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.

I have a long history of reading military history and grand strategy tomes - and detesting repeated bouts of poor performance in chess, love, life, Classic Battle Tech, and the inevitable Warhammer 40,000 - as such I have recently obtained a shiny theory that has drastically improved my latest performance in a game of 40k, and wish to discuss my reasons and methods for something that is usually laughed at when asked about. As such, I will now present a hypothesis that might well utterly condemn the second half of my titular subject line assurances:

Well designed Moving (Or as I like to call them - "Shooting") Trays are a basic game hack, with acceptable trade-offs in fire power concentration and blast damage - that do not uselessly detract from mobility.

Exhibit A: "Phalanx Template Versions I, II, & III" (Bottom to Top) - Vicit; Nec tamen Inconveniens." (Victorious, Yet Unlikely.)


The Formation of a Hypothesis:
This tactic lodged in my cranium during my 4th game against my newest opponent, a man inclined towards no small amount of thought himself, who has come upon a determined affection for the Tau. I noticed after that first win that the only significant difference in process was that I had "clumped" my units together near each other in wide spaced ten and five man groups at least three inches apart. The result was that I was able to roll more shooting dice per precious shooting phase (Each being one of, at most, six by the rules). Even when a five man terminator unit came under assault by eight (of twelve original) fire warriors, my remaining unassaulted units in the loose clump were able to figuratively pour shooting dice into the remaining oncoming Tau, who arriving in a long straggling line from the other side of a central large oval of impassible terrain, were blown to tiny bits - in the Mercy of the God of Concentrated Firepower.

And now for the numbers, ladies and gentlemen – it occurs to me that a successful game of WH40K (Largely regardless of Rule editions) being, as it is, stipulated at no more than six turns in length is largely contingent upon six highly successful shooting turns (Being defined as a turn in which you fired and caused more wounds than you, in turn, received and suffered), plus six, (Assuming miracles of momentum or magic) - or more likely five (Potentially four or less)- opportunities for highly successful assault turns (Defined as ditto for shooting.) Being as it is, at most, a grand total of eleven chances to cause extensive trauma to your enemy.

Eleven chances to give better than you get, Space Marines have a few faults in standard one or two inch gap unit cohesion “blocks” in these circumstances – I noticed that if my units strayed from one another or thinned out into a line running as straight for X as I could, my ability to roll any significant amount of wounds (Even with a generally superior stock BS of 4) was drastically reduced – so if a SM Tactical Squad of ten, all with bolt pistols and bolters, were to be twenty four inches or less from its target it would roll 10 shooting dice per round it does not assault.

Multiplied by six for that many ten man tactical squads, each squad with Razorback transports armed with LC and TL PG, add in one Pedro Kantor and two ten man Sternguard Veteran Elite Units, all with bolters and bolt pistols – AND – if a way was found to create a tray that would split those 81 Space Marines into two fairly even and well spaced out trays, those marines would shoot forty dice per tray times two, plus Kantor's Assault 4 Storm Bolter, for eighty four Strength 4, AP 4, bolter dice at a BS of 4 to any unit exactly 24 inches in front of the rear most soldier on the middle of the two trays.



Conclusions and Addendum:
Excepting that Marines will inevitably die every turn (There is only 6 after all) the first turn of set up on a six foot by four foot game table with no intervening terrain between the two long edges, and a deployment zone twelve inches from the home edges leaves what will now be referred to as “The Phalanx” walking forward six inches towards the enemy and almost inevitably dumping 84 dice (80 bolters & Kantors Assault 4 Storm Bolter) per shooting turn, until they are assaulted or killed down, into the enemy unit that pleases you the least that turn – and all that times six. The six Razorback transports are each incapable of transporting their parent units, they are capable of shielding the flanks of the Phalanx, two per side with the remaining two LC and TL PG armed Razorbacks in front of and to the extreme flank edges of the Phalanx. These “Transports” (I like to fancy them “Pocket Tanks”) block line of sight and provide six Lascannons and six Twin-linked Plasma Guns worth of anti-vehicle support to the gruesome anti infantry scythe of the Phalanx...

Not to say that one shouldn’t worry about blast templates (The bane of the Shooting Tray to be sure) – although of the three trays I’ve made so far only Version I has seen actual battle, which it astonishingly won against a 2K point Tau List (SM: HQ-Pedro Kantor & Epistolary Librarian, 4 TR (w/o tranports), 2 Sternguard Vet EL against Tau: HQ 2 Ethereals w/ honour guard, EL (1 three model Stealth Squad), 4 TR (12 Firewarriors each) and HS 2 Hammerheads w/ Ion Cannons & Smart Missiles. All of that to say that my 62 man single rectangle didn’t once get hit with a template – large or small and wound up killing a full enemy unit every turn for four turns before my opponent capitulated with a total kill score of one full tactical squad and five wounds to two other squads to his credit. Over the next two days I wound up refining my crafting technique whilst entertaining an all encompassing terror of not improving the rectangle against the inevitable mountain of blast templates sure to be thrown at me, eventually leading to the following design considerations:

First, the template must be of reasonable dimensions to be able to turn on the spot (Free action to turn a unit or group of units) from a Row to a Column- in order to navigate any terrain which may be set up. My current 41 man shooting tray is some 11 and 1/4 inch width and some 12 and ½ inches long, and has been designed to resemble a Chevron @ 22.5 Degrees off of 90. This bend allows the entire two trays to fire at one target that is 24 inches in front of the rear most model in the trays.

Second, the template must include “Buffer Rows” consider my design – a ten man unit is now one straight line of ten, in a “row” one inch long – the gap between the single outside rows and inner double row limits the amount of damage that would be done by a non-scattering large blast template (Worst Case Scenario) add in the fact that on each tray Sgts and HQs are spread sufficiently that no one blast marker hits more than one. As far as using the rules to maximum advantage goes – the first thing I’ve learned is that if one adds up all the Ballistic and Close Combat Dice from the entire game in heap – the person with the biggest heap of dice generally wins...

My First Tray and the resultant unholy pile of hits left by a worst case large blast template:


This tray was planned for 62 models (2 Stern EL, 4 Max Tactical Squads, 1 Pedro Kantor, 1 Epistolary Librarian) a non-scattering large blast template means that for 65 shooting dice a large blast template will cause twenty one models twenty one dice hits. The worst number possible for a packed template...

My Second Tray and the resultant pile of hits left by a worst case large blast template:


This tray was my first while attempting to maximize dice rolls per shooting phase while minimizing models hit by non-scattering large blasts, in this case 65 shooting dice will take 16 models with 16 dice each - including not one, but both HQs in a worst case scenario. Also note that in my haste I designed this marker to shoot @ 18 inches instead of 24 inches, my method in measuring this angle is to put the max range of the unit from the rearmost soldier on the template to a target directly in front of him - then measuring a number of inches equal to the max unit size in a single row 90 degrees to the right and left of the firing unit and making a mark, then connecting the each of the first two marks with outside edge of the max unit width, while leaving the targets end of the ruler in place, creating the needed angle of the arc, once computed on an immediately available blast template...

My Third (and current) Tray and the acceptable amount of hits left by a worst case large blast template, if only 31 models are used per tray:


Small Blast @ 41 model tray population, 44 shooting dice at 24 inches vs Six models take Six dice each. (@ 31 mtp, 34 shooting dice at 24 inches vs Three models take three wounds each.)

Large Blast @ 41 model tray population, 44 shooting dice at 24 inches vs Fourteen models take 14 dice each. (@ 31 mtp, 34 shooting dice at 24 inches vs Nine models take nine dice each.)

bellatores Confessionum, (Warriors Confessions) I own some 1400 pts worth of Space Marines in heaps that don't lend to a better WYSIWYG explanation for the upcoming pictures than to say I have never played a tournament or, in fact, another player who didn't have to represent (occasionally huge) portions of their armies with pennies, aluminum can tabs, or the odd wooden blocks for Razorbacks, as might be a fine example of an upcoming WYSIWYG faux paux...


And Exhibit B - Optimum Deployment for my Current 2K build - Patenti campo, num cui? (Open field, anyone?)


Future Happenings – More play testings, including an Allied (Tau and Space Marine) 1000 point Army tournament in Memphis on November 3rd – (My first ever, wish me luck with my upcoming “Three Colors” experiments=)

I like the idea for 40k. I've actually been thinking through a way to make some for my Necrons, who also utilize the phalanx formation in some lists. Rather than an army wide tray I was leaning more towards unit trays containing up to 10 figures. I haven't put a whole lot of thought into it though and will definitely watch and see where you land with this project as inspiration.

Thanks for the musings!

Very interesting, can't wait to see how you develop this. Keep us posted!

It is my intention to test out a 4 troop template that would be eight pieces, each containing a row of 5 Marines, yet still with a 3/4 inch gap between rows on each piece. My main disappointment with the current version is that I off set each row after deciding to leave additional room on the template for an inefficient (if not aesthetically pleasing) chapter icon that I had planned to paint on one side - in a hastily undertaken secondary defense against a blast template to the joining edge of each wing.

I only get to play a few games each weekend, so I shall be sure to keep this thread up to date with designs, pertinent battle moments, and observations until I feel I have enough evidence for a definitive article on this much maligned subject, thanks for the support!

I like it, also since the front unit gives all the rear units cover blasts are not as bad. Interesting to see how your final one looks.

Just prioritize the large blasts with your razorbacks and you are good to go.

Can you explain why exactly you're worried about Fire Warriors assaulting your Terminators?

That aside, this seems like an extreme amount of effort to spend on creating movement trays that will not always fit on the table correctly, especially since 6th edition 40k allows premeasuring and hence setting up perfect concaves is not particularly difficult. Further, moving normally allows you to be much more adaptive, assuming different formations against different threats. I'm really not sold on the value of these trays.

?? I don't see why clumping up like that benefits you in any way?? Unless you're expecting your opponent to use these movement trays too, I think this is giving you a huge drawback against any army with even a single blast weapon..

So, how exactly do you plan to deal with a standard density of terrain, which doesn't leave nice convenient empty spaces to fit an entire movement tray like that?

 feluca wrote:
?? I don't see why clumping up like that benefits you in any way?? Unless you're expecting your opponent to use these movement trays too, I think this is giving you a huge drawback against any army with even a single blast weapon..

The idea is that you can bring a maximum amount of fire power on any given target. If one squad is in range then most likely 2-3 others will be as well creating a massive amount of focus fire from bolters and the like.

It's an interesting idea for wide-open field battles; I always play on tables with way too much terrain for this to be any help at all, but I suppose it could work.

Thanks for all the feedback!

To Kingsley, I was not at all worried about the Fire Warriors assaulting my Terminators, I was merely leaving a factual account of parts of the game that defined this theory. I was rather overjoyed, in fact, because the terminators tore what was left of the unit to bits, while I didn't lose ten (or twenty @ 12 inches!) shooting dice. Further I would point out my absolute agreement with you, Peregrine, and AnomanderRake, who rightly point out - my template is bulky and huge, and will - in no way - be of any use on a table gloriously choked with terrain.

It is my ultimate goal to create 5 man trays that may be expanded and connected, magnetically, as suits the situation. Roman Legions always approached the Battlefield (Or in 40k terms, objectives, relics, ect...) in several columns to maximize manuverability. Once the Battle was to be set the columns (Ten Cohort [480 Heavy Infantry] of Six Centuries [80 Heavy Infantry] each) would set up in an offset row (quincunx) formation three rows deep. This maximized the ability of some 4,800+ Heavy Infantry to move about effectively.

I feel like this will meet the gap between my desire for highly concentrated firepower, that will still be sufficiently agile for 2x3 feet worth of terrain. After all, there is no mention of a minimum distance between units in an army with no unattached independent characters. So they may tag up and split off as needed...

And to respond to you Feluca, as Leth was kind enough to say, the whole reason this struck me is the glory of rolling as many dice as possible, as often as possible. A game is six turns long - thats six shooting phases. Every shooting phase a unit does not fire it looses "value" whilst gaining nothing (In pure kill terms, objective games and their considerations I shall tackle in due time).

These templates allow me to point my army at an enemy, or an enemies line of approach and bury it under an overwhelmingly high bolt-round-to-table-air ratio per shooting phase. As for your alarmingly pertinent comment that blast template weapons will be the doom of this enterprise - I may only state that right now, I don't know how true that is for two solid reasons:

#1. I am putting significant thought power into how these templates should be designed to limit potential non-scattering large blast template damage, which brings me to,

#2. Blast Templates scatter five out of every six attempts, trust me - I have frequently ran an Epistolary Librarian with a "Vortex of Doom" Str:10, AP:1, Large Blast power and let me be the first to tell you that scatters only slightly less often than a Chapter Masters Orbital Strike (Which ALWAYS scatters 2D6). Bring on the blast templates, there's six rounds per game - I may assume one of every six attempts will land, that is a ratio wildly in my favor good sir...

On the topic of blast templates scattering, if they scatter 5 out of every 6 shots, your scatter dice are slightly loaded. In theory, any scatter roll should be a hit 1/3 of the time, which is still fairly significant. Also, when you consider that the average ballistic skill in this game is probably a 3.5 if not a 4, that means that even if the shot does scatter, it will only scatter an average of 3 to 4 inches at the most, which still may be over-top of a large portion of your guys.

Yeah I'm not sure people think about their damage concave as much in this game as in other tactical games.

Well said RegalPhantom - I don't have the blast template rules sufficiently understood to rework this to it's most efficient level, I shall go back and reread the pertinent rules again...

And to Lucre, the main trick is giving better than you get... =)

As a guard player I would love to face off against someone clumping their troops together like this. Also you have now commited to a static position in the board by concentrating your forces together. If I was playing another similar marine type list (BA) I would attack you on one flank, which would mitigate the return fire and also cause you to react by breaking your formation. One of the keys to victory is deployment and use of terrain. You have negated both of these advantages by opting to not utilize them to your advantage.

If you are gonna stick to trays, maybe make them for each individual squad so you can break of sections to deal with threats.

I am a history buff also and this tactic is why the Romans changed from a phalanx formation to a centurion checkerboard formation, with each individual century of troops able to act on its own initiative and react to battlefield situation. A Greek hoplite phalanx rolled up pretty quickly with a roman century smashing into its sides instead of head on.

I think that against an opponent who knows what he's doing and what your army's capabilities are you would loose most of the time. Once you have deployed in his manner I would be planning how I am going to take your army apart. I know for a fact that if I went first with either guard or m BA list I could alpha most of your razorbacks into smoking wrecks.

Again to reiterate you are giving up the ability to seize the initiative during each game turn by commiting to a static formation, an issue that us foot guard players are tying to deal with in this current edition.

While this does allow you to focus your fire power extremely effectively, There seem to be too many problems for my own taste. bypassing the previous arguments that were made about the restrictions to movement and space available for your template, since you already covered them, you run into much larger problems that are unique to the 40k battle field.

1st: flame template and other such weapons. These weapons will shred your army if massed together as you've shown us. there are many vehicles have much higher maneuverability compared to your foot slogging marine force. Land speeders, Baal predators, ork trukks are all very quick and can dish out considerable hurt through template weapons. Landraider Redeemers are also deadly to your formations. Imperial guard armies that put out large masses of high strength large blast templates are dangerous as well. Though some of the large blast templates will scatter a few is bound to hit hard. When any of these weapons land a hit then you are landed into my next issue.

2nd: coherency. This is the life blood of your army. Fall out of your coherency and your army may stall out. As casualties occur you are bound to lose your coherency in individual units. though this does not entirely freeze your units it does force some to not move fully while others attempt to fall back into formation. The need to concentrate to reform your ranks prevents you from advancing to pursue a foe that is falling back out of your optimal firing range. This will reduce your crucial number of shots per turn. However, even with out this handicapped you are already enforcing your own handicap on yourself.

3rd: Only the 1st rank of your shooting lines are firing to their full potential. With your units packed so densely you are forced to fire through the ranks of other units. As per the Game rules,"if a model fires through the gaps between models in an intervening unit, the target is in cover, even if it is completely visible to the firer." So, any of your models in the rear of the formation are giving away free 5+ cover saves against any of their weapons. While playing marine armies this is not a huge deal, but if against a foe who cannot take armor saves against bolt weapons this becomes a delight. As a Tyranid player I would be delighted to receive a 5+ save against your bolter fire for what is essentially half my codex. The constant ability to take those saves can change the battle entirely.

These simple reasons fundamentally damages the integrity of your army if clumped up into those formations. I do enjoy the idea of it as well as the attempt to make your movement simpler. Yet, these large and common occurring instances really prevent the trays from being effective in the game.

I second the above. As a guard player, this sort of block would get smashed to pieces in the first turn or two.

You seem to be tackling this like a Napoleonic general, with huge unwieldy formations, assuming open ground and an equally behaving opponent. In that vaccum, then yes, the one who throws out the most dice will probably win.

However, you don't in any way account for the enemy using terrain (both cover, and sight-blocking), flanking, bait units, rapid assault units, or long ranged guns. Youre treating your entire foot force like one unit, to shoot another unit off the board. Not to mention it's extremely manoeuvrable for objective taking and holding.

As a guard player, I could feed you 10 man guardsman squads all day, go to ground, run interference, and would have enough squads left over to complete my objectives.
Why would anyone fight you head on? Any competent player will never let your bloc get within optimum range. They would feed you bait units, or fast attack units to cause disruption in your ranks. A guard army with 2 or 3 russes will punch giant holes in your ranks, killing 6-10 guys a shell as you trudge across the table. Then your formation collapses by the time it gets anywhere useful, with not enough manpower to pose any real threat.

Youre removing any manoeuvrability and ability to adapt to your enemy that you need in order to fight. In ideal circumstances, you might throw out a lot of dice, but ideal circumstances are... ideal.


Imho, movement trays are best used as an aide for moving large amounts of models quickly, not for strategic reasons. Once the bullets start flying, and models start dying, the whole thing falls apart and you need to be able to react more fluidly

Movement trays of 3, 5, or 10 models make the most sense (even 10 is pushing it). I had the idea of fielding 3man fireteam 'trays' (9 troopers, and a sergeant), spaced at 2" apart. With a full horde army, it cuts movement time down, but the units themselves are still manoeuvrable enough to confrom to cover, bunch up or spread out, or cycle models forwards or back.

Many thanks to you The Lion of the Forest, DM Thomas 7, and McGibs! You all make many very good points, I imagine this might be the passing fancy of a relatively new player (Being less than 20 games total into 40k) but I do look forward to flipping the poplar templates I have right now and sawing them into 6 five man blocks I could sink magnets into, I believe that would increase the agility of my Phalanx, vs. terrain and situation.

After that, (and considering I plan on rolling the concept into the fluff for my DIY Chapter) I look forward to playing these types of games against these types of opponents and suffering these types of crushing defeats - I just haven't met those games, opponents, and defeats yet. I will enjoy continuing to muse on these different factors.

For instance, these tactics were out of date by the time of the American War of the Rebellion, due to advances in firearms that were unaccounted for. All things being equal Clausewitz, Duke Wellington, and Field Marshal von Blücher all have much to say about the WH40K game I would submit.

Game balance is simply maintained amongst racial traits than amongst the conscript armies of newly industrialized nations...

If you are really serious about trying this formation you need to utilize an army that can take advantage of it.

What you need are 50 man IG blobs and dark angel allies. You put Azrael in your 50 man guar detachment giving the entire 50 man blob a 4+ invulnerable save. He also gives them know no fear or fearless (can't remember which one Azrael has, I think it's fearless).

Now you can march straight up the board. I think that is the onl way you will see any success with these tactics. Again I think you need to use Roman tactics, not phalanx tactics. The only SM unit that could pull off a phalanx formation would be TH/SS terminators. They are heavy infantry and have a huge shield (similar to a real phalanx). Then again conventional tactics support getting this unit into combat ASAP, you loose your firepower, and you will be outmanouvered.

How about a mech phalanx. Predators lead the charge, razorback and rhinos behind?

I just think you are giving up all advantages of bringing tanks, and playin marines to use a tactic that has been outdated since the advent of rifled barels. The only army that you will face that the commander will not really be able to take advantage of your formation will be Nid players, their just going to run at you anyway. Then it will just be an issue of if you can kill enough before they close to you.

I have been using a BA list with a major defensive element behind an aegis. My assault element has high mobility and can deep strike wherever they need.

Think about the damages you will take when enemy units deep strike next to your formation and annihilate entire units in one fell swoop. MY ranged element has 8 ML, a quad gun, and a Tac squad with PC PG and combo Plas.

Well said again good sir, at the moment my agenda is to flesh out 3000 pts of models with 60 tactical marines, Pedro Kantor, 20 Sternguard Veterans, 10 Assault Terminators w/SS&TH, 6 Razorback Transports, and 2 Predators. I have treasured the thought of the Phalanx (Or it's constituent components) advancing behind those 3+ Inv Save Terminators, flanked by armor.

It shall be a blast to play when it's built in any event... =)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I may drop four razorbacks and try to max my model total with an Honour Guard and a Brother Captain with his Command Squad. Other than that - this is the DIY Chapter I seek...

All I know is that my executioners dream of playing armies like this one day. So many hits... *drools*

Interesting to see such tactics applied to 40k, but to brutally honest, if you tried to use that at my club you'd never even be able to set it up on a table. My club likes to use the feast of blades, Adepticon, and other tourney rulesets, and simply put, there's far too much terrain for you to ever get to use those templates.

Which really sucks, because large open battlefields can be fun to play on occassionally.

Also, while you are giving yourself cover with your first rank, you're also giving the enemy cover saves as well. For example, your awesome firepower of bolters and plasmaguns would give anyone in front of it a +5 cover save. So my guardsmen would be almost completely unaffected, and your AP3+ weapons would be nerfed considerably against marine armies. I'm not sure if these tradeoffs are worth being able to get slightly more dice on target.

Concentrated bolter fire is very effective. I took 65 power armoured bodies to a tourney in early 2011 and it worked well. Even before the marine buff of 6th.

Applying rigor and science to massed small arms is a great idea, cudos. Will be interested to see how you develop your idea.

My current favorite list has 53 BA in, 10 shooty terminators, 10 man Plasma tac, 8 DC with bolters! 2 x 5 man devastators , and a bunch of assault guys. The DC wreck house when they come out their drop pod, 16 boltgun shots is nothing to sneeze at, plus they have their Deathwind launcher from the pod. Its nice to see the look on peoples face when I tell them that my terminators put out 20 stormbolter shots, 4 krak/frag missiles and the librarian is throwing a blood lance.

Thanks Loricatus Aurora! I look forward to proving the concept or running it into the ground - even more so I shall enjoy building the case for this one way or the other!

Thanks again TheLionofTheForest! That's a well thought out pile of CC & Bolter Dice, I bet that look is priceless! =)

From a long time fantasy player i like the idea of movement trays.

a. side question did you space the marines out the 2 inches?

a down side that i see is the back rows will be shooting through friendly units giving you opponent cover saves.

I would also rather keep the razors hidden because they are squishy and they have long range. why not hide them and have em shoot?

I have been experimenting with formations for my IG lately, keeping special weapons in the second rank and being sure to capitalize on the 2" coherency, plus now you don't have to move heavies while the rest of the squad moves and you can still shoot...

Tourney tomorrow will really put this tactic to the test.

Thanks Cowpow! I have worked in something slightly more than a 1 inch gap between rows, I've just started plotting out a method to chop my existing blank poplar tray into 8 five man rows each, based on the already computed angle, I do submit that the magnitude of cover saves that templates allow I have only began to allow for, basically eight five model templates should never be arranged in formations deeper than three rows, making three rows deep with three trays on the front two rows and two trays of five models on the rear row.

Or two rows of four, to thin the cover saves as much as possible...

Mayhaps a checkered formation would provide some benefit, I shall have to think more on these things...

@hdbbstephen, I wish you luck good sir, mayhaps between us we may work out as efficient a tray system as possible! Grab snap shots of the pertinent moments for us!

Here is a card board example of Phalanx Trays Version IV, 5 man trays that may separate or link up as needed to maximize mobility and shooting, while minimizing blast template damage.

Nov 3rd, Memphis Tau & Space Marine Army, 994 Points.

HQ - XV-8 Commander w/Missile Pod, Burst Cannon, and Targeting Array
(80 Pts)

EL - Terminator Squad 1 w/chainfist
(205 Pts)

TR - Tactical Squad 9 models, Sgt. w/Plasma Pistol
(169 Pts)

TR - Tactical Squad 10 models, 1 w/ Plasma Gun
(180 Pts)

HS - Hammerhead Tanks x 2 both w/Railgun and Smart Missile Systems.
(360 Pts)

Everytime we get a shot with your cinder block walls I just imagine someone chained to the wall just out of the camera's view, you sure you don't play chaos. Lol


On a more serious note, the new formation looks good. Now we're just back to the simple fact that you are giving up cover saves by shooting through your own ranks reducing your effective firepower by 1/3.

 Primvs Pilvs wrote:
Here is a card board example of Phalanx Trays Version IV, 5 man trays that may separate or link up as needed to maximize mobility and shooting, while minimizing blast template damage.

I'm not sure that you understand what "minimizing blast template damage" means.

Here's a picture of DakkaDakka's very own Ailaros minimizing blast template damage (though the formation is imperfect, there are a few spots that might yield 2-3 hits):



Your current formation guarantees 3-4 hits for any small blast that hits your Marines. Proper spacing can reduce that to 1.