Assault Troop Analysis

Painjunky wrote:

WhysoSully wrote:

Will definitely be using agonizers on my abberitions though.  That was very interesting to see the math on.

Yeah its very tempting but for the cost of that abby with agonizer you could have 2 normal grots.

It's a case of more offensive power VS an additional model with many additional attacks + 3 more wounds that can be spread around that the enemy has to wade through.

Yeah, in my experience the Grots don't need the extra help, and the Scissorhand gives you a shot at being able to harm Walkers (or more capably harm vehicles--a role I find my grots playing more often than I'd have thought when I started using them).

Also to note, this increased "assault efficiency" for Grots with the Agonizer will only be seen when charging guys who armour your ignore. If you are charging 2+ armour or anything with an invulnerable save, then you are much better off with the additional model.

As I noted on the first page, our two best units for assaulting out of transports (in terms of the assault efficiency) are Incubi closely followed by Lhamean. Just for crap and giggles, I ran the numbers to see where the Incubi/Lhamean trade-off occurs. Because Incubi are AP2 (and effectively ignore armour), and Lhamean are poison 2+ (effectively ignore toughness) I have made the following list showing how they stack vs the various factors. These numbers are still "assault effiency" (damage output on the charge)/(unit cost).


Incubi:
T3 = 0.067
T4 = 0.050
T5 = 0.033
T6 = 0.017
T7 = 0.017


Lhamean:
No save = 0.083
6+ = 0.069
5+ = 0.056
4+ = 0.042
3+ = 0.028
2+ = 0.014


I know this is a little difficult to compare (since we are comparing apples to oranges here), but with a little thought we can use this to see which unit comes out as the "best" assaulter vs a particular target.

EG: Lets say our regular opponent likes to bring SM bikes (T5, 3+). Using the above table we can see that Incubi score 0.033 and Lhamean score 0.028. Therefore the Incubi are slightly better at assaulting this unit. Keep in mind that things like invulnerable save, overwatch casualties, etc will affect the combat outcome.


So are there any other useful analysis that can be done on our troops? Or have we kicked this horse to death?

Painjunky wrote:

WhysoSully wrote:

Will definitely be using agonizers on my abberitions though.  That was very interesting to see the math on.

Yeah its very tempting but for the cost of that abby with agonizer you could have 2 normal grots.

It's a case of more offensive power VS an additional model with many additional attacks + 3 more wounds that can be spread around that the enemy has to wade through.

You should understand that this analysis takes that into consideration. The final number you see is the value "PER POINT SPENT ON GROTS". So the value of all grots in general went up with the purchase of an aberation with agonizer. Meaning that if you purchased another grot instead, that value would fall back down to what it was prior to purchasing the aberration with agonizer.

But there are certainly defensive considerations with the extra wounds and as others have pointed out, against models with a 2+ armour or invuln save, the extra model would be better. That's a minority of models in the game, though.

Jimsolo wrote:

Painjunky wrote:

WhysoSully wrote:

Will definitely be using agonizers on my abberitions though.  That was very interesting to see the math on.

Yeah its very tempting but for the cost of that abby with agonizer you could have 2 normal grots.

It's a case of more offensive power VS an additional model with many additional attacks + 3 more wounds that can be spread around that the enemy has to wade through.

Yeah, in my experience the Grots don't need the extra help

True.  My grots very rarely have trouble with 3+> units in CC.

Thinking about it just now an agonizer abby might kill said units too quickly! Increasing the chances of being caught in the open.

Painjunky wrote:

Jimsolo wrote:

Painjunky wrote:

WhysoSully wrote:

Will definitely be using agonizers on my abberitions though.  That was very interesting to see the math on.

Yeah its very tempting but for the cost of that abby with agonizer you could have 2 normal grots.

It's a case of more offensive power VS an additional model with many additional attacks + 3 more wounds that can be spread around that the enemy has to wade through.

Yeah, in my experience the Grots don't need the extra help

True.  My grots very rarely have trouble with 3+> units in CC.

Thinking about it just now an agonizer abby might kill said units too quickly! Increasing the chances of being caught in the open.

I have the issue of running into 3-5 man units most of the time. for which 2 grots and an abby is ideal.  I dont even run them with characters because they are fearless t2 in the grotesquerie.  Those extra attacks from being outnumbered more than makes up for the missing grots.  Things that kill grots efficiently generally have an easy time no matter how many you bring. But, just 1 model more than you and you could have 9 extra attacks. Not to mention 3 grots are a lot easier to LOS once the raider pops.

Grotesquerie is what makes them worth their points IMO.  I ran them out of formation a couple times and it was very lack luster, although I did fail a moral t4 to assault again t5 but that was an exception im sure.

If I was going to run more grots I would run a second grotesquerie but lets not get crazy

So... why do you need the agonizer?
As you said your running into 3-5 man units.
Would be a great way to save some pts.

Not being a pain, just want to understand ur pov.

Most 3-5 man units have 3+, like Marines.
With an Agonizer you can be sure to kill them all, but without there is always a good chance you lack 1-2 models.

I personally only take grots in the formation and then I will take them in a raider.

Alvaneron wrote:

Most 3-5 man units have 3+, like Marines.
With an Agonizer you can be sure to kill them all, but without there is always a good chance you lack 1-2 models.

Isn't that ideal, though? Don't you want to finish the assault on the second then, that way you deny any shooting at them, and are freed up for more assaulting on your turn.

Jimsolo wrote:

Alvaneron wrote:

Most 3-5 man units have 3+, like Marines.
With an Agonizer you can be sure to kill them all, but without there is always a good chance you lack 1-2 models.

Isn't that ideal, though? Don't you want to finish the assault on the second then, that way you deny any shooting at them, and are freed up for more assaulting on your turn.

There was a time when that was the case, when objectives were scored at the end of the game. But to be honest, with progressive objectives and Maelstrom-style scoring methods being used in many tournaments, killing a unit off of an objective, then just consolodating into cover as best as possible and weathering the shooting may be preferential for grots.

As one of our most sturdy units, it's probably better for us that the enemy shoot at them than something else.(Most of the time)

Painjunky wrote:

So... why do you need the agonizer?
As you said your running into 3-5 man units.
Would be a great way to save some pts.

Not being a pain, just want to understand ur pov.

Betray did a good job explaining it.  

But yeah, as someone who missed 6th edition, I dont understand your pov lol.

To me its ridiculous to hold up my expensive unit of grots a turn because they couldnt finish off the target, be that because they lacked AP 3 or because I had 4 and assaulted a unit of 4 and lost all my bonus attacks due to not being outnumbered.  My goal is to win, not survive another shooting phase.

Not to mention you are on foot and another turn in combat is another turn units are moving away from grots.  All to avoid shooting atacks I am not scared of...  If people are shooting my grots that is fantastic.  Grav sucks on them, bolters barely wound, and like I said, a unit of 3 is easy to LOS.  In an army of t3 and av 10, please, please shoot my grots.

I seriously suspect you guys arent playing with appropriate terrain... Then again, my LGS spoils us with great terrain.

Im sure your way works for you though.  Grots are a good unit, I just dont think they are optimized in that manner (at least for my meta).  

Those bonus attacks for being outnumbered ontop of charge is where grots shine.  Second round of combat leaves you a couple bad roles from being stuck in combat another turn.

If grots had hit and run my opinion would be much more in line with yours.


Edit:  Oh and the look on your opponents face when you get 25 attacks with 3 models (9 ap3!).... Priceless.  Dont forget to reroll misses wounds vs t4 and below (compared to 13 attack in the second round of combat if you no longer outnumber your opponent) These numbers are 2 grots and an abby, the first number assumes a 5 or 6 on the roll for bonus attacks. On average they will actually have about 22 attacks on the charge.

WhysoSully wrote:

Edit:  Oh and the look on your opponents face when you get 25 attacks with 3 models (9 ap3!).... Priceless.  Dont forget to reroll misses failed wounds vs t4 and below (compared to 13 attack in the second round of combat if you no longer outnumber your opponent) These numbers are 2 grots and an abby, the first number assumes a 5 or 6 on the roll for bonus attacks. On average they will actually have about 22 attacks on the charge.

Fixed.

whoops, good catch lol.

Fair enough... I understand ur pov now. Cheers.

But you want to NOT kill on your turn anyways, if you are in combat still during your opponenets turn then they will not be shot at.

amishprn86 wrote:

But you want to NOT kill on your turn anyways, if you are in combat still during your opponenets turn then they will not be shot at.

As everyone before your post said, no you dont want to stay in combat with them.

yeah they may not be shot at, but they can´t take another target, they lose their +attack for charging ....
the list goes on and on.

Just kill everything and get into cover or hold your line, it is better if someone is shooting at them and not your other targets

Alvaneron wrote:

amishprn86 wrote:

But you want to NOT kill on your turn anyways, if you are in combat still during your opponenets turn then they will not be shot at.

As everyone before your post said, no you dont want to stay in combat with them.

yeah they may not be shot at, but they can´t take another target, they lose their +attack for charging ....
the list goes on and on.

Just kill everything and get into cover or hold your line, it is better if someone is shooting at them and not your other targets

But if you leave 1-2 guys its easy to kill and then charge your next turn.

It really depends on the exact circumstances. In some cases you will want to leave your Grots in combat on the enemy turn so they can be safe from shooting. In other cases though you will want the enemy to be shooting Grots, as they're generally more resilient than the rest of the army. Anything shooting at them is not shooting at the fragile vehicles and troops in your army.

Count Adhemar wrote:

It really depends on the exact circumstances. In some cases you will want to leave your Grots in combat on the enemy turn so they can be safe from shooting. In other cases though you will want the enemy to be shooting Grots, as they're generally more resilient than the rest of the army. Anything shooting at them is not shooting at the fragile vehicles and troops in your army.

ALso depends what your grots are fighting, if they are fighting a 600pt marine deathstar or a Ghostkeil and can live 2-3 rounds, then I WANT them to be in combat for 2-3 rounds haha.

amishprn86 wrote:

But if you leave 1-2 guys its easy to kill and then charge your next turn.

But if they're space marines(and they probably are since we're talking specifically about MEQ), they're likely objective secured, and them living means you failed to steal whatever objective they were holding for maelstrom purposes, meaning that you just gave up a victory point for NOT killing them.

Im not sure how this discussion about "to stay in combat or not" has any relevance to the topic at hand. Designing an assault squad to kill any possible enemy unit in exactly 2 rounds of combat is impossible. As others have said, we want to get in and out as quick as possible, regardless to enemy shooting.

If we wanted survive enemy shooting we would be taking another army. The purposes of Grots (or any of our units) is to get into combat ASAP, then take advantage as the enemy tries to deal with a big scary squad in their line.

After we initially make combat, they should start to move away from us, hopefully into the waiting arms of another of our combat units (which is how we take advantage).

I guess what I am trying to get at is: If you want your 150 pt unit to survive in the enemy deployment zone, with their entire army within touching distance, and no support, your better off throwing yourself at the Supreme Overloards mercy than expecting success. I think we are better off discussing how to make the largest impact right off the bat rather than squabbling on how to survive. If the enemy is shooting at us at rapid fire range, we are dead regardless. Just hope that we have another 2 units closing the gap to make use of the confusion.

fisheyes wrote:

Im not sure how this discussion about "to stay in combat or not" has any relevance to the topic at hand. Designing an assault squad to kill any possible enemy unit in exactly 2 rounds of combat is impossible. As others have said, we want to get in and out as quick as possible, regardless to enemy shooting.

If we wanted survive enemy shooting we would be taking another army. The purposes of Grots (or any of our units) is to get into combat ASAP, then take advantage as the enemy tries to deal with a big scary squad in their line.

After we initially make combat, they should start to move away from us, hopefully into the waiting arms of another of our combat units (which is how we take advantage).  

I guess what I am trying to get at is: If you want your 150 pt unit to survive in the enemy deployment zone, with their entire army within touching distance, and no support, your better off throwing yourself at the Supreme Overloards mercy than expecting success. I think we are better off discussing how to make the largest impact right off the bat rather than squabbling on how to survive. If the enemy is shooting at us at rapid fire range, we are dead regardless. Just hope that we have another 2 units closing the gap to make use of the confusion.

Say what you want, being in combat a assault longer has won me games before, Im a believer that there are time you want to stay in combat, if you feel this is wrong then fine.

About it not being apart of the topic, it is tho, we are talking about wounds, and these numbers will help with strategies like this.

fisheyes wrote:

Im not sure how this discussion about "to stay in combat or not" has any relevance to the topic at hand. Designing an assault squad to kill any possible enemy unit in exactly 2 rounds of combat is impossible. As others have said, we want to get in and out as quick as possible, regardless to enemy shooting.

If we wanted survive enemy shooting we would be taking another army. The purposes of Grots (or any of our units) is to get into combat ASAP, then take advantage as the enemy tries to deal with a big scary squad in their line.

After we initially make combat, they should start to move away from us, hopefully into the waiting arms of another of our combat units (which is how we take advantage).  

I guess what I am trying to get at is: If you want your 150 pt unit to survive in the enemy deployment zone, with their entire army within touching distance, and no support, your better off throwing yourself at the Supreme Overloards mercy than expecting success. I think we are better off discussing how to make the largest impact right off the bat rather than squabbling on how to survive. If the enemy is shooting at us at rapid fire range, we are dead regardless. Just hope that we have another 2 units closing the gap to make use of the confusion.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree entirely.

Against most armies, being locked in combat is where you WANT an assault unit on your opponent's turn. Especially if you aren't playing Maelstrom, most of the time an assault unit that kind its target on the charge just winds up being the newest citizens of the nation of Assinthebreezia. Grotesques can survive concentrated firepower a little better than some other units, but for many units (Reavers, Incubi, f'rex) you might as well put them away: you've basically traded them for the unit you charged.

Betray's point about Maelstrom objectives does give me something to chew over on this, but for years the two turn assault has been an ideal for many units, and I'm not convinced its utility is finished.

@Jimsolo, Exactly, only time IMO you dont want to stay in combat is for Maelstrom and you need to get out to get an objective or to kill a unit off of one, but even then its good to tie up units sometimes.

Jimsolo wrote:

Betray's point about Maelstrom objectives does give me something to chew over on this, but for years the two turn assault has been an ideal for many units, and I'm not convinced its utility is finished.

I agree that in eternal war only missions, you want your assault units in combat with an enemy in their turn.

I just rarely see anyone play plain eternal war missions much any more. Most people(at least in my area) use scoring formats from the major tournament circuits like ITC, which combine a simplified maelstrom system with eternal war scoring.

In either maelstrom, or these hybrid formats, the ability to kill a unit off of an objective is important for any unit, but especially important for one that lacks objective secured.