Competative List building

[Brother Tual]

I would like to begin a discussion relating to competative list building (not specifically to build a list here) using the SM codex.

 

I am not after a formula per se (ie for every xxx points have xx meltaguns or whatever) but more on player thoughts when building a list for competative play and then what attracts your attention in the codex to enable those thoughts..

 

I want to start with the obvious. Wargear spam. The thought process of the gamer designing this list is obvious. Cram in as many missiles or plas or melta or whatever into a list at the cost of all else. If it cant carry the weapon of choice or multiples of it, it is not in the list and for no other reason. This leads into 'cookie cutting' and whilst this leads into a potentially strong list, it is rather 'boring' or lacking in player imput other than trying to melta the crap out of the enemy list with 25 meltaguns...

 

Something else I have noticed with the army list section is the saturation of unit roles - the hot units atm are the rifleman and the typhoon. Whilst both units are great and better in multiples, 3 x riflemen + 6 x typhoons is saturating the table with multiple long range high Str shots. Undeniably effective but the end result is much like spamming the same wargear.

 

All I am going by is the army list section for codex marines as someones local gaming meta cant be known by all. So please comment and let me know what you consider when building a list. Is spam or saturation a key concern when selecting units in a competative list? and Why?

[greatcrusade08]

oooh i have a feeling this will be a very good thread.

 

so we start with spam:

spamming units in my opinion is the easy way out, find what works and max them out to great effect.. I have no doubt this works, but i honestly find it boring. Its very similar to the hammernator spam.

Whilst effective each unit choice has its weakness, and the inherant problem with min/maxing or spamming these choices is that you make the weaknesses all the more prevelant. the real benefit to building a list is that you can take mutliple unit choices that counter each others weaknesses.

A good example would be running Calgar with ccw scouts to balance his high cost and lack of ablative wounds for shooting (massed fire takes out termies).

 

If youve spent half your army points on taking 6 typhoons then you may have a large amount of firepower but with only AV10 there are multiple ways to defeat them.. We shouldnt talk about catering to beat these lists becuase the world doesnt work like that, but an average list has deepstrikers, infiltrators abnd/or drop pods and most armies have an abundance of weapons that can easily beat AV10.

The same principle aplies to every spam choice, as a imentioned before a great list is one that maximises its effectiveness whilst minimises its weaknesses (balancing humours if you will).. spamming works against this goal.

[Giga]

We had a real huge and in-depth discussion on this here:

 

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.p...994&hl=giga

 

In short,

 

- you need to play a lot and keep thinking and rethinking your lists, and with time you'll know for yourself what lists win in your hands and which ones you can't win with

 

- your local metagame is the king, and you need to know it and take advantage of it

 

- all-eggs-in-one-basket-armies & netlists = bad for the most part

[Ookami_81]

We see a lot of razor spam, dread spam, TDAs spam, Typhoons spam lists.

 

My thinking is the one that spams flexible multiuse units works, the other have a huge flaw in one aspect of the game, and it's either you find it and he loses, you don't find it and you lose. It's not that interesting for me. I admit it's interesting for someone who wants to find an easy way to win over and over till his list is broken by someone.

 

More so, I find it a very good way to lose money or interest for 40K. Example: 5th ed is all about meching up and mobility. Transports are dirt cheap, razors even more than rhinos.

 

OK, guess what ? 6th ed will tear apart the vehicules supremacy we know to break these "razor-sharp" lists' supremacy... Just to make people buy new minis. That's not evil, that's just regular GW business.

 

So my advice is: avoid massive spamming (like 6-9 same units in your list), and if you do little spamming (3 for example), magnetize a lot !

 

You can also do things the hard way: build a competitive list with many different things in it. Doing that, you've got many minis of different types. For example I own a devastator squad. I don't field them a lot because they are not very good comparing to other units (mainly tanks, dreads and speeders) in the firebase role. But I bet that in 6th ed they'll have a huge discount, and that the wonderful Typhoon will be nerfed. Maybe we'll see something like "melta has now "gets hot!" rule if you roll either 1 or 2 on your to hit dice, and lascans now gets the same rule as those eldar antitank weapons" Melta spammers will be happy, me think... People with both lasers cannons and melta in their army will live with it.

[Fatuous]

Redendancy is vital, but spamming I feel is not, and can be counter productive for all those reasons mentioned above.

 

You do need at least 2 tools for each job to ensure you can get it done, but they do not have to be the same. There are many benefits to having different types of units that can handle those tasks, so that the counter to one unit (say speeders) wont work on the other option.

 

Personnally, while effective, I find spamming gets a bit dull, and prefer having different units that combine together in more interesting ways.

 

That said, you can't really argue against the effectiveness of the unit spam. If one works, surely 3 will work better........

[mowglie]

That said, you can't really argue against the effectiveness of the unit spam. If one works, surely 3 will work better........

 

That's the rub, right there. Particularly when you're spamming something flexible (vindicators, sternguard, arguably tactical marines, typhoons), or something with a ubiquitous purpose in the metagame (that's where the rifleman comes in).

 

The trouble is, if you take a varied list you're leaving the door wide open for your opponent to simply point the right guns at the right targets and have at it.

 

All other things (i.e. mobility, player skill) being equal, your opponent gets to decide what fights what just as often as you do. For every game your Honour Guard charge your opponent's Wraithguard there will be another game (more likely two given how Eldar focus on mobility...) where his Banshees charge your Honour Guard. For every game your tri-las pred gets to sit on your baseline taking out enemy walkers, there will be another game where the enemy walkers are all out of LoS. For every game your devastators blow up multiple tanks, there's another game where they get caught in CC on turn 3.

 

A lot of theorycraft supporting varied lists neglects this, assuming that you can always choose your targets and your opponent doesn't get a say.

 

Saturation is about taking your opponent's say away from him. To use an extreme example, if I play 3x Baal, 3x Vindicator, then just about everything in your army with a S less than 7 might as well not exist. If I play 200 Orks in 1500 points, your Multi-melta Attack Bikes suddenly aren't looking so hot.

 

Flexibility is about countering your opponent's efforts at saturation *without* specifically tailoring your list against his army. If I turn up with 15 lascannons and you don't bring any heavy armour, I've wasted a lot of points. If I play Sternguard with combi-meltas, Tactical Squads with ML, or the aforementioned Baal (with Assault Cannon) + Vindicator, then it doesn't matter what you bring, I can shoot you.

 

Metagame is about tailoring - not to one specific list, but to the entire set of lists you're likely to face e.g. at a given tournament. E.g. transports are popular now, so Riflemen - who are otherwise a really rubbish unit - are suddenly popular as a way of beating them.

[Jackelope King]

"The more the merrier" is especially true in 40k.

 

Showing a smart opponent a battleforce army full of one-ofs is showing him or her cracks to start shooting at. If your opponent is playing Horde Orks and you've sprinkled your Heavy Support slots with 1x Whirlwind, 1x Combi-Predator and 1x Devastator Squad with Missile Launchers gives the Ork player an obvious order of target priority. Lootaz will concentrate their fire most effectively on the Devastators and wipe them out and then focus on the Whirlwind. The Combi-Predator will sit there while its crew plays "Go Fish". There's less choice for the Ork player to be concerned about: there's an obvious choice for what to shoot at first, second and last.

 

Now show this Ork player 3x Dakka Predators. If he kills one successfully, the other two are still shooting without problem and ripping through his mobs. This is 40k's version of Lanchester's Square Law. 3 tanks are actually 9 tanks for offensive and defensive purposes. Each Dakka Predator on the table protects the other two by ensuring another layer of redundancy, where even if one Predator goes down, the other two can still do their jobs, and are indeed enjoying enhanced durability thanks to the firepower that the enemy just had to dedicate to the single Predator that they did manage to destroy.

 

The trick, as others have already observed, is to pick flexible-enough units to spam. Autocannons do this, ripping open light armor, threatening big, tough monstrous creatures, having enough volume of fire to whittle down hordes, all while maintaining a good enough range to increase its platform's durability nicely. Even better is to take units that can do each other's jobs across different force organization chart slots. 3x Rifleman Dreadnoughts supporting 3x Dakka Predators isn't just 3^2 + 3^2 = 18 tanks, but is closer to (3 + 3)^2 = 36 tanks. Your opponent has a lot of shooting to do to whittle down that much firepower.

 

And this is just the defensive side of things. Also recall that we play a game controlled by the fickle whims of the Dice Gods, jerks one and all. What happens when your one meltagun rolls a 1 to hit that Land Raider? You curse bitterly. What happens when you fire 3 meltaguns? Well, your odds of opening up that Land Raider just went up, didn't they?

 

Finally, note that even some mediocre weapons taken en-masse can become exceedingly effective. Missile Launchers are pretty "meh" as one-ofs. Poor rate of fire, usually shoulder mounted and thus static. Stick one on a typhoon and it improves quite a bit. Then take 3 typhoons and it's suddenly pretty impressive. Or play a Space Wolves Loganwing army with tons of missile launchers and cyclone missile launchers and laugh maniacally as you launch 30+ krak missiles per turn. This isn't just limited to weapons that are in general mediocre, but even mediocre in a particular situation. Meltaguns are good, yeah, but plasma does kill Marines and termies quicker because of rate of fire. But when you have 10 meltaguns, you can make up for that rate of fire with weight of fire, and then enjoy the other benefits of melta (instant death, AP1 against vehicles, melta rule, etc.)

 

Are battleforce armies more fun? Depends on the player. But this is the tactica forum: start with what wins games first. Players have an uncanny ability to find what's fun in a game. Spam and redundancy are basic tenets of competitive listbuilding. Save the battleforce for weekend beer and pretzels games with your buddies. For a competitive list, spam.

[Fatuous]

Some very good points there in the last 2 posts, and as not a competitive (competition) gamer I'm not going to argue too much with them (listen and learn instead). I did have a few points to add tho......

 

First off, there was a good article on BELs about this very issue recently, redundency against spam. I won't parrot fasion it here, but is worth a look as was written by a comp gamer. Here's a link if you are interested.

 

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2010/04/edi...redundancy.html

 

On spamming tho. I do agree that single units are rarely as usuful as taking multiple (I come from a guard army background, where the old saying you need 3 of everything, as one will miss and one will already be dead, so you need 3 {when I find out who coined that, I will give them the KUDOS}).

 

This does cross over to marines to some degree. 1 Dreadnaught is a dead dreadnaught, 3 are a lot more surviable. But what about 2? It still gives better survivability and leaves you with an elite slot to add some sternguard or terminators, both of which can be taken in a large squad you can split to give 2 discreate units in game.

 

Spamming is to some extend an all or nothing situation. Yes, I do see the point of increased survivability and being more than the sum of their parts, but I think that is taking it a bit far in some ways, as the counter to this is that 1 weapon choice can deal with all of them.

 

EG spamming out 3 rifle man dreadnaughts. 1 weapon system can beat a dread easily (I'm talking autocannon here, and guard can take many, and with orders 1 AC per dreadnaught is enough to neuter your transport poppers on turn 1 or 2). replace with missile launchers if the AC sounds too far fetched (personnally, my ACs are usually enough, but I do take both).

 

Taking the example of the orks vs Whirlwind, Devs and pred above.

 

Whirl winds by design should be hiding behind some sort of cover, so I'd not expect lootaz to get a LOS, but even if they are not. While the lootaz are taking down the devs, the whirl wind can be hitting them straight back (I can't remember the armour lootaz have, so the ignore cover may not be useful if they have carapace, otherwise hit em with cover ignoring shells from turn 1). Not really sure why the pred has no targets, I'd have thought they'd be targeting warwaggons or trucks.

 

Compared to 3 preds, yes these will rip up ork mobs on foot, but what about speed freaks, that romp up, loose a few trucks on route in, and then hit them all in CC? Or mobs that move up behind walker cover, choose your target, but something will be hitting your lines turn 2 most likely, turn 3 otherwise. I was tempted to remove this in my post as I dislike bringing out specific examples as counters, but I leave it in, as I would like more info on this, as for me, the example is a bit thin.

 

Ok, after saying i wasn't going to argue on this, this post may look the opposite. Not what I intended, as spamming units does work, but I do think there is place for using redundency with out spam (i personaly do not consieder taking 2 of something spam tho, so perhaps I need to update my terminology). The possibility of opponents picking off each unit in turn with their counters is of course there, but with spam, they only need the 1 counter to deal with all of them.

[mowglie]

On the topic of spam being boring: I agree that 2x LR, 3x Baal, 3x Vindicator is kind of boring*, but as you say I'm not necessarily taking that into account on a tactics forum.

 

On redundancy vs saturation:-

 

I'd say that "redundancy" as BOLS puts it is redundancy in offensive capability - taking casualties doesn't necessarily stop your units doing their job.

 

Saturation is additionally redundancy in a defensive capability - denying your opponent the ability to direct his fire to appropriate targets. Especially when you further co-ordinate defensive types between slots (e.g. the 2x LR, 3x Baal, 3x Vindicator example I gave).

 

Note that technically you could achieve either without spamming. You can achieve redundancy without spam as jwolf notes. You can achieve saturation without spam by e.g. playing different types of armor. Achieving both, however, and especially doing so while only taking flexible units, probably means spamming simply because we don't have that many units in the codex.

 

I don't agree with jwolf's analysis that his list is better than Goatboy's because it forces mistakes from your opponent. Sure, if you already outclass your opponent to the point where you can rely on him making more mistakes than you, the redundant list will swing the game further in your favour. My argument is always based on an opponent of equal skill i.e. for each mistake you force out of your opponent, your opponent is likely to force one out of you.

 

While I agree with the sentiment posted a while ago that we could do with less list analysis on this forum and more on-the-board discussion, I don't consider "be a better player than your opponent" to be useful advice :lol:

 

*Actually that's a lie. It's the most awesome thing in the world the first time you do it :P

 

Sure, if I turn up with 2x LR, 3x Baal, 3x Vindicator, and you turn up with nothing but fast melta, I lose. But then you lose to the horde army you play after me. I generally assume that I'm making an all-comers list and facing other all-comers lists. With appropriate target saturation, I can nullify up to two-thirds of my opponent's fire power. Also, importantly, it means I know exactly where to focus my offense because my own target priority is much clearer.

[Captain Idaho]

I think a healthy mix of redundancy, spamming and variety is needed in a competetive list in the trend of 5th edition Codex books (compared to eachother, not the older books).

 

In reverse: We need variety to ensure we don't get caught out when someone has a strength that outweighs yours. It means having things that can do many different, enabling a player to achieve different things on the table top as the need arises. This doesn't neccessarily mean each and every unit needs to be able to do a little bit of everything, but the list working together does.

 

However we need redundancy to ensure our opponents do not neutralise a single facet of our list and thus prevent us from being able to contend with their lists. If they remove a unit we still end up having a unit to complete the job.

 

Thing is, Space Marines are expensive as it is without trying to spam units into the list. But then where does our redundancy go?

 

What Marines players need to do is look to include things in the list that "spam" roles in the list whilst not neccessarily being exact duplicates of what is in the list. What do I mean by this? Well we need to think outside the bitz box. We need some units that fill more than a single role within the list, acting as a support for the units with less flexibility. The army needs to be able to switch focus without some units being neutured in the process.

 

As an example we might have a decent sized unit of Sternguard in a Rhino, an Assault squad, a Dreadnought with Assault Cannon and a Predator Anihilator with sponson Heavy Bolters. If it is neccessary to close the distance with opponents it is possible for the Assault squad to lead the attack (like if against Tau or Imperial Guard or even an army full of Long Fangs and little else.) The Sternguard support the attack, adding numbers to it and extra hitting power. The Dreadnought advances steadily, sucking in fire and threatening any potential counter attack. A turn or 2 later and it can be able to add it's weight to the attack. The Predator brings up the rear and combines with the Dreadnought shooting to assist the other elements in the list from a distance.

 

This same combination can change at any time to a defensive posture, utilising a powerful shooting capacity to hurt threatening opponents and still be able to counter charge effectively. The removal of one unit doesn't ruin the capacity of the army, as if the Sternguard are removed the assault element still can succeed with the Assault squad and Dreadnought, whilst if the Predator dies then the firepower can still come from the Dread and the Sternguard.

 

That was a basic explanation of what we need to do with our lists I believe. I'm not trying to patronise people, as I know many people understand this perfectly. However it is always worth explaining things in basic terms as a good point of what we are talking about ^_^

 

The above example, to me at least, has both redundancy and spamming involved, without appearing to have either. Removing a single element out of the list won't ruin everthing (redundancy), while there are multiple units able to do one thing (spamming). It does this and still keeps variety!

[Ookami_81]

Thanks to explain much more clearly than myself my way of thinking, Captain Idaho ! :rolleyes:

[minigun762]

Redendancy is vital, but spamming I feel is not, and can be counter productive for all those reasons mentioned above.

 

You do need at least 2 tools for each job to ensure you can get it done, but they do not have to be the same. ......

Agreed. What you are really doing when spamming is increasing the chance to have a solution to.the problems presented by your opponent

[Captain Idaho]

Thanks to explain much more clearly than myself my way of thinking, Captain Idaho ! :P

 

Sorry, I should have put the caveat in my post that I am summarising information from a variety of my learned brothers on this forum ;)

[Paulochromis]

The other reason to spam, as opposed to employing redundancy, is points cost.

If variety costs more than duplication (unit A+B > 2A or 2B) then you really have to justify the difference.

I think most of us are familiar with thejeske's lament that the current chaos codex doesn't feature a wide variety in viable lists.

Taking HQ choices other than 2 DPs or HS choices other than Defilers (HtH) or Oblits wastes points, even if it gives you more "variety".

There's often a good way to spend the difference - yet more Oblits =c).

 

We all know rock, paper, scissors.

Despite the FOC, I think you can look inside an army and see mini-rocks, mini-papers and mini-scissors.

 

Let's imagine that all armies take 9 units.

If you choose an all mini-rock army, you'll beat the all mini-scissors army, but lose to the all mini-paper army.

(9R > 9S> 9P > 9R)

If you choose a hybrid (eg 3 of each mini-type) then you should at least draw against any all-one-type army.

(eg hybrid vs rock ==> 3P > 3R + 3S < 3R + 3R == 3R)

If you face another hybrid, it will come down to how the generals achieve the unit match-ups.

(3P > 3R + 3S > 3P + 3R > 3S = massacre; 3P == 3P + 3S == 3S + 3R == 3R = draw)

Pretty sure that's what Sun Tzu meant.

 

Cheers, Paul.

[mowglie]

Let's imagine that all armies take 9 units.

If you choose an all mini-rock army, you'll beat the all mini-scissors army, but lose to the all mini-paper army.

(9R > 9S> 9P > 9R)

If you choose a hybrid (eg 3 of each mini-type) then you should at least draw against any all-one-type army.

(eg hybrid vs rock ==> 3P > 3R + 3S < 3R + 3R == 3R)

If you face another hybrid, it will come down to how the generals achieve the unit match-ups.

(3P > 3R + 3S > 3P + 3R > 3S = massacre; 3P == 3P + 3S == 3S + 3R == 3R = draw)

Pretty sure that's what Sun Tzu meant.

 

You have to consider offensive capabilities vs defensive capabilities. If I bring 3 tanks and you bring 1 anti-tank and 2 anti-infantry, I win because my "rock" (tank) is good offensively against your paper (anti-tank). I've taken your choices away from you (you can only shoot at my tanks), but you haven't done the same to me (I can prioritise your anti-tank).

 

i.e. if I bring all-rock, and you bring 3 of each, it's more like my 9 rock beat your 3 paper, and then nothing in your army can touch me.

 

So, when I'm building a list, I start with a solid core of units with similar defensive types (all-rock - saturation), but with flexible offensive types (able to be rock, paper, or scissors depending on what I need). Thus my favourite units are Mech Tactical Squads, Mech Sternguard (especially with combi-meltas), and Vindicators. (and Baal Predators should I be playing BA).

 

Captain Idaho's list has certainly achieved redundancy, and it certainly includes flexible units that can perform more than one role, however it has not achieved saturation. Everything in his opponent's army can still pick out a threat to answer. Whether or not the additional flexibility that his variety of choices affords him makes up for this weakness is a matter of debate. In this case, I would say "no". I think that list would be significantly better without the assault squad, with another dred, combi-pred, unit of sternguard, or a vindicator (or two).

 

I'm not going to promote spam as the be-all-and-end-all, but it's a simple fact that if you e.g. add a jp assault squad to a mech army you make your opponent's army more powerful because now his anti-infantry has something to shoot at.

 

Whatever you're adding for variety has to bring enough oomph to make up for that.

[Captain Idaho]

Captain Idaho's list has certainly achieved redundancy, and it certainly includes flexible units that can perform more than one role, however it has not achieved saturation. Everything in his opponent's army can still pick out a threat to answer. Whether or not the additional flexibility that his variety of choices affords him makes up for this weakness is a matter of debate. In this case, I would say "no". I think that list would be significantly better without the assault squad, with another dred, combi-pred, unit of sternguard, or a vindicator (or two).

 

I'm not going to promote spam as the be-all-and-end-all, but it's a simple fact that if you e.g. add a jp assault squad to a mech army you make your opponent's army more powerful because now his anti-infantry has something to shoot at.

 

Whatever you're adding for variety has to bring enough oomph to make up for that.

 

I was making an example only though. I agree that saturation is an important facet to remember, should have brought it up myself! :)

 

It was an example to highlight how I can build redundancy into a list with variety. The spamming would be debateable like you said, but I would contend that if you have your separate and varied units able to do the same types of thing you are spamming of sorts.

 

Another example is a Landraider has 2 Lascannons, the Predator has another one and a Dread has a 4th, all twin linked. 2 Tactical squads in Rhinos hold a further 2 Lascannons. 6 Lascannons in a single list is spamming, though each platform is different to the last, except the Tacticals, which are different to each other because one has a Powefist and melta gun and the other acts as reserve against flankers and deepstrikers with a Flamer.

[DerekLee688]

A fine line exists between redundancy and spamming. When it comes to weapons, editions/codexes determine what gets spammed.

 

When I started playing around the release of the current C:SM missle launchers were the default heavy weapon. They are cheap or free, and many people said they were over rated. Since then, 5th ed has meched up; the SW have revolutionized the devistator squad; the guard still have no all around AV14 vehicle and increased the need of long range firepower to take down flying-melta-vets; Nids have become more vulnerable due to more attractive horde options, weaker carnifexes, and the mass exodus of 2+ armor saves; BA has a melta proof storm raven, fast vehicles that are harder to catch with melta, reduced cost of ML devistators, and drastically increased the amount of Feel no pain MEQ and dreads that you face; and ML's still put down Nob bikers and Plague Marines the staple units for current popular armies. How far will this trend go?

[Brother Tual]

Some good comments here.

 

I just want to clarify some terms before a bit of confusion sets in about what people actually have to say.

 

Spam - Excessive duplication of unit type/ability - generally increases the odds against multiple LIKE targets

 

Redundancy - Duplication of wargear or ability within a unit (10 man combi melta sternguard) increases the odds against a singular specific target

 

Versatility - Ability of a unit in multiple roles - increases the odds against a single target through different methods (assault and shoot)

 

Saturation - Excessive duplication of like units/ability - Increases the odds against multiple targets

 

If anyone has anything to add or wish to change/alter, please do so.

 

It is possible for units to be multiples of the above criteria, but in general, the points cost for these units are significantly expensive. IN GENERAL.

 

 

I try to avoid redundancy, in excess anyway, whilst it is a cheaper way of increasing your odds it only does so against a SINGLE target (unless you are shooting a large unit). I find that you can increase your odds in achieving a single kill in a similar and not so obvious way.

 

 

I think the other three are important in a competative list but I am more interested in how others balance their lists

[mowglie]

Some good comments here.

 

I just want to clarify some terms before a bit of confusion sets in about what people actually have to say.

 

Spam - Excessive duplication of unit type/ability - generally increases the odds against multiple LIKE targets

 

Redundancy - Duplication of wargear or ability within a unit (10 man combi melta sternguard) increases the odds against a singular specific target

 

Versatility - Ability of a unit in multiple roles - increases the odds against a single target through different methods (assault and shoot)

 

Saturation - Excessive duplication of like units/ability - Increases the odds against multiple targets

 

If anyone has anything to add or wish to change/alter, please do so.

 

It is possible for units to be multiples of the above criteria, but in general, the points cost for these units are significantly expensive. IN GENERAL.

 

 

I try to avoid redundancy, in excess anyway, whilst it is a cheaper way of increasing your odds it only does so against a SINGLE target (unless you are shooting a large unit). I find that you can increase your odds in achieving a single kill in a similar and not so obvious way.

 

 

I think the other three are important in a competative list but I am more interested in how others balance their lists

 

I don't think broadly that's how people have been using those terms. Let me try:-

• Redundancy: Two or more units (not necessarily identical) which can perform the same role, e.g. 2 MMAB + 2 MM/HF Skimmers
  
• Saturation: Several units (not necessarily identical) - ideally your entire army - which share the same defensive strengths/immunities, e.g. a vindicator + a predator + a land raider
  
• Versatiltiy: The ability of a single unit to perform more than one role, e.g. combi-melta sternguard with kantor.
  
• Spam: Several (3 is usually the threshold) identical units. Typically a by-product of attempting to achieve all of the above
  

[Brother Tual]

I can see that people have been using those terms with the meanings you have suggested but I dont see the difference between Saturatuion and Redundancy in your definition.

 

The reasons why I dont agree with those definitions are-

 

For something to be redundant it has to be in excess AND to be un-useable. I believe you can only really do this through duplication WITHIN a unit because all models in the one unit cannot split fire. The example I gave of 10 x combi melta sternguard is a prime example, it only takes 1 meltagun to destroy a vehicle, 10 only increases the chance of a kill, not the NUMBER of kills (unless you are targetting a unit of vehicles etc) When you have 2 different units - even with the same weaponry, you can target something else and thus increase your number of kills. This to me, is the same as the principle of saturation. Its the same as charging a unit of 5 terminators with 40+ power weapon attacks... Redundancy is the same as over kill.

 

 

Saturation is the principle of applying overwhelming means. This can be excess AV, excess body count, excess weapon type, etc. It is NOT limited to a defensive concept. A list full of AV saturates the table in much the same manner as a list with excess str 7, 8, 9 and 10 weaponry. It aims to put the game beyond the enemy through unit ability or invulnerability alone. Thats why playing a list that saturates the table is often called a cheesy list and taken by power gamers.

 

Having said that, it doesnt help with building a list.

 

Do people consider any or all of these things when building a list? do you consider anything else?

[Arkios]

When people use the term "Redundancy" what they are really saying is "having more units than necessary to accomplish a goal", whatever that goal may be (knocking out opposing armour, mowing down infantry, tar-pitting enemy units, etc). It has to be in excess BUT it does not mean that the units are unusable, as many units (especially space marine units) are quite versatile and capable of fulfilling multiple roles to some degree. Redundancy is simply a means to ensure that you have the capability to carry out a task that you have chosen to accomplish.

 

In Brother Tual's example, having just a single Sternguard unit kitted out to the teeth for anti-tank duty in your list is not redundant. Once that single unit is takes casualties to the point of becoming combat ineffective, is wiped out, or locked in hand to hand, you will have no other means to carry out your task of knocking out armour. Now If you take that sternguard unit, a couple MM Drop-Dreads, and a Combi-Pred or two... NOW you have redundancy. One way or another, enemy armour will be destroyed, regardless if you lose one or two of those units.

 

 

"Saturation" on the other hand, refers to an army list "having more threats of a given type then the enemy has counters for that type" (IE- Horde style armies, or meching up all infantry in transports and running tanks to present more armoured threats than your opponent's anti-tank weapons can handle). This is more to ensure you have some units that survive due to forcing your opponent to focus fire on a single or few imediate threats, or have them spread fire thinly across all of your ranks, thereby increasing the probability of most of your army surviving to the next turn.

 

 

Redundancy and Saturation are not the same, as you can have multiple units of the same type (either infantry or vehicle), designed for entirely different roles. For instance, a Tri-Las Predator and a Dakka-Predator are both tanks, they both have AV13 on the front, and will both require a decent amount of effort to take down with long Range shooting. The tri-las pred is designed to take down enemy armour from afar with its 3 lascannons, while the dakka-pred is made to thin out hordes of infantry with its 2 heavy bolters and autocannon. They have entirely different roles. The two tanks will help add to your army list's armour saturation. Neither tanks provides any redundancy to the other, as one is anti-infantry and the other anti-tank. There you have saturation without redundancy. Take that same Dakka-pred along with a quad heavy bolter devastator squad. Both have the same role of anti infantry duty, so they add anti-infantry redundancy. Since one is a vehicle and the other an infantry unit, the enemy's anti-tank weapons can focus on the Predator and anti-infantry weapons focus on the Dev Squad. Redundancy without saturation.

 

If an army list does not have enough redundancy against, lets say for instance, armoured threats, thats army's anti-tank weapons will become over-saturated by an enemy list utilizing a bunch of heavy tanks to increase its armour saturation. Same goes for an army list brimming with lascannons and meltaguns but not enough anti-infantry redundancy vs 150 ork boyz charging across the table. Here we see how target "saturation" and "redundancy" are a bit of a counter to each other.

 

 

 

As Mowglie said, "Spam" is the by-product of taking cost effective units that will saturate your opponents offensive capability, while adding redundancy to your own offensive capability. These units are usually versatile enough where they can be useful against multiple types of enemy threats, thus further increasing their redundancy (ie MM/HF speeders, MM Dreadnoughts with heavy flamer built into the DCCW, Combi-Preds, Sternguard with combi-meltas, typhoon speeders, all of these are good against both infantry and vehicle targets)

[mowglie]

Redundancy is simply a means to ensure that you have the capability to carry out a task ... regardless if you lose one or two of those units

 

Saturation on the other hand, refers to an army list having more threats of a given type then the enemy has counters for that type.

 

Exactly!

[Fatuous]

Yup, I think that pretty much nailed it.

 

Prime example of saturation is taking large numbers of tanks and transports to over whelm the anti tank capabilities of your opponent, 2 preds wont do it a lone, but in combination of the extra rhinos and razorbacks, increases your tank numbers to greater than the ability to knock them all down.

 

Redundancy having alternative methods to achive the same task, melta gun in every squad, MM dreads, MM speeders, etc........

 

Both terms are army wide over different units, not within the same unit (altho multiple melta guns in 1 unit could add redundancy, I'd say this increases the power of that unit, not really adding redundancy as once that unit is gone........ redundancy is having other options, not more chance for the same unit IMO).

[mowglie]

... redundancy is having other options, not more chance for the same unit IMO).

 

You could potentially say that giving a unit the ability to withstand more casualties would be an example of redundancy, e.g. a squadron of 3MMAB compared to 1, or a 10-man devastator squad as opposed to a 5-man one. I think that would still be secondary to having a second unit available in case the first one is completely neutralised, or otherwise can't be brought to bear.

[Captain Idaho]

Do people consider any or all of these things when building a list? do you consider anything else?

 

I do. I consider what each unit does in combination of the rest of the army and what each can do if I come up against an opponent who has a strong capacity in a particular aspect of gaming.

 

So basically I build a list with a particular flavour in it, say providing mobility and spamming with multiple Transports, and then adding to the list things that ensure I have redundancy and variety (which I think is important in 5th edition Codex books) on top of my core to the army.