Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm wondering if there are common elements to successful competive armies whatever type they are and regardless of how they work?

For instance, would you consider having a push-back unit to be essential? Something cheap and/or durable to force back enemy deployment.

Similarly, would you never leave home without an infiltrating unit, just to deny enemy infiltrators?

Do you always have some sort of response to indirect weapon fire, or do you always ensure that you have indirect firing of your own?

Would you always recommend commanders to purchase a psychic hood if they had access to it?

What do you think are the essential elements of a competitive army?

Competative army elements (not all of these are simultaneously possible):

All infantry. (Transports assault is near immpossible, and escalation makes vehicles handicapped)

Shooting style Army (effective assault armies are trumped by shooters)

Strategy rating 3 (if you can get it)

Mobile units (more than 6", some missions require you to take board quadrants)

T4 base MEq statline (generally the tough armies have an edge over the weaker ones)

Vs. Marine Metagame army structure (structure army options to fight vs marines most of the time)

Competative Armies:
Iron Warriors, Vanilla Space Marines, Eldar Pathfinders, Undivided Chaos Marines, Necrons, Biel Tan Swordwind, Imperial Guard, Lost and the Damned, Eldar

Less Competative armies:
Dark Eldar, Blood Angels, Sisters of Battle, Demon Hunters, Wytche Cult, Tau, Spacewolves, Black Templars, Tyranids: all Genestealers

Non Competative armies:
Orks, Kroot Mercs, Orks KoS, Deathguard, Tyranids, Armored Company, Iyanden Ghost Army, Saim Han Wild Riders

I totally disagree, an army that commits to assault and uses it's natural advantages to the fullest, will beat any shooty army out there. Blood Angels are definatly one of the most competive armies in the game, depending on the player. To put eldar above them is a definate mistake. Tyranids also win alot of games, marine metagaming is a mistake in this edition of warhammer.

Oh and to answer the original post, the most important element of any list is good solid tactics. Every list has tactics that suit it will and will win when played right. 40k is not fantasy, tactics play a much more important role, over army choice. Good list design is still paramount, but the list follows the tactics of the player as well as the strengths of the army.

"Guns. Lots of guns."

According to Augustus then, an ultra-competitive army will be all infantry, favour shooting over assault, have some mobile objective grabbers, and be based around T4 3+ save models.

I'd have to agree. In the only tournament I have won so far, my army had all these elements - it was Black Legion, shooty with some counter assault, with Furies and deep striking Oblits as the objective grabbers.

In my first practice games with this army I had them all-infiltrating but I found that it didn't work. By starting completely off the board my opponents had total freedom of deployment right up to the edge of their deployment zone. I responded by losing Infiltrate on one of my squads and using them for push back. I now have a similar unit in all of my armies.

I also found that any opponents who included even just one infiltrating squad of their own could seriously hamper my deployment by denying me some areas of the board. I now try to include at least one infiltrating unit of my own in all my armies, just to deny heavy infiltrating armies.

Anyone else have any must-haves?

Competative Armies:
Iron Warriors, Vanilla Space Marines, Eldar Pathfinders, Undivided Chaos Marines, Necrons, Biel Tan Swordwind, Imperial Guard, Lost and the Damned, Eldar

Less Competative armies:
Dark Eldar, Blood Angels, Sisters of Battle, Demon Hunters, Wytche Cult, Tau, Spacewolves, Black Templars, Tyranids: all Genestealers

Non Competative armies:
Orks, Kroot Mercs, Orks KoS, Deathguard, Tyranids, Armored Company, Iyanden Ghost Army, Saim Han Wild Riders

If this were true, it would seem strange that Blood Angels almost always figure in the top 3 of most tournaments, not to mention the great success people seem to have with Tyranids, Death Guard, and Orks. I'm pretty sure Armoured Company has also won a few large tournaments. The occasional good result from these 'non-competitive' armies might be expected, but it seems odd that people seem to do well so regularly with them.

The Blood Angels are still one of the best Space Marine armies out there. They got access to most of the new toys (souped-up Chaplain, they didn´t need that! AssCans, Drop Pods, souped-up Librarians etc.) while still having their old, under-costed stuff like the Death Company, free Furious Charge and the Baal Predator (well, it´s over-costed now).

The most effective Blood Angels armies I´ve faced have been similar to Codex-Chapters but with better counter-assault capabilites (ie. the Death Company...). Loads of las-plas squads, all of them won´t run each turn, Land Speeder Tornadoes, Predators and possibly a few more Assault Marines (they get Furious Charge more or less *free*, after all).

No, I think they´re still one of the better armies you can play. The nerfed Rhino-rules didn´t really bothered them much. They got loads of stuff back to make up for that.

Now, the Space Wolves, that´s another, very different story....... You won´t win any serious tournies with them but the Blood Angels can still do that.

Space Wolves have the potential to make an excellent Drop Pod force.  Whether this is a very competitive army depends on how you feel about Drop Pods in general, but I think it could be pretty solid.

As for general rules of a competitive army, I think many of the high points hit so far are accurate.  Other general principles I try to stick to in list construction include:

-High number of scoring units. This one is obvious.  I've still had good tournament and league success in 4th Ed using a couple of Rhinos and a Razorback, but if you invest too many points in non-scoring units you can be shooting yourself in the foot.  There's a careful balance to be struck between this advantage and the advantage of mobility, but a general rule of thumb is to maximize the number of scoring units.

-Filling up the force org chart.  Not all armies can do this, but armies capable of filling up most or all of the slots on the force org chart will be able to continue deploying long after their opponent (unless the opponent is all-infiltrating or DSing), thus being able to see the opponent's entire deployment and react to it.  I did this a lot with my Eldar.  A typical 1850 Eldar army for me might have 6 troops, 3 HS, 2-3 FA, 2 Elite and an HQ.  Compare this to my Dark Angels, which would be more like 4-5 troops, 3 HS, 2 FA, 0-1 Elite and an HQ.  Or, more tellingly, my Chaos, which due to model cost is usually something like 5 troops, 2 HS, 1-2 Elite and an HQ.  Opponents of mine have fielded Tyranid armies which regularly filled the entire chart.  I have never felt that Infiltrators were necessary because I've typically been able to fill up most of my deployment zone and keep enemy infiltrators from being able to deploy to my flank or rear.

-Many maneuver elements.  This one is related to the above.  What I mean by this is having many units capable of acting independently.  Whether they're maneuvering or shooting, having more units gives you more options and choices, and more opportunities to adjust on the fly to a change in circumstance.  Two examples.  First- an Eldar Skimmer army.  This army often has several fast scoring units (multiple units in Falcons, Vypers, and the occasional squad in a Wave Serpent).  The downside is that many of these units are more or less forced to move together in a typical game.  Three Falcons with squads inside is six scoring units, but only three maneuver elements, in my terms-  If your opponent manages to shoot one Falcon down, he has very likely just taken two of your scoring units out of the picture for grabbing an objective.  Second- a SM shooty army using small Tac squads as opposed to Devastators.  If I have a Dev Squad with 4 lascannons I have a very nasty anti-tank unit, but sometimes this will be overkill.  If I have the points and force org slots free to instead take four Tac squads each with a lascannon I can fire my lascannons one at a time, and if fewer than four shots are needed to kill my primary target, I can switch over to a secondary target that turn (and maybe more if I continue rolling well).  The Devs will never kill off more than one vehicle in a turn unless it's a squadron.  The Tac marines can adjust targets between shots from different squads to capitalize on a good early shot.

-Pushback unit.  This has already been mentioned, but it was definitely up there on my list for years.  It's not critical anymore since the quadrant missions like Cleanse, Dawn Assault and Nightfight don't allow yo do deploy right on the center anymore, but it's still a good thing to have a tough unit capable of sitting right on the farthest forward point possible to give you some pushback.

 

Space Wolves have the potential to make an excellent Drop Pod force. Whether this is a very competitive army depends on how you feel about Drop Pods in general, but I think it could be pretty solid.

They sure can, no doubt about that. I´m not convinced a Drop Pod Force have a good enough chance to win a tournament. I could be wrong though.

And lets face it, lesser Marines/vanillias can make atleast as good a Drop Pod Force. And they don´t have to buy those three non-scoring HQ´s (except the Venerable Dread) in 1500p+ games...

The rest is a good write up I agree with!

Now, the Space Wolves, that´s another, very different story....... You won´t win any serious tournies with them but the Blood Angels can still do that.

Didn't a Space Wolves army just win a recent big tournament, as described in the Battle Reports forum?

Didn't a Space Wolves army just win a recent big tournament, as described in the Battle Reports forum?

I must have missed that and didn´t find any with a quick look, could you provide a link..?

Excellent post, just what I was looking for.

-High number of scoring units. This one is obvious.  I've still had good tournament and league success in 4th Ed using a couple of Rhinos and a Razorback, but if you invest too many points in non-scoring units you can be shooting yourself in the foot.  There's a careful balance to be struck between this advantage and the advantage of mobility, but a general rule of thumb is to maximize the number of scoring units.

Yep, my Daemonhunters are in all sorts of trouble on this score. Assassins, Daemonhosts, multiple dedicated transports all add up to few scoring units.

-Filling up the force org chart.  Not all armies can do this, but armies capable of filling up most or all of the slots on the force org chart will be able to continue deploying long after their opponent (unless the opponent is all-infiltrating or DSing), thus being able to see the opponent's entire deployment and react to it.  I did this a lot with my Eldar.  A typical 1850 Eldar army for me might have 6 troops, 3 HS, 2-3 FA, 2 Elite and an HQ.  Compare this to my Dark Angels, which would be more like 4-5 troops, 3 HS, 2 FA, 0-1 Elite and an HQ.  Or, more tellingly, my Chaos, which due to model cost is usually something like 5 troops, 2 HS, 1-2 Elite and an HQ.  Opponents of mine have fielded Tyranid armies which regularly filled the entire chart.  I have never felt that Infiltrators were necessary because I've typically been able to fill up most of my deployment zone and keep enemy infiltrators from being able to deploy to my flank or rear.

I can see why infiltrators aren't required with this deployment. The only army I've come close to this is my Tau, where I had multiple small Firewarrior squads and lone Crisis suits taking up force org slots. It usually meant I was deploying my Crisis suit unopposed.

-Many maneuver elements.  This one is related to the above.  What I mean by this is having many units capable of acting independently.  Whether they're maneuvering or shooting, having more units gives you more options and choices, and more opportunities to adjust on the fly to a change in circumstance.  Two examples.  First- an Eldar Skimmer army.  This army often has several fast scoring units (multiple units in Falcons, Vypers, and the occasional squad in a Wave Serpent).  The downside is that many of these units are more or less forced to move together in a typical game.  Three Falcons with squads inside is six scoring units, but only three maneuver elements, in my terms-  If your opponent manages to shoot one Falcon down, he has very likely just taken two of your scoring units out of the picture for grabbing an objective.  Second- a SM shooty army using small Tac squads as opposed to Devastators.  If I have a Dev Squad with 4 lascannons I have a very nasty anti-tank unit, but sometimes this will be overkill.  If I have the points and force org slots free to instead take four Tac squads each with a lascannon I can fire my lascannons one at a time, and if fewer than four shots are needed to kill my primary target, I can switch over to a secondary target that turn (and maybe more if I continue rolling well).  The Devs will never kill off more than one vehicle in a turn unless it's a squadron.  The Tac marines can adjust targets between shots from different squads to capitalize on a good early shot.

Yeah, this was my thinking with the Tau 4x6 man units was better than 2x12 man units. I could still pour all my fire into a single target if I wanted, but I would never waste a full 12 man units shots on the last survivor from a squad. You also gain if the unit gets assaulted as you have more units free to go about their business.

-Pushback unit.  This has already been mentioned, but it was definitely up there on my list for years.  It's not critical anymore since the quadrant missions like Cleanse, Dawn Assault and Nightfight don't allow yo do deploy right on the center anymore, but it's still a good thing to have a tough unit capable of sitting right on the farthest forward point possible to give you some pushback.

 

I must have missed that and didn´t find any with a quick look, could you provide a link..?

Mech Tau at CanCon is the thread, no real details of the Wolf army except a pic, but it did win.

agreed:

start all off the table, or all on it.
all on means all infantry. this sucks as you're so slow. its good with infiltrate though.
all off means mech army, drop pods, daemon bomb etc.

if you start a mix of on/off, then you get out numbered by infiltrators, and out manouvered by deepstrikers.

- scoring units
- full force org chart
- pushback
- infiltrate pushback
- mobile firepower, (will defeat static firepower, and can avoid combatty) or:
- a GOOD way of getting to combat, if you're assaulty

And lets face it, lesser Marines/vanillias can make atleast as good a Drop Pod Force. And they don´t have to buy those three non-scoring HQ´s (except the Venerable Dread) in 1500p+ games...

Not bad at 1500 though.  With one character and retinue in a pod, and the venerable in a pod you?re still good on the scoring unit count.  True Grit means you can both Rapidfire and get the extra attacks in assault.  Vanilla Marines can do this with Trust Your Battle Brothers, but they don?t get the other SW rules, like multiple powerfists in a squad. Plus the Venerable?s re-roll increases your chances of going second!  

start all off the table, or all on it.
all on means all infantry. this sucks as you're so slow. its good with infiltrate though.
all off means mech army, drop pods, daemon bomb etc.

This is a rule you can break if you?re careful. If you build a durable shooty infantry core and take vehicles which have good firepower on the move, you can get some nice reserve hitting power moving on at points of your choosing, and which is immune to enemy shooting on the first turn or two in Omega. Landspeeders, Vindicators, Pred Destructors, Hammerheads, and the like can all come on firing and get a ?mid-game alpha strike?.

You do need to make sure that whatever starts on the table has staying power and cover, however.

yea i think SW are a pretty good choice for pods. the only downside really is the lack of double special weapons, (and increased unit costs) but enough assault cannons can make up for that, (like they make up for anything)

This came up a while ago. In abstract terms, a tourney winning army needs to (and this is going from memory from the previous post):

1) Have resiliency. Incoming enemy fire should have a minimal effect on your ability to kill stuff. Resiliency can come in the form of being MEQ or in the form of having so many bodies that it's simply impossible to put a meaningful dent in your killing ability in a single round (IG)

2) Have enough mobility. Not necessarily lots - but enough. You do need to be able to take objectives. But don't sacrifice on killing power for mobility.

3) Be able to kill lots of stuff. Either with guns or by being choppy. If you're a shooty army, you want some counter assault though. Likewise an assaulty army probably wants a certain amount of dakka.

4) Have a few tricks up your sleeve.

Augustus and others have mentioned some more specific stuff that I'll re-iterate:
1) Transport based assault armies no longer work.
2) Optimize for escalation - start either almost entirely on the board or entirely off it. Preferably almost entirely on.
3) Be aware of your metagame and make adjustments for it.

The most improtant thing to have is a plan. Know how your units work and have a general idea of what you want them to do. Know which units should be supporting which other units and what sort of targets they are going after.

As a note, another form of resiliency is not being able to be shot at/assaulted.

Primary user of that method is suit heavy Tau.

Relic_OMO writes:

If this were true, it would seem strange that Blood Angels almost always figure in the top 3 ...

Not anymore, the blood angels codex has been ruined by the V4 rules, the rhino rush, their defining tactic is gone, the casualty removal rules ensure that only foolish players are ever slaughtered by the deathcompany, the BA exsanguinator deathcompany unkillable unit is gone, their rhinos can not even use the turbo boost anymore or they almost explode, the codex is one of the oldest legacy codices out there and all they have left is a predictable jump pack and or scout berserk assault.  Even a mediocre tyranid army would probably give them a fit.  A sad army, once they were a great tourney army...

DIFFERENT RULES

success people seem to have with Tyranids, Death Guard, and Orks.

Have you been to a tourney in the last 2 years?  Or read the boards? No one has succes with Orcs!  Marines who leave all their heavy weapons behind?  Your kidding, this statement flies in the face of almost a year of dakka posts. 

...Armoured Company has also won a few large tournaments. The occasional good result from these 'non-competitive' armies might be expected, but it seems odd that people seem to do well so regularly with them.

HAs armored company ever won a GT? Even under the old rules? Nope.  What are you talking about?  The new centering blast and escalation rules, and half strength vs vehicle ordinance hole rules completely defanged that army...  Do you play with the current rules?

Times have changed, this isnt V3 anymore, many of the tournaments in historical perspective were won by armies that were completely different under the V3 or older rules.  Have these armies won tourneys? Sure, have they been under the current V4 rules? Nope.

 

I'm totally biased, but I played BA in V3 and now i still play them. The army has definatly changed significantly, but I still think they are the best assault army in the game. The honor guad w/ all power weapons is the most effective meq killing unit in HtH. The death company still strikes fear in the heart of most players, even more so now that they reroll misses in the first round of combat. Blood rage still makes the army unpredictable and keeps you opponent second guessing his moves.


I think to discount the BA is a serious mistake. They definatly need an update but they are still a very good list.

Phoenix writes:

The most improtant thing to have is a plan. Know how your units work and have a general idea of what you want them to do. Know which units should be supporting which other units and what sort of targets they are going after.

Well written Pheonix, but that's called Order of Operations, it's really tactics, it's the quality of a winning player, not a winning army.  But still well written.

Mission focused strategy, Odds Calculation, Force Selection, Deployment, Rules Familiarity, Spontanieity, Order of Operations, Worst First: Focus Fire, Refused Flank, Denial, 1st Strike, Face, Determination, Focus, Calm; these are the elements of a dangerous player.

celticpride4246 writes:

I'm totally biased, but I played BA in V3 and now i still play them. The army has definatly changed significantly, but I still think they are the best assault army in the game

This is why the BAs are a less competative army, their ranks of players are filled with those who remember the glory days.  The rules have changed...

the best assault army in the game

?

Orks would eat your lunch, Tyranid Godzilla list would slay them, all genestealers armies would slay them, few would even strike back on the charge, 3 wraithlords, 6 dreadnoughts, the nightbringer,...

best assault army? Hardly.

I've played all those armies and still beat them. There are ways to counter all those lists you named, and I've been fairly successful at all of them. Oh and orks...you must be crazy, thier choppas take nothing away from my scouts and 9times out ten these lose in the first round of me charging them.

I have just shelfed my BA army which I have played for the last 4+ years as I do feel they are much less competitive than they were. This is not to say that they are not still competitive. It is just that to make them competitive I am basically just using the same move-shoot tactics that codex:marines do but not as well. People still swear that BA are the best assault army but that is far from the truth. BA's current strength is as a counter-assault army, and this trick is done better by codex marines who don't end up getting assaulted anyways

I've played all those armies and still beat them. There are ways to counter all those lists you named, and I've been...(Another 2 lines of I LUV BAs)

OK, I am getting you a cookie, congratulations.

(That's what I like about you old rules zealots, refusal to admit your army is done, you never see it coming till it's all over.  I'll look for you on the field one day.Eventus stultorum magister)

I still don't buy the idea that Orks are more competitive than BA....

In any case, BA still have the option of using the standard 4th ed. list and choosing traits to reflect their playing style. At the moment, that may be the superior option since you don't have the trouble with your Dev Squads randomly moving. In friendly games, you should be able to get your opponent to agree to let you field a Baal too, though it wouldn't work for tournies.

(Has been fielding his Dark Angels using Codex rules for years now)

The only way I can see orks beating a BA army is if you just charged straight at them and left your Baals and Tornadoes at home.