Annihilation a valid strategy?

[Frater Cornelius]

IG bring the biggest guns on this side of the shire (and on the other side as well, probably). Would capitalizing on that be a valid strategy? Just take the cheapest minimal troops (only 2-3 vets with AC or LC in a 1850 game) and fill the rest with the biggest bang you can find. Since everything is scoring, you can still go for objectives, though you will lack super-scoring units to maybe steal a win from an enemy non-troop by grabbing an objective. You think that is viable?

[CoffeeGrunt]

If you're playing Maelstrom, no, as you really need to be capping Objectives to get the points you need to stay in the game. You'll be aiming to table every time.

[Frater Cornelius]

Few troops does not mean you can not go for objectives. A Leman Russ is fairly hard to move. You just have to make sure that his super-scorers are not sitting on it and this is where the big guns come in. This was more in the direction I was thinking rather than only attempting to table someone.

[hendrik]

it only takes mobile superscoring units to deny you those objectives. most armies will in my opinion feature a fair amount of superscoring units. in fact, the maelstrom missions force you to give a mobile element to our army, since a static gunline will be significantly disadvantaged.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Also it's still not all that hard to Glance a Russ to death if you really want to.

[WarriorFish]

Isn't that our SOP? Utterly destroy the enemies of the Emperor and sometimes you find some objectives on that way :lol: It is a viable strategy and will remain so as long as you can automatically win a game by tabling your opponent. It's something Guard can do if you focus your fire power properly, though I'd prefer to seize the day more tactically with focused application. For example eliminating all threats to some objective holders and the like.

 

I'd still use troops though, even if it's just as a mobile element or to protect bigger guns they will be useful. As good as the biggest and best things are they always come with drawbacks, so without proper support you might end up with a list of extremes where you either win big or get crushed. This is up to you of course but I wouldn't recommend such lists, at least not as your mainstay as the best games are hotly contested and rofflestomps aren't very fun for either party.

[CoffeeGrunt]

I'm not the biggest fan on tabling my opponent, unless it's done by my last, crumbling Russ covering a couple of men cowering amongst the corpses of their fellows on the hill they were told to hold at all costs.

 

Holding Objectives unto death just feels very Guard.

[Raulmichile]

Although with unbound armies the strategy is more viable than before, I think you are narrowing your scope a little bit as your army is built towards an extreme. Also, as others already pointed out, some missions will be very difficult to achieve unless you table the opposition. People will treat your army as a (very tough) one trick pony and begin to adapt accordingly. Otherwise, not bad for the occasional deployment.

 

Just my two cents.

[Frater Cornelius]

Let me toss you my 2 armoured spearhead lists where this strategy will be an option.

 

List 1 (GK/AM):

Coteaz

 

Pask Punisher, hull-HB, dozer, relics

Demolisher Wingman, hull-HB, dozer

 

Techpriest (mostly to split fire the LR squadron in heavy support)

Primaris, ML1 (second Prescience cast here)

 

5 GKSS, psycannon, razorback (TLHB, psy ammo)

5 GKSS, psycannon, razorback (TLHB, psy ammo)

 

Veterans, forward sentries, LC, Taurox

Veterans, forward sentries, LC, Taurox

 

Stormraven, TLMM, TLLC

Stormraven, TLMM, TLLC

 

Leman Russ Squadron

1x Executioner, Hull-HB, relics

1x Eradicator, Hull-HB

 

1871 (still working on it)

 

List 2 (AM):

Pask Punisher, hull-HB, dozer, relic

2x Executioner Wingman, hull-HB, dozer

 

Techpriest, 2 servitors (mostly to allow the HQ squadron tanks to fire at 3 targets with the tank commander order)

 

Veterans, forward sentries, LC, Taurox

Veterans, forward sentries, LC, Taurox

Veterans, forward sentries, LC, Taurox

 

Hydra Battery

2x Hydra

 

Wyvern Battry

2x Wyvern

 

LR Demolisher, hull-HB, dozer, relics

 

Knight Errant

 

1836 points

 

Both armies are rather light on super-scoring units (8 and 6 respectively when counting transports). But both sport decent shooting in t1 and t2 and can keep enemy scorers at bay. Everything is fairly mobile, but in the end there's more guns than point takers and it wouldn't be uncommon for an enemy to target my vets/GKSS, leaving me with only the domination option.

[march10k]

They're only 'light' on superscorers relative to what IG are capable of. Id you told me that your space wolf list had four superscoring units plus transports, I'd say "eight is excellent," so why would I suggest that 12 or 14 is the minimum for Guard? I don't think you're skimping on super-scorers here, I think you're just choosing not to flat out spam them.

 

I think the key is to have some mobile superscorers. That's more inportant than how many you have.

[Frater Cornelius]

Good point as always. 6-8 super scorers is a solid numbers and transports (on their own and with cargo) are pretty mobile (no where near jet bikes but still). Guard just sports lighter infantry than most, which is why it sometimes appears to be less than usual (at least for me). So that is possibly the reason some spam them.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Marines tend to live longer in order to Super Score, though, which I think is why Guard spams them a bit more.

[Captain Juan Juarez]

I would suggest that most tactics, by an able general, are feasible but it's all about the proper application.

 

In fact, the more I think about it and the more I type and then delete as my thoughts coalesce, it is really just application of basic Guard skills but with a force of a more focused nature:

 

Target identification & priority

Focused application of firepower

Mobility

 

And possibly more that I've missed.

[WarriorFish]

Along with "more troops" and "more guns", that about covers it :P

[march10k]

I think the reason to spam super-scorers is "because we can."  It's not strictly necessary, since you can contest that enemy whirlwind with a hellhound.  But when you have eighteen superscorers in a six-objective game, anything he can't counter with a super-scorer of his own is YOURS.  And with eighteen of them, the thought of trying to kill "enough" of your super-scorers is going to be demoralizing to him.

[Frater Cornelius]

I think the reason to spam super-scorers is "because we can."  It's not strictly necessary, since you can contest that enemy whirlwind with a hellhound.  But when you have eighteen superscorers in a six-objective game, anything he can't counter with a super-scorer of his own is YOURS.  And with eighteen of them, the thought of trying to kill "enough" of your super-scorers is going to be demoralizing to him.

 

But this comes with an opportunity cost. Our Troops do not pack nearly as much punch as our HQ or HS. So by spamming the living hell out of troops you are going down that other extreme of not having the dakka to keep the enemy in check.

[CoffeeGrunt]

 

 

Our Troops do not pack nearly as much punch as our HQ or HS

 

Translation:

 

But if we take loads of men, then where are the bloody tanks?!

[PureFodder]

In general, yes it does work.

 

Pile your points into big killing units then use cheaper fast things like fliers in hover mode, hellhounds, chimeras and Salamanders (if you're FW friendly) to move forward and take objectives as needed.

 

The big guns can clear you opponents off objectives and complete any tactical objectives based on killing stuff. If you're worried about enemy troop choices preventing you from contesting/claiming key objectives, just tank shock them. A squadron of 2 vehicles can easily tank shock a troop unit more than 3" from an objective making their 'objective secured' rule irrelevant. The key is to put 2 tanks 2.5" apart with the objective sat between them. It's then impossible for your opponent to contest it that turn. And to sweeten the deal, tank shocking doesn't prevent you from shooting as well.

 

Or just take an armoured company list and bask in the glory of Leman Russ tanks with the objective secured rule....

[march10k]

 

I think the reason to spam super-scorers is "because we can."  It's not strictly necessary, since you can contest that enemy whirlwind with a hellhound.  But when you have eighteen superscorers in a six-objective game, anything he can't counter with a super-scorer of his own is YOURS.  And with eighteen of them, the thought of trying to kill "enough" of your super-scorers is going to be demoralizing to him.

 

But this comes with an opportunity cost. Our Troops do not pack nearly as much punch as our HQ or HS. So by spamming the living hell out of troops you are going down that other extreme of not having the dakka to keep the enemy in check.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Our Troops do not pack nearly as much punch as our HQ or HS

 

Translation:

 

But if we take loads of men, then where are the bloody tanks?!

 

Oh, I couldn't agree less:

 

3x PCS with autocannon: 120

 

6x infantry squad with autocannon: 360

 

9x chimera: 585

 

18 superscorers with 82 heavy weapons shots:  1065.  PLENTLY  of room for tanks...Pasquisher with hull lascannon and LRBT battle buddy  brings you to 1430, leaving 420 to spend on wyverns, hydras, more tanks, whatever.

 

Now, would I ever take 18 super-scorers?  No.  But I might go as far as two platoons of four squads each, for a total of 16, since that was basically my 5th edition list...That would leave 515 to spend after taking pask and a squadron mate with a hull lascannon...so two demolishers leaves 175, that's two hydras with camo netting and five points to spare.

[Frater Cornelius]

That is a solid list but against higher AV lists or 2+ save MC spam, Paskquisher and the 2 demolishers are your only way of dealing with it. And should you lose those, you must depend on objective secured.

I prefer to be on the offensive side and pressure the opponent in changing tactics rather than be at the mercy of the enemy's plan.

 

As for FW armoured battlegroup.. I'd love to, even if the LR cost more in that book. But not every tourney accepts them, so I will play safe and keep my 'official' lists as clean as possible.

[CoffeeGrunt]

 

 

18 superscorers with 82 heavy weapons shots:  1065.  PLENTLY  of room for tanks...Pasquisher with hull lascannon and LRBT battle buddy  brings you to 1430, leaving 420 to spend on wyverns, hydras, more tanks, whatever.

 

MSU is great if they don't get shot at and you want really inefficient use of Orders, yes. However, you clearly don't understand the true Guard interpretation of, "enough tanks."

[march10k]

That is a solid list but against higher AV lists or 2+ save MC spam, Paskquisher and the 2 demolishers are your only way of dealing with it. And should you lose those, you must depend on objective secured.

I prefer to be on the offensive side and pressure the opponent in changing tactics rather than be at the mercy of the enemy's plan.

 

As for FW armoured battlegroup.. I'd love to, even if the LR cost more in that book. But not every tourney accepts them, so I will play safe and keep my 'official' lists as clean as possible.

 

 

As far as "higher AV" goes, I assume you mean AV14, since that's the only thing that can't be hurt by the other stuff?  Actually, against that, I rely on flank shots.  About the only thing I can't handle is 3+ land raiders, which is fine because 3+ land raiders can't handle 18 super-scorers, either, so we're talking past one another. As for 2+ save MC spam...such as??? The only 2+ save MCs I can think of off the top of my head is a daemon prince of nurgle (2+ jink save).  I just faced that two weeks ago.  Guess what?  lascannons and melta bounces off of a 2+ jink save, I slew two of them with multilasers and heavy bolters.  Quantity of fire is a FAR more reliable answer to MCs than quality of fire, and it's more of an all-comers answer, to boot.  "Volume of S5+ fire" is a winning tactic in 6th and 7th editions, and it's one that  IG can be very good at, while also spamming super-scorers and still having points for air defense and main battle tanks.

 

 

 

 

 

18 superscorers with 82 heavy weapons shots:  1065.  PLENTLY  of room for tanks...Pasquisher with hull lascannon and LRBT battle buddy  brings you to 1430, leaving 420 to spend on wyverns, hydras, more tanks, whatever.

 

MSU is great if they don't get shot at and you want really inefficient use of Orders, yes. However, you clearly don't understand the true Guard interpretation of, "enough tanks."

 

 

I've been playing IG since 1998.  For most of that period, we've been allowed exactly three "tanks" as you seem to define tanks, and even that involved an opportunity cost.  An AV12 vehicle with six heavy weapons shots for 65 points is a tank in my book.  First, because it has heavier firepower than an infantry squad, and second because it takes the same sort of weapons to kill it that you'd use against a leman russ...it's just that your chances of killing the chimera are substantially higher (as well they should be, at 40% of the price of a russ).  Your "true Guard interpretation of "enough tanks" isn't true, it's new.  

 

Even funnier is your idea of MSU.  Ten man squads aren't small units, five man squads are.  Ten are the minimum in most troop choices in the game, for the love of the Emperor.  Does any other army have access to the 50 man blobs that you seem to think constitute a normal squad size?  I can think of a few that get as many as 20, Orks get 30, not sure about gaunts...but most have a minimum of 5 and a maximum of 10.  So the idea that ten is a small unit deserves far more ridicule than B&C allows.

 

Lastly, if your plan for a unit requires that they be successfully issued a specific order or orders every single turn, then you're doing it wrong.  Orders are there to avert disaster or seize opportunity, they're not supposed to be part of your calculation of whether or not a unit is worth fielding.  If you think a squad needs FRFSRF or fire on my target four or five times a game to be effective, then it's not a unit you should field. 

[Frater Cornelius]

I was actually referring to tripple Riptide and Dreadknights with 2+ MC.

[march10k]

Ah.  I haven't seen a dreadknight in three years, but I suppose they might make a comeback, now that GK are worthwhile again.  Remains to be seen!  They're pretty expensive once you make them viable options, and in a list where everything is stupid expensive, that's crippling if you take more than one, and a distraction if you only take one.  A dreadknight might kill 4-5 units in a game...we can afford that, even times three...in fact, if there are three of them, we almost auto-win because of the opportunity cost related to the points cost.

 

As for triple riptide, what would you do?  BS3 lascannons are a better option?  Each lascannon puts on 1/6 of an unsaved wound against its 3++, which it will have up whether its facing demolishers or lascannons.  Melta and plasma can hurt it, but they have to get in range unscathed first, and again, the shield has to be down.  Triple riptide is hardly a problem that's unique to mech-spam  guard, it's everyone's nemesis.  Therefore, it's a poor argument against my concept.

 

/edit/

 

Neither riptides nor dreadknights are as nasty as daemon princes of nurgle, by the way!

[CoffeeGrunt]

If you're forcing him to charge his Shields every turn, he's running the risk of Wounding himself while simultaneously becoming very vulnerable. He's also forgoing the alternate options that are extremely useful in a few situations. Hammering a Riptide with AP2 does the job beautifully once the Shields drop, or before he gets a chance to charge up.

 

I haven't been playing since 1998, granted, but I'm not sure what the relevance of nodding to older Editions is when discussing the viability of tactics in the current one. That aside, I come from Tau where quality of fire and draining every ounce of firepower on the fly is the only way to keep your models on the table. Hence why that mentality extends to bigger units getting better buffs, having those buffs available to most units that require it, and keeping said buffs quite safe. I've done pretty well so far with Fire On My Target and Bring It Down alone helping me kill some stuff I really needed dead. FRFSRF is nice, but it's still just Lasguns. Even on Hotshots the volume of fire often isn't much in my admittedly limited experience so far.

 

 

 

Even funnier is your idea of MSU.  Ten man squads aren't small units, five man squads are.  Ten are the minimum in most troop choices in the game, for the love of the Emperor.  Does any other army have access to the 50 man blobs that you seem to think constitute a normal squad size?  I can think of a few that get as many as 20, Orks get 30, not sure about gaunts...but most have a minimum of 5 and a maximum of 10.  So the idea that ten is a small unit deserves far more ridicule than B&C allows.

 

Tyranid Gaunts can go up to 30, of both Genuses. Fire Warriors go to 12, Kroot to 20...arguably 33. Orks go to 30 IIRC. I don't know Eldar off the top of my head. Crons go to 20. 

 

In fact, it's only really Imperial armies that go 5-10 IIRC. I believe Chaos units can go higher than 10, Cultists being able to go to 30/35.

 

In a nutshell, it's easy for most armies to chew through a squad of Vets if required. Discounting threats the OP is tailoring towards because you don't face them also doesn't help. He wants to kill Triptide, so we find tactics for that.

 

For the record, Pask in a Punisher will likely do a number on a Riptide, being able to reliably stack Wounds onto it. Bring It Down on Plasma Guns will also really bring the pain, if it doesn't have Shields charged or the Stimulant Injector upgrade, then it's toast without some lucky rolls.