Army sizes and points costs

[TheArtilleryman]

OK so I was enjoying the convo in the salamanders thread about army sizes in 10th and how they’ve evolved, but it was getting off topic so let’s discuss here.

 

I posted this photo from White Dwarf 166 (2nd edition). A Blood Angels army with only 28 models and they still went over the 1500 points limit. 
 

 

Today, this army is worth only 805 points, meaning you need a lot more marines to fill out your list.

The ork army in this battle report is a little harder to work out model for model, but is roughly 1100 points in 10th:

 

 

It’s stark evidence that points have changed a lot, and you now need a LOT more models to make an army (hmmm a reason for people to buy more models…)

It also shows that marine points have changed much more than some other armies (orks in this case, haven’t done any more maths on different factions, but I might have to).

 

In fact, in 10th you can field a whole battle company of 100 marines, plus a captain, chaplain, Ballistus Dreadnought and Gladiator Lancer for 2000 points(ish), with the caveat that I’m using BattleScribe so it might be outdated slightly.

1. What do we think of this? To my mind there are pros and cons. Yes it’s cool to field a huge army, but in those 2nd edition lists I definitely feel like the marines felt much more like the elite faction the lore suggests they were meant to. Today I suspect that ork army would obliterate that tiny group of marines, whilst in lore those marines would tear the orks apart. 

2. Has anyone had any experience with recreating any of these legacy match ups and what happened? 
 

3. What do we think the impact of this shift on the game has been, and how would you manage it?

 

4. How has this affected any other factions?

 

Let’s all be cool about it - I’m not opening a primaris argument :p

Edited January 22 by TheArtilleryman
Typos

[Tawnis]

Not about Primaris specifically, but one the the other things to consider is that models have gotten larger and table sizes smaller too. Most on 25mm bases are now on 32mm, or at the very least 28mm and the tables have gone from 4x6 (48"x72") to 44"x60" meaning that not only are we taking more models, all those models are larger and have less distance to travel. 

 

The thing is is 2000 points and 44"x60" tables are just GW suggested sizes and that the game can be played both casually and competitively at (mostly) any points level and on (mostly) any table size. However people seem to think that the suggested size is the objectively correct size that the game is balanced around and that is simply incorrect, it's just what the community has latched on to. Personally, I like 1k points at the 44"x60" tables. It makes for a lot more interesting tactical decisions and positioning plays that don't tend to come up in 2k game as much. 

 

There's also the fact that with the amount of models in 2k games, it takes a full weekend to run a 5 round tournament, and if you want to have a 5-0 winner at the end, you have to cap your event at 32 people. You could get many more people out to play and go through games a whole lot faster if the "recommended" points value was 1k instead. 

Yes, there's the argument out there that it's "recommended" to be 2k to sell models, and while that COULD be the case. There is a flip side to it as well, if the "recommended" points limit was 1k, it would be a lot easier to get newer players into the hobby and it would be more likely for veteran player to try out new armies and playstyles. Do I want to invest in 2k of the new Aspect Warriors to try an Aeldari army out, no not really, but 1k, yeah I could see myself putting that together. It would also give the smaller factions more list flexibility as well instead of just having to run the same units every game because there is basically no other option. 

It also makes larger centerpiece models more imposing and threatening. I've never had any trouble downing a Primarch in any of my games, except the one time I played against one at 1k, where I did manage it, but it felt like a truly epic struggle that culminated in a very close match. Same thing with larger infantry blobs or tanks. Suddenly that 400pt mob of Abberants with and Abominant or that Baneblade is looking super imposing and threatening rather that just another part of their army. This is balanced just fine with the limited number of supporting units that you can bring for those big models in 1k. 

All and all, I've played pretty much every format from 500pt to 20,000pts and I've enjoyed some aspects of all of them, but the most fun I have for list building and time on the table is in the 1000-1250pt range. 

Edited January 22 by Tawnis

[DemonGSides]

Certain factions just don't work well at 1k points. I think 1500 is probably the sweet spot for most situations, but I still like a 2k list as it lets me play with my toys. 

[tychobi]

What are these factions that don't "work" at 1000 points? Lower point games are great! 

[DemonGSides]

2 minutes ago, tychobi said:

What are these factions that don't "work" at 1000 points? Lower point games are great! 

Well I didn't say didn't work so I'm not sure what you're looking for here. 

 

Easy thoughts off the top of my head for the followup of "sorry, I misread your post, which factions do you think are inherently a bit worse due to the points size" and I would say probably things like Knights and then the real obvious one is 1kSons as it really limits their army rule, as well as WE as they have a really limited roster and kinda lean a bit on Angron to be as strong as possible which is a tough call at 1k points.

 

 

I didn't say it couldn't be done, just that it's more of a feels bad compared to factions that aren't as limited in their options at that point level; IG, SM, Eldar all have lots of options that can bring in that threat band and can make plenty of lists with good synergy and ability at basically any point range.

Edited January 22 by DemonGSides

[sairence]

It's not just that it's a recommended size. The game is balanced around 2000p armies. I've played in a few 1000p games and it makes for very uneven matchups, due to not having the resources to add in redundancy. So there'll simply be matchups that you auto-win or auto-lose. 

 

That doesn't mean it can't be played at less than 2k, but it makes it kinda unsuitable for pick up and tournament games. As long as people keep that mind and have the necessary conversations with their opponent beforehand you can play at any size.

[TheArtilleryman]

47 minutes ago, Tawnis said:

models have gotten larger and table sizes smaller too.

This is a really good point that I hadn’t considered. Now you mention it, it makes a lot of sense. I played a large game the other day with Raven Guard vs T’au and we both had quite a few infiltrating units. It was extremely difficult for both of us to deploy all our units in a good position that some of them even ended up in our deployment zone because we couldn’t find every unit a covered position more than 9” away from an enemy.

 

47 minutes ago, Tawnis said:

The thing is is 2000 points and 44"x60" tables are just GW suggested sizes and that the game can be played both casually and competitively at (mostly) any points level and on (mostly) any table size.

I completely agree with this and still play on 6’x4’ mostly. However because the points and size you mentioned are GW’s suggested size they are also now the tournament standard, so it makes sense that people are using them.

 

 

47 minutes ago, Tawnis said:

Personally, I like 1k points at the 44"x60" tables. It makes for a lot more interesting tactical decisions and positioning plays that don't tend to come up in 2k game as much. 

Yep. I tend to play 1k points because I don’t have time to play bigger games. It’s funny, because having done those calculations in the OP, I’ve realised that 1k in 10th is roughly equivalent to 1.5k in 2nd, so I guess that’s why it feels right.

 

@DemonGSidesand @tychobi I can understand where you’re both coming from. Knights are a good example but are better with the addition of armigers and some infantry allies.
 

I think they can all work but what you do need to do at 1k points is be much more selective with what you take. In a 2k game you can have a bit of everything, but in a 1k game you can really feel the absence of your big guns if your opponent brings a chonky model, or if you are without much close combat ability. A good example for me was playing a small Phobos heavy Raven Guard army against Death Guard. My S4 AP 0 bolters just weren’t cutting it and if they got close I was screwed. I realised I couldn’t win on muscle so after a few attempts I got better at tactical positioning and was able to use my better mobility and special rules to outmanoeuvre my opponent and win a game or two.

Edited January 22 by TheArtilleryman

[Tawnis]

40 minutes ago, sairence said:

It's not just that it's a recommended size. The game is balanced around 2000p armies. I've played in a few 1000p games and it makes for very uneven matchups, due to not having the resources to add in redundancy. So there'll simply be matchups that you auto-win or auto-lose. 

 

That doesn't mean it can't be played at less than 2k, but it makes it kinda unsuitable for pick up and tournament games. As long as people keep that mind and have the necessary conversations with their opponent beforehand you can play at any size.

Except that GW has specifically stated that this isn't the case, people just insist that it is and since that's what people think, that's what the stores and events run. Same thing with Legends models, GW specifically says they are allowed in anything that's not competitive tournament play, but people insist that they are functionally unusable / don't want to play with them anymore, which leads to stores and casual events not using them. 

What it your sample size for this argument? I've played a lot of games at 1k, almost as many as I've played at 2k and I've had imbalanced games in both formats. The strategy is a bit different when tackling these formats, so that could be one thing that's causing what you are seeing. Even Knights aren't that bad at 1k (though IMHO they should just be an ally faction and not their own thing which would help with this, but that's a whole other conversation.) I was worried about playing Knights at 1k myself until I actually faced against them and it wasn't a big deal at all. I did fine and with my all Kroot army with is an army that is famous for it's lack of anti-tank. 

Edited January 22 by Tawnis

[Tawnis]

35 minutes ago, TheArtilleryman said:

I think they can all work but what you do need to do at 1k points is be much more selective with what you take. In a 2k game you can have a bit of everything, but in a 1k game you can really feel the absence of your big guns if your opponent brings a chonky model, or if you are without much close combat ability. A good example for me was playing a small Phobos heavy Raven Guard army against Death Guard. My S4 AP 0 bolters just weren’t cutting it and if they got close I was screwed. I realised I couldn’t win on muscle so after a few attempts I got better at tactical positioning and was able to use my better mobility and special rules to outmanoeuvre my opponent and win a game or two.

 

Exactly. It's not just about being able to kill things. On a wider table with less models, it's a lot easier to play the objective game as a viable strategy rather than having to straight up fight your opponent. It also means the really mobile units like Jetbilkes can actually use their maneuverability well to stay away from things and harass targets, rather than just getting bogged down in the muck and killed because there is nowhere to go. 

It's a much more tactical game that requires a different mindset than when you play at 2k. I think part of the reason people think it's unbalanced is simply because they are tacking the challenges that format presents in the wrong way. 

Edited January 22 by Tawnis

[MARK0SIAN]

There has to be point where the designers aim for everything to balance out as best they can, a sweet spot if you like. 
 

The power of all the factions does not scale uniformly with increases or decreases in points values. Add in 100 extra points to a knights list or a Custodes list and it doesn’t really get you anything. Add the same into a marine or guard list and the difference could be significant. The same is true in reverse. Take 100 points from a knights list and they’ll probably have to sacrifice an entire model in an already low model count army. Take 100 points from a different faction and they’ll have more ways to adapt. 
 

With such a breadth of factions it’s just not possible to create a points system where the power balance does scale in a uniform way. The designers had to pick a point where they felt each faction would have enough power on the table and work backwards from there to decide the points cost. They decided on 2k points for that. 
 

That doesn’t mean you can’t have fun and fair games at other points values, it just means you’re more likely to get a fair match up at 2k points.

[Special Officer Doofy]

I generally only play 2k point games. If I'm going to pack up all my stuff and drive to a buddies or have them come to my place, I don't want to play a quick 1k game, I rather play a few hour 2k game. At 1k it doesn't even feel worth it for me. 

 

As for the the eliteness of marines and point costs, I feel those wax and wane with editions. Since I've been back at the start of 8th I've only collected and played death guard (in the past I played death guard, tyranids and tau). They were always just a smidge more elite and a smidge more points than basic marines. Then 10th edition came along and they removed disgustingly resilient, had a 30%ish win rate and dropped point cost so much that plague marines became cheaper than tactical marines and Mortarion went from basically the strongest and most expensive non forge world model all the way to the cheapest and weakest primarch at one point this edition. All of that can change again next edition or two. Who knows. I just like rolling dice and having fun. But sometimes you got to just get over the whole lore and table representation. 10 guardsman is 60pts and 5 intercessor is 80pts. We all know 5 marines would absolutely destroy 13/14 guardsmen in the lore and it's not even close, but we don't want our Astra millitarum friends to have to take a second mortgage to field lore accurate 2k points for them.

[Tawnis]

15 hours ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

I generally only play 2k point games. If I'm going to pack up all my stuff and drive to a buddies or have them come to my place, I don't want to play a quick 1k game, I rather play a few hour 2k game. At 1k it doesn't even feel worth it for me. 

 

As for the the eliteness of marines and point costs, I feel those wax and wane with editions. Since I've been back at the start of 8th I've only collected and played death guard (in the past I played death guard, tyranids and tau). They were always just a smidge more elite and a smidge more points than basic marines. Then 10th edition came along and they removed disgustingly resilient, had a 30%ish win rate and dropped point cost so much that plague marines became cheaper than tactical marines and Mortarion went from basically the strongest and most expensive non forge world model all the way to the cheapest and weakest primarch at one point this edition. All of that can change again next edition or two. Who knows. I just like rolling dice and having fun. But sometimes you got to just get over the whole lore and table representation. 10 guardsman is 60pts and 5 intercessor is 80pts. We all know 5 marines would absolutely destroy 13/14 guardsmen in the lore and it's not even close, but we don't want our Astra millitarum friends to have to take a second mortgage to field lore accurate 2k points for them.

That's fair for sure. If I know I've got a lot of time to play, I do like the larger style of games, and I do still enjoy 2k for that reason (though ideally on a larger table). That being said, most times I have to game are in the evening after work where I've only got a couple hours, or at a tournament, where I could spend the whole weekend playing 5 2k games, or it could be 6 1k games in a single (admittedly long) day, and I'd much prefer the latter. Still the point I was trying to make was more that there should be events and tournaments at all points levels so the people who like 2k can have their fun, but people who enjoy others styles can shine too. 

Yeah, the only way that would have worked to have the tabletop match the lore is if Space Marines were stated like Custodes, however they want to sell lots of marines and only running 20-30 in a 2k list wouldn't really help with that. 

Edited January 23 by Tawnis

[Dr. Clock]

47 minutes ago, MARK0SIAN said:

The designers had to pick a point where they felt each faction would have enough power on the table and work backwards from there to decide the points cost. They decided on 2k points for that. 

More accurately maybe they decided on '400 pts posing as 2000', since there are no '1 point increments', only 5-point ones.

 

In that regard, I'd argue that there are 'fewer decision points' in a 2k army today even if there are more models overall, this being a function of 'unit options are free with the cost of the unit', plus no '+x points per additional member up to y maximum', just the regular squad size as standard and sometimes the ability to combine 2 units. Plague marines being the exception that proves the rule that '1 box equals 1 unit'. I happen to like this new regime better than the old, but it did make more send when they were selling most stuff in blisters of 1-3 and offering massive customization options for alot of units.

 

I'll also try and hold a little space for the part where all unit profiles are now standardized to make it easier to use more stuff faster. Vehicle rules back then were pretty random and non-standard, and then you had alot of things like sustained fire dice adding extra dice checks and template positioning that was a mini-game unto itself. I'm not saying that OP is wrong that there's been numbers creep, certainly, more just that they've taken some good design steps to make it easier to play with more models at once. By extension, if you're interested in that level of crunch, maybe using those older rules is a good option in that you eke 'more game' out of a smaller set of units.

 

40k definitely knows it's a battle game not a skirmish game these days, and it's interesting to think about that as a reflection not just of the desire to sell bigger armies (it's certainly that), but also how the population of people with bigger armies will tend to increase with each new edition. The negative of this is certainly where it creates a big barrier to new hobbyists, but between Combat Patrol and Kill Team and online secondhand markets I think it's markedly better now than it has been at times (looking at you, 'free transport for every squad' formation...), and they've been really tentative on pushing for Apocalypse in favor of just pushing for people to just buy into more than one game.

 

Anyway - interesting topic - thanks for the thoughts

 

Cheers,

 

The Good Doctor.

[DemonGSides]

3 hours ago, Tawnis said:

Except that GW has specifically stated that this isn't the case, people just insist that it is and since that's what people think, that's what the stores and events run. Same thing with Legends models, GW specifically says they are allowed in anything that's not competitive tournament play, but people insist that they are functionally unusable / don't want to play with them anymore, which leads to stores and casual events not using them. 

What it your sample size for this argument? I've played a lot of games at 1k, almost as many as I've played at 2k and I've had imbalanced games in both formats. The strategy is a bit different when tackling these formats, so that could be one thing that's causing what you are seeing. Even Knights aren't that bad at 1k (though IMHO they should just be an ally faction and not their own thing which would help with this, but that's a whole other conversation.) I was worried about playing Knights at 1k myself until I actually faced against them and it wasn't a big deal at all. I did fine and with my all Kroot army with is an army that is famous for it's lack of anti-tank. 

I'm not sure that "I didn't need anti-tank against the Tank Faction" is all that much of a ringing endorsement.

I agree on most everything else you're saying, I just like 2k.  It's fun.  It lets me bring my toys and the game's balanced with that point value in mind, so in my opinion, it gives everyone the most fair shake at playing a fair game.  If you want to play less, have fun!  It's just not what I want.

 

 

[HeadlessCross]

8 hours ago, tychobi said:

What are these factions that don't "work" at 1000 points? Lower point games are great! 

Dark Eldar lack enough tools for their alpha strikes to really work at low points and, depending the lethality of the opponent, Necrons won't get their army rule due to dying too quick. 

 

As I stated in another thread, if you're going to play 40k, it might as well be a large game just for the spectacle of it all. 40k isn't even GW's best rule system. If you're gonna run smaller amounts of models, might as well just go smaller and do Kill Team. 

[Bouargh]

11 hours ago, TheArtilleryman said:

2. Has anyone had any experience with recreating any of these legacy match ups and what happened? 

 

It really depends, as, as you mentionned, rules for the games, the unit profiles... Has changed so much that it is hard to pretend getting a balanced game with "historical" WD settings before, let´s say 6th Ed. I put 6th Ed in an arbitrary form. 

 

But it is not absolute. I had very good time with the scenario initially released in 40k RT rule book ("Battle at the farm" (?)), and more discutable results with more recent story such as the Bat Rep of SW vs. Orks released with Ulrich leading a pack from a LR.

 

But in general these recreations have been in my limited experience very poor, with special feature in terms of porrness to  Orksvs settlers and IG ("Last stand in Glazer creek") and IG Tanks vs. SM tanks ("Heretic"). These 2 were dign of being forgotten. They need too much rework of the rules to be worth.

 

[TheArtilleryman]

2 hours ago, HeadlessCross said:

Dark Eldar lack enough tools for their alpha strikes to really work at low points and, depending the lethality of the opponent, Necrons won't get their army rule due to dying too quick. 

 

As I stated in another thread, if you're going to play 40k, it might as well be a large game just for the spectacle of it all. 40k isn't even GW's best rule system. If you're gonna run smaller amounts of models, might as well just go smaller and do Kill Team. 

I can understand this point of view and there is a real draw to playing a large game. I’m not sure Kill Team is quite the right example to use though because that takes the small game to the other extreme. A 1k game still gives you room to use a few nice shiny things without taking as long or as big an investment. Kill Team is just one infantry squad so it’s not the same thing.

 

 Like it or not the 40k rules system is the main system so it doesn’t really matter if it’s the best or not as that’s what we’ve been given. Sure there are other editions and systems out there but it’s not easy to get someone to use something else as it’s a big time investment to learn new rules, even Kill Team.

 

8 hours ago, Tawnis said:

Still the point I was trying to make was more that there should be events and tournaments at all points levels so the people who like 2k can have their fun, but people who enjoy others styles can shine too. 

The doubles tournaments that Warhammer Wolrd run are a nice idea - you and a friend take 1k each and team up.

 

8 hours ago, Dr. Clock said:

More accurately maybe they decided on '400 pts posing as 2000', since there are no '1 point increments', only 5-point ones.

Well I never realised this… imagine if the suggested army size was 400 points and for that you could bring a whole battle company… there’s definitely a psychological factor to that.

 

8 hours ago, Dr. Clock said:

they've taken some good design steps to make it easier to play with more models at once.

 

This is definitely true. The one profile for all models system is an example of this, and the removal of hit/wound tables and less cross-referencing of rules. I do love the granularity of older rule sets but it certainly does make it easier with all the info on the datasheet.
 

I’ve been reading the HH rules a lot recently and love that system but building an army and having to jump back and forth between two big books to work out what “shred” or “precision strikes” means, and having to remember which rule is in which book feels quite unwieldy after the approach in 10th. All of this would also impact in-game time. Ironically this ruleset is intended for even bigger games so it must take a long time to play one at 3k points plus.

[TheArtilleryman]

1 hour ago, Bouargh said:

 

It really depends, as, as you mentionned, rules for the games, the unit profiles... Has changed so much that it is hard to pretend getting a balanced game with "historical" WD settings before, let´s say 6th Ed. I put 6th Ed in an arbitrary form. 

 

But it is not absolute. I had very good time with the scenario initially released in 40k RT rule book ("Battle at the farm" (?)), and more discutable results with more recent story such as the Bat Rep of SW vs. Orks released with Ulrich leading a pack from a LR.

 

But in general these recreations have been in my limited experience very poor, with special feature in terms of porrness to  Orksvs settlers and IG ("Last stand in Glazer creek") and IG Tanks vs. SM tanks ("Heretic"). These 2 were dign of being forgotten. They need too much rework of the rules to be worth.

 

One of the difficult things with recreating the battle reports is the unit sizes. One of my favourite ones ever was the “Civil War” report in WD 196 as this was the first WD I ever owned and Eldar were my first army. But half of the squads in those armies are 3-4 models so working out points for 10th is a pain.

 

I remember that tank battle report - that was a brilliant one back in the day! It would definitely be cool to run something similar but I suspect the guard would get trounced considering the imbalance in points between SM and IG tanks now. A Gladiator Lancer costs less than a Leman Russ and I suspect the Lancer would come out on top.
 

I’m finding my guard tanks struggle to kill anything this edition. They’ve always been inaccurate but the strength/damage of their weaponry doesn’t feel like it’s improved enough to keep up with the changes in vehicle profiles. I just seem to spend all game losing a tank per turn while I just do chip damage to opposing vehicles.

Edited January 23 by TheArtilleryman

[TheArtilleryman]

10 hours ago, Tawnis said:

Yeah, the only way that would have worked to have the tabletop match the lore is if Space Marines were stated like Custodes, however they want to sell lots of marines and only running 20-30 in a 2k list wouldn't really help with that. 

This I think is the issue. Lore-wise it should be like this. However, we have this dichotomy where marines are supposedly this super elite faction that can turn the tide of a planetary conflict with just a handful of troops, but at the same time they are the most popular faction with the biggest range and the most datasheets. In a small game people don't get to use much of their collection so it’s understandable that people want bigger games.
 

Consequently they are now actually weaker in comparison to other races than they used to be to enable more of them to be fielded, as well as the general points reductions. And paradoxically, this has come at a time when they are meant to be “even bigger, even betterer” than before. In a way marines are a victim of their own success.

Edited January 23 by TheArtilleryman

[Frogian]

5 hours ago, HeadlessCross said:

As I stated in another thread, if you're going to play 40k, it might as well be a large game just for the spectacle of it all. 40k isn't even GW's best rule system. If you're gonna run smaller amounts of models, might as well just go smaller and do Kill Team. 

This is a silly argument - if you're going to play 40k, it might as well be apocalypse just the for the spectacle of it all...

[Karhedron]

2 hours ago, TheArtilleryman said:

A Gladiator Lancer costs less than a Leman Russ and I suspect the Lancer would come out on top.

 

Not entirely a fair comparison. The Russ is an all-rounder MBT whereas the Lancer is a dedicated Tank Destroyer. In a duel between the two, my money would probably also be on the Lancer but against a couple of infantry squads (even Elite-ish ones), I think the Russ would come out on top.

[TheArtilleryman]

48 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

 

Not entirely a fair comparison. The Russ is an all-rounder MBT whereas the Lancer is a dedicated Tank Destroyer. In a duel between the two, my money would probably also be on the Lancer but against a couple of infantry squads (even Elite-ish ones), I think the Russ would come out on top.

That’s a fair point. Ok so we pit 1k points of gladiators with different variants vs 1k points of vanquishers then. Guard’s supposedly best anti-tank tanks (apart from super heavy of course). I know it’s not a mash-up we are going to be able to easily test but I know which side I’d bet on.

[Bouargh]

4 hours ago, TheArtilleryman said:

I remember that tank battle report - that was a brilliant one back in the day! It would definitely be cool to run something similar but I suspect the guard would get trounced considering the imbalance in points between SM and IG tanks now. A Gladiator Lancer costs less than a Leman Russ and I suspect the Lancer would come out on top.

 

Atm it happened, we tried to stick to the initial selection of units as far as possible: so no Primarized vehicles and only First born for the SM... 

And it was a recreation under 9th Ed rules.

 

Under 10th, most SMs  would fall under Legends and result would probably even more unbalance, considering Index for IG. With Codex, it might might eventually go even worse, depending on how new IG rules will be featured/recooked...

[TheArtilleryman]

4 minutes ago, Bouargh said:

 

Atm it happened, we tried to stick to the initial selection of units as far as possible: so no Primarized vehicles and only First born for the SM... 

And it was a recreation under 9th Ed rules.

 

Under 10th, most SMs  would fall under Legends and result would probably even more unbalance, considering Index for IG. With Codex, it might might eventually go even worse, depending on how new IG rules will be featured/recooked...

How did it go?

[Bouargh]

Quite boring. The SM predators and Razorbacks were erased quite rapidely or impeached. And the low count of other infantery and units made that SMs were outgunned and wipped out by the LR company. As the latter enterred as reserves, they were preserved from the alpha strike from SM, as these were getting most of the fire power and initiative in 1st turn.

 

Only SM units performing well in term of return on investment were the Deepstriking termies and the landspeeders; but they were too lonely to really make a difference in the final math as far as I remember.

 

At second turn the game was almost off as all SM units that could have done something were sufficiently weakened not to be a real threat. Or blocked due to poor deployment, or with too limited LoS, or simply destroyed: with, I do not remember exactly the army composition, something between 12 to 18 Rhino chassis on the table, you rapidely end up being cumbersome in the movement phase; especially if you deploy in columns or spear heads when coming from reserves.

I brought my SW at this game and I did the mistake to play my deployment in spear head (as in the "historic" game). I should have gone in line instead. There was enough room for it, I did not play it wisely.

 

It is also true that the scenery in the middle of the table was really blocking LoS and made that a wisely positionned LR could be really effective as it sniped key assets and remained then largely untouched (a little bit as in this piece of Lore where a single Vindicator blocks an ful armoured column....). In that game Scenery is a real additional asset for IG defensor.

 

But it is a little bit blurry (4+ years have passed or so), and the fact that the after game beer was great, clearly, does not help remembering details...

 

Conclusion: this scenario needs more predators annihilators and more lascannon to give SM a chance vs a full company of Russes. Or Land raiders and VIndicators but these weren´t a thing at the time.

Edited January 23 by Bouargh
Conclusion