Astartes Tactical Treatise.

[Vaaish]

I'm honored. After checking through, I believe this article is finished.

[BrotherAtrox]

I'm honored. After checking through, I believe this article is finished.

 

Congrats man. :)

[Vaaish]

congrats to you too! :P

[Reinholt]

Multiple thoughts:

 

1 - Very well done Tactica. Most of what I read online regarding tactics comes across as either incomplete or underdeveloped; this does not. And I'm a hard man to impress when it comes to strategy! Truly a must-read, right along side Silent Requiem's post.

 

2 - When talking about Hybrid forces, there are really three distinct styles that I see played most often:

 

- Water Warrior style hybridization; the idea here is that the troops are mobile to avoid enemy fire, and as such, will often have a "focal point" that is their firebase, but beyond that, a rolling line that shifts to delay the enemy's impact on a firebase for as long as possible. If you see someone rolling out a dev squad, a tac squad, and then a bunch of bikes, scouts, and landspeeders, you know you are seeing this kind of army. The idea here is fire / fall back and using the mobile elements of the force to apply concentrated firepower while the core is usually in cover for the firebase. Multiple tactical maneuvers are possible here, as well as more complicated things like retreating encirclements (think Cannae) if someone will fall back with the main firebase in the face of an oncoming rush.

 

- What I refer to as "crouching tiger, hidden whirlwind"; given that there are some elements of the marine army that can be deployed either in highly inconvenient places despite having LOS (scout sniper squads, for instance) or totally out of line of sight (whirlwinds), I've seen several armies that take advantage of the inherent dichotomy this poses to a foe. These armies are usually composed of mostly fast moving "mobile" army elements that would be something like Librarians with gate, rhinos, bikes, jump packs, etc. Probably nothing slow. Then units that are specifically designed to be very shooty from annoying places on the board. The aforementioned scouts and whirlwind, the new thunderfire cannon all fit the bill. The goal is to goad the opponent into having to expend disproportionate effort to get to the inconvenient elements that form the static shooting, or weather the firepower all game while taking on the main spearhead.

 

- Balanced; this is sort of the force that was mentioned before, which is to say there are usually assaulty / short range firepower elements that range ahead rapidly (usually up a flank, to a weak point, or to an obective) while a barrage of bolter shells, missiles, lascannon shots, and the like are laid down from a firebase behind them. This is probably what most people think of in terms of a typical hybrid army, as there will be assault elements and long-range shooting elements, deliberately used for their respective purposes in most cases. Pretty standard, I won't say more here.

 

3 - On close range firepower:

 

One of the things I feel wasn't discussed was the "threat radius" of short range firepower that can force opponents to do funky things. The advantage of short-range guns is that, in trade for the limited range, some of them are hideously powerful. The flamer, the meltagun, and the demolisher cannon all come to mind; if a marine player is deploying wisely and moving wisely, you can force your opponents into some pretty unpleasant choices as they try to figure out how to advance upon a formation. Vehicles will often stay a good distance away from meltaguns, hordes detest flamethrowers (especially when they are in cover, the cowardly bastards), and the demolisher cannon, well... there is no other weapon in the marine arsenal that will quite put the fear of the Emperor into your opponents like that sucker. When I'm feeling violent I will sometimes play a three vindicator list, and it sends many armies scurrying like ants away from them. Used wisely and with appropriate cover / shielding, you can sometimes obliterate entire enemy forces in a round of shooting. Speaking of which, using combat tactics to deliberately flee at the end of an opponents assault phase only to blast him with the pie plate during your shooting phase is priceless.

 

Point is, don't neglect the psychological impact that concentrated force has on an opponent. Often, rather than deploying the firepower, the mere threat of having it deployed will cause them to act differently and throw off their gameplan, so although you may not get a shot, it's certainly not "wasted force" in that context.

 

Enjoy, and again, great, great work.

[hagg]

very nice article you have done for us, vaaish, i have just one thought:

in the part about combat tactics you write about the possibility to escape close combat, but do not mention, that you can also fail any other morale check. you could fail a morale check in the opponents shooting phase and escape from assault range too. i think that that is the most useful application of the combat tactics special rule,...

 

it is a really good article and it makes many things clear for me. thanks for your effort.

 

~hagg

[Vaaish]

Reinholt: I'm glad you like the tactica and I'm honored that you place it on the same level as silent requiem's. I agree there are multiple types of hybrid forces, but I'm sticking to broad categories like the hybrid mobile and hybrid static since all forms will be combination of those two. I'd like to get players to think more for themselves as to how to create a force based on the tactica rather than tell them to take X or Y to make specific types of hybrid forces.

 

3. You are correct, this is an oversight on my part. I should mention psychological impact under difficult concepts because it deals with the problem of making points back that is prevalent in 40k circles.

 

Hagg: this is true, however unlikely to occur often unless your enemy is attempting to soften your unit before assaulting. Most enemies who understand the combat tactics rule will rather target a different unit than risk allowing the situation you describe to happen. Although valid, because of its relative rarity and reliance on your enemy to make a serious mistake, I don't see this as a reliable use of combat tactics.

[Brother Tual]

2 Things that I would like to comment on -

 

First is landspeeders -

 

The MM\HF speeder is as you said - disposable firepower - However - Running a straight or even twin MM speeder is risky at best - why? what if they have NO tanks? bang - waste of points - you will kill ONE model - maybe - HF is only 10 points extra - No tanks - Roast 7 models - Might not be worth the points - but when 7 eldar rangers go up in flames - kills on a 2+ or that brood of stealers loose 6 models - you can bet it will recieve some un-due attention or cause absolute havoc - and the new damage table has speeders at a similar level to how they were before - The MM application is obvious - Pick the biggest tank and melt it - If 10 points is going to be the points difference in the tank you choose to kill and your speeder - then having 10 points more on your model wont make much difference in the overall weighting -

 

I deep strike my MM/HF speeders - nothing you can do about it either - almost always within 12 - flying it up normal will allow for a counter - most vehicles have weak side armour anyway - so if you do scatter too far awy for the 12' - you should be within 24' - unless you did something wrong....

 

 

Second -

 

Combat tactics has one more application - One that I think is more effective than combat reduction -

 

Combat tactics allows you to fail a moral check - Cool - So I have a unit in cover taking heavy firepower - lots of ap 3 or better + blast - Plasmacannons - Go to ground - Score a 3+ cover save or what ever - even a 6+ in the open - its beter than nothing - This wont save all your marines but it will save some - Providing you loose 25% you can now elect to fall back - Falling back breaks pinning - You are now ready to shoot and because of ATSKNF you dont count as moving - ever had that sinking feeling when a battle cannon hits 7 models in the open? Try this - its basically a free 6+ save

 

You can check that one up if you want - I know it works and I know it is 100% legal without bending or wishful reading -

[Vaaish]

Without getting into a lengthy discussion on which is better, I think you underestimate the utility of the MM speeder. While it may come up that your enemy has no tanks, he will likely have several high point units that you can target. for instance, targeting terminators a single model will nearly "pay" back the speeder. second, you gain value from the effort the enemy needs to expend to take out the speeder. Is it risky? yes, but the benefit usually outweighs the risk and the points saved can be used to better outfit other units.

 

I believe that although what you mention would work, but most of the time this won't net you anything useful. Adding +1 to a cover save is marginal at best unless you would otherwise have no save and circumventing the pinning puts you an average of 7" back towards your board edge and likely out of position. The overall effect on a full size squad is that you will perhaps survive with slightly more models but you will have to advance again to close range and you aren't guaranteed that falling back will even prevent you from being targeted again. I can see some utility if the fallback will place the unit out of LOS or would otherwise have no cover save, but I think it is extremely limited.

 

EDIT: I've updated the tactical to include psychological considerations at teh end of difficult concept.

[Brother Tual]

I think that it is fine not to get into a lengthy discussion on what is a better unit - but telling me what is not a good unit that I know which works well is what I am commenting on -

 

A quick example is nids - a mm speeder is going to be ignored - it cant do anything really effectual without a continued existance - it will be destroyed at the lesuire of your opponent - Even termies - 5+ invul. Atleast the flamer can get marine squads to start taking 6 or more saves - They cannot ignore it - and for only the ten points I believe it is folly to advise against the heavy flamer - even in a tank hunting role - A simple weapon destroyed result is practically the death of my speeder - it physically cannot do anything but contest - The heavy flamer still gives it applicability - and a Heavy flamer can still penetrate rear armour - risky, but if that melta missed and you have only move 6' - atleast you get another go...

 

I would just like to point out also - A landspeeder - this one in-particular - is a shock weapon - not a points score back weapon - Its greatest ability is to deny the enemy a means rather than score you a win - Destroying that landraider - whilst a NICE points score back - hurts more because his uber unit of assault termies are WALKING - or a pred destructor or whirlwind (or whatever cheap vehicle they might employ) which is the backbone of their stopping fire power is destroyed, reduces the enemy more than the sum of the intrinsic points value attributed to that unit - you just have to pick the right thing to kill - even a rhino with stern guard or a full tactical squad is a good target - and the heavy flamer only increases what you can kill in the short amount of time that it is likely to live... This 'backbone' is NOT always a VEHICLE nor is it always delt with by a SINGLE str 8 ap 1 shot - Destroy their momentum - not their army - you will be disappointed every time if you expect it to decimate your opponents army - it will decimate their momentum in a much more reliable fashion -

 

The fall back is limited - But it is an option worth considering or being privy to at the least - A unit high in a building is unlikely to fall back more than two levels - effectively holding the same range - A unit hit hard by a battle cannon in the open is unlikely to retain effective firepower barring the heavy weapon anyway - all you have done increase the range (which most heavy weapons can still suppliment the negative effects of) and with the amount of bolter fire loss through casualties alone, the increased distance is negligable to the effect your unit MIGHT have were it 7 inches closer - Secondly, it keeps your SCORING units alive just that little bit longer - you only need one marine and you cant win without them!! If it saves you only one marine - thats one more they have to kill - again....

[Vaaish]

I don't believe I ever said that it was good or bad, only confused because of the split weapons loadout and that taking one weapon or the other helps to clarify the role of the unit. I've agreed it's a risky venture to take only a single weapon on the speeder, but one I think is worthwhile given the life expectancy of a disposable firepower unit. In my experience, the MM speeder can't be ignored, no matter what you have. If you do it will plink away all game and TMC can't ignore a S8AP1 shot forever. Even if the weapon is destroyed, the contesting of objectives makes the speeder impossible for your enemy to ignore and he still hasn't gotten any KP from it. Both of those make it necessary for him to direct additional firepower to take down what amounts to a nonessential unit. Because of the range the unit is operating at and it's fragility, I don't think that taking the HF with the MM is the best idea. Those 10 points can get a combiweapon or, if I remember right, a power weapon for a tactical squad; both of which provides better utility and are generally more durable uses of the points than adding weapons to an easily destroyed unit. Remember capability isn't necessarily the sum total of the firepower the speeder has.

 

I agree with your second paragraph except for the last bit, The HF isn't guaranteed to increase the damage you do. If you deep strike you pick one or the other, same with moving over 6". If you are assuming the unit will only survive one turn to do anything I think it makes better sense to make it as efficient as possible with the fewest points possible. It should never be the point that your army hinges on so that even if all it does is cause him to divert his weapons for a turn from your key units it has still been effective. It may never decimate his force but it can force some unpleasant choices.

 

All options are worth considering, dismissing them outright is poor thinking, but it doesn't change my point that it has very marginal utility. At best it will save one marine and will probably drop you back 7" which puts out out of position if you are on an objective. It won't greatly affect how long it keeps the squad alive. Even a 5 man squad will likely survive the battle cannon with one member alive and be 7" closer than using go to ground and combat tactics. If you are able to reach assault range it's likely better than shooting your one heavy weapon at the front AV of whatever has the battlecannon anyway making that seven inches vital. The use of this, while cool to be able to circumvent the pinning restriction, just doesn't make it effective except in extremely limited situations.

[Reinholt]

My comments:

 

1 - The utility of the MM only speeder vs. the MM / HF speeder is an argument that must be addressed in two pieces, and I think both have been touched on.

 

First, can I do something useful with the additional weapon? Against some armies, yes. Against some armies, no. It also depends what you use the speeder for; you can use it on vehicles OR infantry, but the weapons don't have the same optimal target.

 

Second, what else can you do with the cost? If I have a better spot to spend the points, I should. That's the ultimate question for everything; not is it good, but is it better than everything else I can do with the points? If you always adopt this strenuous test for adding new units to the army (is this the best marginal utility I can get), then you are going to have a pretty lean and mean list. This is also partially dependent on what else you already have in your list, of course...

 

2 - To give my answer? I take MM only speeders. Why? There is almost always something good to hit with them, and likewise, they almost always die. Any speeder intended to get in close is going to get freaking shelled, so I'd prefer to limit the loadout and make them as cheap as possible. I may be a bit more liberal with my long-distance speeders, because I will often hide them and be selective about them before blowing across the board at the end.

 

3 - I like the psychology situation. Well said.

 

To add a point that pertains specifically to maneuver warfare, the combination of high-threat weapons with high-speed units is particularly effective in terrifying an opponent. To go back to our landspeeder example, if an opponent knows that I have a near-certain vehicle killing / crippling weapon mounted on a unit that can cross the entire board, it presents some ugly choices.

 

Does he move forward and expose a unit? Does he cluster and take a very defensive posture? Does he dedicate significant amounts of firepower and maneuvering to try to take out a cheap landspeeder?

 

And will I just run over to the other side of the board if he tries some of those things?

 

These two concepts move hand in hand. The unpredictability paired with the threat is one way to make a unit truly useful from a psychological warfare perspective. I highly recommend everyone take at least one of these (either fast, drop pod, or both for a very deadly unit).

[Brother Tual]

If you are assuming the unit will only survive one turn to do anything I think it makes better sense to make it as efficient as possible with the fewest points possible

Exactly my point brother!! well almost - I would swap - efficient with Effective -

 

Remember capability isn't necessarily the sum total of the firepower the speeder has.

what are you trying to say here? I believe that capability is increased through versatility OR extra applicable strength - what else is there? am I missing something? :wallbash:

 

 

Consider what is effective - in the context of a part of an army - That means that if a unit that is a minority - ie. a single russ or single predator or whatever - then applying MORE or addition dedicated strength here is only ever going to result in a similar outcome - if one lascannon can kill a dread in one turn - I dont need 8 such units to do the same job... but scouts or something with an annoying cover or move through cover type unit (mass stealers in cover! - they just move too damn fast to let them 'creep' through cover) and if the addition of the second weapon lets me do this EFFECTIVELY - the single TANK/MC can be ignored because I have sufficient AT elsewhere in my list without resorting to shooting lascannons at snipers in cover because my MM took out the only pred on the table - Versatility often costs a bucket load of points - but in this case it is cheap WITHOUT a negative effect - versatility in this sense can only ever be a good thing - it doesnt hinder movement - it doesnt reduce any attribute of a speeder shooting its melta weapon - it only adds to what it can do - and cheaply enough that in the absolute worse case that you never actually fire the heavy flamer - the EXTRA points loss is negligible at BEST!!! Ofcourse - if you need the points elsewhere for a BETTER option than maybe - but what is better than a heavy flamer on a landspeeder? seriously - try one - eldar or guard will struggle with av 10 and a thing that kills them on a 2+ - doesnt matter WHERE or how HIGH they hide -

 

 

If you are worried about a confused role - ignore the heavy flamer unitl the tanks are all dead - or whatever you desire to plink at all day with the melta weapon - then use the flamer when the melta dies or there are no more such targets and ignore the MM - or pick one - after you see the enemy and ignore the other - Yes you pay more points than just the one selection - but its effectiveness is increase through directly applying it to what your army lacks as a whole in accordance to the strength of the ENEMY and his selection -

 

 

 

Does he move forward and expose a unit? Does he cluster and take a very defensive posture? Does he dedicate significant amounts of firepower and maneuvering to try to take out a cheap landspeeder?

 

And will I just run over to the other side of the board if he tries some of those things?

 

Am I supposed to answer this or is it a hypothetical? it all depends on my list and the situation (enemy position) If I have a landraider and a predator - Sacrifice the predator for sure - drive forward 12 - so you cant hide - pop smoke - move the landraider away but forwards - The predator is actually in a good postion - well as good as can be in this situation - you have to react now - I will kill your speeder next turn - I have a vehicle that you will only hit on a 3+ so a chance it all ends here - You have to roll the dice to penetrate - probably side armour - almost a given - but still - dice - Then I have a 4+ to ignore your shot completely - and THEN you need to roll either a 4+ or a 1 - or your speeder is dead with an almost nill effect as the preadator WILL get you -

[Vaaish]

what are you trying to say here? I believe that capability is increased through versatility OR extra applicable strength - what else is there? am I missing something?

I think you are. You've placed the entire capability of the speeder into the weapons alone while that is only part of the speeders capability, albeit a large part of it. Having more weapons makes it able to take on different roles, true, and thus more capable, but even without those weapons it still has the capability to contest objectives and it still denies your enemy a kill point. While it is no longer effective at killing enemy units it can negate their ability to hold an objective and force them to shoot at something that has no reason NOT to move flat out for a 4+ cover save. This gets more vital when the enemy doesn't have enough objectives to win and forces them to divert firepower they need to take other objectives to remove the threat to their own.

 

On your example, what you say is true. I'm not denying that the heavy flamer is an effective weapon, I'm saying that the points could be better spent elsewhere because speeders rely on their ability to move and when moving or deep striking you will only be able to fire a single weapon. Yes you can choose which it is, but in the end if you never use it, you still have wasted points and combat potential and made the speeder a more tempting target than it already is. Better to use those points on something that WILL be used and reduce the cost of the speeder to make it even less costly when it's destroyed. In your example with tyrannids. Even though I'm not killing a lot of stuff with the speeder, I'm negating his troops with a single cheap skimmer which is just as effective as killing them in an objectives mission.

 

Going back to the first statement, what you are adding is redundancy. While a single lascannon can kill a dread, having the MM speeder means your entire capability to destroy that dread isn't resting on that single lascannon. It gives you more options and resiliency should you lose the lascannon or it doesn't kill the dread.

 

On the last bit there, my experience is that you will likely penetrate the speeder, but you are NOT guaranteed to destroy it because of needing a 5+ to do it. Honestly, I'd just push flat out at the backside of the raider in that situation granting me the 4+ save in your turn while your smoke is done for the rest of the game.

[Brother Tual]

Even though I'm not killing a lot of stuff with the speeder, I'm negating his troops with a single cheap skimmer which is just as effective as killing them in an objectives mission.

Very true - but you have to be aware - as you said in the main body of your tactica - they are very easily destroyed - it is impossible to 'resupply' models in game - a dead enemy is a dead enemy (not necrons though!!! grr) - Contesting is a capability of a speeder - it is not one I would rely on as to its purpose though - it is - as we agreed - a shock unit - nothing more - nothing less - using it any other way is risky at best - I agree that it is a potential for it - but I fail to see how a heavy flamer detracts from this - it actually increases it through allowing for a second weapon destroyed result before you loose mobility - ofcoure - this is folly if you take the extra weapon for this - but just as using a speeder to contest - it is often the result of desperation or luck but it still IS (slightly) something to be aware of -

 

 

 

Going back to the first statement, what you are adding is redundancy. While a single lascannon can kill a dread, having the MM speeder means your entire capability to destroy that dread isn't resting on that single lascannon. It gives you more options and resiliency should you lose the lascannon or it doesn't kill the dread.

your tactica advises on taking lascannons - more than one - the addition of a MM speeder directly contests the role of the lascannon - granted - VS an overly mech enemy it will be important - but one that has little or no armour you are just adding to your redundancy in that you are paying for a premium to cause a single wound with good odds - As I stated before - this kind of versatility is GOOD as it is such a small investment - because the potential output is well above the cost of a heavy flamer and it allows your speeder to operate outside of the role of the 6 other lascannons in your list-

 

Those 10 points can get a combiweapon or, if I remember right, a power weapon for a tactical squad; both of which provides better utility and are generally more durable uses of the points than adding weapons to an easily destroyed unit.

Is this not exactly the same as adding in a heavy flamer to my speeder? A power weapon adds more to wasted combat potential - yet this is a sound purchase for a tactical unit? above and beyond a heavy flamer? how does a power weapon enable a unit more than without one? It only increases odds - a heavy flamer increases ability - I know where I would be putting my points.... :P

 

 

On the last bit there, my experience is that you will likely penetrate the speeder, but you are NOT guaranteed to destroy it because of needing a 5+ to do it. Honestly, I'd just push flat out at the backside of the raider in that situation granting me the 4+ save in your turn while your smoke is done for the rest of the game.

True - but you do realise that this very move is playing right into my design? The push forward of my predator (or whatever) was not to kill the speeder directly but to make it costly to target my landraider and reduce the risk of its demise - By boosting the 24' in any direction, my primary aim (keeping my landraider alive) has just been realised for this extra turn - I am not saying that a pre-emptive strike would have been a good idea - but in this situation - where you either had to abandon your primary target of the landraider (moving away or fast) or risk its annihilation before it achieved its goal - I put my money on the pred to take out the speeder - even with the 4+ cover - a 4+ will destroy you - a 3+ will destroy the melta - a 2+ will stop you completely and a 1+ will deny your shooting - so - with a predator - the volume fire it can produce will score some kind of damage - which then advances my goal of denying your MM a go at my landraider - I am happy - thats 2 turns that you have not fired your MM at my landraider when it was within some type of range -

 

 

interestingly - the fitting of only the MM makes your speeder HAVE to behave in this role - The flamer would allow you to atleast reap some kind of secondary (scouts?? - yes ---- ) target until a BETTER or more easy method of melting my tank presents itself - This is not really important though - I am not even sure the question was designed to be answered -

 

I like your tactica brother - I like its 'openess' and the ideas you present - I like how you define your method and how you hint at its 'perfect' application given a senerio - The last bit however - directly places undue negativity on certain units and seems rather closed - Some units have better application or are more efficient in a math-hammer sense, but whether a unit truely works or not is much more reliant on the skill of the player than the power that unit directly provides - In other words - just because you may have trouble with a unit, does not make it a poor choice for me - same with if you can apply a unit well, does not make it a good choice for me - the rest of the tactica has been good at avoiding detailing what is good/bad -

 

 

:) all smiles -

[Vaaish]

I think there is a little misunderstanding. I don't believe I've said that it is a bad choice, just that is confused and that taking one or the other would clarify the function and thus simplify the use of it making it a less difficult unit to employ. Our discussion after that point as been about whether or not its a more efficient use of points to take the HF or not. I'm not denying that adding the flamer increases the capability, I'm just saying that even if the weapons are destroyed the speeder isn't without use thus the capabilities can't be judged by the weapons alone.

 

You are correct I advise taking lascannons, but it was designed as a core selection not to the exclusion of all others. Once you have your core firepower you can equip your force with anything you want to customize it for how you play. I'm not advising taking ONLY lascannons just that they should be the base of your anti tank firepower. If you already have 6 lascannons, perhaps taking a HF speeder would be a better choice than taking a MM. Again I'm not saying the MM is the end all best speeder out there, just that a focused role makes it simpler to understand it's proper use.

 

You are correct that it's not the same as adding a heavy flamer, but if you are employing tactical squads at 12" you will probably get into CC rather quickly giving the power weapon utility. my point is that you will probably get to use the power weapon and will give you 3 power weapon attacks so you will likely cause more than 10 points of damage.

 

Perhaps it does, but I'd be willing to bet that if you have a dakka pred, my speeder will still be alive after the fire and it'll be in position by the raider, I'd be happy that it's firepower going into the speeder rather than a more vital unit. In the end this is pointless because each of us can always counter what the other writes and the actual game will rarely work out in the same way.

 

I do not mean to come across as closed about this subject. I've not said it is bad, just more complicated and a simplification of roles makes it less difficult to employ efficiently. If you can cope with having the conflicting weapons, that quite fine, but I've just noticed a pattern that questions on speeders tend to stem from a misunderstanding of how to apply their roles. focusing them makes it simpler to understand and once a foundation is there perhaps they will find that they can cope with the mismatch.

[badger nine]

I read your tactica, and allready I've thought of different ways to use my marine squads. I used to spend my tactical squads turns shooting the rockets and missing, but now that you've given me the idea of using them only when the heavy support choices are destroyed or theirs a wonderful oprutinaty has allready made me consider adopting a more mobile style of play.

[Vaaish]

I'm glad it's got you thinking! I wanted this to be a springboard to get things started so as you try things out, please post results and ideas.