One-offs vs Spam

[Frater Cornelius]

Here is a thought that crossed my mind: are one-offs in lists really that bad?

 

My initial reaction would to be say 'Yes', but I made a point of trying to see things in a new light.

 

So let's analyze this issue. First off, aliens, filthy dirty xenos, whiny elves, you get the idea. They spam a lot. Three Riptides has become the norm, just as at least 3 Wave Serpents or 2-3 Annihilator Barges. But the thing is, let us look at WHY they spam them. They are strong units for their points, but there is more. Have you ever met a single Riptide? How long did it survive? And more importantly, how much damage did it deal? I can answer that for you, not an awful lot. Same goes for a Wave Serpent.

The thing is, despite being op, they are still rather fragile. A single Wave Serpent is going to kill a few Marines, not a big deal. A single Riptide can miss very easily unless you allocate a lot of markerlights on it at the expense of the rest of your shooting. An Annihilator Barge can be forces to jink and then you can savely ignore it (unless he is lucky and gets a few Tesla procs).

So the power of those xenos units mainly come from their cheapness, thus allowing spam. Alone they would be way to fragile and not effective enough. They bring redundancy and add to their good (but not great) resilience with numbers.

 

Let us look at Marines now. Would you take more than one unit of Grav Centurions? Would you take more than one 250 point killer HQ like the Eternal Chapter Master or Mounted Super Wolf Lord? Would you take more than one Stormwolf?

Hell no! Why? It is way too expensive.. and because it would be overkill. A single Stormwolf can threaten an entire mech force the turn he comes in. A unit of Grav Cents can wreak untold havoc and delete pretty much 2 MCs turn 1 when arriving via pod. Chapter Master Smashface or Wolf Lord can solo entire units. Why take more? A Contemptor Mortis has more firepower than several units combined on a damn durable platform. You get the idea.

 

And despite my huge love for TWC I also had to question my tactic of taking 2 TWC units. The thing, if one TWC makes it into combat at full or almost full strength, it is over. I do not care if you have Paladins with Draigo and FnP. They are going down. But to make it into melee they need the proper support. Ranged units that deal with whatever is a threat to the TWC. By overly investing into TWC you are robbing them of support and try to rely on their toughness in a meta where S7 and grav is common and Toughness doesn't mean Jack.

 

And if a Centurion unit can kill 1-2 MCs a turn. Why would you need 2? How many MCs are you facing? I never faced more than 3, usually 2. When a full TWC unit can delete an infantry or bike unit in melee, why would you bring more? You would pay a lot for them and you are missing out on that support than can threaten another unit type.

 

I would actually go down to 2 Iron Priests and instead of running 2*4 TWC I would actually consider running 1*6 TWC. That way I have plenty of points left to add other goodies to the list that can tackle other targets.

Same would go for other powerful units like Centurions, Sicaran, Contemptor Mortis and Wolf Lord.

Marines are tough and expensive. It would make sense to take very powerful units only once. Of cause you would take more than one unit of GH or Razorbacks. We're are talking about units with Death Star potential. Those that start at 200-ish points and only go upwards from there.

 

Does my rambling make sense or should I go back to my kennel?

[MustangTC]

I guess it depends if your army is neutered into a mediocre support army if your opponent surgically removes your single thunderwolf unit turn 1/2. If your support element is scary in it's own right then perhaps.

 

The thing about TWC for me is that they can take on just about anything if they have to.

[Frater Cornelius]

Well, let me give you a bit of context:

 

 

Wolf Lord

• SS, RA, TWM, Krakenbone Sword, Fellclaw's Teeth

 

Iron Priest

• TWM

• 2 Wolves

Iron Priest

• TWM

• 2 Wolves

 

6 TWC

• 2 SS, 1 PF

 

Drop Pod

 

Sicaran Relic Battle Tank

• Dozer Blade, Armoured Ceramite

 

Tigurius

 

Contemptor Mortis

• dual Kheres-AC

 

5 Scouts

• Land Speeder Storm w/ Heavy Bolter

 

Stormtalon

• TLAC, Skyhammer ML

 

3 Dev-Centurions

• 3 Grav Cannons w/ grav-amps, Hurricane Bolters

• Omniscope

 

Tigurius rolls on Divination more often than not and goes into the pod with dev-cents.

 

 

 

I do not think that the TWC will be killed in 1 shooting phase. An entire Eldar Army did not manage to kill 5man + IP in one turn. Especially not when the shooty support neuters the enemies big hitters. And I do not think that the TWC will be his primary concern T1. Not with so many potent threats going around.

 

You can see that the entire army is pretty much a one-off. But the units are incredibly powerful on their own. When working together they basically have their preferred target and work even better.

 

This is what I meant. No matter how op xenos are, none of their units can replicate the power of a top-tier SM unit. They get around it by having their powerful units be cheap and thus spammable. That is where the biggest source of their power comes from. I have not seen a single Scythe, Serpent or WK be a problem. I have seen 4 Serpents + 2 WK be a problem however.

[Z00Z]

This was my thinking exactly, the merits of 1 TWC unit running at 6 vs. 2 at 4. It does release a substantial amount of pts to field other units, to fill other roles. The question is, are they strategic or tactical...and thats where I'm struggling with my personal list. i.e. are they in support of getting your unit to fulfill its potential or to have a completely different objective. I'm very interested to hear your experiences of running a single TWC unit vs 2 and of course, the other units in support of or strategically designed differently.

[Frater Cornelius]

If the other units solely exist to support your 'main' unit, then you will end up with exactly what Mustang said. They kill the main unit, leaving you with a half-arsed force on the field. I had this happen to me when I was putting too much weight on TWC.

 

The trick is to find balance. The best example are the Centurions. They easily kill the thing that hurts TWC the most, namely MCs. But if TWC are killed or there are no MCs, there are plenty of targets they can engage. So the Centurions won't be useless if their primary job is not available.

Interdependence is good as long as the different cells can act independently as well. Otherwise the whole thing will crumble.

[skeletoro]

The more variety you have, the more options you have on YOUR turn, but the more options your opponent has on theirs.

[Frater Cornelius]

The agony of choice, huh. As long as you have a clear plan on what to do with your units, that is generally a good thing because the opponent has to think and is thus prone to make mistakes.

[Lord Commander Scrymgeour]

I think it's about redundancy and survivability.

I've found the best approach is to have more than one unit fulfilling a similar role, but trying to get more than one role per unit. That way the opponent is forced to guess as threat levels each turn, and if they do manage to wipe out a unit each turn(unlikely) there will be another who can take over the job. All the while they're having to ignore the Objective secured troops choices.

[Hear da Lamentation]

Interesting thread.

 

With 2 x IP on TW and 6 x TW - that is 8 TWC - which for me is 2 units anyway.  You have just put them together.

If you are approaching 12 TWC (2 x 5 +IPs) - then I think you are spending too many points on one unit type - which has it's weaknesses.

 

You need complimentary forces I think ... doing other jobs.  As Immer says - this keeps the enemy guessing and they can make mistakes.  If all you put forward is a mass of TWC - the enemy doesn't really have to think too much to see what to do.

 

HDL

[Frater Cornelius]

It is always a dilemma for me. On the one hand I do feel a little vulnerable with so few models and I would feel much better with a few 10man GH/Tac squads on the field. But then I remember that GH and Tacs are horribly ineffective against most targets that would require immediate attention, whereas some more expensive but elite models would do the job just fine.

[FenrisWolf]

I have to agree that balance is best.  Each unit on their own needs to be a high threat, plus be able to take over another unit's role if needed.  I think in your example list though, one or two more SS in the TWC is warranted to up survivability.  Having only one unit, losing a model is a larger decrease in effectiveness that if you have two units.  Plus they'd be able to screen the IP better to allow more independence later if desired.

 

I think you have finally hit the key insight of the Adeptus Astartes.  We are not individual armies.  We are just tailored to different battlefield roles and an intelligent commander would mix and match dependent upon the opposition and the mission.

[skeletoro]

yeah, they might make bad choices. Leaving that aside though, more choice favours the chooser if they know what the best option is.

 

I guess even if you're presenting your opponent with a mix of AV14 and cyberwolves, they can choose to
shoot bolters at the raiders. This is such an obviously bad choice though, and in situations like this, having diversity means you're providing a good target for their bolters, as well as a suitable target for their lascannons. Pure AV14 would deny your opponent a good option for their bolters.

[skeletoro]

I gues what I am getting at is that perhaps a sweet spot is to field an army with similar vulnerabilities but which also covers a variety of roles. Vindicators and crusaders do different things but fielded together will start to tax your opponent's anti armour capabilities.

[Rune_Priest_Rhapsody]

I immediately go to thinking about target saturation when considering this topic. While 2 packs of 'X' TWC will give your opponent the same headache as you initially stated, Immersturm, the ability to intentionally draw their fire can also be very rewarding. But I feel like running 1 of's is more than acceptable, especially when running several high priority targets. If you are running WG bikers along side TWC, then what am I going to shoot at?? One or both?? Ok, then my other packs have just closed the gap between them and you. Like you said, an unchecked StormGrrr is a bad thing for your opponent. So let them shoot the TDAWG you just podded in while the rest of the army tightens the noose.

 

I am a proprietor of both idioms of thought. I spam the :cuss out of TDAWG, while running more one of's when I play my Thunderwing.

 

Lastly, it also is opponent and game type depending. Are you playing a cut throat 'Ard Boyz list, or a friendly fluff game?? All things should be considered.

But overall, I am a fan of several high priority targets. Make those :cussing Xeno's work for the win.

 

End of Line

[Rift Blade]

Thanks for starting this thread Immersturm. It's made me think things through a little further. I've been sticking to 1 list right now till I get enough games of 7th under my belt to feel comfortable(I get maybe one game a week). Also, it lets me touch up my models(they took a spill last spring & with life I haven't had the time to sit down & go through them properly) & decide what's next. Which is the point I'mm getting to I think. My problem is I have 2 packs of TWC & 2 Rhinos of Gray Hunters following them up to secure things &/or pitch in if they get bogged down. The plan for the list is the GH's support the TWC. Changing the TWC means changing my game plan. I think this is also an element one needs to consider. Be interesting to see others thoughts on this whole thing.

[Jochteas]

Actually not a fan.

 

"If the other units solely exist to support your 'main' unit, then you will end up with exactly what Mustang said. They kill the main unit, leaving you with a half-arsed force on the field. I had this happen to me when I was putting too much weight on TWC."

 

- If they kill your main unit in which your entire army is designed to support around, and that main unit is 12+ twc then really there is not a lot in game this is going to fair better in a situation if one army can waiste an entire half of an army with all the other units in support of it, then by god those smaller 'powerful' units are gonna get popped just as well.Its also simply not true that the Marines don't do well with 'spammable' units. The most iconic and used unit of the army (the marine) is spam itself and many lists do great with them.

 

Also the idea "well if I have two equally powerful targets who are they gonna shoot at?" doesn't hold up as well either. Someone above mentioned WG and TWC as an example of why, but the argument holds both ways. Sure if they shoot at one, then they don't shoot at the other, but if you had 2 units of TWC the same thing would happen, the outcome isn't different.

 

Also id like to point out this goes against the previously mentioned philosophy of 'limiting choices' now you have way more choices and options, and more choices isn't necessarily better choices. That's the beauty of TWC that's why they are currently so strong, and so many people want to take 1 if not 3 units of them, they are so flexible and powerful. They are user friendly, tough, and don't have a lot of glaring weaknesses. It's because of this reason that they draw fire a lot. The enemy wants to see them dead because of the destruction they cause when they arrive. The answer to this shouldn't be scorn because the enemy wants them dead. Its almost a blessing, you can adequately predict your enemies moves before they make them. Most people would see that as a boon and you could/should use this to your advantage.

 

If you're saying marines have units that independently are scary why bother with spammable units then I would say its because you don't put all your eggs in one basket. In a game based on a the roll of the dice having 5 different really powerful unique units seems to be less awesome then 15 units of powerful flexible guys. Its a more forgiving play style, and requires you to be perfect less while punishing your enemy more because their options disappear greater.

[Frater Cornelius]

Hm, I sort of disagree. TWC is a one dimensional unit. The opponent will know in advance what they are going to do.

Besides, I would consider calling it a case of putting all eggs in one basket if I decided to run 6 TWC full of gear instead of 2 equal units. But I am exchanging one TWC unit with a unit of Centurions. Cents will draw more fire. They are closer to the enemy because of the drop pod and they are a ranged unit and thus an immediatr threat, TWC will take another turn to become relevant. Taking out a big threat turn 1 and draw fire away from a 6 man TWC unit is preferable to 2*4 TWC where the opponent just has to focus fire one down with no losses on his side. I said it before and I am going to say it again, many 40k units have one or two things they do best. Using them outside of that niche will reduce their effectiveness. Taking TWC and expecting them to tank massed S7 is not good. They are an offensive unit, more capable at dealing damage rather than taking it. I'd rather have one full unit arrive in melee at full strength because I supported it right than have a few units being reduced in size by the enemy because I relied on their numbers alone.

Besides, the unit composition has to make sense. I would not exchange TWC for a StormGrrr. The Grrr must stay in reserve and that does not help the TWC survive.

 

As for iconic SM armies and spam, have you seen the kind of units they spam? Tacs, Scouts, TDA when playing a X-Wing, bikes.

Notice a pattern? Those unit cost around 10-20 ppm. TDA are an exception but they can support themselves with ranged attacks and deployment options.

TWC have no sensible deployment options and no choice but to charge.

I an talking about units that cost 40+ ppm. The real powerful stuff that dwarfs any tactical marine or TDA. Of cause you will spam tacs or GH. That is what they are made of. Show me anyone who thinks TWC, Cents, Stormwolves or Contemptors are made to spammed.

[FenrisWolf]

We can spam dreads, including the HQ slot.

[Frater Cornelius]

I gues what I am getting at is that perhaps a sweet spot is to field an army with similar vulnerabilities but which also covers a variety of roles. Vindicators and crusaders do different things but fielded together will start to tax your opponent's anti armour capabilities.

 

Very true. This is a reason why I am reluctant to play Armoured Battlegroup as opposed to SM allies. AV14 is tough, but it is too tough. People will have no choice but to shoot the TWC.

Centurions and a Sicaran are killable, but will eat approx. the same amount of shots as a 5man TWC unit. That is not factoring in cover and the likes. Neither will be a good deal. This is the primary reason I consider 1 big TWC unit + Cents + whatever else comes to mind superior to just several TWC units because all are threatening but they offer diversity.

 

I am considering the 'Isstvan V Dropsite Massacre' Legacy of Glory for Centurion Pod. No scattering gives so many options, like avoiding cover and terrain by dropping at the board edge or allows the measure the best distance for safety. I mean that is 480 points coming. That is a massive investment and you will NEVER take more than one unit like this.

But Tigurius has decent chances of rolling 4++ save or Precognition (aka Tiggy iz AWESUM). Re-rollable 3+ save or 4+ cover save, which is not hard to get with non-scattering DP. That unit will probably eat A LOT of the enemies firepower with minimal casualties.

[Rune_Priest_Rhapsody]

I think that the main thing to remember here, is that each unit you choose should not only serve a specific role on the battlefield, but support one another. Units like TWC are one dimensional, but they are also a huge fire magnet, and to me that is one of the roles they play. Personally, I wouldn't run loads of A14 with my TWC. I would run other fast in your face units. WG on bikes, drop pods full of TDAWG or Sheild/Axe dreads. Give your opponent as many 'deal with me now' threats as possible, as fast as possible. If taking high AV, pick your choices accordingly. Obviously taking other high AV/threatening units.

 

I'm not versed in all the mumbo jumbo of thinking like a master tactician, so excuse my blatant points and lack of in depth discussion.

 

End of Line

[Frater Cornelius]

I think that the main thing to remember here, is that each unit you choose should not only serve a specific role on the battlefield, but support one another. Units like TWC are one dimensional, but they are also a huge fire magnet, and to me that is one of the roles they play. Personally, I wouldn't run loads of A14 with my TWC. I would run other fast in your face units. WG on bikes, drop pods full of TDAWG or Sheild/Axe dreads. Give your opponent as many 'deal with me now' threats as possible, as fast as possible. If taking high AV, pick your choices accordingly. Obviously taking other high AV/threatening units.

 

I'm not versed in all the mumbo jumbo of thinking like a master tactician, so excuse my blatant points and lack of in depth discussion.

 

End of Line

 

That is actually very good thinking. High AV does not give the opponent choices, it takes them away. AV14, as great as ABG may be, they do not offer nearly as much threat as Centurions, TWC or even the Sicaran does. People will pick out the TWC and then deal with the AV14 in due time. You need immediate pressure. This is essentially what I am doing. Only the 'fast, in your face' units are not bikes but rather drop pods. They overwhelm the opponent. Not only that, but they deliver serious firepower and pin-point accuracy (referring to the Dropsite Massacre upgrade).

I made a 1500 game with my SW + UM combo. You can check it out the short batrep here: http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/296901-brainstorming-assault-based-sw-or-the-meta-killer/?p=3840332. It worked damn well.