2k "competitive list"

Hi guys! i'm trying to try new units before a regional tournament i'll be having on october 16th. I've been playing with lots of wyches for a long time and i decided to change massively, let me see wacha think about it.

--The Baron

--2x Haemonculi: Liquifier, venom blade, shattershard.

--5x Incubi: Klaivex, Demi-klaives, blood stone.- Venom with NS and 2xSC.

--2x9 Wracks: Acothyst w/Venom blade, 1 liquifier.- Raider with FF and Aether sails.

--14 Hellions: Helliarch w/venom blade.

--2x5 Kabalites: Blaster.- Venom with NS and 2xSC.

--9 Reavers: 3 Heat lances, Arena lider with Venomblade.

--Beastmasters: 2 Beastmasters 1xVenom blade-5 Khymerae, 2 Razorwing flocks-.

--2x Ravagers: 3 DL, NS, FF.


The thing is to be polivalent, shooty, good in CC, with some units to keep objetives on my hands and of course fast. I think is pretty balanced overall, i have 5 troop choices, a good number of Splinter Cannons and some lances too (14 3 of 'em melta).

Hope you like it! Criticism and comments are welcome indeed!

Da Black Gobbo wrote:

Hi guys! i'm trying to try new units before a regional tournament i'll be having on october 16th. I've been playing with lots of wyches for a long time and i decided to change massively, let me see wacha think about it.

Is the goal of the army to try out different things, or is the goal of the army to be competitive using different things? I'd probably answer differently depending on what the answer is.

I'm going to answer as though your goal is just to try a lot of different things, and presume most of these are new to you, and just poke at their individual composition and will not regard the list as a whole.

Da Black Gobbo wrote:

--The Baron

--2x Haemonculi: Liquifier, venom blade, shattershard.

Fine with this.

Da Black Gobbo wrote:

--5x Incubi: Klaivex, Demi-klaives, blood stone.- Venom with NS and 2xSC.

I don't really think you need the Bloodstone now that Incubi have fleet, and I'm pretty neutral of it as a weapon for them too. Look at it - it's a flamer that's good at getting past high armor saves, but is 'meh' for dealing with toughness higher than 3.

Can you name for me a T 3 unit with good armor that the Incubi are going to have an issue with? The only one I can *sorta* come up with is Howling Banshees (ignoring the armor bit) and Incubi should avoid HBs like the plague.

I'd drop the Bloodstone.

Da Black Gobbo wrote:

--2x9 Wracks: Acothyst w/Venom blade, 1 liquifier.- Raider with FF and Aether sails.

Haems are going here?
I rather like these builds - good pressure units and a solid Wrack build.
I will say I think the -1 attack on the Acothyst for the 2+ poison is...debatable, and I'm not sure if it's worth paying points for. Your own value call, of course.

Da Black Gobbo wrote:

--14 Hellions: Helliarch w/venom blade.

The weakness of Hellions is dealing with units with good armor.
The weakness of Baron Sathypants is lack of power weapon.
A Venom Blade on the Helliarch means this unit will be slightly better at killing what it is already good at killing. I'd take an Agoniser in a second.
Other than that, for Hellions, this is a good build.

Da Black Gobbo wrote:

--2x5 Kabalites: Blaster.- Venom with NS and 2xSC.

Fine.

Da Black Gobbo wrote:

--9 Reavers: 3 Heat lances, Arena lider with Venomblade.

Assault RJBs? I think that's a *big* mistake as RJBs pretty much suck in combat, and they cost an arm and a leg to field like this, and you're basically tossing away those heat lance shots. I really dislike this build, I think competitive RJBs come in squads of 3 and are used as harrasment or tank hunters - that's what they're good at, and little more.

Da Black Gobbo wrote:

--Beastmasters: 2 Beastmasters 1xVenom blade-5 Khymerae, 2 Razorwing flocks-.

Beastmasters are okay, though I think the point of Beastmasters is to get the Baron in the army with a semi-decent unit. As stands, even for a Beastmaster unit, i think this one is sub-par. It should either be bigger or dumped to afford more things, as stands it feels like a stopgap to fill some extra points you had.

Da Black Gobbo wrote:

--2x Ravagers: 3 DL, NS, FF.

Ravishing.

Agreed with Thor, although I would say I believe RJB can work in squads of 6 w/ 2 HLs, but I think Reavers should be run in pairs. You want people to shoot at them, as they can take damage pretty well considering their T4 with a 3++ or a 4+ in cover (and have skilled riders, so you will almost never lose one to dangerous terrain) So lossing one squad isnt that big of a deal when you have redunancy of another to still get their other job done (AT killing)

All I'm saying is that 6 RJBs are as hard to kill as 6 Space Marine Scouts. If people believe 6 Space Marine Scouts are survivable that's a different ball of wax - but I really don't think they are.

Two squads of 3 are also easy to kill, but will require the enemy to dedicate twice the number of units to do it.

Thor665 wrote:

All I'm saying is that 6 RJBs are as hard to kill as 6 Space Marine Scouts. If people believe 6 Space Marine Scouts are survivable that's a different ball of wax - but I really don't think they are.

Two squads of 3 are also easy to kill, but will require the enemy to dedicate twice the number of units to do it.

Thor, I often think your opinion is solid, but I think you are completely wrong on Jetbikes. I think three is pointless-mostly because three bikes against a balanced list is totally non-threatening as an actual weapon or distraction.

Six bikes is terrific. They will absolutely survive what three won't and they are much more likely to be able to accomplish something. Three bikes that move up and HL have as good of a chance of doing nothing as doing something. One third of the time they will miss, and then they have to penetrate and roll a decent damage result. Two HLs is, obviously, much more reliable.

In the same vein, three bikes is no threat if the opponent protects his vehicles. As an harassment unit their only threat is soem slight AT (six bikes isn't much more threatening, but at least they add some attacks in combat and can use their Boost attack to pick off weakened squads).

Mostly, three has no reliability to achieve any goal while being essentially a free KP.

@a1elbow - allow me to explain my stance;

You keep making what I consider the common error in assessing them. Yes, there is no question in my mind that having 6 bikes is better than3 - while we're at it having 6 Wyches is better than 3, so is having 6 Venoms vs. 3, oh, and having $6 is better than $3.

Let's compare what I'm *really* saying;

"Having 6 bikes in *2 units* is better than having 6 bikes in *1 unit*"

Okay - now we're on the same page.

So - I have 2 heat lances, you have 2 heat lances - huzzah, all your talk about 1 heat lance missing or failing to penetrate is equally applicable to you.

Except I'm better - because if the first heat lance works I can fire at something else.
Potentially I could wreck two vehicles a turn - try to do that with one squad of 6 and see how far you get

So, as far as hurting the enemy - I am *clearly* superior, and I don't think there's an argument that can be made otherwise. Given equal odds, my two units of 3 will always be better at hurting the enemy than one unit of 6.

So - let's get to the actual point where 6 bikes *might* be better - and that's survivability. This is a questionable point, and is surprisingly complicated to really discuss. With toughness 4, and a 5+ save (maybe a 3+ cover save) these guys are...not really that survivable considering how much GW wants me to believe they are worth. Flamers pretty much equal - dead bikes currently (oh, for the bygone era when we had a 4+ armor save...*sigh* If bikes are in the open and didn't turbo-boost - *bolters* equal pretty much certain death. The people who support 6 bikers always tell me it's "safer" for the blasters, but let's assess that, shall we?


5 Marines w. Bolters in rapid fire range (no flamer, as that would make this too depressing)
vs. Bikes in open = 3.33 dead RJBs
vs. Bikes w. cover save from terrain = 1.66 dead RJBs
vs. Bikes w. turbo-boost cover save = 1.11 dead RJBs

I think this is pretty much the *minimum* sort of damage we can expect. Seriously, this is just a naked combat squad off a Tac squad with bolters - this is a super minimal and *MINOR* attempt to kill us.

The 3 man RJB unit gets wiped or loses 1-2 bikes (and risks the lance dying) = solid chance loss of 1 heat lance.
The 6 man RJB unit gets 1-4 guys dead, and pretty much unless its getting a turboboost save (unlikely on any turn after 1) will have to take a leadership test = 27.78% chance to fail a Ld test and lose both heat lances.

So - worst case for a 3 man squad is being wiped and losing 1 lance (egads!) their best chance is they lose 1 guy and have a 27.78 chance to lose one lance via whiffed morale (egads!)
Best chance for the 6 man is to lose 1 guy worst chance is to have 27.78 chance to lose two lances via whiffed morale check.

So...the 3 man is less major risk, but more assured minor risk, right?
Oh, but wait, we presumed the most minimal squad in existence fired at us. Let's say there was a flamer with them that hit everyone - or maybe 10 guys with bolters.

5 Marines w. Bolters and flamer in rapid fire range (3 man/6man)
vs. Bikes in open = 2.6 dead RJBs from Bolters 1.5/3 from flamer = 4.1/5.6
vs. Bikes w. cover save from terrain = 1.33 dead RJBs from Bolters 1.5/3 from flamer = 2.83/4.33
vs. Bikes w. turbo-boost cover save = .88 dead RJBs from Bolters 1.5/3 from flamer = 2.38/3.88

10 Marines w. Bolters in rapid fire range (no flamer)
vs. Bikes in open = 6.66 dead RJBs
vs. Bikes w. cover save from terrain = 3.32 dead RJBs
vs. Bikes w. turbo-boost cover save = 2.22 dead RJBs

In these setups - the 6 man squad is now risking BOTH lances ALL the time, sometimes twice in the same round because they have to take saves and then also have to pass the Ld test.
The 3 man continues to risk...1 lance.

So what we see here is, to my mind, a few conclusions;

1. It is very easy to kill 3 RJBs
2. It is *also* very easy to kill 6 RJBs
3. Units killing RJBs are not killing other things.
4. It will at least take 2 units to kill two units of 3 RJBs.
5. It quite likely only takes one unit to kill one unit of 6 RJBs

So, I believe it is more survivable for my RJBs in general to force the enemy to have to use two units to kill them, as opposed to one. My net gain is - it's probably harder to get rid of two heat lances from my army. My net loss is it *is* slightly easier to get rid of one...but since RJBs are soooo easy to kill, I expect my enemy will overkill them and waste effort, which I consider a reasonable trade for the slightly higher theoretical risk to my one lance/blaster/whatever.

That's my standpoint, hope it makes sense as to why I say 3 is more survivable than 6 now,
Thor.

Thor665 wrote:

So - I have 2 heat lances, you have 2 heat lances - huzzah, all your talk about 1 heat lance missing or failing to penetrate is equally applicable to you.
...
So, as far as hurting the enemy - I am *clearly* superior, and I don't think there's an argument that can be made otherwise. Given equal odds, my two units of 3 will always be better at hurting the enemy than one unit of 6.

Thor.

Your point about being able to fire two weapons in this situation is only applicable if the Bikes are both in a position to fire effectively (which, with a Heat Lance, is 9") at both the same target, and different targets. That is to say, if squad #1 fires on a Lenum Russ and misses, Squad #2 must be within Melta ranges also. But, for the other half of your argument, the bikes must also be within Melta range of another vehicle. At this point, you are concentrating your "distraction" and an opponent who doesn't give you the ability to easily do this is negating the threat of your distraction, thereby reducing the urgency of removing the unit without actively attacking it.

Where things like this works is Raider spam. Raider spam is superior to a single Ravager in that it contains redundency, the ability to split fire, and target diffusion all in one. The Ravager is only superior in being cheaper (by a large amount to be fair).

As to their survivability, the difference between 6 bikes and 3 bikes is that the six bikes are more versatile. A squad of six bikes can be a distraction, can be AT, can be AI, but they don't have to be any of these.

I'll also note I use Blasters and not lances - but I feel the logic holds - even if all I do is shoot the passengers or sit there doing nothing - at worst I'm being better or as good as the six man.

As to your last paragraph - I still have 6 bikes - I can do *anything* you six bikes can do - because I have six bikes also.

One more thing. Its a lot easier to hide 3 bikes than to hide 6 bikes. Actually I think I`d split the bikes into as many 3s as my Fast Attack slots allow me to.

Except the loss of one bike to each squad triggers a panic check (which you can argue is balanced by the fact that if a squad of six flees the two squads of three might just have one run, but...) and all it takes is three wounds before damage is inflicted on a special weapon. On six bikes it takes five.

Anyway, I think this debate is somewhat moot because you take at most 9 bikes and I take anyway from 12-18-27.

As shown in the wounding situation - even a very minor amount of damage can cause the 6 man to have to take the morale check - so I don't feel it's a particular advantage for the 6 man there.

Yes, you can take more overall bikes than I can...then again, I don't personally think taking a lot of bikes is the way to victory, I'd rather use the points elsewhere to buy dangerous stuff so the bikes can serve their distraction purpose. But that gets into a different discussion as to the actual role and value of the RJBs within an army.