Competative List building

[Brother Tual]

Sorry for the delay in my reply post. I authored an extensive reply but my laptop had an issue with staying on.

 

 

Arkios and following posts. Your definition of redundancy does not clarify the criteria of the category. I have no doubt that people post with similar concepts that you have detailed in mind but all we have here is the written word. I accept your definition of saturation.

 

 

I defined redundancy as coming from within a unit and saturation coming from multiple units because your definition creates confusion, or at least does not show the difference. In my mind, your definition of redundancy being

"having more units than necessary to accomplish a goal"

is confusing through the addition of the word units. I simply defined this as being overkill. The confusion comes when you compare it to your definition of saturation,

having more threats of a given type then the enemy has counters for that type

. To me, it says the exact same thing, just worded differently. To clarify, having more units to achieve a goal is the same as having more units(threats) of a given type (goal) than the enemy has counters for. By having more units to achieve a goal, you have put the enemy beyond a means to destroy ALL units or atleast means to defend against all units. This reads exactly the same as having more threats than they can counter. I see no difference and reject your definition for that reason.

 

To support my definition of redundancy of coming from within a unit I will use your example.

If you take that sternguard unit, a couple MM Drop-Dreads, and a Combi-Pred or two

Saturation is achieved by the collective. No one is arguing that the sternguard (even with 10 meltaguns) is a saturating component, it is clearly a redundancy employing unit (more on why later). Saturation comes from having 3 or more units which can perform in the same role, which is, as you said, having more units to achieve the same goal (If you notice, this is your exact definition of redundancy.) Redundancy CANNOT be the SAME thing as saturation.

 

Redundancy can only come from within a unit because it is limited to only ever one target. Redundancy is having excess or beyond what is needed or no longer needed. 10 meltaguns in one unit gives great odds at a kill but will ever only achieve ONE kill. The rest are wasted and are thus redundant. As soon as you employ multiple units you employ multiple threats and you move into saturation criteria.

 

My definition accounts for the difference in ability of 3 x 1 units of MM speeders or 1 x 3 unit of MM speeders. They both supply the means to destroy a target, one uses redundancy, the other uses saturation yet the difference is not through number of models or any other support units but through unit number ALONE. I feel that this importnat to be able to discuss as it is in these subilties that a competative list lies. The distrbution of force or the concerntration of it.

 

To be fair, I see that you have tried to redefine your statemnet with the term defensive capabilities (Armour values and the like) and the link between predators with different roles. I agree that building a list with multiple AV builds a certain type of invulnerability and thus saturation. I dont see that having a unit of HB totting devistators and a dakka pred as being redundant. If the first target is dead. Shoot something else. Where is the redundancy? Isnt that SATURATION? As far as the defensive aspect is concerned, you have neither saturation or redundancy with the latter example.

 

The simplest way I can put it is -

4 enemy rhinos + troops

VS

4 lascannons

4 units

 

4 lascannons in one unit can target one enemy rhino - Only one of the lascannons will effect a kill (you cant kill something 2 or 3 times) - Redundancy

 

4 units with a lascannon in each - the odds of getting a specific kill (say against rhino #3) is lower but you ability to kill more than one rhino is there - Saturation.

 

Each has its place in a list and this is what I really wanted to talk about. HOW DO YOU BALANCE THIS?

 

I tend to add my redundancy through versatility (Melta + PF + chucking krak grenades with tacticals vs rear armour) rather than duplication (multiple MM attackbikes). The problem for marines in doing this is two fold, cost of said unit and mobility. Like IDAHO, I tend to focus on my enemy's ability when building a list. I consider things like, how am I going to effectively kill a dreadnaught? How am I going to kill 150+ orks? (ETC) Some weapon platforms overlap (Typhoons) whilst some are far better or efficient per point cost than others in a particular role (MM attack bike). I also consider how am I going to effect a win? what units can I use that can a) hold objectives, :) clear objectives against anything and c) reach objectives in rapid order given a turn or two notice? How do you, as a gamer, balance units with specific roles with units of a generalist nature and create a competative list? or is tha only way to genuinely create a competative list to maximise output per point? How much do you invest in mobility or dont invest and why?

[mowglie]

To clarify, having more units to achieve a goal is the same as having more units(threats) of a given type (goal) than the enemy has counters for.

 

"AV13" is not a goal. I'm not sure how to explain that any more clearly.

 

A Dakka Pred and a Tri-Las Pred do not do the same thing (role). You do, however, need the same thing to counter them (defensive type).

 

The simplest way I can put it is -

4 enemy rhinos + troops

VS

4 lascannons

4 units

 

4 lascannons in one unit can target one enemy rhino - Only one of the lascannons will effect a kill (you cant kill something 2 or 3 times) - Redundancy

 

4 units with a lascannon in each - the odds of getting a specific kill (say against rhino #3) is lower but you ability to kill more than one rhino is there - Saturation.

 

Those are not the accepted definitions of redundancy and saturation. However, attempting to answer your question:-

 

It's more complicated than that. A single lascannon is very unlikely to kill a rhino. Do you really want four whole tactical squads standing still in LoS? Can you even get all four tactical squads into LoS? Did I really leave all four rhinos where you could choose to shoot them?

 

I agree there is such a thing as overkill. You see this particularly with assault units. (You want assault units to win combat in 2 assault phases, not in 1, and good players look for ways to guarantee that).

 

However, there's a simple way to look at it.

 

One lascannon shooting at one rhino (with smoke):-

 

1 shot => 2/3 hits => 2/3 * 2/3 = 4/9 penetrating hits => 4/9 * 1/2 = 2/9 unsaved penetrating hits = 2/9 * 1/3 = 2/27 = ~7% Wrecked or Explodes.

 

One lascannon has a 7% chance of wrecking/exploding a rhino with smoke

 

Four lascannons shooting at four separate rhinos (with smoke):-

 

Binomial Distribution:-

0 Rhinos Killed = 73.5%

1 Rhinos Killed = 23.5%

2+ Rhinos Killed = 3%

 

Four lascannons shooting at the same rhino (with smoke):-

 

0 Rhinos Killed = 73.5%

1 Rhinos Killed = 26.5%

 

So, that's how you balance it. Is the extra cost worth the ~3% chance to kill an extra rhino?

 

I'd say no. I'd generally consider that the ~32 bolter shots you just wasted by having your tactical combat squads shoot tanks worth more than ~3% chance to kill an extra rhino. But then I wouldn't be using stationary lascannons in the first place.

 

There are other considerations too. The tactical squads have more ablative wounds. The devastator squad is actually firing one of those lascannons at BS5. The tactical squads can score. The other half of the tactical squad is off doing something interesting. But how many points have you saved by choosing the devastator squad? Where did you spend those points elsewhere?

 

Typically, there's something more important to worry about. It's quite difficult to imagine a unit whose shooting prowess is so great that it literally can't find a target without significantly overkilling. The "other conditions" for me are far more important.

 

Sorry for the multiple edits, I keep getting the maths wrong.

[greatcrusade08]

It seems to me that there is too much debate about the meaning of the words "saturation" and "redundancy" and the content of this thread is suffering for it.

 

As its Tuals thread i say we accept his clearly written definitions of these words and discuss it that way.

 

On topic though, i like to consider both when building a list, but there is a half way point and it kind of comes under the heading maximising a units potential..

using a similar example as above.

a command squad with 4 meltaguns can kill a tank with redundancy, whereas 4 tac squads with a meltagun each can kill more tanks albeit with less chance of doing so.

 

However if you choose to sacrifice flexibility you can make two tac squads meltagun, multi-melta (maybe meltabombs/fist too) and have those do the same job.. you have twice the chance of killing a vehicle as a single meltagun tac squad (ignoring moving, but balancing with longer range MM) and still have a degree of saturation with the two units.

In effect your turning these two units into tank killers so you lose some ability for taking on hordes, however the other two tac squads can then be used to this end with plasma/flamer etc.

[mowglie]

A better example would be 3x1 vs 1x3 MMAB or Typhoons.

 

Using a rhino with smoke as the target for comparison.

 

MMAB (ignoring the chance of glance + wrecked for simplicity):-

 

1x MMAB => 1 shot => 2/3 hits => 70/108 penetrating hits => 70/216 unsaved penetrating hits => 70/432 = 16% wrecked or explodes.

 

1x3:-

 

0 Rhinos Killed: 59%

1 Rhino Killed: 34%

2+ Rhinos Killed: 7%

 

3x1:-

 

0 Rhinos Killed: 59%

1 Rhino Killed: 41%

 

2 FA slots, 2 easy killpoints, slightly more resilient, ~7% chance to kill an extra rhino.

 

Typhoons (ignoring the heavy bolter):-

 

1x Typhoon => 2 shots => 4/3 hits => 4/6 penetrating hits => 4/12 unsaved penetrating hits => 4/36 = 11% wrecked or explodes

 

1x3:-

 

0 Rhinos Killed: 70%

1 Rhino Killed: 26%%

2+ Rhinos Killed: 4%

 

3x1:-

 

0 Rhinos Killed: 70%

1 Rhino Killed: 30%

 

2 FA slots, 2 easy killpoints, slightly more resilient, ~4% chance to kill an extra rhino.

 

Like I say, genuinely significant overkill from shooting (especially anti-tank shooting) is pretty rare. You can pack as much anti-tank as you possibly can into any unit you like, and you probably still have a less-than-50% chance of killing a rhino with smoke. The downsides of spreading your firepower (in this case, paying the extra FA slots, and giving away more easy KP) probably outweigh the very small chance to cause additional casualties.

 

Only squad I think it possibly applies to is 10 combi-melta sternguard - and they can save some of their combi-weapons for later anyway.

[Brother Tual]

Ok. Now that that is over with.

 

The short answer to spam or atleast to have multiples of the same unit in a competative list is yes.

 

How you pair or tripple your assets are of little importance. Concerns over redundancy and saturation (how ever you define it) are more or less by products of spam. Trying to alter either of these has little impact when compared to the overal effect of spam itself.

 

Is it fair to say this? the thread has slowed up so I feel that people are finished with this topic?

 

What I want to talk about now is the 'alpha strike' unit.

 

How important are they to your army list? Do you use them and how many?

 

What are your alpha strike units?

 

What do you do with them if you have second turn?

 

Or is ranged weaponry better at providing first turn results?

[Jackelope King]

This should probably be a new thread, but...

What I want to talk about now is the 'alpha strike' unit.

"Alpha Strike" is a combat doctrine, one which you execute with your entire army, not some lone unit. The concept comes from Battletech, where you could design your mech in such a way that you could spam horrendous amount of firepower in a single go. It was risky, because if you failed to knock out the enemy mech, you were basically left helpless until your systems cooled back down.

 

Applied to 40k, an Alpha Strike is a combat doctrine in which your force is designed to cripple the enemy on turn 1. However, just like in Battletech, it's risky. Why? You have a very significant chance of going second. I personally think it's basically LOLHammer, only at higher points values. The "Leafblower" that the intertubes were hyperventilating over last year wasn't a bad list, but it only did as well as it did because of the matchups and because it basically always went first, so its Alpha Strike was always effective.

 

Its utility is primarily evident at very high points values (2500+) when you can pack an insane amount of firepower into your list, and where the durability of critical enemy units (especially transports and fire bases) just doesn't go up as much. It's not uncommon to see the equivalent of 40 krak missiles slamming down into the enemy lines, more than enough to cripple, or at least hamper, most peoples' transports.

 

What you're asking about is more the spectrum of how people apply pressure from turn 1, which is a key concept. You need to be able to project your army's threat right away. This doesn't necessarily mean being right up in your opponent's face by the end of your move on turn one, but your opponent should be forced to perceive every single model in your army as a credible and immediate threat to his army by the end of turn one. Your firebase should seem like a threat because they'll be firing for the rest of the game unless he silences them. Your forward elements should seem like a threat because they'll be at his doorstep by the next turn.

 

As for individual units devoted to running up and killing something first turn (like scouts in a Storm with a power fist or melta bombs)... this is LOLHammer. It's cool when you get it off, but it's easy to defend against (in this case, you use skirmishers / speed bumps / bubble wrap staggered to 6" out from your vehicles), and when it doesn't work, you're left with a unit sitting with its collective thumb up its butt for the whole game, and often a fairly expensive one (Scouts in a Storm being moderately cheap points-wise, but a considerable investment of a Fast Attack slot, especially when you could use that slot to buy multiple standard MM/HF speeders which could potentially be popping tanks for 5 turns).

 

So what's the proper use of this concept? Pressure, right from turn one. Look at your army list and ask yourself "What is this unit doing on turn 1 to increase the pressure on my opponent?" If the answer is "nothing", that's a big knock against the unit (and one of the weaknesses of Deep Strikers). Have units that can shoot from turn one and disable the opponent's long-ranged weaponry or transports. Have units that can cross the board on turn one so that on turn two they can start shooting. Apply pressure from turn one. The more pressure you apply (ie the more threats you present), the more likely it is that your opponent will make a mistake and proceed to choke on your force.

[pattison]

I somewhat like spamming lists as they are kind of 'in your face' and shameless.

I don't field them myself, and I don't consider my 2x2 Typhoons spamming, it's more like the character of my army.

A lot of you guys here are mentioning the importance of the local metagame, and the fact is that in our one no one uses Typhoons except meself.

They were among my first fav units (one was already in my first 40k box that I purchased) and I've been using them succesfully for a long time now.

In our local metagame it's still 'marines=LR', and I'm known as the LR-less Typhoon guy.

Multiplies are beautiful, it's one of the most important feature of industrialization (see Andy Warhole's art).

I love to see more of the same kind of unit on the table. And I think all of us loves to see those almost identical power armours lined up in rows.

Besides this, taking more of the same kind multiplies their efficiency as well and your chances to get their job done.

This is not spamming. Honestly spamming is said to be stupid, but to be able to build a versatile and succesful all-arounder spammer list you have to be smart.

I mean as a C:SM player you always have to try to balance your list making it more prepared for anything that may come and in majority of the cases this points in an other direction than spamming.

[spartan249]

My personal thoughts on "spamming": If it's what works, then do it. I'm not going to let petty arguments like "That's powergaming!" stop me from fielding what I know works. If it's really that annoying or boring, go play with someone else.

[Brother Tual]

Thanks for the imput - You are right, this should be in a new thread. I have transfered the question and following posts into a new thread.

 

Same title, different comment - alpha strike

 

The spam comments can remain here and remain open for discussion if warranted