Choosing the right secondaries for the right opponent

[t-dog1996]

Evening Brothers,

 

So I've been thinking about how in 9th edition 40k has adopted a very similar format to the ITC, which means a far greater number of people are playing using the primary take and hold plus secondaries format. Before 9th dropped I had played ITC before but I wasn't overly familiar with it and I initially found choosing the right secondaries for the right opponent challenging.

 

There have been a few games where my choices have been fatal to my chances of winning. I've steadily got the hang of it but I thought it might be interesting to discuss which secondaries work best when facing different factions, not to mention different builds within each faction, not just for my benefit but for anyone struggling to choose the right secondaries.

 

So for example I've played several frustrating games against Custodes recently where the golden boys simply won't die. I've found that Engage on All Fronts, While We Stand We Fight and Investigate Sites work effectively as none of them hinge on you killing enemy units and all of them are hard for Custodes to counter due to their generally poor ranged ability and lack of mobility. 

 

Any other suggestions?

[Indefragable]

RIP N' TEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

<ahem> Excuse me. Saw the color red for a moment there...

 

I think this is a fantastic topic. I played an ok amount of ITC in 8th, but the ITC secondaries often favored the above KILL THEM ALL!!!!!!!!! Whoa, down boy! Sorry about that...  uh types of play style. Though I have yet to play any games of 9th due to current personal circumstances, my understanding is that killing enemies in 9th is very much secondary to holding objectives/completing actions and really only useful for knocking enemies off of objectives. 

[Lukoi]

Hope you don't mind a RG-S player chiming in here, as I think this is a great topic in general.

 

I play an infantry centric (all but two of my units, those two being Relic Contemptor Dreads, or Relic Javelin Attack Bikes, depending on the list I'm using) formation, and there are definitely some clear winners/losers for me that I can reliably bring, and the remainder are mission/opponent specific.

 

Based on bringing jumpers (and now speeders), I'm confident I can get EOAF at least some of the time, and look to get 11pts from it.  I don't expect to have 3 quarters or more until the 2nd turn, so score 2/3/3/3.

 

I might take Grind them Down (Kill More) if they are an army with alot of softer units (T3 small horde types for example), because while you might end up with a fairly equal amount of damage, our SM elite nature means that points to points, we can take a lead here.  Orcs are a good example of this opportunity.

 

On the flip side, against a lower damage/lower mobility force like Custodes (and there are some hard hitting Custodes exceptions obviously), I will consider taking WWWSWF, but honestly the speeders don't come with an invuln, and my smash captain likes to get in and dirty, so keeping at least 2 of 3 alive for 10pts is sometimes a dubious proposition.

 

I almost always take a Purge the Enemy secondary -- Bring it down vs any opponent with 4 or more 11W+  frontline vehicles (scores 12pts or more), Titans vs Knights obviously, and I'll consider Assassinate if they have 5 or more characters.  Not because I expect to max it, but because I'm shooting for 12pts in secondaries.

 

So, in many matches, I've taken EOAF, and one Purge category, shooting for 23+ points in secondaries, plus potentially Grind them Down.

 

If that's not my third pick, obviously the Abhor the witch works great against psyker based elements (chaos, some elves, GK, 1ksons, etc). 

 

If that's not on the table, I'm looking hard at Mission Secondaries - there are some good ones there, some that can easily rack up 12pts or so.  

 

Notice, I don't take any "action" based ones from Shadow Operations.  I need every unit to be capable of shooting (I literally have only one "non-combat" unit on the list, of servitors, but it's too slow to get around raise banners in multiple locales etc), and don't want to be giving up combat power at a moment when I badly need it, to conduct an action.  That's just me though.  I can definitely see why some lists take these actions.  

[t-dog1996]

 

Notice, I don't take any "action" based ones from Shadow Operations.  I need every unit to be capable of shooting (I literally have only one "non-combat" unit on the list, of servitors, but it's too slow to get around raise banners in multiple locales etc), and don't want to be giving up combat power at a moment when I badly need it, to conduct an action.  That's just me though.  I can definitely see why some lists take these actions.  

 

I think it really depends on who I'm up against. With most armies I'd agree but in the Custodes example I think they can definitely work as with the extreme defensive buffs they get Purge the Enemy objectives are unreliable at best. Meanwhile with the 'action' objectives they have limited ability to interfere with you achieving them. I agree though that against most opponents its better to have them attack and win points by destroying stuff.

Edited August 21, 2020 by t-dog1996

[t-dog1996]

 

I might take Grind them Down (Kill More) if they are an army with alot of softer units (T3 small horde types for example), because while you might end up with a fairly equal amount of damage, our SM elite nature means that points to points, we can take a lead here.  Orcs are a good example of this opportunity.

 

I reckon Guard, Tyranids and Orks are the only opponents I'd definitely take Grind them Down against. Maybe Eldar (both kinds) and Tau too depending on what kind of list they take. I'd say it's unreliable against Marines but with a vehicle heavy list I'd strongly consider it given how much alpha strike anti-vehicle power Blood Angels pack in CC.

[Lukoi]

For Marines, it's often Bring it Down instead (impulsors for example are something you have to commonly deal with, it seems).

 

I agree that action oriented ones can work against opponents who arent interfering but those match ups seem so rare to me, that I just dont look at these often.

 

I tried them early on, especially raise the banners, as it seemed a no brainers at the beginning, but I swiftly found that my list/playstyle wasnt going to be durable enough on objectives to just tarpit an opponent, and while fairly decent damage output, not so much that I could reliably afford to have units purposefully not shooting.

 

Dont get me wrong, there are plenty of times a unit doesnt get to shoot due to angles, cover, etc but it's never the unit I need to RTB with seems like, lol.

[Jolemai]

A big factor is also the right secondaries for your list. For example, I'm having some success with a triple Drop Pod list, so two of my secondaries are tailored for that (Linebreaker, Engage on all Fronts) and third is opponent specific.

[BluejayJunior]

Thin Their Ranks is a good one for infantry heavy Necron armies. Especially against Necron Warriors. Models brought back count for the kill tally again, so a 10 man unit of Warriors can yield more than 10 tallies if they keep getting back up. 

[Lukoi]

A big factor is also the right secondaries for your list. For example, I'm having some success with a triple Drop Pod list, so two of my secondaries are tailored for that (Linebreaker, Engage on all Fronts) and third is opponent specific.

 

Oh absolutely. In my case, I was definitely only referencing picks in regards to my list (which is why I often take EOAF).

 

You might want to note that because LB and EOAF are both from the "battlefield supremacy," category, you can only take one in match play.  Not sure about it works in eternal, open, narrative etc.