List Building 101

[JamesI]

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.

Ahh, understood. I agree, I'm not sure DC are worth it either this edition.

[PD78]

Honestly, that's what kept me playing blood angels all these years - there's something so tragically noble about them.

[1Drop]

I'm still using DC, pairing with lemartes and add a blood taloned DC dread cruising in a black stormraven is just too damn tasty to pass up :)

[PD78]

Yeah, I'm going back and forth on it. On the one hand, it just doesn't feel blood angel-y enough to run a list without a DC, but on the other hand, I like having tactical control over all of my units.

[Black Memories]

While this isn't directly tactics related, it is a comment on the structure of the tactica to hopefully improve it (or future ones). Some of this may be slightly harsh or direct, but I'm trying to be helpful. I'm blunt by nature.

 

Ok so I just read through most of that, and while it seems conceptually sound, it is a bit ridiculous in it's presentation. Like everyone else I'm not sure why you didn't just the plethora of available blood angel's units to illustrate your points. Despite your explanation that people would argue against what you actually use in games, you should have listed those instead. Reason being that it's much easier to defend and explain your reasoning for units you actually use (if that is the case) than imaginary ones used exclusively for example's sake, and who are in actuality absolutely horrible to take in an army.

 

As far as how I'd try and clear it up, you are explaining very little information with a lot of fluff and words. Basically, correct me if I'm wrong, what you're getting at is redundancy in the way of taking multiple specialized unit to do job X is effective. Which is true. The bizarre part of your post is your entire concept is so overly dramatized it's hard to get what you're talking about. You go into buying dice or whatever and it just derails itself.

 

I think you'd satisfy a lot more of the veteran posters on here if your post was simple (note: overly simplistic example) like:

 

Any example of using redundancy to achieve anti-tank purposes is to take two squads of 2 attack bikes with multi meltas, not just a single squad.

 

This is a concept morticon surely would agree with (he seems to be a MM attack bike fiend) and really just about any other veteran poster. Attack bikes are a solid choice and actually used, and actually useful to a Blood Angels army list. Consequently you could say to take two stormavens for reason X, or two Baals for reason Y, or mephiston and some other beefy assault squad for reason Z.

 

While I agree with redundancy being key and having an appropriate theme for one's army based on not only what you want to do with it yourself, but what you fight against, I really can't say that this is a helpful tactica as written. I'm glad the showboating bits were removed (or perhaps I just missed them), but that really has no place on these boards. There are many accomplished Blood Angels players here that offer excellent advice and critique on lists for players without gloating. The only reason such credentials are brought forth is for experience-related reasons, or an update of how one fared at a tournament (battle reports, etc).

 

As another poster said while it is admirable to try and make a tactica, I believe your execution missed the mark. I would be very interested, however, to read a revised version of the tactica with you discussing the units you actually play with, why, and what kind of situations they can help or hurt in instead of these obviously, albeit unintentionally, inflammatory units.

[appiah4]

I'll cast a vote against redundancy. While it's sometimes good, aiming for redundancy is usually an illusion of effectiveness.

 

Trying to make sure your army can do every specific assigned role reliably will inevitably ensure that you'll only be able to achieve a very small number of goals in a turn.

 

Sometimes you have to let the dice decide.

 

Redundancy can severely limit flexibility.

 

Taking two squadrons of 2 MM bikes is not redundancy, it's overcompensation for chance. You've just wasted a FA slot and 100+ points that could arguably be better spent on a Baal Predator among other things. (Just an example given in vacuum so don't take this too seriously and attack it.)

 

I hope I got my point across..

 

I mean, sure, add a Bolter or two to your Devastator Squad, but don't take a second Dakka Predator or Vindicator just in case the first one blows up. To me, this sounds absolutely wasteful.

[christheodorou]

you know this is so typical of this forum, its clear to me that PD is just providing examples, and all this orginal post was about was just helping poeple out, unfortunatley people get to caught up on here about unit and wargear choices and start chanting the old this unit will beat that unit because of X mantra.

 

I feel the ideas are sound, ignore the examples for a second and think about the application, ive played for 15 years and im the first to say that im not the best player but it warhammer is about having fun if you win great if you lose well hopefully you leanrt something new and can apply it in your next game, people come to this forum for ideas and to discuss different opinions but quite honestly im quite sick to posting and seeing posts on here were people just shout you down if they dont agree with you, lets have some constructive citisim people

[Gv0zD]

I'm gonna side with the people acting 'typically for this forum'. The general ideas in the OP were fine, but then they are well known, and the blogs such as 3++ are popular and known to many players. The thing with examples is pretty important. If the discussed guide is meant for new or inexperienced players, it has to provide playable and effective exsmples, not just theoretical or even irrelevant ones. It makes little aside from confusing the readers, who can't assess the units' effectiveness on thier own and thus turn to such guides.

 

The proposed idea is generally a good one, but with many different people here, it would be much better to create a 'flexible' guide, where people could post thier ideas on lists and share their wisdom and experience. Saying "I've never lost a game and I'm going to teach you what to do" does you little credit. Especially with the general and well-known adice provided. It reminds me of "how to always make profit on forex market" :devil:

[Cpt. Blood Donator]

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.

 

That wasn't the point, my point was that you didn't have a clear section on the importance of scoring units, and how their survival is crucial for you success.

But sure, if you manage to write a legal list, I'd be happy to oblige.

[Black Memories]

I'll cast a vote against redundancy. While it's sometimes good, aiming for redundancy is usually an illusion of effectiveness.

 

Trying to make sure your army can do every specific assigned role reliably will inevitably ensure that you'll only be able to achieve a very small number of goals in a turn.

 

Sometimes you have to let the dice decide.

 

Redundancy can severely limit flexibility.

 

Taking two squadrons of 2 MM bikes is not redundancy, it's overcompensation for chance. You've just wasted a FA slot and 100+ points that could arguably be better spent on a Baal Predator among other things. (Just an example given in vacuum so don't take this too seriously and attack it.)

 

I hope I got my point across..

 

I mean, sure, add a Bolter or two to your Devastator Squad, but don't take a second Dakka Predator or Vindicator just in case the first one blows up. To me, this sounds absolutely wasteful.

 

 

I get your point kind of, but I think there are better examples. The double attack bike squadrons fill both a redundancy and tactical flexibility role. They give you two dedicated, extremely effective anti-armor hunters and both at the price of 200 points combined. This leaves TONS of points left over for you to take anti-horde units in your army (or vanguard veterans, etc) with the open slots/points and not having to worry as much about your ability to quickly take down armor.

 

Maybe a better example would be using a tactical squad and assault squad in your list, so you can offensively take an objective, and defensively hold an objective. In that scenario there is obvious benefits to flexibility that 2 assault squads or 2 tactical squads would struggle to match in efficiency.

 

Either way I agree, variety is good. But variety and redundancy are not mutually exclusive in army lists.

[PD78]

Possibly a long post incoming - I haven't had a chance to work on a second draft yet; there was an "all hands on deck emergency", then I went to test my 3k list.

 

Anyway, going point by point:

 

Ok so I just read through most of that, and while it seems conceptually sound, it is a bit ridiculous in it's presentation.

 

I was trying to inject a little humor into it. I generally find that most FAQs tend to be rather dry in presentation, and with the length of them and the average attention span on an internet forum, humor captures enough interest to keep people reading from start to finish. If my humor missed the mark, then I'll rethink it in v1.1. Oh, and I don't mind blunt criticisms, so long as they're topical.

 

Basically, correct me if I'm wrong, what you're getting at is redundancy in the way of taking multiple specialized unit to do job X is effective.

 

My concepts are to specialize your army at the unit level, and not to take "hybrid" choices. It then narrows to redundancy, again within a single unit, then narrows further to ensuring that you've got enough attacks/shots to do the job you've assigned the unit while eliminating some of the random nature of die rolls. Then a note about flexibility in the army list you've made, and adaptability as a general - I can take out the bit about generalship, as on second thought it doesn't really fit in the scope of a list-building guide.

 

Redundancy isn't about taking multiple units, but rather taking multiple elements in each unit to increase its overall effectiveness. So for instance, instead of taking 2 squads of one attack bike, you'd take one squad of two attack bikes.

 

Consequently you could say to take two stormavens for reason X, or two Baals for reason Y, or mephiston and some other beefy assault squad for reason Z.

 

What I'm trying to avoid is actually saying "take <x> unit for <y> purposes". Everyone plays differently and has different strengths and weaknesses. As JamesI mentioned upthread, pretty much every veteran player has seen a list somewhere that SHOULDN'T work, but for some reason, it just does.

 

I'm glad the showboating bits were removed (or perhaps I just missed them)

 

It comes down to answering the question "So why should I listen to you?" When all is said and done, I'm not a well-known poster on this forum, so introducing myself and giving some credentials puts some weight behind my opinions.

 

I would be very interested, however, to read a revised version of the tactica with you discussing the units you actually play with, why, and what kind of situations they can help or hurt in instead of these obviously, albeit unintentionally, inflammatory units.

 

The general consensus seems to be that I should use different examples - I'll go ahead and do that in v1.1. Keep in mind though, that I just returned to playing 40k last week, so my experience with 5ed is (so far) pretty lacking, although of the 4 games (1500+ - I don't count the 500pt games I'm playing to teach my roommate the game) have been good ones. Runaway wins on my part - the 3k list I fielded tonight with 49 models vs a 181 model IG infantry army (including a baneblade) lost a demolisher cannon on a vindicator, 4 assault marines, and 3 wounds on Mephiston. The IG player was left with an immobilized Baneblade missing both of its ordnance weapons and a command squad. I forgot to take pictures though, sadly :\ ... I didn't notice until I got to the games store that my cellphone was dead, heh.

 

I'll cast a vote against redundancy. While it's sometimes good, aiming for redundancy is usually an illusion of effectiveness.

 

Trying to make sure your army can do every specific assigned role reliably will inevitably ensure that you'll only be able to achieve a very small number of goals in a turn.

 

Trying to make sure each individual unit in your army can do its job well isn't an "illusion" of effectiveness. It's actual effectiveness - take, for instance, a devastator squad. You can have 4 different heavy weapons in it - would you disagree that taking a heavy bolter, plasma cannon, lascannon and missile launcher is a rather silly choice? The redundancy I'm talking about is on the UNIT level, not the ARMY level. I mean, sure - you'll have redundant units in your army, and that's not necessarily a bad thing (unless you overspecialize); but redundancy on the unit level compensates for luck on the dice rolls. Take a tactical squad, for example - would you load it with a flamer and a lascannon? Or would a meltagun and lascannon be the more effective choice? Would you field a power fist and heavy bolter, or would you field a power WEAPON and heavy bolter? This is what the core concept of redundancy is all about; making sure that every element in every unit works together to make your army more effective as a whole.

 

The general ideas in the OP were fine, but then they are well known, and the blogs such as 3++ are popular and known to many players.

 

Actually, I'd never heard of any of the blogs mentioned upthread until today (technically, yesterday - it's around 1:30am where I am), and I hadn't seen any tacticas discussing list building theories here on the forum. Like I said, these are concepts that I've used to put together armies since I started playing. They weren't exactly "common knowledge" back then, and I still haven't found the time to check out the blogs that were recommended upthread.

 

The proposed idea is generally a good one, but with many different people here, it would be much better to create a 'flexible' guide, where people could post thier ideas on lists and share their wisdom and experience.

 

I think that's called the Army List Reviews subforum? I'm trying to offer general advice - not specific, detailed breakdowns on individual units and why they work or don't work.

 

Especially with the general and well-known adice provided.

 

This wasn't "common knowledge" back in 2005 when I took a rather ... extended ... hiatus from actually playing the game. When did these ideas start coming to light? Was it with the new codex released for 5ed? I'm also seeing a lot of people (granted, it could just be a short observation period) criticizing "hybrid" lists even today. If I was unclear in my OP, you have my apologies - but I wouldn't have even made the attempt if I hadn't noticed people saying things like "I've been warned over and over about how bad hybrid lists are".

 

That wasn't the point, my point was that you didn't have a clear section on the importance of scoring units, and how their survival is crucial for you success.

But sure, if you manage to write a legal list, I'd be happy to oblige.

 

There are multiple ways to win a game - kill points, victory points, take and hold objectives, etc etc. I'm not trying to say there's "One True Way" here, or offer specific tactics on what to pick and why. Sorry I misunderstood you earlier - you said something about wound allocation, then got riled up when I added your suggestions to the OP; I don't recall seeing anything about scoring units and ensuring survival. That's something that people learn through actually playing the game, so it most likely won't end up in the final reversion of the tactica. Sorry.

 

And I can put together legal lists, especially now that the Army Builder issue is a non-issue. Sadly, I doubt we'll ever get the chance to game against each other, unless you happen to be in N. Arizona or around the Valley - or the western border. Heh, anywhere in Arizona, really. I'd even consider driving out to Vegas for a good, challenging game.

[Cpt. Blood Donator]

I wish I could drive to Vegas. Then I could hunt down Brandon Flowers and have him sign everything I own.

 

BTW, are you sure you have been gone from the game since 2005? Jervis's PDF was released in 2007.

[PD78]

Fairly sure, yeah. I might be fuzzy on dates in general, but 2006 was a fairly hectic year for me, and I know I stopped playing the summer before that. People in my local gaming group started drawing straws to see who "had" to face me that week, because they were sick of losing and it sapped the fun out of playing for them entirely. I have a competitive streak a mile wide - something that group lacked in general, and I could never bring myself to "throw" a game beyond the occasional list that I would tailor to people's strengths rather than to exploit an army's weakness in an attempt to handicap myself.

 

I'm not trying to brag, or anything - it was really a horrible situation to be in. I used to live in a town that was only about an hour and a half out of Vegas, and we'd have highly competitive, highly skilled players come out from time to time to play with us, and I'd still beat all comers. It disheartened my group, and that summer I decided that I'd take myself out of the situation before I started losing friends over it.

[BOBMAKENZIE]

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.

Ahh, understood. I agree, I'm not sure DC are worth it either this edition.

 

 

I think like most misunderstood units in most codexes the DC can fill a role it just takes alittle shoe horning to make it work. Which means people are less likely to use them as such. However they are just dandy in the right mix :rolleyes:

[Gv0zD]

I think that's called the Army List Reviews subforum? I'm trying to offer general advice - not specific, detailed breakdowns on individual units and why they work or don't work.

I was talking about a guide, that would integrate the advice given by different players.

 

This wasn't "common knowledge" back in 2005 when I took a rather ... extended ... hiatus from actually playing the game. When did these ideas start coming to light? Was it with the new codex released for 5ed?

It happened with the release of new dex. I also missed that moment, and when I got back in September 2010 I found that my 4th ed lists didn't work well. Although I tried razor/rhino spam back then, they were not the same they are today. Add to this the superiority of mech lists, meltas etc and relatively low quantity of hordes (with the majority of marine armies, and few mech IG lists in my area, for instance).

 

As for the mentioned blogs, I learned of them pretty quick as guys here at B&C gladly provided advice. And I *really* suggest checking "3++ is the new black", "yes the truth hurts" to get an idea what has changed in 5th ed in general and in BA tactics in particular.

[PD78]

The problem with the new DC, from what I've gathered, is that it's an expensive unit and it's too easy to exploit the Rage USR.

[BOBMAKENZIE]

As for the mentioned blogs, I learned of them pretty quick as guys here at B&C gladly provided advice. And I *really* suggest checking "3++ is the new black", "yes the truth hurts" to get an idea what has changed in 5th ed in general and in BA tactics in particular.

 

You hurt my soul GvOzD *tear*

 

As much as I like to read the Super Competitive blogs out there I personally dont believe they provide a microcosm of the 40K gaming scene. They are one specific strain and if you are going out there looking to start playing as top dog in tournaments it can be a great way to get a basic grasp on the scene but I am uncertain if I would suggest them as good primary sources for really getting gaming experience.

[Morticon]

As for the mentioned blogs, I learned of them pretty quick as guys here at B&C gladly provided advice. And I *really* suggest checking "3++ is the new black", "yes the truth hurts" to get an idea what has changed in 5th ed in general and in BA tactics in particular.

 

You hurt my soul GvOzD *tear*

 

As much as I like to read the Super Competitive blogs out there I personally dont believe they provide a microcosm of the 40K gaming scene. They are one specific strain and if you are going out there looking to start playing as top dog in tournaments it can be a great way to get a basic grasp on the scene but I am uncertain if I would suggest them as good primary sources for really getting gaming experience.

 

^ this.

[Gv0zD]

@ BOB

 

I partially agree with you. Myabe those blogs are notthe best sources for experience, but they provide the general concepts for the army building. Reading them was very useful to me, as it shaped my understanding of 'standard' BA lists. So reading them on par with other sources will give a new or 'returned' player a better understanding of concepts.

[Cpt. Blood Donator]

@ BOB

 

I partially agree with you. Myabe those blogs are notthe best sources for experience, but they provide the general concepts for the army building. Reading them was very useful to me, as it shaped my understanding of 'standard' BA lists. So reading them on par with other sources will give a new or 'returned' player a better understanding of concepts.

 

I agree with that. Especially the gaming 101 and common mistakes parts of kirby's blog are excellent. They have nothing to do with power-gaming and what not, they just offer lessons in understanding.

 

@ creator. I find it strange that you confuse the new dex with the previous .pdf, as you were out of the game for the time it was in play.

[PD78]

It was mentioned in a post here about a DC rending - I don't recall which one. Fairly certain it was one of the army lists posted for review. I'll try to find it.

 

I read the "how to build a list" bits on 3++ and Yes the Truth Hurts, and those posts didn't really touch on what I'm talking about. They used some of the same terminology, so maybe I should change mine up some to differentiate it - especially as it pertains to redundancy, since we have vastly differing ideas.

 

Edit: ah-HA! Found it:

 

Why not keep it simple something like

 

-1 bs but all infantry have rending.

 

It was a discussion regarding DC and rending, in the FT House Rules thread (here's the link: http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.p...howtopic=229366 ). I did mention that I've been awake for an ungodly length of time, yes? I got it muddled up in the brain. It happens a lot when we have runs at work like we've been having what with the spring snowstorms these past few days. I work in emergency services, so long, long, LONG stretches sleepless aren't anything new. Trying to hold rational conversations with anything but the little pink dragonbunnies flying around my office is something approaching an exercise in futility.

 

So the DC did actually have rending at one point? If they still did, that would go a long way toward making them almost worth the points, in my book.

[BOBMAKENZIE]

I have taken a short time to go through the document and edit as I saw fit. You may not agree but I would hope its worth reading over and considering PD78

 

"Hello fellow Sons of Sanguinius!

 

So this is Brother Captain Phoenix's Army List Tactica, introductory level. In it, I'll 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 principles have been working for me since the Rogue Trader days.

 

Thank you Morticon, JamesI, & Leonaides for your feedback.

 

So I'll just dive right into the meat and potatoes of List Building 101.

 

Please note: 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".

 

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 cost effectiveness.

 

Keep in mind that I don't tailor a list to win against a certain army, certain list, or certain opponent. 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. Personally I enjoy the challenge that fixed list building brings.

 

So what do the three principles 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 enough 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".

 

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 Devastators, 4 heavy bolters

 

This is a hordekilling squad. It's specialized to put a LOT of rounds into advancing enemy troops, essentially flooding them with 6 bolter shots at 12-24”, 12 bolter shots at 0-12” & 12 heavy bolter 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 every bit of infantry it comes into contact with. Nothing more, nothing less. Ideally your horde-killing squads don't need expensive close combat weapons, 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. (Common Horde Killing units include: Baal Predators, Devastators with Heavy Bolters or Missile Launchers, Assault Marines in close combat)

 

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

4 Sternguard Veterans with combi-meltaguns

2 Sternguard Veterans with Lascannons

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

Razorback, with Twin-Linked Las-Cannon

 

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). This ensures that if through some funky rules, 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. Not only that but you have the option to combat squad down, and advance with 5 sternguard with Meltaguns to bust tanks! And if neither of those work you also have the lascannon on the razorback in a pinch. (Common tank busting squads include: Multi Melta attack bikes, Lascannon Predators, Devastators with Missile Launchers, Assault Squads with Meltas)

 

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 usually "yes". If you aren't rolling every dice you've got, then you probably don't have enough attacks/shots.

 

Consider the following 2 examples:

 

10 tactical marines with bolters

10 death company with bolter & bolt pistol

 

The tactical marines have 10 bolt pistol shots & 21 attacks in close combat on the charge (20 and 11 respectively if they instead choose to shoot and be charged). While the Death Company have 20 bolter shots, followed up by 30 attacks in close combat on the charge. Or, 19 dice more then the tactical squad’s options 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?" 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. This all ties back to Cost Efficiency, sometimes you need to forego some of your options to maximize the potential of the unit.

 

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 most often 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 1:2 ration meatshields to specialists, 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!

 

But wait! There's more!

 

There were two subconcepts that I mentioned earlier - flexibility and cost efficiency. The ideal army list exemplifies both.

 

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 I 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 my lists as horde-killers, and 30% of my lists 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!

 

Part of Flexibility 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 ahead, and be ready to change your plans on the fly to deal with an ever-changing, complex situation.

 

In addition a part of Felxibility is in your very choice of army. Just because something works for me doesn’t mean something will work for you. Always be prepared to get your hands dirty and get into the midst of trying new and different things out yourself!

 

Cost efficiency as before I mentioned cost efficiency. This is a concept that is gained the more you play. The more you find upgrades you needed or didn’t need in any given game and you get a feel for what the optimal build for any given unit is. What is helpful to have Vs. What was entirely pointless. For example if you find your devastators never get into combat with a tank you probably don’t need to both spending 5pts on melta bombs for the sergeant :woot: On the flip side of this is an element of diversity. You may find that your tank hunting squads end up getting into the thick of combat with infantry often (or vice versa) so you may personally need to add in weapons to their arsenal to deal with these diverse threats.

 

In Closing

 

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 Principles 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!)."

[General Malaise]

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.

Ahh, understood. I agree, I'm not sure DC are worth it either this edition.

 

Having a DC means you get to have a DC Dread. so......worth it.

 

now you boys play nice and don't make me get up..... :P

[1Drop]

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.

Ahh, understood. I agree, I'm not sure DC are worth it either this edition.

 

Having a DC means you get to have a DC Dread. so......worth it.

 

now you boys play nice and don't make me get up..... ;)

 

It is amazing how we can take a dreadnaught just for having 5 DC, I love DC.

 

By the way does the DC D take up a troops slot on the FOC? I've been counting it as it does!

[shatter]

No reason I've seen that makes it immune to the 6 limit in troops as it is, quite simply, a troops selection.