Polonius
10-03-2010, 12:19 PM
One of the hotter issues in 40k tactics is the debate between specialization and flexibility. One theory argues that units should be highly capable at a specific task, so that when they attempt it they succeed. The other theory suggests that units should be capable of multiple tasks, so that they're never completely useless.
Both sides make good points, and both are correct in certain situations. The key to flexibility lies in the cost incurred, the benefit gained, and the roles a unit can play organically (absent any upgrades).
Cost in 40k nearly always boils down to opportunity cost. In finance, you can invest extra money when you expect a high return, thus having more funds available later. In 40k, both players have the same, fixed amount of points. This means that all units and upgrades need to be analyzed in terms of what the selecting player gives up to take them. In addition to the points cost of an upgrade or unit, there is usually slot competition. Tactical squads can only take a single special weapon, armies only can take three heavy support choices, etc. All the points in the world won't allow you to take four meltas in a tactical squad. The final cost is in game play: where taking certain actions limits others. This is seen most notably with heavy weapons, which prevent moving, running, and assaulting to fire.
Benefit in 40k is tougher to articulate. A unit provides a benefit when it destroys enemy units, holds or contest objectives, survives (in KP missions), ties up enemy units with pinning or assault, makes a friendly unit better or enemy unit worse (synergy), or even provides a psychological threat to the enemy (reserve units). Cost gets fuzzy in practice, but benefits are impossible to measure in purely quantitative terms. Some units lend themselves to the analysis, particularly purely damage dealing units. Others, particularly scoring units, have a massive benefit (the ability to win games) that can't be quantified. In the purest terms, benefits are not even absolute, only potential. Adding a melta gun to a squad doesn't yeild a destroyed tank, but dramatically increases the potential of a squad destroying a tank.
Finally, every unit has organic abilities. A tactical squad has bolters, bolt pistols, ATSKNF, combat tactics, frag and krak grenades, a good stat line, and power armor. Absent any upgrades, the squad can do decent damage to light infantry in shooting, and non-dedicated assault units and light/medium armor in hand to hand. In addition, tactical squads are scoring units, and can split into combat squads. Being aware of a units organic abilities gives you an idea of what the unit can do in terms of benefits provided absent any cost, and provides the framework for any flexibilty analysis. Do not, under any circumstances, think that because a unit has low or moderate organic ability at a task that the unit should always be upgraded to bolster that task. Organic abilities are considered because they're "free", not because they are always signifigant. For tactical squads, it would be easy to say that they're good at shooting light units, so should always take flamer and heavy bolter. In practice, their light infantry killing power isn't the main reason to take the unit, but provides a side light. In many ways this is the hardest thing for new players to understand, especially when building Imperial/traitor armies: the squads are good or bad based on upgrades, and the organic abilities are seldom more than a sidelight.
The major exception, and the organic ability that usually provides the biggest value, is the ability to count as a scoring unit. Scoring units are required to win most missions of 40k, and is in many ways the biggest benefit but the hardest to value. Many list suffer because players realize that their troops choices provide a low damage benefit, and so skimp on them, limiting their ability to take and hold objectives. The savvy player knows that troops are key, and either upgrades them to optimize damage, or simply relies on their organic ability to score and provide light damage.
Flexibility, under this rubric, would be the ability of a unit to provide multiple benefits to the player. In a vacuum (with no costs considered), a space marine tactical squad with melta gun, plasma cannon, power fist, combi-flamer, and rhino would provide maximum flexibility benefit. The unit can engage heavy armor, heavy infantry, light infantry, fight in assault, score, and be transported. In practice, the squad is terrible: no focus, very low benefit against each target, and a pretty high cost.
Flexibility, the ability of a unit to perform multiple tasks, is the inverse of redundancy, or the ability to have multiple units that can perform any given task. The former is worried about having useless units, while the latter is concerned with not having useful units. It’s a key to successful list building, because while no unit is ever truly useless, there are times when you won’t have a useful unit (lack of units that can kill landraiders are the biggest example). Specialization dramatically increases the benefit a unit offers, usually at a fairly low total cost. Taking three multi-melta attack bikes provides similar anti-tank pop to three MM dreadnoughts, at a lower cost in both points and FOC slots. On the other hand, the MM dreadnoughts are more flexible, being fearless, more durable, decent in assault, etc. Specialized units are taken generally with the idea that the need for a dedicated unit(s) to deal with certain tasks outweighs the threat they may be useless in certain games.
Flexibility, as the ability to confer multiple benefits, is still a positive thing. Many lists are built around flexible units, and are quite successful. Some of that flexibility is organic, such as the frag and krak missiles from a missile launcher, while some is available as an option, such as the Dragon’s Breath Flamer in Fire Dragons. This treatise is a long winded way of saying one simple thing: only pay for flexibility that provides a good benefit for a low cost.
When looking at the benefit, ask the following questions: how good will this make the unit at its new task? Does the benefit complement organic abilities? Is this benefit otherwise light or weak in your army? Is this benefit of higher value in your local gaming community? The benefit questions are generally pretty easy: they can often by quantified (how many more wounds in an assault does a powerfist add, for example) or are easy to qualitatively *****.
The trick becomes looking at the cost. When looking at the cost for an upgrade, look at the whole picture. Could you spend those points on something better, somewhere else in the list? Does the upgrade prevent taking another choice that might suit the units role better? Does taking the upgrade create a situation where the unit would have to operate differently from its normal function? Does the upgrade cut into the ability of the unit to operate at a specialized task?
Using this system, let’s analyze a few common upgrade questions. First, looking at the humble tactical squad, should you take a powerfist? Let’s assume a non-vulkan list, where the squad is armed with flamer and missile launcher, and is meant primarily to hold objectives. In this case, the benefit is pretty easy: it becomes better (but still not great) in assault. The cost in terms of points is pretty high, representing almost half a landspeeder. More importantly, the unit is meant to simply survive and plink at enemy armor: adding the fist creates in play dissonance, as you might use them aggressively, losing the organic benefits of the squad. Here, the squad should seldom see combat, and the benefit is simply too low for the cost. The squad is meant to be a support unit, and powerfists are a pure damage dealing element.
Instead, let’s look at a tactical squad with combi-melta, melta, multi-melta in a vulkan list, mounted in a rhino. This is a unit that retains its organic scoring ability, but also serves as a damage dealing unit, specialized to dealing with vehicles. Taking a powerfist in this list doesn’t have the tactical costs that it did above, as this unit is far more likely to be in assault. It doesn’t have any “slot” costs, as the unit can still take the combi weapon and there aren’t any other really useful CC weapons available. This questions boils down to points cost, and if you could spend 25pts better elsewhere. It’s my opinion that most armies could find better uses of 25pts (extra armor on a dread, Landraider MMs, etc), but we at least now know the proper questions to ask.
This analysis I think shows why heavy weapons in troop squads are a very solid buy, even though their damage output is lower than nearly any specialized unit. The squad is bought for its organic ability to score, not for any damage, and thus the cost of the heavy weapon upgrade is a pure points cost issue, not a tactical or slot based cost issue.
It’s my hope that by looking at the true benefit of flexibility, and three costs associated with it (points, slots, and tactical), players can better analyze their choices.
I focused on flexibility in this analysis because I feel that specialization spending decisions are generally much more straight forward. When building a unit, I spend points on upgrades that make it better at it's core ask until either:
1) it can reliably perform the task
2) I can't upgrade anymore, or
3) I can't afford any more upgrades.
Leman Russ executions take plasma sponsons because it makes the tank even better, while fire dragons hover around six men because more than that is overkill against most armor.
If I were to boil this treatise down into a simple maxim, it would be "never spend slots on flexibility, and only spend points when you can't buy any more specialization." What that means is that spending limited resources to make a unit more flexible, like special weapon slots, is a waste if those slots could make the unit better at it's assigned task, unless of course you feel like that unit is already reliably capable of it's assigned task. In terms of points (as close to an unlimited resource as 40k has), I'd only spend points on flexbility if the benefit expected is higher than spending those points on specialization anywhere else in the army. A lot of flexibility based options do have a high benefit in terms of points: things like heavy flamers on dreadnoughts are among the best 10pts you can spend. Of course, you can argue that the role of a dreadnought is short ranged combat, making the heavy flamer very complementary.
Complementary flexibility is another area where the benefit is higher and the cost is lower than when the flexibility attained is diametrically opposed to the organic function of the unit. IG platoon squads are shooting squads, and adding a heavy weapon, while it changes the task (from shooting at light infantry to shooting at armor) doesn't change the role (gunline style shooting). Adding a new task to a unit, while keeping it's role, allows you to add flexibility at a lower total cost, as demonstrated by the Dreadnought example. In contrast, adding a missile launcher to a MM dreadnought, while theoretically complenting it's task (anti-armor) actually limits the role of the dreadnought (short range firefighting, light assault).
Both sides make good points, and both are correct in certain situations. The key to flexibility lies in the cost incurred, the benefit gained, and the roles a unit can play organically (absent any upgrades).
Cost in 40k nearly always boils down to opportunity cost. In finance, you can invest extra money when you expect a high return, thus having more funds available later. In 40k, both players have the same, fixed amount of points. This means that all units and upgrades need to be analyzed in terms of what the selecting player gives up to take them. In addition to the points cost of an upgrade or unit, there is usually slot competition. Tactical squads can only take a single special weapon, armies only can take three heavy support choices, etc. All the points in the world won't allow you to take four meltas in a tactical squad. The final cost is in game play: where taking certain actions limits others. This is seen most notably with heavy weapons, which prevent moving, running, and assaulting to fire.
Benefit in 40k is tougher to articulate. A unit provides a benefit when it destroys enemy units, holds or contest objectives, survives (in KP missions), ties up enemy units with pinning or assault, makes a friendly unit better or enemy unit worse (synergy), or even provides a psychological threat to the enemy (reserve units). Cost gets fuzzy in practice, but benefits are impossible to measure in purely quantitative terms. Some units lend themselves to the analysis, particularly purely damage dealing units. Others, particularly scoring units, have a massive benefit (the ability to win games) that can't be quantified. In the purest terms, benefits are not even absolute, only potential. Adding a melta gun to a squad doesn't yeild a destroyed tank, but dramatically increases the potential of a squad destroying a tank.
Finally, every unit has organic abilities. A tactical squad has bolters, bolt pistols, ATSKNF, combat tactics, frag and krak grenades, a good stat line, and power armor. Absent any upgrades, the squad can do decent damage to light infantry in shooting, and non-dedicated assault units and light/medium armor in hand to hand. In addition, tactical squads are scoring units, and can split into combat squads. Being aware of a units organic abilities gives you an idea of what the unit can do in terms of benefits provided absent any cost, and provides the framework for any flexibilty analysis. Do not, under any circumstances, think that because a unit has low or moderate organic ability at a task that the unit should always be upgraded to bolster that task. Organic abilities are considered because they're "free", not because they are always signifigant. For tactical squads, it would be easy to say that they're good at shooting light units, so should always take flamer and heavy bolter. In practice, their light infantry killing power isn't the main reason to take the unit, but provides a side light. In many ways this is the hardest thing for new players to understand, especially when building Imperial/traitor armies: the squads are good or bad based on upgrades, and the organic abilities are seldom more than a sidelight.
The major exception, and the organic ability that usually provides the biggest value, is the ability to count as a scoring unit. Scoring units are required to win most missions of 40k, and is in many ways the biggest benefit but the hardest to value. Many list suffer because players realize that their troops choices provide a low damage benefit, and so skimp on them, limiting their ability to take and hold objectives. The savvy player knows that troops are key, and either upgrades them to optimize damage, or simply relies on their organic ability to score and provide light damage.
Flexibility, under this rubric, would be the ability of a unit to provide multiple benefits to the player. In a vacuum (with no costs considered), a space marine tactical squad with melta gun, plasma cannon, power fist, combi-flamer, and rhino would provide maximum flexibility benefit. The unit can engage heavy armor, heavy infantry, light infantry, fight in assault, score, and be transported. In practice, the squad is terrible: no focus, very low benefit against each target, and a pretty high cost.
Flexibility, the ability of a unit to perform multiple tasks, is the inverse of redundancy, or the ability to have multiple units that can perform any given task. The former is worried about having useless units, while the latter is concerned with not having useful units. It’s a key to successful list building, because while no unit is ever truly useless, there are times when you won’t have a useful unit (lack of units that can kill landraiders are the biggest example). Specialization dramatically increases the benefit a unit offers, usually at a fairly low total cost. Taking three multi-melta attack bikes provides similar anti-tank pop to three MM dreadnoughts, at a lower cost in both points and FOC slots. On the other hand, the MM dreadnoughts are more flexible, being fearless, more durable, decent in assault, etc. Specialized units are taken generally with the idea that the need for a dedicated unit(s) to deal with certain tasks outweighs the threat they may be useless in certain games.
Flexibility, as the ability to confer multiple benefits, is still a positive thing. Many lists are built around flexible units, and are quite successful. Some of that flexibility is organic, such as the frag and krak missiles from a missile launcher, while some is available as an option, such as the Dragon’s Breath Flamer in Fire Dragons. This treatise is a long winded way of saying one simple thing: only pay for flexibility that provides a good benefit for a low cost.
When looking at the benefit, ask the following questions: how good will this make the unit at its new task? Does the benefit complement organic abilities? Is this benefit otherwise light or weak in your army? Is this benefit of higher value in your local gaming community? The benefit questions are generally pretty easy: they can often by quantified (how many more wounds in an assault does a powerfist add, for example) or are easy to qualitatively *****.
The trick becomes looking at the cost. When looking at the cost for an upgrade, look at the whole picture. Could you spend those points on something better, somewhere else in the list? Does the upgrade prevent taking another choice that might suit the units role better? Does taking the upgrade create a situation where the unit would have to operate differently from its normal function? Does the upgrade cut into the ability of the unit to operate at a specialized task?
Using this system, let’s analyze a few common upgrade questions. First, looking at the humble tactical squad, should you take a powerfist? Let’s assume a non-vulkan list, where the squad is armed with flamer and missile launcher, and is meant primarily to hold objectives. In this case, the benefit is pretty easy: it becomes better (but still not great) in assault. The cost in terms of points is pretty high, representing almost half a landspeeder. More importantly, the unit is meant to simply survive and plink at enemy armor: adding the fist creates in play dissonance, as you might use them aggressively, losing the organic benefits of the squad. Here, the squad should seldom see combat, and the benefit is simply too low for the cost. The squad is meant to be a support unit, and powerfists are a pure damage dealing element.
Instead, let’s look at a tactical squad with combi-melta, melta, multi-melta in a vulkan list, mounted in a rhino. This is a unit that retains its organic scoring ability, but also serves as a damage dealing unit, specialized to dealing with vehicles. Taking a powerfist in this list doesn’t have the tactical costs that it did above, as this unit is far more likely to be in assault. It doesn’t have any “slot” costs, as the unit can still take the combi weapon and there aren’t any other really useful CC weapons available. This questions boils down to points cost, and if you could spend 25pts better elsewhere. It’s my opinion that most armies could find better uses of 25pts (extra armor on a dread, Landraider MMs, etc), but we at least now know the proper questions to ask.
This analysis I think shows why heavy weapons in troop squads are a very solid buy, even though their damage output is lower than nearly any specialized unit. The squad is bought for its organic ability to score, not for any damage, and thus the cost of the heavy weapon upgrade is a pure points cost issue, not a tactical or slot based cost issue.
It’s my hope that by looking at the true benefit of flexibility, and three costs associated with it (points, slots, and tactical), players can better analyze their choices.
I focused on flexibility in this analysis because I feel that specialization spending decisions are generally much more straight forward. When building a unit, I spend points on upgrades that make it better at it's core ask until either:
1) it can reliably perform the task
2) I can't upgrade anymore, or
3) I can't afford any more upgrades.
Leman Russ executions take plasma sponsons because it makes the tank even better, while fire dragons hover around six men because more than that is overkill against most armor.
If I were to boil this treatise down into a simple maxim, it would be "never spend slots on flexibility, and only spend points when you can't buy any more specialization." What that means is that spending limited resources to make a unit more flexible, like special weapon slots, is a waste if those slots could make the unit better at it's assigned task, unless of course you feel like that unit is already reliably capable of it's assigned task. In terms of points (as close to an unlimited resource as 40k has), I'd only spend points on flexbility if the benefit expected is higher than spending those points on specialization anywhere else in the army. A lot of flexibility based options do have a high benefit in terms of points: things like heavy flamers on dreadnoughts are among the best 10pts you can spend. Of course, you can argue that the role of a dreadnought is short ranged combat, making the heavy flamer very complementary.
Complementary flexibility is another area where the benefit is higher and the cost is lower than when the flexibility attained is diametrically opposed to the organic function of the unit. IG platoon squads are shooting squads, and adding a heavy weapon, while it changes the task (from shooting at light infantry to shooting at armor) doesn't change the role (gunline style shooting). Adding a new task to a unit, while keeping it's role, allows you to add flexibility at a lower total cost, as demonstrated by the Dreadnought example. In contrast, adding a missile launcher to a MM dreadnought, while theoretically complenting it's task (anti-armor) actually limits the role of the dreadnought (short range firefighting, light assault).