Because so many of us are finding our preferred playstyles/unit selections do not function in the same way they used to I thought it might be fun to dedicate some time to thinking about how to build an army with competition in mind in 5th edition.
This should be different then simply picking units one likes and building a list, hoping to get stuff to work together on the battlefield. Instead, I think it would be better when designing a competitive list to really give thought to the nature of the game and the strategies involved in reaching the goal of a victory. Obviously there are many variables in a game of 40K, but with a good design approach, it should be possible to make a bunch of those variables irrelevent. This should make it much easier to predict what your army will need to do from turn to turn.
First consideration: Kill-Points vs Scoring UnitsI think the most obvious initial decision would have to be the KP/Scoring Units dichotomy. KP will probably have to be the bigger consideration for most players, even though it represents only 1/3 of the mission objectives available. This is because in objective-based missions, while only Troops can score, anything can contest. In the event of a tie based on objectives [easy enough to do if you can contest all of them], the game defaults to VP total accumulated to determine the victor. So you should be able to play those missions exactly as in 4th, turn the game into a VP match, and win by killing power. While a draw triggers the same effect in KP, your opponent will be eliminating squads to rack up points, and each squad they kill puts them ahead while reducing your ability to retaliate. Therefore, it seems more difficult to force a draw in a KP based mission, especially if you haven't planned for it.
With this in mind it will be necessary to focus on preventing the enemy from gaining KPs when building a list. Each unit, transport, and HQ is worth 1 KP equally. However, in terms of battlefield application:
- Units in dedicated transports function as a 2 KP group
- Units with attached HQ function as a 2 KP group
- Units with 2 attached HQs function as a 3 KP group
- Units with an attached HQ in a transport are also effectively a 3KP group
- Units with 2 HQs attached riding a transport are essentially a 4 KP group!
- The more you attach together, the more VPs these combinations are worth
This means that, if your strategy requires you to use units with attachments or transports, you will need to commit more and more of your resources to protecting these squads. Fortunately these combinations can lead to some pretty powerful combos, but it's worth pointing out that you don't want to use such combinations when figuring your overall strategy if you haven't put the effort into ensuring their survival. For instance, a Farser with Fortune and Yriel joined to a squad of Warlocks in a waveserpent is a fairly resilient combination, though the drawback is if an enemy can focus fire on that battlegroup they could potentially grab 4 KPs as well as a ton of VPs. Attaching a Farseer and Yriel to a unit of Guardian Defenders is only 3 KPs, but is so easily destroyed that it's almost never worth considering.
Next consideration: DurabilityBecause denying the enemy KP/VP will help win in both KP and objective missions, it is essential to ensure the units that are selected won't be destroyed. There are a few considerations to bear in mind here as well. Units do not yield a KP unless destroyed to a model, or fleeing at game end. Additionally, Troops remain scoring unless destroyed to a model in non-KP missions. These two points together give some idea of the sorts of units that will be competitive:
- Units that have high toughness, or are immune to enemy weaponry, take a long time to kill. Such units fielded as Troops require a lot of enemy attention, meaning they will score less VPs in objective-based missions, and have less time to remove scoring units from play.
- Units that are fearless do not flee, which means no worries about fleeing units yielding KPs at game end. More vulnerable units that are not fearless, but can be brought within range of the Avatar, avoid getting gibbed by sweeping advance yet can be forced to regroup even if under half strength.
- Units with more numbers take a long time to bring below half, meaning less opportunities to gain partial VPs. Additionally, units with an even number of models are most efficient at preventing the enemy from gaining VPs.
- Units that can remain effective even if brought in from reserve deny the enemy opportunities to score early on, meaning they will have to apply pressure to many units simultaneously in the later turns of the game [reducing KP acquisition/increasing your ability to hold objectives] or pour what fire they do have on single units over a shorter time frame [still reducing KP acquisition/reducing VP acquisition]. In any scenario, this greatly enhances your ability to create a victory condition.
All of these factors will be important in considering the sort of units that should be selected given the playstyle you prefer to adopt.
Primary Objective: Unit EliminationSimply denying the enemy KPs and VPs will not actually win you a game, but is essential to victory, which is why it is mentioned first. However, in order to win you will have to ensure you can destroy full enemy units, as well as earn more VPs than them. This also means it pays to concentrate your efforts on the hardest enemy units, starting with those that feature the greatest number of combined KPs. For instance, a Grey Knights Terminator Squad with an attached IC mounted in a Land Raider is 3 KPs, and well over 500 VPs. If you can take this all out with a single unit [say, by surrounding the hull with a Warlock Jetbike Squad and assaulting it, forcing the squad inside to get destroyed by lacking any room for disembarkation] this will almost always be a good move to make.
The units you select will therefore need to be capable of putting out a great deal of damage each turn. Anti-tank elements will be best used if they can also be of large enough size to surround a transport carrying enemy units, because otherwise you will need 2 units to get all of the KPs when you could have just fielded one. Each extra unit you need is more VPs committed to a single action AND more KPs committed to a single action. If you destroy 4 KPs with 4 KPs you are not getting ahead. Similarly, if you destroy 200 VPs by risking the loss of 400 VPs, bad luck could put you far behind! When trading VPs, this is even more important; you should always try to avoid losing more VPs in a trade than you are earning. This is why it will be important to think twice about assuming pathfinders or guardians are good due to scoring resilience alone. Both of these units can take a long time to get rid of, but the damage they put out may not be enough to budge enemy units. Additionally, with the ease of gaining cover saves in 5th, your shooting units will need to be more focused on volume of fire; eliminating armored foes in combat is much easier as they cannot use cover to supplement armor saves which you bypass.
While it will often be necessary to use multiple IC choices in an army, consider their usage carefully. With the removal of IC screening in 5th ed any Independent Characters you do field will often have to be attached to a bodyguard unit of some kind. This puts 2 KPs minimum up for grabs through one enemy action. The same goes for mounted units. These will almost always need to be capable of dispatching two enemy units at once, as the transport is made vulnerable by approaching the enemy, and the squad inside is made vulnerable the turn it sets up for an assault in the following round. Should the enemy block a serpent's rear hatch and inflict a "Destroyed - Wrecked" result, your banshee squad is destroyed along with it, as they will be unable to disembark or emergency disembark. Even if you can enact emergency disembarkation, your banshees will be unable to act on your next turn. Obviously in non-KP missions you are still yielding VPs for two squads should your opponent kill the transport.
I have not yet played an objective-securing mission where the game didn't get decided by VPs; it's too easy to contest the objectives that Troops are holding. Therefore, I'd also consider it wise to avoid loading too many VPs into a single transport wherever possible. Unfortunately Eldar do not have vehicles with multiple exit points, making it possible to eliminate mounted squads with their transport. While "Destroyed - Wrecked" results are only 1 of 6 options on the table, immobilized and weapon destroyed results could stack up to this result rather quickly - a vehicle has a greater likelyhood of receiving the "Destroyed - Wrecked" result than the "Destroyed - Explodes" result.
Considering Deployment FormatsThe different deployment modes interact with the mission objectives to create 9 gaming scenarios. Fortunately, the first set of considerations remain unaffected; you will still generally prefer to build an army list to be KP viable rather than including a greater number of less resilient units. This also means in all scenarios it would be wiser to include fewer troops if it means the army as a whole remains more resilient. Additionally, it will often remain beneficial to keep certain units in reserve regardless of the deployment format, because it will deny enemies the opportunity to gain VPs and KPs. More than ever the Eldar army is a late-game army. You do not want to engage earlier than you have to, and once you do engage you want to guarantee you eliminate your targets as swiftly as possible. The only units that should ever deploy on the table are units which your enemy has virtually no chance to kill. However, since the enemy will likely be considering many of these same thoughts, it is unlikely they will be unable to handle at least one or two of your highly-durable units, and with less targets available it becomes easier to allocate more force to each target. And if you deploy first in a very strong position, your opponent could always throw his whole force into reserves, denying you the opportunity to bring your force to bear. This is why generally it will be better to make use of putting units into reserve when possible.
If you
do have a grand strategy which is better served by deploying units on the table, you will need to take second deploy/second turn where the choice is available. This ensures the location of every enemy unit is known [deployed on table, arriving first turn, deploying from reserve via board edge, deepstrike or outflank], with the exception of Infiltrators. Similarly, this makes Infiltration an important ability to have when implementing a strategy that requires early deployment, because even if you get first deploy, your infiltrators can be positioned after the bulk of the enemy has deployed.
Strategies that require you to have first deploy/first turn should rarely be considered in a competitive environment. You will only get first turn 50% of the time, 33% of your first turns will involve the Night Fight rules, and 15% of your first turns may be stolen by the enemy. If you do get first deploy, you will want as little board presence as possible before Infiltrators are placed.
All of these factors combine to suggest that you will ultimately fare better in deployment where you can avoid deploying for as long as possible, keeping your forces in check until you can determine the exact location of the enemy and inflict the most damage possible with the least amount of retaliation. If you have built an army that relies on nailing the enemy with shooting or assault from turn 1, or if you implement a strategy that requires you to have first turn [starting skimmers on the table, to get extra close to the enemy] you can expect the scenarios themselves to undo your strategy more often than not.
The types of units that will excel in this sort of deployment environment will be units capable of at least 12" of movement or more, units with assault weapons that can be fired while moving in from reserves, units with weapons of greater range that can reach the enemy from your own board edge if needed, and mechanized assault teams mounted in Wave Serpents or Falcons equipped with star engines. However, even a stationary gunline will benefit from deploying second, as the stationary weapons will need good firing lanes while the shorter ranged shooting can be placed with greater effect, and even if the enemy throws their whole force in reserve, short-ranged shooting may benefit from an additional turn to advance without fear of retaliation. Ultimately though, the greater mobility the army has, the better it will be able to implement an overall strategy.
Jump to part 2