The Pragmatic Realspace Raider: Deepstrike Risks

The Pragmatic Realspace Raider: Deepstrike Risks

These guides aim to give bitesize advice on the benefits of being pragmatic when playing 40k. They do not intend to delve into mathematical analysis of whether or not the units used in the example are optimal or cost effective, nor do they intend to cover load outs or configurations. Those will be left for other discussions. It is also worth noting that the examples in these guides are simplified for clarity, of course in practice there will be more units involved.

Deepstrike is a powerful ability which now comes stock on Raiders, Venoms and Ravagers. However, you can get a lot more out of deepstrike by having a clearer understanding of the risks involved. This guide will cover the factors to take into account when positioning that first deepstrike model.

The most important is the number of slices of the 12" radius scatter pie that enemy/friendly units are in. Taking into account that you only scatter 2/3 of the time if half the pie is full of units then you would have a 1/3 chance of landing on one of those units and having a mishap. If a quarter of the pie is full then you will have a 1/6 chance. If only an eighth is full then you will only have a 1/12 chance. This is before taking into account scatter distance.

Example 1:



If the circle is divided into six pieces then you have a 1/9 chance of landing in a particular piece.

Note: that in the case of raiders due to their shape it is actually more of an oval, however for simplicity I have used a circle.

Example 2:



Half of the circle is full of enemy models, so without taking into account scatter the raider has a 3/9 chance of misshaping.

Example 3:



A third of the circle is full of enemy models, so without taking into account scatter the raider has a 2/9 chance of misshaping.

When deepstriking models that aren't round, such as raiders, it is also important to consider their orientation.

Example 4:



By pointing the raider north, it can fit in the gap between the models in the top half of the circle meaning if the raider scatters any distance directly forward it won’t have a mishap. This reduces the overall chance of having a mishap.

Example 5:



By pointing the raider east, it reduces its length, meaning the Raider needs to scatter less to clear the models in the top half of the circle and avoid a mishap. This reduces the overall chance of having a mishap.

The distribution on 2d6 follows a bell curve this also affect the risks involved. It means you have a 5/6 chance of the scatter distance being between 4-10", the upshot of this is if you have to deepstrike near enemy units you want them to be either close or far away but not in that middle range.

Furthermore 3/6 of the deepstrike mishap results put the unit into ongoing deepstrike reserve. This means they are guaranteed to come on the following turn. If a one turn delay is an acceptable risk then you can afford to deep strike more aggressively. 2/6 of the deepstrike mishap results allow your opponent to place the Raider, though inconvenient the Raiders mobility will ensure that it is by no means out of the fight. All in all this means there is only 1/6 of the mishap result that are a concern.

Now all the above isn’t an exact science, some assumptions have been made (for example that the scatter dice has the same chance of facing in any of the directions).

However, despite these assumptions, these tricks can help give you a quick and dirty estimation on what risks are involved when deepstriking, and as a result help you position your deepstriking models more effectively.

Hope you enjoyed this guide! Have fun deepstriking!

For more guides checkout #ThePragmaticRealspaceRaider

Some excellent statistics. Thank you very much.

Thanks for that guide, will definitely use its implications . However, for me personally the biggest threat results from bad reserve rolls.

Nice, thank you.

Nice write up. Practical and usable.

Aroban wrote:

Thanks for that guide, will definitely use its implications . However, for me personally the biggest threat results from bad reserve rolls.

Oddly, thinking about it, I'm not sure I've ever suffered a perils result on a deep strike. Of course I usually don't place them anywhere that it will be a risk...or, nowadays, I just come in without scatter and get to make a troll face at my opponent.

In addition, if you have riders (fire dragons, blasters, haywire grenades) they can dismount when they arrive thus adding another 6" of flex space. The fire dragons can extend that even further with battle focus.

So I wonder if that makes the optimum distance 10" from the target unit for a shooting unit?

Despite I'm a new player, this guide is a shiny golden mine. Thank you !

Mushkilla I like the way u use ffractions bb

Thor665 wrote:

Oddly, thinking about it, I'm not sure I've ever suffered a perils result on a deep strike.

Don't play Mawlocs then.

Mishaps are very uncommon for me (although I've taken one recently with a Scalpel Squadron unit). However, extended Reserve delays are also uncommon. I really think that any options to increase Reserve rolls are too expensive for that benefit, and don't do much in addition.

Now, DS scatters that send me out of optimum distance (close enough to get charged, or too far for the passengers to shoot) are far more common. This guide has a couple good ideas for placing closer to the enemy with comfort.

Jimsolo wrote:

This guide has a couple good ideas for placing closer to the enemy with comfort.

That's exactly what I was hoping to achieve.

If you are sacrificing game turns by putting a unit in reserve you need to make the deep strike worthwhile otherwise you might have well have started that unit on the board.

That means deep striking aggressively, so that you can rapid fire your intended target and/or assault next turn. Especially with gunboat raiders, where I dont want to disembark so that I can leverage splinter racks and the extra protection offered by AV10 and jink. I almost always place my deep striking model 1" away from it's intended target and rely on minimising the size of the slice of pie to reduce risk. A tactic that I have hoaned reasonably well with my deep strike centric grey knights.

I'm no stranger to aggressive DS. Drop Pods were my first army, and I'm always looking for the DS strategy in any new army, since it's what I understand best. (Side note: I really miss the duke.)

You know a lot of people rank skill too low on the scale for winning a match. I've seen it surmoised that

1. The list itself if built correctly is 50% of the time enough to win a game
2. At tournaments especially your match ups are a good 20% indicative of wins and losses.
3. This leaves a skill level of only 20% to help you actually win your games. This seems a small percentage but it is enough to differentiate the 'best' from the 'rest'. Understanding the nuances of DSing etc., is often just enough to snatch victory from defeat.

Now we factor in bad rolls, bad missions etc. So how great a role does skill actually play in a game? I have always felt that an understanding of the tactics - even if it is not the whole pie - can make or break a game. Knowing how and when to set up a consolidation onto an objective, recognizing that EVERY unit in your list can be sacrificed if needed, sizing up assaults and understanding how multi-assaults work, deploying to your advantage, knowing when going second is preferable to going first, and on and on.

I find this small tacticas quite useful. The small edge it gives you inn games might be enough to grab that last point.

Thanks egorey. I agree skill and tactics seem to be undervalued by the 40k internet community.

That's 30% skill there duck. Good job numbers are nothing to do with the game

In all seriousness, you're right. I always feel as though the people asking "how should I win this game" on the internet is a bit like in school when boys would be like "what do I get a girl for christmas?" like there's one winning answer. Depends on you, depends on them.

Mush and Duck have always taught me a lot in small chunks like this. Keep sharpening those knives, and thanks!

The other ten percent is luck and missions --

Although my math at times is bad!

I find that I just understand things better when they're explained to me using pie.

Mushkilla wrote:

Thanks egorey. I agree skill and tactics seem to be undervalued by the 40k internet community.

I think it is less obvious in 40K. Movement is very important in fantasy, and there are loads of tricks you can do if you have the right units. Many players who aren't so great, for example, will underestimate how game changing a unit of light cavalry, or something like a Great Eagle, can be. Without killing a single thing they can win you the game.

In 40K I would say movement is not so obviously important; it doesn't matter if someone charges the flank of one of your units. Also, historically, Space Marines have been more limited when it comes to fast/mobile transports, and deep-striking, so they were less likely to learned the advantages of movement (faster armies were able to take the initiative in that department). In my mind, most of the discussions I've seen on placement, and movement shenanigans have come from Eldar, Dark Eldar, and Tau players. Both types of Eldar can rely on their units being where they need to be to do their job, and ideally be safe from harm afterwards. The Tau's skimmers and jet-pack units also give them lots of movement options.

Mushkilla wrote:

Thanks egorey. I agree skill and tactics seem to be undervalued by the 40k internet community.

There's a guy at my club who completely failed to grasp the idea that skill and tactics contributed to winning games and after his sixth straight defeat arranged a massive matchup against one of the longer serving members (4000+ pts I think). He brought 4 superheavies. And lost.

All the big guns in the universe won't help you if you shoot them at the wrong targets.

It's great to read and great to use. I really mean this, when saying, I bow to you.
This is exactly, what any DE-player needs. GO ON, GUYS!!

Thanks for the kind words everyone! I should be posting another articles this weekend, so stay tuned.

hellios wrote:

In 40K I would say movement is not so obviously important; it doesn't matter if someone charges the flank of one of your units. Also, historically, Space Marines have been more limited when it comes to fast/mobile transports, and deep-striking, so they were less likely to learned the advantages of movement (faster armies were able to take the initiative in that department). In my mind, most of the discussions I've seen on placement, and movement shenanigans have come from Eldar, Dark Eldar, and Tau players. Both types of Eldar can rely on their units being where they need to be to do their job, and ideally be safe from harm afterwards. The Tau's skimmers and jet-pack units also give them lots of movement options.

Yeah that definitely used to be the case. I think 6-7th edition 40k did a lot to make movement more important with the changes to how models are removed. In 6th-7th the closest model in the target unit to the shooting unit dies compared to in 5th where the owner of the target unit chose which models died (basically the last marine alive in a squad was always the special weapon). So now you can use positioning to remove key models and such making movement more important.

Another factor is now that you move flat out/turboboost in the shooting phase. Not only has this made all vehicles faster (rhinos can now move a total of 18" compared to 12" before), it also enables you to move units after the rest of your army has fired, making blocking/screening etc a lot more reliable and calculated.

I feel in 6-7th "movement shenanigans" are no longer the realm of just Dark Eldar/Eldar though we do excel at it. Which is great as in my opinion it makes the game on the whole a lot more tactical.