Still loving your videos. As a newb who hasn't even been able to play his first game yet and still has nearly 1,200pts to paint I can't wait to use what I've learned and apply it myself as I play.
Hey dude/dudette. I super appreciate the comment and view. Feel free to reach out to me on here or FB if you have any questions. Excited to hear about how your first competitive game come out!
As someone who recently started playing and now has 2000 points, don't wait until you 2000pts to play. Start playing at 500, at 1000, at 1500. Play with the basic rules using only stat lines, then next few games add in more and more rules. Trying to go straight into a 2000 point full rule game is going to be a world of pain and it will take over 5 hours. Just my 2 cents... :D
I completely agree with Lee. If you have the opportunity to play, take it. It will help you understand your army, and keep you motivated to pain the full 2k points. Sadly when i first got into wh40k, no one around me played. I posted in local FB groups and no one ever responded to my game requests. That plus covid meant that I painted nearly 5000points over ~12 months before I played more than 1 game.
@@Gumby777 Or, well, you know, Attack Bikes with Multi Meltas, which can do either the Eradicator or Outrider job (or sometimes both for a turn) as needed.
@@Gumby777 I went 2k basic stat line few a 8th cp and won 15-14 on my first go as orks, 2nd time with 9th no cp no strats and 2k got rolled deffo skirming at home with smaller armys as i build up a decent 9th list. Good advice!
Yes, it’s not correct to put everything into “Trade” category and compare Outriders to Eradicators. You’re making a very good point in the video. However, a part of this mentality, measuring everything by how well it trades, is still valid. Consider this. 3 Outriders are 12 Wounds, 19 Attacks (22 with BA Supersoctrine), 12 shots. 5 Firstborn Bikers are 15 Wounds, 16 Attacks (21 with BA Superdoctrine), 20 shots. Both squads are 150 points. Outriders can get Transhuman, but if you have nobody else to put it on you’re probably already on the backfoot and they’re quite a bit more vulnerable to D2 and high D weapons (D3+3, D6+2 and so on). Not to mention that 5 bases take up more space, can tag more units on pile-ins and you can get like a LC or Storm Bolter on Biker Sergeant. In my opinion, there’s almost no reason to run Outriders instead of regular Bikes, because once I’ve decided that I need a unit for a certain “Main” game role (move fast, clear out light infantry, block something off), I then use the “Trade” metric to compare how all my options fulfill that role. I think it bears mentioning.
Yes! This is exactly the type of conversation we are having. I agree that non-primaris bikes fill the same role as outriders more cost efficiently. In the video I was more focusing on the fact that people were (bad analogy coming up) comparing apples and oranges. In this case, you're taking into account the purpose of the unit and finding other units that fill that purpose better. I think the way you provided feedback is rare among WH40k players!
Your tutorials are, imho, the best educational 40k content on youtube. Im a scrub that hasnt played a complete game but your explanations have given me a lot more confidence about the game. And youve retaught me a lot of the math that i pooped out of my brain long long ago.
Thank you so much, that's incredibly nice of you to say. I believe there is a Gap In short tactics videos for 40k, and I try to make the type of videos that I would want to watch. I can't make as many videos as I would like due to work, but I hope to keep making regular content that people like.
Before anything else, I recently got into the game so a lot of my thinking and reasoning comes from mostly reading the book and the only books I have are space marines as I started collecting at the tail end of their releases so that is what I am mostly going to be referencing. I've been designing lists and theory crafting off of chess more so than what others are doing. For instance, field of control; this is going to be a loose bastardization of it, but, the idea that your pieces or units are moved not to score points but to control a greater area like keeping a knight placed in a way so that moving a pawn forward allows the knight to attack unless the unit is supported. Transfering this over, using heavy ranged units to soften targets, the best unit for this is heavy intercessors, they have a 42 inch range with their heavy weapons, 6 attacks for standard squad size, and enough strength and ap to reliably damage so keeping them on the back objectives will still allow them to fire to the midfield keeping their damage up and the units safe. For the quadrant theory, most units fall into multiple roles, such as the DW Terminators, as you use a blob of ten in the middle which functions as both a Primary, Secondary, and trade unit, as your opponent will be expending resources to move them(Depending on the army as some can mow through them like paper), function as trade, they have obsec and are helping control a primary point, as well as scoring some secondary objectives Depending on how you build. While you keep two DW terminator command squad in the back, which holds a primary objective, and can score secondaries depending on the secondary, while also providing trades if you spend the 15 points I think for the 1 use of deny the witch within 18 inches. For your army the redemptor dreadnaught can be used as both a trade unit and both a primary and secondary unit due to a possible 36 inch range of fire with blast which can do heavy damage to squads of units approaching or getting into range, while also keeping that back point on lock. I would also say that you could attempt to bring in a Suppressor squad to support your Sanguinary Guard and Vanguard vets as if you hit with them you can deny overwatch, which would have the suppressors falling under support as it would allow you to safely charge that turn while also giving you 48 inches of fire which is usually right up to the opponent's deployment zone, providing you with a massive range and almost a free charge into enemy units. Again, I am a new player and a lot of what I am looking at is strictly from the book without having played a game yet. The local store is going to start but we were waiting till after covid lifted a bit to start playing, so if this does not make a lot of sense I am sorry.
Yeah that all sounds pretty accurate. The chess analogy is a great one and pretty common. I think the idea of trading value is also super important. For example, a pawn for a bishop is a good trade. Or sometimes its a good value trade but a bad 'victory point' or position play. Terrain is going to dictate a lot of these things too. For example, at the tournaments I play at the backfield obj can be easily blocked with LOS to the rest of the board. Heck, sometimes there's a place where a unit can totally hide and still stand on the objective. For a scenario like that, you'd probably want something even cheaper than a heavy intercessor. But I do agree that a minimum size unit is probably very good at that. But a min unit of heavy intercessors wont really do that much over the course of an entire game. If they never shot at anything, but stayed on an objective for 5 rounds, would you be happy? Probably very much so. Everything can fall into multiple roles for sure. The quadrant theory is for simplifying things to general categories. We could split the secondary one up for each secondary, and split the trade into anti armor or anti infantry. We could go further and split units in terms of survivability too. But at what point do we create too many categories to be useful? When i think of 'trading' units I tend to think of terminators or sanguinary guard or hive guard or eradicators etc. In the games i've played, i've generally seen supressors played as a secondary/support role for the Engage On All Fronts secondary as well as turning off overwatch. But that's the beauty! People can use their models in different roles based on unit size, buffs, secondary choice, and play style.
as someone whos looking to get into competitive play this is the exact type of video that makes me feel like ive genuinly gained a better understanding about the topic of competitive and smart army building, thanks so much for the content
One of the few videos on RUclips that I wish I could like multiple times. Great content, well planned communication and clean editing that limits unnecessary chatter. Thumbs up sir!
Thanks. Glad you found it useful. There's definitely a lot of ways to think about lists beyond my rudimentary video, and I think down the line I may "remake" this video to talk about those other philosophies
This is a very insightful way to analyze unit choices. I also particularly enjoyed that segment about command point budgeting. Thanks for the effort to make this.
Maybe another thing to consider is overlapping or backup roles. A squad of incursors could score primaries on a midfield objective until stronger units reach and hold said objective, then guerilla tactics off to somewhere else and score secondary objectives. A captain with visage of death helps score primaries by denying obsec but also supports nearby units.
This helps greatly. I was trying to find a way to build my armies similar to how I used to build decks for card games. And this helped put the pieces together, no matter the edition this is useful
Great video. An extra factor I like to add into my list building is any abilities that I think are essential, currently there's one not covered specifically by your categories and that is firepower that doesn't need line of sight. So many armies have small weak units which are designed to stay out of sight on an objectives, having a way to take these units out and force an opponent to put something more important on the objective is very useful and weakens their attack or their scoring (a win-win)
I feel like "Denial" is a pretty big unit role that deserves its own category. I feel like Primary and Secondary feel like redundant categories. Could it be better to just have a role called "Scoring" and another called "Denial"?
That's fair. I considered the 'trade' units as ones that were being used to deny victory points. IE, trading my 'army points' for their 'victory points'. The reason why I split up scoring into primary/secondary is because I felt that they involved very different units. IE, a redemptor sits in my backline objective wheras my incursors do objectives on table quarters. A mass army of Orc Boys might do primary very well, but fail to complete many secondaries. Either way, its all a similar way of looking at a problem. I'm sure 'trade' could be broken up into their target types as well (Chaff, Marines, Tanks etc) but at some point there are just too many roles! Thanks for the comment and advice!
@@danielbrewster8642 Makes sense! I'm just an armchair 40k enthusiast lol I barely have gotten games in. I just remember stuff like um was it the Jim Vesal-style chaos lists with units like plaguebearers that would produce games with lower points scored on average by denying kill points but not being able to themselves kill either. Fits well into denial, but of course in 9th they would be like... A denial+primaries unit. On your chart we could just call it a primaries unit role. Meanwhile when flyers used to deny moving into combat range of their footprint before that got FAQ'd. So they denied movement (and were hard to hit for some armies). But they couldn't score, see, so you wouldn't be able to call them a primaries unit. They'd be a denial+trade unit, see? Those are older examples. I mean, it's possible that denial is no longer as relevant of a strategy because there are so many good secondaries in 9th that allow you to score on your own terms, not on your opponents'. I think your chart works much better for 9th. I think even though I appreciate that in 9th, players are encouraged to smash their armies into each other, I do feel something is lost in that in 8th, there was more diversity in how armies tried to win. For example, T'au could be built to focus on tabling first, scoring later. Chaos daemons were good at denying any easy VPs. Imperial Knights were just this stat check boss battle. Now it feels like everyone is trying to hold primaries, keep 3 big units alive/sit in 4 table corners/perform actions in the three thirds of the board/etc. And even if army-specific secondaries do the trick, it seems so artificial and stale.
I'm sorry but I have to disagree with Primary and Secondary being the same thing and one of them should be replaced with Denial. Denial could easily be something that almost any unit in a Primary, Secondary and Trade groups could do, depending on how we are using "Denial" as a term. Example I have a "Primary" unit sitting on a objective in my backfield not only doing its primary role for my list, but is also helping to deny deep strikes. I believe that the point of the theory is to easily recognize what overall role each unit in one's are is to focus on as this main goal/objective to be played as in a game. It does not mean that it will solely do that role, but it is the main point of it being in the list and another way to help gage its performance.
@@Winterydee yeah good feedback. Maybe down the line I'll make an updated video with denial as a section. Certainly an important part of winning games and a totally valid argument! But like you said, these are all pretty general categories so we can talk about why we take certain units. As long as you're able to have more fulfilling conversations with other people about army choices, then you can divide your army up into whatever categories you see fit!
@@Winterydee @Winterydee I don't disagree. I must admit I haven't played so many games of 9th edition so I could be off the mark with how distinct and separate primary and secondary are, and how unimportant denial is. Obviously in 8th the quadrants would've been quite different. You might have scoring units and trading units, but trading units would inherently help with scoring "kill more" VPs. So would those be primary? I must confess I was thinking about this video from a broad Warhammer perspective and not a 9th-edition-specific perspective. That's probably where the mismatch in thinking lies. I probably assumed something really big picture with that title was trying to capture a more general wisdom about Warhammer 40k armies in general from a competitive perspective. You can easily see why I had my suggestion from that perspective right? Across the history of competitive Warhammer, scoring, trading, denial, and support might be a more robust model. That's all I was thinking. Of course I agree in 9th it's way more straightforward. You end up with units that you take just because they're a great "while we stand" unit. So, secondary. You have to build lists with that in mind. I obviously can't agree more with this video when it comes to 9e :)
This is definitely one of the better breakdowns of army-composition I've seen presented, speaking as a beginner that is just planning his first army. It's good to know that I at least managed to (I think) consider every aspect of the army composition. If I were to break it down to this theory, this would be how my army would look like. Bare in mind, even past the fact that I am new and the army remains to be untested, I've built it with a heavy lean on more casual games and is half-comprised with a sort of "Whatever I have on hand" mentality. Faction: Necrons Points used: 1500 Most likely objectives: Purge the Vermin, Engage on all fronts, raise the banners high, etc. High concept: When I went into making the army, I wanted 2 things. First, I wanted a durable backbone that the opponent would have some difficulty just wiping from the field. Second, I wanted big units that blast firey death onto enemies. That was what I went off of. Primary/Secondary: 20x Necron Warriors 10x Necron Immortals 6x Canoptek Scarab Swarms 3x Tomb Blades 1x Ghost Ark As I started to look up stuff I can do with a Necron list, I very quickly came to a hypothesis. It seemed to me like Necrons were really good at parking their asses on objective and sitting there. So, my list ended up having a heavy lean on such. The Ghost Ark ended up being quite a pivotal piece of the army, as it can and does assist in all of the 4 roles listed here. It's a good meaty body that can sit at an objective, it houses 20 boney bois ready for any needed deep strikes and it has a recovery ability to keeps that unit on the field. The Immortals were built as an auxilary to this, more beefy skellies to make sure I'm not completely in the dark if the Ghost Ark squad fucks up. The scarabs and Tomb Blades also help with swinging over to objectives very fast and camping the primaries. Tomb Blades were more made to be well-rounded fighters to contest objectives with a +5 invuln save and some blasters while the Scarabs were made to be really hard to scrub out and have the ability to bind an opponent during the combat phase. Support: 1x Necron Overlord 1x Necron Technomancer 1x Canoptek Spyder Just about everything here serves the same purpose, bolster the healing of the army and grant recursion to units. The overlord is given an Orb of Eternity to rez either the Immortals or Warriors when need be while the Spyder tends to the Scarabs. The technomancer I originally planned to have life-supporting my trade-units, but with the dimensional sanctum, it can pretty much sit around reserves and wait until a unit is in need of a dynamic rescue. Trade: 3x Canoptek Doomstalkers My big, meaty lads to lay down the heavy fire. Either I can have them deployed spread out to cover ground or clump them in a single mass of imminent death.
I agree with all your secondary choices and unit roles. I'm not a necron player, but I've played against some similar lists. Lots of good board cobtrol with some key firing units. Could easily win a game based on durability and movement alone!
Something else for people to keep in mind; your transports fall into supports but can also fall into trading up. As a harlequins player I can pay 85 points for a star weaver that gives 6 infantry -1 to hit, t6, 6 extra wounds that can move 20 inches.. That alone is a steal but the fact that it can also be used to tie up threats by charging key units and locking them into combat gives it even more insane value. Units fill more than one quadrant have exponentially more value in your lists
completely true. Raiders do a LOT of damage and can transport units as well. I also had a Rhino heavy list use them to movement block me after all the Khorne Berzerkers jumped out. Having units fulfill multiple rolls is insanely useful!
@@danielbrewster8642 hahah I feel you there, I'm running Imperial Fists. Generally playing weekly against my friends who run Death Guard, Thousand Sons, Blood Angels, and Necrons with very tough lists. This helps me out but of course I paste the link to the ole group chat because we've all got to get better together! Keep up the vids mate, loving what I've seen so far
Haha, yeah. I always think its funny to hear "you need more fast attack to move around the board" and I'm just like... what about these 12" Movement vanguard vets, or troops that can redeploy mid game? lol
Hey, thanks so much for the view and comment. I'm glad you appreciated the graphics. Didn't do any this video, but I've been known to create some good MS paint ilustrations. Making the slides and editing the video takes like 90% of the time, haha.
Some very valid points about the new system....we still play old school meat grinder battles on huge tables for an old school feel, it still works out well.
Incredibly important mindset to have. Often people only think about the killing aspect and while valuable I have seen games lost by people who killed extremely efficiently because that was all they did. Support/secondary also works in things like move block, screens, bodyguards, and tanky units who while they may not score heavily or kill alot provide a very key value to the army
I think you should rename the “trade” quadrant to “interfere”. The main goal of “trade” units is to interfere with your opponents plan. (It does not matter if you destroy a unit that wasn’t going to do anything anyways.) This renaming will expand the group to things like a Necron Psychomancer with its ability to turn off a units ObjSec, or units you bring to roadblock/screen without the expecting to do damage.
I’m a newer player, and I have to say I really enjoy your videos. The way you are able to break down ideas in an accessible way is really great. I also dig your low tech vibe! I’m trying to implement your quadrant theory to my army, am having a hard time breaking down where some units would go. For example I play orks and run mek gunz, I like to have them sit on objectives in the back, but they are really good at pounding the enemy too. Is there some tips or advice you could share with a newer player trying to figure out what role a unit fulfills?
Watching and writing this as it goes: 1. Objectives that are gotten through destruction are not only passive, they can serve as an active denial strategy while destroying countering units of your opponent. You get points for destroying a vehicle? If that vehicle was armed with AP/AT weaponry, that's the points your opponent is not getting, making the destruction objectives not passive, but arguably twice as important as they shift the balance of the points twice as far your way. 2. Good point about opsec/not opsec units to score with! Might be pretty old, but I remember the meta where every space marine army had 150 points of naked scouts for their troops and focused on wiping their opponents out, which would score you the game no matter the points. 3. What determines units role? Weaponry and toughness. Following your outrider example, gotta say you can also think 1 ligical link ahead: not only unit can "do x to score y points" but also "do x (kill something) thus support y (so your stuff does not get killed), scoring z point difference (instead of actual points that go to you) 4. Cool that you talked so much about roles but then your army list is about 70% (?) CQC blood angels power armor spam and everything that buffs it. These are very well fit for point denial and occasional score rather than 420IQ-army-split-objective gaming. 5. This theory supported by data sounds really nice. I'm still gonna stay on the side of that oldass meta when you would find a really point efficient unit and just spam it until your detachment has no more space for it. Regardless, great video. Cheers!
Thanks for the in-depth comment. Denial is a really common one people suggest and a totally valid one! just one way of analyzing armies -- there are plenty of other valid ideas. I considered killing passive in the sense that it's going to happen regardless. (although not perfect) I'm sure you understand how doing actions for ROD or Deploy homers would not be considered passive. Very interested in hearing more of your ideas going forward!
Good stuff. I'll probably be using a version of this method. One note of production feedback is microphone placement - the sound levels fluctuate when you turn your head about.
To be fair, if you're pure military tempestus, you basically only have one unit choice! Curious what secondaries you lean towards? Lets say a space marine TAC list on a mission with a bad secondary and 5 objectives?
I tend to find most success in games when I can specifically 'bait' my opponent to attack specific units. I left a comment on a previous video but I'll take it here as well. I play ad mech and usually I try to provide my opponent with targets they have to take out. Kinda like how in chess you try to make traps where the opponent must choose between two bad options. If they dont kill the unit then I'll get to shoot with it against them but if they do kill it then they dont attack my units that are currently out of range for them. What usually happens is that people tend to go half and half and end up not destroying anything which is the perfect outcome for me.
Just found your videos and i'm loving them so far. Question for you if you're still reading these, where are you pulling the data for average secondary scores?
Hey, thanks so much for the kind words. I'm trying to make the type of competitive content that I'd like to watch myself. I'll be going to an RTT next weekend and making a short form video batrep of it afterwards too!
@@danielbrewster8642 Awesome! I just had my first RTT post covid, and am documenting my co-creators and myself's competitive seasons too! I'm hitting up the LVO and my dude is repping at the Coventry GT in the UK. Always theoryhammering my list and this technique has me asking some good questions. Interestingly it's very similar to how I write anyway, but offers an organized fashion to detail it in.
Thanks. Really appreciate the view and share -- it really helps me grow the channel. I've got some more videos coming in the next few weeks. Hopefully they're also useful and interesting!
I'm glad I chose craftworld eldar. This stuff is already pretty well known when making competitive craftworlds lists since we can't easily contest objective
Big brain plays here. If your codex never gets updated and your newest model is like 20 years old, you'll always have the good models and learn how they work! Kidding aside, I really do help Craftworld Eldar gets a whole rework. They've got so much potential and they've really been shafted considering they're a huge part of WH40k lore on par with space marines, orks, and Chaos in my mind.
@@danielbrewster8642 oh yeah definitely. Craftworlds if Druhkari and Orks are any indication will hopefully get a buff and some new kits/units by 2022. I think our main issue is just really being pretty overcosted and having massive internal balance issues, on one hand we have some really frankly powerful psychic buffs but on the other hand our basic rifles take 120 shots to take down a 5 man intercessor squad
Map. If thats the case I rather have a power sword or a fist or any number of other close combat weapons that I find better than a chain sword. Theres also plasma guns. Again im a dark angel and that may fit with my army but won't for someone else.
Thiugh id prefer normal bikes as they have a larger loadout for what ever situation may arise. I may have to take them off my opponents objective and have them charge to relieve pressure on the other side of the
Where should i put my Callidus Assassin? It will score me extra points in Engage on all fronts, most games, but its also there to trade with a enemy char. In general i feel like i have a lot of multi purpose units, like my Obsec captain on bike with shield eternal. He will support my other units, but he is also very capable of, holding/snagging objectives.
Yeah good point. You're totally right that units fit in multiple roles. The main point is to help make a framework to better discuss what units for your army. One question I'd ask you is, if your assassin could only do one of those things, which would it be? And is there there a unit that scores engage better, or a unit that trades with characters better? I lean towards it being a great secondary unit, but im open to feedback
I play orks, which have a lot of units that can deal lots of damage but they can be pretty squishy. So a model can be incredibly strong but will do nothing if it dies or is weakened a lot before dealing its damage. So seeing that I cannot do a transport+tellyporta(deep strike) combo to guarantee the models get into combat safely with my entire army. So obviously I have to put some models that just are there to walk up and tank shots. Before the new ork codex that was 30 ork boyz, but now it looks like warbikers are better for tanking shots.
Okay, overall I really liked the video, or rather Quadrant Theory. Especially where you review points scored at the end to see where you might need to improve or change the list. But I think you missed out 2 (maybe 3) points, one minor and another more important one. Possibly. I may need more time to mull over, don't want to make that thinking mistake Moneyball exposed. Minor: No review of the list for how to handle Vehicle/Monsters, Hordes, Death Stars, HTH Buzz Saws. Major: No coverage on how a unit might be in more than one category. Something that occupies more than one quadrant. Or whose roll can change depending on what you face. Some real efficiency to be found there that Quadrant theory can reveal. Possible: Type of army you are facing (related to minor point) plus how terrain is set up could change which secondaries you go for, or have a chance for scoring. Might not be a list error, or only a "Local Meta" issue, or local terrain.
Yes! that's all super good advice. I've heard a lot of people suggest that I should be a little less 'strict' with the bins that units fall into. I completely agree and would likely add that to the video if I re-made it down the line. I was a little worried about being too specific, because there are so many different types of lists (death stars, hordes etc) like you mentioned. But I agree that the "trade" category could certainly be split up into what type of units and armies they deal with. I actually just finished recording a long video on secondary choices, and I think it will help complete the arc of list idea to first turn of a game. Thanks for your insightful comment, and I hope you continue to enjoy my content!
Interesting! I do like Vanguard Tactics and think that Steven is one of the best Wh40k RUclipsrs, but I promise the idea of Quadrant Theory was ripped off of a MTG podcast from 8 years ago, and not his video! Thanks for the view, hopefully my channel provides some extra bits of information that adds to some of the other great RUclips channels that exist!
Great video but you should make sure your microphone is about one fist length away from your mouth at all times. When you turn away the audio decreases. I’m sure newer videos don’t have this issue but I thought you would appreciate the feedback
I've got a question: You're talking like if Chaos Spawns have ObSec, and you're not the first one that I've heard/read implying that, but I can't find in the rules where is says they are. Maybe I'm dumb but I just comming back to the hobby and as I'm planing on playing CSM I kinda wanna know if they are or not. Thanks!
Don't worry dude, you're right! But you don't need obsec if you're just holding a point. I've seen a lot of chaos lists take one chaos spawn (for just 23 pts) and have him sit on a backfield objective and literally never do anything but score primary. You could also advance it turn 1 to get engage on all fronts, which could be 2 victory points for a trivial 23 points!
@@danielbrewster8642 Thanks a lot for your reply! I haven't played since 4th so the whole holding objectives was a bit confusing and I just went back to read it. I was thinking that a unit had to have ObSec to hold an objective, now it makes a lot more sens. I guess I'll have to figure out if I'm better giving the role of keeping back objectives to the spawns or some cultists/msu marines (I'm planing on Red Corsairs).
I'm really glad you appreciated my video. I've never made any real "how to play wh40k" videos or "how 9th edition works" so I don't think you'll find much stuff to learn the rules on my channel. However, I try to make the type of content I'd want to listen too, so I hope you find other content I've made useful as well.
Great video. The one problem is I’m a Custodies player so half of these don’t matter cuz I can’t afford to do most of these secondary’s cuz I can’t afford to lose even three models for one phase (sisters get shot off the board). Do you have any tips if I can’t afford to do actions, spread thin and so on?
Yeah my two suggestions would be 3 man units in the backfield, or a long range tank/dreadnaught guy on the back objectives. have you tried that at all? also, I would stay away from action secondaries with an army as elite as custodes
Certainly units can fit in multiple quadrants. I tried to simplify it for the examples, but something like a whirlwind is actually a good support/primary since it can do all its support roles from a backfield objective. Either way, it still helps you describe what the unit accomplishes for you in games, and I think that makes it useful. I'm glad you've been enjoying the content.
Would this still help improving a list, with different skill players?. Perhaps I would score more points against a newer player for whatever reason, which could skew the results?.
Lol. That makes your army a lot less complex to play! Curious what you do to hold the back 1-2 objectives though. I do think there's something to 'skew' lists like that and just trying to win by moving your entire army into your opponents deployment zone
@@danielbrewster8642 skullcannons are ok at backfield holding, i also keep a small hg summoning hounds to counter charge anyone that gets too close And also, 3 units of furies for retrieve octarious data cause khorne really loves data
I think units can fit in multiple categories :) but it's worth thinking -- would I feel bad if a unit only did one of its roles? Usually you wouldn't! If my redemptor only sat on an objective all game, I'd probably be okay with that. If Magnus did, I'd feel like he was misused
Yup. looks like I did the math wrong. Hopefully you don't let a minor error on one slide affect your views on the video, but it it does, that's okay too.
@@danielbrewster8642 The video was good. Sharing concepts I strongly agree with keep up the good work man. Just thought it may be something that is an easy fix
I hate this channel. I am trying to watch RUclips videos to live vicariously through the community as a warhammer fan to save money but this channel is just making me want to buy models and get into it for real
Hi, just found your channel and been binge watching it all, great explanations .. God awful drawings XD XD.. After seeing several videos, i have some constructive critic... It seems to me that you focus too much on the Secondary mission in detriment of the primary (your scores show that too). As the name implies the primary objective should be your priority focus, an then you can focus on Secondary / denying the other player the option to score (P/S). Maybe its a topic worth exploring in a video of yours.. Hope this helps, Regards
Thanks for the comment, Alvaro! Ive been practicing more recently and certainly agree with you that my primary scores are very low. I think part of it revolves around my play, but also how little obsec etc I have in my list. I've got a Thousand Sons list that Im hoping to bring to a tournament in a couple of weeks! Lets see if I end up doing any better
i dont like the term trade, this isnt chess where you make an exchange because its a single activation game and a piece can not be in the same place. Units that are there to offend my opponent AND i don't plan to survive would fit more. that being said there are plenty of units that kill others and arent likely to die, squigbuggies for one, long range units, showstealer etc.
What factiom do you play? If it's something like Eldar or GSC you'll probably only be at a disadvantage for 1-2 years more. Perhaps longer if we know anything about GW!
@@danielbrewster8642 Khorne Daemons is my go to. They aren't as bad as everyone on the internet says if I had a good book secondary I legitimately think they would be an easy B Tier army.
@@Stepcloserr yeah I applaud you for playing a faction like that. I honestly picked the space marines because of how many units they have. I'm much more of a paintet than a player, and I like painting lots of different models, vehicles, monsters etc in different colors for fun
@@danielbrewster8642 ah fair enough. I quite like the video breakdown it'll definitely help alot of new players, the question should never be what can this kill the question and especially for 9th edition the question should be what does this do for me
I think the Gravis Captain is cool and I play him in fun games because I spent a lot of time painting him. But I wouldn't bring him to a competitive tournament with all my other jump pack troops, haha. This video was geared more for competitive play, but I totally agree that people should feel comfortable playing with whatever models they like and have.
Still loving your videos. As a newb who hasn't even been able to play his first game yet and still has nearly 1,200pts to paint I can't wait to use what I've learned and apply it myself as I play.
Hey dude/dudette. I super appreciate the comment and view. Feel free to reach out to me on here or FB if you have any questions. Excited to hear about how your first competitive game come out!
As someone who recently started playing and now has 2000 points, don't wait until you 2000pts to play. Start playing at 500, at 1000, at 1500. Play with the basic rules using only stat lines, then next few games add in more and more rules. Trying to go straight into a 2000 point full rule game is going to be a world of pain and it will take over 5 hours.
Just my 2 cents... :D
I completely agree with Lee. If you have the opportunity to play, take it. It will help you understand your army, and keep you motivated to pain the full 2k points.
Sadly when i first got into wh40k, no one around me played. I posted in local FB groups and no one ever responded to my game requests. That plus covid meant that I painted nearly 5000points over ~12 months before I played more than 1 game.
@@Gumby777 Or, well, you know, Attack Bikes with Multi Meltas, which can do either the Eradicator or Outrider job (or sometimes both for a turn) as needed.
@@Gumby777 I went 2k basic stat line few a 8th cp and won 15-14 on my first go as orks, 2nd time with 9th no cp no strats and 2k got rolled deffo skirming at home with smaller armys as i build up a decent 9th list. Good advice!
This is the first legit strategic framework I've ever run across for list building. Bravo.
Oh cool! Glad you like it
Yes, it’s not correct to put everything into “Trade” category and compare Outriders to Eradicators. You’re making a very good point in the video. However, a part of this mentality, measuring everything by how well it trades, is still valid.
Consider this. 3 Outriders are 12 Wounds, 19 Attacks (22 with BA Supersoctrine), 12 shots. 5 Firstborn Bikers are 15 Wounds, 16 Attacks (21 with BA Superdoctrine), 20 shots. Both squads are 150 points. Outriders can get Transhuman, but if you have nobody else to put it on you’re probably already on the backfoot and they’re quite a bit more vulnerable to D2 and high D weapons (D3+3, D6+2 and so on). Not to mention that 5 bases take up more space, can tag more units on pile-ins and you can get like a LC or Storm Bolter on Biker Sergeant.
In my opinion, there’s almost no reason to run Outriders instead of regular Bikes, because once I’ve decided that I need a unit for a certain “Main” game role (move fast, clear out light infantry, block something off), I then use the “Trade” metric to compare how all my options fulfill that role.
I think it bears mentioning.
Yes! This is exactly the type of conversation we are having. I agree that non-primaris bikes fill the same role as outriders more cost efficiently. In the video I was more focusing on the fact that people were (bad analogy coming up) comparing apples and oranges. In this case, you're taking into account the purpose of the unit and finding other units that fill that purpose better. I think the way you provided feedback is rare among WH40k players!
Your tutorials are, imho, the best educational 40k content on youtube. Im a scrub that hasnt played a complete game but your explanations have given me a lot more confidence about the game. And youve retaught me a lot of the math that i pooped out of my brain long long ago.
Thank you so much, that's incredibly nice of you to say. I believe there is a Gap In short tactics videos for 40k, and I try to make the type of videos that I would want to watch. I can't make as many videos as I would like due to work, but I hope to keep making regular content that people like.
Love this breakdown. I've had something similar to this in mind when building lists for 9th but didn't have a name for it.
Thanks for the comment and sub. Glad the video was digestible. Always worried that I'm being a little too 'abstract' when I start making videos
Before anything else, I recently got into the game so a lot of my thinking and reasoning comes from mostly reading the book and the only books I have are space marines as I started collecting at the tail end of their releases so that is what I am mostly going to be referencing.
I've been designing lists and theory crafting off of chess more so than what others are doing. For instance, field of control; this is going to be a loose bastardization of it, but, the idea that your pieces or units are moved not to score points but to control a greater area like keeping a knight placed in a way so that moving a pawn forward allows the knight to attack unless the unit is supported. Transfering this over, using heavy ranged units to soften targets, the best unit for this is heavy intercessors, they have a 42 inch range with their heavy weapons, 6 attacks for standard squad size, and enough strength and ap to reliably damage so keeping them on the back objectives will still allow them to fire to the midfield keeping their damage up and the units safe.
For the quadrant theory, most units fall into multiple roles, such as the DW Terminators, as you use a blob of ten in the middle which functions as both a Primary, Secondary, and trade unit, as your opponent will be expending resources to move them(Depending on the army as some can mow through them like paper), function as trade, they have obsec and are helping control a primary point, as well as scoring some secondary objectives Depending on how you build. While you keep two DW terminator command squad in the back, which holds a primary objective, and can score secondaries depending on the secondary, while also providing trades if you spend the 15 points I think for the 1 use of deny the witch within 18 inches.
For your army the redemptor dreadnaught can be used as both a trade unit and both a primary and secondary unit due to a possible 36 inch range of fire with blast which can do heavy damage to squads of units approaching or getting into range, while also keeping that back point on lock. I would also say that you could attempt to bring in a Suppressor squad to support your Sanguinary Guard and Vanguard vets as if you hit with them you can deny overwatch, which would have the suppressors falling under support as it would allow you to safely charge that turn while also giving you 48 inches of fire which is usually right up to the opponent's deployment zone, providing you with a massive range and almost a free charge into enemy units.
Again, I am a new player and a lot of what I am looking at is strictly from the book without having played a game yet. The local store is going to start but we were waiting till after covid lifted a bit to start playing, so if this does not make a lot of sense I am sorry.
Yeah that all sounds pretty accurate. The chess analogy is a great one and pretty common. I think the idea of trading value is also super important. For example, a pawn for a bishop is a good trade. Or sometimes its a good value trade but a bad 'victory point' or position play.
Terrain is going to dictate a lot of these things too. For example, at the tournaments I play at the backfield obj can be easily blocked with LOS to the rest of the board. Heck, sometimes there's a place where a unit can totally hide and still stand on the objective. For a scenario like that, you'd probably want something even cheaper than a heavy intercessor. But I do agree that a minimum size unit is probably very good at that. But a min unit of heavy intercessors wont really do that much over the course of an entire game. If they never shot at anything, but stayed on an objective for 5 rounds, would you be happy? Probably very much so.
Everything can fall into multiple roles for sure. The quadrant theory is for simplifying things to general categories. We could split the secondary one up for each secondary, and split the trade into anti armor or anti infantry. We could go further and split units in terms of survivability too. But at what point do we create too many categories to be useful?
When i think of 'trading' units I tend to think of terminators or sanguinary guard or hive guard or eradicators etc. In the games i've played, i've generally seen supressors played as a secondary/support role for the Engage On All Fronts secondary as well as turning off overwatch. But that's the beauty! People can use their models in different roles based on unit size, buffs, secondary choice, and play style.
as someone whos looking to get into competitive play this is the exact type of video that makes me feel like ive genuinly gained a better understanding about the topic of competitive and smart army building, thanks so much for the content
So glad you found it useful! My whole goal is to help people feel like they understand the game better and enjoy it more
One of the few videos on RUclips that I wish I could like multiple times.
Great content, well planned communication and clean editing that limits unnecessary chatter.
Thumbs up sir!
Thanks. Glad you found it useful. There's definitely a lot of ways to think about lists beyond my rudimentary video, and I think down the line I may "remake" this video to talk about those other philosophies
This is a very insightful way to analyze unit choices. I also particularly enjoyed that segment about command point budgeting. Thanks for the effort to make this.
Thank you very much for the comment. I put an embarrassingly long amount of time into my videos and I appreciate the support
Nice analogy with Sportsball :)
I'm not great at things that require dexterity and physical prowess
I stumbled upon your channel one day. Your content has really helped me grow as a player back from a very long break. Keep up the great work
Great video with very useful strategic info! Really glad I found this channel and will surely pass links to my playgroup
Yay! Glad you liked it
Maybe another thing to consider is overlapping or backup roles. A squad of incursors could score primaries on a midfield objective until stronger units reach and hold said objective, then guerilla tactics off to somewhere else and score secondary objectives. A captain with visage of death helps score primaries by denying obsec but also supports nearby units.
Certainly. Overlap is a great topic as well! Helps us articulate the "value" of a unit
This helps greatly. I was trying to find a way to build my armies similar to how I used to build decks for card games. And this helped put the pieces together, no matter the edition this is useful
Your advice has helped me improve my game
yay! that's the whole point!
@@danielbrewster8642 I win 6/10 games now be of your help
Love this, so well thought out and with practical applications people can apply to their own armies!
Thank you for the kind words! I'm glad I was able to produce something worthwhile for you
Great video.
An extra factor I like to add into my list building is any abilities that I think are essential, currently there's one not covered specifically by your categories and that is firepower that doesn't need line of sight. So many armies have small weak units which are designed to stay out of sight on an objectives, having a way to take these units out and force an opponent to put something more important on the objective is very useful and weakens their attack or their scoring (a win-win)
Fair point. Indirect fire feels like it's priced at a premium in this edition. I honestly have played against much, but im willing to be punished!
I feel like "Denial" is a pretty big unit role that deserves its own category.
I feel like Primary and Secondary feel like redundant categories. Could it be better to just have a role called "Scoring" and another called "Denial"?
That's fair. I considered the 'trade' units as ones that were being used to deny victory points. IE, trading my 'army points' for their 'victory points'. The reason why I split up scoring into primary/secondary is because I felt that they involved very different units. IE, a redemptor sits in my backline objective wheras my incursors do objectives on table quarters. A mass army of Orc Boys might do primary very well, but fail to complete many secondaries. Either way, its all a similar way of looking at a problem. I'm sure 'trade' could be broken up into their target types as well (Chaff, Marines, Tanks etc) but at some point there are just too many roles! Thanks for the comment and advice!
@@danielbrewster8642 Makes sense! I'm just an armchair 40k enthusiast lol I barely have gotten games in.
I just remember stuff like um was it the Jim Vesal-style chaos lists with units like plaguebearers that would produce games with lower points scored on average by denying kill points but not being able to themselves kill either. Fits well into denial, but of course in 9th they would be like... A denial+primaries unit. On your chart we could just call it a primaries unit role.
Meanwhile when flyers used to deny moving into combat range of their footprint before that got FAQ'd. So they denied movement (and were hard to hit for some armies). But they couldn't score, see, so you wouldn't be able to call them a primaries unit. They'd be a denial+trade unit, see?
Those are older examples. I mean, it's possible that denial is no longer as relevant of a strategy because there are so many good secondaries in 9th that allow you to score on your own terms, not on your opponents'.
I think your chart works much better for 9th.
I think even though I appreciate that in 9th, players are encouraged to smash their armies into each other, I do feel something is lost in that in 8th, there was more diversity in how armies tried to win.
For example, T'au could be built to focus on tabling first, scoring later. Chaos daemons were good at denying any easy VPs. Imperial Knights were just this stat check boss battle.
Now it feels like everyone is trying to hold primaries, keep 3 big units alive/sit in 4 table corners/perform actions in the three thirds of the board/etc.
And even if army-specific secondaries do the trick, it seems so artificial and stale.
I'm sorry but I have to disagree with Primary and Secondary being the same thing and one of them should be replaced with Denial.
Denial could easily be something that almost any unit in a Primary, Secondary and Trade groups could do, depending on how we are using "Denial" as a term. Example I have a "Primary" unit sitting on a objective in my backfield not only doing its primary role for my list, but is also helping to deny deep strikes.
I believe that the point of the theory is to easily recognize what overall role each unit in one's are is to focus on as this main goal/objective to be played as in a game. It does not mean that it will solely do that role, but it is the main point of it being in the list and another way to help gage its performance.
@@Winterydee yeah good feedback. Maybe down the line I'll make an updated video with denial as a section. Certainly an important part of winning games and a totally valid argument! But like you said, these are all pretty general categories so we can talk about why we take certain units.
As long as you're able to have more fulfilling conversations with other people about army choices, then you can divide your army up into whatever categories you see fit!
@@Winterydee @Winterydee I don't disagree. I must admit I haven't played so many games of 9th edition so I could be off the mark with how distinct and separate primary and secondary are, and how unimportant denial is.
Obviously in 8th the quadrants would've been quite different. You might have scoring units and trading units, but trading units would inherently help with scoring "kill more" VPs. So would those be primary?
I must confess I was thinking about this video from a broad Warhammer perspective and not a 9th-edition-specific perspective. That's probably where the mismatch in thinking lies.
I probably assumed something really big picture with that title was trying to capture a more general wisdom about Warhammer 40k armies in general from a competitive perspective.
You can easily see why I had my suggestion from that perspective right?
Across the history of competitive Warhammer, scoring, trading, denial, and support might be a more robust model. That's all I was thinking.
Of course I agree in 9th it's way more straightforward. You end up with units that you take just because they're a great "while we stand" unit. So, secondary. You have to build lists with that in mind. I obviously can't agree more with this video when it comes to 9e :)
You’re awesome, thank you so much for sharing this with the 40K community.
Thank!
This is probably your best video so far! Keep it up!
Thank you very much!
I knew I’d like this video the second you mentioned Moneyball.
Thanks for the view and comment. I'm glad you liked the video. I don't watch a lot of movies, but moneyball did give me the idea to make the video
This is definitely one of the better breakdowns of army-composition I've seen presented, speaking as a beginner that is just planning his first army. It's good to know that I at least managed to (I think) consider every aspect of the army composition. If I were to break it down to this theory, this would be how my army would look like. Bare in mind, even past the fact that I am new and the army remains to be untested, I've built it with a heavy lean on more casual games and is half-comprised with a sort of "Whatever I have on hand" mentality.
Faction: Necrons
Points used: 1500
Most likely objectives:
Purge the Vermin, Engage on all fronts, raise the banners high, etc.
High concept:
When I went into making the army, I wanted 2 things. First, I wanted a durable backbone that the opponent would have some difficulty just wiping from the field. Second, I wanted big units that blast firey death onto enemies. That was what I went off of.
Primary/Secondary:
20x Necron Warriors
10x Necron Immortals
6x Canoptek Scarab Swarms
3x Tomb Blades
1x Ghost Ark
As I started to look up stuff I can do with a Necron list, I very quickly came to a hypothesis. It seemed to me like Necrons were really good at parking their asses on objective and sitting there. So, my list ended up having a heavy lean on such. The Ghost Ark ended up being quite a pivotal piece of the army, as it can and does assist in all of the 4 roles listed here. It's a good meaty body that can sit at an objective, it houses 20 boney bois ready for any needed deep strikes and it has a recovery ability to keeps that unit on the field. The Immortals were built as an auxilary to this, more beefy skellies to make sure I'm not completely in the dark if the Ghost Ark squad fucks up. The scarabs and Tomb Blades also help with swinging over to objectives very fast and camping the primaries. Tomb Blades were more made to be well-rounded fighters to contest objectives with a +5 invuln save and some blasters while the Scarabs were made to be really hard to scrub out and have the ability to bind an opponent during the combat phase.
Support:
1x Necron Overlord
1x Necron Technomancer
1x Canoptek Spyder
Just about everything here serves the same purpose, bolster the healing of the army and grant recursion to units. The overlord is given an Orb of Eternity to rez either the Immortals or Warriors when need be while the Spyder tends to the Scarabs. The technomancer I originally planned to have life-supporting my trade-units, but with the dimensional sanctum, it can pretty much sit around reserves and wait until a unit is in need of a dynamic rescue.
Trade:
3x Canoptek Doomstalkers
My big, meaty lads to lay down the heavy fire. Either I can have them deployed spread out to cover ground or clump them in a single mass of imminent death.
I agree with all your secondary choices and unit roles. I'm not a necron player, but I've played against some similar lists. Lots of good board cobtrol with some key firing units. Could easily win a game based on durability and movement alone!
What a great analysis and insightful video. Thank you and keep it up!
Something else for people to keep in mind; your transports fall into supports but can also fall into trading up. As a harlequins player I can pay 85 points for a star weaver that gives 6 infantry -1 to hit, t6, 6 extra wounds that can move 20 inches.. That alone is a steal but the fact that it can also be used to tie up threats by charging key units and locking them into combat gives it even more insane value. Units fill more than one quadrant have exponentially more value in your lists
completely true. Raiders do a LOT of damage and can transport units as well. I also had a Rhino heavy list use them to movement block me after all the Khorne Berzerkers jumped out. Having units fulfill multiple rolls is insanely useful!
Love the video idea! You should do the same analysis on other army lists!
Don't know too many lists beyond BA, but ill try my best!
First time I've seen your channel and I must say this video is excellent
So glad you like it. I've only been making videos for about 4 months. Hoping to keep up one video a week until I either hate WH40k or die.
@@danielbrewster8642 hahah I feel you there, I'm running Imperial Fists. Generally playing weekly against my friends who run Death Guard, Thousand Sons, Blood Angels, and Necrons with very tough lists. This helps me out but of course I paste the link to the ole group chat because we've all got to get better together! Keep up the vids mate, loving what I've seen so far
@@mbnevill Thanks for the shares!
Finally someone else that gets that what a model is declared to be by gw doesnt mean what it actually is on the table.
Haha, yeah. I always think its funny to hear "you need more fast attack to move around the board" and I'm just like... what about these 12" Movement vanguard vets, or troops that can redeploy mid game? lol
Great stuff! The end graphics and explanation really tied it together for me!
Hey, thanks so much for the view and comment. I'm glad you appreciated the graphics. Didn't do any this video, but I've been known to create some good MS paint ilustrations. Making the slides and editing the video takes like 90% of the time, haha.
Excellent articulation of this approach! Thank you!
Thank you very much. I'm glad you liked the video
Some very valid points about the new system....we still play old school meat grinder battles on huge tables for an old school feel, it still works out well.
Thanks for the comment! Sometimes its as simple as killing everything your opponent owns.
@@danielbrewster8642 exactly! It also works for 3 way battles
@@mobilegamersunite just a fun game at the end of the day!
Absolutely brilliant content
Thanks. Best of luck on your videos too!
Incredibly important mindset to have. Often people only think about the killing aspect and while valuable I have seen games lost by people who killed extremely efficiently because that was all they did. Support/secondary also works in things like move block, screens, bodyguards, and tanky units who while they may not score heavily or kill alot provide a very key value to the army
Very cool way of breaking this out!
Thank you very much for the view and comment. Glad you found the content useful!
I think you should rename the “trade” quadrant to “interfere”. The main goal of “trade” units is to interfere with your opponents plan. (It does not matter if you destroy a unit that wasn’t going to do anything anyways.) This renaming will expand the group to things like a Necron Psychomancer with its ability to turn off a units ObjSec, or units you bring to roadblock/screen without the expecting to do damage.
Good point, i've heard "denial" be suggested too
As a new player I found this VERY helpful.
glad to hear it
I’m a newer player, and I have to say I really enjoy your videos. The way you are able to break down ideas in an accessible way is really great. I also dig your low tech vibe! I’m trying to implement your quadrant theory to my army, am having a hard time breaking down where some units would go. For example I play orks and run mek gunz, I like to have them sit on objectives in the back, but they are really good at pounding the enemy too. Is there some tips or advice you could share with a newer player trying to figure out what role a unit fulfills?
Watching and writing this as it goes:
1. Objectives that are gotten through destruction are not only passive, they can serve as an active denial strategy while destroying countering units of your opponent.
You get points for destroying a vehicle? If that vehicle was armed with AP/AT weaponry, that's the points your opponent is not getting, making the destruction objectives not passive, but arguably twice as important as they shift the balance of the points twice as far your way.
2. Good point about opsec/not opsec units to score with! Might be pretty old, but I remember the meta where every space marine army had 150 points of naked scouts for their troops and focused on wiping their opponents out, which would score you the game no matter the points.
3. What determines units role? Weaponry and toughness. Following your outrider example, gotta say you can also think 1 ligical link ahead: not only unit can "do x to score y points" but also "do x (kill something) thus support y (so your stuff does not get killed), scoring z point difference (instead of actual points that go to you)
4. Cool that you talked so much about roles but then your army list is about 70% (?) CQC blood angels power armor spam and everything that buffs it. These are very well fit for point denial and occasional score rather than 420IQ-army-split-objective gaming.
5. This theory supported by data sounds really nice. I'm still gonna stay on the side of that oldass meta when you would find a really point efficient unit and just spam it until your detachment has no more space for it.
Regardless, great video. Cheers!
Thanks for the in-depth comment. Denial is a really common one people suggest and a totally valid one! just one way of analyzing armies -- there are plenty of other valid ideas.
I considered killing passive in the sense that it's going to happen regardless. (although not perfect) I'm sure you understand how doing actions for ROD or Deploy homers would not be considered passive.
Very interested in hearing more of your ideas going forward!
Good stuff. I'll probably be using a version of this method.
One note of production feedback is microphone placement - the sound levels fluctuate when you turn your head about.
Yes I'm working on this, thanks!
I did this with my Tempestus Scions and found that the Scions themselves are my best option for every role and for only 9pts per model! What a steal!
To be fair, if you're pure military tempestus, you basically only have one unit choice! Curious what secondaries you lean towards? Lets say a space marine TAC list on a mission with a bad secondary and 5 objectives?
Great video man. Thank you for the detailed breakdown. Something to be learned by new and old players. Cheers
Glad you found it useful. Working on a few more videos for this upcoming week. I hope you they're also worth a watch!
Dude I just found your channel and I’m new to warhammer 40k tabletop your videos help me out so much definitely earned my sub thank you
Glad you like it! Just gotta be consistent and keep raising the bar
This was really interesting! Thank you!
Super glad that you enjoyed it! Hopefully I keep making content worth your time
I tend to find most success in games when I can specifically 'bait' my opponent to attack specific units. I left a comment on a previous video but I'll take it here as well. I play ad mech and usually I try to provide my opponent with targets they have to take out.
Kinda like how in chess you try to make traps where the opponent must choose between two bad options. If they dont kill the unit then I'll get to shoot with it against them but if they do kill it then they dont attack my units that are currently out of range for them.
What usually happens is that people tend to go half and half and end up not destroying anything which is the perfect outcome for me.
Just found your videos and i'm loving them so far. Question for you if you're still reading these, where are you pulling the data for average secondary scores?
ITC battles app. I didn't pull them, the authors at Goonhammer did!
Good video! This is the sort of comp content I'm here for.
Hey, thanks so much for the kind words. I'm trying to make the type of competitive content that I'd like to watch myself. I'll be going to an RTT next weekend and making a short form video batrep of it afterwards too!
@@danielbrewster8642 Awesome! I just had my first RTT post covid, and am documenting my co-creators and myself's competitive seasons too! I'm hitting up the LVO and my dude is repping at the Coventry GT in the UK.
Always theoryhammering my list and this technique has me asking some good questions. Interestingly it's very similar to how I write anyway, but offers an organized fashion to detail it in.
@@TheRedPath sweet, ill check out your stuff. If you're ever in the south Georgia area, hit me up and we'll get a game!
Wow, this is really useful info to know! Thank you!
Top quality vid, have shared with all my 40k comrades.
Thanks. Really appreciate the view and share -- it really helps me grow the channel. I've got some more videos coming in the next few weeks. Hopefully they're also useful and interesting!
I'm glad I chose craftworld eldar. This stuff is already pretty well known when making competitive craftworlds lists since we can't easily contest objective
Big brain plays here. If your codex never gets updated and your newest model is like 20 years old, you'll always have the good models and learn how they work!
Kidding aside, I really do help Craftworld Eldar gets a whole rework. They've got so much potential and they've really been shafted considering they're a huge part of WH40k lore on par with space marines, orks, and Chaos in my mind.
@@danielbrewster8642 oh yeah definitely. Craftworlds if Druhkari and Orks are any indication will hopefully get a buff and some new kits/units by 2022.
I think our main issue is just really being pretty overcosted and having massive internal balance issues, on one hand we have some really frankly powerful psychic buffs but on the other hand our basic rifles take 120 shots to take down a 5 man intercessor squad
@@queen-gt1xx best of luck on the upcoming codex! Hopefully my content is useful for you even though I'm (currently) a normie space marine player.
@@danielbrewster8642 I'm not even competitive. Just that craftworlds are borderline unplayable unless you tailor list build lol
Lictor shoutout!
I'm gonna be real sad when GW removes the infantry keyword off of them for literally no reason when our dex finally comes out lol
RIP all my videos invalidated
Maybe you should do a version of this video directed at the GW "design" studio
Lol. Maybe with art they could hire me to be an animator for warhammer plus
Lol
As a dangle player, I absolutly agree with you. An outrider is going to be better than an eradicator most of the time.
Map. If thats the case I rather have a power sword or a fist or any number of other close combat weapons that I find better than a chain sword. Theres also plasma guns. Again im a dark angel and that may fit with my army but won't for someone else.
Thiugh id prefer normal bikes as they have a larger loadout for what ever situation may arise. I may have to take them off my opponents objective and have them charge to relieve pressure on the other side of the
Thanks for the comments and view! So glad you liked the content and were able to share your experiences with dark angels!
Love your videos man. I really appreciate the insight
So glad you like the videos. I'm here to make content people want
Ty for video. Was a great breakdown
Thank you so much for the view and comment!
well done mate!
Thank you very much for the comment and view! Glad you liked the video
this guy is the awesome! love this channel! 👁 opener!!
Thank you !
Where should i put my Callidus Assassin? It will score me extra points in Engage on all fronts, most games, but its also there to trade with a enemy char. In general i feel like i have a lot of multi purpose units, like my Obsec captain on bike with shield eternal. He will support my other units, but he is also very capable of, holding/snagging objectives.
Yeah good point. You're totally right that units fit in multiple roles. The main point is to help make a framework to better discuss what units for your army.
One question I'd ask you is, if your assassin could only do one of those things, which would it be? And is there there a unit that scores engage better, or a unit that trades with characters better? I lean towards it being a great secondary unit, but im open to feedback
Great video, thank you for it :D
I'm really glad you enjoyed it. I hope you find other content I've made useful as well! Would love to keep making more
I like your approach. Now teach this GW
Hire me, Senpai! No chance i become a play tester though.
I really like this. I'm going to apply it to my Deathwing.
i really really like you. Thanks for watching the content
@@danielbrewster8642 well I really really really appreciate that.
Love it, great work.
Thanks for the view and comment! Planning to put a few more videos out in the next couple of weeks
I play orks, which have a lot of units that can deal lots of damage but they can be pretty squishy. So a model can be incredibly strong but will do nothing if it dies or is weakened a lot before dealing its damage. So seeing that I cannot do a transport+tellyporta(deep strike) combo to guarantee the models get into combat safely with my entire army. So obviously I have to put some models that just are there to walk up and tank shots. Before the new ork codex that was 30 ork boyz, but now it looks like warbikers are better for tanking shots.
The buggy lists I've seen have been really cool. They look underpriced in points but pretty costly in cash
Okay, overall I really liked the video, or rather Quadrant Theory. Especially where you review points scored at the end to see where you might need to improve or change the list.
But I think you missed out 2 (maybe 3) points, one minor and another more important one. Possibly. I may need more time to mull over, don't want to make that thinking mistake Moneyball exposed.
Minor: No review of the list for how to handle Vehicle/Monsters, Hordes, Death Stars, HTH Buzz Saws.
Major: No coverage on how a unit might be in more than one category. Something that occupies more than one quadrant. Or whose roll can change depending on what you face. Some real efficiency to be found there that Quadrant theory can reveal.
Possible: Type of army you are facing (related to minor point) plus how terrain is set up could change which secondaries you go for, or have a chance for scoring. Might not be a list error, or only a "Local Meta" issue, or local terrain.
Yes! that's all super good advice. I've heard a lot of people suggest that I should be a little less 'strict' with the bins that units fall into. I completely agree and would likely add that to the video if I re-made it down the line.
I was a little worried about being too specific, because there are so many different types of lists (death stars, hordes etc) like you mentioned. But I agree that the "trade" category could certainly be split up into what type of units and armies they deal with.
I actually just finished recording a long video on secondary choices, and I think it will help complete the arc of list idea to first turn of a game.
Thanks for your insightful comment, and I hope you continue to enjoy my content!
VANGUARD TACTICS
((How to write an army for 40K))
That's where i 1st heard this at the start of 9th Edition
Interesting! I do like Vanguard Tactics and think that Steven is one of the best Wh40k RUclipsrs, but I promise the idea of Quadrant Theory was ripped off of a MTG podcast from 8 years ago, and not his video!
Thanks for the view, hopefully my channel provides some extra bits of information that adds to some of the other great RUclips channels that exist!
Great vids man
awesome vid dude
Thank you so much for the view! Glad you enjoyed it. Got some more videos coming this week
Great video but you should make sure your microphone is about one fist length away from your mouth at all times. When you turn away the audio decreases. I’m sure newer videos don’t have this issue but I thought you would appreciate the feedback
Thanks! i had gotten that feedback before and purchased a new mic, sound recording equipment, and change how I recorded videos. Thanks for the tips!
@@danielbrewster8642 you’re welcome! Thanks for the great videos!
"I dont play sports ball myself"
I dony either bro hahah 😂 🤣
It's a dangerous world out there. Someone might kick me a soccer ball and I'll be totally lost
@@danielbrewster8642 some say he's chasing that ball too this day
I've got a question: You're talking like if Chaos Spawns have ObSec, and you're not the first one that I've heard/read implying that, but I can't find in the rules where is says they are. Maybe I'm dumb but I just comming back to the hobby and as I'm planing on playing CSM I kinda wanna know if they are or not. Thanks!
Don't worry dude, you're right! But you don't need obsec if you're just holding a point. I've seen a lot of chaos lists take one chaos spawn (for just 23 pts) and have him sit on a backfield objective and literally never do anything but score primary. You could also advance it turn 1 to get engage on all fronts, which could be 2 victory points for a trivial 23 points!
@@danielbrewster8642 Thanks a lot for your reply! I haven't played since 4th so the whole holding objectives was a bit confusing and I just went back to read it. I was thinking that a unit had to have ObSec to hold an objective, now it makes a lot more sens. I guess I'll have to figure out if I'm better giving the role of keeping back objectives to the spawns or some cultists/msu marines (I'm planing on Red Corsairs).
I'm really glad you appreciated my video. I've never made any real "how to play wh40k" videos or "how 9th edition works" so I don't think you'll find much stuff to learn the rules on my channel. However, I try to make the type of content I'd want to listen too, so I hope you find other content I've made useful as well.
Keep going dude! The video was great and I'll go through your backlog.
Great video. The one problem is I’m a Custodies player so half of these don’t matter cuz I can’t afford to do most of these secondary’s cuz I can’t afford to lose even three models for one phase (sisters get shot off the board). Do you have any tips if I can’t afford to do actions, spread thin and so on?
Yeah my two suggestions would be 3 man units in the backfield, or a long range tank/dreadnaught guy on the back objectives. have you tried that at all? also, I would stay away from action secondaries with an army as elite as custodes
@@danielbrewster8642 Thanks a tone, I’ll try all of that
What about units that can fulfill multiple quadrants?
Certainly units can fit in multiple quadrants. I tried to simplify it for the examples, but something like a whirlwind is actually a good support/primary since it can do all its support roles from a backfield objective. Either way, it still helps you describe what the unit accomplishes for you in games, and I think that makes it useful. I'm glad you've been enjoying the content.
thanks coach
Great Video! Thank you. You should set up a Patreon, would totally subscribe there for a discord to discuss ideas.
I'm considering it. I like answering comments, but its starting to take too much time for me to do well. A discord may help that
Do this for AoS?
I would love to! .... if I played AOS. Haven't played in almost 5 years
I’m still trying to break free of 7thed habits of judging a unit based on its ability to survive a round of T’au shooting.
Would this still help improving a list, with different skill players?. Perhaps I would score more points against a newer player for whatever reason, which could skew the results?.
Good point. You probably have to sift some results out if you're just stomping noobs. Maybe focus on tournament results?
The dark angels secondary is stubborn defiance not defense.
Yes! I corrected that in my upcoming secondary video
@@danielbrewster8642 Easily done! Great videos man
Support and Trade usually can be combined into a Land Raider. At least that's what I do.
That's fair! Have never played against a land raider in 9th. How's it working out for you?
so.. attack bikes with mm instead of outriders? best if both worlds
Hummmm, good ideia lets put it in practice with my khorne daemons army
Aaaand its all trade 😅
Lol. That makes your army a lot less complex to play! Curious what you do to hold the back 1-2 objectives though. I do think there's something to 'skew' lists like that and just trying to win by moving your entire army into your opponents deployment zone
@@danielbrewster8642 skullcannons are ok at backfield holding, i also keep a small hg summoning hounds to counter charge anyone that gets too close
And also, 3 units of furies for retrieve octarious data cause khorne really loves data
@@fernandopires135 That's actually more complex than I thought. Never played against Khorne, sounds like a fun army.
what would you say about untis that are multirole?
I think units can fit in multiple categories :) but it's worth thinking -- would I feel bad if a unit only did one of its roles? Usually you wouldn't! If my redemptor only sat on an objective all game, I'd probably be okay with that. If Magnus did, I'd feel like he was misused
@@danielbrewster8642 its ok, there are books on the objective and magnus is a big nerd
If I can show only one video to new players, it would be this one
Your points don't add up 15+10+10+25=60 which could be 70 for painted army.... not 65
Yup. looks like I did the math wrong. Hopefully you don't let a minor error on one slide affect your views on the video, but it it does, that's okay too.
@@danielbrewster8642 The video was good. Sharing concepts I strongly agree with keep up the good work man. Just thought it may be something that is an easy fix
I hate this channel. I am trying to watch RUclips videos to live vicariously through the community as a warhammer fan to save money but this channel is just making me want to buy models and get into it for real
Hi, just found your channel and been binge watching it all, great explanations .. God awful drawings XD XD..
After seeing several videos, i have some constructive critic... It seems to me that you focus too much on the Secondary mission in detriment of the primary (your scores show that too).
As the name implies the primary objective should be your priority focus, an then you can focus on Secondary / denying the other player the option to score (P/S).
Maybe its a topic worth exploring in a video of yours..
Hope this helps, Regards
Thanks for the comment, Alvaro! Ive been practicing more recently and certainly agree with you that my primary scores are very low. I think part of it revolves around my play, but also how little obsec etc I have in my list. I've got a Thousand Sons list that Im hoping to bring to a tournament in a couple of weeks! Lets see if I end up doing any better
i dont like the term trade, this isnt chess where you make an exchange because its a single activation game and a piece can not be in the same place. Units that are there to offend my opponent AND i don't plan to survive would fit more.
that being said there are plenty of units that kill others and arent likely to die, squigbuggies for one, long range units, showstealer etc.
Oh how I wish I had my own secondaries to choose from ☹
What factiom do you play? If it's something like Eldar or GSC you'll probably only be at a disadvantage for 1-2 years more. Perhaps longer if we know anything about GW!
@@danielbrewster8642 Khorne Daemons is my go to. They aren't as bad as everyone on the internet says if I had a good book secondary I legitimately think they would be an easy B Tier army.
@@Stepcloserr yeah I applaud you for playing a faction like that. I honestly picked the space marines because of how many units they have. I'm much more of a paintet than a player, and I like painting lots of different models, vehicles, monsters etc in different colors for fun
@@danielbrewster8642 ah fair enough. I quite like the video breakdown it'll definitely help alot of new players, the question should never be what can this kill the question and especially for 9th edition the question should be what does this do for me
Buy more, more, more
Interesting point. Is wh40k pay to win? I give it 60/40 in favor of skill
35+ 25 = 65?
Probably made a mistake in there somewhere by accident. Good catch if I did.
I leally like Daniels high analytics stuff... But please! 15+10+10+25 is NOT 65! 4:02
Haha. A slip of the mind :)
🔥🎸🔥
GET YOUR JAN QUADRANT VINCENT DOWN
in a world with 8 Jan Micheal quadrant vincents...
Doesn't need to apply ONLY to Warhammer 40,000.
Agreed. Many games have very similar structures
There is only one way to build a army, take what you like.
I think the Gravis Captain is cool and I play him in fun games because I spent a lot of time painting him. But I wouldn't bring him to a competitive tournament with all my other jump pack troops, haha. This video was geared more for competitive play, but I totally agree that people should feel comfortable playing with whatever models they like and have.