Jump to content

Welcome to The Bolter and Chainsword
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

The way of the water warrior.


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
339 replies to this topic

#26
BoonKin

BoonKin

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 410 posts
Hi fellow friends of the Imperium (and non-Imperium too)

I was considering all along whether should I play the Grey Knights since I started 40k. But after I read this tactica, my mind is set :rolleyes: . My salute to you Silent Requiem, for penning such a concise yet interesting ideas on playing Grey Knights (or DH) :wink:

Your ideas on the Water army suits my playing personality, but having lost my entire battleforce (Dark Angels) to a snatch theft, I am reali short on models and bucks to buy new models. And I heard the Grey Knights are expensive too ...

I know I am asking much.. But brothers and friends, can you suggest a small list for me to start ?

PS: Don't blame me , brothers of the Unforgiven for changing sides, but I know I must move on ... My apologizes !!





#27
Squirrel

Squirrel

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 3,140 posts
Great Tactia Guide, I would really love to hear some more battle reports of armies you have faced, also to know what some of your 1500-2000 lists are like.

Currently I'm making the transition from a Fire Type army to a water (reactive and very cautious), with my Marines. I really feel it is an evolution in my playing style, especially with the importance of victory points you have mentioned. I often found with a fire play style, my play style was very limited, also that I was taking a tremendous beating in the first couple turns, especially against earth based armies, only barely pulling wins or draws in turn 5 or 6. I'd like to stay in more control of the game and feel my self slowing building momentuem, over getting decimated then playing the few remaining troops I have very well.

This also helped me visualize playing the DH force, it was always a tough army for me to just theory craft in my mind, and its great to have a detailed and illustrative example. I was planning on doing a deathwing army at one time, and the play styles are of course very similar, but I've always felt GK are far superior with their style, fluff, and looks. Also do you have a copy of Massaen's 2000pt tourney list, I would love to give that a look over.

Keep up the good work, I'm very apprciative of such a well written guide,
Squirrel

Edited by Squirrel, 15 February 2007 - 09:52 PM.


#28
Silent Requiem

Silent Requiem

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 478 posts

there isn't a dedicated batrep thread here

Fantastic idea there number6, so I've gone and started one. Hopefully, if we put enough into it, it will get a stickie. I'd encourage all of you to post there, and if the report would also be useful on this thread, post a link to your bat rep. I've put my existing batreps in, and I'll see if I can't write another one or two to get the thread going.

EDIT: Apparently Liber Historae is the batrep thread, so I won't be continuing my batrep thread any further. Therefore feel free to continue posting Water batreps here.

I'll be interested to know how "water-like" I played, in the opinion of those of you reading this thread.


Great batrep, first of all. As to how "water-like" it is, I'd say that you have a lot of very Water aspects in your army, especially in the way you use your Seraphim, a unit I have no experience with (yet). I'd also go so far as to say that making your opponent go first (as part of your default strategy) is a Water trademark. I do prefer my dreads to keep their DCCW, though. I liked the way your really turned that battle around, and most of all I liked the way you were aware of what your opponent was doing wrong. Great stuff.

I often found with a fire play style, my play style was very limited, also that I was taking a tremendous beating in the first couple turns, especially against earth based armies, only barely pulling wins or draws in turn 5 or 6. I'd like to stay in more control of the game and feel my self slowing building momentuem, over getting decimated then playing the few remaining troops I have very well.

Your experiences mirror mine in this regard. I think alot of people gravitate toward Fire and Earth armies because they are easier to play. What I mean by that is that, when selecting troops, it is easy to determine which unit is the best at a given role, but much harder to decide which unit is the best balance of skills. As such, Fire and Earth lists make a very intuitive sense. Take the Stealer list in my batrep; Stealers are one of the top CC troops out there, and fast to boot, so the list takes as many as it can get, and then soups them up a bit. It just makes sense.

A Water or Air army, on the ether hand, often looks underpowered to an inexperienced gamer, and it is often difficult even for veterans to know exactly how well the list will fare without seeing it in action first. As a result, these lists tend to be highly personalised to the owner, reflecting their individual sense of balance.

Finally, Earth and Fire armies play themselves to a large degree (as each unit has a very clear purpose) and this is less intimidating than the alternative. Unfortunately, this tends to emphasise list building over tactics, to the point that competative players will automatically look at how to tweak their list after a loss, rather than look at how they could have played their list differently.


I know I am asking much.. But brothers and friends, can you suggest a small list for me to start ?


As I've just said, these lists are highly personalised. I'm linking to number6's excellent advice on starting a DH/GK army [url="http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=103177&view=findpost&p=1183771""]here.[/url] I am an especial fan of proxying, as I would never have been able to bring myself to purchase my Raiders without testing the waters first.


PS: Don't blame me , brothers of the Unforgiven for changing sides, but I know I must move on ... My apologizes !!


Have no fear, I am a former DA player myself. I suspect that DA fluff and units draw more than their fair share of Water players.

-Silent Requiem

Edited by Silent Requiem, 16 February 2007 - 05:45 PM.

QUOTE
About my list; it is weak. But it fits me, and that counts for a lot more than any amount of mathammer.


Since 5th edition: 3 wins, no draws, no losses.

#29
Charred Heretic

Charred Heretic

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 1,072 posts
I love the thread.
I would enjoy further description and examples of water/earth/fire/air in motion.
More Batrep analyses. Diagrams, too.

(Question: Do Silent's GK games always include 2 LandRaiders?)

5) Always Measure.
...
Imagine a devestator squad in the far corner. You declare you are firing at it, although it is clearly out of range. You measure anyway, and learn that it is 42" away.


Silent, how did you learn it was 42"?
Silent, are you measuring beyond the range of your weapon?
Dat ain't right, mate.
Good that war is so ugly, lest we start to become fond of it.
-General Lee

#30
Grand Master Raziel

Grand Master Raziel

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 583 posts
Good stuff so far, SR. I'd like to make some observations and clarify a few points.


HQ

Hammerhand: A nice little power that adds a great deal of utility, as it gives a number of essentially powerfist attacks at initiative against vehicles. While it can be used against non-vehicles, generally speaking an S6 power weapon is better, unless you are hoping to instant kill a T4 multi wound character. In that case the GM will still be better off using his force weapon, and, as we shall see, the BC is likely to be dead before he can swing.


One observation I'd like to make here is that Hammerhand, while mediocre for a GK Hero, makes a fine power for an Inquisitor or an Inquisitor Lord. Almost all the weapons in the armory are overpriced for a S3 T3 figure, so my Inqy Lord forgoes them entirely, instead relying on Hammerhand if he should wind up in assault. As you can imagine, I generally don't go looking for that kind of trouble with him. I use his retinue as a fire support unit, with a trio of Gun Servitors. However, when he has had to fight off opponents in HtH, Hammerhand makes him reasonably effective, and it costs significantly less than equipping him with a power weapon.




Elites


Grey Knight Terminators (or Retinue)

Movement phase: Standard GK movement, with optional Deepstrike. Terminator armour is good for heavy weapons fire, bad for sweeping advances. Very solid.

Shooting phase: Again, GK standard, but with the option of up to two psycannons, which benefit enormously from the TDA. If you love psycannons, this is the ideal platform. By hanging/falling back to maximise shrouding, and constantly moving to limit LOS, most armies have no effective response to a small squad harrassing their lines.


I feel this requires some clarification. Squads of GKTs can only take one heavy weapon as a squad upgrade, but the squad leader (the Brother-Captain) has access to the DH Armory, and both psycannons and incinerators are in the Armory. So, that's where the second heavy weapon comes from.

Personal comment: I have yet to play a game where I felt I had too many of these guys. They also rock at Space Hulk.


Brother, do they ever! In one Space Hulk-esque game, I had a squad of these guys (led by a Grand Master, BTW) totally wipe out a BA Death Company squad in one turn of close combat. :ph34r:

Troops/Fast Attack


Power Armoured Grey Knights

Movement phase: Grey Knight standard, which is the same as heavy infantry generally. The fast attack choice can also Deepstrike, though unless they are targeting a teleport homer, the cost seems to high to risk.

Shooting phase: The very excellent Grey Knight standard. The heavy weapons options are not as impressive without the terminator armour, however. I dislike both choices, as incinerators are very situational, and psycannons are a disincentive to move, despite their assault mode, which I dislike. Massaen, however (who I will talk more about later) makes a very excellent case for incinerators, and used them heavily. I like to take psycannon bolts on the justicar though, as he can keep the NFW, and throw out some AP4 goodness at the squads optimal range, even on the move. I would really love this to be an alternative upgrade to the special weapon troopers, as Iíd max it out.

Assault phase: Meh. Better than your standard marines, no doubt, but when equal points and a hidden powerfist are involved it will be a close thing. These guys just donít have enough attacks to really obliterate MEQs in assault unless they have been softened up first.

Special rules: None.

Role: Excellent generalists, but the upgrade options can be used to make them too shooty, which they just wonít do as well as other units of their cost (like devastator marines). A small squad with psycannons could Deepstrike to hit armour I suppose, but that is too risky for my tastes.

Cost effective: Yes, but only if you keep casualties to a minimum. Nearly twice as expensive, but no more survivable than normal marines.

Personal comments: GW did a great job of making TDA-light with these guys, they just didnít give us sufficient ability to customise them. Great basic troop units.


I'd like to chime in to support incinerators here. For foot troops, yeah, they're not the way to go. They really come into their own when you're Deep Striking, however. Admittedly, this does entail accepting a certain amount of risk to make it pay off, so if you're risk-adverse this probably won't appeal to you. However, when it does pay off, it pays off big. I've actually wiped out multiple units with single rounds of shooting by using incinerators, because the template hits anything it touches and the units were close enough together to get both at the same time. So, I like incinerators. BTW, the risks of Deep Striking close enough to use the incinerators can be mitigated by putting teleport homers everywhere you can. Inquistorial Stormtroopers bearing homers and GK Teleport Attack Squads make a nice 1-2 punch combo to land on your opponent's units.

Heavy Support



Purgation Squad

Movement phase: GK standard.

Shooting phase: GK standard, but with upgrades to more shooty at the expense of movement and assault.

Assault: See PAGK.

Special Rules: None.

Role: Really shooty.

Cost effective: See PAGK.

Personal comments: In case you didnít guess from my lack of detail, I hate these guys. If you play GK, then you have NINE other force organisation slots that can ONLY be filled with guys just like this. There are better things to spend your precious heavy support slots on.


I haven't used the Purgation squad yet, but I've got a couple ideas I'm going to try out. The first is basically a fire sponge. As I see it, a Purgation Squad with 4 psycannon is a threat that any opponent will have to engage, but if you keep them far enough back and in terrain that provides a decent cover save, then a lot of return fire will get lost to the Shrouding special rule and between their T4, armor save and cover save, they should be able to suck up the rest and still be functional for quite a while. They'd even be a pain the ass to dig out with an assault if you've got the Justicar and a fair amount of supporting GKs.

My other idea is to use a Purgation squad with 4 incinerators as Land Raider payload. Drive up, hop out, burninate! If there's anything left afterward, you should be able to send it packing when you assault.

Orbital strike

Not a unit exactly, the orbital strike is an interesting idea. It should be retargetable, however (you could make a radio link piece of wargear or some such), as it is too limited right now. For GKs, who are outnumbered all the time anyway, we cannot afford to purchase ďunitsĒ that donít put bodies on the table and canít be controlled. Remember that the ideas of flexibility and control are central to a Water strategy, and the Orbital strike has neither.


The best use of the Orbital Strike is probably to take the Barrage Bomb and target it on a piece of terrain that one of your own units is sitting on. Then, should your opponent assault it, you bring down the strike, which your troops will get their armor saves against, but your opponent might not (if he's playing Nids or Orks, for instance).

Grey Knights Dreadnought

Movement phase: GK standard.

Shooting phase: Outstanding. Upgrades allow for any range and role. Ranged specialisation can be purchased at the expense of assault.

Assault: Outstanding. With the exception of rending, there is not much this behemoth fears.

Special rules: Does NOT have shrouding.

Role: Can be over upgraded into a pure shooting role. It makes me sad when this happens.

Cost effective: Yes, but like all vehicles, it melts under antitank fire.

Personal comments: Although I donít use these much, itís not because they arenít fantastic units. Their ideal role in my mind is with an assault cannon on the flanks, supporting a squad of PAGK.


I tend to, as you put it, overupgrade it. However, I don't feel like I need the help in the assault role - Grey Knight infantry is more than competent enough in that regard. Where my army needs the help is in vehicle killing, so my dread gets the lascannon and missile launcher. That said, one could retain the dread CCW and instead slap on a Hunter-Killer missile, which GK Dreads can take.

Land Raider

Movement phase: Vehicle standard.

Shooting phase: Really good. Excellent range, good variety of weapons. The long range on the sponsons allow you to really use terrain to block LOS, as all you need is the sponson peaking out to fire. They also are the strongest anti armour platform that GK can field.

Assault phase: N/A.

Special rules: Transport. Adds to the movement of other units (and in the case of a Land Raider, protects them). Machine spirit. Allows for increased firepower on the move.

Role: A very versatile platform able to engage at any range.

Cost effective: Ah, the age old question, for which GK have a unique answer. A LR costs as much as ten PAGK. If by putting them in a LR they donít die when they otherwise would have, the Raider just paid for itself. That's before they wipe out those obliterators/terminators/predators/etc. I find these to be very worthwhile.

Personal comment: If you do use Land Raiders, never use less than two. Saturation principles mean that more Land Raiders mean more survivability for each hull. Extra armour and smoke should be considered standard.


Land Raider Crusader

Movement phase: Vehicle standard.

Shooting phase: Good. Very focused on anti-infantry, but with a strong anti armour component. The sponson weapons are somewhat wasted in their position, however.

Assault phase: N/A.

Special rules: Transport. Adds to the movement of other units (and in the case of a Land Raider, protects them). Machine spirit. Allows for increased firepower on the move.

Role: The shorter range of the weapons means that the Crusader will run the full gambit of antitank measures. As such it is less survivable than the regular Raider, and so more devoted to transport, having less success in a harassment role.

Cost effective: See Land Raider.

Personal comment: This is a Fire vehicle, not a Water one. I donít like them.


Some thoughts on the Land Raider and the LR Crusader:

I think the Land Raider doesn't work for me for exactly the same reasons it works for you. You seem to like the multi-role aspect, whereas I don't particularly. Perhaps more accurately, I feel they don't mesh well the way the LR is designed. In order to take full advantage of its firepower, it has to sit still. It can plod forward 6" a turn and shoot, but it's giving up some effectiveness in shooting if it does so, and the troops aren't getting forward any faster than they would if they were walking, and the increase in safety is arguable. Your opponent can't directly shoot your troops till he smokes the LR, but when he does, the troops get Entangled for a turn, which makes them more vulnerable than if they had walked or deep-struck. If you have the LR move full speed, then you're paying a lot of points for firepower you're not using. A full squad of Inquistorial Stormtroopers with a teleport homer in a Rhino would actually be a cheaper delivery system.

As for the Land Raider Crusader, its firepower is less antithetical to its transport role, because the optimal range envelope for most of its weapons is 12" or less. So, you can have it move full speed in the first turn and pop smoke without feeling like your wasting points on guns you're not using. Also worth noting is that the frag assault launchers make up for your GKs not having access to frag grenades, which can be important if you're assaulting units in cover.

BHoA_2014_Banner_Artificer.jpg

Check out my 40K blog: Crafting Cave Games


#31
CrazyDA

CrazyDA

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 162 posts
Hey Silent, Ive read through your post about 5 times now, and i have a big question for you. I know that i wont be using land raiders in my army, so my army will be a lot slower then yours. Should i still go with the shoot and scoot tactic, backing up when they move forward and letting them come to me, or will I be to slow without transports? thanks, your tactic was a great read btw.

#32
Silent Requiem

Silent Requiem

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 478 posts

I would enjoy further description and examples of water/earth/fire/air in motion.
More Batrep analyses. Diagrams, too.

Glad you're enjoying the thread Charred Heretic, but it's an awful lot of work to write these kinds of essays, and graphics (which I would LOVE to include) are beyond my time and skill at the moment. There is only one addition I'm contemplating (in response to a PM I got), but basically the tactica is finished, and further development will occur through discussion here.

Silent, how did you learn it was 42"?
Silent, are you measuring beyond the range of your weapon?
Dat ain't right, mate.


To answer your question, check pg 22 of the BBB and you will find: "When you're checking the range, simply measure from the firer to the nearest model in the target unit." It's legit I'm afraid, but I would't call it unbalanced, as you have to throw away a unit's shooting phase to do it.

(Question: Do Silent's GK games always include 2 LandRaiders?)

No. At 1500 points I add a third Raider.

Good stuff so far, SR. I'd like to make some observations and clarify a few points.


First off, thanks for your detailed examination of my tactica!

Re: Hammerhand - You're spot on, but the specifics were geared primarily towards pure GK.

Re: Terminators - Again, bang on, but I've written this as an advanced guide, and it's difficult to do that AND cover all the basics, so there will be some missed points along the way I'm afraid. Always glad to see another Space Hulk fan, though!

Re: Purgation - Your tactic intregues me. If you're able to playtest it a bit, let me know how it works out. My concern is that 4 incinerators are only slightly better than 2, meaning that the heavy support slot is still better used elsewhere.

Re: the rest - You make a number of other comments that I feel could be summed up under the heading "optimisation". While you identify more optimal ways of doing things, optimisation is fundamentally not a "Water" style of play. Once you optimise a unit, you are "forced" to use the unit in the manner for which you have optimised it. Anything less is a waste of points. Water armies take their shape from their opponent, and must resist trying to impose outside solutions, instead defeating their opponent by identifying his weakness.

Take your two alternatives to the standard Raider, the IST and the Crusader. Now look at my two battle reports, in which I used identical lists. Against the Nids, the Crusader might have been a better choice, but it would have lost me the game against the Eldar. The IST would have been little more than a speed bump against the Nids, and would have had even less of an impoct on the Eldar. I was successfull in each game because my Raider was simultaneously a transport AND an antitank platform AND an antiinfantry platform.

I know that i wont be using land raiders in my army, so my army will be a lot slower then yours. Should i still go with the shoot and scoot tactic, backing up when they move forward and letting them come to me, or will I be to slow without transports?


Absolutely. I'm going to be building a foot slogging list in the future too, just to mix things up. While the ability to move 12" is an asset, most of the time 6" was plenty. Considering the assault abilities and cost of the dreads, I see no reson why this could not work (and it does for many). However, the question should not be "can I be a shoot and scoot player without Raiders?", but rather "am I a shoot and scoot player?" As I have tried to make clear, this tactica is about one playstyle in particular, which will suit only a specific kind of personality. This is the Aikido of 40k, which suits a different person than, say, the boxing of Earth, or the Mui Thai of Fire. You need to decide if this style is for you, and then find the units that work for you.

-Silent Requiem

Edited by Silent Requiem, 17 February 2007 - 07:26 PM.

QUOTE
About my list; it is weak. But it fits me, and that counts for a lot more than any amount of mathammer.


Since 5th edition: 3 wins, no draws, no losses.

#33
number6

number6

    ++ SCÆNICUS EXTUNDO ++

  • ++ MODERATI CEDO ++
  • 3,504 posts

Hey Silent, Ive read through your post about 5 times now, and i have a big question for you. I know that i wont be using land raiders in my army, so my army will be a lot slower then yours. Should i still go with the shoot and scoot tactic, backing up when they move forward and letting them come to me, or will I be to slow without transports? thanks, your tactic was a great read btw.

FWIW, CrazyDA, this is exactly the style of play that I strive for in each game. I have two batreps up in this thread, one of which (vs LatD) I believe exemplifies this play style well. My report vs Necrons ... well, I was forced to imrovise. Essentially, that's why I take seraphim and an assassin in most every game I play. They're my true wild cards. ;)
RIP Warhammer 40,000: 21 Sep 1998 - 24 May 2014

#34
Combat Wombat

Combat Wombat

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 200 posts
I applaud your efforts in producing a very good tactica Silent Requim, and want to say it has very much influenced the way I was planning to expand my fledgeling GK's.

One question, in what way should an Inquisitor be tooled up for water style gaming? The battle reports by number6 and personal experiance has led me to wanting an assassin, but I dont want the required inquisitor to be useless.
Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of hell
Rode the six hundred.

-excerpt from The Charge of the Light Brigade, by Alfred, Lord Tennyson

#35
Silent Requiem

Silent Requiem

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 478 posts

Here's my starter list for playing grey knights. Hope you all can give me some advice !

It might be an idea to keep specific list discussions on other threads, as we want to keep this one as on point as possible, seeing as it is already a hefty read. I will say that your list is illegal, however, as you cannot take a rhino on it's own, or attached to a Grey Knight unit.

One question, in what way should an Inquisitor be tooled up for water style gaming? The battle reports by number6 and personal experiance has led me to wanting an assassin, but I dont want the required inquisitor to be useless.


The Inquisitor Lords are fundamentally handicapped in this regard by their retinue, though I suppose that a Lord and 3 acolytes with psycannon/storm bolters would make a mobile (if fragile) fire base. The regular Inquisitors are better, and I would put one is terminator armour with a psycannon. This makes him an untargettable, mobile, deep striking firebase, and if you give him daemon hammer, he has some assault punch if you want it.

-Silent Requiem

Edited by Silent Requiem, 18 February 2007 - 08:41 AM.

QUOTE
About my list; it is weak. But it fits me, and that counts for a lot more than any amount of mathammer.


Since 5th edition: 3 wins, no draws, no losses.

#36
Combat Wombat

Combat Wombat

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 200 posts
Would a non-lord Inquisitor be better? as in one taken as an elites choice?
Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of hell
Rode the six hundred.

-excerpt from The Charge of the Light Brigade, by Alfred, Lord Tennyson

#37
Carados

Carados

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 101 posts

The regular Inquisitors are better, and I would put one is terminator armour with a psycannon. This makes him an untargettable, mobile, deep striking firebase, and if you give him daemon hammer, he has some assault punch if you want it.


That is your elite inquisitor :wink: .
.

#38
number6

number6

    ++ SCÆNICUS EXTUNDO ++

  • ++ MODERATI CEDO ++
  • 3,504 posts
Silent Requiem is right, in that unless you are willing to invest almost as many points into your lone elite inquisitor as you would in a BC, he is not a "water" unit. In small-points games, I often get by with just a 50 pt inquisitor: psycannon is the only wargear. He still makes a nice sniper, if not one with quite the range. But being largely untargetable makes up for most of that.

If, like me, you are considering building a shooty retinue around him -- be he a Lord or an Elite -- you are building an "earthy" unit. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it does have to be taken account of in your tactics. It took a while to figure out how to use him properly myself, but I have learned to take advantage of the massive amount of firepower he can bring to the table, equally effective against transports and infantry. You've heard of "covering fire", and that's an excellent protective blanket for your footslogging GKs, who need all the cover they can get, both real and "virtual" (in the form of firepower clearing out safe areas for travel). GKs are precious, and any way you can lessen the heat on them, the better.
RIP Warhammer 40,000: 21 Sep 1998 - 24 May 2014

#39
- 7eAL -

- 7eAL -

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 2,041 posts

If, like me, you are considering building a shooty retinue around him -- be he a Lord or an Elite -- you are building an "earthy" unit. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it does have to be taken account of in your tactics. It took a while to figure out how to use him properly myself, but I have learned to take advantage of the massive amount of firepower he can bring to the table, equally effective against transports and infantry. You've heard of "covering fire", and that's an excellent protective blanket for your footslogging GKs, who need all the cover they can get, both real and "virtual" (in the form of firepower clearing out safe areas for travel). GKs are precious, and any way you can lessen the heat on them, the better.


I had that thought exactly, but against a mounted Ork warboss on a small and heavily wooded table, the Inquisitor didn't get to do much at all. He closed off firing lanes, but there were too many ways to get around small areas of terrain, so the opponents hid there as they advanced. In some ways I suppose that it worked for what I wanted to do, but not as successfully as I would have liked, so I recently came up with another idea, perhaps an alternative to that and to using Raiders, especially on small tables.

Putting together Guard squads to play "living walls" could help the Knights by providing living cover, by blocking firing lanes, by charging preemptively to cover the incoming Knights and by cheaply absorbing the losses that Knights would otherwise take. On a small enough table, Land Raiders are somewhat redundant, as nothing really needs much in the way of transportation, and Raiders have a tougher time getting around anyway whereas infantry do not. In a small enough game, Land Raiders take away too many points that could be spent on more Knights and therefore more wounds, since smaller games seem to be limited to infantry as heavy armor is usually prohibitively expensive, so Guard are a cheap stock of wounds and scoring units. Land Raiders themselves serve as moving cover but the Guard can do certain things that Raiders cannot, and while Guard do not have the decidedly Water-oriented mobile firepower and flexibility of the Knights and the Raiders, they do bring a lot of small arms fire and some heavy weapons. Apparently, I hear inducted Guard platoons work well in an anti-infantry respect.

Inhumanely, Guard can basically serve as throwaway wounds and distractions that the Raiders cannot, and can force the enemy to take firing priority tests when backed by Knights. I'm thinking of throwing a unit of Guard into impossible close combats to cover firing lanes and block advances to protect the Knights - so long as they hold their ground, absorb the charge or deny it, they should be fine letting the Knights follow up or get away. I know that having maybe two or three squads of Guard would have blocked more firing lanes than the Inquisitor did, and would have worked well as a speedbump for the loaded Ork buggies and could have tied up the other advancing Orks to save my Knights from being hemmed in.

I'm planning to do a lot of playtesting between both during summer since I have nobody to play against while I'm at school, but in the meantime it'd be nice to see if someone has experience with both, to comment on how the idea works out.
- 7e/\L
Current arbiter of the Codex: Inquisition Project @ the B&C: Home Grown Rules Join us - the resistance is active!
"And what are the achievements of your fragile Imperium? ... It was built with the toil of heroes and giants, and now it is inhabited by frightened weaklings to whom the glories of those times are half-forgotten legends. I have forgotten nothing, and my wisdom has expanded far beyond mere mortal frailties." - Ahzek Ahriman

#40
Marshal Paul

Marshal Paul

    ++ TENEO FAS ++

  • ++ MODERATI CEDO ++
  • 1,796 posts
Let's try not to bog this tactica down too much much with army lists and conversation. I may have to trim it down a little, like the army list which has found it's way into another thread anyway.

Enjoy.

Lurking since 1209842.M31
 


#41
Combat Wombat

Combat Wombat

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 200 posts
I was reading bits of the tactica again (tactia was good enough for a second whole read through and then some other reads of certain partsin my opinion) when I can accross the "how to fight the 4 elements" section. In the section on fighting a water army with a water army, you suggest not commiting too soon. This is good advice but what if the opponent never decides to commit either? It could be a very long, boring LOS denial game (probably ending in a draw), so I thought of a good counter to this. What about forcing the enemy to commit? To do so you could do a "fake" commital with one unit (GK's are precious sure but if they are all you have go for it) while still denying LOS with the rest of your units. The enemy would have to commit with at least a part of his force, because if he doesn't the GK unit you commited (through an advance covered by SB fire then an assault) will wreak havoc in his troops (he would probably also realize that if you stop after wiping out the assaulted unit you will probably have enough VPs to scratch a win just from that one units actions, thus forcing him to go offensive to compensate). This would then allow you to react to what moves he does once he forces himself into an earth or fire role to counter attack your advance.

So, what do you think?
Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of hell
Rode the six hundred.

-excerpt from The Charge of the Light Brigade, by Alfred, Lord Tennyson

#42
Silent Requiem

Silent Requiem

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 478 posts
Actually, I think you make an excellent point. The mirror match is one of the hardest to plan, and I have the least experience with it. Yet the entry is still weak, and I will edit it when I have a moment.

I would be cautious with the tactic you suggest though. If, through casualties, superior board position, list building, etc, you are the beatdown player, you need to bring all your forces to bear at once, or you risk defeat in detail. If you are the control player, you probably want to avoid losing more units, and want to avoid a head on confrontation too.

As I say the tactica is weak here, and I will change that part of it to give more solid advice.

-Silent Requiem

Edited by Silent Requiem, 20 February 2007 - 07:00 AM.

QUOTE
About my list; it is weak. But it fits me, and that counts for a lot more than any amount of mathammer.


Since 5th edition: 3 wins, no draws, no losses.

#43
Combat Wombat

Combat Wombat

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 200 posts
Yeah, I probably should have clarified a little more (though you still bringa lot of points up I never thought of). The strategy was outlined for a game where its turn 3 and all you have done is a bolter round or two into the enemy and the rest you have done is movement. I never considered the whole beatdown-control concept when I invisioned this, I'll think about that when I'm browsing th codex again or I'm priming models.
Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of hell
Rode the six hundred.

-excerpt from The Charge of the Light Brigade, by Alfred, Lord Tennyson

#44
revmatt

revmatt

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 234 posts
Good tactica,

mature and concise which makes a change.

also nice to read a rules dispute which stays at an adult level - kudos to requiem and number6.

rev
Deathstrike! Classic marine comeback

SPACEMARINE PAINTING LOG/GALLERY

#45
Lionsbane

Lionsbane

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 550 posts
Great read.

I'd like to say I think the Control/Beatdown section was much more helpful than the Earth/Air/Fire/Water section. Though many may not have heard them named in those terms most good players will recognize the basic types of armies. That and how to utilize their armies best against them.

I'd like to ask what your general strategy is against Drop Pod Armies. The ones that can crack your Land Raiders anyway. The Plasma orientated ones I'm sure just roll over and die. But it seems to me any melta armed ones are going to put a world of hurt on your army.

Don't take this next part as a critism. I would like to point out, that in a 1000 pt game, Two Land Raiders is VERY difficult for any balanced army to deal with without getting pretty lucky. In fact I'd go so far as to say that any other army that brought two Land Raiders would be boo'd as overly cheesy/beardy.
Here we are, born to be kings, We're the princes of the universe
Here we belong, Fighting to survive in a world with the darkest powers
And here we are, we're the princes of the universe
Here we belong, fighting for survival
We've come to be the rulers of your world
I am immortal, I have inside me blood of kings
I have no rival, no man can be my equal
Take me to the future of your world
Born to be kings, Princes of the universe

#46
Silent Requiem

Silent Requiem

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 478 posts

I'd like to ask what your general strategy is against Drop Pod Armies. The ones that can crack your Land Raiders anyway. The Plasma orientated ones I'm sure just roll over and die. But it seems to me any melta armed ones are going to put a world of hurt on your army.

I have to admit that I never faced one. If I were to do so, though, I would try to deploy in the corners of my zone, so that if he tries to drop right on me he has a high chance of scattering out. It also minimises the available space for his pods, so he should at best get one or two close to my Raider. My GK would then make him pay for getting within assault range, with my raiders tank shocking out of the trap, racking his troops for some incinerator love.

That's all theory, of course, but it's what I would try.

Hey Silent, Ive got a quesiton for you. I've been reading a lot of battle reports latley with footslogging GK armys, and I see that everytime they get slaughtered. Most of the lists I have seen are not very good, And I feel that my list is as competative as a footslogging GK list can get. I just see me having a problem against high mobility armys(ie Siamm Hann, Tau Fish armies, etc) What do you think the best way for me to counter this is? Should I be running for cover the first turn, trying to take pot shots with my Dreads? This seems to be my only option. Maybe a deepstrike with my terminators once they get in a little closer to scare them? thanks for all the help, you and number6 definetly conviced me to play GK's!


I also have very little experience with footslogging GK (other than when my Raiders have been shot out from under me). I have played the armies you mention though, and they are all nasty to play against, largely because they play to our weakness: armour busting. Most of the best anti-armour in GK armies is assault ranged (melta bombs, hammer hand, thunder hammer, ect), and these armies are too fast to catch. You are relying mainly on your dreads, which are a rather flimsy platform. A DeepStriking BC with (master crafted?) psycannon has helped me out againts these lists many a time (see the GK v Eldar batrep on this thread).

The best I can suggest is to limit LOS enough that he has to come to you. Without Raiders you don't have the combination of mobility and resilience to be more aggressive (and even then it is a high risk game, especially against Tau). number6 has had great success using seraphim in an anti armour role, and I could see them having the speed you need. I have posted your question here in the hope that some of the other readers can give a better answer than I.

-Silent Requiem

PS. In response to several queries, I have posted some thoughts on how all this applies to regular marines here. It lacks the depth and focus of this post, largely because of my lack of experience with the list, and I welcome the input (on that thread) of those with more experience.

Edited by Silent Requiem, 01 March 2007 - 10:17 PM.

QUOTE
About my list; it is weak. But it fits me, and that counts for a lot more than any amount of mathammer.


Since 5th edition: 3 wins, no draws, no losses.

#47
the_Armyman

the_Armyman

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 643 posts
I've sorta recently returned to these forums, and I quite enjoyed your tactica article, Silent Requiem. However, having enjoyed it, I would also like to make the point that I'm not in agreement with some of it :)

First off, I will never be an adherent to RAW. I find it odd that someone with a law degree would be such an adherent to this philosophy, seeing as how it is the job of litigators to find precedents that support their own interpretation of the law for the benefit of their clients. Supporting RAW is, in effect, supporting your own interpretation as there is a difference in a cover save and an invulnerable save. Where is this written? After all of these editions, rulebooks, and codices, I frankly couldn't tell you. The designers made a mistake and left open this loophole, just as they did in explaining a whole slew of things in 4th Edition 40K. Some of us more goofy folks make it a habit of tying our arms behind our backs for something as esoteric as the spirit of the game. I'm not here to convince you of my virtue, and neither will you convince me of your righteousness. Just thought I'd point this out!

Secondly, at 1,000 points, the grand majority of the people I play games with would balk at your use of two Land Raiders in a small, friendly game. Most opponents would find it a bit of a challenge to face one LR at this points level, and there are some that would find it nearly insurmountable with two LRs on the table. Certainly, our codex allows you that option (harkening back to RAW). What I find interesting is that you mentioned that none of your regular gaming opponents made it their habit to tool their lists to conquer yours. I don't question that you're an intelligent, thoughtful player. But, I do question that if people had taken as cutthroat (a poor word choice, since it makes it seem a sinister pre-meditation on your part) a list as you had chosen, I seriously doubt you could be singing the praises of an unblemished, win-loss record. The two batreps you posted were certainly not tooled to defeat your army, so although they do a good job of proving the points of your tactica, they are not what I would consider comparable opponents.

But, as I said, I found your tactica a good read, and there certainly are some principles in it that can be applied to all aspects of in-game play as well as practical army building. If for no other reasons than those, it's a great addition to the Ordos Inquisition forum. Thanks for taking the time to write it up!
the Armyman
*Bloo Toof's Stompas
*12th Methuselan Armored Cavalry Regiment
*Grey Knights Mars Honor Guard

#48
number6

number6

    ++ SCÆNICUS EXTUNDO ++

  • ++ MODERATI CEDO ++
  • 3,504 posts

Hey Silent, Ive got a quesiton for you. I've been reading a lot of battle reports latley with footslogging GK armys, and I see that everytime they get slaughtered. Most of the lists I have seen are not very good, And I feel that my list is as competative as a footslogging GK list can get. I just see me having a problem against high mobility armys(ie Siamm Hann, Tau Fish armies, etc) What do you think the best way for me to counter this is? Should I be running for cover the first turn, trying to take pot shots with my Dreads? This seems to be my only option. Maybe a deepstrike with my terminators once they get in a little closer to scare them? thanks for all the help, you and number6 definetly conviced me to play GK's!


I also have very little experience with footslogging GK (other than when my Raiders have been shot out from under me). I have played the armies you mention though, and they are all nasty to play against, largely because they play to our weakness: armour busting. Most of the best anti-armour in GK armies is assault ranged (melta bombs, hammer hand, thunder hammer, ect), and these armies are too fast to catch. You are relying mainly on your dreads, which are a rather flimsy platform. A DeepStriking BC with (master crafted?) psycannon has helped me out againts these lists many a time (see the GK v Eldar batrep on this thread).

The best I can suggest is to limit LOS enough that he has to come to you. Without Raiders you don't have the combination of mobility and resilience to be more aggressive (and even then it is a high risk game, especially against Tau). number6 has had great success using seraphim in an anti armour role, and I could see them having the speed you need. I have posted your question here in the hope that some of the other readers can give a better answer than I.

Everything SR says mirrors my experience. Your two examples (Siamm Hann Eldar, mech Tau) are interesting, in that they actually pose very different problems. They're both "Air-extreme" armies, but the source of their mobility is different. For the Eldar, it's largely jetbikes and vypers (though many Eldar units can also take advantage of transports and fleet, you just won't see them much in a Siamm Hann force), and for the Tau, it's tanks and transports with, assuredly, a smattering of jet-pack battlesuits thrown in for good measure, too. (Some Tau armies can be almost entire battlesuits, in which case they more closely resemble the Siamm Hann Eldar.) Like SR says in his tactica, these armies intend to beat you by outmaneuvering you, and you will just have to accept that they will largely succeed at that.

But this doesn't mean you're hopeless. (Well, if you're playing on a board with very little sight-blocking terrain, it very nearly is, so enjoy your loss. But on a standard board with 25% terrain coverage, or a CoD board...) I look at the movement phase with a predominately GK army (you'll be footslogging something) as the most important phase of the game. Where you move -- where you show your enemy you are applying your force -- should be seen as an opportunity to enforce your will upon your opponent. Move your GKs to control a piece of area terrain, or the lines of sight around a piece of terrain. Threaten vast swathes of the board with your GKs; they can do it, thanks to storm bolters (and NFWs, of course). Even if you can't shoot or assault as a result of such movement, the threats you imply when you do so can -- should -- have a large impact on the way your opponent responds. By enforcing your will, you remain in control of the game, and therefore your destiny. They may be able to outmaneuver you, but that doesn't necessarily equate to being able to dominate the board. We have the tools available to do that ourselves.

Against Air armies that aren't heavily mechanized (e.g., heavy use of bikes and jump troops), this is especially effective, as you limit safe spots for their troops to land. There are few units in the game that can stand up to a solid stormbolter volley from a large squad of GKs. The weaponry available to troops with an assault move (e.g., Eldar jetbikes, Tau battlesuits) means that they have to place themselves within range of your stormbolters in order to hit you, and will still be in range after their assault move, too. Of course, your opponent will try to keep you from firing back by jumping behind terrain with their assault move. What you need to do is identify the spaces on the board where this is possible and do one of two things. Either dominate those spaces with multiple, supporting units of GKs so those spots simply aren't safe havens, or avoid those spaces altogether. An Air army of this variety has to chase you down if it is going to win; we DH are much more likely to win a game of Victory Point denial than an Air army. Make sure that where you allow them to catch you leaves them vulnerable to return fire or, better yet (and if you're lucky), assaults.

Air armies that are heavily mechanized are, in my opinion, the most difficult challenge facing us. At some point, you simply have to attack the armour. Otherwise, what Silent Requiem does to his opponents will happen to you! :tu: Hiding behind terrain will help you only so much, as GKs don't have any ability to take on armour tougher than AV 10, save in assaults, and there is no way a canny Air general will allow your GKs to approach his precious tanks. Which means you either have to be as fast as those tanks (no options in the DH list direcly), or you have to bulk up on firepower. The DH list, solo, has relatively few anti-armour options. Still, there are options.

==========
Pure GK
----------
* 1-2 TLLC/ML dreads, 0-1 AC/DCCW dreads
* Dedicated GK psycannon squads, either 1-2 "mini-purgation" squads or 0-1 purgation squad
* at least 1 TH/SS GKT per 4-5 GKTs
* melta bombs on all vanilla GK squads' Justicars

Pure DH (no allies or inductees)
----------
* As above, plus ...
* Mounted ISTs w/2x melta guns
* Shooty inquisitor (psycannon, plasma cannon, 2x heavy bolter)
* Eversor assassin (for attacking armour) or Callidus Assassin (for setting deployment to your advantage, or for constantly scrambling the brains of a tank's crew so they can't shoot)

Pure Inquisition (allowing for allied Witch Hunters)
----------
* As above, plus ...
* Seraphim squad, 2x inferno pistols, VSS w/eviscerator
* Mounted Sisters of Battle (troops), 2x melta guns
* Flying Cannoness (inferno pistol, eviscerator, jump pack, cloak of st aspira, mantle of ophelia)

DH With All The Trimmings (allowing for all legal allying and inducting combinations)
----------
* As above, plus ...
* Inducted Imperial Guard troops with lascannons and/or missile launchers (maybe an autocannon or two)
* Inducted IG Leman Russ, maxed out lascannons
* Inducted IG Sentinels with lascannons or autocannons
* Inducted IG Rough Riders

Pure DH, Radical (its own unique animal)
----------
* Mounted ISTs with 2x melta guns
* Shooty Inquisitor (psycannon, plasma cannon, 2x heavy bolters)
* Eversor Assassin or Callidus Assassin
* Orbital Strike: melta torpedo

Radical DH With All the Trimmings (taking advantage of allied options)
----------
* As Pure DH, Radical, plus ...
* Allied Sisters of Battle options (as shown above)
* Inducted IG options (as shown above)
... OR ...
* Allied Space Marine scouts/tactical squads with lascannons and/or missile launchers
* Allied Space Marine Predator
* Allied Space Marine Land Speeder (either variety)
* Allied Space Marine veteran dreadnought (TLLC/ML)

==========

I think it should be obvious that there's no shortage of options, no matter what army you want to build. The most restrictive is the Pure DH, radical army, but even there you can make it work. ISTs and the orbital strike are cheap, for goodness' sake! No reason not to buy lots of what you need in such situations.

Of course, there're also the questions of effectiveness and efficiency. Or, how good is your tank-hunting option per point spent? Of all the above options, I think the Top 5 most "effectively efficient" options, independent of availability in your desired army style, but taking into account any required minimum investment to even have access to an option (e.g., the required 2 Troop purchase of inducted IG troops just to get a Leman Russ), are as follows.

1. Seraphim with inferno pistols
2. TLLC/ML Dreadnoughts
3. Mounted ISTs with melta guns
4. Inducted IG troops with heavy weapons
5. AC/DCCW Dreadnoughts

These rankings explain my prejudice for Seraphim and Dreadnoughts in my army lists. Point for point, they offer the most anti-armour offense to the DH. I'm especially partial to Seraphim because they are fast, relatively resilient, and extremely versatile; they're just as nasty against infantry as they are against armour, so you can always rely on them to be where you most need them. You can get a taste of them in action in my two battle reports. The battle report against The Lost and the Damned has one of my standard 1500 pt lists, one that centers around footslogging GKs yet is specifically aimed at fighting heavily mechanized opponents. (Every unit taken as the ability to damage enemy armour.) Although TLatD isn't mechanized, I like the batrep because it's shows how to use a list specifically tooled to defeat one kind of opponent to defeat an entirely different kind of opponent.

Finally, if you're wondering why I didn't list land raiders or land raider crusaders in my list of options, it's because I build infantry-centric lists, not mechanized ones. If you want anti-armour options and tactics that use land raiders, look no further than Silent Requiem's tactica.

Edited by number6, 02 March 2007 - 05:20 PM.

RIP Warhammer 40,000: 21 Sep 1998 - 24 May 2014

#49
BoonKin

BoonKin

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 410 posts
Hi guys !

Hey Silent Requiem I was suggesting that maybe you could play and post a few more batreps (against other armies of course) ? I find that I do actually learn alot more by reading batreps (not that I am badmouthing your theory), maybe you can show us more of the application of the 'water' GK armies ?

Thanks .





#50
- 7eAL -

- 7eAL -

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 2,041 posts

By enforcing your will, you remain in control of the game, and therefore your destiny.


That is called dramatic diction. Beautiful.
I've got to say that not only do I love reading Silent Requiem's posts, I also love reading your posts, number6. It's all just excellent writing - a show of talent, flexibility and understanding of language.

I find that when I am playing an opponent who seems to have nearly no idea what he's doing, all of my positioning goes to waste because he can find a way to sit just inside my threat corridor while sitting outside of my threat range. His only concerns are that he isn't immediately being shot at and that he is slowly making his way towards my lines to make an assault.
Should I move to shoot his troops down, I lose control of the other firing lanes I have covered and something else will move in to take advantage. Should I hold position, he will slowly pick off my Knights with his few heavy weapons and many lucky rolls. I think I may just be unlucky in that I always seem to play on boards with too many pieces of too-small area terrain, where the opponents gain the advantage by having so many paths to move between cover - they have many squads with which to advance between cover and I have few squads with which to threaten so many corridors.
I think I'm going to build some pieces of larger area terrain, see how that works.
- 7e/\L
Current arbiter of the Codex: Inquisition Project @ the B&C: Home Grown Rules Join us - the resistance is active!
"And what are the achievements of your fragile Imperium? ... It was built with the toil of heroes and giants, and now it is inhabited by frightened weaklings to whom the glories of those times are half-forgotten legends. I have forgotten nothing, and my wisdom has expanded far beyond mere mortal frailties." - Ahzek Ahriman