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.

pchappel wrote:

Ailaros wrote:From my experiences so far, I'd agree with all of the above. I'm also curious, though, what said person fears more than lash.

Have to admit, I'm a bit curious about that myself... Though with the DH "allies" available at the time perhaps the psychic defense from that was what he counted on... Now? Pretty sure a lash list would do horrible things to an Infantry horde if they built it (the Lash list) right with flamers and Ord templates... But I could easily be missing a trick there...

The conversation, as I recall, was something like this...

Him: "But the biggest problem is lash."

Me: "Because they can lash the models together and then template them?"

Him: "No, actually--"

Then somebody interrupted us with a rules question or something, and I forgot to follow up. The armies in question didn't use any DH allies, so they had no real psychic defense.

My best guess is that it would have something to do with being able to lash huge blobs backward, away from assault, and out of cover. Since these blob armies depended on assaults backed up by Straken for a lot of their killing power. Or maybe it was something really clever like lashing Straken out to the front of the army so he could be shot to death with no cover. Not sure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ailaros wrote:

Yes, they do move slightly faster, but to say that tread lists always move 12" is false. Tank commanders drive around terrain rather than risk getting immobilized, and they have no choice but to drive around close combats, impassible terrain, and other units (including their own). In a race over open terrain, then yes, the mech list would win the proverbial drag race, but that rarely happens (and I would say basically never as far as an entire army is concerned).

Aha, hence the MSU. Some vehicles can get stunned/immobilized, but there are still other vehicles available to do what you need. Managing your parking lot in such a way as to minimize the chance for traffic jams is part of the fundamental mech army learning curve. Also, I personally include dozer blades wherever I can squeeze a few in on key units (I typically don't need more than 2 or 3). For comparatively few points--even the expensive guard version--they're a game changer. I don't know why more players don't use them.

Ailaros wrote:
In TOURNAMENTS, yes. Tournaments aren't regular 40k games, though. Tournaments have things like time limits and, from what I keep hearing, this nasty tendency to pretend like the annihilation mission doesn't exist.

Regular 40k and tournament 40k are very similar, but also critically different (not terribly dissimilar to how 40k and apocalypse are nearly but not exactly the same). As such, he who wins tournaments is not necessarily the best 40k player, so much as the best tournament player (at least, when we're talking upper-eschelon events, here). Were I to ever compete at a high level, I would definitely arrange my army to win given a different set of parameters than the regular 40k rules.

40k tournaments (big ones such as GTs) use the normal 40k rulebook and the missions almost never include anything inherently unbalanced. Are they different because there is increased emphasis on the outcome of a game (since winning games is what leads you to winning tournaments)? I find tournament play to be far more player intensive that casual games for sure. You're required to play the game well and display a complete understanding of the rules, strategy and tactics when you play in a tournament. In a tournament good players will play to win the mission first (which good players will also do in a casual game if they're trying to have a good, strategic and intriguing game with their opponent) rather than try to simply table their opponents. This is because in reality it is very hard to table a good 40k player and it makes a lot more sense to try and win the mission. Time limits are required in order to ensure that the event ends in a reasonable time. Generally 2.5 hours should be more than enough time to play a game of 40k anyway. This also encourages players to better understand the game and how to play so that they can operate effectively within the confines of the time limit.

The 40k tournament system is far from perfect, but I'm not sure I'd say that the game-play differs greatly from "normal" 40k. Sure in a casual game you'll be tempted to play a different list, and/or one that isn't optimized, but that generally won't stop you from playing the game in an intelligent manner with the overall purpose of have fun and winning the game. I don't think most players would actively stop themselves from playing their best game (note that actually playing the game is a separate action from building the army list) just because it isn't part of a tournament.

Gotta agree with above.

Besides the inability for a footguard army to finish a game in a tournament...

The thing I notice is the army easily faltering against mass fire. Even with a mass pod am army, they can concentrate enough firepower by focusing on a single unit. Yes, the amount of points needed to kill one of these power blobs is more than the blob costs but these units that cost more will most likely be able to outmaneuver you or in the situation of pods, be able to put a bunch of guys on your weak aide or just the better side to go down on and disassemble the blobs with bolted fire.

Against other armies, they will slowly creep across the field, have their artillery fried before the blobs make it then have at least a solid turn of shooting on all your stuff. Pending terrain, the blobs either take more time getting to my lines or if there is little terrain, you're dying quicker.

This is all theory, keep in mind. Prove me wrong. Your proposal s bring a short range offense with no quick way of delivering it.

Nenya97 wrote:
This is all theory, keep in mind. Prove me wrong. Your proposal s bring a short range offense with no quick way of delivering it.

This is correct, but the idea is, that the blobs really aren't that expensive (barely more expensive than a 10 man marine squad in most cases) so you have plenty of points to stack on long range support fire, either heavy weapon teams, lemans, whatever.

The way I play it at least, is sort of a half way assault half way gunline army, the first turn of mass FRSRF lasgun fire hurts, the 3-6 large blasts a turn hurt, and all the heavy weapons hurt. I don't ram infantry blobs down your throat like orcs, I pepper the enemy with fire and anything they decide to move up I can probably tie up or kill with the blobs since they are excellent against alot of things for their points, or at least absorb a ton of fire.

A-rod uses his IG as more of a close combat army, which I think can work at lower point values, but once you hit 2k and have to deal with deathstars and the like, you just lose too many men IMHO to do it that way.

But again, the real advantage of IG infantry army is the "dick move" of bringing an army that anti-mech lists are largely ineffective against. I cant help but smile when I see an army setting up with dozens of lascannons, melta and plasma guns, and such when I deploy something that has virtually nothing for these guns to shoot at.

Flavius Infernus wrote:My best guess is that it would have something to do with being able to lash huge blobs backward, away from assault

Yeah, that would be my guess as well. Move 12" forward and then get moved 12" back. At least the infantry player can bring more blobs than they can bring lash princes...

Caffran9 wrote: Time limits are required in order to ensure that the event ends in a reasonable time.

And it makes all the difference in the world.

Certain army builds excel in the first few turns, whereas certain army builds excel as the turn moves on. Because of the time limits, you can easily see 2 or 3 turn games, making some lists non-viable in tournaments that would destroy anybody if the game went until turn 7. Unfortunately, armies that tend to be better as the game progresses also tend to be the ones that take the longest to play and thus insure that the game ends sooner.

I mean, if someone told me that every game of 40k I was going to play was going to end after turn 3, I would never play foot guard, because it takes 2 turns just to get set up to where you start doing your serious damage. I mean, why else do you think that tournaments are predominantly populated with drop pod marines and mechanized lists?

Nenya97 wrote:The thing I notice is the army easily faltering against mass fire.

Most certainly, but you've got to remember that an all-infantry list is going to strain your anti-horde capabilities. That and, as mentioned, they're pretty cheap, so expect a lot, and you only have so much time before they're upon you.

Nenya97 wrote:Against other armies, they will slowly creep across the field, have their artillery fried before the blobs make it then have at least a solid turn of shooting on all your stuff.

Just how slow do you think a foot army is? Yes, opponents do get a solid turn (or two if they're castling) before they have to deal with your stuff, but it's not like any army is able to kill 100 infantry models per turn. As an infantry commander, I fully expect to lose 80% of my forces by the time the game is done. Casualties on the first turn or two are not scary, especially when I have some measure of control over the casualties I take (like displacing, using terrain, etc.)

Nenya97 wrote:This is all theory, keep in mind. Prove me wrong. Your proposal s bring a short range offense with no quick way of delivering it.

I agree, put that way it does seem like a recipe for disaster.

The reason it works, though, is twofold.

1.) while other people are spending extra points on boxes, you're spending your points on abblative wounds. You can afford to take more casualties because you brought more guys specifically to handle taking more casualties.

2.) it's not like you're charging across the entirety of oklahoma under machine gun fire, here. Really, you only are looking at a turn or two of "free" casualties. Remember that infantry on foot are nearly as fast as infantry in a transport.

Of course, you can then do things to spice it up, like throw in al'rahem, or your own artillery, or whatever.

The way I'm looking at it is that opposing this kind of army is that I have 2-3 turns til you hit me. 2 turns if you get good on gogogo orders.

The way I see this kind of fight going down is that your opponent fronts with 14 armor if they got it to try and make you ineffective or waste time trying to crack it open. You might be able to get side shots but with a tank being able to more often than not, be able to pivot, move and fire, it will take you longer if you dont just run past it.

so depending on your reaction: if you take the time to crack it, you lose a round of shooting and i now have the chance to make you run around in circles.

If you do not try to take it, im able to lure you out into the open because i will use AV14 to cover open areas where you would advance through to gain ground quicker over cover. if you choose to take cover, then, you are not really moving at all and your opponent has more turns, then, you bombard your guys on their way there if they have already been successful in mopping up your big guns in back.

i think the army is good, honestly, im having a hard time thinking of how to dismantle it and im just throwing out ideas cuz i dont play in a mass infantry format and im makin sure ya cover all your bases.

the breaking point with this matchup comes into play in who can break whose strategy first.

it seems like the big problem that people will face is whether or not they are able to neutralize your backfield before your guys hit their lines. if they are able to kill your big guns, you will have a hard time playing a winning game because when those cheapy blobs hit the opposing line, they will be able to sacrifice a unit or two and maul you to death because you are now in close range and in the open.

if your opponent can not kill your big guns quick enough, you quite literally might as well call it over. because while im trying to deal with meltas in my lines, hiding behind commissars and 30 guys, you will have guns raining down on whatever i might have to deal with your offense.


now that i get to thinking about it, the 31 man blob with 3 meltas, commissar, and 4 power weapons comes up to 245 points. without drop pod, thats almost how much a sternguard unit is. 40 more points than the way ive seen 30 man boyz units. like, 30-40 points less than a ba jump pack squad with a priest..... idk, im just puttin numbers out, i like this idea but any other cc unit worth its points will blow through it with more often than not, higher initiative and higher S and T. also, against other cc armies, dont plan on getting the charge and counting on furious charge.

Again. all in theory, trying to play devil's advocate =3

Nenya97 wrote:The way I see this kind of fight going down is that your opponent fronts with 14 armor if they got it to try and make you ineffective or waste time trying to crack it open.

This would be true if the infantry player didn't bring enough anti-tank. Against a properly built infantry list, that AV14 wall is going to run into 3 and 4x melta squads with BiD before they get charged by meltabombs that hit their rear armor, and possibly eviscerators. AV14 is good against long range anti tank, but it's barely more than a nuisance to a charging horde.

Nenya97 wrote:it seems like the big problem that people will face is whether or not they are able to neutralize your backfield before your guys hit their lines. if they are able to kill your big guns, you will have a hard time playing a winning game because when those cheapy blobs hit the opposing line, they will be able to sacrifice a unit or two and maul you to death because you are now in close range and in the open.

I used to run infantry and artillery combined, and I can say that the problem is the opposite of this fear. My problem wasn't when they destroyed my manticores, the problem was when they destroyed my infantry. My artillery wound up being so "meh" (we're talking 2 manticores and a basilisk here), that I've been slowly moving away from artillery and just adding in more infantry.

The main damage done by infantry armies, as mentioned, is what you do in close (unless you're running a static infantry gunline. Don't run a static infantry gunline), not from far away.

Nenya97 wrote:now that i get to thinking about it, the 31 man blob with 3 meltas, commissar, and 4 power weapons comes up to 245 points. without drop pod, thats almost how much a sternguard unit is. 40 more points than the way ive seen 30 man boyz units. like, 30-40 points less than a ba jump pack squad with a priest..... idk, im just puttin numbers out, i like this idea but any other cc unit worth its points will blow through it with more often than not, higher initiative and higher S and T. also, against other cc armies, dont plan on getting the charge and counting on furious charge.

Oh yeah, you can definitely make blobs expensive, but they're worth their points A uber power blob is roughly equivalent to its points in boyz. As for sternguard, they're very useful against certain armies (like that rely on tanks, for example), but I think I'd rather take the blob. Every time I've seen sternguard, they tend to instantly evaporate the turn after they arrive.

I know someone who runs something like 200 Guardsmen and a single Griffon in 2,000 points-- he has a strongly favorable win-loss record and has done well in a tournament setting as well. While he doesn't really have the chance to get to any GTs, he has won several RTTs with his infantry Guard.

The thing is that the blobs you are proposing are this amount of points. They are in fact more points than boyz by a bout 45 points with the basic bells and whistles you are saying they have. The army is very slow, look at the same reason why every other army, especially armies with meltas don't footslog across the table. I won't sit here and just slap each other, let's look at precedent: every army that uses a form of melta or a form of very very close range anti tank, uses a blob to hide them or use transport to deliver them. In every army you are going against that has this, even with their preferred method of delivery they aren't making it until mid to late game. I'm just saying, look at the overwhelming amount of trial and error that this kind of army is easily just walked over when you get into a situation where you are unable to stable numbers because you are fronting a defense that is static which is good bt you are T5 with nearly no armor that against most guns are not really an issue.

The matter Is that against an assault army, you will never get the charge because that other army is MADE to deliver those men to our lines.

Most armies I have seen now seldom bring an excess of anti tank that also does not double as anti horde as well in the form of missles, ordinance blast, and such. Almost every I have seen as of late are equipping a lot f cheap blasts that are equipped on things that are hare to take down or are able to fire Tom so long away that your short range stuff doesn't matter.

Look at how well your army does against stuff but weigh that against what you could still face that would annihilate you. I see an overabundance of bad match ups rather than favorable ones. I honestly think that all infantry are good but they can be truly annihilated by a lot of this anti light armor builds which are now the top tier army builds t able to beat to win a tournament.

Nenya97 wrote:The army is very slow

It isn't substantially slower in overland movement speed than a mech list. Do you consider mech lists very slow?

Nenya97 wrote: they aren't making it until mid to late game

At which point they destroy whatever they touch.

Of course, this assumes that your opponent isn't coming towards YOU, which they have to do on objectives games.

Nenya97 wrote:The matter Is that against an assault army, you will never get the charge because that other army is MADE to deliver those men to our lines.

I don't understand this. The only way you can guarantee that you don't get charged is with everything in a skimmer AND if the skimmers never take damage. Needless to say, I don't consider this all that likely.

Nenya97 wrote: Almost every I have seen as of late are equipping a lot f cheap blasts that are equipped on things that are hare to take down or are able to fire Tom so long away that your short range stuff doesn't matter.

The only way this would be an issue is if you're able to table a horde army before they can make it close. I'd really like to see someone do this with a handful of missile launchers...

Nenya97 wrote:I see an overabundance of bad match ups rather than favorable ones. I honestly think that all infantry are good but they can be truly annihilated by a lot of this anti light armor builds which are now the top tier army builds t able to beat to win a tournament.

As for tournaments, that has already been discussed. Horde armies are less viable in tournaments than in regular games because tournaments use different rules that specifically hurt horde armies.

As for the good to bad matchups, you are understimating what horde armies can do. Yes, there are counters. Yes, hordes can take high casualties. No, hordes don't get simply wiped off the field whenever they show up.

If tournaments screw over horde armies because of their "other rules" (of which the only one you seem to have any grounds for is the time limit... and the impact of that can be minimal at worst if the player is able to play quickly) then why were Orks running 9 Killer Kans and a pile of Boyz behind them one of the top tournament armies for a while (mostly before mech IG and SW)? That is a horde type of army that requires lots of walking across the table to play but it could almost always get its games done in 2-2.5 hours. Maybe they didn't put 150 models on the table, but they are definitely a high model count army that is entirely foot slogging, so they encounter essentially the same issues that an infantry guard army would have at a tournament. Or what about Tyranids (especially now) spawning out to over 100 models pretty quickly and then having to move them around all game? I've played a few armies with 100+ models in tournaments over the years and never really had a massive issue with it. Every now and then maybe (but certainly not frequently), but I think most people have that kind of problem every now and then regardless of what they're playing.

I find it interesting that these "other rules" are the only reason why infantry doesn't just destroy the GT scene. I'm also still not sure what other rules you're talking about aside from time limits, something that infantry armies have played within for plenty of years without huge complications.

Caffran9 wrote:
I find it interesting that these "other rules" are the only reason why infantry doesn't just destroy the GT scene. I'm also still not sure what other rules you're talking about aside from time limits, something that infantry armies have played within for plenty of years without huge complications.

Because--all other things being equal--mech armies are better at winning games than infantry armies in the current version of the game. Look at the Ork and IG armies that have won or placed high in GTs for the last year--they're all mechanized (battlewagons, leafblowers, meltavet) armies. Time is often a factor, but a good player can play an infantry horde quickly enough to fit a game into 2-2.5 hours. But even with unlimited time, infantry swarms just can't compete.

Mech armies use their greater mobility and survivability to roll over infantry armies.

Flavius Infernus wrote:

Caffran9 wrote:
I find it interesting that these "other rules" are the only reason why infantry doesn't just destroy the GT scene. I'm also still not sure what other rules you're talking about aside from time limits, something that infantry armies have played within for plenty of years without huge complications.

Mech armies use their greater mobility and survivability to roll over infantry armies.

More to the effect that blast weapins increase in strength the more things are on the table to scatter into, mech armies carry far more of these than infantry, and at 2500 points its unlikely an infantry army could even fully deploy.
In tourneys with more reasonable point limits infantry do significantly better.

I don't think it's about blast weapons, Grundz. As I mentioned above, it's fairly easy for an infantry army to spread out and minimize the effects of blasts. Blasts aren't really the big weakness of non-mech guard armies.

Also I don't think it's a problem of scaling. It's not very hard to get 8-10 vehicles into most mech armies at 1500 points--fairly easy to get 12 into an IG army. Even with minimum squads inside, that's enough to beat an army of a couple hundred guardsmen.

It's all range and mobility.

-A non-mech army is ponderous. Infantry can't quickly concentrate to gain localized superiority, and then quickly disperse again to avoid counterattacks.

-Guard infantry can't move and shoot long-range weapons, making it impossible for them to use standoff tactics, and making them vulnerable to standoff tactics.

-Infantry is significantly slowed by terrain. Yes a vehicle has a small (16% chance) of immobilizing, but often even going around terrain will still get it there sooner. And if it's going to make the difference between contesting an objective and winning the game, I'll take my chances on immobilizing.

-Yes, it takes a lot of firepower to kill 30 guardsmen in cover, but every shot from every weapon has the potential to hurt the guard infantry. Even the lightest transport vehicles are basically immune to all small arms fire (at least from the front)--so that's like 80% of the weapons in the game that can't do anything to a rhino--not to mention those cheesy psychic things like weaken resolve and spirit leech. Vehicles bounce about half of penetrating hits and about 2/3 of glancing hits with no significant/permanent effect.* And when you do enough damage to kill the transport, you still have to deal with the guys inside--who are now at least in cover and possibly out of LoS behind a wreck where you don't have mobility to get at them. **

-Infantry can be bogged, drawn off and tarpitted by useless assaults. Vehicles, if they survive the assault, can just drive away.

So playing an all infantry army, whether guard, nids or orks, concedes a lot of your tactical initiative and mobility advantage to your opponent. If your opponent can always pick where to fight you and where to avoid you and there's nothing you can do about it, then of course you'll tend to lose more games even if you lose with most of your army intact.


*(This is the reason mech armies used to not work in 4th edition. With no cover saves and a glancing hit table that allowed vehicles to be destroyed--and a 50% destroy rate on the penetrating hit table--vehicles couldn't survive long enough to do their job. Also, being in a destroyed transport had really bad consequences. The 5th edition vehicle damage tables and the addition of cover saves for vehicles caused the shift to mech because it made vehicles so much more survivable, at the same time as changes to the missions made mobility much more important. Infantry armies got more cover saves, but the ability to run doesn't really make them mobile enough to compete.)

**This two-stage thing for transport vehicles is really essential to winning 5th edition missions. Often, you can always know that it's going to take at least two turns for your opponent to destroy the guys inside a transport. No matter how many shots he pours into the vehicle, it can only be destroyed once, and the scoring unit inside can simply get out and stand on their objective out of LoS. If the same points value worth of infantry models was standing on that objective without a vehicle, they could be destroyed in a single turn with enough shooting. Getting that extra turn at the end of a game can be key.

What size boards do you use that stand-offs between infantry Guard chock full of 48" heavy weapons are unable to stay within range?

Flavius Infernus wrote:I don't think it's about blast weapons, Grundz. As I mentioned above, it's fairly easy for an infantry army to spread out and minimize the effects of blasts. Blasts aren't really the big weakness of non-mech guard armies.

The user was talking about GT, which is a 2500 point bracket.
Because of the excessive point value alpha strike lists are extremely common at GT, and at 2500 points, there's no way you can fit 2500/5 .. 500 infantry in your deployment zone with proper spacing. Obviously you'd be spending points on upgrades, but thats still too much with some of the deployment rules.

Thats not to say some infantry guard armies didn't do well, some of them made it way, way farther than many of the alpha strike lists. Its just that they are at a disadvantage at such high point values due to deployment saturation.

Melissia wrote:What size boards do you use that stand-offs between infantry Guard chock full of 48" heavy weapons are unable to stay within range?

4X6 is plenty. Since guard infantry weapons with range 48" can't move and shoot, you park just outside their range and shoot what you want. If they move up, you drive back and keep shooting.

If there's no place to park outside the 48" range, blow away all the heavy weapons in a section of the guard player's army and park there.

Or, since they can't move and shoot, you can use hard terrain and/or your own vehicles to completely block LoS from heavy weapons. Just peek around the corner and shoot while staying out of LoS of the big guns.

Flavius Infernus wrote:

Melissia wrote:What size boards do you use that stand-offs between infantry Guard chock full of 48" heavy weapons are unable to stay within range?

4X6 is plenty. Since guard infantry weapons with range 48" can't move and shoot, you park just outside their range and shoot what you want. If they move up, you drive back and keep shooting.

If there's no place to park outside the 48" range, blow away all the heavy weapons in a section of the guard player's army and park there.

Or, since they can't move and shoot, you can use hard terrain and/or your own vehicles to completely block LoS from heavy weapons. Just peek around the corner and shoot while staying out of LoS of the big guns.

48" covers like 3/4 of the table and if you're deploying on the long edges as per normal mission deployments 48" can reach from one side of the table to the other no problem. Most weapons arent going to have longer range than 448" either so for the most part if the IG are out of range, so are you.

Caffran9 wrote:I find it interesting that these "other rules" are the only reason why infantry doesn't just destroy the GT scene.

Firstly, I didn't say "destroy" anywhere.

Secondly...

Grundz wrote:The user was talking about GT, which is a 2500 point bracket.

You try moving 300-400 infantry models in a 2 hour game and coming out ahead. Time limits can't be overestimated in what they do to the competitiveness of certain armies and certain army builds. As well, I've seen a lot of tournament write-ups where the TO doesn't do the missions where you simply roll for random deployment and mission type. Horde armies tend to excel in killpoint missions and with dawn of war deployment, and when these options are simply not present, it hurts horde armies. Of course, this is assuming that there aren't other strange missions, which I've seen a fair number of.

In any case, the only thing that winning at a grand tournament means is that they player was good at playing at GTs and brought an army list that was good for GTs. It doesn't say anything about the game in general.

Flavius Infernus wrote:-A non-mech army is ponderous. Infantry can't quickly concentrate to gain localized superiority, and then quickly disperse again to avoid counterattacks.

A non-mech army is roughly equally fast with regards to overland movement as guard mech armies. Infantry are able to interplice, allowing them to concentrate easily, while mech lists can get stuck in parking lot situtions because they can't move through their own units.

Flavius Infernus wrote:-Guard infantry can't move and shoot long-range weapons, making it impossible for them to use standoff tactics, and making them vulnerable to standoff tactics.

If you had unlimited space and time, then yes, this would be a serious liability. As you have neither, it's not a problem at all.

Flavius Infernus wrote:-Infantry is significantly slowed by terrain. Yes a vehicle has a small (16% chance) of immobilizing, but often even going around terrain will still get it there sooner. And if it's going to make the difference between contesting an objective and winning the game, I'll take my chances on immobilizing.

You have an interesting definition of "significant". If you take out the worst 16% of results (like you're doing for the tanks), then infantry are going 10" per turn through terrain. Most of the time, you move farther than that.

Flavius Infernus wrote:-Yes, it takes a lot of firepower to kill 30 guardsmen in cover, but every shot from every weapon has the potential to hurt the guard infantry.

But then you're running into serious points effectiveness problems. I am GLAD when people take lascannons and shoot them at guardsmen, not mournful because they can still do damage.

Flavius Infernus wrote:Vehicles bounce about half of penetrating hits and about 2/3 of glancing hits with no significant/permanent effect.

Yes, and a single shot can utterly destroy the unit, or make it completely worthless. That you can't do this against infantry is what makes them so much more durable than vehicles.

Flavius Infernus wrote:-Infantry can be bogged, drawn off and tarpitted by useless assaults. Vehicles, if they survive the assault, can just drive away.

...if they survive. If you're stuck in against a proper horde, this isn't terribly likely.

Flavius Infernus wrote:So playing an all infantry army, whether guard, nids or orks, concedes a lot of your tactical initiative and mobility advantage to your opponent.

Given that they move just as quickly and are affected by enemy movements the same, why do you give any initiative over that you wouldn't have from infantry?

Flavius Infernus wrote:If your opponent can always pick where to fight you and where to avoid you and there's nothing you can do about it, then of course you'll tend to lose more games even if you lose with most of your army intact.

In real life, this is definitely true. In 40k, it is skewed by how little space for maneuverability you have, and how little time you have to do it in.

Caffran9 wrote:

48" covers like 3/4 of the table and if you're deploying on the long edges as per normal mission deployments 48" can reach from one side of the table to the other no problem. Most weapons arent going to have longer range than 448" either so for the most part if the IG are out of range, so are you.

If you're the mech army versus the static 48" shooting and you're going second, you can see where the static gunline player sets up his heavy weapons and set up your own guys in the 1/4 of the table where he can't shoot. If he spreads his shooting out across the table, you concentrate in a corner where his shooting is minimized, but you can still concentrate your own shooting.

If he goes second, you start all in reserve and drive onto the table where his shooting is minimal or doesn't reach.

A mobile shooting platform with a range of 48"--like an Eldar platform or typhoon speeder--does outrange a static shooting platform in effect because your effective range is your 48" plus your 6" or 12" movement. You can creep up to be within 47" of *one* model in the heavy weapon squad and then kill the whole squad *that same turn* before the enemy gets to shoot. Even if a HW base manages to survive, it's only one weapon returning fire. If the heavy weapon is in an infantry platoon, you creep your mobile firepower platform to 47" of an infantry model in the platoon while remaining outside of the range of the heavy weapon, and you get to fire on the whole platoon while he can't return fire without moving (which costs him his shot).

Ailaros wrote:

Flavius Infernus wrote:-A non-mech army is ponderous. Infantry can't quickly concentrate to gain localized superiority, and then quickly disperse again to avoid counterattacks.

A non-mech army is roughly equally fast with regards to overland movement as guard mech armies. Infantry are able to interplice, allowing them to concentrate easily, while mech lists can get stuck in parking lot situtions because they can't move through their own units.

You have an interesting definition of "roughly," heh, I think because maybe you're looking at single turn movement. In the course of a 6-turn game, a regular vehicle can move as much as 72 inches. An infantry unit will move, on average, about 57 inches(48" in terrain). In a game where a fraction of an inch can make a difference between winning and losing, 15 inches (24" in terrain) is huge.

I already went over the dependability advantage.

"Ponderousness" is also about being able to respond quickly to changing circumstances on the field. If an objective I'm holding suddenly gets cleared by my opponent with a lucky shot and I have a transport 14" away, I know for sure that I can be there claiming the objective next turn. An infantry unit would need at least 2 turns, and some lucky rolls, to cover that distance. If I want to spend 3 turns pumping out standoff fire and then rush 24" to the objectives in the last 2 turns, I can do that with my vehicles with little chance of failing. Infantry units need, on average, 2 or 3 turns to cover that same distance, and might not even make it until the 4th turn with bad rolls. So that's more planning, less shooting, less margin for error.

Ailaros wrote:

Flavius Infernus wrote:-Guard infantry can't move and shoot long-range weapons, making it impossible for them to use standoff tactics, and making them vulnerable to standoff tactics.

If you had unlimited space and time, then yes, this would be a serious liability. As you have neither, it's not a problem at all.

Ad absurdum--I don't need unlimited space or time. I'm not trying to wipe out an entire enemy infantry army, which I agree would take all day. I'm just trying to win the mission, which means I just need sufficient space and time to get one more objective than my opponent or one more KP.

Ailaros wrote:

Flavius Infernus wrote:-Infantry is significantly slowed by terrain. Yes a vehicle has a small (16% chance) of immobilizing, but often even going around terrain will still get it there sooner. And if it's going to make the difference between contesting an objective and winning the game, I'll take my chances on immobilizing.

You have an interesting definition of "significant". If you take out the worst 16% of results (like you're doing for the tanks), then infantry are going 10" per turn through terrain. Most of the time, you move farther than that.

Your math is always interesting to me, Ailaros The average roll taking the higher of two dice is 4.472--call it 4.5. So in terrain, your overall average movement is 8" with a big variance, but most results averaging out to around 8 over time. I'd call 4" per turn, 24" per 6-turn average game, "significant."

Ailaros wrote:

Flavius Infernus wrote:-Yes, it takes a lot of firepower to kill 30 guardsmen in cover, but every shot from every weapon has the potential to hurt the guard infantry.

But then you're running into serious points effectiveness problems. I am GLAD when people take lascannons and shoot them at guardsmen, not mournful because they can still do damage.

Fallacy of exclusion. An army forced to shoot a mix of small arms and heavy weapons at infantry gets much less efficiency from the heavy weapons, but gets a huge increase in the efficiency of the cheap, multishot small arms. An army forced to shoot a mix of small arms and heavy weapons at a vehicle gets more efficiency from the heavy weapons, but zero efficiency from the small arms.

Ailaros wrote:

Flavius Infernus wrote:Vehicles bounce about half of penetrating hits and about 2/3 of glancing hits with no significant/permanent effect.

Yes, and a single shot can utterly destroy the unit, or make it completely worthless. That you can't do this against infantry is what makes them so much more durable than vehicles.

And here's our old friend the "I can think of a situation when your argument doesn't work, therefore it's wrong" argument. I thought you had given that up.

Yes, vehicles can be destroyed with a single shot. And an infantry unit can fail a break test and run off the board or be swept in assault. That's not the point.

The point is that, because vehicles often aren't destroyed with a single shot, nobody can stop *all* the vehicles in a mech army (in the hands of a competent player) from doing their jobs. You can call it "durability" or whatever you want--the name doesn't really matter. Vehicles are durable enough to do what they do, and cheap and efficient enough to make that worthwhile.

Also infantry models inside a transport are always more survivable than infantry in the open--even if the transport itself is not.

Ailaros wrote:

Flavius Infernus wrote:-Infantry can be bogged, drawn off and tarpitted by useless assaults. Vehicles, if they survive the assault, can just drive away.

...if they survive. If you're stuck in against a proper horde, this isn't terribly likely.

What did we say about the "I can think of a situation where..." argument? I can think of a situation where a crippled war walker can bog a guard blob indefinitely, while that same war walker would have very little chance of stopping a speeding rhino.

Anyway we're talking about guard here, who aren't going to be able to even glance an AR10 vehicle--or will need some luck to get it with a meltabomb unless the vehicle-owning player is dumb enough not to have it moving more than 6" near the assaulty unit...

Ailaros wrote:

Flavius Infernus wrote:So playing an all infantry army, whether guard, nids or orks, concedes a lot of your tactical initiative and mobility advantage to your opponent.

Given that they move just as quickly and are affected by enemy movements the same, why do you give any initiative over that you wouldn't have from infantry?

It's not given, Ailaros. I don't buy your "just as quickly" argument even a little bit. And infantry isn't affected by enemy movement the same--vehicles can block infantry (and other vehicles) but infantry can't block vehicles.

Ailaros wrote:

Flavius Infernus wrote:If your opponent can always pick where to fight you and where to avoid you and there's nothing you can do about it, then of course you'll tend to lose more games even if you lose with most of your army intact.

In real life, this is definitely true. In 40k, it is skewed by how little space for maneuverability you have, and how little time you have to do it in.

I'm honestly puzzled by this conclusion, Ailaros. At my local game scene I routinely beat infantry swarms with my mechanized Space Marine, IG and Eldar armies, using maneuver and defense-in-depth to get and maintain localized superiority. I can't figure out why your experience would be so different.

The only downsides are lack of the ability to truly-reach-out-and-touch-somebody here, and walkers are going to make you their bitch. Thankfully, meltabombs CAN save you. ALWAYS put commissars in your bigger blobs, if not all blobs, and really, not wanting ANY vehicles in a guard army is quite ridiculous, you simply need the support. Land Raider redeemers and dedicated assault troops are going to eat your infantry alive.

A guard army of full infantry at 1500 is playable, because mech armies dont have the shots, and infantry just cant stand up to them. 200 las-shots will kill tons of enemy infantry, and will even make terminators think twice about showing their faces.

But another problem is the ability for an army to neuter you. You are slow, and you are cumbersome. If they eliminate your lascannons, you are gone. Do not allow them to take away your anti tank firepower. It would be smart to add in Al'Rahem so you can out flank those blobs, and even CREEED! for some orders. As slowed as it might sound, jarren kell will be hell useful for ordering around heavy weapon teams.

Ailaros wrote:

Caffran9 wrote:I find it interesting that these "other rules" are the only reason why infantry doesn't just destroy the GT scene.

Firstly, I didn't say "destroy" anywhere.

Secondly...

Grundz wrote:The user was talking about GT, which is a 2500 point bracket.

You try moving 300-400 infantry models in a 2 hour game and coming out ahead. Time limits can't be overestimated in what they do to the competitiveness of certain armies and certain army builds. As well, I've seen a lot of tournament write-ups where the TO doesn't do the missions where you simply roll for random deployment and mission type. Horde armies tend to excel in killpoint missions and with dawn of war deployment, and when these options are simply not present, it hurts horde armies. Of course, this is assuming that there aren't other strange missions, which I've seen a fair number of.

In any case, the only thing that winning at a grand tournament means is that they player was good at playing at GTs and brought an army list that was good for GTs. It doesn't say anything about the game in general.

No you didn't say destroy anywhere, but the picture you're painting makes it seem as if most "top tier" GT armies wouldn't have much of a chance against infantry based guard. Are you seriously putting 300-400 models on the table in a 1500-200pt (points values for the majority of tournaments and GTs) game? I don't see how you're doing that and having anything that actually kills stuff at the same time. Maybe show us your army list so we can have a better idea of the way you're approaching the game/archetype?

why would a tournament ever allow different tables to be playing different missions in the same round? That is inherently unbalanced and creates exceptional variation within the basic structure of the tournament. The foundations of every competitive activity include the provision that each participant have to accomplish the same goals at the same time. Most tournaments do include at least one mission with some variation on killpoints (which tends to hurt mech armies even more) and generally there will be a DoW type deployment for at least one of the missions.

@ Grundz: Most GTs are somewhere in 1500-2000 points, not 2500.

Caffran9 wrote:
No you didn't say destroy anywhere, but the picture you're painting makes it seem as if most "top tier" GT armies wouldn't have much of a chance against infantry based guard.

I dont think you read the thread and just felt like jumping in to argue, but it was stated that most GT armies are built with the metagame in mind and are heavy on melta/plasma/anti tank. most of which are largely ineffective against IG infantry, the last GT many "anti meta" lists like this that could do well against vehicle spam did extremely well.

Grundz wrote:

Caffran9 wrote:
No you didn't say destroy anywhere, but the picture you're painting makes it seem as if most "top tier" GT armies wouldn't have much of a chance against infantry based guard.

I dont think you read the thread and just felt like jumping in to argue, but it was stated that most GT armies are built with the metagame in mind and are heavy on melta/plasma/anti tank. most of which are largely ineffective against IG infantry, the last GT many "anti meta" lists like this that could do well against vehicle spam did extremely well.

I read the thread. In fact I already pointed out with my first post some of the things that the more "competitive" armies can do that infantry IG will probably struggle with, but I'll reiterate that stuff here. I'm also pretty sure the armies at the top tables will generally have something that helps them deal with most things.

Mech IG generally runs like 10+ Heavy Flamers so if you want to get close to it you lose. If you stay far away from it you're still up against it as your HWS are pretty easy to kill quickly and if you bury your heavy weapons in your units you're shooting at 4 targets per turn when there are 14+ across the table, including probably at least 5 ordnance weapons. You've got so many Lascannons though that it must be frightening for the Mech IG player.

SW running a bunch of Long Fangs + TWC can make a mess of things if the TWC hit your lines, which they probably can. Guardsmen with power weapons will not beat TWC in combat and the vastly superior asssault range of the TWC virtually guarantees that they make combat. 15 Long Fangs with Missile Launchers will be killing A LOT of Guardsment each turn that they're on the table. You'll need to kill them quick to try and get anything done. Murderous Hurricane is also pretty good against low toughness infantry.

Daemons put a big unit or two of Bloodcrushers and a Bloodthirster down in front of your lines and you're in big trouble. You're not shooting the Bloodcrushers off the table and you won't handle T5 well in combat at all. You'll need to charge them (to get the S/I bonus from FC) to have a decent chance of standing up to them in combat and that means sacrificing a lot of shooting (rapid fire and heavy weapons won't be shooting the turn you charge). If Fateweaver is also involved there isn't going to be much you can do as you'll have to spend a lot of time killing him. If you don't, then everything else will for sure live thanks to the re-rolls he gives out. If a Soulgrinder finds its way into combat with a blob and you aren't taking a bunch of meltabombs in it then you're going to be tied up indefinitely until it eats your unit or the game ends.

Multiple AV14 vehicles can pose a problem as well. When it comes to it Lascannons simply aren't that amazing at killing them. You have a lot of them, which is a good thing, but if the AV14 has cover saves it really hurts. Generally they'll have extra armor so they'll be able to keep moving through most of the damaging results. Orks in Battlewagons or Marines in Land Raiders both seem like trouble if they close the gap. 15 flamer templates will roast one of these units immediately. Nobz will win combats. Boyz units will probably trade combat. Gazghkull is a monster. Lootas have a high ROF that can sometimes be painful in spite of their crappy BS. If you can get your guns into the sides of the BWs quickly then you can be in business big time though.

Razorback spam stuff... you should probably just run over. Their long ranged firepower is mostly 1 shot weapons, and you've got a veritable pile of lascannons for their AV11 stuff.

CSM could be trouble if they go first and get to start lashing your units into balls to drop 9 Plasma Cannons on/set up charges on weakened units. I don't think this is a bad matchup for infantry IG because those Lascannons cut down Princes and Oblits very quickly, but if the CSM player goes first it could be an awkward game.

Tyranids seem to get roughed up pretty badly by all the lascannons. If those MCs manage to make it across the table though, they're going to tie up your units for the rest of the game while the little bugs chip away at you.

Eldar... you're probably fine. Lascannons seem good against AV12, and while they can be reduced to str8 that doesn't seem like a big deal with so many lascannons. Infantry based Eldar probably just can't outshoot you, though they'll have a lot more guns with decent range and multiple shots.

I'm not saying infantry IG is bad. In fact, I really like the army a lot (it is definitely more fun than the Mech lists, and it looks damn cool on the table. It is also a pretty good army in terms of power). I just feel the need to point out that the army is not just peachy against most of the things that you'll find near the top tables at a GT. It can tear up light armor if it has the time to, and it beats a lot of things in close combat. It will always struggle with an abundance of targets and really hard dedicated CC units like TWC/Bloodcrushers. The former because if there are HWS in the list they're pretty easy to kill quickly, and if the weapons are part of the blobs then they're going to drastically impair your ability to shoot at lots of targets at once. The latter because even with FC, they're still Guardsmen. T5+ in close combat is a nightmare and if you want to get str4 to try and stand up against them for a combat phase you won't be able to shoot with the unit you want to charge with. It puts you in a rather awkward position. Admittedly, it is a lot more difficult to get TWC into range than it is Bloodcrushers, but they're both units out there that see lots of play and do real damage if/when they hit. The feeling I've gotten reading this thread is that infantry IG just isn't very bothered by most of the lists that people consider "top tier" and I don't think that is entirely accurate, which is all I'm trying to point out. I think if the army just beat the things at top tables in GTs we'd see the better players building infantry IG, getting good at playing them quickly, and taking them to GTs.

As for the above

I really haven't had much problem with Mech-IG or razorback spam (similiar idea) But again I can see these types of armies being devistating at higher point values. the IG and SM I deal with are generally at the 1500 point level and aren't fielding absolutely maximium vehicles.

Same with av14 spam, I just haven't had to deal with 6 land raiders. I can usually immobilize or better one 14 vehicle or a number of transports every turn. Using "reroll your cover saves" order most of the time if the unit is smoked.

To be noted, I don't run pure infantry, I run my command squads in chmera's with melta and usually run a few other AT options like outflanking sents with autocannons, I don't think the /best/ option is "OMG MECH EVERYTHING" or "IF YOU DONT WEAR PANTS YOU'RE NOT IN MY LIST" It's somewhere inbetween, infantry suffer without the flexability provided by /some/ vehicles, and vehicle lists suffer by providing so many killpoints that if you dont wipe the opponent its an auto-lose in a KP mission.

Thunderwolf/longfang lists are rough if they reach combat, I try to find room for a psycher battle squad and a unit of artillery to get them to bugger off or pin them in general.

Daemons, mass autocannons seem to do the job against bloodcrushers, unless my usuall daemon opponent is using them wrong (which is possible)

Oh, I think infantry Ig is fantastic against Razorback spam. I think it is a dicey game against Mech IG. the difference between the 2 is that Mech IG puts a ton more stuff on the table, which means more guns, and they get a bunch of pie plates as well.

Mass Autocannons seem decent against Bloodcrushers when they don't have Fateweaver behind them. Rerollable 3+ saves are so silly. If there isn't a Fateweaver though, the Autocannons are good. What is the weapons breakdown in your typical list? What points value do you generally play at? I'm making some assumptions based on a 2k points game, which may be the wrong idea.

Well, my listmaker is broken at the moment, but my typical list in 1500 points is

HQ
Straken or CREEEEED with plasma or melta in chimera

infantry platoon
command squad with plasma or melta in a chimera
20 man blob with grenade launchers and autocannons
30 man power blob with commisarr w/ autocannons

infantry platoon
command squad with plasma or melta in a chimera
20 man blob with grenade launchers and autocannons
30 man power blob with commisar w/ autocannons

3X hydras, 3 griffons, or a Plasma leman

that is my usual list for 1500 kill team (which is what we usually play) anything an autocannon cant take care has to be melta'd, a smart opponent could probably focus fire and bring down the meltas then run over me with av14. I'll also do things like pull the special weapons and put in a psyker squad or some lascannons, or pull the 20 man blobs and take lascannon heavy weapon teams, and stick them in the command squad chimera's (who will get grenade launchers instead)

Basically thats the framework, but i keep my opponent on his toes by moving stuff around.