Duality.

[PlasmaBomb]

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++

 

Ah... It's just that BT don't have 3++ SS so I was expecting the typical 5++ inv...

[Brother Loring]

Hey, no probs, I thought that might be the case when I looked at it. My Templars would never shoot at their Black Brethren.

 

Those blue-bloods with their posh shields though.... :lol:

[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".

I was confused by the post a bit, it seems :)

 

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.

Point taken. But I think Duality is really not that big deal... It's rather easy to make a unit dual - like Assault Terminators with Claws and Hammers or Tactical Squad with Lascannon. Versatility and utility are more interesting topics.. Well, at least to me :)

 

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.

Thinking about that, I start to consider meltagun more of a defensive weapon, rather than offensive. You are right that taking one melta would put the squad in harms way as it has close range and leaves the squad open for counterattack. Of course, if we think of synergy and using units together, two squads can co-operate - one pops the transport, another charges it's troops.. But we would rather use something different to pop the transport raher then second crusader squad.

 

But what if we think of melta as supporting defensive weapon? First of all, it *is* scary. I've noticed that if the squad has melta, enemy tends to be more careful about approaching the squad with his more squishy transports like Rhinos or Razorbacks. And if that transport comes close, we have a chance of popping it. If we are so lucky for the enemy to get so careless as give us a close shot at his Land Raider... Of course, that kind of thing won't happen even on christmas :))

Also melta is Assault weapon, which gives some support. Yes, we lose one extra attack for the initiate holding the weapon and it gives only one shot, but compared to flamer - against MEQ I would bet on melta. I've been using Flamer for quite some time against Marines, and was a good day if I got a wound or two with it. On the other hand, Melta is almost guaranteed dead marine, if it hits. Even Terminators would have a hard time against it as 5+ save is not that much.

 

And all that is worth only 10 points. What do you think about that?

 

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.

Maybe we can write some quick guide on out-of-the-box synergy units? Of course there are as many synergy moves as there are players, but surely some combination - like Assault Terminators and LRC - are universally used.

 

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. ;)

Well, I DO have to blame something for my defeats. Would it be me and my mistakes? No! The dice rolled bad! :)

 

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!

What can I say... I'm really pleased to read this. Thanks for the compliment!

[Marshal Wilhelm]

Okay, well I've read a good amount of the posts. ;)

 

I agree with the premise of your theory Brother Loring.

It is sound and could work.

 

However, in my post were I agree with BigDunc and show that Mg+PF for 25 points is great value over 5 Crusader squads when compared to a pair of MM Land Speeders, I think I show a sound rebuttal.

 

In C:BT, I don't think we can afford for our TROOPS not to be kitted out with anti-Mech.

 

If you can show a list that has your specialists working in synergy, in contrast to a Mg+PF spamming list, and wouldn't struggle against Mech, I would be willing to give it a try.

I just don't think that our Codex supports your idea, but it does support the Mg+PF spam idea because Crusaders are pretty good against other TROOPS.

 

I guess I am challenging you to transform your idea into reality.

 

I hope I have not come across as harsh or jerk-esque. :wacko:

[Messanger of Death]

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.

Agree completely with duality and versatility being different. To say that versatility is better than duality is like comparing apples to oranges. They each have their place in a discussion with versatility being a more indepth topic to discuss as to covers far more. As for the utility... I'll cover that below.

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

I agree with what your saying but I feel it would of helped if you defined synergy... the definition of drug synergy explains the concept:

The cooperative action of two or more drugs [units], resulting in a different or greater response than that of the individual [units].

About being a good general and 'chance'... the majority of the time we roll enough dice to negate any real influence of chance.

Found myself nodding my head in agreement with what you are saying. I've noticed both on BnC and on the blog-o-sphere that deployment, target selection and list making skills are some of the biggest weaknesses of the general 40K community; including me.

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

The first definition looks at the concept from economic point of view and the definition I thought some people would be familiar with (another economic term you might want to read about is Opportunity Cost). The second definition actually explains what I was trying to get across as utility means adding functionality and helps make a list perform better. However, the definition was referring to computers so I threw in the third one. Tried to explain why I showed all 3 definitions but I think I failed to articulate that :wallbash:

 

Hopefully I don't come across as a jerk by doing this but I feel that due to the nature of the internet we need to be on the same page regarding definitions:

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

Utility is the same as being useful... efficiency refers to the power to accomplish something.

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

Once again utility is the same as being useful... utilising means to find a profitable or practical use for something. By utilising a unit you can achieve utility (usefulness).

"usefulness" - more to do with versatility

If you click the link and look at the usage it will explain that usefulness has an anglo-saxon prefix while utility is latin. This definition puts the two terms together and defines them as the quality of being of practical use. The original link has a slight distinction of the two terms but says that they can be used interchangeably. So usefulness doesn't have more to do with versatility. Versatility is the ability of doing many things competently.

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

This definition relates to the economic definition I originally linked to... ability to satisfy wants or production of satisfaction. But I agree that by using a unit you can produce a satisfying outcome.

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

Once again it seems like you are trying to take the definition for utility and apply it to other words. Sorry if your not actually doing that but it has come across that way... especially with what you said regarding usefulness and how it has more to do with versatility.

 

As I originally said I hope I haven't come across as a jerk but felt that some of the words you used needed to be defined.

 

Messanger

 

Edit - went through and removed some of the quotation tags to make it easier to read...

[Messanger of Death]

This article by Kirby from 3++ is the new black shows how the concept of duality can be applied to army composition:

Army comp to the majority of people means how un-hard or un-cheesy (or how cheesy/hard) your army is. It's generally a bad system because it's taking GW's rules and placing restrictions on what armies you can build to make it "fair." For the majority of people this is what army comp does but in reality it doesn't; all that's changed has been which lists are ‘broken‘. Good job on changing the game of 40k. So what does army composition really mean?

 

List building is very important in Warhammer 40,000. Games can be lost before a die is even rolled because you don't have the tools for the job. I've been asked quite a lot what my starting point my an army list is and I generally pick a theme, idea or unit I want to base my army around (i.e. Space Wolves = TWC, BA = fast preds, Tyranids = what I already have/Tervigons, etc.) but from there my competitive army evolves around that idea to still be balanced and be able to deal with everything. So what types of units do we need to be able to handle. A list needs to be able to handle a whole army comprised of such units to be able to reliably deal with the balanced lists (I.e. you may never see 20+ tanks or MCs or 100+ bikes or 300 infantry but if your list theoretically deal with those extremes, you can deal with the balanced armies). These unit types include:

 

1) tanks = anything with an armor value and thus uses the damage chart

2) MCs = anything with the MC status, high T (5+) and multiple wounds

3) bikes/cavalry = anything that augments toughness and movement ability

4) infantry = the basic guys with saves

 

So to have good army composition you need multiple units which can handle units 1-4 and units which can handle 3 or more of these groups are better than units which can handle less unit types. However, there is a trade-off when the unit which can handle less unit types but handles the specific units at a better rate. This trade-off needs to be considered and such units like broadsides which aren‘t that great at anti-infantry are very much worth it for their ability to damage tanks. So this means your anti-infantry (which generally includes anti-bike/cavalry) and anti-tank (which generally includes anti-MC) needs to be spread across your army and generally the more units who can deal with both, the better. This is simply called duality and duplicity and something that army comp from tournaments frowns upon even though it makes the best lists which are balanced. Having an army maxed out on duality units means you can lose some units but you still have more (duplicity) and no one unit is ever going to be useless if you face extreme armies where they then become inefficient point sinks.

 

For example, a trip-las pred is very expensive and pretty decent against armor/MCs but if you face an Ork horde or BA jumper army… well you're killing a max of 3 guys out of 60+ a turn, that's not very good efficiency. However, for a significant reduction in cost and a minor reduction in anti-armor ability you gain more anti-infantry ability with an AC/LC pred and for a further reduction in points but a more significant reduction in anti-tank ability but a significant increase in anti-infantry ability, you can take an AC/HB pred. Here the trip-las pred is the weak link for it's related point cost and efficiency ratios whilst the AC/LC and AC/HB preds can shore up either anti-tank or anti-infantry whilst not being a points sink and sacrificing little duality.

So the best armies have multiple options at every FoC slot to deal with multiple threats and more often than not this can be included in a single unit. Armies that are weaker don't have those options (and thus generally have mono-builds) or can't build as much duality into their lists. This means other armies will generally be able to target what the biggest threat to them first and thus neutralise it compared to an army with duality where no such targets can be picked out. This becomes target saturation.

 

What I explain here to many will sound like dealing with the metagame but since everyone has access to the internet and 40k can build balanced lists which can beat any other list out there...well there is not metagame because there is no advantage by knowing what is commonly strong. If you do it to your local area to counter marines or Orks for example that's tailoring.

 

So outside of these basic principles what else does an army in 5th edition need to account for? A concept I’ve touched on a lot with this blog is fire suppression. This is a concept which is often underappreciated online particularly with armies who don’t have good pure anti-tank (such as Tyranids). Fire suppression in 40k 5th is all about stopping tanks from damaging you next turn whilst anti-tank is all about stopping the tank. The difference here is anti-tank generally uses higher strength and AP1 weapons whilst fire suppression uses weight of fire. Whilst fire suppression will inevitably kill tanks, it’s all about minimising your opponent’s ability to affect the battlefield. Whether this is simply shaking them to stop them shooting, destroying their weapons or stopping their movement through stunned/immobilised results, by slowing your opponent’s tanks, you are more able to enact your battle plan as you are more able to control the board.

 

So how is this done in an army list? Some armies do it better than others (I.e. Tyranids) as it’s built into their army books but what you are looking for is medium strength weapons with high rates of fire, good ranges and which are reliable as possible to hit. Such units include MP/PR crisis suits (which are also very good anti-infantry units), Riflemen dreads (who are functional as anti-infantry units), Hydras, etc. They either have so many shots or they are TL’d with good moderate strength weapons which are therefore very likely to do SOMETHING. Your meltaguns are your primary anti-tank but things like auto cannons/missile launchers/etc are there to slow your opponent up from T1.

 

Another uncommon concept is sacrificial/bubble-wrap units. Bubble-wraps have been covered on this blog before here but little has been said about sac units. In a good list built around duality and duplicity, every unit is expendable (there are obviously more important units than others but a single unit dying shouldn’t change your game plans drastically) but in most lists there should be units you are happy to lose to gain a turn to affect the board. Whether this is a speedbump against assault units, a blocker to slow down an army/unit or simply a screening unit, an army which has the ability to sacrifice a lot but still win is going to come out on top more often than not against an army which relies on a lynchpin.

 

A concept fundamental to mech is mobility and due to its inherent nature within mechanised lists, is often over-looked during army composition. This is another reason why I believe armies like Tyranids are un-appreciated online. All mech lists are obviously fast so when you are not meching up (I.e. Tyranids, hybrid, BA jumpers, cavalry, etc.) if you aren’t fast (I.e. Pods) you are on the backfoot. This is why lists such as non-mech BA and SW can be very competitive, they can keep up with the mobility of mech’d armies. These are generally the type of armies that also place more importance in fire suppression (I.e. Long Fangs) so they can reduce the advantage mech enjoys until they get start bashing in their grills.

 

Finally a concept that should be familiar to everyone, Troops and scoring. Two thirds of 5th edition missions are objective based and only Troops can contest. I’ve given a common rule of thumb of one troop per 500 points but this is obviously flexible, certain lists can do with more and certain lists can deal with less. But it again becomes a trade-off. Troop choices often have worse point efficiencies in terms of damaging output compared to other FoC slots. You therefore need to consider the trade-off between potential output and scoring ability. The 1 Troop/500 pt guideline is a good rule of thumb for this trade-off but it obviously depends on the army and army type.

 

So when taking all of these concepts into account and making a list that maximises them to the best of the book’s ability whilst maintaining a balanced theme is going to give you a good list. It seems like a lot to take in early but once you use these guidelines whilst making your own lists a few times, you’ll get used to them. Look at certain lists where I explain my reasoning behind my choices (Stelek does this too at YTTH and some others like GWvsJohn have done it here). It highlights some of the concepts used to make better lists.

Armies in 5th: Basics Part 1: Army Composition by Kirby. The bold was added by me for emphasis.

 

Messanger

 

N.B. sorry to the mods if my use of links is somehow slowing down the load time of the thread.