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.

Okay, that makes sense. Thanks, Keez.

I agree that a brute force army designed to hit first and hard (or be resilient and lay down overwhelming firepower) has some significant advantages. But I don't agree that a reactive/water army is either not feasible or inherently weaker.

I already mentioned Mannahnin's Eldar army, which uses cheap standoff units to soak and defuse the main enemy strength while small, elite elements zip around and take out key targets. Balanced, fast and slow in the same army, and very effective.

Some chaos armies, because of their reserves and daemons, work this way. Pete DeFlorian's Chaos armies all work on the principle of letting the opponent take the initiative and get an early advantage, before realizing that he's stuck in a tarpit and pounded by reserve units in the last two turns. Our club also has a Tzeentch player who does a similar thing, tarpitting or soaking the enemy's early punch with thousand sons, then counterpunching with reserve units after the opponent is committed. Both of these players have excellent records in competitive play.

I've seen some Tau armies that work this way (I'm thinking of Ken Lacy's Slaan-Tau army) or at least have the option to shut down the opponent's shooting/punching strength and force a battle of attrition.

Many necron armies can only function this way.

It is, IMO, a more challenging way to play well, but quite feasible. I think that was the point of the author of the original tactics article, though.

Agreed. I've been running partially mechanized/mobile armies since I started in 1999, and while 4th edition has certainly made them less powerful/dominant (I ran over 90% with my Eldar in 3rd, and am probably down to 75%-80%), they can certainly still work.

Mobility can indeed be a force multiplier when it allows a given unit to do more than it could otherwise. Play an Alpha Secure & Control sometime, and you'll see that the flexibility to have a given transported unit shift 12" - 24" in a single turn to hold a totally different objective can be gamewinning.

My Dark Angels army usually uses two 10 man tac squads in Rhinos with fist, heavy, and special. They can stand and shoot if I need them to, but most games they will be moving up or around a flank in those Rhinos, allowing them to put those Rapidfiring bolters on target starting turn 2-4, and getting the special and powerfist into the mix at a time and place of my choosing. This certainly multiplies the power of the 10 man squad beyond what it would be on foot.

Keezus, I think part of your perspective comes from this alternating terrain deployment you alluded to earlier. If that's your local metagame, then certainly mobile armies will be less effective where you are. There will be less big terrain near the middle of the board to hide behind and maneuver around. But I don't think that's the predominant terrain setup. Most tournaments I've played in used prearranged terrain, set up by the organizers with an eye towards both aesthetics and play balance. And going by the 4th ed guidelines, that is going to result in a fair amount of LOS-blocking stuff a mobile army can move around and use both to reduce incoming shots from the enemy and focus firepower and assault power on limited sections of the opponent's army.

Posted By IntoTheRain on 02/27/2007 6:54 PM
Pariah, you have to expound on that a lot, because I have no idea what your saying. Exactly how does a 10 man tactical squad (with trimmings) become better than a 5 man terminator squad (with trimm..assault cannons) over the course of the game? 

  It doesn't.  Both squads you've mentioned are general-purpose squads (Water-type, to use the paradigm of this thread).  The terminator squad you described is, IMO, the best general-purpose squad in the game, and the only one that I use with any regularity. 

  My point was that a tactical squad (with trimmings + rhino) can maintain its usefulness in later stages of the game where a 6-man las/plas squad will have run out of targets for whatever reason. 

  I think that the question of "who's the beatdown?" is valid.  It's valid in Magic, and it's valid in chess (the answer is always "White" . 

It doesn't.  Both squads you've mentioned are general-purpose squads (Water-type, to use the paradigm of this thread).  The terminator squad you described is, IMO, the best general-purpose squad in the game, and the only one that I use with any regularity.  My point was that a tactical squad (with trimmings + rhino) can maintain its usefulness in later stages of the game where a 6-man las/plas squad will have run out of targets for whatever reason. 

  I think that the question of "who's the beatdown?" is valid.  It's valid in Magic, and it's valid in chess (the answer is always "White" . 

Ok lets work with that example.  People don't take units based on their overall strenth, they take them based on what works in cohesion with the rest of their army, preferably in the most efficient way possible.  6 man las/plas see use because they are an easy way to field a large number of heavy weapons.  A 10 man squad, however, is far more unwieldly.  Shooting a single heavy weapon at a tank while the other nine men in the squad stand around dumbstruck is annoying, and you always feel like your wasting opportunites.  Conversely, moving around and never firing a heavy weapon feels like wasted points as you wish you had access to a more mobile weapon.   Will a 10 man squad be more versitle later in the game?  Probably.  But if you had 2 squads that each had, and carried out an objective then you might not have had to even worry about the late game.  (its also more points efficient, as you dont have to worry about only half your weapons firing each turn)

If a unit is in fact no longer tactially useful, (which is unlikely in a 6 turn game) then it has already preformed its job and should be seeking to preserve its victory points.

As for the beatdown thing, there isn't always a specific beatdown player, decks can play in such a similar manner that they are both the beatdown player.  And in chess, black still has many opportunities (right from the start) to attack as well. (sicillian anyone?) In fact, the general agreement among players is that counterattacking strategies have far better winning chances than defending ones.