The Context of Weakness

I was thinking about strategy recently and came to the following realisation:

Quote :

A weakness is only a weakness in the context that makes it relevant. Can you adapt your strategy to ensure that context does not occur? If so then that weakness need not be a concern.

Lets apply this to my coven list (see link). At first glance it has some glaring weaknesses, to list a few:

1) It is slow, nothing can move more than 6".

2) It has very little in terms of ranged attacks and has no ranged AT.

In what context are these weaknesses relevant?

1) When you want to move towards objectives and/or your enemy.

2) When you need to destroy units and range to defeat your opponent.

Can we adapt our strategy to ensure those contexts don't occur?

1) Set up objectives so that they can be controlled with minal movement. Deploy close/on objectives. Make your enemy come to you by controlling objectives.

2) Play the mission and be resilient enough to last 6 turns without destroyed any of your opponents army. Force him to come to you or lose the mission.

Am I confident that I can reliably achieve the above? If so then I do not need to be concerned about these two weaknesses . It's a simple concept but one that I plan on applying more when evaluating lists. Thoughts?

Wouldn't this also depend on your opponent's list?

I mean, you talk about setting up objectives so that they can be controlled with minimal movement, but with no ObjSec in your list that might not be enough.

As an example, a marine list could drop multiple ObjSec drop pods onto the objectives (possibly some dreadnoughts, too). It seems like you'd really struggle to remove them, and being ObjSec they're also better at holding objectives.

It's still weakness, because it cripple your gameplay. You can play around and try to limit the damages of the weakness, but it's still a weakness nonetheless.

The Shredder wrote:

Wouldn't this also depend on your opponent's list?

It does indeed! That takes us straight into the next part.

We established the context of our weaknesses. We decided on a strategy that tries to prevent/avoid these contexts occurring. We can now launch a focuses investigation into what matchups could potentially cause us trouble by interfering with the strategy we outlined.

A perfect example is the list you suggested. So play that matchup see if there is anything at the tactical level that you can do to overcome it? Can you modify your army in the smallest possible way to alleviate this threat withought changing your strategy (eg: in the case of my list maybe running more Talos, or giving them heat lances)?

Make the change and try that match up again. Repeat the process until your are satisfied and then go to the next most challenging matchup, and so on.

dumpeal wrote:

It's still weakness, because it cripple your gameplay. You can play around and try to limit the damages of the weakness, but it's still a weakness nonetheless.

That it is. But is a weakness we can consistently play around a weakness we need be concerned about?

I get what you're saying about making weaknesses non issues, and it can be done for the most part.  The problem I see is that the stronger armies are so because of the way they can make decisions to exploit them anyway.

Example - I play exorcist chapter marines, which is basically just a formal way to say that I pick my chapter tactics each battle.  If I'm facing a melee/tarpit army, I'm taking white scars tactics which include hit and run.

I'm not sure how exactly my scout speeder/assault cannon spam would actually shake out against your ramblers, but with an unplanned decision on my part, the (necessary) strategy of locking squads in combat to prevent them (and their allies) from firing on the grotesques goes pretty much out the window.

Mushkilla wrote:

dumpeal wrote:

It's still weakness, because it cripple your gameplay. You can play around and try to limit the damages of the weakness, but it's still a weakness nonetheless.

That it is. But is a weakness we can consistently play around a weakness we need be concerned about?

Yes. Always.

This is starting to sound more like a philosophical question.

I agree with the general your general idea Mushkilla, that a weakness that can be overcome ceases to be a weakness.
It's also very on-trend for this forum I think.

I mean, take Grots. High T, High S, decent attacks. Weakness? No AP2. Solution- Succubus (or in my case, Jain Zar) Weakness solved.
But that only counts if your opponent has TEQ. If he doesn't, that's 100-200 points that could be spent elsewhere.
But you don't know that til you're on the table.

So how can you make a list to counter every weakness in every scenario against every opponent before you wont know what you'll face?

As I said, I like the concept, but not sure of its actual application.

Mushkilla wrote:

A weakness is only a weakness in the context that makes it relevant. Can you adapt your strategy to ensure that context does not occur? If so then that weakness need not be a concern.

Absolutely agree.

The context, of course, will largely be decided at the beginning of the game. A grot list that doesn't come up against 2+ saves will find that it's weakness to breaking 2+ armour is out of context, and therefore no longer a weakness the player need be concerned about. This kind of thing happens all of the time.

I daresay though that this thread is not simply about ignoring weaknesses that happen to be out of context, but rather specifically planning to reduce the number of unfavourable contexts that your army will face. Personally, I think the game is too broad to exhaustively eliminate your weakness at army selection; if you were to continually iterate through possible enemy lists that would exploit your weaknesses to an unpleasant degree, and adjust your list to be more resilient to that particular threat, I expect you would find yourself in an infinite loop. Hence, beyond building your army to counter a reasonable variety of situations (what's reasonable will no doubt vary between players), the remainder of the strategy is in how the game is played.

Here, I will posit that there are many ways to obviate weakness within the game, excellent examples of which have been given in the OP. Further, more trivial examples might include null deployment (with scalpel or Talos holding squads) to mitigate the weakness of low toughness and low armour, or playing an aggressive game largely in the opponent's deployment zone or assault to defend against overwhelming airpower.

But while a weakness out of context is not something to be concerned about per se, I think the weakness lives on in the psychology of both opponents. This offers pitfalls, for example perhaps a reluctance to engage in assault against heavily armoured targets with grotesques, despite a strategic or tactical necessity, that must be guarded against. It also offers opportunities, as your opponent may fall prey to the same psychology, possibly moving a unit too close because he believes it safe (there is a broad gulf between 'relatively safe' and 'completely safe'), or over-relying on his flyers in an absence of anti-air.

TL,DR; Don't worry about weaknesses you can play around, but don't forget to exploit your opponent's view of your weaknesses.

Firstly I was only using my list as an example because it has so many obvious weaknesses. Most of which can be overcome by strategy. Some of which can't (D spam for example). Its not a perfect list and I don't claim it to be. So please take it for what it is, an example of some weaknesses that can be overcome by strategy.

stilgar27 wrote:

...I'm not sure how exactly my scout speeder/assault cannon spam would actually shake out against your ramblers, but with an unplanned decision on my part, the (necessary) strategy of locking squads in combat to prevent them (and their allies) from firing on the grotesques goes pretty much out the window.

But does this list depend on locking things in combat? Its tough enough to withstand a full game of marine shooting and kills most marine units in a round of combat.

I do get your point though. If the list needed to lock things in combat against marines then hit and run would be problematic. A weakness worth trying to find a way to play around.

flakmonkey wrote:

...So how can you make a list to counter every weakness in every scenario against every opponent before you wont know what you'll face?

As I said, I like the concept, but not sure of its actual application.

I sent you down the wrong path when I suggested changing the list to compensate for a weakness. That is only a last resort.

Ideally you find a strategy to play around it. Take Shredder's example of object secure drop pods and dreads against my list. Maybe a better approach would be to get 3-4 objectives in a deployment zone, get that deployment zone 50% of the time and block all the objectives with grots and Talos so the pods can't contest them. If that strategy can almost always guarantee a win against a pod list (with practice) then your win rate against that list would be 45%. Find a way to play the other half (I.e with the objectives in the pod players deployment zone) and even if you can only win that game 20% of the time your overall win rate against that list would be 55%. Not bad for something that looked like a terrible match up at first glance.

That's the crux at what I am getting at. What can you change at a strategic level to overcome a weakness.

Read @Creeping Darkness post for a much clearer explanation of what I was trying to convey.

Creeping Darkness wrote:

Personally, I think the game is too broad to exhaustively eliminate your weakness at army selection

Exactly! To attempt to do so beyond a certain point is futile.

Creeping Darkness wrote:

Further, more trivial examples might include null deployment (with scalpel or Talos holding squads) to mitigate the weakness of low toughness and low armour, or playing an aggressive game largely in the opponent's deployment zone or assault to defend against overwhelming airpower.

All really good examples of mitigating a weakness at a strategic level.

Creeping Darkness wrote:

But while a weakness out of context is not something to be concerned about per se, I think the weakness lives on in the psychology of both opponents. This offers pitfalls, for example perhaps a reluctance to engage in assault against heavily armoured targets with grotesques, despite a strategic or tactical necessity, that must be guarded against. It also offers opportunities, as your opponent may fall prey to the same psychology, possibly moving a unit too close because he believes it safe (there is a broad gulf between 'relatively safe' and 'completely safe'), or over-relying on his flyers in an absence of anti-air.

A very good point and something worth remembering. A reluctance to expose yourself to your weakness when it can ultimately lead to victory is something to be aware of. The great thing with exposing a weakness like this is it makes for vary realistic bait.

Why have those grots moved towards my dreadnaught? They can't hurt it. Why wouldn't I charge them? My opponent has clearly made a mistake, I will punish him for it.

Would it be worth some of us posting lists, and discussing weaknesses and possible strategies to mitigate them?

The Shredder wrote:

Would it be worth some of us posting lists, and discussing weaknesses and possible strategies to mitigate them?

I think that's a great idea.

Perhaps posting a short description of an army without going into too much detail and maybe a link to the full list in the army list section. I don't want us getting lost in the minutiae of list building (whether blaster are worth taking on warriors, raiders vs venoms, etc). The focus should be on strategy and game plan.

I think we can split our army into 3 kind of style/weakness.

-We have coven army that are tough but slow.
-We have MSU kabalite army (venom spam) that are fast, but die as soon you look at them.
-Army that rely heavilly on cover save to survive (A lot of reavers and gunboat).

Aren't MSU Kabalites also pretty reliant on cover saves?

In any case, I'll just add that there are also Hybrid armies (e.g. MSU with Dark Artisan), where different elements may have different weaknesses.

The Shredder wrote:

Aren't MSU Kabalites also pretty reliant on cover saves?

In any case, I'll just add that there are also Hybrid armies (e.g. MSU with Dark Artisan), where different elements may have different weaknesses.

Of course, but a flammer strike against a 5-man venom squad is less deadly than against a gunboat, or a reaver squad. The strenght of the venom squad is the venom. Passengers is gravy.

Alright then, I'll take the plunge regarding armies:

1500pts, 2 CADs:

CAD #1:
Archon w/Huskblade, Soul Trap, Clone Field, Parasite's Kiss
- Venom
5 Incubi w/ Klaivex
- Raider w/ Disintegrator and Night Shield
5 Warriors w/ Blaster
- Raider w/ Dark Lance
5 Warriors w/ Blaster
- Venom w/ Splinter Cannon
5 Scourges w/ 4x Haywire
5 Scourges w/ 4x Heat Lance
Ravager w/ 3x Dark Lane

CAD #2:
Lhamaean
- Venom w/ Splinter Cannon
5 Warriors w/ Blaster
- Venom w/ Splinter Cannon
5 Warriors w/ Blaster
- Venom w/ Splinter Cannon
3 Reavers w/ Cluster Cantrops and Heat-Lance
3 Reavers w/ Cluster Cantrops and Heat-Lance
3 Reavers w/ Cluster Cantrops and Heat-Lance

Obviously it's an MSU affair. The Archon rides with the Incubi, leaving his venom empty.The Heat-lance scourges deep-strike (aiming to land within melta range of the enemy's toughest vehicle or MC). Everything else will probably start on the board, with the Lhamaean hiding out of sight, near an objective. The Ravager and Scourges will obviously try to pop some vehicles. The Reavers will turbo-boost up the board on turn 1, and then help out with vehicle popping on turn 2 onwards. Venoms will either hang back and shoot, or maybe go forward to deposit warriors within blaster-range, depending on what I'm facing. Archon and co. will probably try to stick to a flank (mainly to minimise incoming fire), and hopefully chop up some units in melee.

In terms of weaknesses, the list is going to be pretty reliant on cover saves (and, in many cases, staying out of sight) in order to stay alive. Also, Kill Points! Oh dear God the Kill Points!

So, any weaknesses I've missed? And, what should I do to overcome the various weaknesses?

Oh, one other thing - I should point out that my group only plays Eternal War missions. Just bear that in mind before offering advice relating exclusively to maelstrom.

Oh man shredder, you have to figure out a way to play maelstrom with your group. My DE army seems to perform so much better when there are multiple objectives that I can fly around and steal with my obsec units

We tried it for a while, but it wasn't popular. There never seemed to be any tactics or skill at play - just one player/team would get a bunch of easily-completable missions (capture an objective in their deployment zone, cast a psychic power etc.), whilst the other team would be stuck with stuff like (capture *every* objective, kill a Stormwolf that isn't even on the board yet, defeat an enemy character in a challenge, when using IG) etc.

We might as well have just flipped a coin to determine who won, and saved ourselves several hours.

Now, granted, a coin flip is probably still better odds that DE are used to, but it's still not how I want to win games.

The Shredder wrote:

Also, Kill Points! Oh dear God the Kill Points!

To keep this short I'll focus on this weakness as for most Dark Elar lists it is a problem. If I counted right the list has 20 KP. Our opponents are likely to have a lot less. If they had 10KP and killed 10 of our units we would have to table them to win (unless we scored more secondaries)! Not something we can count on.

So what can we do without modifying the list?

1) We can reserve as much of our army as possible. Keeping the mimum we can hide on the board and our opponent cant threaten.

2) We should aim to go second as this reduces the number of turns our opponent can shoot or units coming I'm from reserve. If our reserves come on turn 2 and we went second our opponent will have missed two shooting phases against them (whilst our reserve unit has only misses one turn of shooting).

3) Deepstrike and flat out where our opponent isnt. We might be fragile but we have the speed to minimise incoming fire. Jink is also invaluable here.

4) If a transport can be shot and destroyed (and it cant flat out to safety) disembark the troops from it and hide them out of site so your opponent doesn't kill two birds with one stone.

5) Do the above until turn 5-6 if you can. Every turn you bide is a turn that makes your units more survivable through power from pain. The only exception to this is if you can get first blood or kill a unit without giving your opponent a kill point or more in return. Turn 5-6 you need to think about going for kills and line breaker. Remember if you went second turn 5 there is a 33% your chance your opponent won't be able to shoot back after you engage as the game will end (turn 6 there is  a 50% chance, and turn 7 you can go in without any retaliation).

These five points outline how I play kill points with MSU Dark eldar. It is by no means exaustive though.

In terms of units that complement this style I find razzorwings are perfect they excel at getting first blood/killpoints with this style and can also fly off the board to avoid fire.

The Shredder wrote:

Oh, one other thing - I should point out that my group only plays Eternal War missions. Just bear that in mind before offering advice relating exclusively to maelstrom.

Most eternal war missions (bar relic and kill points) are not that different to maelstrom all things considered. There are a few timing differences mainly that you have to keep things alive until turn 5-6. But a lot of the same tricks can still be applied.

A lot of good advice there.

With regard to #1, what would you recommend starting on the board with this list?

Also, for units that have the option, do you think it would be better to deep strike or to just come on from the table edge?


Lastly, I know that we're trying to avoid changing the list, but do you think melee units (like the Incubi) are a hindrance to this sort of strategy?

The Shredder wrote:

With regard to #1, what would you recommend starting on the board with this list?

It depends what army you are playing against and what you think you can get away with. No barrage with ignore cover? Maybe 1-2 units of reavers as they are easy to hide and can redeploy rapidly. Otherwise 1-2 empty venoms are pretty good. You want your opponent to try to table you, but just fall short.

Its also worth noting there's less risk with mass reserve when you go second as you only lose the game if you have no units at the end of a game turn.

The Shredder wrote:

Also, for units that have the option, do you think it would be better to deep strike or to just come on from the table edge?

It depends on the footprint of your opponents army and the terrain density. An ork hord increase your chances of having a misshap when deep striking. Though with our mobility regular reserves is often enough as long as its not hammer and anvil deployment.

The Shredder wrote:

Lastly , I know that we're trying to avoid changing the list, but do you think melee units (like the Incubi) are a hindrance to this sort of strategy?

Melee units are fine as long as you can keep them alive. Waiting until the latter stages of the game to engage means they will be more pumped up from power from pain. This reserve strategy often makes your opponent spread out so melee units can isolate and kill things. Combat is often a safer place to be against certain armies so there is that too. As long as that incubi unit gets 1-2 kills say from a multicharge then it doesn't matter if it dies. It will have got kill points, created space and drawn fire. So I no I wouldn't say melee units are a hindrance.

Okay, thanks.


Anyone else got a list to be discussed?

Here's one for a game tomorrow.
I'm facing a very inexperienced Tau player (he's never won in our group yet) so I didn't power up too much. He'll have:
3 man crisis leaders
riptide
hammerhead
2 x FW
3 x stealth
ghostkeel

I'll have
CC archon + incubi, WWP venom
2 splintery gunboats
haywire scourge
3 x caltrops reavers
RJF
and WWP Dark Artisan
With a scattering of soulfright weapons

Weaknesses as I see them are:
Huge reliance on cover saves / opponent has a couple SMS
Very little anti tank, kept all Dissies / opponent brought a surprise hammerhead
Points on CC units / insane Tau overwatch

So I make hammerhead and riptide priority targets, I use DA to take the majority of the overwatch by charging something scary and surrounded by supporting fire. And what else?

@thesaltedwound Sorry for the late reply.

Maybe I should rename this topic: How to overcome list weaknesses by playing the mission.

The more I think about it, the more I feel that's what a lot of people overlook. When I played with my Black Buzzards I focused on defeating my opponent in detail, and then would worry about the mission turn 5-6. However, with my ramblers I focus almost entirely on playing the mission from the moment I place the first objective marker (unless my opponent falls pray to a mass multi-charge).

So let me answer a question with a question. How would you play the mission with your list?

Hey! I was going to reply before I played the game, but that didn't happen, so here's the report along with some of my thoughts on obj placement and some strategy.