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.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:As was said, you don't deploy forwards. You cluster behind cover and use your mobility to inflict an alpha strike on one flank of the enemy, taking care to stay out of range of the other flank. Cripple everything that can shoot you, forcing the rest of their line to either sit in place and wait to be destroyed at your leisure, or move and abandon their positions. The most you're likely to see are 48" guns, which have a large blindspot in at least one corner, even if in the center of their deployment zone, made larger with nightshields. As compared to coming in piecemeal to be torn apart where you can't apply overwhelming strength, this looks pretty good, especially when you have a good chance of still going first.

So....to clarify you've just outlined the basic DE strategy for going second when not deploying in reserves?

As a DE player of six years, I'm fully familiar with the whole 'refused flank/sit back and shoot out of range' approach.

The problem is:

a) In 5th edition, with the heavy preponderance of Vendettas and Space Wolf missile launchers means that a huge chunk of the time, your opponent actually outranges you. Dark Lances only nail opponents up to thirty six inches away, and the trueborn eighteen. Whilst you do have a twelve or so inch move on top of that range, that just means that if you're going to be in range to shoot them next turn, they can already shoot you. Missile launchers and lascannons are forty eight inch range.

b) There's no guarantee you'll have enough terrain on a tournie table. As its one of those variables that can't be planned for, its best not to bank your entire going second strategy on 'hoping there's lotsa terrain'.

c) Armies don't wait to 'be destroyed at your leisure, or move and abandon their positions.' You are up against a human being at the end, and if that player is any good, they'll make it so they have a strategy of their own. They WILL be trying to beat you, not just moving all their men to the corner and within convenient assault range for you whilst forgetting about their shooting phase.


Its true, the reserve approach is not perfect. I would consider it infinitely preferable to risking my entire game on a 50/50 roll from Vect though. DE have some problems in this format, that all competent DE generals are struggling with and endeavouring to find new ways around.

Vect in no way solves these though. He is applicable in certain list types, and will work well there, as already stated. In most standard list compositions though, he simply doesn't.

ChrisCP wrote:Nah, your maths is dodge

One must calculate the number of times one doesn't need to steal 21/35 **attachment here

Remove the 1/6 from that (21/31)*(5/6)=105/186=35/62=56.4 chance of going first while considering you opponent seizing and not considering your seizes.
In the remaining ~43.55% of game one will seize 21.77%.
21.77+56.4=78.17 (damn rounding)

I'm faily sure you've somehow managed to add a 21.77 to 43.55 or close to (thanks to our gratuitious rounding) as that gives 65.32... if you aren't using incorrect process (I don't program and it's hard for me to follow your steps atm.)

Ok, so you win the first roll 21/31 times. Your opponent seizes one sixth of those times, leaving you with 21/31*5/6, or 105/186. Your opponent wins the initial roll 10/31 times, with Vect you seize half the time, so that ends up at 5/31 for you to seize. 5/31*6/6 = 30/186, 105/186+30/186=135/186=.7258 or 72.6%.

You're multiplying the wrong number by 1/2. You only roll to seize on losing the initial die roll, not if your opponent seizes too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ketara wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:As was said, you don't deploy forwards. You cluster behind cover and use your mobility to inflict an alpha strike on one flank of the enemy, taking care to stay out of range of the other flank. Cripple everything that can shoot you, forcing the rest of their line to either sit in place and wait to be destroyed at your leisure, or move and abandon their positions. The most you're likely to see are 48" guns, which have a large blindspot in at least one corner, even if in the center of their deployment zone, made larger with nightshields. As compared to coming in piecemeal to be torn apart where you can't apply overwhelming strength, this looks pretty good, especially when you have a good chance of still going first.

So....to clarify you've just outlined the basic DE strategy for going second when not deploying in reserves?

As a DE player of six years, I'm fully familiar with the whole 'refused flank/sit back and shoot out of range' approach.

The problem is:

a) In 5th edition, with the heavy preponderance of Vendettas and Space Wolf missile launchers means that a huge chunk of the time, your opponent actually outranges you. Dark Lances only nail opponents up to thirty six inches away, and the trueborn eighteen. Whilst you do have a twelve or so inch move on top of that range, that just means that if you're going to be in range to shoot them next turn, they can already shoot you. Missile launchers and lascannons are forty eight inch range.

b) There's no guarantee you'll have enough terrain on a tournie table. As its one of those variables that can't be planned for, its best not to bank your entire going second strategy on 'hoping there's lotsa terrain'.

c) Armies don't wait to 'be destroyed at your leisure, or move and abandon their positions.' You are up against a human being at the end, and if that player is any good, they'll make it so they have a strategy of their own. They WILL be trying to beat you, not just moving all their men to the corner and within convenient assault range for you whilst forgetting about their shooting phase.


Its true, the reserve approach is not perfect. I would consider it infinitely preferable to risking my entire game on a 50/50 roll from Vect though. DE have some problems in this format, that all competent DE generals are struggling with and endeavouring to find new ways around.

Vect in no way solves these though. He is applicable in certain list types, and will work well there, as already stated. In most standard list compositions though, he simply doesn't.

You're on a 48" by 72" table, there are very large blindspots even for 48" weapons, and you can reduce those weapons to 42" range with nightshields. If your opponent is spread out, then only a small amount of his firepower will be in range if you refused flank. If they're all clustered up, then none of them will be in range (unless you set up right next to the cluster, which you shouldn't do). In the first case, if you're set to go second and you seize, then you can quite possibly neutralize all the units that could hit you without moving, and almost anything that moves is going to radically reduce its own firepower, meaning it's less of a threat. If they're clustered together, you're still out of their range, and still better off than coming onto the board piecemeal, whether you win the seize roll or not.

Vect isn't required to make the strategy work, he just makes it work better. Whether or not that's worth his point cost is debatable, though.

Haha, thanks, I'll fix that now. Had it right on my first real run dammit

I have used Vect quite a bit and yes he is a monster in CC but fire enough bolters at him and his squad and he will fall.

His mere presence and the likely hood of seizing the initiative is a game changer. It changes how your opponent deploys and may force them to make a mistake.

I like him despite his high points cost.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
You're on a 48" by 72" table, there are very large blindspots even for 48" weapons, and you can reduce those weapons to 42" range with nightshields.

Your point here is? As I've already clarified, If you can shoot him, he can shoot you. You have a thirty six inch, he has a forty eight. It's simple mathematics. If you hope to shoot this fellow, he can shoot you.

If your opponent is spread out, then only a small amount of his firepower will be in range if you refused flank. If they're all clustered up, then none of them will be in range (unless you set up right next to the cluster, which you shouldn't do). In the first case, if you're set to go second and you seize, then you can quite possibly neutralize all the units that could hit you without moving, and almost anything that moves is going to radically reduce its own firepower, meaning it's less of a threat. If they're clustered together, you're still out of their range, and still better off than coming onto the board piecemeal, whether you win the seize roll or not.

I counted a lot ifs in that.

I've already told you, I'm fully cognizant with the refused flank tactic, I've been using it for six years.

But lets take this apart one piece at a time.

If your opponent is spread out, then only a small amount of his firepower will be in range if you refused flank.

Yup. This was always the theory behind refused flank. Problem is, superior weapon ranges from your opponent, added to the prevalence of other fast moving firepower vehicles, like Vendettas and Stormravens, mean that this theory, whilst not redundant, is now far less applicable than it used to be. Any kind of assault army will be mechanized/ on bikes of some sort and rolling towards you ASAP, and any kind of firepower army will have superior range to you these days. Half the time, the two are combined.

If they're all clustered up, then none of them will be in range (unless you set up right next to the cluster, which you shouldn't do).

If they're clustered up, it means all their firepower is concentrated in one spot. Which means if you're going to hit that spot, you'll be running into all of their firepower. The refused flank is meant to separate your opponents army and deal with it piecemeal. That's the whole point. If their army is clustered up, the refused flank has had its objective defeated. Not only that, again, that 48 inch range means they may not necessarily be out of range, or can easily be in range in one turns movement. Hurrah for transport dominance!

In the first case, if you're set to go second and you seize, then you can quite possibly neutralize all the units that could hit you without moving, and almost anything that moves is going to radically reduce its own firepower, meaning it's less of a threat.

Yes. This is true. IF. However, the flip side of the coin is that their superior firepower will blow the hovercraft out from underneath you. I don't think you fully comprehend how big two armies are here, at say 1500 points. In the standard IG army, their vendettas will be capable of moving six and firing 48 giving them a 54 inch effective range. Or they can move six further and fire a single lascannon. Or just move flat out to get to the other side of the table. The Chimeras can roll six forward and shoot a gun, giving them a 42 inch range with a multi-laser.

If you're set up to take advantage of first turn, so your trueborn blastboats are 12 inches forward, you will be in range of most of their army with ease. You can say, 'I'll hide them all behind terrain', but if you have nine vehicles, you may have trouble cramming them all behind the one odd piece of cover you're likely to have.

Refused flank is nice. It can work in many scenarios. But in todays tournament metagame, its less and less applicable due to the preponderance of long range weaponry and mechanisation.

If they're clustered together, you're still out of their range, and still better off than coming onto the board piecemeal, whether you win the seize roll or not.

If they're clustered together, all their long range firepower will be able to hit you, if you're capable of hitting them. And you won't even be doing it piecemeal because they're clustered together.

Thus removing the entire purpose of the refused flank.

Vect isn't required to make the strategy work, he just makes it work better.

Or lose better. That's the whole point. Fifty/fifty,. will he help me stomp face, or make me get stomped in the face.

Whether or not that's worth his point cost is debatable, though.

That's a whole other can of worms.

Ketara wrote:

Vect isn't required to make the strategy work, he just makes it work better.

Or lose better. That's the whole point. Fifty/fifty,. will he help me stomp face, or make me get stomped in the face.

Whether or not that's worth his point cost is debatable, though.

That's a whole other can of worms.

But we've shown that 'a list' strat will work 18/25

ChrisCP wrote:

Ketara wrote:

Vect isn't required to make the strategy work, he just makes it work better.

Or lose better. That's the whole point. Fifty/fifty,. will he help me stomp face, or make me get stomped in the face.

Whether or not that's worth his point cost is debatable, though.

That's a whole other can of worms.

But we've shown that 'a list' strat will work 18/25

No, you've shown that if you include Sathonyx, and the first roll, and all this other stuff that actually doesn't affect Vect in the slightest, the odds are X that you will get first turn.

Sathonyx is a no brainer because he affects the first turn outcome before deployment.

Vect is not, because you have to deploy with him in mind before finding out whether you can seize the initiative or not, meaning if you don't get the 50/50 roll to seize initiative, you can be left very badly out of position. Sathonyx has no comparable downside.

I thought we were talking about turn one alpha strike and the benifits of vect on this? I missed a bit in the edits and the last post of page 1, where you guys went to the ol' 'DE play like this' & 'yeah but they play like this' sorry.

I thought the point was that with a 7/10 chance to go first if one'slist is based around an alpha strike (because after you do want the 4+ right?) which as you said would already include The Baron.

Not on tried and semi-dependable (true) deployment and movement.

Does this not cripple one so much that skillful management will potentially hold, say, half your 2nd turn games. Leaving just 3 games out of twenty one could 'expect to lose'.

Also to say that improving one's seize from 1/6 to 3/6 is a downside is a bit funy =\ if one's already orientated to go first...

ChrisCP wrote:I thought we were talking about turn one alpha strike and the benifits of vect on this? I missed a bit in the edits and the last post of page 1, where you guys went to the ol' 'DE play like this' & 'yeah but they play like this' sorry.

I thought the point was that with a 7/10 chance to go first if one'slist is based around an alpha strike (because after you do want the 4+ right?) which as you said would already include The Baron.

Not on tried and semi-dependable (true) deployment and movement.

Does this not cripple one so much that skillful management will potentially hold, say, half your 2nd turn games. Leaving just 3 games out of twenty one could 'expect to lose'.

Also to say that improving one's seize from 1/6 to 3/6 is a downside is a bit funy =\ if one's already orientated to go first...

Ah, I thought you were interjecting on Vect in a standard DE list. My bad.

Yes, I think in a Dark Footdar list with Webway support, or a DE leafblower, he's a perfectly valuable contribution. Personally, I'd think he'd be of more use in the footdar version, due to his beardy use as a combat unit on his own.

Ketara wrote:

If your opponent is spread out, then only a small amount of his firepower will be in range if you refused flank.

Yup. This was always the theory behind refused flank. Problem is, superior weapon ranges from your opponent, added to the prevalence of other fast moving firepower vehicles, like Vendettas and Stormravens, mean that this theory, whilst not redundant, is now far less applicable than it used to be. Any kind of assault army will be mechanized/ on bikes of some sort and rolling towards you ASAP, and any kind of firepower army will have superior range to you these days. Half the time, the two are combined.

The point is you start out of range of most of their guns, preferably with cover against those that are in range. If you seize, you can cripple whatever happened to be in range, and set up to be dropping your own assault troops on top of them next turn. If you fail to seize, there's still only a small portion of their guns able to hit you, which can't hope to bring down the whole of your army in all but the most extreme cases, in which case you're screwed no matter how you deploy.

In the first case, if you're set to go second and you seize, then you can quite possibly neutralize all the units that could hit you without moving, and almost anything that moves is going to radically reduce its own firepower, meaning it's less of a threat.

Yes. This is true. IF. However, the flip side of the coin is that their superior firepower will blow the hovercraft out from underneath you. I don't think you fully comprehend how big two armies are here, at say 1500 points. In the standard IG army, their vendettas will be capable of moving six and firing 48 giving them a 54 inch effective range. Or they can move six further and fire a single lascannon. Or just move flat out to get to the other side of the table. The Chimeras can roll six forward and shoot a gun, giving them a 42 inch range with a multi-laser.

Remember that nightshields help this strategy a great deal, meaning that vendetta can, at best, get one shot off at 54 inches. Flickerfields enhance that further, letting you ignore one in three shots outright.

If you're set up to take advantage of first turn, so your trueborn blastboats are 12 inches forward, you will be in range of most of their army with ease. You can say, 'I'll hide them all behind terrain', but if you have nine vehicles, you may have trouble cramming them all behind the one odd piece of cover you're likely to have.

Trueborn are a horrendously inefficient source of anti-tank. You're paying 163 points at the least for something that has a single shot more than a ravager, only at half the range, on a flimsier platform, that can only move 6" and still fire. That is never something that's going to be attacking first turn, whether you expect to go first or not, even if you insist on taking it.

I'm saying "deploy outside the range of their guns, in a back corner," to which you're replying "but that doesn't work when you deploy forward in range of their guns." I think we've got a bit of disconnect here.

If they're clustered together, you're still out of their range, and still better off than coming onto the board piecemeal, whether you win the seize roll or not.

If they're clustered together, all their long range firepower will be able to hit you, if you're capable of hitting them. And you won't even be doing it piecemeal because they're clustered together.

Thus removing the entire purpose of the refused flank.

So they're clustered up. Are you better off lining up in a neat little row and facing that cluster with only a small portion of your army at a time, or having everything ready to try to crack them open at once? All the refused flank is for is keeping you safe on the first turn, as compared to reserving everything and slowly filtering in to be blown apart at their leisure.

Vect isn't required to make the strategy work, he just makes it work better.

Or lose better. That's the whole point. Fifty/fifty,. will he help me stomp face, or make me get stomped in the face.

Even if you're prepared for the case where you don't seize, you can still take advantage of having seized. This whole strategy is about reducing the incoming fire as much as possible on the off chance you don't seize, while retaining the option to use your mobility to great effect if you do seize.

With the ranged inferno enviorment I am in right now I need a plan that involves I have to plan starting in reserves. I am not taking vect. For his price I could get wyches in a raider, or 2 warrior squads out of a portal!

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

The point is you start out of range of most of their guns, preferably with cover against those that are in range. If you seize, you can cripple whatever happened to be in range, and set up to be dropping your own assault troops on top of them next turn. If you fail to seize, there's still only a small portion of their guns able to hit you, which can't hope to bring down the whole of your army in all but the most extreme cases, in which case you're screwed no matter how you deploy.

'Out of range of most of their guns'.

You keep overlooking this little thing called 'superior range'. Lascannons and Missile Launchers have a 48 inch range to a Dark Lance's 36. Taking into account night shields, it becomes 42. But then if you consider movement for Vendettas and the like, that brings their effective range back up to 54 again. Presuming we're following you're strategy, we have to set up a minimum of 48 inches away in order to be capable of moving and then hitting the foe.
In other words, anything we might want to hit is capable of hitting us back from further away.

In the first case, if you're set to go second and you seize, then you can quite possibly neutralize all the units that could hit you without moving, and almost anything that moves is going to radically reduce its own firepower, meaning it's less of a threat.

'Quite possibly'. 'If'. You seem to like relying on variables.

Remember that nightshields help this strategy a great deal, meaning that vendetta can, at best, get one shot off at 54 inches. Flickerfields enhance that further, letting you ignore one in three shots outright.

They only need to hammer you with one shot, as a lascannon is an auto glance on a raider, and a 2+ on a ravager. With the twin linked capabilities to reroll misses, that can be enough. Presuming we are refused flanking here, that shaken/stunned result is time enough for the rest of their army to relocate appropriately. Everyone is mechanised in 5th after all.

If you're set up to take advantage of first turn, so your trueborn blastboats are 12 inches forward, you will be in range of most of their army with ease. You can say, 'I'll hide them all behind terrain', but if you have nine vehicles, you may have trouble cramming them all behind the one odd piece of cover you're likely to have.

Trueborn are a horrendously inefficient source of anti-tank. You're paying 163 points at the least for something that has a single shot more than a ravager, only at half the range, on a flimsier platform, that can only move 6" and still fire. That is never something that's going to be attacking first turn, whether you expect to go first or not, even if you insist on taking it.

I'm saying "deploy outside the range of their guns, in a back corner," to which you're replying "but that doesn't work when you deploy forward in range of their guns." I think we've got a bit of disconnect here.

a) you ignore the difficulties of cramming 9 vehicles behind terrain in one corner of the battlefield, whislt still retaining sufficient line of sight that you get the cover save.

b) You just called the blastboat, one of the more effective pieces of anti-tank in the DE arsenal when used correctly, horrendously inefficient.

Okay. Let's assume you're right, no-one would ever dream of using trueborn with blasters. This means we're using solely Dark Lances/Splinter Cannons/etc. Not Blasters, Heat Lances, and combat units. You are now in effect, NOT using the standard Kabal list. You're pumping as many points into a Leafblower list as possible. Which is the kind of list I have already conceded Vect could be useful in several times now.

My point was that in a standard Kabal list, with Trueborn with blasters, all the various combat units from Wyches to Wracks to Hellions, scourges with heat lances, etc, Vect is not an advantage.

In a Leafblower list, relying solely on smashing the foe with Long Range firepower on turn 1, Vect is worth considering.

Did I miss anything?

So they're clustered up. Are you better off lining up in a neat little row and facing that cluster with only a small portion of your army at a time, or having everything ready to try to crack them open at once? All the refused flank is for is keeping you safe on the first turn, as compared to reserving everything and slowly filtering in to be blown apart at their leisure.

Soooo......They're clustered up, so you cluster up too?

That's not refused flank. The refused flank strategy is where they are NOT clustered up, and you pick them off piece by piece by concentrating your army in one corner and destroying part of the force before swooping on the rest.

Your argument here is, 'if the opposition is clustered up, I should cluster up too'. The problem is, that does nothing if your opponent is packing 3 Vendettas and 6 Hydras, a common occurrence in Mech Guard. If Vect does not get you turn 1, you'll be blown apart in a single turn. That's the whole point of reserving, it allows your forces to get at least one volley off, and for you to decide which section of the table they're going to enter through for maximum cover and advantage.

You're trying to argue here that reserving is bad because your force comes on in dribs and drabs. I'm not even going to try and follow that line of reasoning, and will simply ask you a question:- If it's so bad, how come so many top players at top tournaments do it?

Even if you're prepared for the case where you don't seize, you can still take advantage of having seized. This whole strategy is about reducing the incoming fire as much as possible on the off chance you don't seize, while retaining the option to use your mobility to great effect if you do seize.

Reducing incoming fire?

You just effectively said, 'If your opponent is clustered up with 3 Vendettas and six hydras, and has already won first turn, you should totally deploy right in front of them.

This argument makes me a sad Archon.

Common sense demands that I write a book-length post explaining the folly of Vect and the 4+ chance to seize, but Ketara is doing a fine job of it. Continue.