BR4: The Repugnant Ramblers Vs Imperial Knights - 1250pts

The Repugnant Ramblers return to ramble round realspace.

The Armies:

The Repugnant Ramblers (DE)

click to see list:

Imperial Knights (IK)

click to see list:

Mission: The Spoils Of War (Drawn up to 3 objectives per turn, can’t discard Secure Objective X cards, both players can score Secure Objective X cards)
Deployment: Dawn of War
Night Fight on first turn: Yes
First Turn: IK
Warlord Trait DE: Lead by Example (+1VP to objectives secured by warlord)
Warlord Trait IK: Indomitable (Warlord has WND)

Objectives Placement:


My opponent won the roll off to deploy objectives first. The objectives were placed in the same order as their numbers (my opponent placing the odd ones and me placing the even ones). My opponent grouped his objectives centrally which would allow a single knight to hold them and still threaten the entire board. I spread out my objectives as best the could, placing them in terrain where possible (forcing any charging knight to strike at I5).

Choosing Table Halves:

I won the roll off for picking table halves and chose the side with two objectives in its deployment zone, this would allow me to deploy my talos as far away from each other as possible, whilst still allowing me to control two objective. My goal was to split my opponents knights up as much as possible.

Deployment:


My opponent won the roll off for deployment and decided that I should deploy first. This was so that he could see my deployment and minimise the distance between his knights and my talos. As my opponent expected I deployed two talos on each of the objectives in my deployment zone.

My opponrny responded by matching each talos pair with a single knight (gerantius on the left and his warlord on the right). He deployed the last knight centrally to control the three central objectives.

I decided to go second.

Turn 1 (IK):


Tactical Objectives: Secure Objective Marker 6, Secure Objective 4, Secure Objective 1.

Objective 1 - Skyfire Nexus (unit can skyfire), Objective 4 - Grav Field Generator (-2 to charge range), Objective 6 - Grav Field Generator (-2 to charge range) and Objective 2 - Scatter Field (+1 to cover saves).

The knights secure Objective 4 and 1 whilst moving as close as possible towards the talos in the left hand corner. Gerantius fires his thermal cannon at the talos but it scatters wide. The knight on the right moves up the right hand flank firing its rapid-fire battle cannon at the talos to no effect (3+ cover due to night fight and the scatter field).

The knights score Secure Objectives 4 and 1 for 2VP.

IK VPs: 2
DE VPs: 0

Turn 1 (DE):


Tactical Objectives: Secure Objective 2, Secure Objective 1, Pain in All Its Forms (destroy an enemy unit).

The talos on the left move back to minimise the line of sight that can be drawn to them. The talos on the right spread out and move forward so that if the knight charges them it can’t contest the objective and can only hit one talos at a time with it’s stomp attacks.

The talos score my opponents Secure Objective 6 and my Secure Objective 2 for 2VP.

I discard the Pain in All Its Forms Tactical Objective.

IK VPs: 2
DE VPs: 2

Turn 2 (IK):


Tactical Objectives: Secure Objective 4, No Prisoners (destroy a unit) and Secure Objective 2.

Gerantius (the leftmost knight) holds back to score Objective 4, and fires into the talos however fails to hurt them. The central knight moves up, but remains within 3” of objective 1 (so that it can be score and to deter my grotesques from deep striking near the objectives). The warlord knight on the right moves, shoots and charges the talos, he fails to hurt them in either phase. The talos inflict two hull points of damage with their smash attacks, however one is recovered by WND at the end of the turn.

My opponent scores Objective 4 and my Objective 1 for a total of 2VP.

IK VPs: 4
DE VPs: 2

Turn 2 (DE):


Tactical Objectives: Secure Objective 3, Secure Objective 5 and Kingslayer (D3 VP for destroying your opponents warlord).

One of the grotesque squads come on, deepstriking onto Objective 3 - Nothing of Note and spreading out so if the knight assaults them it won’t be able to contest the objective. The talos fail to hurt the knight walord in assault and it rolls poorly for it’s reaper blade and stomp attacks.

The talos score my opponents secure objective 2 (as the knight they are in assault with is not close enough to contest) and my warlord's grotesques score my objective 3 (getting +1VP) for a total of 3VP.

I decide to discard the Kingslayer tactical objective.

IK VPs: 4
DE VPs: 5

Turn 3 (IK):


Tactical Objectives: Secure Objective 2, Secure Objective 3 and No Prisoners (destroy a unit).

Gerantius moves towards the talos, and uses his battle focus ability to shoot and run in the same turn, his thermal cannon inflicts a wound on the talos. The central knight fires its rapid-fire battle cannon at the grots inflicting a few wounds, it then charges killing three grots and inflicting a few wounds with it’s stomps. The knight warlord on the far right brings a talos down with it’s reaper chainsword. The talos inflict a single penetrating hit, however this is recovered by WND at the end of the turn.

IK VPs: 4
DE VPs: 5

Turn 3 (DE):


Tactical Objectives: Secure Objective 5, Secure Objective 5 and Secure Objective 6.

The second unit of grotesques comes in from reserves and land on objective 5 - nothing of note. The talos on the left move forward to block objective 6. The talos on the right is killed by the warlord knight. The knight fighting the grotesques manages to kill two and my warlord haemonculus with a stomp scoring him first blood, and slay the warlord for a total 2VP.

The talos on the right score my opponents secure objective 2 again (as the knight they are in assault with is not close enough to contest). The talos on the left score my objective 6. the grotesques score my opponents objective 3 (as the knight is not close enough to contest). The other unit of grotesques scores objective 5 twice for a total of 5VP.

IK VPs: 6
DE VPs: 10

Turn 4 (IK):


Tactical Objectives: No Prisoners (destroy a unit in any phase), Secure Objective 1 and Overwhelming Fire Power (destroy a unit in the shooting phase).

Gerantius shoots and charges the talos killing one in assault. The central knight manages to kill a single grotesque (3 attacks hitting on 4s is not that great and the grotesques are now spread out to minimise stomp damage). The warlord knight moves towards the unengaged grotesques firing his rapid-fire battle cannon inflicting a few wounds.

My opponent scores No Prisoners from the last round for killing my haemonculus (as he had it last round) and scores Big Game Hunter from killing the Talos for a total of 2VP.

He discard Overwhelming Fire Power tactical objective.

IK VPs: 8
DE VPs: 10

Turn 4 (DE):


Tactical Objectives: Secure Objective 3, Supremacy(D3 VP for controlling twice as many objectives as your opponent) and Hungry for Glory (issue a challenge).

The grotesques that are not engaged try to move so that they can still score my opponents objective 1, but are as far away from the knight on the right as possible. I just need to have either the grotesque or the talos survive a round and I can score supremacy. In assault Gerantius kills the talos, and consolidate towards my remaining grotesques. However the knight engaged with the two grotesques only manages to kill one!

I score my opponents objective 1, my objective 3 and supremacy for a total of 4VP.

I discard the Hungry for Glory tactical objective.

IK VPs: 8
DE VPs: 14

Turn 5 (IK):


Tactical Objectives: Ascendancy (D3 VP for controlling 3 objectives), Supremacy (D3 VP for controlling twice as many objectives as your opponent) and Hold The Line (have units in your deployment zone and no enemies).

The knights move out to secure three objectives for Ascendancy and Supremacy. The Knight Warlord secures objective 5 whilst firing into the grotesques killing one and wounding another. Gerantius secures objective 6 and fires into the grotesques but only clips them causing a single wound. The knight engaged with the grotesques kills the last one, and consolidates onto objective 3.

My opponent scores Ascendancy and Supremacy for a total of 5VP.

He discards the Hold The Line tactical objective.

IK VPs: 13
DE VPs: 14

Turn 5 (DE):


Tactical Objectives: Big Game Hunter (destroy an enemy MC/Super Heavy), Trophy Hunter (destroy a character or secure an objective held by your opponent), Hold The Line (have units in your deployment zone and no enemies).

The one remaining grotesques unit moves and runs to secure line breaker.

I discard the Big Game Hunter tactical objective

The game ends, both sides score line breaker.

Covenite Victory!

IK VPs: 14
DE VPs: 15

Conclusion

A very close game, that I probably would have lost had it gone on to turn 6 (considering how bad my last hand was and my opponents control of the board). I was pleasantly surprised with how effective blocking the objectives was, and it really was what gave me a chance in this match up. Although I doubt I could win this match up consistently (as it ultimately comes down to stomp rolls and objective draws) it was no where near as lopsided as I expected it to be. More importantly I feel pretty confident against lists with 1-2 knights at this points level.

Hope you enjoyed the report.

For more reports checkout #TheRepugnantRamblers

Wow..... just wow....

Sigmaril wrote:

Wow..... just wow....

You beat me to it, Sigmaril.  

Congrats on the well-deserved and well-played victory, Mush.  

One question for you.  Did you ever consider breaking up the Grots squads into smaller 3-4 man units to give you more speed bumps and/or objective grabbers?

Well played Mush, though I feel like you got lucky with the game ending early ;-)

A small mistake that I believe cost the Knight player the game: don't shoot when you're (nearly) invincible in cc!
Doesn't matter if he scores 1 point for holding an objective in his own DZ, just move -> run -> charge as soon as possible and squish your army flat.

Gerantius holding back meant it took at least 1 turn too much before he killed your Talos on the left flank.

sweetbacon wrote:

One question for you.  Did you ever consider breaking up the Grots squads into smaller 3-4 man units to give you more speed bumps and/or objective grabbers?

I have considered it, and it would have been advantageous in this match up (and certain other match ups). On the other hand my current set up is very good for messing with most armies abilities to score first blood and or destroy X unit tactical objectives. I wanted to avoid tailoring my list to this matchup, despite the fact that MSU Talos probably would have been an advantage in this matchup.

Septimus wrote:

Well played Mush, though I feel like you got lucky with the game ending early ;-)

Yup, I almost definitely would have lost on VPs had the game gone on. On the bright side I doubt I would have been tabled.

Septimus wrote:

A small mistake that I believe cost the Knight player the game: don't shoot when you're (nearly) invincible in cc!
Doesn't matter if he scores 1 point for holding an objective in his own DZ, just move -> run -> charge as soon as possible and squish your army flat.

Gerantius holding back meant it took at least 1 turn too much before he killed your Talos on the left flank.

I agree, though I think the mission made that a harder choice than you are making it out to be. You can't discard Secure Objective X cards in Spoils of War which means if you are not scoring them your hand will get clogged up. Both players can also score either players Secure Objective X cards, so I could have deep struck onto objective 4 and got those 2VP if I felt I needed them (with my warlord's unit that would have got me 4VP thanks to my warlord trait). Speaking of which it's a shame my warlord unit came down first in this game had it come down second (I could have got 3 more VP thanks to his warlord trait).

Not playing the mission, means you have to table your opponent. As a result had my opponent gone for the tabling he would have lagged behind on VP. Once I felt I had a suitable lead in VP I could just play the survival game. Hiding behind, in and around bastions. Hiding lone haemonculi out of sight so they can't be shot or charged etc.

I think a better move for my opponent, in regards to your point, would be to deploy the Paladin (the one that was not the warlord) on objective 4, he had better range potential and was less effective in close combat, so would be a better choice to hold back if my opponent decided to play the mission the way he did. This would have allowed him to deploy Gerantius centrally, to control the three objective. Gerantius would have cleared through the grots faster with his WS5 and re-roll 1s on stomp attacks.

Honestly though in this matchup I feel as the Coven player your best bet is to position army as well as you can and hope your opponent gets unlucky with his Stomp, D-weapon, Difficult Terrain and Charge Rolls.

Mushkilla wrote:

Honestly though in this matchup I feel as the Coven player your best bet is to position army as well as you can and hope your opponent gets unlucky with his Stomp, D-weapon, Difficult Terrain and Charge Rolls.

I felt this was the key point. In this match-up his units pretty much negated your added toughness and wounds thats provided by the coven forces.

You played to the mission and squeezed a victory out of it, but I felt like it to some extend depended on his rolls too much. Your objective blocking proved very effective, but I feel like your win partly came from the mission. Had you played another mission where you couldn't score his objectives then I think he would have had a much easier time against you. Most of your VP's if not all came from scoring an objective and then also scoring some of his at the same time. Whereas he was attempting to play objectively but aggressively. He did get some big VP gains from supremacy, but had it been the choice between discarding objective cards, I feel he would have in order to get kill X unit, a card that is far more effective for his style of list.

But Well played Mush As always you squeeze a win out of some pretty tough scenarios

solar shock wrote:

You played to the mission and squeezed a victory out of it, but I felt like it to some extend depended on his rolls too much...

It does, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. For me the highlight is that I can actually win this match up. Sure my odds might be below 50:50, but a decent mission and I have a chance, which is more than I expected. So whilst not a reliable matchup it's by no means an auto lose.

The other thing I took away is that this was a three knight list at 1250 points without any vulnerable support units (which allow me to score destroy X cards). So I am hopeful for higher point match ups as it's likely to mean I will have more tough things (to throw into the grinder), and my opponent will have more squishy things (for me to get first blood and destroy X).

I also didn't feel that four haywire blasters on the talos would have made much difference. Which is good because the splinter cannons are much more useful in the majority of other match ups.

All in all, I'm quite positive about this matchup now, still tough, but nowhere near as demoralising as going second against serpent spam with a conventional DE list (which tends to result in being tabled by turn 3).

Great report, Mush!

You're a real inspiration for me. Not as much as I want to copy your list, but on tactics. Even though I use different units than you, the "get the most out of it" mentality is nice, and something every DE player should try to achieve. I would even say, it's more essential for DE than other armies, considering how fragile but hard hitting we are.

Looking forward to see more reports from you, always a good read

Congratulations on another win.

But my God are Knight armies dull. "Yeah, this game is so much more epic if I only have 3 models on the table."

Omega1907 wrote:

You're a real inspiration for me. Not as much as I want to copy your list, but on tactics. Even though I use different units than you, the "get the most out of it" mentality is nice, and something every DE player should try to achieve. I would even say, it's more essential for DE than other armies, considering how fragile but hard hitting we are.

Glad to hear these reports are providing you with inspiration.

I do enjoy trying to get the most out of units, I'm a big fan of challenging the established internet paradigm such as: units having to make their points back. I also like to promote tactics and strategy over list building.

The Shredder wrote:

But my God are Knight armies dull. "Yeah, this game is so much more epic if I only have 3 models on the table."

Tell me about it! On the bright side it was one of the quickest games of 40k I have ever played.

Now that the "Hard Counter" match ups have been played and out of the way I'm looking forward to getting more exiting games in against other armies. I'm hoping to play against Skyblight or Wolfstar next, both should be interesting games.

Well, at least you weren't outnumbered model-wise this time.

Amazing job securing a win, I can't imagine how tough it could be to bring those knights down with literally no ranged AV (not that you needed to!).

Mushkilla wrote:

The other thing I took away is that this was a three knight list at 1250 points without any vulnerable support units (which allow me to score destroy X cards). So I am hopeful for higher point match ups as it's likely to mean I will have more tough things (to throw into the grinder), and my opponent will have more squishy things (for me to get first blood and destroy X).

That is indeed very true, You didn't really have much to grind with your monstrocities, except from throwing out very tactical speed bumps. Wasn't trying to bash your tactics, but just a shame the coven forces cant force the knight player to make hard choices except through tactical play.

But im a little biased, I just find IK lists so... bland? bland is probably the word IK may be your hard counter, but id play coven anyday of the week over IK!

Great game Mush - this should be the poster for "Play to the Mission"!

Thanks for sharing

solar shock wrote:

That is indeed very true, You didn't really have much to grind with your monstrocities, except from throwing out very tactical speed bumps.

I'm sure the ends justify the means to the haemonculus. After all they were in realspace to harvest the rare essence of gloom forest mushrooms. The knights were merely an inconvenience.

solar shock wrote:

Wasn't trying to bash your tactics, but just a shame the coven forces cant force the knight player to make hard choices except through tactical play.

I didn't think you were (bashing my tactics). I was just being upbeat, I agree though it's frustrating to play against a list that you can't really hurt but that's just 40k sometimes.

solar shock wrote:

I just find IK lists so... bland? bland is probably the word

They are indeed.

Creeping Darkness wrote:

Great game Mush - this should be the poster for "Play to the Mission"!

Haha, thanks. It's amazing how easy it is to focus on the mission, when your army is slow and can't hurt your opponent.

Mushkilla wrote:

I'm sure the ends justify the means to the haemonculus. After all they were in realspace to harvest the rare essence of gloom forest mushrooms. The knights were merely an inconvenience.

I remember a post on dakkadakka, where someone was pointing out how absurd it it for DE to face armies like IKs or mechanised-IG, since there would be no point in even trying to raid against that much heavy armour (let alone meeting them from the front).

solar shock wrote:

But im a little biased, I just find IK lists so... bland? bland is probably the word

It's certainly appropriate, because GW simply can't write rules.

In any competent game system, the level of abstraction increases as model size increases. So, with IKs and super heavies, you would expect a more complex damage chart. What do we get instead? They just use the same vehicle damage chart, but ignore virtually every result. How thrilling. I love it when my penetrating hits do nothing 85% of the time with an AP2 weapon, and 100% of the time with an AP3 or worse weapon.

And then, of course, the damn things are AV12 (at worst). Hope you didn't bring any weapons that are S5 or less (S6 or less for melee weapons), because they certainly aren't being used. Ignoring rules/weapons is one of the worst things in a game because nobody likes it when the gear they paid for is worthless. And IKs don't just ignore a few - they ignore whole swathes of both the rulebook and codices.

Oh, and they move 12", because God forbid they might need some support units to help with mobility.

IKs are the literal embodiments of bad game design and boring units.

[/RANT]

Yeah if I was going to have an army of 3 models, I would hope for decently complex rules. Damage control, multiple "stances", redirecting energy from propulsion systems to weapon systems etc. The problem is GW vehicle system is pretty horrendous, because it's binary (in particular for walkers).

Mushkilla wrote:

Yeah if I was going to have an army of 3 models, I would hope for decently complex rules. Damage control, multiple "stances", redirecting energy from propulsion systems to weapon systems etc. The problem is GW vehicle system is pretty horrendous, because it's binary (in particular for walkers).

Massively off topic here but the original rules for Imperator Titans in Epic had that sort of level of detail You generated (I think) 2d6 plasma from your generator each turn and had to allocate that amongst your shields, weapons, movement, damage control etc. It was a really decent system!

Count Adhemar wrote:

Massively off topic here but the original rules for Imperator Titans in Epic had that sort of level of detail You generated (I think) 2d6 plasma from your generator each turn and had to allocate that amongst your shields, weapons, movement, damage control etc. It was a really decent system!

Yeah that would be a really cool system, and the damage chart could drain your energy levels or require you to allocate energy for damage control.

On another note. I feel that the four main concerns for making an assault army work are Delivery, Resilience, Reliability and Ability to Play the Mission.

Delivery: You need to be able to get across the board and a way to deploy on mission critical parts of the board.
Resilience: You need to be able to survive overwatch, combat, shooting, etc.
Reliability: You need some sort of moral control (fearless being ideal). Re-rolls to hit, to wound and a large volume of attacks is also important. Finally your delivery mechanism needs to be reliable (for example WWP is a great delivery mechanism it can't be be stopped, and doesn't scatter).
Ability to Play the Mission: If you can play the mission you can force your opponent to come to you.

Thoughts?

I'm not sure about 'ability to play the mission'. Are there melee armies that can't play the mission?  

I could be misinterpreting you, but that seems more like a tactic than a requirement for melee units.

Anyway, I agree with the rest but would also add:

Versatility: Your melee units have to be able to damage more than just infantry. They should also be able to damage TEQ, MCs and vehicles up to at least AV12 - so that your expensive melee units can't just be tarpitted for the entire game by a Armoured Sentinel, Dreadnought or somesuch.

The Shredder wrote:

I'm not sure about 'ability to play the mission'. Are there melee armies that can't play the mission?  

Well yes and no. I guess I should rephrase it as Ability to Camp Objectives. For example fragile/fast melee units are not ideal for camping/scoring/blocking objectives (as they just get shot up, and are forced to remain stationary wasting their mobility). Grotesques on the other hand are bread for it. Arguably you could tie this in with resilience, but I felt it was important enough to warrant a distinction.

The Shredder wrote:

Versatility: Your melee units have to be able to damage more than just infantry. They should also be able to damage TEQ, MCs and vehicles up to at least AV12 - so that your expensive melee units can't just be tarpitted for the entire game by a Armoured Sentinel, Dreadnought or somesuch.

Indeed, one of the annoying limitations of Grotesques is their S5 not being any good against AV12+. A shame really because they can handle everything else with their volume of attacks. What I would give to have a power klaw on an aberration. Talos do a good job against most Walkers though so it's not all bad.

I would add to the list some sort of reserve control.

That would fit in to the reliability segement. The only variable in the list is this actually. With Covens your units are tough, tougher point for point than almost anything else and certainly more consistently tough across the board than builds that feature one-off units like Land Raiders, invisible death stars, Decurion Wraith formation etc etc.

You can also deliver them more consistently with WWP, meaning they only suffer one turn of shooting max before the charge, whilst other armies may need take at least two or three. WWP placement nerfs template and blasts because your opponent can't hit his own guys. After a run Grotesques can be placed in such a way that shots only hit one at a time and maximizes the effect of IWND, which is a massive boon on a large unit of tough multi-wound models. When they are in hand to hand that gives them another free turn of regenerating. Case in point, I played Covens against a 9 serpent eldar army and had lost only three Grotesques by the end of the game.  

Covens tend to have much higher damage output than other death-star type units, with bountiful posion rerolling and zealot and instant death. At games larger than Mush plays you can add more muscle to the list (tank-hunter heat lance Taloi etc), so its vulenrability to Knights and AV14 is somewhat mitigated. I tabled a Knight player the other day with just a Corpsethief. You effectively have the tools to deal with everything at higher points games, without giving up any small filler units for VP's. In other words, it becomes easier to win in larger games because you don't alter the fundamental structure of the list whilst enhancing its ability to focus down on the weaker elements in your opponent's army.    

I think the one variable, therefore, which can throw your well made plan out the window is reserves. If one unit of Grots comes in before the other, then my opponent can focus fire on it and it may have to wait an extra turn to get the crucial IWND, diminishing the overall effect. The answer is actually, I believe, the Covens WL traits. One of the traits gives you reserve control, whilst the rest make ur units tougher, giving IWND to a unit of Grots off the bat for example. Against a fast objsec enemy I would roll on tactical, against a gunline I would roll either on strategic or Covens, depending on how much ruins my opponent has in his DZ. All give you a chance of getting something decent.

The only other glaring weakness in the army is lack of anti-pysker, but not taking eldar allies can be to your advantage as it removes the weaker units for your opponenet to focus on, the troop tax and let's face it, even with a ghosthelm, a single farseer tossing around dice is still at risk of blowing himself up.

Sulmo,

i'd be really interested in hearing about your CTC against a knight player. Were you running 5 heatlances I assume?

Mush, I really think you should try and work a groteserie into your lists, the buff rolls I can imagine would give you great diversity, I mean the +1 strength would considerably alter the flexibilty of your units, you'd actually be able to hurt AV12 - this one alone could significantly alter your battle strategy, while the toughness would just make them crazy durable. I know a few aren't the bee's knees, but I think they all are worth the tax. However, you'd probably be better off doing this at higher points levels, where you can bring the coven detachment in order to grab the HQ, while also grabbing a few more grot units without sacrificing somewhere else.

If you were using a Grotesquerie, where would you get the second Haemonculus from (for WWP)?

I've been wondering. How do you think your list will fare in Eternal War missions?

Myself will be bringing an allied DE detachment and will be using a succubus to go with the grotesqueries 2nd unit. However, if you were running pure coven; and this is probably almost impossible to get into a 1250 pts list, this is why its more effective in a larger points list.

Grotesquerie
Coven detachment (2HQ, 2Elite)

With that however, you then have to bring the added elites. So if you were going with Mush's basic format, you'd have to alter it, dropping one of the 2 talos pairs in favour of either cheap wracks or more grots. The major problem being you now have a minimum of 3 Haemies and min 4 grots or 3 grots and some wracks. The haemy WWP tax is reaching about 300 pts, and like 1/4 of his army at this point.

If I had to squeeze it in; no dex right on hand but values are close
Grotesquerie (2x7) + haemy (600ish?)
Coven detach
2x Haemy (250ish?)
5x grots (175)
5 wracks + venom (125ish)
+ a talos?

So thats 3 grot units, 1 talos and 5 wracks in a venom. Talos would be your anchor for starting on board and holding an objective, wracks would be your zip around unit for other objectives (hiding at start for not giving up FB), then you have 3 DSing grot bombs, 2x7 and 1x5 in size. At 1250 its really hard to squeeze it in and it alters the list a fair bit.

Whereas at 1500 you could swap out the wracks and grab another grot unit, although you'd still have a pretty heavy WWP tax. As that would be 4 grot units, at 350 for 10, you could go 700 for all 4 (at 5 man size), then 4 haemies, that leaves about 300 pts for talos.