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.

  www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.php

  This tactica was a revelation to me.  I've been a real disciple of Maule for the last few months, but this opened my mind to new ways of playing and winning.  The Elemental classification of armies is a terrific metaphor, and has the potential to revolutionize the way we discuss the game, I think. 

  Incidently, it's made me rethink Grey Knights, as well as the mighty Land Raider. 

  So, I guess Ultramauleens would be Earth, with a dash of Water. 

  I urge all advanced players to check this out; you won't be disappointed. 

that's very interesting. For those who haven't read it, the author talks about building a reactive army; one that has no compelling battle plan but is built solely to react to the plans of the opponent. He then uses his Grey Knight list as an example of this sort of army.

To an extent, the thesis is a well done expansion of the theory "shoot the fighty things, and fight the shooty things." His army clearly relies on VP denial, maneuver, and staying out of LOS.

Two comments, posted here because i don't want to start a B&C account just to critique the guy:

1) His comments work great in an Environemnt with plenty of size 3 terrain, or other large LOS blocking terrain.

2) His army seems geared for 1k and 1.5k, where 2 or 3 landraiders can be difficult to manage.

the tactics are pretty well fleshed out, and I don't doubt that he can win a lot of games with his army, if there is enough terrain. As anybody whose been to a few tournaments or GTs can attest, counting on LOS blocking to terrain can be deadly.

His take is interesting, but hardly groundbreaking. It sounds great on paper, but unfortunately, GWs game system is poorly balanced (since technically, all four elemental archetypes exist in real military situations, and as such, properly applied, should be able to pull out a win.)

Issue 1. The game is very terrain dependent.

Based on an alternating terrain placement, this could mean up to 50% of the terrain can be immediately marginalized by being placed on the flanks. In addition, even with pre-set terrain pieces, the game system still favours the elemental archetypes in this order:

Earth (best)
Fire - Charge!
Water - Success heavily dependent on places to hide
Wind - Success totally dependent on places to hide

Issue 2. Wind armies are greatly disadvantaged.

The trouble with Air based mobility armies, is once you've paid for all that speed, your standard Earth based opponent is going to outnumber you between 2:1 and 3:1. Your water and fire based opponents may also outnumber you 2:1 and 1.5:1 (and aren't much slower than you either). Combined with terrain placements, Wind based armies are at a tremendous disadvantage. (It doesn't help that objective holding missions specifically hurt this archetype due to large base size and low model count.)

Issue 3. True Water armies don't actually exist in 40k.

The truest water army would be a guerilla army. 40k Water-archetypes go heavy on Earth, Wind or Fire with some other flavoured backup. His grey knight army would be 80% Wind, 20% Earth.

Issue 4. True Fire armies don't exist in 40k either

All fire armies are part Wind since foot slogging fire armies get eaten for breakfast by Earth armies. All infiltrating falls under this category as well.

All in all, it is the fault of the game designers to so heavily skew the game in this one direction.

I really liked the tactica, it made me want to play my GK's again. I learned a few things and I will pay attention to a couple of bad habit's that I have. Thanks for posting the link.

Darrian

My opinion: meh.

He's too specific in places and not specific enough in others. Not to mention the blatant cribbing of the "Book of 5 Rings". Some of the basic theory is sound, but as Keezus points out, it doesn't hold water in all circumstances, especially when it comes down to specifics.

That's the difficulty in writing tactica...everyone tries to get ultraspecific.

Now, if you want too really develop as a tactical thinker...study from the best: Sun Tzu. And his modern incarnation, John Boyd. You can pick up the Art of War in any bookstore. John Boyd's a bit more difficult, as he never published anything outside of military publications, but you can google his brief, "Patterns of Conflict".

Playing a very much rock-paper-scissors army (2 Land Raiders in 1000 points). Not the best army to illustrate the point with, and uses tactics that would get people dinged in all the soft scores. (Psycannons ignoring cover, Unassaultable formation, bigger base and measuring from the edge of the ramp that's down to get a farther charge range out of a raider, etc).

That makes it a not very good tactica.

Posted By keezus on 02/26/2007 1:34 PM
Issue 4. True Fire armies don't exist in 40k either

All fire armies are part Wind since foot slogging fire armies get eaten for breakfast by Earth armies. All infiltrating falls under this category as well.

  Of course, few armies are purely of any of the elementals.  What I took away from it, aside from a useful metaphor for discussing army archetypes, is an appreciation for general-purpose units.  Every unit in this guy's army is general-purpose, and he explains how to make it work.  Nearly every unit in my army is specialized (terminator's aside) so I don't have to do much thinking when the battle is joined.  This guy has to stay on his toes the whole time. 

  Yes, I agree that a few of his specific ideas don't seem very sportsmanlike, but they were mere details, in my opinion. 

Well, arguing that RAW says Psycannons ignore cover on a message board or something I don't have any issues with. Playing it that way on the table, however is pretty bad. Then again, I'd have no problem with them ignoring the I save from turboboosting, while I'm sure some people would find that iffy.

Over all, it was an informative article.

The "beatdown vs. control" parts were the most innovative and valuable to me. I've never been a card flopper, but I can see how every loss that I've had with my current Eldar army are due to a misreading of my role in these terms.

I think it's due largely to a huge shift from a very control-oriented army that I used to play (similar to Ragnar's army) to a much more beatdown-oriented Eldar army with the new codex. I've been consistently struggling against other Eldar armies because of an inability to negotiate the changeover.

I disagree, I find that magic theory does not translate well to 40k. Especially when you start factoring in dice roles. (actually I find it amusing that hes using magic as a reference when magic players view 'reactive' decks as weak, and proactive strategies, like his fire, are considered strong)

First, a few of his terms are inaccurate. In magic, a win condition is anything that can win the game. (e.g. a creature) Beatdown decks tend to carry a large number of win conditions, while control decks tend to carry fewer, more decisive win conditions. But for whatever reason he is calling an armies game plan its 'win condition'. His definition of Beatdown vs. Control is correct, but it doesn't translate to 40k well.

It is very difficult to prevent a good army from carrying out its gameplan. Its like saying "If I can prevent his (horde of) Genestealers from assaulting me then I can win." (hint: you can't) The strongest counter to your opponent's gameplan is and always has been to carry out your own gameplan better. Additionally, playing a 'controlling' style offers no advantage in 40k. In magic, control is popular for two reasons; first, control decks abandon tempo in the early game to developing their mana base and gain card advantage. (a very powerful advantage to have in magic, and helps insure their prowess later in the game) In 40k there is no development, you have access to every asset already. Warhammer gives you no returns for being slow, you get no additional troops, and forfeiting of tempo basically hands your opponent the game. In fact, tempo is all powerful in 40k, since an aggressive player can sieze both position and a quick (and often decisive) unit advantage. (think diminishing returns) The second reason to play a control deck is the mana curve, beatdown decks tend to have cheaper cards to ensure consistency and tempo advantage, control curves tend to be much higher - but they need to get the the late game to be able to use them. Since more expensive spells are more powerful, a control deck can stall for the long game knowing its more expensive, more powerful spells can win the day. Once again, as there is no mana curve, you can't play a list designed to dominate later in the game. (we're all on a linear number line of 1750 pts.)

The chess comparisons are better, but also flawed. 40k and chess both use a set number of points/pieces on a limited board with clear methods of winning. And while chess does have a near infinite number of permutations, almost all of them can be eliminated from the possible list of moves. Likewise, in 40k, its certainly possible for your devestators to charge a wraithlord, or shoot their lascannons at gretchin. But its not something you would actually ever do. (barring some extreme case, like preventing it/them from moving onto an objective during the last turn of the game) Additionally, concepts like space, tempo, and material all apply to both games, and there are things that don't apply, like range, definatives(vs dice), and terrain.

Calling them fire/earth/air/water styles is just renaming archtypes that have been around since the beginning of 3rd.

The reality of the situation is that 6 turns is not long enough to enact a slow controlling style of play where slowly taking control of the terrain while maintaining the majority of your force can be made a reality. Tempo is just far more relevant in 40k. To me it looks like most of his sucess comes from the fact that he runs 2 land raiders at 1000, something no take on all comers list can be prepared for. (unless you have access to assault cannons)

Posted By IntoTheRain on 02/26/2007 10:56 PM
The reality of the situation is that 6 turns is not long enough to enact a slow controlling style of play where slowly taking control of the terrain while maintaining the majority of your force can be made a reality. Tempo is just far more relevant in 40k. To me it looks like most of his sucess comes from the fact that he runs 2 land raiders at 1000, something no take on all comers list can be prepared for. (unless you have access to assault cannons)

I completely agree.  His thoughts are well articulated, but are mostly an elaborate justification for taking a gadget army.  i'm guessing if were spotted the three big peices of terrain he needs in the middle of the table, he could win 90% of his games against take on all comers with that list. 

Some of the habits of effective gamers and tips/tricks are useful, I'll give him that much. 

As an aside, Control Decks are very strong in Vintage Magic, where the large amount of mana acceleration enable powerful spells to resolve early.

I think his theory on figuring out "Who's the Beatdown" has some merit.  Consider your shooty list versus your opponents shooty list.  It is wise to figure out  who statistically can out shoot the other.  If your opponent will eventually win the gunfire exchange, then you need to figure out a way to prevent him from getting to that winning scenario (i.e. trading shots).  You become the Control, because instead of forwarding your own game plan (simply shooting up your opponent in this case, which you've reasoned that you will lose) you need to find a way to prevent your opponent from shooting you to pieces.

40k as a system doesn't merit this kind of analysis.  The problem is the uneven weighting of different abilities by GW's rules writers and the expected return on investment (VP wise)

This can be easily shown by a short series of yes-no questions:

Suppose you have two armies:

1.  Do the armies have equal combat strength (firepower or otherwise)?

2.  Is there LOS blocking terrain in the middle of the field?

3.  Who is going first.?

That's about it.  The fact of the matter, mobility doesn't enter into it.  The reason behind this is that, in real life, mobility is a FORCE MULTIPLIER.  In the wacky world of 40k, mobility is a FORCE PRESERVER.

Let me explain what I mean.  In real lfe, mobility alows you to dictate the flow of battle:  Striking where you wish, retreating where you wish, pinning down enemy units etc.

In 3rd edition, you could often do this, due to being able to assault upon disembarking while shooting and engaging multiple units.  So, in that respect, mobility -was- a Force Multiplier, since one unit could handle (or tie up) many, and this offset the extra cost of their vehicle (or speed).  You could rarely obliterate your opponent, since GW designed the game such that mobile elements rarely had the power to cripple their oppnents outside of Death Company, or a comitting to a full mounted aspect warrior charge (usually consisting of 60-75% of your points hitting one part of his line)...

In 4th edition, you can't do any of this anymore, since you can only charge what you shot, can't charge the turn that you disembarked, and obviously can't engage more than one thing a turn when combined with a vehicle.  What this means is that you can CHOOSE where you fight your battle, but the battle is INCONCLUSIVE once you engage - due to the fact that it immediatly turns into a 1 on 1 fight - and all multiplying powers of mobility are lost.

In fact, to use an example, the aspect warrior rush mentioned above, once so effective would bounce off the same part of the line now that they may only disembark and engage one target, unable to tie up shooters to alow the rest of the army to advance unmolested.  This kind of 900 points vs. 300 points and accomplishing little (no tie up, no pin in HTH, no overwhelming firepower victory)  is a clear example of why mobility is a joke in V4 40k.

So what are you left with?  VP Denial.  Force Preserver.  So the modern mobility doctrine is "hide your stuff", "charge block" and "snipe from afar".

On top of this, to add insult to injury, fast moving units usually range from "expensive" to "very expensive"...  this in turn ensures numerical inferiority vs. static armies.  Being fast is great when you are heading for the objective, but not having enough bodies to hold it because your speed bled too many points from your list is not.

Which brings me back to the 4 elements analogy... great in real life - in fact, the great Japanese warrior Takeda Shingen (after Sun Tze) had a famous war banner which read:

Swift as the Wind (Cavalry Advance)
Silent as the Forest (Infantry)
Fierce as the Fire (Cavalry Reserve)
Unyielding as the Moutain (Homebase/Reserves)

However, in the narrow confines of 40k's stilted ruleset, this kind of analysis is way over the top, since you can't realistically apply any of it.  Control the battlefield?  Just add more bodies and guns.  Unfortunately, this uninteresting strategy is simple and strong... and due to built in problems in the ruleset, difficult to match with another doctrine.

Nicely put, Keezus.

IntoTheRain, I think that the equivalent to card advantage is 40K is number of tactical choices, and that number tends to decrease as the battle goes on. A specialized unit loses choices faster than a generalized unit played conservatively. And the naming of the archetypes is a good thing, in my opinion. Someone was asking about a "finesse" army recently on this board. What does that even mean? The elemental names are great, IMO.

You can charge the turn that you disembarked as long as the vehicle hasn't moved yet that turn. You can also move and shoot/fleet in the turn you disembarked as long as the vehicle hasn't moved yet.

You are allowed to engage as many units as you can contact while maintaining coherency.

The mechanized aspect warrior rush is alive and well.

Posted By Flavius Infernus on 02/27/2007 12:47 PM

You can charge the turn that you disembarked as long as the vehicle hasn't moved yet that turn. You can also move and shoot/fleet in the turn you disembarked as long as the vehicle hasn't moved yet.

You are allowed to engage as many units as you can contact while maintaining coherency.

The mechanized aspect warrior rush is alive and well.

I'm well aware of all those points -  maybe I'm being unclear, but I feel you are grasping at straws.  Regardless, the question remains whether or not the above capability can be considered "speed".

Maybe I'm being assinine, but the way I see it is:

Moving 24" is fast. 

Not disembarking because you can't assault and alowing one full turn for your opponent to respond to the assault threat is not fast, as it alows your opponent to react and potentially wreck your positioning and/or kill your attackers.

Disembarking with firedragons, shooting a squad, and then assaulting two nearby squads to tie them up in assault (V3) is an example of a vehicle making a unit a force multiplier, as it alows you to position a unit to fulfill a number of tasks.

Disembarking with firedragons and shooting a squad (V4) makes the transport a force preserver, as you are paying the points to deliver the unit, and then it turns into a 1 on 1 fight.  (Staying embarked and doing the shoot and charge suffers from the same problem as above)

Many may argue that this is still possible with shooting embarked troops, but even the most potent shooters do not have the firepower to wipe out an equal points value worth of troops in one volley... especially with cover reducing lethality by 50%.

Whether or not the Aspect Warrior rush is alive and well is a matter of debate.  There's no doubt that it is alive in some form, but mobility acting as a force multiplier is gone.

keezus there was another post I believe you made where I completely disagreed with you....

BUT

Here you are DEAD on.  Thus far everything I have read of what you are saying here is exactly how I feel about 4th edition.  And I am happy you wrote it because I could not have put it as detailed.

Posted By keezus on 02/27/2007 10:45 AM

In fact, to use an example, the aspect warrior rush mentioned above, once so effective would bounce off the same part of the line now that they may only disembark and engage one target, unable to tie up shooters to alow the rest of the army to advance unmolested.  This kind of 900 points vs. 300 points and accomplishing little (no tie up, no pin in HTH, no overwhelming firepower victory)  is a clear example of why mobility is a joke in V4 40k.

None of what you say there is down to mobility, it is down to what you may or may not shoot/assault, your 'force multiplier' was not so much the mobility, it was the way shoot/assault worked and allowed one unit to kill/lock multiple targets. mobility got you there quicker/safer than wallking, it still will, In that respect the mobility multiplier is still there.

The ability in V3 of transports to trundle up the middle, the passengers get out, then spend time shooting, then sprint into assault, whilst elite super human troops stood there gormless was IMO stupid, turn based games of course are full of such issues, but that one was bad. Machine guns once radically changed the way battles were fought or killed those who disagreed, the latest reaction implants that allow genetically enhanced troops an attempt to react to a simple frontal assault have changed 40k battles, or defeats those who disagree.

You are not clear on whether the 900 or 300 were the mobile force. I'll asssume the 900 given that the main point of mobility within battle is to bring overwhelming force to a weak point, depositing 300pts in front of 900 pts would not appear an example in using mobility to any advantage.

if your 900pts of aspects cant wipe out 300pts of something then you have a problem, probably sending the wrong aspects to do a job better suited to something else. ~450pts of serpents and ~450 pts of fire dragons can wipe out some 13 termies per round of fire on average (over 500pts) or 19 meqs (over 300pts with gear) or 4 fexs (over 400).  The maths for scorps and banshees works out pretty similar against stuff you'd expect to use them against, both will readily munch through over 300pts of stuff for next to no loss, but if you insist on charging a 90 wound scarab swarm with banshees, or heavy fexs with scorps then be prepared for disappointment.

Take those banshees for a moment, they can kill about 18-20 meqs depending on just how many you got (and what weapons you put on the serpents, ive assumed star cannon).  Thats 3  6 man las/plas squads and some change. Thats 345 pts at least. They have 3 lascannons, which are their only means of taking out the serpents 3 lascannons have only a 15% chance of taking out a single wave serpent and preventing the assault of that serpents passengers [edit: of course it isn't I totally forgot the plasma, doh - which increases chance of a downed serpent to around 30%], if that is all that is threatening the banshees then they are probably safer remaining inside, then next turn they can disembark, move, fleet/shoot and assault, obliterating 345 pts for no loss. Or if the situation has changed they can move off. Because you don't need to get out on that first turn you could in fact do a full 24" move to get into that position. Given the subsequent move/fleet/assault range you may not even have to leave the serpents exposed at all. Fire dragons of course just roll up, get out and waste the meqs in one round, the issue of staying in for a turn doesn't even need to come up (they don't get to consolidate afterwards though).

As with so many things 'Force multipliers' aren't an auto win, they usually give you the potential to enhance your chances of victory, if you miss the chance to annihilate a vulnerable flank then that was your goof, if your opponent ensured you never got the opportunity then he was just a better player.  Some lists will counter it easier than others, some boards will make it difficult. As events of the last 15 odd years show though, even the heavily 'force multiplied' armies can get bogged down and be defeated.

Nice analysis, puree.

Or, I might even say, you are DEAD on.

I on the other hand agree with Keezus. In many ways 3rd edition was much better than the 4th edition. All GW needed to do to fix vehicles was to add the entangled rule and the other changes to the vehicle damage chart, and change hull down, but instead of doing that they removed true mobility from the game altogether. Now when nobody buys Rhinos they are dropping their points so you get a Rhino for every 2 Marines, and nobody will still buy them.

But it's nice to see people with some sense of tactical analysis trying to apply real world rules of engagement to a game as simple and imbalanced as 40K. If the same article was intended for FB players I might actually get interested, because atleast in that game mobility is still king and guerilla armies do tend to win just as consistently as 'earth' and 'fire' armies.

mm, After realising my addled mind missed the plasma in the above post I got to pondering the maths again, as it didn't quite fit in with my experience.

After some whirling of cogs I realise of course I only use 1 banshee/serpent squad (I have a second group still waiting for some paint).  I have no hesitation doing with that 1 unit what I was just discussing, just on a smaller scale obviously. Although the relative points are the same the chance of success is much higher as a single marine squad has a much lower chance of downing a serpent in its turn as there isn't so much incoming fire power. In such cases staying in the serpent is usually pretty safe.

Posted By Therion- on 02/27/2007 5:03 PM
I on the other hand agree with Keezus. In many ways 3rd edition was much better than the 4th edition. All GW needed to do to fix vehicles was to add the entangled rule and the other changes to the vehicle damage chart, and change hull down, but instead of doing that they removed true mobility from the game altogether. Now when nobody buys Rhinos they are dropping their points so you get a Rhino for every 2 Marines, and nobody will still buy them.

I'm not sure thats all they needed to do. It was the turn based nature of the game that really exagerated the effect of being able to move, disembark, shoot, assault in one turn that was the issue. non of what you say would have changed that. What they did end up doing works (it may not be the best method though) as it interjects an oppurtunity for the other guy to actually have a chance to shoot you. The rhino rush was generally a simple frontal assault with a good chance of success due to the amount you could do before the other guy got to have a turn.

But it's nice to see people with some sense of tactical analysis trying to apply real world rules of engagement to a game as simple and imbalanced as 40K. If the same article was intended for FB players I might actually get interested, because atleast in that game mobility is still king and guerilla armies do tend to win just as consistently as 'earth' and 'fire' armies.

I don't expect to apply real world tactics to 40k in any true sense of the word, I do however desire a fairly simple game that can play fairly quick and has a general 'feel' of some generalised real world tactics. Does it succeed, not entirely, but I feel it is closer for stopping the rhino rush, mobility is now about gaining positional advantage, harassing flanks etc, leave the full on rush in the face of heavy firepower to stuff that can actually survive it rather than simply avoid it due to turn based mechanics.

As to the rhino, I'm glad that is becoming rarer - it looks to much like an m113, has stats, weapons etc which give the same impression, and therefore belongs in the same place  - anywhere where other than in front of a line of nasty weapons pointed its way. DevilFish, serpents, even Chimera look and are armed much more like IFVs and so sort of feel more right on battle field. OK this is 40k, and the rhino might be supposed to be more than a taxi, but it just never 'felt' right from my late 20th century perspective seeing so many 'taxis' charging the enemy. Its the sort of vehice that looks like it belongs just off the board having brought the troops there.

Rhino Rush was stupid only because you could keep destroying the boltgun over and over again and nothing ever happened, and after you dedicated a completely disproportionate amount of firepower to the vehicle it would explode and the troops would charge you anyway! In addition to that, armies with masses of transports were absolutely unstoppable in missions that didn't include VP's and were purely objective based, because you could never kill so many Trukks, Buggies and Ork units in time.

New vehicle damage chart and new hull down rules and the new rule of dedicated transports fixed all of the problems I've stated and I would much rather play 40K that way than in its current incarnation. The game would have more variety, more mobility and more tactical challenges to overcome. You can keep dressing a bad edition with pretty words but it doesn't change what it is: A mistake which GW already regrets doing.

If you want to harass flanks and control areas of the table with guerilla units, play FB. If you want a fun sci-fi wargame play 40K third edition with a few house rules. I'm of course replying from a tournament player's perspective. You can naturally look at your little GI's and imagine you're doing a hugely tactical maneouvre by re-deploying a unit 24" to the left in an attempt to harass a flank, but the truth is there's need for none of that. What you need is cheese, and all you gotta do is ram it home.

No transports are a force multiplier, we just don't play on large enough tables for this to be a relevant factor. Imagine playing on a 10x10 table, even devestators would want rhinos to get them to tactically useful positions.

Pariah, you have to expound on that a lot, because I have no idea what your saying. Exactly how does a 10 man tactical squad (with trimmings) become better than a 5 man terminator squad (with trimm..assault cannons) over the course of the game? Besides which, there are all kinds of tactical choices in magic. How many creatures can you play without overextending? Is it worth overextending if I can win 3 turns faster? Is he baiting out my counterspell? Is he waiting for me to tap out and drop a win condition so he can burn me out? Etc.

The fundamental problem is that he's comparing apples and oranges.

On the issue of whether mobility is a force multiplier or a force preserver, I'd have to say that it's a force multiplier (and that force preservation is a subset of force multiplication).

When you list the things that 3rd edition allowed and 4th edition does not, most of those things are not examples of force multiplication, they are gimmicks (firing at one unit and charging another does nothing to multiply your force).

To me, force multiplication means that having something that enables your unit (say a squad of tactical marines) to do things that they would not normally do (e.g. a rhino allows you to ignore bolter shots and move 12" per turn) for fewer points than it would cost to get enough of that unit or other units to have the same effect. For instance, the ability to isolate a section of an enemy army and defeat it in detail is a force multiplier, whether accomplished through high speed and use of terrain (eldar and DE skimmers), or unique aspects of a particular vehicle (drop pods).

For a transport to be a force multiplier, it has to give the unit improved capabilities. When considering the lowly rhino (which I still take when I play my SM), that means that I can move further (effectively doubling my movement) and am able to ignore some (S4 and lower) weapons that I would not normally be able to ignore. As prolific as heavy weapons are in 40k, rhinos are not survivable enough to guarantee that you will get the force multiplication return on the investment for them. That just means that they are poor force multipliers.

As far as the tactica goes, I was quite impressed with his reasoning and thought process. I was much less impressed with his win record when he said that he was playing with two LR at 1,000 points. It also makes me wonder why someone didn't show up with two or more railguns in a tau force or force him to play by escalation rules, and destroy the 12 GK before the LR arrived from reserves.

"It also makes me wonder why someone didn't show up with two or more railguns in a tau force or force him to play by escalation rules, and destroy the 12 GK before the LR arrived from reserves. "

VERY UNCOOL!!!

Posted By Tiderian on 02/27/2007 8:08 PM

When you list the things that 3rd edition allowed and 4th edition does not, most of those things are not examples of force multiplication, they are gimmicks (firing at one unit and charging another does nothing to multiply your force).

How do you figure?

Take your standard Termie squad (6 models, 2xAC). Were it able to fire at one squad and then assault a second, the Termies would be able to destroy, or at least reduce to <50%, two enemy squads per turn instead of one. I think that's an excellent example of force multiplication.

The same applies to a Marine assault squad, or even a basic marine squad under the right circumstances.

These are not gimmicks, they are the standard units in a Marnie force. Nor is this tactic a gimmick. Where it still legal, it would be commonplace.

The way I see it, depending on whether I kick you in the shins, or whether I kick you in the nards, there will be a different result, even if I put the same amount of force in the kick.

This is what moblity does for you.  It alows you to place your force where it can achieve maximum effect.  In the transition between 3rd and 4th edition, the analogy is:  You've hit them in a sensitive spot (disembark and shoot) and then you follow up and press your advantage (by pinning down key units in assault - and saving their own skins from enemy shooting!).

I don't see how this is gimmicky, since it is common sense in real life... if your opponent is injured and still dangerous - press your advantage.  Unfortunately, this type of tactic doesn't work anymore, as all the follow-up has now been neatly removed by the new rules -your newly dismounted shooters can no longer assault in the same phase - Nor can they assault a unit they didn't shoot!  (Big difference here).

The best you can hope for is to move up a unit of shooters, and a unit of jump-packers / bikers to tie up in assault.  This is tactically counter-intuitive, since that 350 point unit of mounted Firedragons used to be able to maul a las-plas team and then tie up another las-plas team in melee on the same turn, thus justifying their very high cost.  In 4th edition, you'd need to bring some warp spiders to do the assaulting for them, necessitating 500+ points to do the same job... 

Without that bail out team, you just threw away ~200 points of firedragons to kill a las-plas squad and are now stuck with their non-scoring taxi.

Mounted assaulters are worse, because while you may be targetting your opponent's metaphorical crotch, you are telegraphing that move to him/her alowing them to respond, thus lessening the impact.

Puree:  You're right about the 3:1 superiority numbers thing, however, we'll have to disagree about the roles of transports.  The thing is, a trooper can advance, shoot and assault in the same turn... as such, there doesn't seem to be any reason why they can't do that if they advance "out of a vehicle", since in theory, you are paying for that ability.  Why do I say that? In 4th Ed:

1.  Transports don't score.
2.  Guys with rapidfire guns can't asault after shooting
3.  Guys are entangled when their ride blows up.
4.  Multiple weapon destroyed / immobilized goes to "blow up".
5.  Can't assault guys you didn't shoot

So, that leaves us with guys armed with assault weapons and pistols who may "shoot and assault", and only assault the guys they shoot.  Is it so overpowered to alow this subset of units to assault after disembarking, since you can only kill that ONE unit really, really dead?

Keezus, I'm not sure what the point of your argument is.

-I agree that 3rd edition assaulting troops used to be different and (arguably) more effective at certain tasks.
-If you want to characterize this as a change from "force multiplier" to "force preserver" then that's fine too.
-I don't think it's accurate to say that mobility is not a force multiplier *at all* anymore, although I agree, as I said above, that it changed.
-I accept that it is your opinion that things were better back then (if this is what you're saying) and I accept your opinion that some things could be changed back without imbalancing the game.
-If you are arguing that transport assualts are no longer at all feasible in 40K, then I disagree with you based on my gameplay experience.

Here are the things I'm confused about:
-I don't see how this relates to a discussion of the B&C tactics article.
-I don't see how talking about how the rules used to be or ought to be helps me become a better player of the rules that actually are.

Flavius:  IMO His "four elements" analogy is inherently flawed.  His Grey Knight army is not reactionary.  Rather, it is based on VP denial.  While this is a valid strategy... this is not reactionary.  It is proactively preventing losses while trying to win via attrition.  As such, the water style army doesn't exist in 40k as it is an amalgam of the other styles. 

(The previous posts were mostly an arguement on how wind style lists are penalized by GWs ridiculous overprice on mobile units and the lack of ways to make up this points deficit.)

There is no true "reactionary" strategy.  If you set yourself up to be a counterpunching force, you've set up yourself to loose, because you've given your opponent the opening punch.  If your opponent is strong, he'll knock you out with that one punch.  If he's not strong enough to cripple you in the opening salvo... he won't punch at all...  leading to a stalemate... If YOU throw the first punch... your opponent will be ready (since you ceeded initiative to him) and his COUNTERPUNCH will be deadly!

Consider this scenario:

Iron Warriors vs. TFA's Grey Knight Super Turtlers of doom! in a "hold the middle board objective" mission ~1000 pts.

So he's obviously not going to drive his landraiders around where their lascannons can get a bead on him... (las plas and oblits)... but if he hangs back, to do a last turn rush, the IW (although slow) will walk onto the objective and hold it with their superior numbers.  (Probably outnumber the GK 2:1)

So should he go forward and take the chances vs. a hail of lascannons or should he hang back and let the enemy take the superior position?  Making a list that is designed around giving up the initative is a good strategy for loosing IMO.

As for taking a balanced army with fast and slow elements, assault and shooty elements... this too is a surefire way to get your ass kicked, since your army is not effective at anything, and the different speeds in your list have effectively divided your own army!!!  Historically, generals like Napoleon and Ceasar have used the divide and conqueor tactic to great effect... here you are doing the dividing for your opponent!

As for the control deck (magic) analogy... this too is flawed, because 40k isn't detailed enough for you to put a lock on your opponent.  40k is more akin to a fancy game of rock / paper / scissors combined with brute force (i.e. if the rock is bigger than the paper, then the paper might not be able to cover it)...  The two keys to being successful lies in list building based on expected opponents, and rolling well on the first turn die. 

He's got an interesting take on the whole 40k metagame, but I think he's wrong.