Min Sized Henchmen Squads -- Why not?

[breng77]

That is basically what it is guard, with a good counter assault unit., but fewer template weapons.

[DumbleDoo]

Not sure what I can do to improve the list because I really like venerable dreads. Their ability to survive melta shots and power fists is pretty amazing. I suppose that, at higher points, I could start adding some interceptors. I think that the real weakness of the list is that as you move up in points, the fire power doesn't go up much.

[breng77]

Pretty much, I mean you can add in storm ravens in stead of the Land Raider, and Get another dread maybe (depending on how you work the points.) Otherwise not much to add except more henchmen. OR you could swap the OXi for a Libby.

[Warp Angel]

But the army is essentially the equivalent of a nail.

 

And you really only can deal with a nail in one way and that's to smash it with a hammer. There's no finesse to it and not a whole lot of fine points to consider.

Wholeheartedly agree. When a list has such a unified strength, such as this one (all-out shooting, basically) there really is only one overarching way to defeat it, even if that single method can be broken down into an infinite number of variations.

 

The Zero Day list you linked to gives you alpha strike capability which is nice, and I'd argue is essentially just a different hammer than I would use against the list.

I hope you also see that the Zero Day philosophy is just that- a philosophy. I feel that my personal "Zero Day" list (GKGM, Coteaz, 2xStrikes, #xInterceptors, #xPTDKs) lends itself to a varied tactical approach- my default strategy isn't to alpha strike every opponent, my default strategy isn't in the same shape as a hammer. My default strategy is shaped like H2O :blink:

 

But, the shape of the opponent dictates the shape the water takes. And in this case - alpha strike is your best weapon against a max-shooting list. I agree that it's not how you'd want to play against all armies.

 

Playing your list would still be an uninteresting game that would depend too much on dice luck for my liking.

Referring to my list or the OP's? I can't tell which you're referring to :lol:

 

Referring to your list and any other list that would go against this army. I see an uninteresting game that comes down to dice rolls not tactics.

[Something Wycked]

The issue with charging the raider is that the RCA have an effective charge range of 20". While yours is 18" at best. And yes you can stay back and fire with pay cannons but at that point you play into the hands of the dread list as it will out shoot you. The raider does not need to chase you just stay at >18".

And you're assuming that there is no terrain in the way, while I'm assuming that I can make effective use of terrain. :blink:

 

Otherwise not much to add except more henchmen.

Yes, another issue with the list, albeit minor. Every slot is filled already except Fast Attack; Interceptors don't fit the list, but Stormravens can. The decision then needs to be made between more henchmen, or whether the SR should be an empty gunship or if you will use it to transport a beefed up henchmen squad.

[Warp Angel]

Storm Ravens, properly kitted out add well to the shooty theme of the rest of the list and can add to the overwhelming firepower available and make up for some of the shortcomings of the list against heavy armor. Assault cannons are always good with rending and high rates of fire. Twin linked melta are good vs. AV14 (something the rest of the list struggles with), and looking at how things are going right now, twin linked plasma cannons might not be a bad idea either. Wipes out scarab swarms, forces invulns on terminator heavy lists, and does reasonably well against most of the meta.

 

Might also want to consider, at higher points values, having a large number of space orangutans and their digital weapons somewhere in the list.

 

I really have no idea why I'm contributing "good" ideas to a list I have no enthusiasm for. Good neighbor syndrome?

[breng77]

And you're assuming that there is no terrain in the way, while I'm assuming that I can make effective use of terrain.

 

Not at all, terrain does not effect Land Raiders unless they roll a 1 (which can happen.) Any more than it will effect your ability to assault said raider (sanctuary means almost always a terrain roll for the charge.) It is unrealistic to think that you can always put terrain between your self, and the opponent and still be able to do significant damage. The LR is likely center postitioned in the army to react to the opponent. Again it is not an auto-win list, but assuming tactics on either side as a reason a list will or won't work is folly. I always assume the worst (there won't be terrain for me to hide behind etc) when I build my lists.

[DumbleDoo]

I played on a board packed with terrain last night and it didnt make a difference because 99% of my shooting doesnt pierce MEQ armor. That is the neat thing about this list. It pumps out so much twin linked strength 6 or better fire that it can really crush marines in or out of cover.

 

Also, my raider never got touched last night. As I noted above, I held it back until Mephiston committed and then I wiped him out.

[Something Wycked]

Not at all, terrain does not effect Land Raiders unless they roll a 1

You may have missed this part:

Unless it can balance on top of the terrain, it must go around.

How many people balance their LR on a modeled fence? Remove trees out of a terrain stand so they can put their LR in the middle of it? There are plenty of items of terrain that can affect LRs' movement without resorting to a die roll. But that sort of depends on what kind of terrain you're used to playing on, doesn't it?

 

Hah, new acronym meaning for YMMV- Your Meta May Vary. :P

 

assuming tactics on either side as a reason a list will or won't work is folly.

Quite the opposite. Is this a game of tactics or is it a game of odds and percentages, figured through efficiency numbers of each unit? Are wins on the tabletop purely a function of the list building skills of the player? Surely not. Without the proper tactics, any list will fail. This is why "net" lists are built as simple and spammy as possible- the lists are as simple as possible to be effective with minimal thought applied to tactics.

 

We cannot accurately judge a list without considering the effective tactics the list can employ versus the countermeasures that other armies can employ. :)

 

I always assume the worst (there won't be terrain for me to hide behind etc) when I build my lists.

I think that can certainly help you, in that your lists will be built hardy enough to survive a game where there is no terrain, but at the same time you may be hamstringing your lists' effectiveness by planning for contingencies that may not occur.

 

And the opposite can be said about my lists, which may be hamstrung by contingencies that do occur. ^_^ Each of us playing the odds of our local meta.

 

I played on a board packed with terrain last night and it didnt make a difference because 99% of my shooting doesnt pierce MEQ armor.

Non-LoS blocking terrain, I imagine ;) Not all terrain is created equal (thankfully so! Variety in terrain is bliss in wargaming) and you may have lucked out, either in the terrain actually present on the board or in your opponent failing to utilize it effectively. Or you didn't luck out, and this is exactly what you can expect from your local meta, and you're just playing to the meta effectively. ;)

 

So there's my question: is this what you can expect from your local meta? Armies utilizing exclusively light transports, driving across either mostly unobstructed tables or not taking advantage of what cover is available?

[DumbleDoo]

He was playing jump blood angels and had no shooting over 12". He had to come to me and I set up in a place that gave me good firing lanes and two turns to shoot before he hit my lines. There was a giant LOS terrain piece in the middle but he couldn't fit his whole army behind it.

[breng77]

I did not miss the balancing part but it is not true by the rules if it is passable terrain the land raider can move through or on it regardless of shape. The game is designed that way to deal with static terrain. You also missed my point about tactics it is not that I don't use tactics but I don't enter games thinking my opponent will play into my hands instead I assume they will do the opposite. The game is in reality both a game of tactics and of dice/percentages. The best tactics cannot beat bad dice, and using units in a role they, by the numbers, are bad at is generally poor tactics.

[Something Wycked]

I did not miss the balancing part but it is not true by the rules if it is passable terrain the land raider can move through or on it regardless of shape. The game is designed that way to deal with static terrain.

I'm not talking about the rules preventing the movement, breng- I'm talking about players choosing to limit their movement because the LR can't fit/balance/etc. onto the terrain piece. There's a difference between "allowed" and "possible" and it is very possible to exploit that difference :)

 

You also missed my point about tactics it is not that I don't use tactics but I don't enter games thinking my opponent will play into my hands instead I assume they will do the opposite. The game is in reality both a game of tactics and of dice/percentages. The best tactics cannot beat bad dice, and using units in a role they, by the numbers, are bad at is generally poor tactics.

Or you may have missed mine. Tactics can beat bad dice.

 

I was playing a game against a friend of mine- my Blood Angels versus his Black Templars. Bad dice saw to it that there was only about 6 models of mine left on the table (Librarian + 1 Tactical Marine with Plasma Gun, Dante + 3 Sanguinary Guard), while he had an undamaged Land Raider Crusader, undamaged Predator, undamaged Dreadnought, immobilized Dreadnought, most of a Terminator Command Squad + Marshal + Chaplain [with maybe a wound each on the IC's], a unit of ~10 Initiates and a unit of 1 Initiate and the Emperor's Champion. He literally demolished my army for not much damage in return.

 

I won that game- 1 objective to 0. :lol:

 

He had his Initiate + Emperor's Champion on my home objective while I had my Dante + Sanguinary Guard on his home objective. I split my jump pack Libby off from my Tactical Marine, threatening to contest my objective. The Emperor's Champion took the bait, charged and killed the Librarian... and then my Tactical Marine with Plasma Gun sniped his Initiate off my objective.

 

A good list can be made great with the correct tactics. Taking into account your opponents' tactics is also a smart idea. ^_^

[breng77]

I'm going to have to agree to disagree on the terrain issue as I have balanced raiders on top of terrain. If your local area plays otherwise that is fine. But not every one plays that way.

 

As for tactics beating dice this is only true in some cases and usually due to mistakes made by your opponent. You cannot assume these mistakes prior to the game. If they happen and you capatlize that is good. If your tactics put you in position to do so even better. But assuming those things is poor tactics.

[Something Wycked]

:huh: I haven't been saying we have rules against LRs balancing on terrain in my local area. I said some terrain will cause some players to choose not to place their LRs on the terrain. ;)

 

As for tactics beating dice this is only true in some cases

And I can reply that it is only true that dice beat tactics in some cases :)

 

You cannot assume these mistakes prior to the game. If they happen and you capatlize that is good. If your tactics put you in position to do so even better. But assuming those things is poor tactics.

:huh: You clearly understand the issue, because your third sentence acknowledges that tactics are separate from being opportunistic with your opponents mistakes. But you are simultaneously making the assumption that "tactics = capitalizing on opponents' mistakes" as a counter to my "tactics = win" argument. This confuses me. Taking the opportunity to capitalize on an opponents' mistakes is a part of tactics; tactics are not solely made up of capitalizing on opponents' mistakes.

 

The assumption here is yours- that my tactics consist entirely of capitalizing on my opponents' mistakes. :lol:

 

Part of tactics is limiting the choices your opponent can make in response to your actions- forcing them into making "mistakes." The OP's list does this, to a certain extent. As the example game against Blood Angels shows, the OP's list effectively eliminates the possibility of a simple Rhino rush across the board. His opponent didn't appreciate this and was destroyed- the mistake was capitalized on. The Blood Angels player didn't utilize tactics, else he would have chosen to do something other than rush into the teeth of the OP's list.

[breng77]

I agree that capatalizing on mistakes is only part of tactics, and part of your tactics may be based on how players near you "choose" to play (which to me is a mistake if it means that they are put at a disadvantage). However, the tactics that you have discussed with dealing with this list (at least in this thread), to me all seem to be the player with that list making mistakes and you capitalizing on them. Allowing you to charge his land raider and surround it, is his mistake, allowing you to negate a majority of his shooting with terrain, while allowing to you maximize your shooting, is his mistake. THis does not mean that you should not be trying to do these things, only that he should be acting to twart your plan.

 

The issue with the BA example is from the sound of his list (unless it was objective[it wasn't]) he did not have much of a choice based on the list he was running. Jump pack BA, with no long range shooting. Needs to move forward to engage the enemy at some point, at which point he needs to weather the fire power.

[DumbleDoo]

I am playing a practice game with this army tonight against Eldar and a 3 round rtt this weekend. I will update the thread with my bat reps.

[DumbleDoo]

Played an eldar army led by Eldrad last night. We followed the adepticon format of 3 win conditions (kps, objectives and quarters) and my opponent conceded after turn 5 when he was done to a lone guardian squad off in the wilderness by itself. The 3-man troop squads held up well again as only one unit died during the game. It seems that there are so many other threats on the board that an opponent cannot dedicate shots to shoot a 12pt squad in cover that he knows will go to ground.

[number6]

Played an eldar army led by Eldrad last night. We followed the adepticon format of 3 win conditions (kps, objectives and quarters) and my opponent conceded after turn 5 when he was done to a lone guardian squad off in the wilderness by itself. The 3-man troop squads held up well again as only one unit died during the game. It seems that there are so many other threats on the board that an opponent cannot dedicate shots to shoot a 12pt squad in cover that he knows will go to ground.

That's MSU in a nutshell. The only way to combat that is play MSU yourself. Which is not an easy thing for the Eldar these days. :D

[DumbleDoo]

I just finished rd 1 of the tournament and won the primary and secondary objectives (table quarters and Kps) against a purifier army. The DCAs killed a 10 man purifier squad and their librarian on 1 round and later killed another 5 man purifier squad before they got gunned down. The dreads did most of the heavy lifting and I tabled my opponent but for his land raider.