Switch Theme:

The cost/benefit ratio to flexibility  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

One of the hotter issues in 40k tactics is the debate between specialization and flexibility. One theory argues that units should be highly capable at a specific task, so that when they attempt it they succeed. The other theory suggests that units should be capable of multiple tasks, so that they're never completely useless.

Both sides make good points, and both are correct in certain situations. The key to flexibility lies in the cost incurred, the benefit gained, and the roles a unit can play organically (absent any upgrades).

Cost in 40k nearly always boils down to opportunity cost. In finance, you can invest extra money when you expect a high return, thus having more funds available later. In 40k, both players have the same, fixed amount of points. This means that all units and upgrades need to be analyzed in terms of what the selecting player gives up to take them. In addition to the points cost of an upgrade or unit, there is usually slot competition. Tactical squads can only take a single special weapon, armies only can take three heavy support choices, etc. All the points in the world won't allow you to take four meltas in a tactical squad. The final cost is in game play: where taking certain actions limits others. This is seen most notably with heavy weapons, which prevent moving, running, and assaulting to fire.

Benefit in 40k is tougher to articulate. A unit provides a benefit when it destroys enemy units, holds or contest objectives, survives (in KP missions), ties up enemy units with pinning or assault, makes a friendly unit better or enemy unit worse (synergy), or even provides a psychological threat to the enemy (reserve units). Cost gets fuzzy in practice, but benefits are impossible to measure in purely quantitative terms. Some units lend themselves to the analysis, particularly purely damage dealing units. Others, particularly scoring units, have a massive benefit (the ability to win games) that can't be quantified. In the purest terms, benefits are not even absolute, only potential. Adding a melta gun to a squad doesn't yeild a destroyed tank, but dramatically increases the potential of a squad destroying a tank.

Finally, every unit has organic abilities. A tactical squad has bolters, bolt pistols, ATSKNF, combat tactics, frag and krak grenades, a good stat line, and power armor. Absent any upgrades, the squad can do decent damage to light infantry in shooting, and non-dedicated assault units and light/medium armor in hand to hand. In addition, tactical squads are scoring units, and can split into combat squads. Being aware of a units organic abilities gives you an idea of what the unit can do in terms of benefits provided absent any cost, and provides the framework for any flexibilty analysis. Do not, under any circumstances, think that because a unit has low or moderate organic ability at a task that the unit should always be upgraded to bolster that task. Organic abilities are considered because they're "free", not because they are always signifigant. For tactical squads, it would be easy to say that they're good at shooting light units, so should always take flamer and heavy bolter. In practice, their light infantry killing power isn't the main reason to take the unit, but provides a side light. In many ways this is the hardest thing for new players to understand, especially when building Imperial/traitor armies: the squads are good or bad based on upgrades, and the organic abilities are seldom more than a sidelight.

The major exception, and the organic ability that usually provides the biggest value, is the ability to count as a scoring unit. Scoring units are required to win most missions of 40k, and is in many ways the biggest benefit but the hardest to value. Many list suffer because players realize that their troops choices provide a low damage benefit, and so skimp on them, limiting their ability to take and hold objectives. The savvy player knows that troops are key, and either upgrades them to optimize damage, or simply relies on their organic ability to score and provide light damage.

Flexibility, under this rubric, would be the ability of a unit to provide multiple benefits to the player. In a vacuum (with no costs considered), a space marine tactical squad with melta gun, plasma cannon, power fist, combi-flamer, and rhino would provide maximum flexibility benefit. The unit can engage heavy armor, heavy infantry, light infantry, fight in assault, score, and be transported. In practice, the squad is terrible: no focus, very low benefit against each target, and a pretty high cost.

Flexibility, the ability of a unit to perform multiple tasks, is the inverse of redundancy, or the ability to have multiple units that can perform any given task. The former is worried about having useless units, while the latter is concerned with not having useful units. It’s a key to successful list building, because while no unit is ever truly useless, there are times when you won’t have a useful unit (lack of units that can kill landraiders are the biggest example). Specialization dramatically increases the benefit a unit offers, usually at a fairly low total cost. Taking three multi-melta attack bikes provides similar anti-tank pop to three MM dreadnoughts, at a lower cost in both points and FOC slots. On the other hand, the MM dreadnoughts are more flexible, being fearless, more durable, decent in assault, etc. Specialized units are taken generally with the idea that the need for a dedicated unit(s) to deal with certain tasks outweighs the threat they may be useless in certain games.

Flexibility, as the ability to confer multiple benefits, is still a positive thing. Many lists are built around flexible units, and are quite successful. Some of that flexibility is organic, such as the frag and krak missiles from a missile launcher, while some is available as an option, such as the Dragon’s Breath Flamer in Fire Dragons. This treatise is a long winded way of saying one simple thing: only pay for flexibility that provides a good benefit for a low cost.

When looking at the benefit, ask the following questions: how good will this make the unit at its new task? Does the benefit complement organic abilities? Is this benefit otherwise light or weak in your army? Is this benefit of higher value in your local gaming community? The benefit questions are generally pretty easy: they can often by quantified (how many more wounds in an assault does a powerfist add, for example) or are easy to qualitatively asses.

The trick becomes looking at the cost. When looking at the cost for an upgrade, look at the whole picture. Could you spend those points on something better, somewhere else in the list? Does the upgrade prevent taking another choice that might suit the units role better? Does taking the upgrade create a situation where the unit would have to operate differently from its normal function? Does the upgrade cut into the ability of the unit to operate at a specialized task?

Using this system, let’s analyze a few common upgrade questions. First, looking at the humble tactical squad, should you take a powerfist? Let’s assume a non-vulkan list, where the squad is armed with flamer and missile launcher, and is meant primarily to hold objectives. In this case, the benefit is pretty easy: it becomes better (but still not great) in assault. The cost in terms of points is pretty high, representing almost half a landspeeder. More importantly, the unit is meant to simply survive and plink at enemy armor: adding the fist creates in play dissonance, as you might use them aggressively, losing the organic benefits of the squad. Here, the squad should seldom see combat, and the benefit is simply too low for the cost. The squad is meant to be a support unit, and powerfists are a pure damage dealing element.

Instead, let’s look at a tactical squad with combi-melta, melta, multi-melta in a vulkan list, mounted in a rhino. This is a unit that retains its organic scoring ability, but also serves as a damage dealing unit, specialized to dealing with vehicles. Taking a powerfist in this list doesn’t have the tactical costs that it did above, as this unit is far more likely to be in assault. It doesn’t have any “slot” costs, as the unit can still take the combi weapon and there aren’t any other really useful CC weapons available. This questions boils down to points cost, and if you could spend 25pts better elsewhere. It’s my opinion that most armies could find better uses of 25pts (extra armor on a dread, Landraider MMs, etc), but we at least now know the proper questions to ask.

This analysis I think shows why heavy weapons in troop squads are a very solid buy, even though their damage output is lower than nearly any specialized unit. The squad is bought for its organic ability to score, not for any damage, and thus the cost of the heavy weapon upgrade is a pure points cost issue, not a tactical or slot based cost issue.

It’s my hope that by looking at the true benefit of flexibility, and three costs associated with it (points, slots, and tactical), players can better analyze their choices.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
I focused on flexibility in this analysis because I feel that specialization spending decisions are generally much more straight forward. When building a unit, I spend points on upgrades that make it better at it's core ask until either:
1) it can reliably perform the task
2) I can't upgrade anymore, or
3) I can't afford any more upgrades.

Leman Russ executions take plasma sponsons because it makes the tank even better, while fire dragons hover around six men because more than that is overkill against most armor.

If I were to boil this treatise down into a simple maxim, it would be "never spend slots on flexibility, and only spend points when you can't buy any more specialization." What that means is that spending limited resources to make a unit more flexible, like special weapon slots, is a waste if those slots could make the unit better at it's assigned task, unless of course you feel like that unit is already reliably capable of it's assigned task. In terms of points (as close to an unlimited resource as 40k has), I'd only spend points on flexbility if the benefit expected is higher than spending those points on specialization anywhere else in the army. A lot of flexibility based options do have a high benefit in terms of points: things like heavy flamers on dreadnoughts are among the best 10pts you can spend. Of course, you can argue that the role of a dreadnought is short ranged combat, making the heavy flamer very complementary.

Complementary flexibility is another area where the benefit is higher and the cost is lower than when the flexibility attained is diametrically opposed to the organic function of the unit. IG platoon squads are shooting squads, and adding a heavy weapon, while it changes the task (from shooting at light infantry to shooting at armor) doesn't change the role (gunline style shooting). Adding a new task to a unit, while keeping it's role, allows you to add flexibility at a lower total cost, as demonstrated by the Dreadnought example. In contrast, adding a missile launcher to a MM dreadnought, while theoretically complenting it's task (anti-armor) actually limits the role of the dreadnought (short range firefighting, light assault).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/10/02 18:26:51


 
   
Made in gb
Purposeful Hammerhead Pilot




Scotland

That is a Nice most man. I think many people fall to the trick of thinking because they gave a unit a powerfist that it can then headlong a charge.

~You can sleep when you're dead.~
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Eternal Plague

People sometimes overpay for a unit to be versatile, and I often fall into that trap when I go from my Orks to Chaos Space Marines. Each Plague Marine or Khorne Beserker I use is about three and a half to four times more than one ork boy, and with it comes an upgraded leader for the unit that can easily exceed 60 or more points if I add in a powerfist or special weapons somewhere by itself!

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2010/10/02 18:44:05


   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

Well, points spent on a leader for Berzerkers isn't flexibilty (except for the distinction between assault and assaulting high tougness or high save models). This is why you never see Plasma Pistols on berzerkers, however. It's points that could almost always be spent somewhere else in the army in a better way. I mean, why buy two plasma pistols for Berzerkers when you could spend the points to add combi-meltas to three different rhinos. Or havoc launchers to two different rhinos.

The fist for Plague marines is actually a very good test case for this analytical framework. Plague Marines, while not dedicated assault units, have a very high organic ability in combat. Defensive grenades, T5, FNP, BP/CWW, fearless... these are all things that make a unit that can win against light units, and with power armor and FNP can ignore most "No retreat" wounds against tougher foes. Adding a powerfist to this unit increases a pretty healthy organic combat ability, especially in larger squads.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Vallejo, CA

So, I agree with all of the OP, except for one thing:

Polonius wrote: the squads are good or bad based on upgrades, and the organic abilities are seldom more than a sidelight.

When you buy a tac squad with no upgrades whatsoever, you're spending 150 points for two things:

1.) a pretty durable scoring unit
2.) 10 boltguns worth of firepower

Depending on how things are on the field, both of these are likely to come into play, and one of them will usually be more important than the other at any given time. The thing is, though, the bolter's firepower is still a big chunk of the usefulness of what you're spending all those points on.

As you can't really spend points on unit upgrades order to make a basic troops choice more durable, the only thing you can do is to spend points on #2: increasing its firepower (or, well, killing power in the case of giving it a fist).

As such, if you give the squad, say, a meltagun, and you only ever shoot it at tanks, then you are always wasting whatever chunk of points you spent on bolters. Over the course of several squads in an army, this can be a lot of points spent on something you're never using. Of course, you don't have the choice to not take bolters, and instead make the marines cheaper. This means that the cost of the bolters is fixed, and you have to base your choices of upgrades accordingly.

Also, one of the costs of upgrading a unit so as to utterly waste what it was good at already in order to be good at something else is the cost relative to the target. A tac squad already starts out as good against light infantry. As such, paying 150 pts. for a heavy bolter/flamer marine squad in order to kill it's weight in guardsmen isn't all that terrible of an investment. However, bumping the price up by taking a single metagun and shooting it at tanks means that you're spending 160 points for a single chance per turn you shoot of wrecking a vehicle. Needless to say, this isn't as good of an investment not only relative to its infantry killing power, but it's also a bad investment compared to what you're trying to attack (likely hundreds of points of marines in order to kill tens of points of transports, for example), but it's ALSO bad relative to other units in the codex, who can do said job better (300 points spent on 2 tac squads with 2 meltas compared to 300 points spent on sternguard with 10 combi-meltas, for example).

As you mention, due to the fixed cost nature of units and their particular weapons and statlines, units do have an "organic" skill set. You can take upgrades to give it "inorganic" abilities at the cost of its "organic" onces, but this has efficiency costs, as you well note.

It's not to say that you should NEVER take things like meltaguns with tac squads, after all some "just in case" security-style versatility is nice (like giving squads meltabombs in case there are walkers around or something wants to tank shock you), but I think people are sometimes WAY to quick to dismiss a unit's original purpose (especially when it comes to small arms), and pay a serious, if very subtle price for it.

Your one-stop website for batreps, articles, and assorted goodies about the men of Folera: Foleran First Imperial Archives. Read Dakka's favorite narrative battle report series The Hand of the King. Also, check out my commission work, and my terrain.

Abstract Principles of 40k: Why game imbalance and list tailoring is good, and why tournaments are an absurd farce.

Read "The Geomides Affair", now on sale! No bolter porn. Not another inquisitor story. A book written by a dakkanought for dakkanoughts!
 
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

If you're taking four squads of tactical marines with melta guns as a main aspect of your anti-tank, than yes, you are missing out on what tactical squads are good at it and what is good anti-tank.

the Point I would make is that you should assess a squads organic benefits critically before making decisions on how to upgrade. It's conventional wisdom that small arms tend to be underwhelming, but YMMV. The goal of my article isn't to advocate for or against any given build, but rather to provide tools for the discussion of units.

Personally, i find the main benefit of Tactical squads to be scoring units. One squad can split into two, giving you a small heavy weapon squad and a small short range shooting squad. Their role as bolter armed marines in combat is secondary to their magical ability to hold objectives. personally, i find focusing their task on anti-tank to be a good benefit, even at the cost of losing their bolter fire. On the other hand, I also really like bare bones flamer/ML squads, which give you a solid anti-infantry firebase which compiments the bolters very well, while also providing anti-armor punch at a very, very small cost (one frag missile instead of three heavy bolter shots).

Your point does illustrate the third, "hidden" cost of 40k: what i called tactical cost. Using a unit in any given way gives up other options. I disagree with your dismissal of using tacticals for tank hunting, especially since they also have krak grenades and thus can can assault non-Landraider class vehicles in addition to the melta shot(s). Shooting bolters also has the tactical cost of giving up the ability to assault.

   
Made in ca
Angered Reaver Arena Champion






Some slight corrections there Ailaros:

1. Tactical Squads in C:SM cost 170 base for 10 man, not 150.
2. The melta gun upgrade from the flamer costs 5 points, not 10.

When you discuss wasting the boltguns, you are missing the fact that you may Combat squad the unit, grouping models as you deem most appropriate given the opponent. So while shooting at tanks with a combat or full tactical squad the bolters are normally wasted, however the waste can be mitigated with planning in the form of combat squads.

Additionally, its possible that a squad will have no targets for its bolters. In this case, the cost of the bolters is already going to waste. Giving the squad a meltagun can alleviate this problem where the flamer offers none. It would be inaccurate to say that you are always wasting points when shooting the meltagun at a tank, as that assumes that you have targets for your boltguns. Even there are times when shooting a single meltagun has a potential benefit that outweighs the opportunity cost of shooting the bolters. Therefore, the meltagun offers a flexibility in target selection that may have been previously lacking.

Futhermore, comparing a scoring unit to a non-scoring unit always falls into the trap that you are only considering its effectiveness in a non-scoring task. Of course the non-scoring unit will specialize better (in your example the sternguard)- otherwise there would never be a reason to consider taking them.

The most integral part of your scoring units is how effectively they can survive and hold objectives. Everything else is secondary, including tossing in a long range heavy weapon shot. This is the reason you see the comparatively miniscule cost of the heavy weapon in the tactical squad compared to the devastator squad.

With any of these choices in you army, it all comes down to opportunity cost. Can those 5 points be better spent elsewhere? Do you plan on using this unit in such a way that the cost of losing the flamer is worthwhile?

edit: /agree with Polonius on all points.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/10/02 20:53:01


Sangfroid Marines 5000 pts
Wych Cult 2000
Tau 2000 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Vallejo, CA

well, right. My point is just that I've seen a lot of people dismiss small arms in less time than it takes to say "lasguns are the SUKXORZ!". Yes, it's all very complicated, but I do find myself wincing slightly when I see SM commanders give meltas to their tac squads only to find themselves so short on anti-horde that they have to turn around and buy anti-infantry speeders, or guard commanders who give all their guardsmen autocannons and then go and do silly things like buy punishers when they already HAD a lot of anti-horde, it's just the upgrades they gave them threw it away.

Your one-stop website for batreps, articles, and assorted goodies about the men of Folera: Foleran First Imperial Archives. Read Dakka's favorite narrative battle report series The Hand of the King. Also, check out my commission work, and my terrain.

Abstract Principles of 40k: Why game imbalance and list tailoring is good, and why tournaments are an absurd farce.

Read "The Geomides Affair", now on sale! No bolter porn. Not another inquisitor story. A book written by a dakkanought for dakkanoughts!
 
   
Made in us
Banelord Titan Princeps of Khorne






Great discussion Polonius!

Veriamp wrote:I have emerged from my lurking to say one thing. When Mat taught the Necrons to feel, he taught me to love.

Whitedragon Paints! http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/613745.page 
   
Made in ca
Decrepit Dakkanaut





So, examples:

Suppose you were arming Dark Angels Scouts. They can be armed with Sniper Rifles to take advantage of their BS4. Is it better to take a Missile Launcher to emphasize their flexibility? Your theory seems to return a "Yes" answer.
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

Well, my theory doesnt' really come up with solid answers, because it still depends on subjective analysis of benefits and costs. What i think it can do is frame the issues more squarely so that a person can really boil down the decision to the crux.

First, look at the benefit: a Missile launcher (when compared to a sniper rifle) is better against light infantry, power armor,and much better against vehicles. In absolute terms, the Missile Launcher doesn't add high end anti-vehicle, but given that sniper rifles are of little use against full mechanized lists anyway, the ML helps shore up a weakness.

In terms of costs, you start with points cost. At 20pts (15 over a sniper rifle), the ML is getting a little expensive for a "just in case weapon." Compare it to heavy flamers on dreadnoughts or combi-weapons on tactical squads at 10pts. Still, the DA book is notoriously difficult to spend full points in. It's not uncommon to have exactly 10, 15, ro 20pts left over.

In terms of slot cost, the Missile launcher is in every way an upgrade over the bolter or sniper rifle it replaces. If you want to shoot, it's the best choice.

In terms of tactical cost, both sniper rifles and the ML are heavy weapons, so you're not limiting the role of the unit by adding the weapon. in terms of task, the snipers generally target infantry and monstrous creatures. Against MCs, the ML isn't even adding flexibilty, but rather adding to the specialty! Against infantry, the ML equals or exceeds the abilitys of the sniper rifle. The only true tactical cost I can see is when you use the squad to shoot at a vehicle that sniper rifles can't hurt, thus wasting a few shots.

So, I'd argue that the benefit is of slightly increased firepower against the infantry, moderately increased firepower against MCs, and the addition of a single Krak missle against armor. There is no real slot cost, and limited tactical cost. This decision boils down solely to points cost: if you cant' find a better place for those 15pts, than by all means buy the Missile Launcher.
   
Made in gb
Lone Wolf Sentinel Pilot





Sitting on the roof of my house with a shotgun, and a six pack of beers

Hi Polonius

I alway enjoy your articles, in particular I liked your Imperial guard codex analysis.

I just wanted to make sure i've gt the main point right.

There are cost to upgrading
1) Points Cost - Cost in points
2) Slot/limited Cost - number of heavy support an army can take or specials a squad can take
3) Tactical Cost - heavy weapons limit movement

and when your considering whether these cost are woth it you need to consider
1) the squads organic abilities - what I can do anyway.
2) can something else do the same job better
3) will it help the squad do their job better

Sorry might seem stupid as you've spelt it all out in so much detail in the above posts but I find bullet points help me remember, and although I think i've got the hang of list building it never hurts to make sure i'm not missing anything.

Thanks
Spank

PM me and ask me about Warpath Wargames Norwich or send me an email

"If we hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominoes should fall like a house of cards. Checkmate!" Zapp Brannigan

33rd Jalvene Outlanders & 112th Task Force 6600 Points (last count)

 
   
Made in us
Long-Range Land Speeder Pilot




Your example squad seems like a badly put together squad to me - why are you keeping a 10-man squad with a flamer and ML on an objective in the first place? The flamer isn't suitable for 'plinking' like you have them doing with the ML, a plasma gun would be much better suited to sitting in place and shooting. If you can't afford the plasma gun, I think another bolter would be a better choice for that squad, since the flamer is short-ranged and you generally have to move to use it.

And then there's the question of why you're using a 10-man squad to hold an objective - why not combat squad into two objective-holding units? KPs don't matter in a normal objective mission so there's no downside to having two units, and two 5-man marine squads can split or combine their fire as the situation warrants. The flamer makes some sense if you combat squad them, since the flamer squad can maneuver to flame without hurting the ML, though the plasma gun is still better at sitting in one place shooting at 24".
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

BearersOfSalvation wrote:Your example squad seems like a badly put together squad to me - why are you keeping a 10-man squad with a flamer and ML on an objective in the first place? The flamer isn't suitable for 'plinking' like you have them doing with the ML, a plasma gun would be much better suited to sitting in place and shooting. If you can't afford the plasma gun, I think another bolter would be a better choice for that squad, since the flamer is short-ranged and you generally have to move to use it.

And then there's the question of why you're using a 10-man squad to hold an objective - why not combat squad into two objective-holding units? KPs don't matter in a normal objective mission so there's no downside to having two units, and two 5-man marine squads can split or combine their fire as the situation warrants. The flamer makes some sense if you combat squad them, since the flamer squad can maneuver to flame without hurting the ML, though the plasma gun is still better at sitting in one place shooting at 24".


I should have made it clearer that I would expect an objective holding squad to split into two combat squads.

As for keeping the flamer, I think you need to perform the standard anlaysis when upgunning to either melta or flamer (or even keeping the bolter).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
SpankHammer III wrote:Hi Polonius

I alway enjoy your articles, in particular I liked your Imperial guard codex analysis.

I just wanted to make sure i've gt the main point right.

There are cost to upgrading
1) Points Cost - Cost in points
2) Slot/limited Cost - number of heavy support an army can take or specials a squad can take
3) Tactical Cost - heavy weapons limit movement


Slot cost includes any time there is a limited amount of options in a "slot," be it FOC, upgrades, etc.

Tactical cost generally asks what role a unit assumes, and how it would change if you added that upgrade. Adding a powerfist to a long range firepower unit changes the role, just like adding a heavy weapon to a mobile short range unit (that isn't relentless).

and when your considering whether these cost are woth it you need to consider
1) the squads organic abilities - what I can do anyway.
2) can something else do the same job better
3) will it help the squad do their job better


Well, you need to ask, for adding flexibility (which I define as adding a new task profile to the unit) you need to ask what the benefit of adding that flexibility is. The benefit can be low with a very low cost (melta bombs on a squad leader), high with a low cost (the ability to take units as troops), or low with a high cost (Dark Lances on DE scourges). But I'd consider:
1) how large is the benefit
2) how complementary is the new task to other tasks, ie does the units role stay the same
3) does this new task complement organic abilities
4) how limited is your army, otherwise, in that task area

If you're making a squad better at it's primary task, than you're analysis is much simpler. You just need to ask if it's worth the points to make the squad better, or if it would be either overkill or ineffecient. Overkill is things like 10 man fire dragon squads, ineffeciency is buying a heavy flamer in IG PCS squads, instead of just pure flamers. The extra points aren't worth the benefit.

Sorry might seem stupid as you've spelt it all out in so much detail in the above posts but I find bullet points help me remember, and although I think i've got the hang of list building it never hurts to make sure i'm not missing anything.

Thanks
Spank


It's not problem. It's a bit of an abstract essay, tryng to formulate rules for the sort of analysis we all do every day when building our armies.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/10/04 16:28:55


 
   
Made in us
[ARTICLE MOD]
Fixture of Dakka






Chicago

I think that the trade-off between specialization and flexibility is one of the biggest ways that GW differentiates armies.

Flexibility seems to be a strength of Imperial armies, with their ability to bring specialist gear to units that are, at their base, anti-infantry units. Your standard Space Marines and their tactical squad are the epitome of a flexible squad. A missile launcher can handle tanks. A flamer is a good deterrent to people advancing on you. A powerfist sgt is a threat to any big nasty that assaults you.

Xenos armies tend more towards specialization in their units. Eldar aspects do one thing each. Most Tyrannid units have a specific use. Chaos Daemon units have one purpose each...

And, neither approach is inherently better than the other. What's better, or worse, is how you want to use them.

There are two basic approaches to the game, proactive and reactive. A proactive army says, 'this is what I'm going to do, you can try and stop me'. A reactive army lets its opponent set the terms of the game, and seeks to stop them.

I think that specialized units are necessary for a pro-active approach, and that flexible units are necessary for a reactive approach.

The reason for this is that if you're setting the terms of the battle (I'm going to beat you by assaulting my way through your lines), you need units that can actually do that. Every point you spend on worrying about contingencies is a point that you're not spending on your core strategy, and that means that when you run into the other heavy assault army, you'll be at a loss.

On the other hand, if you're planning to react to what your opponent does, you need to be sure you have the tools to react appropriately. It's no good to expect to be able to play reactively only to realize you have no way to react to what your opponent is actually fielding.


   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Vallejo, CA

SpankHammer III wrote:There are cost to upgrading
1) Points Cost - Cost in points
2) Slot/limited Cost - number of heavy support an army can take or specials a squad can take
3) Tactical Cost - heavy weapons limit movement


I think one that needs to be added is "relative cost", that is, the cost in points of what you're spending to take down the cost in points of what your opponent is bringing. This gap is felt as an opportunity cost in your army. In short, it's the cost that you pay for taking the wrong tool for the job.

For example, let's say that you're taking a tac squad with a missile launcher in order to stop monstrous creatures. Assuming that you want it dead in, say, 4 turns, and the only thing you're going to bring is tac squads with missile launchers, you need to spend 480 points in tac squads to take down 160 points of MCs.

You can quickly see how this escalates when put into an arms race scenario. If I as a tyranid player take 1 MC, and you as the marine player take 3 tac squads. Then I take a second MC, and you have to take 3 more tac squads. In a thousand point game, you've already blown all your points on tac squads, while I still have 680 pionts left. I could spend that on things that are good against tac squads that tac squads with a single missile launcher aren't all that good against, or I could just take more MCs, knowing that you CAN'T take them all down before they do their damage.

Of course, this is the most extreme form for the sake of explanation, but this kind of stuff has this pervasive ability to creep into lists. The end result is hard to see, but it's easy to feel. In the end, because of using the wrong tools and being inefficient at what you're doing, the end result is a decreased amount of damage that you do for how many points you bring. If you've ever wondered why you can't kill enough of your opponent's stuff in time, it's probably for this reason.


Your one-stop website for batreps, articles, and assorted goodies about the men of Folera: Foleran First Imperial Archives. Read Dakka's favorite narrative battle report series The Hand of the King. Also, check out my commission work, and my terrain.

Abstract Principles of 40k: Why game imbalance and list tailoring is good, and why tournaments are an absurd farce.

Read "The Geomides Affair", now on sale! No bolter porn. Not another inquisitor story. A book written by a dakkanought for dakkanoughts!
 
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

That's not a cost though, that's a limitation to the benefit. I mean, it can be part of the tactical cost as well. For example if you take ten man tactical squads solely to field a missile launcher you're losing hte benefit of the bolters and the special (and potentially the CC sgt.).

In general though, what you're describing is the benefit, and to an extent your post reads like you I haven't explained my point well enough regarding flexibilty.

Taking tactical squads as your main source of anti-MC firepower is quite simply foolish. They aren't great at it, while other units in the codex are quite good at anti-MC shooting. Shooting MCs isn't part of the organic abilities of the tactical squad, and with limited ability to specialize in it they're not worth taking primarily for that task.

What's being discussed in my article is the cost/benefit analysis of adding flexibility. Adding a Missile launcher as a backup MC tool has a very different analysis, which my essay tries to explain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Redbeard wrote:I think that the trade-off between specialization and flexibility is one of the biggest ways that GW differentiates armies.

Flexibility seems to be a strength of Imperial armies, with their ability to bring specialist gear to units that are, at their base, anti-infantry units. Your standard Space Marines and their tactical squad are the epitome of a flexible squad. A missile launcher can handle tanks. A flamer is a good deterrent to people advancing on you. A powerfist sgt is a threat to any big nasty that assaults you.

Xenos armies tend more towards specialization in their units. Eldar aspects do one thing each. Most Tyrannid units have a specific use. Chaos Daemon units have one purpose each...


Eldar are an interesting case study though, in that many of the squads offer hidden flexibility. The Scorpions claw makes the unit much better against MEQs, the Dragon's breath flamer gives fire dragons punch against hordes, and guardian squads can all take warlocks that add tons of options. There is a reason that every player takes the claw, many take the flamer, but few take warlocks in defender squads. and that's what my article is trying to explain.

[quote There are two basic approaches to the game, proactive and reactive. A proactive army says, 'this is what I'm going to do, you can try and stop me'. A reactive army lets its opponent set the terms of the game, and seeks to stop them.

I think that specialized units are necessary for a pro-active approach, and that flexible units are necessary for a reactive approach.

The reason for this is that if you're setting the terms of the battle (I'm going to beat you by assaulting my way through your lines), you need units that can actually do that. Every point you spend on worrying about contingencies is a point that you're not spending on your core strategy, and that means that when you run into the other heavy assault army, you'll be at a loss.

On the other hand, if you're planning to react to what your opponent does, you need to be sure you have the tools to react appropriately. It's no good to expect to be able to play reactively only to realize you have no way to react to what your opponent is actually fielding.



I think you've got some good insights there. Proactive armies need to confident in their abilities, because they win through them, and them alone. Reactive armies generally work by being better at what the enemy is bad at than he's good at your weak point. I think 40k is a continuum, with extremely specialized and proactive armies on one end (horde orks, gunline tau) and purely reactive, flexible armies on the other (sicarious marines, POD, a lot of Mech IG).

I think that you might be correct, in that spending points to expand your strenghts to cover bases might not always be a bad thing. If you play reactively, you want a way to deal with as many enemy armies as possible.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/10/04 19:36:03


 
   
Made in nl
Lesser Daemon of Chaos






Groningen, The Netherlands

Redbeard wrote:I think that the trade-off between specialization and flexibility is one of the biggest ways that GW differentiates armies.

Flexibility seems to be a strength of Imperial armies, with their ability to bring specialist gear to units that are, at their base, anti-infantry units. Your standard Space Marines and their tactical squad are the epitome of a flexible squad. A missile launcher can handle tanks. A flamer is a good deterrent to people advancing on you. A powerfist sgt is a threat to any big nasty that assaults you.

Xenos armies tend more towards specialization in their units. Eldar aspects do one thing each. Most Tyrannid units have a specific use. Chaos Daemon units have one purpose each...

And, neither approach is inherently better than the other. What's better, or worse, is how you want to use them.

There are two basic approaches to the game, proactive and reactive. A proactive army says, 'this is what I'm going to do, you can try and stop me'. A reactive army lets its opponent set the terms of the game, and seeks to stop them.

I think that specialized units are necessary for a pro-active approach, and that flexible units are necessary for a reactive approach.

The reason for this is that if you're setting the terms of the battle (I'm going to beat you by assaulting my way through your lines), you need units that can actually do that. Every point you spend on worrying about contingencies is a point that you're not spending on your core strategy, and that means that when you run into the other heavy assault army, you'll be at a loss.

On the other hand, if you're planning to react to what your opponent does, you need to be sure you have the tools to react appropriately. It's no good to expect to be able to play reactively only to realize you have no way to react to what your opponent is actually fielding.



Nice post!

This is where I struggle when building lists. I keep falling into the same trap I did when building MtG decks a decade ago. I like to build pro-active lists, but I desperately seek to build so much flexibility into it that it becomes a reactive list. I play Chaos Daemons atm, but use an army which has some shooting, some assault, some resilience and some tricks up it's sleave. Luckily in 40k you can get away with this by learning to master your army, but this topic is a much discussed one amongst my friends and me. For instance: when building an Alpha Strike IG list, can you make room for failsafe defences (like Rough Riders or a blob squad for instance) for the occasion something nasty reaches your lines (e.g. deepstriking Trygons) or will points spent in that way dillute the main focus of the list (shooting the opponent to bits) too much.

Personally I feel most comfortable with an army which allows me to take a reactive stance vs. a single-focus pro-active list and allow a pro-active approach to a reactive list. I guess that makes me someone who builds reactive lists. However, I strive to build these lists with specialised units in stead of units which have the flexibilty built in. I struggle to answer whether my striving to achieve this goal is valid or doomed to fail...

Anyway, thanks for this discussion.

Cilithan

Fiery the angels fell; deep thunder rolled around their shores; burning with the fires of Orc.

Armies:
Daemons: 5000+ points
CSM/Black Legion: 5000+ points
Deathwatch/Knights: 5000 points
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: