Duality.

[Smirnov]

A bit offtopic...

 

Having bolters and bolt pistols, also changes a lot.

I've statements like this for some time already... What's the trick? I mean what's so super about having bolter and bolt pistol?

 

@ Smirnov - You have taken alot of what has been brought up in the discussion and woven it into a post that presents your opinion clearly and logically. Pleasure reading your post and hoping you stay in the discussion.

 

Messanger

Yeah.. I guess I should have read the full thread before starting to write my post

 

Edit - don't think I have read someone mentioning glass-cannons on BnC in a long long time.

well, I'm new to the discussion )

[Smirnov]

Edit - don't think I have read someone mentioning glass-cannons on BnC in a long long time.

well, I'm new to the discussion ;))

[bt2278]

I've statements like this for some time already... What's the trick? I mean what's so super about having bolter and bolt pistol?

 

When you have only one base attack plus one on the charge 10 boltpistole shots before charging are really helpful... :lol:

[BigDunc]

Might a couple definitions of these concepts be in order?

 

Specialization- The ability to perform a single role very well. An example of this kind of unit would be dismounted Assault Terminators or a Tri-Las Predator.

 

Duality- The ability to perform two roles reliably well. The two most common and obvious Roles are anti-infantry and anti-tank. An example of this kind of unit would be a Vindicator.

 

Versatility- The ability to perform multiple roles well. If a player isn't careful, he risks losing too much reliability due to the addition of too many Roles. An example of this kind of unit, IMO, would be a Crusader Squad in a Laserback, though others might have their own.

 

What criteria determines effectiveness and reliability?

 

Are Roles a valid addition to this discussion? Would expanding our ideas of Roles help our understanding of the Duality concept and allow for better use of it? For example, can a Crusader Squad be considered Dualistic because it can perform anti-infantry reliably well and capture objectives? Would this help focus some players into more reliable roles because they understand that even though they don't possess anti-tank weaponry, they still have Duality?

 

What other battlefield roles exist? Are other battlefield Roles an unrealistic idea?

 

 

I don't believe that power fists are taken solely for duality but rather because of a number of reasons...

Agreed.

 

But then is it a case of the unit or the general? Is it that the unit fails at what it is intended to do or that the general doesn't understand his unit? Does the general understand how the unit fits into his list?

Hence the popularity of blogs, forums, guides, and articles. This is what every player is trying to do by spending time researching outside of a game. Is it possible to establish a method of evaluating these situations? Is there a reliable groundwork that can be laid to create reliable army lists, units, and tactics that will minimize the variables of units, and in return give a general a better outlook on his performance? In time this will create better generals. The first step, as you mentioned in another thread Messenger, is "...to challenge the way we think not just about others but also how we individually view the game." Without that, a player will not grow.

 

@ Smirnov- Excellent point about how the size of a game effects the Versatility of units.

[Smirnov]

I've statements like this for some time already... What's the trick? I mean what's so super about having bolter and bolt pistol?

 

When you have only one base attack plus one on the charge 10 boltpistole shots before charging are really helpful... ;)

That I understand.. But.

We have to choose either BP+CCW or Bolter. Vanilla get BP+Bolter. What's the difference between the two? How is the second option better then first one?

[skryeguy1]

the 10 possible wounds can be inflicted.

[Marshal Wilhelm]

Amen Brother... black and white are just to cool.

Messanger

*cough* black isn't a colour *cough*

 

That was really weird because we both got the same webpage for is black a colour *cue twilight zone music*

Black can be considered a colour, by Chemists, because it is a pigment.

That's good enough for me. :)

Especially when talking about paint (which was the one that got the exception by the Chemists) :)

[bt2278]

We have to choose either BP+CCW or Bolter. Vanilla get BP+Bolter. What's the difference between the two? How is the second option better then first one?

 

one simplified example (no special weapons...):

 

10 BT Iniates (bolters) vs. 10 Codex Marines (bolters & bolt pistole)

 

Initiates charging: no shots + 10 attacks (base) + 10 attacks (charge) [s4 vs. T4. 3+] = 1,66 wounds

 

Initatiates charging (with AAC): no shots + 10 attacks (base) + 10 attacks (charge) [s4 vs. T4, 3+] = 2,5 wounds

 

Marines charging: 10 bolt pistole shots + 10 attacks (base) + 10 attacks (charge) [s4 vs. T4, 3+] = 2,77 wounds

 

 

Even with preferred enemy the bolter equiped initiates do less damage than codex marines with bolt pistole & bolter, just because they miss a shooting phase before charging.

 

Would we have the option bolt pistole+bolter or bolt pistole+ccw like standard marines... => 3,611 wounds in the scenario above.

 

 

And it's not a new 5th ed. codex thing: Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Space Wolfs (old 4th ed. codex)... all marines carry a bolt pistole in addition to a bolter, a close combat weapon or any special weapon.

 

Only our Initiates seem to have forgotten how to use them when carrying bolters. And it's part of the reason 95% initiates are equiped with bp+ccw... Cause even with army-wide preferred enemy our shooty initiates perform worse than every other marine in close combat.

 

 

Which brings us back to the topic :) : duality or in this case missing duality, just because someone forgot this detail when writing our codex (and it seems indeed to be a writing mistake. just look at our sword brethren with power weapon/power fist but no bolt pistole, or bikers, who can swap a bolt pistole thats missing in their entry for a melta, flamer or power weapon...)

[Smirnov]

Now I get it. Bolt pistols to shoot for bolter marines.

Never used them for charging...

[Brother Hadafix]

:) but, are you intending to keep a copy of the out come of this discussion? Could make for an interesting comparison against any new C:BT.

[Brother Loring]

Okay, rather than a HUGE 'wall'o'text', I'll split this into two parts...

 

First part in response to some of the thoughts posted. Some are specific to a question that has been asked, some are more general and have been made by several people. Some I'll save for my next post...

 

@Saadeath

- The math-hammer isn't quite correct - either 50% chance of pen outside of 'melta' range or 33/36 (92%) inside of 'melta' range.

- It is not that I'm looking for an alternative to duality, just looking at a better way to achieve, perhaps with different weaponry, perhaps with multiple units. This point will be developed in a bit.

 

@Marshal Hellmund

Brother Hadafix, Duality can be applied effectivly to Crusader squads by giving them a MG/PF. By doing so, you ensure that whatever is on the table, your Crusader squad can deal with it. Yes, a PF in cc is going to hurt tanks, but on the other hand it will only be 1/2 attacks, hitting on 4's or 6's with no re-roll to hit if it's not a walker. When you come across vehicles like that, a MG will be able to do the job, with needing a 3 or higher to hit, and str 8 +2d6 armour penetration, and a +1 on damage roll. Hell, even if you do come across something like a Dread, you are still going to want to shoot it with an MG (Because most likely you will otherwise be stuck in CC with it for a while).

- This was before my last post and I've highlighted a couple of words/phrases. I wonder if you would still use them or consider a different word/phrase. This is not meant to be 'I told you so...', but I am genuinely interested. The math-hammer would suggest that a single melta and fist are actually not that efficient at taking down even AV11, let alone anything greater. Even when you do take it down you're also having to place your troops in a precarious position to do so.

 

@Multiple people, but mainly bigdunc

- I personally do not see the difference between Duality and Versatility within this thread. Overall, yes versatility could be seen as something slightly different, but as we are talking specifically about equipping your force with the ability to face anything (i.e. infantry/armour/MC), I think duality is actually a better term. Well, actually Triality, probably should be used, but doesn't sound as catchy. Taking a broader view, versatility may also consider position within the field and role assigned, which will change things. In that respect, you may want the unit to do something specifiic (which a versatile unit won't do as well as a specialised one), or for example sit on an objective and defend it against anything that may come it's way. In that case, you want a versatile unit, but how is that different to duality in such an example.

- I think versatility comes into tournament list building. The same unit will have different roles within different games. This is a role within a game rather than a role against a specific foe (i.e. armour or infantry). For example assault terminators. With claws and hammers, the unit has duality/triality/versatility. But within a tournament list, the unit is pretty specific to a single task - advancing and tearing through their foe. Even within an LRC they can't do long range support, and if they sit and defend an objective, they're not scoring and use a lot of points doing so. Now take a 6 man MM/flamer squad with a lazerback. The unit can do almost anything. It doesn't do anti-MC incredibly well, but will do as well as almost any other weapon load-out. I think 'versatility and roles' would be a good seperate discussion.

This is where Duality really finds strength: the interaction of the army, not just individual units. Without the meltagun, in this example, the Crusader Squad requires another unit to support it. This only adds complexity (which increases room for player error) and creates weak links in an army.

- Again, I think my previous post would state that your first point isn't necesarily true. Can you rely on your one melta taking out the transport? No. Do you really want to assault the transport with your fist? No, you'd rather assault it's contents. So, there is a good chance (69% in my last scenario) in which you are going to have to consider supporting the unit with other anti-armour anyway. And if you do this and pop the transport, you've lost out on lots of bolt pistol shots into the unit inside.

- What is the problem with several units working in tandem? Whether that be a unit and a lazerback transport or perhaps crusader squad, rhino and MM speeder. This is what I'm thinking, can we achieve 'duality' in a different way or broader sense. Not just list-wide, but within smaller groups or combat squads. This is where the General comes in and hopefully these type of thoughts threads will make us better Generals.

 

@Messanger of Death

- Unit Vs General. Well I think in my last example (Melta/PF against transport) it is both! The Melta and PF just do not cut the mustard when you need them to succeed and you're a bad General if you put them in a position in which there is such a significant risk of them not achieving their goal.

- Yey, finally a link you've posted that I've actually read before! I really liked Pasch's post on powerfist and it could actually have been this post that started me down the path of Chaos... ummm... I mean doubting the ol' faithful melta/fist. Although there are some differences as you are very much aware (mainly cost/number of attacks/AAC), I think the thoughts are still extremely relevant. I really like his points on taking a fist as 'insurance' and against the risk of "dreadlocking". Both I think are extremely true. I will touch on dreadnoughts next too... :)

 

@Brother Hadafix - Thank you for supporting me to now (and trying to keep us on track). I will touch on some other weapon load-outs next too.

 

@ Smirov

- Duality at different points level is very important. But different points levels also make so many more differences. Different builds and different units altogether become more viable at different points levels. Lists can't necessarily be built upon to go from 1500 to 2000. Sometimes it takes a whole different approach to be maximally competitive. (p.s. @Messanger - don't tell anybody I got that from Stelek, they'll think I like him :( )

- Your example of two specialised units finding themselves in the wrong situation. In part this is to do how strict a general you are (and will also be influenced by your opponent). If you are creating a combat squad (see above - crusader squad/MM speeder for example), then you have to be strict that they stick together and support one another.

- I'm not so certain about your rhino/vindicator situation. I don't like shielding a single AV13 gun with an AV11 troop transport. That is why I don't take vindis. If I'm going to do it, they take PotMS and stand on their own two feet (tracks).

 

well, enough for now... more in a bit

[Brother Hadafix]

@Brother Hadafix - Thank you for supporting me to now (and trying to keep us on track). I will touch on some other weapon load-outs next too.

Wasn't not supporting you, just looking for gaps in the debate.

 

On the Melta/PF, how does it compare to Plasma/PF or PW same with Flamer/PF or PW? A unit with plasma has far more roles that it can carry out proficiently than a unit with a melta, and though a Flamer is more anti-infantry, combine with a fist it is still ok against that random dread, but has the plus of being the only one of the three that has use against units in Bunkers. With the other 2 you'll need to bust em.

 

I don't like shielding a single AV13 gun with an AV11 troop transport. That is why I don't take vindis

They have a use after that cannon is gone, or if you find yourself in a situation where using the cannon is not desirable. Tank Shocking (can also but used to herd units in a certain direction for example: you gun line) and ramming (though possibly suicidal) Vindis are great fire magnets to, good chance of having your units survive through not getting shot at due to its "OMG str 10 template of doom" that it can generate.

[BigDunc]

@ Brother Loring- Ok. I think I'm finally understanding the position you have taken. I would appreciate you guiding my summary in the right direction. As I think most people would agree, it is commonly thought that taking any units that do not have Duality is asking for trouble. This leads to designing every unit to have Dual capabilities. Brother Loring, I understand you to be questioning this approach saying that it creates unreliable units and I see you suggesting using Specialized units in small groups/combat teams to support each other.

 

Despite what I feel like is general disagreement with my posts, I see us being in agreement, assuming my summary is correct.

 

What is the problem with several units working in tandem? Whether that be a unit and a lazerback transport or perhaps crusader squad, rhino and MM speeder. This is what I'm thinking, can we achieve 'duality' in a different way or broader sense. Not just list-wide, but within smaller groups or combat squads.

Nothing! I whole heartedly believe in small groups and combat squads. If you look at my Light Mech posts you'll see me talking about my Main Effort. The Main Effort is a combat group. It consists of two Rhinos (Sword Brethren and a Crusader Squad), a Laserback (Command Squad), and a Vindicator and moves as a group and within range to support each other. I also mentioned MM Landspeeders and Tri-Las Predators. This brings me to:

 

Again, I think my previous post would state that your first point isn't necesarily true. Can you rely on your one melta taking out the transport? No. Do you really want to assault the transport with your fist? No, you'd rather assault it's contents. So, there is a good chance (69% in my last scenario) in which you are going to have to consider supporting the unit with other anti-armour anyway. And if you do this and pop the transport, you've lost out on lots of bolt pistol shots into the unit inside.

No, you cannot rely on just meltaguns. That's not the point of taking a meltagun in a Crusader Squad, though. Somewhat like taking a powerfist to defend against Dreadnaughts or ICs, the meltagun is largely a defensive measure, but it has more offensive capability to pop transports so the Crusader Squad can assault. My point using this example is to say, if the Crusader Squad is set up to have Duality (with at least a meltagun, I'm internally debating the powerfist at the moment) it does not completely require anti-tank support. Would I still have back up anti-tank available? Most certainly, but having the meltagun gives me targeting options. This situation is what I mean by Duality finding strength at the army level. Let me rephrase my early comment: "This is where Duality really finds strength: the interaction of individual units within the army, not just the abilities of individual units in a (relative) vacuum."

 

Back to the combat group I mentioned above. The Sword Brethren are Specialized infantry killers. Supporting their assault with both anti-tank and anti-infantry firepower is the Vindicator. To capture an objective, there is the Crusader Squad. Supporting both infantry units is a Command Squad that reduces the chance of failing pinning and morale checks, wields meltaguns, and power weapons. Furthermore, the Command Squad is mounted in Laserback. This can be used for First Turn Firepower or to rush the Command Squad to a point where they're needed. Supporting the entire group is at least one MM armed Landspeeder and a Tri-Las. Duality within individual units is not appreciated until you look at the combat group and likely battlefield losses and scenarios. There's so many scenarios it doesn't make sense to go into them, but Duality within some of my units allows me to handle lots of situations. Dual weapon systems creates redundant systems in various forms within a group which in turn creates Versatility for a general.

 

It should be said, not every single unit within a list has to have Duality, which might be one of your talking points, Brother Loring? When you look at the my combat group, the Sword Brethren, Landspeeder, and Tri-Las are all specialized. The Vindicator easily has Duality and the Crusader is only considered so because of the meltagun. The Command Squad I would consider Versatile. It can fill multiple roles but won't have a lot of punch in any of them. Overall, the combat group is very versatile.

 

I personally do not see the difference between Duality and Versatility within this thread.

Within this thread, you're quite right, there isn't much of one. My reasoning for making the distinction is because I hate the word Duality. The concept is good, but the word choice is all wrong. I think Versatility is much a better word to use to describe units supporting each other in multiple, varying ways. The reality, though, is that Duality is the commonly known term and will not easily be replaced. In the mean time, I'll continue to compare and push Versatility over Duality simply because of the limiting "dual" meaning of Duality.

[Marshal Wilhelm]

Again, I think my previous post would state that your first point isn't necesarily true. Can you rely on your one melta taking out the transport? No. Do you really want to assault the transport with your fist? No, you'd rather assault it's contents. So, there is a good chance (69% in my last scenario) in which you are going to have to consider supporting the unit with other anti-armour anyway. And if you do this and pop the transport, you've lost out on lots of bolt pistol shots into the unit inside.

No, you cannot rely on just meltaguns. That's not the point of taking a meltagun in a Crusader Squad, though. Somewhat like taking a powerfist to defend against Dreadnaughts or ICs, the meltagun is largely a defensive measure, but it has more offensive capability to pop transports so the Crusader Squad can assault. My point using this example is to say, if the Crusader Squad is set up to have Duality (with at least a meltagun, I'm internally debating the powerfist at the moment) it does not completely require anti-tank support. Would I still have back up anti-tank available? Most certainly, but having the meltagun gives me targeting options.

 

I'm drinking the same water as bigdunc,

The Mg isn't to make the unit a tank-popping unit, nor is the PF.

 

For 25 pts you add a degree of flexibility to a primarily AI squad.

 

If instead of giving 6 squads Mg and PF, I could buy a 3-las Pred. The Pred is never going to be able to open enough cans to feed the Crusaders. It just can't.

5 squads without Mg and PF aren't going to be adequately by 2 MM Land speeders, either.

 

Crusader squads are compulsory for any force, and in some cases very worthwhile. You'll never be able to find a better bang-for-buck upgrade as the Mg + PF one. You just cannot bring as much as you can when it arrives via a Crusader squad.

 

So as well as never being able to bring anti-tank firepower in for as cheap as in a Crusader squad, you are completely leaving the Crusader squad at the whims of your specialist squad/3-las Pred/whatever, as in, all it needs is for anything with an AV value to be glanced, and it can't shoot. So your squad sits around for a turn, wondering why the quartermaster didn't give them a Mg :wacko: .... If you have the excellent value for money Mg + PF combo in your squad, at least they have some chance of doing the business, and generally your squad is going to have to take a lot of damage for you to lose those two specialists (assuming you have a good sized squad to begin with).

 

Flamers only help you kill stuff that generally Crusaders can already rip. Sure it helps against Eldars and other strike first bullies, but the ratio between i5+ infantry to pieces of Armour is very low. Only the Eldars and Nids bring them (I think :D ) at least in any great number.

You need to get the Boyz out of the Trukk before that Flamer has a chance of cooking some....

If the Orks are in such a large mob that you need extra kill power, that is what the Vindicator is for. One flame is not going to trouble the Orks a great deal if you are about to volley and charge a mob of 30 with ten Crusaders.... :sick:

 

Plasma guns are at odds with our squads of greater than 5-6 men whose job is to fire that Heavy weapon anyway (whatever you have brung). The Pg is only of real use up to AV 12, and only really offers something over the Mg between 12-24", which is to get off one s7 shot.

Once within 12" it is two s7 versus one s8 (with damage bonus) ~ but even if you pop that transport with the Pg, then you can't assault it's contents anyway, which was the whole point of popping it, right? and then if you fire the Pg and fail, you can't use the PF as a back up.

 

With regards to killing men, one s7 shot between 12-24" is nice against Terms, sure. But who is going to walk his worthwhile targets across the tt?

Within 12" when you RF the Pg, you can't assault, which is the whole point of Black Templars....

 

Whaddoya think?

[Messanger of Death]

Brother Wilhelm and bigdunc are repeating pretty much the same as what I would say. By themselves a Crusader squad with a melta-gun and power fist doesn't have much duality. But once you look at the entire army and how it interacts together you start to notice that the melta-gun and power fist have their place (not in all Crusader squads but in some depending on the list being played).

 

Trying to compare duality and versatility isn't an easy thing to do. They are two very different concept. Within the scope of the 40K community the concept of duality is thought of in relation to anti-infantry and anti-tank (or anti-MCs). Specialisation (when compared to duality) also refers to anti-infantry or anti-tank... there was a long comment somewhere on the internet (a blog or BoLS) that argues that specialisation is better than duality as it focuses a squad against infantry or tanks.

 

Versatility on the other hand is a far more broad as it isn't restricted to the same parameters as duality (and specialisation). It looks at more than just ability to kill infantry and tanks but also the things that bigdunc has referred to such as claiming/contesting objectives. It is a superior concept but it is something that new players may find hard to understand early on... resulting in the concept of duality often being discussed when new gamers are looking for help with army lists or tactics.

 

This discussion means when a new player comes along looking for guidance we can direct them to either this discussion or an article that has compiled the core of what we have come up with. Versatility may be too broad a concept to get an article or discussion all on its own... something we would discuss when we look at specific units.

 

Messanger

 

Edit - don't worry Brother Loring... I won't tell anyone that you go onto YTTH and have had a discussion with Stelek <_<

[Brother Loring]

Oh well, seems I'm making no headway... I'll soldier on anyway, sorry if everybody is getting bored already, but you don't have to read it.

 

So first of all, people (and Pasch's article on PFs) have mentioned dreadnoughts and the dreaded "dreadlock".

 

Melta, I agree gives you the opportunity to throw some melta in his face, but what I'm questioning here is the PF. So, is it worth it?

 

Okay, a normal dread drops within 12" of your crusader squad. Your 10 man PF/melta squad moves 6" and shoots. Ping! Ping! Ping! for the BPs, and your one melta shot misses. Oh.... *%@$! What do you do now? Well, you've got a fist and the might of the Emperor behind you so you go for it!

 

First turn combat

 

2 attacks, 1.5 hits, (0.5 pen + 0.25 glance) - As shaken/stunned/weapon destroyed/immobilised do very little to help you escape dreadlock in the short term, there is about a 17% chance of getting a worthwhile result.

 

Subsequent round, this is reduced by half - 8.5% chance of a destroyed result.

 

Yes, those immobilised/weapon destroyed results will eventually stack up, but my betting is that you will be in combat for 3+ turns anyway. So what are the options?

 

Well, one would be to take some krak grenades. Before people start going crazy, let's see how they work out for us...

 

10 marines vs normal dread.

 

10 attacks, 1.667 hits, 0.2778 glances - 0 destroyed :(

 

but, what if you get an immobilised or stunned from either your melta or you were lucky with your first round of combat...

 

10 attacks, 7.5 hits, 1.25 glances - I know there will be no destroyed results, but those less important results will start stacking more rapidly.

 

Okay, so krak grenades are going to cost 20 points, are will only do anything up to AV12, but I'm just trying to show there are other options.

 

But, what is the best option? Do one! Get the hell out of there. It is really not too difficult to avoid a dread. They cannot assault from deployment and only have a 12" charge range like any other normal unit on the table. If one lands by you, shoot it. If you don't kill it, shoot it with something else. But for Emperor's sake, do not charge it, that is a plain silly idea!

 

Another benefit of PFs is vs MC.

 

Normal initiate vs T6 on the charge (likely WS 4-8)

3 attacks, 2.25 hit, 0.375 wounds

 

Power fist marine vs T6

2 attacks, 1.5 hits, 1.25 wounds (no save)

 

Okay, the powerfist way out-performs a normal intiate, but how many T6 MCs do you know of that have 1-2 wounds? Not many... so again, it looks like you're going to be stuck there for a little while.

 

My point is this. Again, the choice we usually make (and I'm sure will continue to make) is really not doing us any favours. Because we have a weapon which we know can (not will) harm the creature we consider it a viable option. I would like to challenge that thought. The best option in both of these circumstances is not to take our options against the dread or the MC, but to avoid them like the plague. Yes, they have to be dealt with, but do it in a sensible manor. Dakka and Tri-Las preds absolutely love these jobs, that's what they're there for. Vindicators are great, but if you want to talk duality/triality/versatility, they will only put a single hit on a vehicle and only a single wound on an MC. A trilas pred has a good chance of doing 2 to both. A dakka pred will struggle over AV11, but will put a good number of wounds on a MC.

 

There is a place for dread-hunting and MC bashing, but in my head it's not on the end of an initiates wrist, in my heart though....

 

Okay I'll stop there for a second, but crack straight on with some other options...

[Brother Loring]

So, some other options...

 

One is to leave all anti-mech and anti-MC to elite/heavy/fast choices.

 

...The end.

 

Only kidding, I've not made you suffer my ramblings for this long to finish with such a bad, boring option.

 

Okay so here are a few...

 

Razorbacks - I know there not popular (even with myself), but they do give some much needed support. I'll bring back the comparison of the chimelta. The chi does the anti-infantry, the melta does the anti-tank. We have a Razorsader - the Razor does the anti-tank, the sader does the anti-infantry. The squad inside could go PW, melta. Melta for the added chance of popping the transport and the PW will outperform the fist against most non-MCs. The squad, even 6 strong will dish out 17 attacks on the charge with re-rolls (as good as a standard marine squad).

 

The MM bunker - I used to hate this idea, but I'm starting to come around to it. The MM inside has a sensible 'melta' range (unlike a meltagun), and the simple fact of taking one actually improves your game (if you're sensible with it). If you take the 12" scenario we had in my 2nd post... stay in your transport and throw some MM at it. You should be within 'melta' range, and if not, don't worry, it's still an awesome weapon. But, you then don't have the option of charging. So? Your marines are nice and cosy in their transport so are at very little risk of harm and Rome wasn't built in a day! If you are working 2 or more squads (crusader squads, assault squads, termies) together, then this shouldn't be a problem anyway.

But, what to run with the MM. How about the plasmagun? So what if it is rapidfire? If you fire your MM you can't assault anyway. It has the same range as the MM and when the MM is in 'melta' range, the plasma steps-up it's game and double-taps. The flamer. Good option IMO. when you do get out or even if you're in you're transport and you're foe is closeby, give 'em some promethium!

 

Combat units with redundency. Marines fast attack choices complement their troop choices beautifully, but I've rarely seen them played in such a way. Our assault squads have cheap melta bombs. When you factor in AAC and melta-bombs, 24 points is a bit expensive, but not so bad for a very versatile (and I mean versatile not 'dual') unit. Bikes, with 3 melta - 126 points. Not really a great price difference to C:SM if you want to make that comparison, if not, 3 meltas that can move 12",shoot and still assault (they won't do a great deal, but they may hold up a unit for a turn) is very attractive to me. Speeders - any load-out will help us bring duality on a wider scale. I like plain MM because I don't like to risk them too much and they add an extra shot to said combat unit.

 

I think overall, more thought into the tactica we use which I hope will be started in several more threads. Taking PF/melta is not wrong, I just think the justifications people make are not so great. The best option for dealing with the things we don't deal with well is to get out of there and let the specialists do their thing. This takes good list design, good forward thought and good decision-making. The PF/melta choice makes for bad decision IMO. There are much better ways we can play our lists that would allow us to take better options for our troops. Again, my opinion.

 

Anyway... enough Devil's Advocate from me...

 

I love a good ol powerfist because I love to see one smash an MC in the face even if I die in the next round of combat! But, If I were going to a GT/Ard Boyz/Adepticon or whatever else may possibly be seen as 'competitive', do you know what... I wouldn't! Serious!

 

It's been a pleasure, thank you all for listening to my ramblings.

 

@bigdunc - yeah, you're summary is pretty close to what I'm trying to say.

[BigDunc]

There is a place for dread-hunting and MC bashing, but in my head it's not on the end of an initiates wrist...

Valid and excellent point. Good "ramblings" Brother Loring.

 

One is to leave all anti-mech and anti-MC to elite/heavy/fast choices.

I think this idea holds some water.

 

This discussion means when a new player comes along looking for guidance we can direct them to either this discussion or an article that has compiled the core of what we have come up with. Versatility may be too broad a concept to get an article or discussion all on its own... something we would discuss when we look at specific units.

Understood, good point Messenger.

[Smirnov]

My turn for wall of text :D

 

- The math-hammer isn't quite correct - either 50% chance of pen outside of 'melta' range or 33/36 (92%) inside of 'melta' range.

Wait. Are you telling that mathhammerwise melta gets more chance putside 'melta' range than within? <_<

 

 

Before moving on, I agree with bigdunc on duality-versatility point. It's just a matter of naming.

But if we are to make a distinction, I would go for versatility. It counts in a lot of points other than AI/AT power, but ability to score, screen, survivability, price and so on. (Judging by this, Rhino is one of the most versalite units we have).

 

AND I also agree with all mentioned above about the, if we can say that, degree of effectivenes from a versalite/dual unit. As it was said, it is more a quesion of added possibility than guaranteed result. When Taking Melta inrto my squad, I'm not counting to blow up that transport. I just know that if push comes to shove and I'm before an enemy Rhino with my squad, I have something to make a hole in that Rhino without having to turn around my predator or dreadnought. I still can miss. And dreadnought can miss. And you can get 5 'crew shaken' rolls on five penetrations in a row (seen that!). But I still have a possibility.

 

And +1 on list versatility thoughts. That's what I've been talking about mentioning synergy. One of the hardest thing in building an effective army list for me is making the list work. It is not enough just to take some good units, you have to put them into good use and make sure they don't mess up with each other. One example of the latter is taking Vindicator with high number of close combat troops. On second turn (and if you are 'lucky' on the first one) Vindicator will stop shooting by itself in fear of damaging your own troops or - even worse - because of all viable targets are locked in melee.

 

 

One thing that crossed my mind is price of the unit. Sometimes we can add some versitality to the unit for no actual price. For example, I have 1490 point-worth army. What can I do with those 10 points? It can be one neophyte, two extra armors, grenades for a small squad or melta/plasma gun. Of course, If I have the choice of either takin Iron Halo for my Marshall or plasma gun, I would never give the stupid getting hot gun a second consideration. But more often it's just that we have some points left, that can't buy us anything really neccessary (or we have bought everything by now), so these 'extra' points can be spent on small bonus to the troops.

 

 

 

- I think versatility comes into tournament list building. The same unit will have different roles within different games. This is a role within a game rather than a role against a specific foe (i.e. armour or infantry). For example assault terminators. With claws and hammers, the unit has duality/triality/versatility. But within a tournament list, the unit is pretty specific to a single task - advancing and tearing through their foe. Even within an LRC they can't do long range support, and if they sit and defend an objective, they're not scoring and use a lot of points doing so. Now take a 6 man MM/flamer squad with a lazerback. The unit can do almost anything. It doesn't do anti-MC incredibly well, but will do as well as almost any other weapon load-out. I think 'versatility and roles' would be a good seperate discussion.

Great point! Versatility is what really is needed iin the tournaments.

 

If you are playing against a known foe, you can bring in meta-thinking like 'ok, I'm laying against 'nids, so I need a lot of fire power with occasional fists to take down monsters' and even if it's a well-known army, you go even further: 'ok, Jack has his sworms, so I don't need fists or lascannons, but extra power weapons and few heavy bolters are a must'. This is a viable option and noone should shun it. It has few drawbacks. For example, having played only two games not against Space Marines of different kinds, I often forget what it means to lose a close combat, fail morale check and sweep through the enemy squad. So I always say 'terminators can't do sweeping advance? Who cares?!' Ans, well, playing against same army list time and time again dulls the game. It comes down to 'ok, we roll... annihilation. Bad for me. And it's.. Dawn of War. Ok, you win.' as both players know where to strike with what and it's left to the dice to decide the winner - you could as well just roll off to see the winner.

 

On the other hand, when it's tournament time, you can be up against any army, so you have to be prepared to any encounter, so versatility of the list becomes paramount. For myself, I like this variant. Yes, you can be more effective when you build up an armylist against specific foe, and it makes some sense fluffwise - after all, we do know that 'there are orks down there' before boarding drop pods, and sometimes we even have recon groups, who can brief us on more specific details on the enemy. But the idea of well-round crusade appeals to me. I imagine Templar force of one battle barge, containing one full crusade with Marshall in charge. They spend all their time in space, crusading for the Emperor, only visitin recruiting worlds when they need to replentish their forces (or more likely when specific battle brothers feel up to taking apprentices), so this crusade needs to be able to take on any foe they come across, because they can't go 'uh-oh, tau.. let's fly to maccrage and get some new guns', they have to fight with what they've got on their hands at the moment. Of course that doesn't mean they don't have reserves or that they field every unit possible, but still I think for Templars of all chapters (after maybe already mentioned 13th Company) are meant for versatility.

 

 

 

@ Smirov

- Duality at different points level is very important. But different points levels also make so many more differences. Different builds and different units altogether become more viable at different points levels. Lists can't necessarily be built upon to go from 1500 to 2000. Sometimes it takes a whole different approach to be maximally competitive.

Agreed. Different 'power' levels bring different choices. And if we can relatively easy upgrade from 750 points to 1000 points or from 1500 to 2000, going from 2500 to 1500 would be nigh-impossible without major list rewoking.

 

- Your example of two specialised units finding themselves in the wrong situation. In part this is to do how strict a general you are (and will also be influenced by your opponent). If you are creating a combat squad (see above - crusader squad/MM speeder for example), then you have to be strict that they stick together and support one another.

Well... It's good on paper. As was said once, no battle plan survives unchanged even the start of battle.

I don't want to say that we shouldn't plan or what you say is not true. But it won't work all the time. The more you rely on chance, the more disturbed the plan can get. For example if your strategy involves deep stiking, one scatter can ruin the strike. And not only that. A lot has been said about playing the army right, pitting right units against right units and so on. I don't want to erite same text in responce to every quote, so I'll sum it up here.

Maybe the problem is me being a sh*t of a commander. I won't say for anybody else. But I don't controll 100% of the battlefield 100% of the time. My opponent can outmaneouvre me. I can make a mistake. And I do. and my opponent does and so on. If some day I would become a perfect tactic, then I would forget some of my considerations, but right now I have to think 'ok, what if I screw up and these crusaders face up against dreadnough? Of course they shouldn't, but what if I make a mistake or the enemy is too smart?' I've mentioned it already - versatility helps you make up with some of the mistakes. It can't solve all the problems, but it can solve a few and it will create less then army of specialised units, even coherent.

 

- I'm not so certain about your rhino/vindicator situation. I don't like shielding a single AV13 gun with an AV11 troop transport. That is why I don't take vindis. If I'm going to do it, they take PotMS and stand on their own two feet (tracks).

Nah, it was just an exaple. I'm not using Rhinos at all at the moment :) And my Vindicators go by themselves - the opponent is too busy trying to penetrate three Land Raiders to pay attention to these fellows :))))

 

 

Razorbacks - I know there not popular (even with myself), but they do give some much needed support. I'll bring back the comparison of the chimelta. The chi does the anti-infantry, the melta does the anti-tank. We have a Razorsader - the Razor does the anti-tank, the sader does the anti-infantry. The squad inside could go PW, melta. Melta for the added chance of popping the transport and the PW will outperform the fist against most non-MCs. The squad, even 6 strong will dish out 17 attacks on the charge with re-rolls (as good as a standard marine squad).

Actually I must say that 'backs are good. They are expensive, yes (waiting for the nex codex!), but they are good and (sorry!) versatile. I've tried using two of them with supporting shooting squads and it was pure win. Personally I think that 'backs are to small for assaulting units. You can't hope to win anything with six-men squad (if we are not playing 750 and less games, but then again points do matter), except maybe for Command Squad (and the idea of 'command' Razorback came to me more than once), but I'm not using any one of them for the moment. On the other hand they are good for bringing small bolter squads to the counters and scoring/competing them. Also Lascannon adds the so sought-for firepower. So these little transports are very viable.

 

But, what to run with the MM. How about the plasmagun? So what if it is rapidfire? If you fire your MM you can't assault anyway. It has the same range as the MM and when the MM is in 'melta' range, the plasma steps-up it's game and double-taps.

That. Multi-Melta+Plasma Gun is one of the best combos I can imagine for shooting squads. They have range synergy (the whole units fires at 24" and gets benefits at 12"), it has good anti-infantry and anti-vehicle strength. I can't say much about anti-monter strength, as I still have to pit them against one, but agains marines these guys, fitted with a Laserback can work wonders.

 

 

This discussion means when a new player comes along looking for guidance we can direct them to either this discussion or an article that has compiled the core of what we have come up with. Versatility may be too broad a concept to get an article or discussion all on its own... something we would discuss when we look at specific units.

Understood, good point Messenger.

I only ask that someone more fluent in english than me does that. Or we risk getting some 'feeking' again :D

 

 

Well, it really came to be a wall of text. If it disturbs you, please tell, I'll try to do something with myself.

[Marshal Laeroth]

This is a bit off-topic here...but I've got to say it. Smirnov, your English is quite a bit better than quite a few of my friends...and we're Americans!

[Iago]

Well, I finally read through the posts and I have decided to add my 2c to this topic. As for duality, I want to say that it can be effective, yes. But I believe that specialized units are key to success. BUT I would like to add that it depends, it depends on a few things: the way that you are deploying the unit and therefore planning to use it, as well as the inclusion of any supporting characters, like the EC a Marshal, Chaplain or Techmarine, remember the full harness gives you 2 PF attacks, and the signium allows you to re roll one failed to hit roll! this can be useful for a squad with a meltagun/PW.

 

I guess it really depends on the player as well, this is a great topic may I add!. For example, personally I always take the power fist, unless I have something else in the unit that can deal with a dreadnought in its place in cc. I will avoid them when I can, but the enemy will not always let you avoid them, and in that case even one attack on the fist can make the difference between a dead squad and a live squad. Usually you try and deal with units with the units that are specialized towards that role if all else fails, then you have a plan B. And that is always useful.

[Messanger of Death]

I was reading this article by Kirby when I considered the implication of utility in regards to duality and this discussion. Like versatility the concept of utility is broader than duality so may be hard to grasp for those just entering the hobby.

 

When I refer to utility I am not thinking so much about this definition but rather this sort of definition. Incase you don't want to click any links here is another definition that gets the idea across easily:

The quality or state of being useful; usefulness; production of good; profitableness to some valuable end.

So something may have duality and versatility but is it useful? This is where theoryhammer starts to fail and we need to take our toy figures out of their cases and play with them. Test out what works better and more importantly what works better within certain lists (synergy).

 

Messanger

[PlasmaBomb]

Your mathhammer vs. termies is wrong for melta and plasma

[Brother Loring]

Really? I'd like to know why?

 

Edit: Nope, all good, just checked! I am talking about Thunder Shield termies i.e. the most common brand! 2+/3++

[Brother Loring]

So, it's about time I responded to a few of these points.

 

@Smirnov

 

Melta - I'm not sure how you work that one out. 92% chance of pen is obviously better than a 50% chance to so...??? maybe you thought I meant outside of the range of the weapon? Then again, obviously no. I mean 50% at 6-12" and 92% at 0-6".

 

Duality and versatility are very different. Duality is purely specific to the role of either killing one thing or the other. Versatility would be more closely related to MoD's definition of utility (but not the same). Versatility for me is about being able to carry out different roles, be it killing things, being perceived as a threat, claiming objectives etc (i.e. the points you listed). I would say when point cost comes into it, we start talking about efficiency, not versatility.

 

You missed my point. With the melta in the squad, you put yourself in the position to potentially put a hole in the rhino. If it wasn't there, you wouldn't find yourself in that situation and therefore not find yourself in the situation in which you've failed to do so. One melta is not good enough for a 'good chance' let alone a reliable method of dealing with armour. About your point about possibility.... I could roll 1s on every dice I roll in the game. It's unlikely, but a possibility. That is why we must do some form of calculation to give us an idea of efficiency of completing a task.

 

Synergy is very important, but having 6 single meltaguns in squads spread around the table does not count as synergy. Having units that will bust transports reliably AND bust troops reliably OR running in close co-ordination with units that can bust up troops is synergy.

 

About being a good general and 'chance'. There are fewer things than you may think that are influenced by chance in a game. The majority of your movement isn't. Your choice to disembark isn't, your selection of target and order of fire isn't and your choice to assault isn't either. The only real part that is, is the dice rolling. Let's be honest, the majority of the time we roll enough dice to negate any real influence of chance. There will inevitably be those times in which you roll 1s or 6s, but over a whole game, they will almost always equal out. Try it... note down all of the dice results in a game and see what the percentages are. Bad generals (including myself very much so), blame the dice more frequently than the dice are wrong. :blink:

 

I have to agree with Marshal Laeroth... your English is superb, I didn't even notice it wasn't your first language. In fact I would say it is above the average level of written or spoken English in England and that is not a joke!

 

@ Iago - I agree - so many things comes down to the way you play a list. This is sort of where synergy comes into play. Duality can be achieved by adding an IC to a unit, but I would say this tends to be a slightly expensive option.

 

@ MoD - I'm not really to sure about those first two definitions of utility. The second one is sort of relevant, but is a bit of an odd way of approaching the subject. The third one has it for me, but I think is a much wider term than both..

 

"quality of being useful" - for me this means efficiency

 

"state of being useful" - how you yourself are utilising the unit

 

"usefulness" - more to do with versatility

 

"production of good" - again, how you are using the unit

 

"profitableness to some valuable end" - mix of efficiency and how you use the unit.

 

 

Duality is far more specific to either killing one or the other and considers nothing else.

 

Versatility is the ability to carry-out multiple tasks including screening, claiming objectives

 

Utility is more about how units are being used to complete the role/task they are picked for.

 

 

How about an example...

 

Consider two units that are identical except one is a troop choice and the other is an elite choice.

 

They would have the same 'duality'

 

They would have different 'versatility'

 

How you use them determines their 'utility'

 

Any more thoughts???