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.

escalation is excellent for a mechanized eldar or Tau player that can mitigate the risk with high speed maneuvering. Drop pod forces are benefitted similarly.
However it potentially hammers mech guard and landser guard (especially against the aforementioned eldar/Tau) who can use escalation to concentrate on one portion of the field).

Third_Age_of_Baggz wrote:Stelek, I'd like to know what your thoughts are about the whole Min/Max thing when it comes to picking your troops selection. I myself have been trying to put together a 1K Sons list and I'm having a hard time deciding on how many troops to take as a whole when it comes to troop selection. I can see from this post and another post that it looks like you take 2-3 max squads of 1k Sons. But this is soley based on how you have comprised your force. I on the other hand have not chosen to take the Obliterator route when it comes to my heavy unit selection and have decided to run with Vindicators and/or Havocs with a smattering of small 1k sons squads with BoC for some additional AT firing.

As much as I'd like my army list to be a decent tournament list, I'm more of a themed kind of guy. So I guess I'm sacrificing ability for style. I'd just like to know what kind of survivability these small squads have in tournament setting or what place they have in a force selection as a whole.

Well if you go the Vindicator route, you will be very short ranged and like it or not Vindicators aren't exactly anti-tank units. Especially when you play corner-to-corner missions, having to move across the table 12" on your first turn just to get the other guy in range opens you up to side shots. As if AV13 wasn't bad enough, you can get capped pretty easy with that side AV11. I'd definitely take Daemonic Possession on any Chaos Vindicators in my force. The Predator isn't bad, but to be honest why not grab a Havoc squad with a las, two heavy bolters...and pay 5 more points to have 2 more marines? Infinitely more survivable. On to Havoc squads...

Havocs are just space marine devastators with slight tweakability and are fearful. Without any vet skills or anything like that, you really need to worry about being able to down tanks. The problem I see in Havocs (beyond not being fearless) is if you make them 'good' vs space marines you need a mark. Usually Nurgle is best, so light weapons fire isn't effective. However if you add in a couple lascannons and mark of nurgle, that's 120 points for T5 + lascannons. That's not a bargain considering you can get a lascannon in a CSM squad for 170 points or a BM in a EC squad for 140 points or a lascannon chosen squad for 125.

I've said it before, but I'll repeat it here: Chaos + Vehicles is a bad mix. Rhinos without EA are useless as transports--which doesn't make them 35 points, makes them 50+any upgrades, and Rhinos are easily blown up. Dreadnoughts are Elites, but aren't a real threat and if you field 3 you'll be shooting yourself or running out into the open quite a bit. So you have 3 vehicle options (all heavy) that can get your AV13 or better. Defilers are sold out, so they suck now. Land Raiders are questionable given the loss of POTM and how bad they are with DP and in general vs (D)Eldar/Necrons/Tau/Space Marines. So that leaves you preds and vindicators. Since you need some kind of AT, if you aren't running minimum squads you want it to be survivable and be able to shoot every turn. Vindicators and Preds are usually easy to stop for most shooty armies. After all, if Land Raiders with their better guns and more AT weapons aren't going to survive, why would the normal tanks? I can't stress enough that 4 wounds, even instant-death ones, with a 2+/5+, fearless, move and fire....well they are better than the tanks which just get blown up or can't fire. You also don't have enough vehicles on the board to stop the ones you do have from being concentrated on. And you never will, either. "Cheap" is relative because if you die within the first two turns of the game, what use are ya?

Oblits are in my view 'best' because when facing skimmer lists, you won't get pummeled and can fire at what you need to when you're ready. I've let my TS and EC squads fire at enemy tanks, leaving my Oblits and my DP hidden. Let 'em lascannon down my marines. Once I'm at the midfield point with my TS, I don't usually go closer. Keeping the DP nearby and hidden really discourages assaults. I can then drop the Oblits down, or move them out from behind cover and open fire. It makes for a really good army because everything I have is expendable, reliable, backed up, and being 'slow' doesn't mean much when you drop the other guys mobility down to nothing by blowing his transports up.
FYI you'll have a hard time relying on TS units for anti-tank fire vs Eldar if they have a Farseer with the right Runes on the board. Good chance you'll kill your own guys, so you need to make each shot count. Wave Serpents yes, everything else...no, is pretty much it.

If you really really really are set on running no oblits + TS units...

I'd do this:

DPx2. (BoC for the Tzeentch flavor)
Chosen w/Las x3. (5 total)
TS w/BoC x3. (9 total)
Havocs x3. (9 total, 4 AC)

Personally I don't see any reason to take heavy bolters in a Chaos Havoc unit. I'd rather lose the extra shots and gain 12 more inches of standoff.

The list has a bit of mobility but is also lacking mobility, and a good firebase of 24 AC shots and 3 Lascannons. Outranging the enemy with your firebase often forces them into the lethal zone of your TS units. You can also more easily pile your army up into a corner and allow them to setup wherever they like. They'll have to come to you anyway, and your 48" range will cover most of the board even corner-to-corner.

Hope that helps.

If you know how to play against Escalation, all it does is delay the first turn until one or both players are comfortable to start playing.

How's that fun? Who find thats fun? Anyone? Ever?

So what's the difference between coming on piecemeal then starting the game vs coming on entirely or setting up entirely and then starting it? Very little difference.

How is it fair for move + shoot armies to have an advantage vs armies that cannot move + shoot? There are alot of both, but favoring move + shoot in more missions than those that cannot isn't "fair" or "fun". It's bored people making gakky scenarios to force their idea of 40K on others. You can put limited escalation in and still have fun, because players don't feel f*cked over when the scenario is done. Take a look at the scenarios I run. They have limited escalation in the first two scenarios, and people love it. It adds something to the game without being a random d*cking which is what full escalation is.

By the way, since 40K was designed from the ground up to have everything on the table--why you think it's more fun being totally random is way beyond my ability to comprehend. It's pretty g-d damn far from f*cking fun, man. If I'm getting dicked, I have to slow play the game until I have my army on--or I should just lose, and have more "fun" that way? If my opponents getting dicked, I should have more "fun" by crushing his army one bit at a time...or moving my stuff around while he hides until he has enough of his army on to fight me?

Come on. Be real. What you might find fun with your friends or a 'challenge' is no damn fun and certainly not a 'challenge' at grand tournaments facing people you don't know when you're there to have a good time and hoping for a win.

The Indy's are considered by many to be 'the best' of all the GW tournaments, but frankly having attended a couple I am very unimpressed. At least with GW, I know the staffers hearts are in it even if the company is flailing around....Indy's are so much 'we are better than GW' I find it insulting. Like I'm somehow in gamer nirvana at an Indy but I'm in gamer hell at a GW event, when it isn't even close to being that way. Lots of people on this board like to say how escalation makes more 'competitive' army lists, then they all run godzilla and mechanized lists so it doesn't affect them. Then they turn around and tell us the Indy is so much better, but the Indy scenarios are incredibly power gamer oriented and favor those same lists which are immune to escalation.

"The first rule of Gladiator is "No Whining!" Life is not fair and neither will the AdeptiCon 2008 Gladiator!"

Who'd wanna play in asshat land? The last two games at GT's (when you beat your first 3/4 games) are bad enough. 4 games of that gak in one day? Bring mech or don't come? Gee, glad some asshat somewhere decided only mech armies are allowed to compete, and all other armies will be reduced in capability by scenario special rule. Most of the Adepticon missions are utter rubbish, take quarters is 'skill' in Illinois I guess. Mobile armies are more capable of shooting than non-mobile armies, but are given an advantage there. Scenarios I run aren't meant to remove anyones ability to compete fairly. Maybe you should check them out.

Stelek wrote:If you know how to play against Escalation, all it does is delay the first turn until one or both players are comfortable to start playing.

first turn is first turn. You might be waiting, but another army who hasn't gone all mech might not be. I certainly don't forsee to many ork lists waiting for you. Mass stealer/gaunt - yup they'll start moving, they'll be waiting for their fex's for AT, but then if you had any tanks you wont have them to start either.

How's that fun? Who find thats fun? Anyone? Ever?

It reflects as well as 40k can the issues of you not being in total control of what you fight with, that to me is part of the fun, I'd play chess or similar if wanted to know exactly what will start and my pieces will do and kill exactly what I want.

So what's the difference between coming on piecemeal then starting the game vs coming on entirely or setting up entirely and then starting it? Very little difference.

so why are you so concerned that it is in.

How is it fair for move + shoot armies to have an advantage vs armies that cannot move + shoot? There are alot of both, but favoring move + shoot in more missions than those that cannot isn't "fair" or "fun".

so mobile firepower is an advantage, well theres a surprise. I'm not sure what you are referring to though. as a gross generalisation as you were making , Move+shoot armies are the ones more likely affected by escalation, whereas the static ones are not.

It's bored people making gakky scenarios to force their idea of 40K on others.

I could equally quote such a generic statement back as my argument against you. But who's forcing it on you? no-one. With those you play with friendly, play the way you want. If a tourney has escalation, don't go.

You can put limited escalation in and still have fun, because players don't feel f*cked over when the scenario is done. Take a look at the scenarios I run. They have limited escalation in the first two scenarios, and people love it. It adds something to the game without being a random d*cking which is what full escalation is.

great - I have no issues with changing the mechanics of it, though I haven't seen your scenarios - but to quote yourself and what I specifically replied to 'Escalation is crap in all forms.' So tell me again just how good your form of escalation is.

By the way, since 40K was designed from the ground up to have everything on the table

Lol - it wasn't on anything like the scale it is now, as I vaguely remember it would be 1 squad of marines. The game has changed so much that such an argument is just blatantly silly. Given that it is now being played as a fight between platoons/companies it makes far more sense to have some (and remember it isn't all ) scenarios reflect some of the issues commanders face at that level, whereas with a squad of marines esaclation wouldn;t have made much sense.

--why you think it's more fun being totally random is way beyond my ability to comprehend. It's pretty g-d damn far from f*cking fun, man. If I'm getting dicked, I have to slow play the game until I have my army on--or I should just lose, and have more "fun" that way? If my opponents getting dicked, I should have more "fun" by crushing his army one bit at a time...or moving my stuff around while he hides until he has enough of his army on to fight me?

so you don't find it fun. answers to questions Yes and Yes, Yes slow down and try and hold out till you think you can fight back, and Yes go crush the other guy. He knew the rule before hand, he accepted it when he built his list and he can try hos best to counter it just like you. How on earth do you handle the first turn roll off, that happens every game, is a single roll (whereas escalation at least is a roll per unit) that probably has as much if not more effect on a game.

Come on. Be real. What you might find fun with your friends or a 'challenge' is no damn fun and certainly not a 'challenge' at grand tournaments facing people you don't know when you're there to have a good time and hoping for a win.

I have no idea what the unknown people at a tourney bit is supposed to be getting at. If you aren't up to a challenge then tough you won't win, part of the challenge is going with list that you reckon you can play multiple games with in different conditions and do better than the others overall. Again it doesn't just affect you but eveyone. If losing games at tourneys cos you couldn't handle escalation means you are not having a good time then really I'd question why you are there.

[... rant about tourney scene .. ] but with this

Lots of people on this board like to say how escalation makes more 'competitive' army lists, then they all run godzilla and mechanized lists so it doesn't affect them.

NidZilla and mech lists are very much effected by esaclation. Presumably you mean they seem to handle it ok? So there are lists that handle escaltion better than others, hey there are lists that handle no escalation better than others. That is not a problem with escalation per se, but the codices and the lists that come out of them. I don't personally claim esacaltion makes lists more 'competitve', but something that at the force size scale the game is playing I think should be reflected somehow.

PS To the best of my knowledge the UKGT still has escalation. Given the FAQ for it clarifies the edges you can come on I'm guessing it will do this year (someone correct me if I'm wrong).

I'm in the US, and I haven't gone to the UK for a GT in a very long time.

I don't lose at GT's, in spite of the horrid scenarios offered.

I'm trying to explain to you that I take no pleasure in beating opponents at GT's because the scenario rendered their army ineffective. You are correct, it is part of the game design--I simply feel that escalation is a very bad mechanic and I'm glad the players that hate it have let GW know in large enough numbers they've removed it. It might be fun for you, or some kind of 'challenge' but for new players (the ones we want to keep in the hobby) it's very frustrating and for older more experienced players (like myself) it's merely an irritant.

Here are the scenarios I plan on running in Feb.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/206383.page

Stelek's guide proposes to use large units.
However, in terms of victory points, it is better to take smaller units.

For example, take 12 Termies.
1. Take 2 squads of 6 Termies: If each squad is reduced to 2 members, both squads are below half strength.
If so, 8 Termies are killed.

2. Take 3 squads of 4 Termies: If each squad is reduced to 1 member, both (error: all) squads are below half strength.
If so, 9 Termies are dead.

This works with all other numbers, too. But I'm too lazy to explore the general case.

Thus, for the shooty template, I'd take a list like this:
2 DPs
3x2 Obliterators
2x6 Noise Marine squads
3x6 Terminator squads

wuestenfux wrote:However, in terms of victory points, it is better to take smaller units.

For example, take 12 Termies.
1. Take 2 squads of 6 Termies: If each squad is reduced to 2 members, both squads are below half strength.
If so, 8 Termies are killed.

2. Take 3 squads of 4 Termies: If each squad is reduced to 1 member, both squads are below half strength.
If so, 9 Termies are dead.

3 squads = 'both' below half?, I think you mean all 3 below half.

Small squads are a bit of double edge sword for VP loss. You could give up more vp against a canny enemy.

2 squads of 6 termis (say all basic termies at 30pts each) is 180pts each. You opponent can score the following vps if he kills as a minimum the shown number of models. Some break points will have other combinations they can be acquired at which may require more models killed.

90vp = 4 dead
180vp = 6 dead (1 full)
270vp = 10 dead
360vp = 12 dead

3 squads of 4, or 120pts each

60 = 3 dead.
120 = 4 dead (1 full)
180 = 7 dead (1 full, 1 half)
240 = 8 dead (2 full)
300 = 11 dead (2 full, 1 half)
360 = 12 dead

So as you can see, a canny opponent can potentailly gain easier VPs against smaller units. It may be harder to get certain amounts, like the 180vp in the above break down is 'harder' against 3 small squads than 2, and obviously if he can wipe you all out then there is no difference. There are of course advantages to smaller units as well. I'm not saying smaller is better or worse.

Taking 18 Termies in 3 units will get you dead.

I don't know why you think small units is better, considering you don't want to take smaller units when you suffer from fear on Termies and Raptors.

Larger units in the troop based armies gives you a more effective unit, and smaller units cost you more points for those special weapons and hidden fists.

Have you played Chaos with the new Codex?

Small units were bad before, now they will just get swamped.

The only times it's better to take larger units is when you get something for free or your special weapons are compellingly expensive (and you want to protect them). Or you buy something that gives the whole squad a benefit that does not scale in price.

ex: Tzeentch marines. Their sorcerer is ridiculously expensive for what he does, and so buying enough guys to protect him is a good idea.

ex: Chaos terminators with a unit icon.

Unmarked terminators are better in small units since they allow you to engage more enemies and are not terribly easy to wipe out.

I would take unit sizes of 3 or 4, personally. Six doesn't really offer any advantages over 3 or 4 when it comes down to it (other than break tests, and the cost of that break advantage is ridiculously high).

3 terminators with combi-weapons is just flat out a great buy. It's 3 flamers, 3 plasmaguns or 3 meltaguns wherever you need them for 105pts.

4 terminators with a reaper is a decent antitank/counter-assault unit. It's got a useful long range gun that will reliably put at least one S7 shot on anything anywhere on the table. And it's got four power weapons with 2+ saves to help protect your firebase if you're shooting.

However, Stelek is correct in that the best buy is 10 terminators. but they are craptastic without a mark. With a mark and probably two reapers, they are a good long range antitank solution and a fairly resilient unit.

I like smaller units for a couple of reasons:

The reason why I stopped playing my Thousand Sons in 4th edition was because I had so few scoring units. I could win in a strait up VP fight, but when ever you had table quarters, or any objective based game, I was in trouble. Small elite armies have a hard time competing in a tournament stetting because of this.

If you have a few small units, they can do different things. There are a lot of times you do not want to shoot an entire 10 man squad at something. If you are playing against a skimmer army, then it is better to shoot several small squads at different skimmers, then shoot a couple times at one, and have a bunch of guys doing nothing. Also, let’s say you knocked a squad down to just one guy with a lascanon. Do you want to waste all that firepower on him? A lot of times a large squad will be overkill on what you are shooting at, and an inefficient use of your firepower.

So for me I would always take smaller units rather than one large one.

Which mark do you prefer? I don't think you can ever get away from Blackmoor's point, which is small scoring units.

That's why I suggest running 5 as your 'core' and build out another 3-5.

It's like Russians in FOW, getting alot of platoons is effing difficult.

That said, I favor large squads in Chaos lists because in objective missions if they want to win the game those are the units that need to get whittled down before they get to the objective. In VP games, the smaller units are more easily punked by more methods. Larger units are more resilient to VP loss. It might still be the same number of guys to bring two units down...but in Chaos, you really don't get a hell of a lot by running multiple smaller Nurgle, Slaaneshi, or Tzeentch marine units. Only Nurgle gets more meltas or plasmas, but the smaller Nurgle units can be dealt with alot easier than the huge ones which are nearly impossible to deal with.

Running small terminator units is an ok choice, I'm just not impressed with their survivability which I think is key in a Chaos list. Gotta have survivability AND force lots of targets on the other guys army. 3 T4 guys lose 1 guy and they can run. I don't like that. At least with 10 man Termie squads, esp Nurgle/Tzeentch ones, sitting at 36" they're pretty hard to dislodge.

Longshot wrote:For filling compulsory troops, nothing beats 5 CSMs with a plasmagun. 10 CSM's with IoU and las/plas is not a ridiculous purchase and is definitely better than noise marines of any sort.

Also, lash is the best thing to ever exist in any codex, and making a claim that warptime is better in any fashion is absurd. Maybe everyone already knows how crazy broken lash is, but if you're going to make a "tactica Chaos" or whatever, lash is where you start.

Indeed, if only-troops-counts-as-scoring-units becomes reality in the 5th ed, then filling all 6 troop slots is an issue. But then Cult Marines that are fearless and thus hold their ground have a place in a CSM army.
Lash is broken but each CSM should have at least one HQ (I prefer a Sorcerer on a bike) casting lash.

Stelek wrote:Which mark do you prefer? I don't think you can ever get away from Blackmoor's point, which is small scoring units.

That's why I suggest running 5 as your 'core' and build out another 3-5.

It's like Russians in FOW, getting alot of platoons is effing difficult.

That said, I favor large squads in Chaos lists because in objective missions if they want to win the game those are the units that need to get whittled down before they get to the objective. In VP games, the smaller units are more easily punked by more methods. Larger units are more resilient to VP loss. It might still be the same number of guys to bring two units down...but in Chaos, you really don't get a hell of a lot by running multiple smaller Nurgle, Slaaneshi, or Tzeentch marine units. Only Nurgle gets more meltas or plasmas, but the smaller Nurgle units can be dealt with alot easier than the huge ones which are nearly impossible to deal with.

Running small terminator units is an ok choice, I'm just not impressed with their survivability which I think is key in a Chaos list. Gotta have survivability AND force lots of targets on the other guys army. 3 T4 guys lose 1 guy and they can run. I don't like that. At least with 10 man Termie squads, esp Nurgle/Tzeentch ones, sitting at 36" they're pretty hard to dislodge.

I like the Tzeentch termies with two reapers, from a numbers standpoint, for sitting at 36" and shooting tanks.

I don't think Chaos really has a scoring unit problem because they can get two in the HQ slot for relatively cheap that no one else gets (and that are absurdly effective).

I'm not gonna argue with the idea of 3 x 3 with combi-weapons though. I think every chaos list that isn't using termies for long range antitank could do well to spend those points.

Stelek wrote:

That said, I favor large squads in Chaos lists because in objective missions if they want to win the game those are the units that need to get whittled down before they get to the objective. In VP games, the smaller units are more easily punked by more methods. Larger units are more resilient to VP loss. It might still be the same number of guys to bring two units down...but in Chaos, you really don't get a hell of a lot by running multiple smaller Nurgle, Slaaneshi, or Tzeentch marine units. Only Nurgle gets more meltas or plasmas, but the smaller Nurgle units can be dealt with alot easier than the huge ones which are nearly impossible to deal with.

Running small terminator units is an ok choice, I'm just not impressed with their survivability which I think is key in a Chaos list. Gotta have survivability AND force lots of targets on the other guys army. 3 T4 guys lose 1 guy and they can run. I don't like that. At least with 10 man Termie squads, esp Nurgle/Tzeentch ones, sitting at 36" they're pretty hard to dislodge.

Well, statistically, if you field smaller, but more squads, the enemy has to kill one or a few more Marines to bring the units below half strength.
This argument basically works for shooting. In cc, its better to have larger units.

I like the idea of having a 10 men Termie squad with MoT sitting in the backfield firing at harder enemy targets.

A very useful guide.
How about the changes to be made for the 5th edition?
2 DP and 6 Obliterators as a core? Not really.

I'd go for 3 Rhino squads, 3 footslogging units, some Daemon units boosting the number of scoring units.
Then some Obliterators for fire support, and lashing HQs.

Scoring units isn't everything.

Alot of people are really high on the hog on demon packs, but frankly the demons suck.

My personal Chaos army was designed with 5th edition in mind. Thousand Sons screen the EC, DP, and Oblits.

Pick a target, any target! Woo 4+ save on all of them.

Ah what do I know.

Stelek, any chance of you doing a template for IG? I'd like to have a link I could give to my friend while I try to explain to him why ogryns suck so much =p

Sure. Tomorrow maybe. I think crouching over my little men yesterday kinked my neck all to hell. Could be the wife.

Stelek wrote:Scoring units isn't everything.

Alot of people are really high on the hog on demon packs, but frankly the demons suck.

My personal Chaos army was designed with 5th edition in mind. Thousand Sons screen the EC, DP, and Oblits.

Pick a target, any target! Woo 4+ save on all of them.

Ah what do I know.

I wasn't aware of this. But more than 750 pts a priori spent on non-scoring (core) units?

Just some food for thought here. I know you stated that you don't care for the Rhinos or basic Chaos Marines but I've been messing around with a list that uses them both that I've been quite happy with. Put briefly the list is as follows:

1850 pts

2x Flying Demon Prince

6x 35 pt (no upgrades) Rhino w' 10x CSMs. Four squads have 2x meltagun and champ w' power fist. Two squads have 2x plasma and I think no champ (don't have the list in front of me).

1x Defiler w' all close combat arms ...no guns.

The basic premise is that the entire list is fast (remember that the defiler fleets ...I almost never fire the battle cannon) and it has a LOT of hard targets. I know that it consists almost entirely of models that you don't like Stelek but they really give you a lot of redundancy. Sure a rhino or two will get popped ...but that's why you have six of them. your opponent can only take out so many things in the limited amount of time that they have to fire and then your entire army is on top of them and tying things up in close combat or just shooting it off of the board. Also, remember that the basic Chaos marines have both bolters and bolt pistols so on the turn that they disembark if they can always rapid fire and if you have your units team up to concentrate fire you can even do a lot of damage on the turn you disembark without being able to assault. I haven't played the list as much as I would like to because I have been somewhat distracted with my guard as of late but it has performed quite well in the games that I have played with it. Definitely something to think about.

Edit: I'd also like to add that the list really doesn't mind escalation at all and that the mass rhinos are surprisingly useful after they've disgorged their cargo. In the last game I played with them I had a herd (ha ha) of Rhinos maul my eldar opponent's fire base of dark reapers. Not only do they block line of sight but all of that rapid firing twin linked bolter fire can be surprisingly effective.

wuestenfex: If you can't take out threat units, you cannot win.

tomguycot: Escalation won't exist shortly, but against a gunline army and piecemeal deployment--yeah, I'd mind escalation. You have troops that aren't fearless, and are worse than regular marines as a result. Having 60 CSM in Rhinos with 1 defiler and 2 demon princes isn't bad, but regular marines are better in this kind of army. They also won't have a chance at running away every time they get shot at once they hit the 4 member mark, and becoming non-scoring. YMMV but I've given up on standard CSM for competitive play.