List Building 101

[PD78]

Hello fellow Sons of Sanguinius! (Edit: Thanks mods).

 

So this is Brother Captain Phoenix's Army List Tactica, introductory level. In it, I'll try and explain a few of the tricks I use to build winning lists that can take on all comers. Who am I, you might ask? Well, I'm Phoenix. I've been playing WH40K since before it was even WH40K, and I've seen every edition - and played Blood Angels for most of those (first and second editions, I played Ultrasmurfs, but those were the Bad Times™, and we don't talk about the Bad Times™... Okay?). These Prime Directives have been working for me since the Rogue Trader days.

 

Pretty sure.

 

So, since I sort of suck at long, rambling introductions, I'll just dive right into the meat and potatoes of List Building 101.

 

Updates go here

 

Thank you Morticon for your feedback. I've changed the example squads, and here's a note to the readers: I'm using the choices as examples meant to illustrate the concepts of what I'm talking about - not because they're particularly good choices for an army list. In fact, they probably aren't good choices, because they're hellaciously expensive - they're caricatures, meant to highlight an aspect of what I'm talking about. So use them in a list at your own peril. Also, a caveat: I'm using Army Builder to verify the choices - illegal wargear options may be added; if so, feel free to let me know about them and I'll fix it in an edit.

 

In the future, if you have valid criticisms of the ideas in this tactica, then please feel free to post. If you have issues about me, personally, perhaps that's better discussed via a private message. I would like to keep this mostly lighthearted and humorous, if it's at all possible.

 

Thank you JamesI for your feedback. Updated the intro blurb to reflect what you touched on.

 

Updated the bit on wound allocation, thanks Leonaides for pointing out that it's unclear. However, a note: this is on the CONCEPTS involved in building a list. The examples are not meant to be and should not be assumed to be the "ideal choice" for building your own personal army. Building your own personal army involves a bankroll, time, effort, and your own personal playstyle. These are concepts that can be applied to every army, regardless of what your personal playstyle, disposable income, or available time may or may not be.

 

Also, it is intended to have some humor. If you can't tell that much, well, I have a Humor Servitor that you can borrow.

 

THESE EXAMPLES ARE NOT LITERAL. THESE ARE NOT UNITS I RECOMMEND YOU TAKE IN YOUR UNIT. THEY SERVE AN ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSE ONLY.

 

Hopefully that gigantic blinding note cleared up some of the confusion. These examples are meant to illustrate a concept and are NOT meant to be taken as a "hey, here's what I say you should put in your army list". I'm trying my hardest to keep this guide lighthearted, but apparently reading comprehension escapes some people. Unless I'm being collectively trolled by the forum, in which case congratulations sirs, you have succeeded in trolling the hell out of me.

 

How I Do That Voodoo

 

There are three core concepts that I look for when building or critiquing an army list. Specialization, redundancy and weight of dice. Then there are sub-concepts, like flexibility and adaptability.

 

Keep in mind that I don't tailor a list to win against a certain army, certain list, or certain opponent. That's unsportsmanlike, and makes the game unfun for everyone. The point of Warhammer 40k (and all games in general) and rule #1 in every aspect is HAVE FUN. Enjoy yourself, whether you're winning or losing, and be sportsmanlike.

 

So what do the three Prime Directives mean, anyway?

 

Excellent question! Well, in a nutshell, specialization refers to how a unit choice does its job. Is it a SoS (Source of Slaw)? Maybe a tankbuster? Specialization refers to the job that each unit in your army does. Then, related to specialization but more like a distant cousin twice removed, is redundancy. Always, always, always take redundant elements. The term weight of dice refers to how well you do that voodoo you do; in wargaming terms, it means how many dice you need to buy.

 

Seriously, buy more dice. If that was a rule, it'd probably be rule #2, right behind have fun.

 

In depth, specialization means that you give each unit in your army a specific job and equip them to best do that job. It relies on a principle known as "maximally effective force" or in layman's terms "everything you need to get the job done, nothing more and nothing less". I'll be using Sternguard Veterans as examples throughout this lecture, as they're infinitely customizable - moreso even than tactical squads, whose entire claim to fame is as a jack of all trades. See, the problem with tac squads is exactly that - they're jacks of all trades, but masters of none.

 

So say you want to specialize a unit, but you don't know where to start. Novice list builders will put things in their list because they look cool, or because they want a squad that can do everything. This rarely works, thanks to the way the game is set up - models using bolters aren't as effective at melee combat as models with a pistol/CCW, and pistoliers aren't as shooty as a bolter squad.

 

So consider the following example:

 

10 Terminators

7 Terminators with Storm Bolters and Power Fists

2 Terminators with Assault Cannons and Power Fists

1 Terminator Sergeant with Storm Bolter and Power Weapon

Land Raider Crusader - TL Assault Cannon, 2x Hurricane Bolter, Pintle-Mount Stormbolter

 

This is a hordekilling squad. It's specialized to put a LOT of rounds into advancing enemy troops, essentially flooding them with 18 storm bolter shots, 6 rerolling bolter shots, 8 assault cannon shots, and 4 rerolling assault cannon shots every shooting phase. It's all about specialization. This squad is designed to do one thing, and one thing only - and that's to put a lot of little holes in everything it comes into contact with. Nothing more, nothing less. Your horde-killing squads don't need expensive close combat weapons (although terminators get them, like it or not) like power fists or thunder hammers, and protecting your sergeant with a storm shield is pointless if the only thing that gets close enough to make that matter is a lump of partially melted, still steaming swiss cheese (side-note, I almost typed "squick cheese" which would've been an eminently apt typo. Google the word "squick", then thank me later).

 

This segues nicely into redundancy. There is no such thing as too much of a good thing. We aren't talking halloween candy here, where eating too much of it will make you sick for a week or so - we're talking hot death and the fortunes of war. Did your special weapons marine take a hit from a lascannon and get turned into a fine red mist? Uh oh. But wait! There's more! Redundancy means always having a spare. The royal family used to joke about "an heir and a spare", but it's based in solid thinking - if Something Bad™ happens to the only thing you've got, then you want to have a replacement for it - unless it's grandma's china, then you're kinda pooched. Grandparents' china is generally irreplaceable outside of a Lifelong Quest involving having the plate thrown by a hermit that lives on a mountain in Japan, then taking it (by foot, no airplanes allowed!) to Mordor, to cure it in the kiln that Saruman installed inside the volcano... What, everyone has to have a hobby!

 

Consider the following example:

 

10 Sternguard Veterans

7 Sternguard Veterans with combi-meltaguns

2 Sternguard Veterans with Lascannons

1 Sternguard Veteran Sergeant with combi-melta, Power Fist and Meltabombs

Land Raider with TL Heavy Bolter, 2x TL Lascannon

 

This is a specialized tankbusting squad. It exemplifies the Three Ideals, but since I'm using it to highlight redundancy, note the second lascannon in the squad (and all the combi-meltas, but still...). This ensures that if through some funky LoS tricking, your opponent manages to legitimately take down the lascannon marine, you've got a second one, so the squad can still do its job. Just think to yourself "if they let me take two, why would I only take one?" then take two even if you come up with some wonky reason to only take one.

 

Trust me.

 

Weight of dice is a hard concept to easily illustrate with text. It boils down to asking yourself "do I need more dice?" - the answer to this question (unless you happen to live in a dice factory or a casino in Las Vegas) is always "yes". If you aren't rolling every dice you've got, then you probably don't have enough attacks/shots.

 

Consider the following example:

 

10 Vanguard Veterans

3 Vanguard Veterans with bolt pistol/chainsword

4 Vanguard Veterans with bolt pistol/power sword

2 Vanguard Veterans with hand flamer/chainsword

1 Vanguard Veteran Sergeant with bolt pistol/power sword and meltabombs

Land Raider "Redeemer" with TL Assault Cannon and 2x Flamestorm Cannons

 

That's 4 templates, and then 15 power attacks and 15 regular attacks. Or, 30 dice in total - that's what "weight of dice" means. Overwhelming your opponent by the sheer number of dice you're laying down every round. "But why didn't you take 10 power weapons? Weren't you just talking about 'more is better' in your redundancy section?" you might ask, to which I'll answer "that was a horrible question and you should be ashamed of yourself for asking it!" Just because you can take something doesn't mean you should. Any unit fighting in close combat has a distinctly lower life expectancy than a unit that's standing back and shooting. The 5 chainsword models are there specifically to remove in place of power weapon models that don't allow armor saves.

 

Duh.

 

I should note something here about wound allocation. Being a Space Marine chapter, we represent the finest that humanity has to offer, through a combination of genetic engineering techniques and technologies that have been perfected over the course of millenia. This means that we are incredibly tough, and hard to kill - but occasionally, lucky shots do get through the "castle gates", so to speak. That's when we worry about wound allocation. It's incredibly rare that we suffer enough wounds in a single round to remove an entire unit from our army, but gameplay-wise, we do have to remove some of them rather frequently (unless you're playing Movie Marines, those are ridiculous!).

 

In this case, you would allocate the wounds to the models that aren't carrying expensive wargear - also commonly referred to as "meatshields". There are two qualities that you want in meatshields - they have to be cheap and they have to be plentiful. I personally define "plentiful" as "at least around a third of the squad - but sometimes more". By taking 33% of your squad as meatshields, it meshes nicely with the 33% chance we have to fail an armor save with our 3+ save power armor. As the models you're shielding get more expensive, a higher meatshield count becomes more attractive - but just as with anything else, this all comes with experience. Play and experiment, because your army is just as unique as you are, and as we all know, Everyone Is A Unique And Beautiful Snowflake!

 

So I hope those illustrations proved, err... illustrative... and helped out some.

 

But wait! There's more!

 

There were two subconcepts that I mentioned earlier - flexibility and adaptability. The ideal army list exemplifies both. "But they're really the same thing!" you might say, then I'd say "Who's writing this, anyway?"

 

Flexibility means your ability to deal with any number of situations. This can be expressed as a ratio - I like to use 70/30. Roughly 70% of the armies you'll face (in a perfect world anyway! But alas, we do not live in a perfect world) are horde armies that contain a lot of infantry models, and 30% are vehicle armies. So going by that, it makes intuitive sense to earmark 70% of your list as horde-killers, and 30% of your list as tankbusters.

 

Also, 86.3% of statistics are made up on the spot to prove someone's point. Like I just did. Honestly, the 70/30 rule is just something I pulled out of my ass when I started playing, and it's served me very very well in the interim. This is something that you would tailor to your gaming group, if you want to piss them off by never losing - if the majority of your friends play vehicle-heavy armies, then you'd want the majority of your units equipped to deal with vehicles. Always remember rule #1 though - Always Have Fun. It's a game, enjoy yourself. If you're one of those sad sacks of skin that only enjoys themselves when they're grinding their friends into the dust, well, I suggest you get help... of the professional kind. Golden Rule, people!

 

Adaptability is a more ephemeral concept. That's one that only comes with experience - you want a mobile force that's able to handle varied terrain types and utilize cover well, especially while advancing. Don't get into the habit of always deploying your forces the same way, because Every Situation Is Different. Terrain placement, enemy deployment, enemy movement... These are all things you need to take into consideration and adapt to. Don't go into a battle with an overly complex battle plan, then expect your opponent to play along - I mean sure, it sounds nice to be able to chart out all 6+ turns of a game in your head, but this isn't chess. Don't think a dozen moves ahead and expect to win. Think at most 2 moves ahead, and be ready to change your plans on the fly to deal with an ever-changing, complex situation.

 

In Closing

 

FINALLY

 

Warhammer 40k is a game that's extremely simple to pick up and play. You can teach someone the rules in the course of a single 500 point game that lasts maybe an hour. But, to play it well, you have to work at it. Keep playing, against different and varying opponents at varying levels of skill. Be sportsmanlike, have fun, and challenge yourself, but remember - luck is always a factor. The dice ultimately determine who wins and loses, although the luck factor can be mitigated by keeping the 3 Cardinal Rules of List-Building foremost in your mind when developing a competitive army. The more dice you roll, the less you have to worry about bad rolls. The more redundancy you have in your unit, the more dice you get to roll; and last but not least, the more specialized your unit is, the more effective dice you roll. A bunch of storm bolters isn't going to help when you've got a Land Raider crawling up your left nostril (or your right nostril for that matter, but if your nostrils are big enough to fit a land raider in, I suggest a nose job. Seriously, fix that nose of yours, Adam! It's positively DISTURBING!).

 

This document will probably change.*

 

 

 

* Not really, but if you have any suggestions, feel free to post them and they might get added. The 3 core concepts have survived 5 editions of the game, despite the changes to it, so I don't see those changing any time soon.

 

Edit: Tweaked examples to get rid of some illegal wargear and changed up the examples somewhat as a result.

Edit the second: Updated the intro blurb

Edit Très: Touched on wound allocation somewhat, even though it's in the base rule book. Also people, QUIT :) TELLING ME THE EXAMPLES ARE CRAP ALREADY

[Morticon]

Okay PD, first thanks for adding your thoughts into the fray - its always good to see peeps sharing their particular experiences.

More varied opinions the better.

 

 

However, there are a few things im interested in and need to address.

 

Firstly, your flawless record in gaming (you know, that whole unbeaten thing you were talking about) is impressive, but seems less sterling when, in the last few weeks/months of your posting on here you've thought:

 

1. The DC are rending

2. Not understood wound allocation

3. You have thought Captains are a great idea

4. You rate powerfists on Priests (one wound IC models with no Inv. save) as a good option.

5. Your own examples of uber units have illegal warger. (sternguard with thunderhammers/shields)

 

Secondly, and this is the MOST important point of mine, while Im not necessarily debating the concepts you've proposed -they make perfect sense- your application of the concepts or and its explanation leaves sooooooooooo much to be desired.

 

You've suggested putting 560 and 595 points (respectively) into two units that have very very very specialised roles.

 

This is a horrible idea. Especially if, like the rest of the world, the vast majority of competitive games range from 1500-2000point games.

 

Nevermind the fact that you're combining all your anti-horde shooting into a unit that has 8 assault weapons and 2 heavy into a raider.

Or the fact that you're paying a points premium on a unit for its special ammo, and wind up replacing that special ammo with storm bolters...

or the fact that your 300point squad (before the land raider add on) does a massive 2.5 wounds on MEq or an iffy 5 wounds or so on Orks in Cover and about 6 or so wounds on gaunts.

 

From a squad that costs 300 points....and if it rides in a raider cant shoot...or if it moves cant use its heavy bolters?

 

310 points will net you 7 Terms, 1 with an AC - you put out 2 less storm bolters, and 2 less S4+ shots, but the terms will be around much longer and can fight better and can move and shoot everything.

 

You could even get 6 attack bikers for cheaper than that.

 

The same goes for the melta sternguard. Riding in a landraider with their lascannons. So, you have short range melta guns, and long range lascannons?

 

 

Again, its not the theory that's the problem, its the application of the theory - those are horrible units to be suggesting to people.

They are inefficient and overcosted and their wargear/combination/transport lacks any synergy.

 

 

 

 

Then there's your fighty vanguard.

This is maybe the best option of yours that you have suggested. But its still a poor choice.

 

Why take up a very valuable fast attack slot for 9 more regular attacks?!

 

For the exact same points you can get a scoring RAS squad of 10 men, a pw and 2flamers AND a priest with a PW/LC - giving that whole squad FC. This means that even though youre now 11 attacks down, youre doing 2 more hardcore flamer shots - and then (not even counting the priest or sarges) your squad will do unsaved 2 MEQ wounds (at init 5) vs the vanguards will do 3 - never mind the S4 flamers vs. S3 and never mind the priests attacks still.

 

What you're suggesting adds nothing to our armies.

In fact, it takes away from it.

So, while that combination may put out X number of attacks, you've failed to factor in all kinds of other variables- the simplest being cost.

 

Never mind the fact that if someone charges you with a dreadnought, wraithlord, carnifex, Trygon etc etc etc ad nausea, youre just gonna sit their and take it.

 

Specialisation is fine in theory, but it doesnt factor in your opponents smarts. It factors 40k in a vacuum- Where everything works perfectly.

No 10man squad of BA, whose primary point is to be in combat should be without a power fist/thunderhammer.

 

Just some other things to think about.

[PD78]

I was using them as examples because they're customizable units - not because I advocate taking them. Also, all of them were put into Army Builder to verify - rather than doing it by hand with the codex. On doublechecking, the Army Builder files are wrong.

 

Also, turns out I was right on the wound allocation ;) ... but that can be chalked up to a draw, since apparently wound allocation in the BRB is pretty murky. I'll admit to being "accidentally right" there.

 

None of my mistakes in the last few days (two?) that I've been posting here have affected the core concepts, and your concerns (while valid) are coming across as more of a "hey, this guy has been wrong on some points in the past couple of days" rather than "these ideas are fundamentally flawed". I'll own my mistakes, and as an explanation offer that I haven't played since around mid-late 2005 - I came back to the game about a week ago.

 

There's also nothing in the codex that says the special issue ammunition is dependent on the gun. If anything, the fluff disputes that - bolters, bolt pistols, and storm bolters all use the same ammunition (they even have the same characteristics as far as strength and armor penetration are concerned). So storm bolters and combi-weapons are valid for the ammunition on sternguard veteran squads, since they're both bolters. There would be an argument against combi-weapons, except that a combi-weapon is treated as a bolter with a one-shot special ability.

 

If you think it would be better, I can switch it to more "reasonable" examples - but I tried to make it clear that I was only using those choices as examples of my concepts.

 

In my opinion, s4 vs s3 isn't THAT big a difference - not when the vast majority of troop targets in the game have a toughness value of 3, giving a wound from a s3 weapon on a 4+ (50% of the time). Against T4, sure - the regular flamer might be better, it depends on the spacing of your target. Flamers (and any template weapon, really) get better as the targets they're hitting get more and more clumped up - if someone is using the 2" coherency spacing well, then you're going to hit relatively few targets. Maybe 3, or thereabouts. For reference, from a quick glance at the tables in the BRB, tau, IG, eldar, dark eldar, sisters, and some tyranids all have T3. Chaos, necrons, orks, and marines are the armies with T4+. Against the armies with T3, template weapons tend to be better, because of the (relatively) larger squad sizes - especially eldar and DE.

 

The flamer vs hand flamer argument is a wash though, as some people prefer to give up an extra attack in order to get that +1 strength, some don't. I'm in the latter camp - another attack in CC is golden for me.

 

And I can't think of anything that's more "40k in a vacuum" than list building. When you're building a list, you aren't considering specific opponents, but rather you only worry about your own list.

 

I welcome criticisms, but maybe I should add the caveat that people should criticize the ideas in the post - rather than the minutiae?

 

Edit to add:

 

What you're suggesting adds nothing to our armies.

In fact, it takes away from it.

So, while that combination may put out X number of attacks, you've failed to factor in all kinds of other variables- the simplest being cost.

 

Could you elaborate on what I'm suggesting taking away from our armies?

[JamesI]

PD, the codex specifically states only bolters and combi-bolters can use the special ammo. Stormbolters and heavy bolters can not. Also, remember the special ammo replaces the statline of the gun, so even if a stormbolter could use it it would be identical to a bolter using it, not 2 shots assault but rapid fire.

 

PD, I hope you can understand that No one takes anyone seriosuly if they claim to always win. No one wins every game. Especially when you make a lot of basic rules mistakes in your posts, yet you claim to be undefeated in 20+ years of playing.

[Morph]

Nice 101 and fun to read as well. *thumbs up* Though.. I prefer 60/40. ;) It has served me well.

 

Edit: To the rest that answered to this topic. The 101 is still good, but I recommend reading between the lines.

I would never run Sterns in any of those setups, it would be suicide. ;)

Never loosing? That's a joke. ;)

ect ect..

The tips are quite good though, because making each unit handle everything will make your army have problems with the opponents specialized units.

[JamesI]

The 70% hordes/30 % mech rule is really dependent on where you play. Where I live, I don't worry about hordes but facing 10+ tanks each game is the norm. Flamers are near useless here, meltaguns are king.

[PD78]

PD, the codex specifically states only bolters and combi-bolters can use the special ammo. Stormbolters and heavy bolters can not.

 

PD, I hope you can understand that No one takes anyone seriosuly if they claim to always win. No one wins every game. Especially when you make a lot of basic rules mistakes in your posts, yet you claim to be undefeated in 20+ years of playing.

 

Some games I've won by as slim a margin as 10 victory points, some games I've won by tabling my opponent. Still others, I've won by holding objectives by the skin of my teeth. I'll also update the OP to reflect that I'm coming back after a long break, and that I've never competed in a GW tournament - only ladder games run by friends.

 

Let me say it again - I took a break from 2005 until a week ago, when I picked it back up again. I haven't memorized the codex yet, or the new rulebook. Some mistakes will be made on basic rules, but again - that does not argue against the ideas that I'm espousing as it comes to list building. If you have valid criticisms of THOSE, then please feel free to post them.

 

I've updated the examples and noted the parenthetical stated in the codex - if there are any further inaccuracies, please drop me a PM. If there is something you see that's unsound about the core concepts I'm espousing, reply here - the discussion can sometimes be as good as the end result when talking tactics.

 

Edit to add:

 

The 70% hordes/30 % mech rule is really dependent on where you play. Where I live, I don't worry about hordes but facing 10+ tanks each game is the norm. Flamers are near useless here, meltaguns are king.

 

I touched on that in the original post. Should I expand on it or make it more noticeable? It is kind of an important concept; that every gaming group is made of different players that play either hordes, mechanized, or some combination of the two. Quote from the OP below:

 

Honestly, the 70/30 rule is just something I pulled out of my ass when I started playing, and it's served me very very well in the interim. This is something that you would tailor to your gaming group, if you want to piss them off by never losing - if the majority of your friends play vehicle-heavy armies, then you'd want the majority of your units equipped to deal with vehicles.

[JamesI]

In terms of tactics, as I said, the main issue I have is the focus on hordes. 70/30 will get you crushed if you come here. Based on your other posts, I disagree as to what counts as anti-tank as well (I don't consider plasmacannons anti-tank).

 

I'll admit I missed that note on the 70/30 rule in the Original Post.

 

In a world where everyone is marines or mech except Orks and Nids, its hard to see why I should focus so much on anti-horde.

 

I agree squads should generally be specialized, mostly. Devs should go out with 4 missile launchers/lascannons, not a mix of heavy bolters, lascannons, multimeltas. Too much generalization hurts a unit's effectiveness.

 

But overall, I think the most important thing in list writing is finding something that works for you. What matters here are a few factors.

1) the local metagame. Showing up with a list of nothing but guys with bolters and flamers is going to get crushed in a tank heavy environment. What works where I play may not work so well where Morticon plays or where PD plays.

 

2) What you enjoy playing and are comfortable with. I've seen lists win tournaments where my response is "that's a really :) list, it would get crushed here". Some people can make lsits work that don't work for others, it comes down to what you like and what works for you.

 

But yes, the concepts of redundancy and specialization are sound.

[PD78]

I'm opposed to plasma in general. Paying for a weapon that might kill you for using it seems rather silly to me - and no, s7 isn't anti-tank; I even went off on the ac/las pred for just that reason - s7 does not a tankbuster make. Meltas and lascannons are tankbusters, plasma is for the suicidal and isn't really good at much of anything else. Well, it is AP2, so I guess if you get lucky on your Gets Hot! rolls, then it's not bad as a heavy infantry/character killer.

 

The focus on hordes is more that you need a lot of dakka or a lot of choppy to take care of them. Tankbusters you can generally get by with a relative few - usually because they're really good at what they do. We're relatively lucky as Blood Angels in that our shooty units are generally pretty solid in CC, so we can get more dakka without really sacrificing TOO terribly much once we get into melee.

 

The group I'm playing in now is 8 MEQ, 2 tau players, 2 ork players, 1 guard player (surprisingly, he likes his CC. AND, he's lucky enough with his rolls to get away with it!?), 2 necron players, and we have one switching from marines to nids, and another switching from marines to eldar.

 

The reason I run 70/30 is because it's never done me wrong. As long as I'm smart with my cover and deployment (made easier now that people deploy everything at once), I can get away with having a dedicated tank-hunting core group. I'm in the process of reversioning my 3k list for the May 28th megagame coming up (15 players, all with 3k points, all on the same stupidly large table setup - 45k points in a free-for-all, this ought to be interesting!), and I'll be looking for roughly that same ratio to deal with those players. I haven't played most of them yet so it might break my win streak, heh. But my list will have roughly 1k points in tank hunters and 2k points in horde-killers.

 

Edit to add: I think my silliest list was designed to lose. I ran the old 4ed 6 dreadnought list vs my friend's railgun-spamming tau. I even deep struck one of the dreads off the table completely, and still ended up with 1 crater, 1 one-armed dread, and 3 unharmed dreads at the end of the game. We played fixed 6 turn games and counted VP at the end of turn 6 - I would've had 5 craters and one dread MIA if we'd gone longer, though.

[Leonaides]

Hello fellow Sons of Sanguinius! (Edit: Thanks mods).

 

So this is Brother Captain Phoenix's Army List Tactica, introductory level. In it, I'll try and explain a few of the tricks I use to build winning lists that can take on all comers. Who am I, you might ask? Well, I'm Phoenix. I've been playing WH40K since before it was even WH40K, and I've seen every edition - and played Blood Angels for most of those (first and second editions, I played Ultrasmurfs, but those were the Bad Times™, and we don't talk about the Bad Times™... Okay?). I've also never once lost a game against a tournament legal army - the one stain on my record was put there by Movie Marines, so I'm pretty sure it doesn't count anyway. I'm coming back off a 6ish year absence, so any murkiness in the rules etc is mine and mine alone. I've also not played in any GW sanctioned tournaments - but only against various groups of friends at varying levels of skill - but all with disposable income (the game kind of REQUIRES disposable income!) and most with the drive to play their best.

 

Pretty sure.

 

So, since I sort of suck at long, rambling introductions, I'll just dive right into the meat and potatoes of List Building 101.

 

Updates go here

 

Thank you Morticon for your feedback. I've changed the example squads, and here's a note to the readers: I'm using the choices as examples meant to illustrate the concepts of what I'm talking about - not because they're particularly good choices for an army list. In fact, they probably aren't good choices, because they're hellaciously expensive - they're caricatures, meant to highlight an aspect of what I'm talking about. So use them in a list at your own peril. Also, a caveat: I'm using Army Builder to verify the choices - illegal wargear options may be added; if so, feel free to let me know about them and I'll fix it in an edit.

 

In the future, if you have valid criticisms of the ideas in this tactica, then please feel free to post. If you have issues about me, personally, perhaps that's better discussed via a private message. I would like to keep this mostly lighthearted and humorous, if it's at all possible.

 

Thank you JamesI for your feedback. Updated the intro blurb to reflect what you touched on.

 

How I Do That Voodoo

 

There are three core concepts that I look for when building or critiquing an army list. Specialization, redundancy and weight of dice. Then there are sub-concepts, like flexibility and adaptability.

 

Keep in mind that I don't tailor a list to win against a certain army, certain list, or certain opponent. That's unsportsmanlike, and makes the game unfun for everyone. The point of Warhammer 40k (and all games in general) and rule #1 in every aspect is HAVE FUN. Enjoy yourself, whether you're winning or losing, and be sportsmanlike.

 

So what do the three Prime Directives mean, anyway?

 

Excellent question! Well, in a nutshell, specialization refers to how a unit choice does its job. Is it a SoS (Source of Slaw)? Maybe a tankbuster? Specialization refers to the job that each unit in your army does. Then, related to specialization but more like a distant cousin twice removed, is redundancy. Always, always, always take redundant elements. The term weight of dice refers to how well you do that voodoo you do; in wargaming terms, it means how many dice you need to buy.

 

Seriously, buy more dice. If that was a rule, it'd probably be rule #2, right behind have fun.

 

In depth, specialization means that you give each unit in your army a specific job and equip them to best do that job. It relies on a principle known as "maximally effective force" or in layman's terms "everything you need to get the job done, nothing more and nothing less". I'll be using Sternguard Veterans as examples throughout this lecture, as they're infinitely customizable - moreso even than tactical squads, whose entire claim to fame is as a jack of all trades. See, the problem with tac squads is exactly that - they're jacks of all trades, but masters of none.

 

So say you want to specialize a unit, but you don't know where to start. Novice list builders will put things in their list because they look cool, or because they want a squad that can do everything. This rarely works, thanks to the way the game is set up - models using bolters aren't as effective at melee combat as models with a pistol/CCW, and pistoliers aren't as shooty as a bolter squad.

 

So consider the following example:

 

10 Terminators

7 Terminators with Storm Bolters and Power Fists

2 Terminators with Assault Cannons and Power Fists

1 Terminator Sergeant with Storm Bolter and Power Weapon

Land Raider Crusader - TL Assault Cannon, 2x Hurricane Bolter, Pintle-Mount Stormbolter

 

This is a hordekilling squad. It's specialized to put a LOT of rounds into advancing enemy troops, essentially flooding them with 18 storm bolter shots, 6 rerolling bolter shots, 8 assault cannon shots, and 4 rerolling assault cannon shots every shooting phase. It's all about specialization. This squad is designed to do one thing, and one thing only - and that's to put a lot of little holes in everything it comes into contact with. Nothing more, nothing less. Your horde-killing squads don't need expensive close combat weapons (although terminators get them, like it or not) like power fists or thunder hammers, and protecting your sergeant with a storm shield is pointless if the only thing that gets close enough to make that matter is a lump of partially melted, still steaming swiss cheese (side-note, I almost typed "squick cheese" which would've been an eminently apt typo. Google the word "squick", then thank me later).

 

Or how about an actual specialised horde-killer squad like 10 devs with 4 heavy bolters - 6/12 bolter shots (dependant on range) and 12 Heavy bolter shots per turn, vs 8 SB shots and 4 AC shots for an equivalent priced termie unit. Longer ranged shots too (36" Heavy Bolters vs 24" SB's and AC). And then you have no need of the LRC. Like it or not, points are a big consideration in list-building and any list-building tactica which fails to deal with it is massively flawed.

 

This segues nicely into redundancy. There is no such thing as too much of a good thing. We aren't talking halloween candy here, where eating too much of it will make you sick for a week or so - we're talking hot death and the fortunes of war. Did your special weapons marine take a hit from a lascannon and get turned into a fine red mist? Uh oh. But wait! There's more! Redundancy means always having a spare. The royal family used to joke about "an heir and a spare", but it's based in solid thinking - if Something Bad™ happens to the only thing you've got, then you want to have a replacement for it - unless it's grandma's china, then you're kinda pooched. Grandparents' china is generally irreplaceable outside of a Lifelong Quest involving having the plate thrown by a hermit that lives on a mountain in Japan, then taking it (by foot, no airplanes allowed!) to Mordor, to cure it in the kiln that Saruman installed inside the volcano... What, everyone has to have a hobby!

 

Consider the following example:

 

10 Sternguard Veterans

7 Sternguard Veterans with combi-meltaguns

2 Sternguard Veterans with Lascannons

1 Sternguard Veteran Sergeant with combi-melta, Power Fist and Meltabombs

Land Raider with TL Heavy Bolter, 2x TL Lascannon

 

This is a specialized tankbusting squad. It exemplifies the Three Ideals, but since I'm using it to highlight redundancy, note the second lascannon in the squad (and all the combi-meltas, but still...). This ensures that if through some funky LoS tricking, your opponent manages to legitimately take down the lascannon marine, you've got a second one, so the squad can still do its job. Just think to yourself "if they let me take two, why would I only take one?" then take two even if you come up with some wonky reason to only take one.

 

No, thats another massive waste of a squad. A specialised Tankhunting squad might be an RAS with 2 meltaguns and a PF or TH on the Sergeant maybe a Tac squad with a lascannon combat squad, a meltagun and a Sergeant with a PF in a razorback or something. Or heck, maybe even a 4 lascannon dev squad.

 

Trust me.

 

Weight of dice is a hard concept to easily illustrate with text. It boils down to asking yourself "do I need more dice?" - the answer to this question (unless you happen to live in a dice factory or a casino in Las Vegas) is always "yes". If you aren't rolling every dice you've got, then you probably don't have enough attacks/shots.

 

I've got a lot of dice, the only time I need more is big games when I break out the 40-odd Jump-pack equipped Death Company. Weight of dice as a concept in list-building is a bit daft. You dont need more dice, you need the right dice. Too many of the wrong dice equals you lose.

 

Consider the following example:

 

10 Vanguard Veterans

3 Vanguard Veterans with bolt pistol/chainsword

4 Vanguard Veterans with bolt pistol/power sword

2 Vanguard Veterans with hand flamer/chainsword

1 Vanguard Veteran Sergeant with bolt pistol/power sword and meltabombs

Land Raider "Redeemer" with TL Assault Cannon and 2x Flamestorm Cannons

 

That's 4 templates, and then 15 power attacks and 15 regular attacks. Or, 30 dice in total - that's what "weight of dice" means. Overwhelming your opponent by the sheer number of dice you're laying down every round. "But why didn't you take 10 power weapons? Weren't you just talking about 'more is better' in your redundancy section?" you might ask, to which I'll answer "that was a horrible question and you should be ashamed of yourself for asking it!" Just because you can take something doesn't mean you should. Any unit fighting in close combat has a distinctly lower life expectancy than a unit that's standing back and shooting. The 5 chainsword models are there specifically to remove in place of power weapon models that don't allow armor saves.

 

Duh.

 

Introducing (or should I say hinting at) a concept then not explaining it is rather poor form for a tactica. Especially one that doesnt celarly say that its rather incomplete. Know your target audience - if this is a basic tactica for new players, then 'assumed knowledge' doesnt work, and will only defeat the object of your tactica. If they dont know the thigns you've assumed they know, then they wont understand waht you're talking about, and wound allocation is a massively important thing to get your head round.

 

So I hope those illustrations proved, err... illustrative... and helped out some.

 

But wait! There's more!

 

There were two subconcepts that I mentioned earlier - flexibility and adaptability. The ideal army list exemplifies both. "But they're really the same thing!" you might say, then I'd say "Who's writing this, anyway?"

 

Flexibility means your ability to deal with any number of situations. This can be expressed as a ratio - I like to use 70/30. Roughly 70% of the armies you'll face (in a perfect world anyway! But alas, we do not live in a perfect world) are horde armies that contain a lot of infantry models, and 30% are vehicle armies. So going by that, it makes intuitive sense to earmark 70% of your list as horde-killers, and 30% of your list as tankbusters.

 

Adaptability is a more ephemeral concept. That's one that only comes with experience - you want a mobile force that's able to handle varied terrain types and utilize cover well, especially while advancing. Don't get into the habit of always deploying your forces the same way, because Every Situation Is Different. Terrain placement, enemy deployment, enemy movement... These are all things you need to take into consideration and adapt to. Don't go into a battle with an overly complex battle plan, then expect your opponent to play along - I mean sure, it sounds nice to be able to chart out all 6+ turns of a game in your head, but this isn't chess. Don't think a dozen moves ahead and expect to win. Think at most 2 moves ahead, and be ready to change your plans on the fly to deal with an ever-changing, complex situation.

 

And the first part of your tactica seems to either completely disregard these two concepts...

 

In Closing

 

FINALLY

 

Warhammer 40k is a game that's extremely simple to pick up and play. You can teach someone the rules in the course of a single 500 point game that lasts maybe an hour. But, to play it well, you have to work at it. Keep playing, against different and varying opponents at varying levels of skill. Be sportsmanlike, have fun, and challenge yourself, but remember - luck is always a factor. The dice ultimately determine who wins and loses, although the luck factor can be mitigated by keeping the 3 Cardinal Rules of List-Building foremost in your mind when developing a competitive army. The more dice you roll, the less you have to worry about bad rolls. The more redundancy you have in your unit, the more dice you get to roll; and last but not least, the more specialized your unit is, the more effective dice you roll. A bunch of storm bolters isn't going to help when you've got a Land Raider crawling up your left nostril (or your right nostril for that matter, but if your nostrils are big enough to fit a land raider in, I suggest a nose job. Seriously, fix that nose of yours, Adam! It's positively DISTURBING!).

 

This document will probably change.*

 

 

 

* Not really, but if you have any suggestions, feel free to post them and they might get added. The 3 core concepts have survived 5 editions of the game, despite the changes to it, so I don't see those changing any time soon.

 

Edit: Tweaked examples to get rid of some illegal wargear and changed up the examples somewhat as a result.

[PD78]

I thought it was abundantly clear that I was using those units to illustrate a concept and NOT as units you'd actually, you know, take in an army. I'm not going to continually be editing the examples I use, as there are as many "preferred units" as there are people that play the game. If you spot an illegal wargear choice, I'll fix it - but beyond that, I'd rather not be updating this hourly because "such-and-such unit is better". The point comes across with the examples as illustrated.

 

I will, however, clarify the bit on wound allocation. Thanks for the feedback, Leonaides.

[BOBMAKENZIE]

I thought it was abundantly clear that I was using those units to illustrate a concept and NOT as units you'd actually, you know, take in an army.

 

having only read the comments. Clearly its not if multiple people all have the same problem its time to rethink your method :) Will read later.

[Brother Chris]

This is a very odd way of building a list. At the heart of a list have to be the troops, since there are so many standard missions for which troop status is important. at the 1500 point games most people on B&C seem to play this would be close to half the points, and wouldn't allow for the 70/30 configuration. even at 2000 points I'd be pushed. troops need to both take and hold objectives. The obvious tactic to counteract the all or nothing builds suggested is to take the opposite- engage those vanguards at 12" +, or send in the CC troops to finish off those stern guard.

I also feel that the concept of ablative weak vanguard misses the point. You will either deliver the vanguard by landraider, as suggested, or by heroic intervention. Either way they move and attack straightaway. If initiative is an issue, then a 50 point sanguinary priest adds his weight. They move swifty in and take out the competition immediately. Something has gone wrong if they have to soak up damage before they can assault. You would use assault terminators if that were an issue.

Characterising all opponents as either hordes or armour is wide of the mark too. Most armies on B&C aren't either.

[PD78]

You could do the same thing by taking a meltagun and lascannon in a tactical squad whose sergeant is equipped with a power fist. People are getting too hung up on the examples as units, and not the examples as what they are - illustrative examples.

 

Almost every squad in the Blood Angels Codex forces you to take what you're calling "ablative weak <model choice>". In an assault squad, you're limited to two special weapons and a sergeant with limited wargear in a full-sized squad, that essentially forces you to take "7 ablative wounds". Same thing with a tactical squad, and a scout squad with its missile launcher.

 

I used caricature examples because they most easily embody the concepts behind my list building. In a 1500 point list, you'd take a lascannon equipped razorback as a transport for an assault squad with melta gun/bombs and a power fist. That's the same thing as the combi-melta sternguard squad with 2 lascannons and a sergeant with pfist/meltabombs.

 

However, since people can't seem to grasp the simple :D concept of "examples are examples, and NOT LITERAL CHOICES", I will update the OP to reflect such. In gigantic letters.

 

Edit to add: Updated the OP. Also, If you're facing another MEQ army, you aren't likely to encounter "hordes" in the traditional sense. I can field an all-infantry army that, taken as a whole, would count as a horde army. A "horde-killer" unit is just one that's specialized to be very, very shooty - you're the only person who hasn't been able to understand that so far, so I'm pretty sure it's sound as is. Conversely, a "tankbuster" unit is one that's specialized to deal with enemy armored targets - lots of high strength weapons such as meltas and lascannons. I don't think it's that complicated of a concept to understand.

 

To put it another way: a mechanized army (say, a bunch of RAS in razorbacks) is a vehicle army. An army that's troop-heavy (say, a bunch of RAS with jump packs) is a horde army. You deal with them in completely different ways - against a horde (infantry) army, you want to shoot them to ribbons and then clean up with the assault. Against a mechanized army, you deal with them by popping their vehicles, then cleaning up with an assault. Was I unclear about specialization? I think not, but hey - I'm not the one reading it. I obviously understand it, as I'm the one that wrote it.

 

Should I put in a glossary?

[Cpt. Blood Donator]

You could do the same thing by taking a meltagun and lascannon in a tactical squad whose sergeant is equipped with a power fist. People are getting too hung up on the examples as units, and not the examples as what they are - illustrative examples.

 

Almost every squad in the Blood Angels Codex forces you to take what you're calling "ablative weak <model choice>". In an assault squad, you're limited to two special weapons and a sergeant with limited wargear in a full-sized squad, that essentially forces you to take "7 ablative wounds". Same thing with a tactical squad, and a scout squad with its missile launcher.

 

I used caricature examples because they most easily embody the concepts behind my list building. In a 1500 point list, you'd take a lascannon equipped razorback as a transport for an assault squad with melta gun/bombs and a power fist. That's the same thing as the combi-melta sternguard squad with 2 lascannons and a sergeant with pfist/meltabombs.

 

However, since people can't seem to grasp the simple :cuss concept of "examples are examples, and NOT LITERAL CHOICES", I will update the OP to reflect such. In gigantic letters.

 

You're being rude when people call you out on crap tips. Seriously. And no, assault squad members are not ablative wounds, they are the core of most B.A lists and fend for themselves as well as score. A concept you didn't really cover. But at least you now know what relentless does thanks to the other thread.

[PD78]

Like I said before, I'm getting caught up on specific rules - that doesn't mean the concepts are invalid. I've already owned that, and continuing to harp on it is just starting to come across as petty and troll-ish. If you have a valid suggestion or concern about the core concepts that I use to build lists, as I said I will be more than happy to discuss them, and possibly update the OP with them. Instead, all I've heard so far is that the concepts are sound, but people continue to have a problem with the examples.

 

Fine then - YOU come up with an example that caricatures the ideals I'm espousing. If it's better than one of mine, then I'll replace it. But what I am NOT going to do is to rate or in any way suggest what squads people should be putting in their army lists.

 

And I'm getting snippy because no matter how big and bold I restate it (four times so far!), people are still assuming that I'm recommending the specific units that I'm using as examples. This misconception persists no matter how often, or how blatantly, I try to clarify it. Also, I'm not the one that referred to them as ablative in the first place - the exact quote is upthread, posted by Brother Chris. To put it another way, if you have a special weapon in your assault squad, whether it's a 5 point flamer or a 15 point infernus pistol, and you take wounds, would you immediately put those wounds on your sergeant with wargear or your assault marine with a special weapon?

 

I'd lay 10 to 1 odds that you'd allocate those incoming wounds to your bolt pistol and chainsword equipped marines. If you immediately send them to your special weapons, then you're an opponent that I would love to play against.

 

It's a core concept of wound allocation (which, by the bye, wasn't meant to be part of this tactica to begin with; I only added it as it touched on gear selection for units) - you start allocating wounds to models that you have the most of. For purposes of keeping it relatively lighthearted and mildly humorous, I referred to them as "meatshields". You start the wound allocation with the models that don't have any wargear whatsoever - and it doesn't matter whether those wounds come by shooting or by close combat - again, you missed that whole "illustrative concept example" thing.

[liberate_tutame]

All the criticism thus far has been constructive PD78. Your enthusiasm is admirable but your attitude is not. You need to learn some humility man.

 

The one point I would make is that all these points have been made before by bloggers like Kirby etc. in clearer terms and with better examples. Not to say that your tactica is useless, but it is confusing and rather pointless when your examples, by your own admission, are inappropriate. I suggest you read more advanced player guides, play in a few tournaments and maybe then write some brief entries explaining each of your ideas fully.

[PD78]

It's sort of a damned-if-you-do damned-if-you-don't situation, liberate_tutame. If I use "reasonable" examples, then people will criticize me for trying to tell people what to take in their lists and come up with an entire host of reasons why I'm wrong. If I use the examples as I used them above, then people will criticize me for trying to tell people what obviously ridiculous choices to take.

 

And I wouldn't exactly call criticism of my claimed record constructive, or my admittedly outdated knowledge of the rules, or anything else for that matter. If it needs clarification, that's exactly what I'm asking for - do you have any ideas on how to clarify my points without going too far into the TL;DR territory? If so, I honestly would absolutely love to hear those.

 

I've been trying to think of an analogy to describe what I mean by "a caricature example", but words are failing me. I'm not sure whether that's due to the amount of time I've been awake now, or just a failing on my part. The closest I've come so far is "you wouldn't show a child a color like midnight or navy blue and then tell them that it's the color blue. You'd show them a brilliant ultramarines blue, and tell them that's what the color blue is". I think that's insulting to people's intelligence, first, and second it's kind of an arcane example.

 

Maybe something comparing Jay Leno's chin to everyone else's, or Christina Ricci's forehead. That might do it? And if you could PM me some links to the guides you'd recommend, I'd love to read them. I haven't found a list-building tactica in my (admittedly absent-minded) looks into the forum here, apparently they're in people's blogs?

 

Edit: The snippy responses are to the people who I have to assume are being purposefully obtuse or obviously haven't read the OP, and those who have been mistaking my lack of rules knowledge as a criticism of the ideas behind my list-building.

[And_One]

Wow. I joined just so I could respond to this supposed tactica, but now I don't even know what to say.

 

The problem is that even even if anyone were inclined to believe your rather outlandish claims, we have to wonder: what on earth would make you think that you know enough about the current state of the rules to write a comprehensive tactica after playing for effectively one week?

 

I'm sure that last statement came off far more rude than it was intended, however the point still stands.

 

You obviously have some catching up to do on the current rules, our newest dex, and the state of the modern meta. So why not simply put forth your ideas on specialization and redundancy without trying to woo us with a supposed record that isn't even supported by your understanding the basic rules of the game.

 

I guess my point is this: everyone likes to be heard but in order to limit the amount of chaff we all sift through, comprehensive tacticas should either compile the collected wisdom of the group or be left to accepted (and current!) authorities on the subject matter.

[PD78]

Again, tell me where the ideas are unsound and we can have a rational discussion about them. If it bothers people this much, then I'll take out the bit about my record, and just say that I've been playing (and playing well) since the Rogue Trader days.

 

Edit: There, fixed. Now can we have a rational discussion?

[liberate_tutame]

I think Leonides did a fine basic critique, so try and improve from this first. And yes, you could say TL:DR was a part of it, but more correctly the 'I have won all my games' arrogance is a patently absurd idea. As you yourself stated, it is a partly a game of luck, and how you could win every game where dice are involved made me think you were the creator of GW's 'how to practice rolling sixes' April fool's article. But don't take this as an insult, the 40k scene has completely transformed in the past three years. The internet and blogs have brought listbuilding and tactics to a different level then before. Have a look at Kirby's 3++, Yes The Truth Hurts, Bell of Lost Souls, and other blogs that link off of those. You'll find a lot of these ideas that you are trying to get across have become standard practice.

 

If it was intended as a guide for beginners then it is really awkwardly explained. Don't talk down to your audience, and don't take for granted ideas that you think are obvious, explain them. Most importantly, you obviously don't know the rules for 5th edition or for our codex. Buy them both and read through them. Using Army Builder and blaming them for any mistakes is a cheap cop-out, because at the end of the day, you are claiming to be an authority.

[JamesI]

Ok everyone.

 

Its time for everyone to cool down. Lets keep criticism constructive. If the tone of this thread can not improve, then the thread will be closed.

[PD78]

I'll work on those points then. And I'm pretty surprised, actually, that my list-building ideas are still current - despite not having played for almost 6 years. I expected more discussion, to be perfectly honest.

 

I win games by making a flexible list and abusing terrain. While dice rolling does play a part in it, they're ultimately pretty fair, and I've had some near losses. Some (most) of my games have come down to victory points being the ultimate arbiter of who won and lost - at which point the death company was worth FAR more than its 0 points as far as those.

 

Then there have been the "won through sheer luck" battles. Like 6 drop podding dreadnoughts vs railgun spamming Tau (under 4ed rules). I ended that one with a one-armed dread, one crater, 3 unhurt dreads, and one that deep struck off the table - mostly through the tau player's crappy luck that night.

 

Yeah JamesI, I think we're up to the constructive criticism/discussion part of the thread now - and I hope it stays that way, too! Sorry for getting snippy with people upthread.

[JamesI]

DC don't cost 0 points. Are you using the current codex? Sometimes based on your posts it seems you have a mix of the old codex and the new codex.

[PD78]

No, I was talking about 4ed and earlier. I haven't played a DC under the 5ed rules yet, and I'm not sure I really want to. Shame, really, since they were the most iconic unit in our chapter - even moreso than the Baal predator or furioso dreads.

 

Edit: I have the new codex, but I'm being horrible about actually looking stuff up in it, thinking that it can't have changed that much. It got a quick read when I first picked it up last Thursday, but haven't had time since then to go too in-depth with anything.