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.

It is a small question, but what have you been seeing lately as far as what kind of lists are doing the best.

In my opinion 40k is defined by three equal concepts; Assault Superiority, Armor, and Mobility. I believe these concepts are what define the most competitive lists.

Assault Superiority is showing its self to be just as important, if not more so now. Being able to break multiple units in close combat allows you to put your opponent into a retreat whilst you happily grab any objective you need. It takes a strong shooty army to really compete against a strong assault army and I don't see any purely shooty army out there right now that is strong enough, except maybe Markerlight Tau.

Armor is king. Now that tanks are no longer thin paper bags and are actually survivable, taking them in multiple numbers is always a winning strategy. If you are an army that can put your troops into a transport, you have no reason not to. If you have access to tanks, taking them is a must, as Dawn of War deployment kinda screws stand and shoot armies. Even if you don't have access to armor (Tyranids), taking multiple monstrous creatures is always a fair compensation.

Modility is the most important factor. You gotta grab those objectives or launch assaults.

And I play in the Orlando area, home of the Ard boys winner. I play regularly against some of the best players this area has to offer.

But I know that regional tastes differ and I would like to hear what others are experiencing.

Mahu wrote:It is a small question, but what have you been seeing lately as far as what kind of lists are doing the best.

In my opinion 40k is defined by three equal concepts; Assault Superiority, Armor, and Mobility. I believe these concepts are what define the most competitive lists.

Assault Superiority is showing its self to be just as important, if not more so now. Being able to break multiple units in close combat allows you to put your opponent into a retreat whilst you happily grab any objective you need. It takes a strong shooty army to really compete against a strong assault army and I don't see any purely shooty army out there right now that is strong enough, except maybe Markerlight Tau.

Armor is king. Now that tanks are no longer thin paper bags and are actually survivable, taking them in multiple numbers is always a winning strategy. If you are an army that can put your troops into a transport, you have no reason not to. If you have access to tanks, taking them is a must, as Dawn of War deployment kinda screws stand and shoot armies. Even if you don't have access to armor (Tyranids), taking multiple monstrous creatures is always a fair compensation.

Modility is the most important factor. You gotta grab those objectives or launch assaults.

And I play in the Orlando area, home of the Ard boys winner. I play regularly against some of the best players this area has to offer.

But I know that regional tastes differ and I would like to hear what others are experiencing.

Its all army dependent.

My sisters army, for example.....has NO assualt capability. I have no need for superiority there. Armor is good, but for me, in this game, mobility is king. He who can get their strength to where its needed will win. Thats how its always been in 3rd, 4th or 5th.

Tactic One. Buy Ork Codex. Tactic Two, buy and paint 20 Nob Bikers with Warbosses and Pain Boyz.

This build poses so many problems for 'balanced' armies that you can easily dominate play at your FLGS level, and probably at the local tournament scene as well. Yes, someone may figure out a way to beat a unit of Nob Bikers in a head to head fight (perhaps, just perhaps using Abadon or Terminator Assault squads in a landraider), but why fight? You turboboost 24 inches for a 3+ cover save. You have FNP against all but the heaviest weapons, and you count as troops!

'Game Over'

Defining tactics? Cover everywhere, assault!

Indeed, Orks are a decent army.
Different armies require different tactics. But that's a long story.
In the new ed, tanks are more resilient thanks to cover saves and the new armor penetration table. Long range anti-tank weapons (with non-AP 1) are less effective and so long range anti-tank units (like Dev squads with lascannons) lost an edge.
CC is bloodier than it was before and fearless units suffer if they loose cc.
Finally, the new missions require different thinking. Mobility is key in two of three missions. Non-troop units are expendable, while troops are much more valuable to keep alive. Finally, in KP missions you need larger squads/squadrons.

We have one Nob Biker player in the area. It's a tough list to beat, but Assault Terminators and a Librarian with Null Zone tend to deal with them nicely, especially mounted in a speeder.

...especially mounted in a speeder.

What does that mean? Landraider?

Mission rules & the types of special rules that can be used with them compared to 4th.

Mahu wrote:We have one Nob Biker player in the area. It's a tough list to beat, but Assault Terminators and a Librarian with Null Zone tend to deal with them nicely, especially mounted in a speeder.

1. Assault Terminators. Bikers just dance outside of assault range and gun them down.
2. Librarian with Null Zone? What's that supposed to do?
3. Mounted in a Speeder?

2. Librarian with Null Zone? What's that supposed to do?

Nullzone requires to reroll all passed invulnerable saves within an area around the Librarian.

with all the abilities to ignore cover saves, I dont see how the 3+ cover really matters. Stern vets with dragon fire shells for instance, or all flamers, and there are tons more that ignore them.

malikai009 wrote:with all the abilities to ignore cover saves, I dont see how the 3+ cover really matters. Stern vets with dragon fire shells for instance, or all flamers, and there are tons more that ignore them.

Are we talking cover saves in general, or nob bikers in particular here?

Cover saves in general.

Whirldwinds get both types of ammo now and make it murder for all troop choices (and it is the majority of options out there) with 4+ or worse pretty damned vunerably to a grissly death.

Thunderfire cannon well.. its a special gun. Dragonfire shells, granted. Darkreaper crack-shot (not 5ed specific but with increased availibility and thus possible reliance it makes it relevant)

Improved closecombat goodness. Assualt grenades seem more useful now (for actual cover-related charging)

wuestenfux wrote:

2. Librarian with Null Zone? What's that supposed to do?

Nullzone requires to reroll all passed invulnerable saves within an area around the Librarian.

Ork bikers usually use the 4+ cover and 4+ feel no pain. rarely do they use the 5+ invul. How does Null zone put a damper on nob bikers? How do bikers dance outside of assault range of nob bikers?

We were talking about defining tactics in 5th editition as per OP. Which started off as broader more non-unit oriented question of base tactics and style of build favored in 5th edition.

If we examine this on a unit by unit basis this thread may quickly become another Biker/Dual Lash debate.

@ OP, Every Army is going to see the defining characteristics and successful tactics a little differrently. All according to their strength.

Many say the static gun line is dead. For Tau, this may not be so with the broadside spam build. I personally, build a general list. Two Hammer heads a squad of 2 broadsides, a PF squad, and speed bump gun drones, 3 troops, one w/transport other grabs PF transport and third is kroot, 2teams of 2crisis suits and 2 strong commanders. This leaves me with a static line castled in a corner, mobility with the tanks/transports, and the one you left out(which I feel is the most important)flexibility.

I tend to build similarly with the eldar because this is what suits my playstyle. Not the static part but for flexibility.

5th ed has done a good job of forcing a balance in alot of ways. This is how I see it:

Build1 is >build2, build2 is > build3, Build3 is > build1

Just my opinion and how I build/play

If you are talking about orks you are going to see a lot of use of the new run feature with slugga boyz so that they can close in to CC quickly, you will see the same with most orks and almost any CC oriented army that isn't heavy on transports.

As far as MEQ armies, you are going to see a lot of heavy armor and hard to kill troops.

Truthfully though i don't see a single defining tactic for 5th ed. People are going to play to their personal preferences and they will modify "normal" army tactics to work with what they wish to play.

I really dont think Orks are as good as alot of you think.

Kill troops. Kill the scoring units. Have a range of ap weapons.