Comparison: Assault & Shooting in 6th edition

I've seen a lot of funny comments around the Intertubes which is suggesting the relationship (and who's wearing the pants) between shooting & assault isn't really understood. Particularly given the transition we've gone/are going through. This relationship is pretty much the same as what it was in 5th edition and this is what's sparking the confusion bubbles over my head in very cartoon like fashion. Enough preamble - let's decide who's wearing the pants!

Comparison: Tesla & Gauss

Chaos Dwarfs

Because Necrons aren't getting enough attention currently, right? In 5th edition, running your Immortals with Tesla was generally the way to go but several rule changes have muddied the waters a bit. Let's take a look at both options now and whilst the obvious place this comparison takes place is on Immortals, it can be applied to the rest of the Necron army as well.

Comparison: The Weapons of 6th?

With 5th edition fast fading into obscurity behind us, the main question is what will become the heavy and special weapons of choice for most armies? Considering the majority of armies out there use a basic Imperial weapon system and most of the recently released armies are based upon this paradigm, we can look at some of the more common weapon loadouts and make some generalisations across armies. For example, 5th edition was all about the meltagun, autocannon and missile launcher. Not 100% accurate but seeing those types of weapon loadouts across from you (and their non-Imperial equivalents) wasn't uncommon.

To start...

Evaluating Bad Units: Assault Cannon Razorbacks

Welcome to the second wonderful installment of our little series here. This time around we're going to talk about a more unusual choice in the list of sub-par options: the Razorback with twin-linked Assault Cannon.

"But that's not a bad unit!" some of you are undoubtedly rising from your chairs to shout. And you're right- when fielded by Blood Angels, where it benefits from aggressive mobility, or Grey Knights, where it gets upgraded stats, immunity to suppression and support from other mid-range forces, it's quite good. But when Space Marines or Space Wolves field them, it is decidedly underwhelming.

Comparison: Land Speeders & Attack Bikes

Dakka

I got a recent e-mail about this and it was mentioned in the comments here so I thought I'd do a quick comparison between these two very similar units. The two main questions where in which cases were Attack Bikes better than Speeders (and vice versa) and which option was more durable. We'll look at both these points and the general gist of each unit.

Durability -

This can be a bit tough as Attack Bikes and Land Speeders are different unit types - ones based on an infantry statline and the other is based on a vehicle statline so comparing them isn't exactly easy. We can run some mathematics to see which is more durable (which have been done lots of times on the Internet so I'm not going to do here - little homework for you if you want :P) and the end result is Land Speeders come out ahead - barely. Let's break down this analysis though without actual numbers.

Email in: Army List

BBF (ew)

"Hi Kirby,

I've been reading your blog for a month or two now, and I've got to say, it's fantastic. There's just one problem: I liked it so much I showed my housemate and now he's using your lists and advice and I can't bloody beat him! Would you mind giving me some advice to even the balance a bit? It's at the point where no matter what I bring I'm lucky to last to the end of Turn 5, and then I lose anyway. I play Imperial Guard, he plays Nids. He's been using something like

Comparison: Fortitude vs Living Metal

AbusePuppy has recently taken us through Quantum Shielding and all that it entails for a Necron army (both playing it and playing against it). Of particular note of course is the durability Necron vehicles have with Quantum Shielding and Living Metal. Beyond this, a lot of parallels have been drawn between Living Metal and Grey Knight's Fortitude and for obvious reasons - they both counter suppression. Suppression is a key part of 5th edition as enemy vehicles are so common. It's not that rare to see 10+ vehicles in your opponent's army or 20+ on the table during deployment (even at 1500 points). What Living Metal and Fortitude allow is the respective Necron and Grey Knight armies to care less about suppression for their own army. This is an interesting development if the designers are indeed thinking with 6th edition in mind (I'll believe that when I see it), particularly with Eldar around the corner (remember the good old Spirit Stones?).

Comparison: Games Workshop & Privateer Press

I'm going to pre-face this by telling everyone to be nice in the comments. Don't flame and don't be fanbois/fangirls - this is an objective post and nothing is going to be gained by whining about companies or flaming each other.

With that out of the way... This post is going to look at some of the good and bad points of both companies in a comparison. Puppy has already done this alone with Games Workshop. As we move towards 2012 there is a massive disparity in terms of what each company does well. Whilst their gaming systems are very different in terms of size and scope, they are some of the largest tabletop wargames out there. Combined with the Privateer Press' founders seemingly basing their company off what many believe Games Workshop does poorly, it's only natural to see such comparisons made (and knowing the Internet and people in general - the flaming and fanism [<-- new word]).

Counterpoint: Non-spamming 40k lists

This is perhaps one of the hottest and must hate-fuelling debate with out little hobby. In simple terms you have the WAAC douchebags who are ruining the hobby (aka the hyper competitive players who may or may not actually be WAAC douchebags) running and promoting spam lists and on the other hand you have the every fluffy morons who believe repeating a single unit is a blasphemy and would never actually happen in real life (aka the casual players who may not actually be fluffy morons). Got to love it when people impose their restrictions upon you :P.

Anyway comical understanding of the two extreme sides of 40k aside, there are generally two distinct build categories - full on spam where nothing is a singular and everything is repeated and rainbow/battleforce armies where you've got a little bit of everything. These are very broad strokes so let's not nitpickle. Ironically a lot of people fall somewhere bang in the middle as a compromise between pure optimisation and personal feel. What this post is going to look at is the key concepts of both sides of the argument and then look at making a Rainbow army which is actually semi-decent on the tabletop by applying good list building skills.

What Color is Your Skimmer? (Different Types of Wargamers)

Comparing, contrasting, and promoting different types of games and gamers is a common hobby here on the blogrolls and on the forums; in fact, if you want to get a ton of posts, there are few easier ways than to put up something about different styles of gaming, inflammatory or not, well-intentioned or not. But what are the different types of gamers? What do they care about? What brings them to the hobby? And how real are the distinctions? These are issues that aren't often discussed much but I think are well worth looking at.

Unit Comparison: Tyranid Raveners and Genestealers

Genestealers seem to be the rage these days whilst Raveners have oft been neglected. Let's take a look at both units who fulfil very similar roles in terms of what they bring to the army and their literal effect upon the tabletop. This post isn't going to conclude with a this unit is better but rather give you the tools to decide what you would like to fit into your army.

Both Genestealers and Raveners are combat creatures with ability to engage the enemy early in the game. Raveners are beasts which gives them a potential charge range of 24" and gets them across the field very quickly. Genestealers are normal infantry with Fleet but can infiltrate which puts them up close to the opponent early, especially if you can hide them. Both utilise high weapon skill, initiative and number of attacks combined with Rending to deal with foes before they can retaliate. Neither of them are particularly durable but cover helps this a lot and the units are all about weakening the opponent in combat before they can swing. Like many Tyranids however, they suffer from lack of offensive grenades and whilst they can move through cover quickly, assaulting through cover for both of these units can be a death sentence. Let's look at the particulars then and their specific differences.

Comparison: MSU in Marine armies and non-Marine armies

This was started by me but I couldn't really get the point across which I wanted. BrotherLoring was kind enough to edit it and finish it off so lots of credit goes to him!


The other month we looked at the differences between large and small (MSU) units. The article identified clear differences between the two which revolved around different strengths and weaknesses and when utilised heavily in a given list, defined how said list would generally operate. At the same time, combining the two was discussed to cover each others' weaknesses whilst attempting to gain the best of both worlds. This discussion was focused specifically on Marine based armies however and no mention was given to other Imperial or Xenos forces. Let's take a look at some key differences and how MSU differs for other races.

Before we go any further, we should have a look at what is meant by MSU. We've previously discussed how some terms aren't always what they seem on the surface. 'Mech' can be used to describe forces that aren't all transport mounted. Mech is more of a description of forces that have high durability and have good mobility i.e. the main reasons why mounted troops are what they are. So how would we define Multiple Small Units of 'MSU'?