News: No news is good news...

Login  |  Register

Author Topic: Building Competitive Armies in 5th Edition - Finished; Seeking Sample Lists  (Read 13712 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Gutstikk

  • Infinity Circuit | Title here to be dreaded 'til further notice. Rummy's Deepstriking Pylon
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7829
  • Country: 00
  • I am a Wolf.
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 Units
I 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: Durability
Because 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 Elimination
Simply 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 Formats
The 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
« Last Edit: August 28, 2008, 02:21:03 PM by Gutstikk »

Offline TehTmn8r

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 112
Re: How To Approach Building Competitive Armies in 5th edition - thoughts?
« Reply #1 on: August 25, 2008, 01:12:29 AM »
I totally agree with you on all those points. I would focus on the point you made about combat, because of the improved cover saves, combat is now the best way to win a battle (as in 4th, just a bit trickier). In addition to this our primary assault squads have all been boosted in effectiveness, (except harlies)eg.
Banshees now have counterattack (as if anyone would charge them anyway you could argue)
Scorps now flank and can run
Shining spears can now get an invulnerable save by turbo boosting
In my opinion, you need at least 2 combat squads to win convincingly in 1500pts, and probably even 3 in 2000pts. Diversity is the key, but I do see scorpions with a powerclaw the most effective in the new rules.
Even though transports can be very useful, the extra kill point is sometimes a clincher for the battle, lucky we have a fairly hardy transport compared to the 50pt rhino or raider.
It will come down to diversity to be an effective tourny army, if you take 30 dire avengers and the enemy has EML's or equivalent AP4 weapons you could be absolutely stuffed. (My 1500 pt army has 5 EML's)
I suggest in composition that we split our armies into solid areas of expertise, anti tank, anti infantry, anti heavy infantry, tough and fast. Have all of those areas covered in a balanced way and you can win against most players.
I believe that Wraithguard fit into the most categories and are also a troop choice, making them almost a must in a competitive army
I also see a farseer as gold in every eldar army. Use their enhance abilities to toughen up the key units, eg against guard/nids fortune the scorpions and doom the genestealers, guide the dire avengers.
Jetbikes/Vypers are great too, the ability to move 24" will mean they can contest any objective in 2 moves, and most of them in one move. Jetbikes can also score a point too.
I hope you can get something out of my ramblings, work hard and crush the monkeigh!!!


Offline xendofanerax

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 165
  • Country: 00
  • I told u to get those cookies out of your pocket!!
Re: How To Approach Building Competitive Armies in 5th edition - thoughts?
« Reply #2 on: August 25, 2008, 05:03:18 AM »
Shining spears can now get an invulnerable save by turbo boosting

COVER SAVE not INV SAVE. Note the transition of 4th to 5th edition.

Offline TehTmn8r

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 112
Re: How To Approach Building Competitive Armies in 5th edition - thoughts?
« Reply #3 on: August 25, 2008, 05:14:31 AM »
sorry, i stand corrected. It still rocks tho.

Offline Fenris

  • Aspect Warrior
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2169
  • Country: se
  • Armies: Eldar, Dark Eldar, Aeldari
Re: How To Approach Building Competitive Armies in 5th edition - thoughts?
« Reply #4 on: August 25, 2008, 05:31:25 AM »
Models can still disembark if the hatches are blocked in 5th, you have to surround the whole transport to destroy a unit embarked.
Ego in propria persona, non compos mentis.

Offline Lazarus

  • Infinity Circuit - The Voice of Reason
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10258
  • Country: us
  • Armies: Space Wolves & Imperial Guard
Re: How To Approach Building Competitive Armies in 5th edition - thoughts?
« Reply #5 on: August 25, 2008, 05:32:24 AM »
Excellent write up!


Close combat durability is a key factor for me when building a competitive list. I've got to have something capable of stopping / killing the opponent's hard core CC unit (Nob bikers, bloodcrushers, deathcompany, Templar assault termies etc.) and I will build my list around that capability.

With cover saves being improved and handed out like candy CC is the most reliable way of inflicting serious casualties on these type units - especially with the new CC resolution system.


Lazarus.
"If someone used the ridiculous cover saves rule on me I'd probably punch him in the face. If he's still standing he would be entitled to punch me in the face, take my army, and my woman if he can. This is known as the Conan rule of play, and is not forbidden in the core rules and encourages serious amounts of sportsmanship." - Carniflex

Offline Gutstikk

  • Infinity Circuit | Title here to be dreaded 'til further notice. Rummy's Deepstriking Pylon
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7829
  • Country: 00
  • I am a Wolf.
Re: How To Approach Building Competitive Armies in 5th edition - thoughts?
« Reply #6 on: August 25, 2008, 09:07:59 AM »
If any of you has more to add feel free; I'll definitely try to work it in! The idea I'm running with is, obviously, starting with the conditions one will need to account for in building an overall strategy and working down towards the selection of units. I have no idea how long it's gonna continue for, but feel free to comment as I go. I'm working on this other stuff in the above post for a bit longer, and then I'll start a new post when I get to somewhere that I think needs a break in between. I'd love to see comments in real time on this, which is why I started it outside the project forum.

You can also send PMs if you're shy about commenting where everyone can see it. I already had to make the correction about completely surrounding the enemy vehicle, and reword the idea of trading VPs/units.

Offline Sanctjud

  • No one cares about Sanctjud's post count | Infinity Circuit
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7282
  • Country: 00
  • Absolute Chaos and SOLAR PUPPY
Re: How To Approach Building Competitive Armies in 5th edition - thoughts?
« Reply #7 on: August 25, 2008, 09:12:11 AM »
The only time they can still live is when you roll a 6 as the final damage, in which the vehicle explodes and the squad is placed INSIDE the wreck/crater.... but prob. still follows the 1" rule.

__________

Anyway, Nice read.... IMO it should be mandatory reading for everyone.... not just Eldar.

My 7 Cents.
If you meet a bear named Sanctjud in the tavern, don't get into his van for candy.  I did once....it's sticky, salty, and really not very nice. :(
Raptor Jesus will get you Tangi... oh he will.

Offline Gutstikk

  • Infinity Circuit | Title here to be dreaded 'til further notice. Rummy's Deepstriking Pylon
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7829
  • Country: 00
  • I am a Wolf.
Re: How To Approach Building Competitive Armies in 5th edition - thoughts?
« Reply #8 on: August 25, 2008, 10:54:00 AM »
A Brief Recap of Scenarios and Deployment Considerations
Given the considerations above, the following ideas should be kept in mind when it comes time to build a competitive army list in 5th edition:
- It is better to build a list that can compete in KP missions than in Objective Control
- Objective Control missions can be turned into a draw decided by VPs if needed
- It is wise to put as few KPs at risk to a single enemy action as possible
- It will be necessary to limit the number of VPs the enemy can obtain
- It is wise to eliminate enemy units with the highest VP value as early as possible
- It will be necessary to eliminate enemy units as quickly as possible, even if it means fewer units are eliminated
- Units that can eliminate multiple enemy threats in one action are superior to those that cannot
- Units with greater mobility are better able to take advantage of any deployment style
- Units should be capable of retaining effectiveness even if placed in reserve

Turn-based Unit Considerations
Now that we've considered what happens before the first turn, it is necessary to examine what will be required of the units selected on each turn throughout the game. Units will be required to do many things, and as a general, the player will need to determine which of these things is the most advantageous at each moment of the battle. This is easiest to determine when a single unit has a single purpose; however, it is also easier for your opponent to determine this when your units have single purposes, and can become easier for that opponent to predict your actions. This means either you consider building units with a single purpose and have to give the enemy a good selection of bad choices [meaning you force him to play into your hand], or you build units as generalists so that the enemy is threatened no matter which fights he decides to pick. The first option actually isn't as bad as it seems if you can determine the match-ups; when you pick who fights who where you will always be doing it with the right unit. This actually dovetails nicely with the deployment considerations already given. So let's consider generalist units first.

Generalist Unit Construction
Generalist units are attractive because no matter what situation they find themselves in they will always be useful to some degree. The downside is that they will never be able to make the most of their abilities in any given situation because there will always be models in that unit that function poorly or not at all. An example of this is one of my favorite units, a storm guardian squad with a few melta guns, a warlock with enhance and a singing spear. This unit can hunt vehicles to a certain degree or fight in close combat. However, the warlock's combat effectiveness is reduced because he is carrying a two-handed weapon, and the storm guardians have their combat effectiveness reduced because they are carrying two melta guns, reducing their overall combat prowess by two attacks. If they are constantly in an assault they will never be able to shoot, and if I use them to hunt tanks I've paid for 8 models that really aren't capable of contributing. Furthermore, if I do shoot at a tank, I generally won't be able to charge anything but that tank - meaning the points I spent for enhance, and for the storm guardians in general, are going to waste. Yet if I choose to assault an infantry unit with them I probably can't shoot at tanks.

The problem with generalist units is that an army must apply a certain amount of force to an enemy to defeat the enemy. Because 40K is a game environment using sequential rolling, even models with high statistics tend to fail to perform when you most need them to. A model that hits in combat on threes, wounds on fours and denies saves will still need to make 3 attacks to statistically kill 1 model. If a single kill is required to win a combat, it is almost certainly better to be capable of reliably dealing 2 kills where possible. This means that even when you roll poorly you achieve the desired result and eliminate the enemy.

If the whole army is composed of generalist units it is unlikely you will ever be able to bring all of your force to bear effectively. So in essence you are fighting the enemy's whole army with less than half of yours. This is not a good position to be in!

Specialized Unit Construction
A specialized unit is one that is geared primarily to a specific task. The more capable it is of that one task, and the less capable it is of any other task, the more specialized it becomes. Specialized units will generally excel at their specialty, being able to reliably complete a particular task in a single action. This is an asset not to be underestimated. A game of 40K can be understood to be won by time. An army that can complete more of its goals in less turns wastes less time. The army that has more time available can generally control the flow of battle better. If you can control the flow of battle better then you are more likely to win.

Specialized units should ideally complete a particular task in the least amount of time possible [a single game phase]. Where this is not a possibilty, they should strive for completing an action in a single game turn. These two functions are not the same - a shooting unit that can eliminate it's target in a single phase and does so allows you to dedicate other units to other tasks, allowing you to complete more of your goals at greater speed. When the firing unit is incapable of finishing its task in a single game phase, the task becomes one in which multiple firing units work together to finish the target in a single turn. A combat specialist that fails to eliminate an enemy in a single game phase interferes with your ability to shoot in the following turn, even if you currently have no firing resolutions blocked by the assault. This combat specialist unit may still finish the enemy off in the opponent's turn, freeing them up to act as normal on your next turn.

A specialized unit should ideally have 1 job it is to perform, and it should perform that job successfully in as little time as possible. This leaves points from the army list to be spent on other units to perform other functions in the same manner. A good example of this is a squad of 6 fire dragons which statistically will kill 1 tank that is not in cover as soon as they shoot at it. This is of course the barest minimum number of fire dragons needed to ensure the tank dies statistically; you can pad the results by moving up to 9 models [making it likely to destroy a vehicle that is not in cover 1.5 times per shooting phase].

The problem with specialized units is that they are often only good at one particular task. This means that in every other situation, they will be unable to perform the role needed of them and will be totally at the mercy of the opponent or effectively out of the fight. This is not as bad as it seems at first, because we've already considered that our deployment of forces will allow us to choose the matchups that most favor our units coming out ahead. But, to have a specialized unit available to cover each battlefield role requires a large amount of the points available to the army list, and perhaps even more points than are available to the army. For instance, in a 750pt game, to have a dedicated shooting unit, a dedicated assaulting unit, and a dedicated objective contester, each with the necessary mobility to enswure they complete their tasks reliably, could cost more points than are available to the army. So it is not realistic, or even entirely practical, to build an army of nothing but specialized units.

Balancing the Two Unit Constructions
Generalist units can act as a bridge to specialized units, working as a smaller battlegroup within the overall force. The unit of storm guardians described earlier may not do too much on its own, but it could bolster the tank destroying capabilities of the fire dragons or the close-combat capabilities of a squad of striking scorpions. When building this sort of battlegroup with multiple specialties bridged by a generalist unit, it will be necessary to ensure the battlegroup moves through the same area, or that the generalist unit has the ability to converge with either of the specialists when needed. This means the generalist unit will need mobility just as much as the specialized unitsw, if not moreso. Some of the cost of including these generalized units can be reduced through savings to the specialized squads - you can afford to spend less points guaranteeing a single action will be successful because the generalist can support the strike. 6 Fire Dragons would be sufficient for destroying 1 tank when you have a second unit that can back them up if need be. However, each additional unit adds KPs and VPs to a list, as well as reducing the total points you can spend on your army. Which means that the number of generalized units you include must by necessity remain few in number

The Eldar Army as a Single Unit
No single unit will be able to effectively complete every battlefield role you expect of it. Fortunately, it isn't necessary to have single units complete every role so long as the army as a whole is capable of doing so. If you consider the army as a single unit that must be capable of completing each task you set it, you can figure how effective it will be as a fraction. Simply consider the total number of units available as the denominator, and the number of units capable of completing a particualr task in a single phase as the numerator. You can do this for any role you can imagine. The goal is not to see what your army is capable of doing, but rather what it is not capable of doing. The tasks that are not as reliable are fights which your army should avoid; the tasks that are most likely to be completed are the ones that go into your overall strategy. If all of the fractions have low numerators compared with high denominators you may need to rethink your army! Notice that generalized units will reduce all of these fractions, which indicates that generalized units should be considered very carefully.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2008, 01:51:45 PM by Gutstikk »

Offline Gutstikk

  • Infinity Circuit | Title here to be dreaded 'til further notice. Rummy's Deepstriking Pylon
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7829
  • Country: 00
  • I am a Wolf.
Re: How To Approach Building Competitive Armies in 5th edition - thoughts?
« Reply #9 on: August 25, 2008, 11:14:11 AM »
Competitive Lists and Assault vs Shooting in 5th Edition
Because you will want to be gaining a large number of VPs at the same time you eliminate scoring units or acquire KPs, it will be wise to include units that can deal with the most dangerous and difficult of enemies. Such opponents generally have excellent profiles as well as offensive or defensive skills that make them even more difficult to eliminate. An example of such a basic profile is that of the C'tan Nightbringer. An example of equipment is the basic Space Marine Terminator. A "skill" that makes units more difficult is Feel No Pain, an ability which allows units to effectively gain a second saving throw. Because successive rolling can drastically reduce your own units' effectiveness, especially on a unit with an excellent profile, it will be especially necessary to include options in your army list that bypass these additional rolls. However, not all such weapons are created equally.

One example unit that is notoriously difficult to budge is the Plague Marines. They have improved toughness over a normal Space Marine, and combine the standard Marine save with the Feel No Pain rule. This unit is essentially immune to most weapons fire - it takes 15 Dire Avengers to down 1 such model in a single shooting phase. Even if you beat their saving throw you still have to deal with cover saves, and if you aren't firing a weapon of AP less than 3, they can benefit from their FNP roll. With the changes to 5th edition that allow shooting weapons of low enough AP value to deny Feel No Pain, shooting is slightly more effective against such a target if done with the right weapon - however, with the standard cover save improved to 4+, and the ability to improve this further by voluntarily going to ground, such units will be capable of shrugging off most weapons fire.

It is worth mentioning then that, where hard infantry targets are concerned, it may be of greater value to build assault units that can handle these threats. For example, statistically it only takes 3 howling banshees to take down a single plague marine in a single combat phase, as compared to the 15 Avengers you would need to do exactly the same thing. A full squad of banshees is in a much better position paired against hard opponents of this nature than a full squad of Avengers would be. On the other hand, before factoring in an Exarch, a scorpion squad is not in much better position - it takes 13 scorpions to reliably eliminate 1 plague marine. This is the value of including weapons in a list that can bypass armor saves in close combat, where cover saves cannot take their place and where rules such as Feel No Pain can be annulled. Incidentally, it would take about 3 harlequins to also accomplish the same basic task of eliminating 1 plague marine in a single combat round.

When shooting hordes, it will generally take a large volume of fire to destroy them, unless such fire can bypass the readily-available cover saves of 5th edition. A unit of Dire Avengers without exarch or doom will reliably kill about 3-4 infantry models of T4, or 4-5 infantry models of T3, assuming 4+ cover saves are available, in a single shooting phase. When you consider many hordes consist of over 20 models, you would have to sink about 5 squads of Dire Avengers into eliminating a single horde unit within a single turn. In combat, a unit such as Striking Scorpions can kill about 6 enemy models from a horde unit in a single combat phase, and can likely do almost as good before it's their turn again. This puts the Striking Scorpions at about the combat equivalent of 3 units of Dire Avengers in terms of damage output vs Hordes. Each single well-placed flamer will net about 5 kills from a T4 horde [assuming you can tag 10 models in the squad], meaning a storm guardian flamer squad is about the combat equivalent of 3 units of Avengers in terms of damage output vs hordes. Finally, there are certain weapons available to Eldar players which can ignore cover saves, either in the right situations [d-cannons and shadow weavers firing over combats/intervening squads] or with the right upgrades [tempest launcher with crack shot]. Any of these weapons are probably going to land more kills than Avengers vs Hordes. Finally, vehicle-mounted weapons are unlikely to trace line of sight through intervening models and less likely to do so through terrain, amking them better against hordes where high ROF is concerned [vypers and warwalkers]. And what is true for avengers is also true for Guardian Defenders, or any high ROF linear projectiles we have at our disposal.

Instead, these infantry-based shuriken swarms will need to be firing on enemy who are not in cover, which will require positional capabilities. These units will therefore need a transport to get them into a position to fire on an enemy who is not protected, especially where these enemy units are fewer in number [10-20 models, max]. Otherwise, you will need to put more of such units against single targets to effectively eliminate them, reducing the force at your disposal.

Where these units can shine [especially in the case of guardian defenders] is in the role of second-line troops, that fire upon enemies who break through the fronts you've established. Such fronts may not be in cover, and the firing will be directed at units which you will have already weakened. Defenders in a generalized role can lend their support weapon's fire to other targets until it becomes necessary to direct massed fire at enemy assaulters. Avenger teams can be placed as a frontal firing line, punishing the enemy and then breaking from combat quickly to enable support fire from behind their lines to eliminate advancing enemy units. Another quirk is that the "Go to Ground" rule will essentially turn a unit with high-volume shooting into a unit armed with pinning weapons. If you can inflict enough wounds, the opponent may elect to go to ground to avoid some of the casualties. Once you've forced units to go to ground you can consider them out of the battle for a turn; even if they have not been eliminated you'd do well to move on.

Essentially, most of the action in 5th where large, difficult and high value enemy units are concerned will be occuring in the assault phase. This has the added advantage of potentially denying the enemy firing opportunities, as once units are stuck in combat they are generally ineligible targets. Furthermore combat is generally the only phase where you'll make an enemy test on reduced leadership, or force saves on fearless units. Mobile shooting support can play an effective role in escorting broken units off the table by moving alongside retreating enemy on the side of the unit which is furthest from enemy retaliation.

Jump to next section
« Last Edit: August 26, 2008, 07:21:38 AM by Gutstikk »

Offline Mordekiem

  • Initiate
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2345
  • That was easy!
Re: How To Approach Building Competitive Armies in 5th edition - thoughts?
« Reply #10 on: August 25, 2008, 01:40:24 PM »
Lots of good information and insights!  It looks like you put alot of time and effort into this.  I am interested in reading the next chapter.

The one drawback I see in this writing is that it is really long and wordy.  It is written like a college thesis paper.  At times it is hard to follow and difficult to read.  It may also just be the black and white of the forum that is killing my eyes.

I suggest trying to simplify your language and remove any extra words you don't need.  Maybe add a little extra "white space".  I think this would make it more enjoyable to read and get your excellent ideas across better.

I did really like your recap at the begining of the second post.

If any of you has more to add feel free; I'll definitely try to work it in! The idea I'm running with is, obviously, starting with the conditions one will need to account for in building an overall strategy and working down towards the selection of units. I have no idea how long it's gonna continue for, but feel free to comment as I go. I'm working on this other stuff in the above post for a bit longer, and then I'll start a new post when I get to somewhere that I think needs a break in between. I'd love to see comments in real time on this, which is why I started it outside the project forum.

You can also send PMs if you're shy about commenting where everyone can see it. I already had to make the correction about completely surrounding the enemy vehicle, and reword the idea of trading VPs/units.

I noticed you changed one spot, but you still have this...
Quote
[should the enemy block a serpent's rear hatch and pop it, your banshee squad is destroyed along with it]. Obviously in non-KP missions you are still yielding VPs in this manner.

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 especially easy to eliminate mounted squads with their transport.
The italicised sentences still need correction.  Blocking an exit point will not kill a unit inside.  And having a single exit point does nothing to hurt the squad inside should the vehicle become destroyed.


If you have any questions let me know.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2008, 01:54:26 PM by Mordekiem »
Mordekiem

Offline Gutstikk

  • Infinity Circuit | Title here to be dreaded 'til further notice. Rummy's Deepstriking Pylon
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7829
  • Country: 00
  • I am a Wolf.
Re: How To Approach Building Competitive Armies in 5th edition - thoughts?
« Reply #11 on: August 25, 2008, 02:08:19 PM »
Actually, if you have surrounded a vehicle and inflict "Destroyed - Wrecked" on said vehicle, any models that cannot disembark are destroyed. I have edited the relevant sections to indicate this. "Destoryed - Explodes!" does not allow for models to become destroyed as they replace the vehicles current location, and shooters would have to be 1" away from them by default.

Nice finds though; I admit I was thinking explodes allowed for denied disembarkation kills. It is less likely that a squad can be eliminated in 5th ed using this tactic, but still possible.

Offline Mordekiem

  • Initiate
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2345
  • That was easy!
Re: How To Approach Building Competitive Armies in 5th edition - thoughts?
« Reply #12 on: August 25, 2008, 06:31:16 PM »
Actually, if you have surrounded a vehicle and inflict "Destroyed - Wrecked" on said vehicle, any models that cannot disembark are destroyed. I have edited the relevant sections to indicate this. "Destoryed - Explodes!" does not allow for models to become destroyed as they replace the vehicles current location, and shooters would have to be 1" away from them by default.

Nice finds though; I admit I was thinking explodes allowed for denied disembarkation kills. It is less likely that a squad can be eliminated in 5th ed using this tactic, but still possible.
I agree completely with this. Your original just sounded like exit points mattered.
Mordekiem

Offline 2-6y

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 141
  • Vacuum sucks.
Re: How To Approach Building Competitive Armies in 5th edition - thoughts?
« Reply #13 on: August 25, 2008, 07:35:47 PM »
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Lets see what we got so far:

Troops: Besides troops scoring only and objective based missions, raw power is still the way to go. This makes troops especially for Eldar an afterthought again. First one should consider how to hit hard. Then add a few troops which provide the best synergy.

Close combat: With cover and combat resolution as it is now, games will mostly be decided in close combat. So it is wise to build the army around winning close combats.

All units considered for this task should be close combat specialists, as every weak unit drastically skews results once multiple units get engaged.

After that, focused specialists with a limited range of optimal targets like Banshees should be considered to maximise the armys raw killing power.

Finally one needs close combat specialists that can fight a wider range of enemys to fill gaps wherever needed. These sacrefice raw killing power for utility and make the army less relyant on luck by providing a backup plan for multiple other units at the same time.

As a general note the new rules make resilience more important in close combat, so whenever possible resilient combos should be chosen. There are multiple ways to be resilient though, like Fortune, coming from Reserves or out of transports.

Closing in for combat: For close combat you have to get close, so you either need massive firepower to motivate the enemy to engage, or you need speed to close the distance on your own. Im not sure which concept is best for 5th and am looking forward for your oppinions.

Shooting The second way to do massive damage is to use templates and ways to bunch up the enemy and ideally ignore cover.

- You might use combats to draw the enemy out of cover and bunch them up.
- You might use tank shocking skimmers to bunch up the enemy and then deploy flamers at the perfect position.
- You might use Prisms to shoot and stunned/weapon destroyd Prisms to tank shock.

Force multiplyers: Imo Doom is too good to play without. It most of the time enhances most of your force as realisticly you will be happy to  destroy one relevant non-vehicle unit per turn. Doom also allows for more specialization amongst the army as it enhances the needed tools and makes the suboptimal tools relativly less of a pointsink.



Offline Avatar of the Eldar

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: How To Approach Building Competitive Armies in 5th edition - thoughts?
« Reply #14 on: August 25, 2008, 11:59:59 PM »
Very thoughtful work here, G. Thank you.

While I am enjoying the the development of your thinking - to Mordekeim's suggestions, I'll admit I'm looking forward to the punch-line.  (Just tell me what units to take because I'm learning 40K in 5th, I'm clueless and the suspense is killing me!:-))


Offline Gutstikk

  • Infinity Circuit | Title here to be dreaded 'til further notice. Rummy's Deepstriking Pylon
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7829
  • Country: 00
  • I am a Wolf.
Re: How To Approach Building Competitive Armies in 5th edition - thoughts?
« Reply #15 on: August 26, 2008, 07:20:31 AM »
Engaging the Enemy: Locking Units
In 4th edition it was possible to play more defensively because it was generally easy to hide behind terrain and avoid LOS altogether. This helped reinforce the guerilla playstyle Eldar were notorious for. In 5th edition, while cover saves have generally improved and it is easier to gain cover, it is harder to outright hide from the enemy. This does not change the need for the Eldar army to use a guerilla style strategy, it just changes the nature of the strategy. Our "glass hammer" nature means that, with a few exceptions, our units can't afford to be taking fire even where cover is quite excellent. One of the methods already discussed to address this is to pln on starting in reserves where possible. Another method is to implement a "locking strategy."

A locking strategy is generally a strategy wherein you cause a target or targets to be locked out of the battle, by preventing their ability to act. In some armies, a locking strategy can revolve around the ability of the army to create its own LOS walls, also referred to as turtling. The idea is to lock enemy units out of firing resolutions and to dictate the direction of their advance. This will not be the preferred approach because the enemy is not truly locked; there is a chance they will be able to redeploy and regain good firing resolutions, advance around/over your LOS barriers, or assault their way through the walls you have created. Another locking strategy is pinning units. If you can pin enemy units in place, they can't act at all for a single round. Pinning is generally easier to do in 5th edition than in previous editions and when you succesfully pin a unit you should immediately move on to another target. However, even though it is now easier to do it is still woefully unreliable and if you depend on pinning to lock enemies you will fail to do so when you need to. Pinning as a locking strategy also does nothing to slow the advance of enemy units that are not pinned.

The last locking strategy is to lock them into close combat. This is exceptionally useful against a shooting opponent, especially of the mid-ranged variety that are specialized against infantry. These will generally need to deploy forwards and therefore locking them in combat may also "blind" an enemy unit behind them that could otherwise have fired. A unit locking the enemy via assault can also block enemy advance; the enemy will be unable to move through the combat and must also remain one inch away from your models. Additionally, the right locking unit will be durable enough to survive through subsequent rounds of combat or enemy shooting until assistance is available. The enemy can commit more force to dislodging the lock, which is good for you because it should take a disproportionate amount of force to dislodge it and this means you will be able to bring more of the rest of your army to bear against less of theirs. If they advance around the lock, you should have units in place to dislodge it yourself, enabling you to attack advancing enemy from a pincer formation, with the locking unit emerging behind the enemy after they've already passed.

If you can consistently cut the size of the battlefield down by locking out a large portion of the enemy army you will be able to keep the initiative even after you have hit enemy lines. This also protects the advance of your more fragile units, helping to deny KPs, VPs, and create situations where the enemy cannot contest objectives.

Engaging the Enemy: Combining Arms
In 5th edition, when it comes time to build an army list it is of utmost importance to consider which of your units can work together and which cannot. Because of changes to combat resolution it is imperative that your fearless units and your soft units do not engage the enemy at the same locations. In shooting this is not as severe, although a fearless unit will generally take a long time to kill if constructed properly and because it is fearless it will disincentive your opponent from targetting it. This means the squishy unit takes more of the damage, which it is less capable of withstanding. However, in combat it is of utmost importance to avoid mixing the two. If the enemy can target the softer unit over the fearless unit, and direct most of its force towards killing many models from the softer unit, the fearless unit is likely to perish due to the "no retreat" rule. The extra armor saves in close combat that a fearless unit is required to take under "no retreat" are a more powerful weapon than a flame template because there is no roll to hit or to wound, and because it is free to every unit in the game.

In 4th edition it was commonplace to have a Wraithlord or Avatar guard an Eldar gunline consisting of Dire Avengers, Guardians, or Dark Reapers. In 5th edition this is a bad idea, unless you can ensure the enemy cannot engage both the infantry shooter and the fearless monster at the same time! Instead, when pairing these units up, it will probably be better to have the fearless monsters form up at the front, allow a comfortable no-man's-land in between, and follow them with mid-ranged shooters from behind. When the monsters eventually fall to the enemy, you will be capable of pouring that gunfire into the survivors. Additionally, the combination of high toughness and high strength of these monsters means that they can tag-team the enemy quite effectively on their own, especially where the enemy is fearless.

In the case of shooting, as we've already seen, the high-volume variety is far less effective than it was under 4th edition rules at clearing out enemy formations indiscriminately. In 5th edition, these units will be useful at eliminating stragglers, or softening up an enemy before entering combat. These units become more useful later in the game because this is when your combat specialists have taken the most abuse and are running at reduced damage output. The volume firing will help reduce the enemy model count by a couple models, enabling the assaulters to face the enemy in combat on more favorable terms. Furthermore, it takes time to get these short to mid ranged shooters into a position to fire upon the enemy. A unit of Avengers can act as a nice "equalizer" when advancing behind your shock troops [such as a harlequin team] or if deployed via serpent. A guardian defender team can do the same, though generally defenders are better at cleaning up holes in the line if enemy should break through because of their shorter range.

Angle of Attack
Where possible you will want your army to be able to engage the enemy at a single location, concentrating a large amount of force on a single point. This is especially true in 5th edition where the enemy grants you cover if they must fire through their own forces, and where they cannot leap from unit to unit without leaving combat. If you can force the enemy into fighting on a single flank, their army will have to wheel from its initial deployment to face you on the ground you have chosen. This also grants you a stronger time advantage, because there will be more turns where your army can damage theirs than there will be where their army can damage yours. With the game limit at 5-7 turns, this does not leave a lot of time for armies to stand around idle. This is also an additional reason for deploying from reserves where possible as it allows you to pick the flank where you can do the most damage, gaining the most VPs and KPs with the least amount of retaliation.

Even when using a gunline style army, if it is a mobile gunline you will have a marked advantage over an immobile one. This is because you can still afford to deploy in reserves, and to emerge towards the flank where the enemy is most vulnerable. Units such as Dark Reapers have the disadvantage where they really need to be deployed on the board from turn 1 to do damage reliably, so they could force you to commit to a flank where the enemy may decide to put a lot of strength. I would suggest that if you use such stationary units, you leave them to their fate. Deploy the rest of your army to take advantage of a favorable angle of attack, even if it means the Reapers must perish unsupported. You will probably find that the location of the reapers is either avoided by the opponent to their loss, as it will create a strongpoint for your army, or they put a lot of units down to deal with the threat on that flank, allowing your army to attack from the other. Of course, too many points spent in this fashion will reduce the effectiveness of your force overall, and if your opponent can neutralize the threat before your other units arrive you are effectively fighting with a VP handicap. So be aware that stationary units have intrinsic drawbacks which their strengths may not be able to make up for during a competitive game.

Jump to final section
« Last Edit: August 28, 2008, 12:37:20 PM by Gutstikk »

Offline moc065

  • Infinity Circuit / Necrontyr Lord / KoN Warlord
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8827
  • Country: ca
  • King of the Preemptive Strike
    • klucas.piczo.com
Re: How To Approach Building Competitive Armies in 5th edition - thoughts?
« Reply #16 on: August 28, 2008, 12:27:57 PM »
Lots of great stuff in here and although many of us use these theories instinctively, it is incredable that you actually took the time to write them out and such.... I have some stuff to add/suggest etc... but I will get back to you, as I wish to put it all together in a decent format so its easy to see etc.. and not waste anyones time...

I am also adding a link to this article within a couple of key spots in here (Big list of Eldar Lists, Starting out with Eldar, etc)....

Thanks for the amazing work Gutstikk (as usual)

CaHG 



OK, this is my first installment of ideas, suggestion, etc.

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.

I would add in a note here that all the Eldar units still work and are viable within 5th Ed; but that their configuration and possible uses do need to be considered differently, as the game dynamics have changed.

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 Units
I 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 Edition, turn the game into a VP match, and win with 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: Durability
Because 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.

-- A note on units that are especially difficult to target should be made as well, the use of a single 3 pack JB unit can be an option, as well as "Yo-Yo" Swooping Hawks, and Harlequins with the Veil of Tears, etc... as these types of units can be un-targetable in certain situations. You might also want to mention the use of re-rolls, Fearless Bubbles, and other combo's that can "Pad" a units resilience or compound to their durability.

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 Elimination
Simply 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.

I would also add a note on how sometimes the immediate erradication of the enemies "Easy" forces their hand; but target priority is still very important so that you don't kill off a few "freebees" and end up taking a crapload of punishment form those "Nasties".

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. Unless those 2 units are super dirt cheap and can do the job, and possible survive.... I can derail a few instances where my cheap stuff looked so impotent that it was ignored until it more than did its job, and by then the enemy could not react to it anymore. 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 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.

Possibly a note on the removal of enemy scoring units or cantainment of them while using casualty conservation for your own Scoring units... Bringing some stuff in as reserves, Hunting and/or herding enemy Troops, etc.

Considering Deployment Formats
The 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. Army Synergy is still a huge factor, and sometimes the inclusion of 1-2 of those small units that give up a KP is what is required to make it all function, Ex... how many poeple have used a cheap Vyper to contest an objective inthe last turn ? 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.

Also may wish to make a note on declared Flankers, as they can mess up your Sides if your too close and they come in right where it hurts...

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.

Not sure why Skimmers need to start on the table, as they can often go Flat out to make up any lost distance and they can have Star Engines, and simple things like the inclusion of an Autarch can boost their dependability to arrive as needed from reserves.. You may wish to include some of this as well.

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. I disagree to some degree, I ran a fairly static Gun line that was brutal as it cranked out that many shots and range was not an issue.... You may wish to dwon play this last statement just a little as it implies that only Mech style armies or Hybrids will be competitive, and I would disagree with that in some cases.

Jump to part 2

OK, I know you covered some of the things I mentioned in other areas.... but my point is that some of the stuff does overlap and should be mentioned twice/thrice to ensure selective readers don't miss out on it...

And I am not trying to ursurp anything you did here Gutstikk, as this is truely one of the best articles I have ever read online... (and you have certainly just earned my nomination and vote as Eldar poster of the Year.) I also did not do the rest of the article; but I do offer up my services as a proofreader for you, if you need one... and I can certainly add more comments to each section, if you like.

CaHG
« Last Edit: August 28, 2008, 12:30:06 PM by moc065 »
Join POC: Saim-Hann
or Read the Guide to Eldar
or read the Guide to Necrons


And Click here if you like Magic The Gathering

Offline Gutstikk

  • Infinity Circuit | Title here to be dreaded 'til further notice. Rummy's Deepstriking Pylon
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7829
  • Country: 00
  • I am a Wolf.
Re: How To Approach Building Competitive Armies in 5th edition - thoughts?
« Reply #17 on: August 28, 2008, 12:36:27 PM »
Quoted with permissions from Srintaur, from the thread here:

Quote
What KP's give you is a separation between tactical value and strategic value. VP's are based on point cost, and point cost represents tactical value. Expensive units are very killy, and cheap ones are less deadly or more vulnerable. A specific unit's ratio of Point's per KP tells you what type of unit it is, and how it should be played.

Points/KP
Class A) <100     Strategic Unit, with low tactical value. Should be fielded defensively, kept hidden, or inside vehicle, building, bunker, etc. For Annihilation, their objective is to stay alive at any cost.

Class B) ~ 100-200   Average Unit. Can be worth risking when there are situational advantages. Should not go off alone on suicide runs. For Annihilation, their objective is to maneuver for advantage, and try to catch the enemy in a weak or vulnerable spot. Their can use either speed, stealth, long range, flanking, or just plain old patience to acheive this. What you dont want to do is have them march into a fair fight.

Class C) ~  200+  Tactical Unit, with low strategic value. Can be hurled/deepstrike'd into deep enemy territory. Only needs to accomplish minimal success to contribute to victory. In annihilation, you want these guys in the thick of it, moving towards the nearest enemy they can smash. You may want to keep an eye out for traps, where numerous smaller units can team up on you, or even enemy class C units that outclass yours- but even then the risk is minimal so get in there!

Most armies will be stocked with mainly class B units, especially MEQ equivalents. A few armies will have several class C units. And a few will have tons of class A... An opponent composed of only class C units will tend to be very limited and clumsy... An army of mostly class A units, will need to build a defensive firebase with overlapping arcs of fire, and try to become as prickly as a porcupine. (or if fast moving, they can try to dance out of the enemy's reach every round).

Most armies will be composed of mainly class B units.

This gives a nice framework for picturing how the units in an army list you are building should come together. I would like to add to this picture that units which are more in the class A variety also yield VPs more easily, which is part of what limits their tactical effectiveness. Sure you could swamp a powerful unit with lots of inferior units, but if this powerful unit inflicts enough damage on all of those little units [which is generally most likely to happen in close combat], and the little units cannot do enough damage, then you have put a lot of VPs at risk for little actual gain!

With this in mind, I'd like to make the following generalizations:

Class A units should generally be shooting units with excellent mobility and with the minimum VPs invested to make them effective. They should specialize in shooting if possible, as they are unlikely to assist in combat and more likely to make combats difficult to win by providing a source of easy kills. Also, keep in mind that cover can make these units much more resilient than their profiles would have you think. Without cover, 20 bolter shots kills about 2 Space marines, 4 Tau, 9 guardsmen and about 11 gretchin. With cover save of 4+, those 20 bolter shots still kill 2 marines and 4 Tau, but only 4 guardsmen, and 6 gretchin. For us, this means that generally a guardian squad in cover is as resilient as an Aspect squad in cover, and used defensively they are likely to perform as well.

Class B units are more resilient and more capable than class A units, or have a higher amount of damage output. These units are the ones that can be generalists, either in having a shooting and combat role, or in having equipment to handle a number of targets but choose combat or shooting as their mode of engagement and stick to just one. The more generalized they get, the less value they will typically add to unit combinations. You will probably need to call on these units in the late game to support your other squads. Mobility is still useful but they can afford to have good mobility rather than excellent.

Class C units should specialize in combat where possible. A lot of points need to be spent on their damage output and their resilience. Remember that damage output is resilience to the extent that models killed before they strike will not do less damage, but also remember that this is not a substitute for actual defensive capability. A class C unit should be able to guarantee assault effectiveness with minimal support, and be likely to win combats without support. These units will need excellent mobility because the enemy will seek to avoid them, or to set up situations where they are outmatched. A class C unit that doesn't pick its fights on its terms is essentially wasted points. They should suffer minimal if any casualties when used properly.

Remember that a single enemy unit can cause multiple class A units to cease scoring. Therefore, it would be wise to avoid too many class A units. Also, having only a few class C units makes it far easier for the enemy to dictate the terms of engagement, as they will be able to make sacrifices to dictate game flow while you will be unable to make many sacrifices and will control a smaller area of the board. I would suggest selecting Class C units that fit your overall strategy, selecting Class B units that compliment those while adding some other options which the class A units will compliment. Srintaur suggested that most armies will be made up mostly of Class B units - I would caution against using primarily class B units, and instead to seek an emphasis on Class B with several class C units and maybe 1-3 class A units.

Formulating an overall strategy adn Selecting Units:
Now that we've considered the impacts of all of these variables it should be possible to formulate a general strategy. This is how you plan to approach the game in a competitive environment, how you plan to cover your bases and what goals you seek to accomplish. Once you have determined a primary path to victory it will be possible to select units based on the above considerations which should take you down that path succesfully, if the dice don't fail you.

First of all, you will need to consider the scenario victory conditions. 2 of 3 missions require scoring units, 1 requires the preservation of units. As we've already discussed a competitive list will generally want to favor the KP preservation, and deal with objective missions by denying objectives and VPs to the enemy.

Next, consider your army's deployment. In two formats, everything can begin on the board or in reserves. In one format, only 3 units + Scouts can begin on the board, and the rest arrive on turn 1 or from reserves - also, nightfighting will hamper early shooting. Keep in mind that deployment options are limited by the movement capabilities of the units you select as well. A unit with limited mobility may not get into the fight if deploying from reserves, and may be deployed in a poor location if it deploys first!

-If you deploy first, your opponent may elect to deploy entirely via reserves. You can use this to your advantage with the scouts rule in all scenarios; without scouts, dawn of war hampers this style of deployment. Scouts also gives you good reserves options. It may be better to deploy from reserves where possible.

-If you deploy second, you can choose where to deploy with greater ease but your opponent will get to act first, which means you will need a defensive approach. If you are deploying, Scouts will be a great help, making it easier to acquire cover. Still, since cover is not guaranteed, you will need to plan a way to ensure cover saves. It may be better to deploy from reserves when you go second.

-If you deploy from reserves, you may not get the units you need when you need them. An Autarch can help remedy this somewhat - remember the improved reserve roll is at your option! Also, the tradeoff for the piecemeal arrival is that the opponent has less turns to damage your army.

Once you have decided to go for resilience [class C] or numbers [Class A], and have figured out how you would like units to come onto the table, consider what your primary focus will be. This will essentially be a primary opponent type and primary game phase. Combat is the surest route to breaking enemy units because it is the only time the Eldar army will inflict negative modifiers on the leadership of units that are not fearless, and it enables the possibility of additional "free" wounds on units that are. Movement phase actions can eliminate targets via tank shock or ramming as well as allowing for board control. Shooting requires the ability to break through cover [the kind that blocks LOS and the kind that grants saves], saving throws, and feel no pain. For reasons already discussed, the Assault Phase will probably be the most important to focus on, followed by Movement, then by Shooting. For most weapons it will be too easy to neutralize their strengths. This means units focusing on shooting should be as close to class A as possible, movement-based units should be Class A or Class B, and Combat oriented units should be Class B or C.

Once you have selected the Class C units in your army [the heavy hitters], you need to consider how your units will get to where they are needed, intact and in fighting condition. This will mean you need to consider screening needs, movement needs, leadership needs and support needs. Select Class B units that can compliment these needs. Then, you can go on to select Class A units that offer your army more strategic options, such as generating cover saves, blocking enemy movement, tying up enemy shooters, or making objective grabs later in the game.

Finally, once you have built an army list, selected a mission, and deployed your forces, remember what each unit is capable of and what it must accomplish. Do not send Class A units unsupported towards the enemy and expect them to do damage - these are strategic units that you should use to disrupt the enemy's plans. Use your Class C units decisively rather than wastefully. Choose how you employ your Class B units carefully; they will be limited in number and must tip the scales in your favor where the scales need tipping!

Now go forth and conquer in the name of the Eldar!

...

Whew, I think that's about it. Hopefully, this can be the start of a framework from which to figure out some potential competitive lists, with revising where needed. Now that it's done, if anyone wants to put up some of what they think would be top-tier armies, Ill take a bit of time to look over them given what I've written, and see if the lists presented support the material I've written. So throw your toughest lists in here and I'll start taking a look!

Offline Adaon

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 90
  • Country: 00
  • Fantasy, Science Fiction - hey, who needs a life?
Excellent Material, Gutstikk. Thank you very much! It makes me rethink my up-to-now approach to fifth Edition, and i will find new ways to play (and therefore enjoy) my beloved Eldar.


As to the lists you asked for, this one is my first try for the new Edition (written before reading your article, obviosly):

HQ:
Farseer, Soul Stones, Fortune, Psi Storm, Runes of Witnessing

Troops:
3 Jetbikes, 1 Shuriken cannon
10 Wraithguard, Spiritseer with Conceal

Elite:
10 Scorpions with Exarch, Biting Blade, Stalker and Shadowstrike.
10 Scorpions, equipped as above.

Heavy Support:
Fire Prism, Holofield, Spirit Stones.
Fire Prism, Holofield, Spirit Stones.
4 Dark Reapers.

1500 Points all told. It has weathered a draw so far against a Demon Army. It was composed of half-Tzeentch-shooters (with Keeper of Secrets), and half-Slaanesh-Assault. Mission was based on Objectives. I got first turn and deployed fully around my marker, counting on him to come to me. His first half arrived and managed to dispatch one unit of my scorpions (in Cover, obviosly) through heavy shooting. In my turn and with some luck i got rid of his Keeper of Secrets (seriously, re-rollabe ++saves for everyone in his army at 6-Inch-Range? Frightening!) and bagged his Demon Princes in Close Combat. In his second turn his Close Combat Slanesh-Beasts arrived, supported by a Slanesh Greater Demon. Then he got lucky: He forced my Wraithguard (set up to dispatch of his greater demon) to shoot one of my Prisms instead. So, in my Turn, i tried to decimate him somewhat with the rest of my army... then got hammered. End of game, two Slanesh units and my two Fire Prisms are alive, i contest my Objective that he would have hold.

If i had not got rid of his Keeper of Secrets or he did not force my Wraith Guard to shoot my Fireprism (which got a shaken result), the game would have gone in his, respectively my favor. A nice, close game.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2008, 03:41:07 PM by Adaon »

Offline A.CHAP

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 93
Wow lots to read here. I havent had chance to read it all yet so mypoint may be explained away later.

Im not sure I entirely agree with the focus G puts on KP/VPs over objectives.
I have found lots of games ending in draws in 5th so I can see where your coming from but, if your opponent has a good list built around taking objectives and your list is geared towards KP/VP taking/denial the draw is less likley in objective missions.

If a list is designed to win on VPs it needs to be competent at contesting objectives even if it is less focused on taking them.

So, rather than taking troops to hold objectives you take elites(or other) which are generally more expensive and tougher therefore being better for VP/KP.

However this style of list would have to have some very reliable objective contesting units to prevent an opponent winning by holding only one objective. Armies designed to go after enemy troops while holding 1-2 objective very strongly may cause problems.

My main hesitation with this KP/VP aproach is that you are aiming to get a draw followed by a win and your opponent is just trying to get a win.
While i think this is a viable way to design a list  there is more than one viable way to take on the 5th edition missions.

 


Powered by EzPortal