and with tanks half of your 1+1 concept isn't committing 100% into the game.

That's not to say that some tanks wouldn't be useful. High AV vehicles or indirect weapons might even become more popular in 6th. Just remember not to spend too many points on them. Flyers are ofcourse very good, but there is the issue of how many to take. I personally am not as convinced with going all out. What happens when you hit a mirror match? Both of you flat out into ongoing reserves as neither wants to give the other the alphastrike. Eventually the guy who's going second will get it. On the other hand, if you take enough flyers to put a dent in your opponent's airplanes, maybe just enough to cause some damage and slow them down in a dogfight, you can have more points dedicated to ground forces and thus "win out" on holding your airforce in reserve. Your opponent will have to bring his stuff on first.

It's difficult to say which is really better in the current game system, shooting or CC. However, I'd say that more codices are equipped to build strong shooting lists compared to CC lists. Some armies can make pretty brutal assault armies (I really have faith in daemons) but most armies have clearer avenues for shooty lists. Certainly, shooting is still easier and demands less commitment, but antitank CC and new wound allocation can make CC lists very viable.

Finally, when thinking about your armylist, go through the entire codex, unit by unit. The new edition can have made surprising units viable again (I have great faith in Eldar Support Weapons). You also might not want to take mephiston into every BA list. A second HQ is almost a must, so that mephiston isn't your warlord and that really adds a pretty steep hidden cost. Don't be afraid to try new things. I am, and failing every now and then.

Suppression fire and 6th ed.

From a game at the ESC in Poland. Got back a week ago and it's been hectic. Hopefully, I'll be able to do a write up on the ETC trip soon. But 5th ed is finally over for me and I can start concentrating on 6th. Now I'll just throw out a couple of quick thoughts.

Suppression fire was very popular in 5th ed. The basic idea was to generate as many low strength shots as possible to force a crew shaken or stunned result. A glancing hit was just as good as a pen when you were simply looking to reduce your opponent's fire power. This also meant you could deal with more targets as destroying every tank was not necessary. But how about in 6th ed?

Glancing hits don't cause results, meaning that the amount of damage you can generate reduces drastically. They do take hull points off, isn't that great? Well, it only has an effect once you destroy the tank. Many people are saying that low strength high rate of fire weapons are the proper antitank tools in 6th. But you are basically being forced to destroy the vehicle. You won't get anything back from shooting at those targets before they're dead. This means you can deal with less targets.

Penetrating hits are the only way to shake/stun vehicles. I bet low av gunboats will slowly fade away but stuff like predators will still be viable. Do you really wanna shoot at it until you strip off 3 hullpoints? I'm thinking most lists will need a certain amount of high strength shots (preferably > 8) to throw at gunboats that you want silenced but not necessarily destroyed. If you explode the vehicle, then that's even better. But it's probably more economic to throw high strength shots at some targets, compared to stripping their hullpoints.

6th edition independent characters and unit durability

A little thought on 6th ed and CC. There are certainly ways in which CC was nerfed but I'd say CC still has it's advantages. However, the role of characters in CC changed quite drastically. With the new wound allocation system you can greatly increase the durability of a unit. The key is moving into base contact with the right initiative group, so that you can maximize the amount of wounds you get to take on the character.

Whereas before players would just try to bypass Gazzy's 2++ by attacking the squad, if you chuck him in a squad of meganobz and position him right, THSS termies will realize that they aren't the kings they used to be. Similarly, you can increase the durability of glasshammer units like incubi by throwing in a shadowfield or Urien Rakarth. Bikes will probably be pretty popular nowadays as that +1 toughness makes you survive power fists without ID. Necrons probably pull this trick off best:

HQ1: Necron Overlord (90), Warscythe (10), Sempiternal weave (15), Phase shifter (45), Mindshackle scarabs (15) = [175]

HQ2: Necron Overlord (90), Warscythe (10), Sempiternal weave (15), Phase shifter (45), Mindshackle scarabs (15) = [175]

HQ3: Royal Court = [40]

Cryptek (25), Harbinger of Eternity (0), Chronometron (15)

HQ4: Royal Court = [40]

Cryptek (25), Harbinger of Eternity (0), Chronometron (15)

Elite1: 10 Lychguards (10*40), Warscythes (0) = [400]

It's just freaking expensive. The biggest problem is when your opponent has multiple initiative groups. Generally you'll probably see a single fist and then i4 marines. I'd try to block out the i4 marines, but with 2 characters you can ofcourse block out both. You can also force a challenge or make him not strike at all. MSS are really good in challenges. Ofcourse, your opponent should be trying to add as many initiative steps into combats as possible, possibly with an i5 character, i4 marines and a fist. Characters are still a good counter to many popular units (like THSS and mass power weapon squads). I got so excited I decided to write a list.

HQ1: Necron Overlord (90), Warscythe (10), Sempiternal weave (15), Phase shifter (45), Mindshackle scarabs (15) = [175]

HQ2: Necron Overlord (90), Warscythe (10), Sempiternal weave (15), Phase shifter (45), Mindshackle scarabs (15) = [175]

HQ3: Royal Court = [90]

3 Crypteks (2*25), Harbinger of Eternity (0), Chronometron (15), 2 Harbingers of Storm (0)

HQ4: Royal Court = [90]

3 Crypteks (2*25), Harbinger of Eternity (0), Chronometron (15), 2 Harbingers of Storm (0)

Elite1: 10 Lychguards (10*40), Warscythes (0), transport 1 = [400]

Troops1: 5 Immortals (5*17) = [85]

Troops2: 5 Immortals (5*17) = [85]

Troops3: 5 Immortals (5*17) = [85]

Troops4: 5 Immortals (5*17) = [85] 

Troops5: 5 Warriors (5*13) = [65]

FA1: 5 Scarabs (5*15) [75]

FA2: 5 Scarabs (5*15) [75]

 

HS1: 3 Spyders (3*50), gloom prism (15) = [165]

HS2: Annihilation Barge (90) = [90] 

HS3: Annihilation Barge (90) = [90]  

Transport1: Night Scythe (100), Elite1 = [100]

Total = [1845] 

Infantry always in cover, yes but.....

One of the mistakes I think I've been making with list building lately has been making the assertion that infantry are always in cover (which by itself is a fair statement if you play against competent players) and thus deciding that any high ap torrent weapons don't have a place in my lists. I think many people make a similar assertion. Especially when reading online, you often see people playing the cover card everywhere.

Things like plasmaguns (maybe even, dare I say, hot-shot lasguns) have taken a nose dive in popularity, but still have a place in armylists. Using a plasmagun to downgrade a 3+ to a 4+ is not very worthwile, and paying more points on your warrior acolytes for weapons that actually are just as effective against marines in cover as boltguns may seem just stupid. During gameplay you might not realise how useful they are. You're forcing your opponent to use cover. When playing against a list that doesn't really have a lot of high ap shooting (maybe just a couple of missile launchers) I'm not gonna use cover, I'm gonna maximize my range and rather move the sure 6" forward. The best spot for my unit might not be next to a crater. Situational, but just a couple of plasmacannons or plasmaguns might make movement more difficult for your opponent. He might pick cover and your plasma weapons won't do much damage, but you're already winning.

Some armies do this more naturally then others. lasplas razorspam already has that inbuilt plasma. Although I would rather take the plasmarifles on my broadside team leaders then crisis suits, a lot of tau armies have fireknife suits. On the other hand, a grey hunter spam SW list might not have that same kind of high ap torrent (but rather missile and melta which would be better off pointing in some other direction). Although grey knights don't really need that much of a buff, a couple of triple plasma warrior acolyte groups might be good just as a threat to your opponentm keeping their movement in check.

Same threat range, different unit types. Scarabs/Hellions

Was just chatting with Jabbdo today and we ended up comparing Hellions (as I've been playing them in my DE lists) to Scarabs (Jabbdo's been running a scarabfarm since the new dex came out). This is not concerned with their battlefield role, but how they play out on the battlefield with regards to their ways of movement. Same threat range (if you don't take into account tomb spyders), but there are some fundamental differences.

Scarabs move an initial 6" in the movement phase and move max 18" during or after the shooting phase. Hellions move 12" in the movement phase and only max 12" during and after the shooting phase. Thus, with scarabs you are more capable of moving conservatively, waiting to see how the dice go in the shooting phase, and then make a decision based on that. Hellions have to come within 12" of the enemy in the movement phase (preferably within 7"). Thus, even with a good run roll you might not be able to get out of your opponent's charge range and are more exposed then the scarabs.

Jump infantry has a certain advantage over beasts. They don't roll for difficult terrain, always moving the full 12". In addition, they can move 18" without charging an enemy, whilst beasts need that charge move to gain extra movement. Thus, early on into the game jump infantry are more mobile.

I think this brings up two different kinds of playstyles according to the unit type. Beasts are almost always combat orientated, jump infantry don't need to be. Beasts are also more about waiting, calculating and then pouncing. Jump Infantry, on the other hand, can be in your face earlier. They are faster but also more risky. Once you go for the charge, there's no going back. However, there is also a lot less your opponent can do hamper your movement.

Taking into account unit types can also help you play against your opponent's list. I've played against thunderwolves all the time. One of the things to remember is to NEVER give them the charge. As long as they aren't charging, they are slow. This gives you the advantage. If you let those TWC charge into your face, their threat range will ensure that there's no getting away anymore.

On the internet, we often see people just talking about threat ranges, but that's only half of it. How do you get there? In which phases is the majority of that movement? There are many other factors that are fundamentally gonna effect how they perform on the battlefield.

Mission Objectives, Win/loss vs battlepoints etc.

I think that recently there has been a swing towards rulebook missions at tournaments, whilst organisers have tended to come up with their own missions in the past. It's not to say that there still aren't tournaments that come up with their own missions, but often there are more combinign of rulebook missions to get variety but keep to the spirit of the game. Are these a good thing?

Out of the three rulebook missions, I personally think that Capture and Control is the most boring. People who only play for the draw can achieve it relatively easily. When playing Capture and Control, a secondary objective (such as objectives on the centre line or even kill points) should be included. Other then that, Seize Ground and Kill Points balance out each other in a nice way. Sieze Ground calls for mobile msu, whilst KPs favour lists with less msu. It is maybe easier to play Sieze Ground with an army compromised of large units (since you can string out units only slightly limited by the rules for units) but playing killpoints is more difficult with msu. In principle, an msu list should be able to suppress more of the opposing firepower and minimize return fire (saturating), but this relies on the assertion that you're playing against mech. That's why infantry is still good as firesupport in this game, they can't be suppressed. You have to destroy them completely. Sure, armies can often deal with 15 long fangs, but it's certainly more difficult and draws away more firepower. Overall, I think the book missions are nice, but they require combining different objectives to keep it interesting.

Some organizers take onboard other mission objectives, table quarters being the most common sight. There are a couple of ways to go about this. Calculating VPs for control provides more balance (although MSU tends to be pretty good with VPs since they give away less per unit) but control points (such as in the etc) tend to favour MSU again. Sometimes you might see a format where table quarters are objectives that only scoring units can control/contest. It is similar to the rulebook missions (maintaining the importance of scoring units). Out of these three, I personally favour victory points. It leaves more strategy towards the end of the game, as you juggle units around to gain a majority in enough quarters (and trying to minimize extra points in quarters).

However, victory points aren't really part of 5th edition. They were included in the rulebook, but I think game designers moved away from victory points on purpose. Should we follow the path set by the game designers? I like victory points, I think they still add to the game. They favour armies that deal damage and don't just aim for t5 contesting, but they only slightly favour msu over kp denial. I personally enjoy tournaments which limit objectives to the book missions, quarters and VPs. A streamlined version that plays purely the rulebook missions is nice and simple, but extra objectives add variety and require you to think more. I don't like it when tournaments take it further (e.g. escorting "objectives" or capture the flag). It can easily cause an imbalanced game. I also think that combining multiple mission objectives per a scenario is a must. It adds more avenues to victory and I personally enjoys those games more.

However, is it better to play straight W/D/L or battlepoints? I see both sides of the argument. In a basic tournament setting, W/D/L allows any army to snatch a victory from a bad matchup. It also doesn't ask for total annihilation (which newer cheaper codices tend to do better). It doesn't allow come backs after a close defeat. That can be disappointing, but not necessarily a bad thing. It gets players to play for the win in every match. In a W/D/L format, I think KPs need to be with a certain margin. The margin doesn't have to be big, but going first there really is no way of knowing what the outcome of KPs will be on t5 if there isn't a proper margin.

However, the etc format makes good use of battlepoints. When playing 8 battles simultaneously, trying to gather as many points for the team as possible adds spice to the mix. I personally think it's very interesting. It does favour catious play, but it also calls for good generalship to know your army's limits. I wouldn't trade battlepoints in that format for anything. This same theory can be applied to any team tournament. I think it's more interesting playing at a team tournament with a properly scaled battlepoint system (where even single points count). At a regular tournament, it's less relevant.

So I just spilled a load of text on paper about my personal attitude towards missions and formats. Although only slightly echoed in this text, I suggest that you all think about your own army's strengths and weaknesses in different missions and formats. Certain armies excell in a certain format (battlepoints vs W/D/L) and certain builds do better in different mission objectives (such as DE and the dreaded KPs). On the one hand, you can look to balance your army to try and minimze those weaknesses, but sometimes you just have to go with the imbalance, accept it and learn how to deal with it. I've won loads of KP missions versus space wolves with my DE. It can be done, but you have to be conscious of that weakness and play smart.

If you're not that much into tournament play, it's still good to remain conscious of these imbalances. When you play e.g. battlemissions, it's a good idea to think before hand about the list you're bringing. If it's going to show a distinct advantage in a certain mission, and you're playing for fun, I suggest you think again about your list. I know I've made a game just dull by accidently bringing along a list that turned out to be too good at a certain mission.

40k Fallacy: Armour Saturation FTW?

Something interesting to think about. Often what you read on the net is that "mech is king" and "transports=5th edition". However, I feel that this is not always true and that the game might even be shifting away from that (not referring to 6th ed.). I think that people are not buying transports because they provide resilience to the infantry inside and mobility is not actually necessary to win games of 40k in 5th edition.

Let's take a look at two lists, Tony K's Space Wolves and a SOB list:

Njal
Wolfscouts
4x8(+1) Grey Hunters in Rhinos
2x5 Grey Hunters in LasPlas Razorbacks
3x5 Long Fangs with Missile Launchers

St. Celestine
Uriah Jacobus
6 DCA, 3 Crusaders in Rhino
3x10 Battle Sisters in Rhinos
3x5 Dominions in MM Immolators
3x Excorcists

Which list is generally regarded as the better one? SOBs are generally regarded as the worst 5th ed. "codex" (although Tyranids have their own problems). On the other hand, Mr. Kopach has slaughtered everybody who's opposed him in Adepticon 2011, Nova 2010 and 2011 and at ETC 2011. Tony's list has 6 vehicles, That SOB list has 10 (3 predator hulls). Surely, that SOB list does a better job of armour saturation? I mean, won't Tony's rhinos just get picked off meanwhile that SOB list overwhelms its opponent with hulls? It was originally from this comparison that I came to think about this thing. Now let's look at my latest Venom Spam list:

Baron
Haemonculus
3x4 blasterborn in venoms
3 wracks in venom with trophies
15 hellions
4x5 warriors with blasters in venoms with trophies
3x ravagers

Why does this list spam transport vehicles? Sure, it allows me to better get my blasters into range, but that isn't the real reason. I could utilise other ways to get my stuff into range, or play dark lances. KPs go up a hell of a lot, so there are in fact negative drawbacks. It's because those transports bring guns. You see, transport vehicles are generally cheap (and low armoured), but if they come with guns, they are essentially gunboats. Tanks are resilient in 5th edition and the armour value of that vehicle has less effect in our current meta. In cover, it isn't such a big difference, and with melta (still the most trusted antitank gun) it really doesn't matter what your armour value is.

Thus, we spam transports because they give us more guns. From this, we can come to realise why that SOB list is not good. Those Rhinos, although adding saturation, don't bring guns. So in essence, they aren't as significant. Tanks still bring you there marginally faster, but people know how to play against tanks now, and rhino rush isn't that cool anymore. Atleast not when you've spammed it like that. Ofcourse, SOBs also pay way too much for their troops, with min 10 man (and 70 euro) troop squads. That just reinforces the point, cardboard boxes aren't that crucial thing that would make tyranids or daemons OP.

That's also why Tony's list only features 6 vehicles. It's all he needs. His list is all about lasting until the end of the game with his large hunter squads and wrecking face with njal. Rhinos help this, and lend him mobility. The lasplas add firesupport. He doesn't need 10+ vehicles.

I'm not sure how clear I was with my points, but basically this is what I'm saying: You don't just spam rhinos because they add armour saturation and transports. It would be similar to spamming drop pods, those points add up. You spam razorbacks or venoms, because you get more firepower. If you aren't spamming gunboats, then don't bother spamming over 10 tanks, stick with just as many as you need.

GUEST POST: You see it Roooolling..

I haven't been posting lately. School and other projects, for example an annoying illusion sometimes also referred as "life", have distracted me from 40k, the true meaning of existence. Anyway, I just had to force myself to do something, and here you see me (t)rolling... (...not hating... hopefully..)

I've personally seen them rolling. Towards me, towards my objectives, towards my army, and those blasted bummobiles are driving my 'nids and Daemons crazy. With GK I do have the tools, but somehow I just can't throw 6's and waste tons of psycannons on them. What's this madness... A year ago Land Riders were a joke. Nowadays they are a force to be reckoned. Solo, twin and triple -Rider builds have massively bloomed over Finnish tournament scene. Armies with mass melta are happy, but my Chaosjappies are not.. Playing 2 objectives against twin Riders is pretty much autolose without superb luck and crazy-hot dicerolling.


What has caused this? There are probably countless reasons;

First and foremost reason could be Grey Knights. When the Steel Power came out with their rifle-toting-psyfle-madness, they made rhino hulls sad metalpandas. Powering up into AV14 helps; even with psycannons rending, it takes really much effort and some luck to wreck or explode a Rider. I have personally wasted many shooting phases on 2 of these powerhouses with my GK. My friend keeps telling me to add melta to my army, but... Maybe I should.
Anyway. Taking AV14 might be a reaction to the shifting of metagame caused by GK.

Land Riders counter many lists very well. For example 'nids or Daemons, or Orks can't really handle them. Same is true with missilespam -type armies. Rock, paper, scissors is a good game, eh.. Well these baddies know how to play it right. Single multi-melta can turn your 250pts bomb into wastepile, but against armies that don't have them.. It sucks to be a Xeno. Deldar have lances, an effective way to get rid of LR, but many other armies are left out cold. This culminates in team tournaments such as ETC or ATC. Playing counter-type lists might help you win against opponents with equal talent regardless of some bad rolls.

AV14 is also a psychological factor. It intimidates and flattens, taunting you to shoot it, and same time laughing at you str8 weaponry, and taking a crap on lower str guns. Forcing your opponent to roll the dice instead of having to perform against the odds yourself is a serious trump card for the LRplayer. I hate performing with my die; sometimes it just doesn't happen even if it by all means should.

And one shouldn't forget the thing itself. AV14 vehicle, with variable good weaponry, cheesy machine spirit, solid transport capasity and massive footprint, not too shabby, even when you have to pay jackload to get it. Also, the model itself offers valuable LOSblock to other vehicles, CSM Daemon Princes, Mephistons and other buggers. To me 250ish points for all this is a bargain, atleast when bought into right type of surroundings (and I don't mean Hawaii beaches and women rubbing sunlotion in the sun -kind of surroundings..(wait what..)). And let's not forget the assault ramp. Assault terminators really do love this rock, as many BAlists have proven.



What armies then use these beasty boys? Lately I have seen Space Wolves, Blood Angels and CSM run twinRaider lists. SingleRaiders are often included in many marine armies, MohlieSM being a prime example. Nick's Black Templars with 2 LR have won big time in USA. Whatever one says, this LRBoom is real, growing, and hurting. Hopefully older 'dexes get their piece of anti-tank-cake in the coming updates.. If not, I know a rock that's gonna crush some armies big time.

Joo-o

Army-wide redundancy: is spamming a shortcut?

I firmly believe that there are three levels of armylists: (1) there is the collection of models, or "battleforce" list as they are sometimes called, (2) there are spam lists, which are points efficient and have natural redundancy as units are taken in multiples, and (3) there are good lists that don't spam per se, but rather find many means of applying similar roles into the army, and despite taking a variety of units, maintain a good level of redundancy.

Let's begin by looking at why spam lists are good. They often employ the most points efficient choices, thus ensuring that the list is optimised, and if they are able to find a good combination of units, they will have good balance and redundancy. By taking the exact same units, you have multiple choices performing the same role, and thus ensure that your list is not relying on any single element. This makes the list very robust. I'm not trying to say that a spam list is bad. I think there is enough evidence to prove that they are great. However, I think we can take it even further.

A list that combines different units and elements (the best known example perhaps being Ben Mohlie's Vulkan marines) can offer more solutions, or more tools into your toolkit. The problem with these armies often comes from the lack of balance or redundancy. Easily, a list like this might not have the same level of redundancy as a spammed list. However, in a good codex, we know that there should be multiple 'good' units for every role, and by taking these different units, you also make your opponent's target priority more difficult. Not only this, but you have more 'counters' in a world of rock paper scissors. A single land raider can be a real asset against certain lists. Not a game breaker, but something that could give you an advantage. Similarly, dreadnoughts can be awesome in some matchups, whilst still providing the same role as any fire support unit.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that by taking that single drop pod or thunder fire cannon, you open up more options, options that sometimes can be exploited. A predictable list is easier for your opponent to counter. This third level of list building is what I strive to. However, it truly requires skill and understanding to make such a list, and I'm sure I will fail many times on the way.

Tau Hammerheads; 1850 new tau list

Most people online believe that there is a 'default' heavy support layout for all tau armies. Theses default builds aren't always even the same. Some believe in double railheads, some in only broadsides. First off I'm going to say, there is never a default build. Tau have a good chance of customising their suits, and IMO you can play a wide variety of HS layouts, as long as the rest of the list balances different aspects out.

For a long time I just simply ignored the railhead. What I saw was a railgun, and I saw that broadsides do it better. Ofcourse, that is still true. However, the main reason why people tend to take the hammerhead, is for the big template. Horde control, which is traditionally an achilles heel to tau lists.

Against a horde army, and a good player, the models will be so stretched out that infact you aren't getting a lot under the template. The Hammerhead is nice to have against hordes, but there is a list type against which it excells even more. That is against mechanised lists.

This is especially against lists that don't go msu, but have large squads (the best example is Space Wolves with large grey hunter squads). Your chances of exploding a rhino are bigger then just wrekcing it, with railguns. If you do explode a rhino, it is very likely that these 8-9 -man squads will be left in a nice clump. That is where the hammerhead excells. Firing at these demeched squads, forcing wounds so that your army can cope with the amount of 3+ saves (especially since so many tau lists don't utilise plasma anymore).

The Hammerhead is also adaptable, it has two firing modes. This makes it capable of dealing with mech and infantry. However, often people forget that so do broadsides. They have SMS. This doesn't mean that the two firing modes are a bad thing on the hammerhead, just simply that that shouldn't be the reason you take a hammerhead. The reason you take it is for the big blast. It forces your opponent to spread out and punishes any squads that are left clumped. The anti-tank round is really for those bad rounds of shooting where you didn't manage to drop enough tanks.

How many should I have then? Many people seem to advocate 2 hammerheads and 3 broadsides. I personally think two squads of broadsides is better. This means you can fire at 4 targets (when your team leader has a target lock). I think railguns really form the backbone of Tau antitank. Crisis suits can surpress, but you need something to knock those tanks out for good. That's where broadsides are needed. Thus I will be trying out this list next:

Shas’el with burst cannon, missile pod and multitracker @ 75pts.

1 XV8 Shav’re Bodyguard with burst cannon, missile pod, targeting array and hardwired multitracker @ 70pts.

Shas’el with burst cannon, missile pod and multitracker @ 75pts.

1 XV8 Shav’re Bodyguard with burst cannon, missile pod, targeting array and hardwired multitracker @ 70pts.

2 XV8 Crisis Suits with burst cannons, missilepods and multitrackers @ 100pts.

2 XV8 Crisis Suits with burst cannons, missilepods and multitrackers @ 100pts.

2 XV8 Crisis Suits with burst cannons, missilepods and multitrackers @ 100pts.

6 Firewarriors with pulse rifles @ 60pts.

10 Kroot Carnivores @ 70pts.

10 Kroot Carnivores @ 70pts.

10 Kroot Carnivores @ 70pts.

4 Pathfinders @ 48pts.

Devilfish with disruption pods @ 85pts.

Piranha with fusion blaster, targeting array, disruption pods @ 75pts.

Piranha with fusion blaster, targeting array, disruption pods @ 75pts.

3 XV88 Broadside Battlesuits with advanced stabilization systems, incl. team leader with hardwired drone controller, 2 gun drones and hardwired target lock @ 270pts.

3 XV88 Broadside Battlesuits with advanced stabilization systems, incl. team leader with hardwired drone controller, 2 gun drones and hardwired target lock @ 270pts.

Hammerhead Gunship with railgun, two burstcannons, disruption pods and multitracker @ 165pts.

Total @ 1848pts.

I haven't tried the burstcannon/missilepod/multitracker layout in squads of 2, it might not work well enough in suppression and I'll switch out for twin-missiles and flamers. I just like the amount of torrent that the burst cannons bring for a cheap price. Anti-tank should be pretty solid with a couple of meltas, 6 broadsides and potentially the hammerhead. Scoring is fine and I like the fact that my crisis suits are divided into 5 squads. losing the ethereal is a blow, because my ld drops pretty dramatically, but we'll just have to see how this list does.