The math about the bases and blocking is actually slightly off based on the shapes being circles not squares. Its closer to 4mm. Also, I want to mention that I don't believe that tactic SHOULD be feasible. If I was playing with friends, I would give the ruins the "defence line" keyword. I also wouldn't play this way at a tournament unless my opponent was doing similar stuff. There's a difference between being interested in 'breaking' wh40k rules based on GW's writing and being an insufferable rules lawyer on the tabletop.
Would you mind clarifying the situation on heroic intervention? My understanding is that you can prevent a unit from making a heroic intervention if it is right near another unit. You declare both as a charge target, and make sure one of your charging models ends the charge phase just within engagement range of that unit, but also within engagement range and closer to (but not in base contact with) the second unit. No heroic intervention is possible, as that occurs in the charge phase and you can only do it if you are not within engagement range of an enemy unit. In the fight phase, you activate your charging unit and pile in, moving towards the closer target and out of engagement range of the unit you are trying to avoid. That unit is now not eligible to fight (due to not being in engagement range), and has already missed the chance to make an heroic intervention. I keep getting people telling me this doesn't work, as any unit that was the target of a charge always gets to activate in the fight phase . . . but the core rules state you always get to activate if you made a charge move, not if you were the target of a charge. Have I missed something here?
Sounds about right. You can only activate and pile in if you "made a charge move" (which is basically saying declaring a charge, making it and moving it as an result of the declared charge) or "are in engagement range of an enemy model" which in your above example is not the case. So yeah you can deny the model the heroic intervention and activation by charging and smart pile in.
You're right. "An eligible unit is one that is within Engagement Range (1") of an enemy unit and/or made a charge move in the same turn." Some people may think Heroic Int is a "charge move", but it's not. GW has consistently separated Charge Move from Heroic Int move. That's clever AF too. Gonna use it when I have a chance. I mostly make the closest intervention targets unreachable via 3.0001" (relying on pile-ins to get the rest of my unit in) or intervening models (Heroic Int moves are closer to closest model). Your way doesn't even give the opportunity to move, but could be a more difficult charge.
@@PinoyCarter I have used it with Harlequins, mostly with a Solitaire with Blitz and the Cegorach's Rose relic. Harlequins can advance and change and have flip belts, so a Solitaire with blitz has a threat range of 12+4d6' (or a potential 24+4d6 with twilight pathways) and can move over terrain and enemy models. You sabotage an heroic intervention, and then fight and kill something. Then you use the 3cp War Dancers stratagem, allowing you to PILE IN and fight again . . . you can get back in engagement range of the character you have so far evaded and murder them too, without them having the chance to respond.
Anyone else picture this guy going to tournaments with graphs "See according to this graph you can't attack with you backline if you charged only one of my interwoven units." NNNEEERRRRDDD
Haha probably not. Strict on the math for fun, but I'm incredibly relaxed at tournaments. I care a lot less about that type of stuff in real games, just interesting things to think about! I warn people about my heroic interventions, auspex scans etc, plus allow essentially unlimited take-backs.
Very good video! 👍 There is no long boring intro or begging for likes, shares etc. Just straight to the point and very interesting quality content. Thank you.
One thing that I think we need an FAQ on is if you have to base a model or end up in engagement range when you heroically intervene. If it's engagement, you have to be 7.1 away from a unit that has a 6" heroic.
HI rules only specify that you need to "end closer to the closest enemy unit". So I've seen it mentioned that you can move 3" in any direction, as long as you end your move closer to the closest enemy unit. So 2.9" away to start, 2.7" after the HI move. It doesn't specify that you have to end within engagement range at all. It's powerful "free movement" that can have big impacts in scoring and buffs, like re-rolls and FNPs.
@@th0rg0d Right, but you can't start to heroically intervene if you are outside of 3". Per the rules, for a character to be eligible, they must be within 3" horizontal and 5 vert of an enemy unit to begin to intervene. Then they can move a max of 3". I To me that sounds like you have to base the model.
@@ajack22100 While I agree with you, that it sounds like the HI model should be basing and attacking the unit that triggers the HI move, factually, it's just not as written. You can move 3", as long as you are closer than you were before. It never says you have to bee-line to the enemy, even tho that "feels like" the way the rule is intended.
@@th0rg0d Ahhh, so you need to be within 3" of "Unit #1" to initiate a HI, but you don't need to HI into that specific unit? You could HI into "Unit #2" and end closer to "Unit #1" without entering engagement range of "unit #1." Effectively, any unit within 3" of a character let's them start to HI, and to prevent a HI into your army you must keep everything outside of 3"?
love your content. Very simple and easy to understand despite the advanced tactics. Just wondered if you have had many opponents challenge the precise measurements of models in your games? I can image trying to persuade someone that this model or that model is 0.1 inch away using tape measures around terrain and what not could be tricky?
@@danielbrewster8642 Playing by "Intent" is great and all, and def helps clear up ambiguous situations, but I do kinda hate it a bit. "My models are this "exacting measurement" away from the wall, but I don't want to burn up all my time trying to actually fit a measuring device into this terrain, so you'll just have to trust me on this." Then proceeds to cram all their models into the terrain, with overlapping bases and all.... OK OK, maybe not that bad, but you get my drift.
If opponents are that precise (me...kinda), you could always make it more than x.1. Much of Daniel's examples here are are to take things away from the opponent. Those are mostly minimums, not exacts. A deep strike bubble of 12.2 - 12.9" away accomplishes the same thing as 12.1" for Dark Blue squad. 13" could be a different story by adding 1" to charge/gun range when your turn comes back around.
"If an enemy unit deepstriking has Rapid Fire 1 weapons, you also put your unit out of Rapid Fire range". Chaos and Imperium: I am sorry, is that some kind of deepstrike joke I am too Terminator to understand?
@@danielbrewster8642 Also, you mentioned 6" HI strats. Do those override Core Rules (about eligible units for HI that have to be within 3" of an enemy unit)?
@@alexsmith4212 Strats and abilities that allow 6' heroic interventions specify that they allow the unit to intervene if they are within 6' horizontally or 5' vertically, so that overrides the general rule on heroic interventions
Hiya! Thanks for the video! So this message has ended up being quite long but this is the first video of yours I've ever seen so I wanted to give you some feedback as I feel like there's a lot of potential here but a few things that might help if they're streamlined maybe. Please let me know if you take the time to read this & even if none of it is useful I appreciate it, so thanks! I really hope it's helpful at all. Firstly this video popped up as the top video on my TH-cam homepage the first time i opened it today!! The only other tactics channel I watch is Auspex Tactics and I've never seen your channel or seen videos from it recommended before ever (as far as I'm aware), so you've obviously doing something right with this one! So some feedback based on this being the first & only video I've watched (I don't know about other people but I often have a totally different impression of a channel when I first watch it compared to one I've followed & subbed to for a while) is this... Really really interesting content, learnt some awesome stuff I've never even thought of before (as a fairly new & currently casual 40k player). Never seen stuff teaching this sort of micromanagement & unit placement before and it's awesome! However I did struggle to follow it a bit, quite a lot of times I had to rewind 10 or 20 seconds, even all the way back to the start of the tactic you were discussing (you will have to take my word on this but my attention span is perfectly good). It might just be that the information itself is quite dense, which of course can't be helped; however I feel like it could have been delivered a bit better: Firstly I feel like a tight script for the video would really help. But more importantly some real examples would help enormously. Showing these tactics with specific examples using actual models would really help a lot I think. Of course G.W. are G.W. with their I.P. but battle report channels don't seem to have had any issues and they show models constantly (might still be worth contacting G.W. first to confirm though). I feel that you talking about the theory with these graphs, then showing an example of the tactic being used in a situation with real models (could be any models really) would make things so much clearer & digestible. You'd only need to show relevant photos, you don't need to have footage of you moving them or anything. Also on the graphs some coloured movement arrows (like White Dwarf's old 2nd/3rd ED battle reports) might be helpful? Have you tried out seeing how they look with a white background too? The final nitpick is just that I almost didn't open this video because of the thumbnail, although I did in the end because of the title. I'm not someone who believes in clickbait flashy thumbnails, but ultimately a huge amount of people's decisions to click on your video or not will be made in an instant, with "hot brain" thinking, so the thumbnail is important. Perhaps something like an aquilla or something that anchors it & makes it more obvious visually that it's 40k without reading it might grab attention more? Or just a background with an image of a game or tournament? Also, again I don't consider stuff like this important but I know a lot of success on TH-cam is based upon it, maybe a title like 'Pro 40k Player's 5 Weird Tactics', or 'Pro 40k player's (whatever the subject is). I don't know if there's any other channels that already do that but I think it would make the videos more attractive to people scrolling TH-cam perhaps (Majorkill basically built his lore channel on 'Explained by an Australian') Oh the Space Marine bit was genius btw, I was thinking "why is he tangenting to something unrelated, is this just going to be him rambling on whatever he thinks of". But the joke and the deadpan delivery was amazing. You've earnt yourself a sub from me! Anyway like I said, really great content and thanks so much for teaching this stuff. Hopefully some of the feedback I've given might help you reach your potential with this channel, none of it is meant as criticism, just suggestions you may or may not want to take onboard. Will be watching more of your videos as soon as I'm back home later!
Thanks for the comment, I read it all. In short, there's a lot more work I need to do on the channel and my delivery. I write. Power Point set of notes in the background for every video, but I could always do better I've only made about 25 wh40k videos and the exact format has changed a lot based on different topics. Ultimately, I think through experimentation and time I'll get better. In encourage you to watch my quadrant theory, deployment, or secondary video because I think those are my favorite videos and the type of stuff I'd like to focus on. Thanks for your support and comment, they honestly make my day better
Can you have a tau nar on the obj and be fine? It's round and huge. I play constantly for fun so if I went to a tournament with it could be nice to know
Perfectly cenetered, Ta'unar's 160mm base will leave something like .75" that opponent's models can reach. They'd have to get into engagement range, but could still steal the objective from it.
Can you do a video in movement? It seems like the rules lead to insanity when it gets to vehicles moving over terrain, because it doesn't specify that you have to be able to place a model along the line you want to move it . This would mean the a rhino could use a very slim edge of for example a container to go over friendly models.
@@danielbrewster8642 this doesn't answer the question if you can move it along a cliff (that is nor the board edge and is otherwise unobstructed) Sorry it's kinda hard to explain without a picture Love your videos btw.
As blue in the last one, I would have interrupted for sure! Yes, I would only kill one of the light red, but a couple or all of the dark red would go away real quick. What is the other option? To not attack then and lose all those attacks, and lose a lot more models? Better to attack less effectively and do a bunch of damage than to lose everything without doing any damage. If you can't win, redefine your terms for success.
@@danielbrewster8642 True, but I've seen a lot of ruins with them which MAY impact that tactic. It depends on the actual terrain piece, plus I've actually had where I rolled 3" more than I needed vs a block like you (and others, it isn't just you) showed and I simply put my models on the next level over the target unit. I've also used it successfully many times.
To avoid the unchargeable ruin in our local club we declare all ruin walls as barricades, so they have 2 inches of fighting zone (I hope we are not doing barricades wrongly)
So long as the players agree, it's not a big deal. I wouldn't like that rule, but would adjust if it's the group's decision. It's not something you could easily take to other groups/events though. Taking one of the game's tactical decisions away from its shallow pool of them isn't looked well upon. I hope you're just adding the Defense Line terrain trait to Ruins. "If an enemy unit is within 1" of this terrain feature, you can still make a charge move against it so long as the charging unit ends its charge move touching that terrain feature and within 2" of the target unit." Actually using Barricades or Ruined Walls is a significant change to what Ruins are. The terrain category, light vs dense vs light & heavy cover, obscuring, and scalable vs unstable are massive differences to them.
@@PinoyCarter Yes we are doing just that. We are more of a casual/story driven gaming group, and things like the impenetrable fortress of oil barrel elevated position never went well with us, official rules or not x)
my friends also agreed that those .1“ things do nothing but prolong the game and kill the fun. in movement we just say: ok i stay out of 12“ of your rapid fire unit etc, but when it gwts too weird we just play what sounds fairest or throw a d6, on a 4+ player a decides, lower player b decides
I'm confused by the interweaving units example, what about the charging rules wont just let them just successfully be within 1" down the whole line? Even if you're right, won't the 3'' pile-in during the fight phase make this a mute point?
@@mwyler3390 yes, you can't move within engagement range of an enemy model that you did NOT declare a charge on. There is nothing stopping you from Piling In to those units, but you now make yourself vulnerable to that unit's attacks, which you were trying to avoid in the first place.
The point of the trick is to force Red to attack with less models OR engage both DB and LtB squads. I can't imagine what pair of units would truly benefit from this. Lots of scenarios to go though...don't bother with this. It's time consuming and has a load of downsides. First things to come to mind is being able to freely shoot one or the other unit without making the charge more difficult & feeding two units (that I assume are melee...and points intensive) to Red
@@PinoyCarter Part of it is more of a thought experiment and theory too. I did have a scenario like this where GK Strike Marines and a grandmaster charged my rubics and termiantors respectively. the strike marines killed the rubrics and consolidated into my terminators so they couldnt combat interrupt and try to finish off the grandmaster before he got to attack
Hahaha Question no one seems to directly address. In a lotnof these tactics videos the troops are usually lined up in neat ranks. I rarely find terrain accommodates this. Is it worth to advance slower and maintain these neat formations?
Not really. There are arguments for maintaining some tighter cohesion for a short ranged unit moving forward (melee too, to a lesser extent). I can move aggressively forward with a 20-warrior blob to get 3-5 guns in range, do very little, but expose myself to much worse return fire/charges. Yet, this could still be worth doing even then if the return fire's inevitable, I'm hunting for objectives, establishing a screen, etc. Topic one: really only cares about "Dark Blue's" leading models. The idea is to prevent/reduce the shots, charges, & consolidations they are susceptible to. Topic two: spend the time to try that and watch a dedicated melee unit not give AF about it. Best likely outcomes are you get both units into CC and opponent splits attacks & leaves both squads hurt but alive (which can still leave them less efficient for abilities/strats). Or worse, opponent's unit is a monster, your units are wet tissue paper, and/or he/she rolls hot and both of your units are gone. 3, 4, and 5 are mostly legit but not as related to your question.
@@gdenight To directly answer your question: I've never had issues using them in competitive events. Sometimes even lauded for using them. -b- Trays help early on, but become cumbersome as the game plays out (considered casualty removal, terrain, becoming engaged, etc). I used to run 3x20 warriors on 12 5-model trays. Great for deployment, usually first turn, and maybe second. After that, it's more of a hassle. [Some amazon/etsy 3D printed ones though...32mm cloud something trays with metal discs for my base magnets to hold onto] For what we're talking about here, it's not needed for a bubble wrap. Just keep the protected unit's front ranks far enough back and close enough for the counter threat. There aren't really any trays, I'm aware of, that support what interweaving is trying to accomplish. Placing 2 or more units on a single tray can also sketch some people out, but if it's okay with your OP, run with it. More importantly, if you can come up with a regular scenario where it's been critical to a player's success, I'd be happy to hear it.
You cant movement block through ruins. The reach is 1' behind the ruin. So it is the ruin thickness + 1'. Also a lot of tournaments doesnt allow it. You can always fight trhough ruins if you dont fit.
WTC house rules that you can pretend you're inside the wall if it's the only way of making your charge succeed. Fortunately, tournaments that use the WTC FAQ are in a minority.
Exactly my thoghts, never seen anywhere in Denmark where I attend competitive tournaments, or videos on Vanguard Tactics or Art of War, where they actually use the terrain with those kind of movement blocking rules. Only see people playing with figthing through ruins with the description above from Andreas, who probably plays at Westeros GT tournaments in northern Sweden, which is often mentioned in 40K statscenter.
Body blocking: Not absolutely sure on this one, but while you quite correctly say that troops can't occupy wall space in assault, does that prevent them from doing so through windows? A window represents a void in the wall and it is arguable that a unit can occupy that space because it is not solid. Then the assaulting unit may have multiple options to engage. Most ruins models representing area terrain tend to carry windows. In the mean time, if there are no windows then there are alternate targets to consider for red over a secondary threat.
Serious question; what has been the reactions you've gotten to using these strategies at an in-person game? It feels like these could be seen as bad sportsmanship to the uninitiated. Maybe wear a shirt with a ruler on it as fair warning! :0)
Objectives denied by Heroic intervention. If there is no assault happening, how does a Heroic intervention come into play? I don't know what you mean by OBSEC? Many armies have models that can occupy and steel an objective just by being within range of it. For example, my Guardians will claim an objective irrespective of the number of enemy models. It is an attribute they have . And a very handy one if I take the very last turn.
Your Guardians have ObSec - "objective secured", though the CWE codex calls it by another name because it's 8th edition. It's a rule every army has which says that if one of your models on an objective has it and none of the enemy's do, the objective is yours regardless of model count. But if both sides have at least one ObSec model on the objective, it's back to counting models. If you end a move within 3" of an enemy that can heroically intervene, they can heroically intervene into you even if you don't charge. Your Guardians can't steal the objective if they're dead, which is what could happen if they walk onto an objective that a dangerous melee character is sitting in the middle of.
Your weave tactics are as flawed as F. Point 1. Quite simply, if you set the blue units up in the fashion you demonstrated in your diagram, then red is not entitled to attack either unit individually. Why because no charge can end within engagement range of a unit they did not declare a charge on. But lets say you could. Your premise that the second rank cannot engage is wrong. If you have 5 models engaged with DB you have 7 models in the second row. This means they can occupy the same frontage as the first five and set themselves within unit coherency and half an inch of the engaged models in the front row. Bearing in mind that the Red unit must have all of its units in coherency with two models from its team because there are 12 models all up, I refer of course to the fact that 6+ models are required to do this. So the rules themselves actually encourage this tactic. Consequently, you can nominate your attacks to overload the DB units because all up you outnumber their combined strength. There are plenty more faults in your presentation on this one, but I will give you one more issue to consider. Point 3. If the Red are considering an assault, then they would have had a movement and shooting phase. Now with over double the troops in Red v DB the shooting phase becomes critical. This is because, while Red can't charge one unit without declaring on the other, they can specifically nominate one unit as a target in shooting and Blue can't nominate casualties from another discrete unit to minimise the effect of shooting. Now one presumes that the Red unit is a threat to DB because the weave tactic would not be necessary. So with 12 shots, (Assuming they were not equipped with RF or Ass weapons) at say S4 against T4 means that DB are going to lose some models. Then Red declares a charge on both units and hammers away probably with a superior outcome.
I don’t think the tactic is so much flawed as it is situational. There are situations in which an opponent does want to, with an exclusively combat unit, only tag or “snipe,” one unit, without charging any other units, as is the case when attempting a wrap, in order to prevent a unit from shooting beyond the aggressing unit. Let’s say the aggressing unit is an under strength unit of repentia, attempting to charge a unit of Plasma Inceptors, interspersed with Blade Guard. He’s not likely to kill either unit, but if the models had not been interspersed, he would absolutely go after the inceptors, in order to prevent them from shooting the next turn. Because of the limited range, the player playing the inceptors, couldn’t afford to post the blade guard as a screen, so instead, he interweaves the models to make it impossible to avoid charging both units. This can be especially handy if either unit has a fight last ability. Essentially the move functions as a screen, without losing any movement. Consider Skitarri Vanguard being interspersed with Rustalkers, or Fulgarite Electro-priests. A player may want to avoid the rad saturation aura of the Vanguard, that have tons of defensive buffs on them, in order to snipe the combat unit. But with a fight last strat in the pocket, and an aura that would mean the opponent is wounding on 4’s instead of 3’s, the charge may simply be deterred. It’s a win-win for the Ad Mech player: if his opponent charges, he wins, if he doesn’t charge he wins. I have used interweaving tactics, and terrain, to make an effect buffer out of a Cullexus assassin and two Achillus dreadnoughts, at various times. It was extremely effective into Blood Angels, and into Orks with lots of squig riders. The interwoven formation, due to the Culexus’ fight last aura, along with the use of terrain, completely stifled my opponents axis of advance, which allowed my superior shooting fire power to simply kill every unit within range turn by turn, in the case of the Orks. When he finally made desperate charges, the result was largely the same as it would have been if he charged in the beginning. He did regret not charging early which demonstrates that the tactic also has a psychological component: it culled my into a worse outcome. In these cases, there are other rules in play that amplify the tactics effectiveness. For sure. It’s not a tactic generally used against shooting armies, or armies that can effectively clear a unit with shooting, before charging. It’s not unbeatable, but it can be very effective in certain circumstances. It’s also come in handy against Space Wolves (can advance and charge a Bike Chaplain 20+2D6 inches), and Tyranids, the latter who can double move things like the Dimacheron, and get first turn charges off thereby.
For the last one, why should dark red assault first. The process of consolidation should light red attack first is the same unless dark blue are a tougher enemy. Then I get your point. By the way, in your diagram it would appear that light red has finished its charge move within engagement range of both units. A no no unless he declared against both units. Got to be careful of not misleading your viewers on that one.
Once again there are huge flaws in the reasoning behind your descriptions of the tactics described. Bubble wrapping, I have seen this used primarily for the purpose of protecting characters. Don't forget characters can be surrounded by a friendly unit and is still not a part of that unit. For the purposes of your example however, you have no perfect answer for the bubble wrap tactic. In fact you have a screen not a bubble wrap. This is because, the wider the gap between the screening unit and the unit behind. The greater the likelihood that the unit you were screening is vulnerable from the flank to shooting. In fact a secondary red unit could close from the flank and shoot at dark blue. Then the primary red unit could shoot at light blue. Then both units could charge light blue which is now isolated and most likely will be annihilated by the assault. The result would then be for secondary red to consolidate onto DB with PR following in behind. Thus reversing the "Bubble Wrap" you thought you had and costing you a unit while damaging the other. Then in DB's turn he/she has to decide if they want to attack the lead red element or shoot and withdraw.
The math about the bases and blocking is actually slightly off based on the shapes being circles not squares. Its closer to 4mm. Also, I want to mention that I don't believe that tactic SHOULD be feasible. If I was playing with friends, I would give the ruins the "defence line" keyword. I also wouldn't play this way at a tournament unless my opponent was doing similar stuff. There's a difference between being interested in 'breaking' wh40k rules based on GW's writing and being an insufferable rules lawyer on the tabletop.
Blue >> Red 🤫
Man that "hit the like" joke was dry as a bucket of sand. Great.
I'm here for a long time, not a good time
Made me do it.
Great video :D This is my favorit 40k tactics channel
That last one was extremely useful, thank you!
Would you mind clarifying the situation on heroic intervention? My understanding is that you can prevent a unit from making a heroic intervention if it is right near another unit. You declare both as a charge target, and make sure one of your charging models ends the charge phase just within engagement range of that unit, but also within engagement range and closer to (but not in base contact with) the second unit. No heroic intervention is possible, as that occurs in the charge phase and you can only do it if you are not within engagement range of an enemy unit. In the fight phase, you activate your charging unit and pile in, moving towards the closer target and out of engagement range of the unit you are trying to avoid. That unit is now not eligible to fight (due to not being in engagement range), and has already missed the chance to make an heroic intervention. I keep getting people telling me this doesn't work, as any unit that was the target of a charge always gets to activate in the fight phase . . . but the core rules state you always get to activate if you made a charge move, not if you were the target of a charge. Have I missed something here?
Sounds about right. You can only activate and pile in if you "made a charge move" (which is basically saying declaring a charge, making it and moving it as an result of the declared charge) or "are in engagement range of an enemy model" which in your above example is not the case. So yeah you can deny the model the heroic intervention and activation by charging and smart pile in.
You're right. "An eligible unit is one that is within Engagement Range (1") of an enemy unit and/or made a charge move in the same turn." Some people may think Heroic Int is a "charge move", but it's not. GW has consistently separated Charge Move from Heroic Int move.
That's clever AF too. Gonna use it when I have a chance.
I mostly make the closest intervention targets unreachable via 3.0001" (relying on pile-ins to get the rest of my unit in) or intervening models (Heroic Int moves are closer to closest model). Your way doesn't even give the opportunity to move, but could be a more difficult charge.
@@PinoyCarter I have used it with Harlequins, mostly with a Solitaire with Blitz and the Cegorach's Rose relic. Harlequins can advance and change and have flip belts, so a Solitaire with blitz has a threat range of 12+4d6' (or a potential 24+4d6 with twilight pathways) and can move over terrain and enemy models. You sabotage an heroic intervention, and then fight and kill something. Then you use the 3cp War Dancers stratagem, allowing you to PILE IN and fight again . . . you can get back in engagement range of the character you have so far evaded and murder them too, without them having the chance to respond.
@@samhunter1205 That's nasty man. And legit because the character was the target of the charge. Next level stuff.
@@samhunter1205 Solid plays but 12/24 + 4D6 threat range just sounds disgusting (no offense) :D
Anyone else picture this guy going to tournaments with graphs
"See according to this graph you can't attack with you backline if you charged only one of my interwoven units."
NNNEEERRRRDDD
Haha probably not. Strict on the math for fun, but I'm incredibly relaxed at tournaments. I care a lot less about that type of stuff in real games, just interesting things to think about! I warn people about my heroic interventions, auspex scans etc, plus allow essentially unlimited take-backs.
Another great Video, thank you Dan
glad you've stuck with me for so long!
Very good video! 👍
There is no long boring intro or begging for likes, shares etc.
Just straight to the point and very interesting quality content.
Thank you.
Don't forget to smash that bell icon so you get notified whenever..... :)
Great video. Some really useful plays that I will defiantly try to make use of 👍
Great video as always!
One thing that I think we need an FAQ on is if you have to base a model or end up in engagement range when you heroically intervene. If it's engagement, you have to be 7.1 away from a unit that has a 6" heroic.
HI rules only specify that you need to "end closer to the closest enemy unit". So I've seen it mentioned that you can move 3" in any direction, as long as you end your move closer to the closest enemy unit. So 2.9" away to start, 2.7" after the HI move. It doesn't specify that you have to end within engagement range at all. It's powerful "free movement" that can have big impacts in scoring and buffs, like re-rolls and FNPs.
@@th0rg0d Right, but you can't start to heroically intervene if you are outside of 3". Per the rules, for a character to be eligible, they must be within 3" horizontal and 5 vert of an enemy unit to begin to intervene. Then they can move a max of 3". I
To me that sounds like you have to base the model.
@@ajack22100 While I agree with you, that it sounds like the HI model should be basing and attacking the unit that triggers the HI move, factually, it's just not as written. You can move 3", as long as you are closer than you were before. It never says you have to bee-line to the enemy, even tho that "feels like" the way the rule is intended.
@@th0rg0d Ahhh, so you need to be within 3" of "Unit #1" to initiate a HI, but you don't need to HI into that specific unit? You could HI into "Unit #2" and end closer to "Unit #1" without entering engagement range of "unit #1." Effectively, any unit within 3" of a character let's them start to HI, and to prevent a HI into your army you must keep everything outside of 3"?
@@ajack22100 Yep. This is one of the reasons 6" HI is so powerful.
If the opponent's unit has 6" pile-in, wouldn't we need 7.1" after including the engagement range?
yes that is correct, my b
Thrills and Cheap Thrills are still thrills... Well played sir.
love your content. Very simple and easy to understand despite the advanced tactics. Just wondered if you have had many opponents challenge the precise measurements of models in your games? I can image trying to persuade someone that this model or that model is 0.1 inch away using tape measures around terrain and what not could be tricky?
I'll make a whole video on "playing by intent" to describe this!
@@danielbrewster8642 Playing by "Intent" is great and all, and def helps clear up ambiguous situations, but I do kinda hate it a bit. "My models are this "exacting measurement" away from the wall, but I don't want to burn up all my time trying to actually fit a measuring device into this terrain, so you'll just have to trust me on this." Then proceeds to cram all their models into the terrain, with overlapping bases and all.... OK OK, maybe not that bad, but you get my drift.
If opponents are that precise (me...kinda), you could always make it more than x.1. Much of Daniel's examples here are are to take things away from the opponent. Those are mostly minimums, not exacts. A deep strike bubble of 12.2 - 12.9" away accomplishes the same thing as 12.1" for Dark Blue squad. 13" could be a different story by adding 1" to charge/gun range when your turn comes back around.
upload coming out now just for you, Alex
Wonderful insights, great appreciation!
Great stuff as always!!!!!
very cleaver like button trick..liked.. also what models do you have on your shelf in the background?
"If an enemy unit deepstriking has Rapid Fire 1 weapons, you also put your unit out of Rapid Fire range".
Chaos and Imperium: I am sorry, is that some kind of deepstrike joke I am too Terminator to understand?
*sad rubric marine noises*
@@danielbrewster8642 Also, you mentioned 6" HI strats. Do those override Core Rules (about eligible units for HI that have to be within 3" of an enemy unit)?
@@alexsmith4212 Strats and abilities that allow 6' heroic interventions specify that they allow the unit to intervene if they are within 6' horizontally or 5' vertically, so that overrides the general rule on heroic interventions
@@samhunter1205 Thanks, gotta use that next time I play melee roaster.
Hiya! Thanks for the video!
So this message has ended up being quite long but this is the first video of yours I've ever seen so I wanted to give you some feedback as I feel like there's a lot of potential here but a few things that might help if they're streamlined maybe. Please let me know if you take the time to read this & even if none of it is useful I appreciate it, so thanks! I really hope it's helpful at all.
Firstly this video popped up as the top video on my TH-cam homepage the first time i opened it today!! The only other tactics channel I watch is Auspex Tactics and I've never seen your channel or seen videos from it recommended before ever (as far as I'm aware), so you've obviously doing something right with this one!
So some feedback based on this being the first & only video I've watched (I don't know about other people but I often have a totally different impression of a channel when I first watch it compared to one I've followed & subbed to for a while) is this...
Really really interesting content, learnt some awesome stuff I've never even thought of before (as a fairly new & currently casual 40k player). Never seen stuff teaching this sort of micromanagement & unit placement before and it's awesome!
However I did struggle to follow it a bit, quite a lot of times I had to rewind 10 or 20 seconds, even all the way back to the start of the tactic you were discussing (you will have to take my word on this but my attention span is perfectly good).
It might just be that the information itself is quite dense, which of course can't be helped; however I feel like it could have been delivered a bit better:
Firstly I feel like a tight script for the video would really help. But more importantly some real examples would help enormously. Showing these tactics with specific examples using actual models would really help a lot I think.
Of course G.W. are G.W. with their I.P. but battle report channels don't seem to have had any issues and they show models constantly (might still be worth contacting G.W. first to confirm though).
I feel that you talking about the theory with these graphs, then showing an example of the tactic being used in a situation with real models (could be any models really) would make things so much clearer & digestible.
You'd only need to show relevant photos, you don't need to have footage of you moving them or anything.
Also on the graphs some coloured movement arrows (like White Dwarf's old 2nd/3rd ED battle reports) might be helpful? Have you tried out seeing how they look with a white background too?
The final nitpick is just that I almost didn't open this video because of the thumbnail, although I did in the end because of the title. I'm not someone who believes in clickbait flashy thumbnails, but ultimately a huge amount of people's decisions to click on your video or not will be made in an instant, with "hot brain" thinking, so the thumbnail is important.
Perhaps something like an aquilla or something that anchors it & makes it more obvious visually that it's 40k without reading it might grab attention more? Or just a background with an image of a game or tournament? Also, again I don't consider stuff like this important but I know a lot of success on TH-cam is based upon it, maybe a title like 'Pro 40k Player's 5 Weird Tactics', or 'Pro 40k player's (whatever the subject is). I don't know if there's any other channels that already do that but I think it would make the videos more attractive to people scrolling TH-cam perhaps (Majorkill basically built his lore channel on 'Explained by an Australian')
Oh the Space Marine bit was genius btw, I was thinking "why is he tangenting to something unrelated, is this just going to be him rambling on whatever he thinks of". But the joke and the deadpan delivery was amazing. You've earnt yourself a sub from me!
Anyway like I said, really great content and thanks so much for teaching this stuff. Hopefully some of the feedback I've given might help you reach your potential with this channel, none of it is meant as criticism, just suggestions you may or may not want to take onboard.
Will be watching more of your videos as soon as I'm back home later!
Thanks for the comment, I read it all. In short, there's a lot more work I need to do on the channel and my delivery. I write. Power Point set of notes in the background for every video, but I could always do better
I've only made about 25 wh40k videos and the exact format has changed a lot based on different topics. Ultimately, I think through experimentation and time I'll get better. In encourage you to watch my quadrant theory, deployment, or secondary video because I think those are my favorite videos and the type of stuff I'd like to focus on.
Thanks for your support and comment, they honestly make my day better
Can you have a tau nar on the obj and be fine? It's round and huge. I play constantly for fun so if I went to a tournament with it could be nice to know
Perfectly cenetered, Ta'unar's 160mm base will leave something like .75" that opponent's models can reach. They'd have to get into engagement range, but could still steal the objective from it.
@@PinoyCarter ty for knowing or looking it up!
Man we miss you, come back :)
Can you do a video in movement?
It seems like the rules lead to insanity when it gets to vehicles moving over terrain, because it doesn't specify that you have to be able to place a model along the line you want to move it .
This would mean the a rhino could use a very slim edge of for example a container to go over friendly models.
Your model has to be able to move physically through the entire path
@@danielbrewster8642 this doesn't answer the question if you can move it along a cliff (that is nor the board edge and is otherwise unobstructed)
Sorry it's kinda hard to explain without a picture
Love your videos btw.
Solid tactics. Thanks
As blue in the last one, I would have interrupted for sure! Yes, I would only kill one of the light red, but a couple or all of the dark red would go away real quick. What is the other option? To not attack then and lose all those attacks, and lose a lot more models?
Better to attack less effectively and do a bunch of damage than to lose everything without doing any damage.
If you can't win, redefine your terms for success.
Assuming the dark red unit is unimportant as Dan stipulated, my terms for success are finding a better use for 2CP 🙂
@@thepants To each their own, friend.
Re: Body Blocking... It just so happens there are no windows or doors to place bases in, right?
In that diagram, yes.
@@danielbrewster8642 True, but I've seen a lot of ruins with them which MAY impact that tactic. It depends on the actual terrain piece, plus I've actually had where I rolled 3" more than I needed vs a block like you (and others, it isn't just you) showed and I simply put my models on the next level over the target unit. I've also used it successfully many times.
But if you have made your knight a character then he can heroically intervene anyway?
Yes
Who gets combat interrupt?
Deathwatch have black shields, they aren't characters but they can HI.
That's me learning something.
Yay
@@danielbrewster8642 keep the content coming. Helped me lots. Always use quadrants when forging my army.
To avoid the unchargeable ruin in our local club we declare all ruin walls as barricades, so they have 2 inches of fighting zone (I hope we are not doing barricades wrongly)
So long as the players agree, it's not a big deal. I wouldn't like that rule, but would adjust if it's the group's decision. It's not something you could easily take to other groups/events though. Taking one of the game's tactical decisions away from its shallow pool of them isn't looked well upon.
I hope you're just adding the Defense Line terrain trait to Ruins. "If an enemy unit is within 1" of this terrain feature, you can still make a charge move against it so long as the charging unit ends its charge move touching that terrain feature and within 2" of the target unit."
Actually using Barricades or Ruined Walls is a significant change to what Ruins are. The terrain category, light vs dense vs light & heavy cover, obscuring, and scalable vs unstable are massive differences to them.
@@PinoyCarter Yes we are doing just that. We are more of a casual/story driven gaming group, and things like the impenetrable fortress of oil barrel elevated position never went well with us, official rules or not x)
my friends also agreed that those .1“ things do nothing but prolong the game and kill the fun. in movement we just say: ok i stay out of 12“ of your rapid fire unit etc, but when it gwts too weird we just play what sounds fairest or throw a d6, on a 4+ player a decides, lower player b decides
I'm confused by the interweaving units example, what about the charging rules wont just let them just successfully be within 1" down the whole line? Even if you're right, won't the 3'' pile-in during the fight phase make this a mute point?
They can, they just have to charge both units. And you don't HAVE to pile in
@@danielbrewster8642 But whats forcing the "charge both units?" Why is there a no-go zone bubble on a single target charge?
@@mwyler3390 yes, you can't move within engagement range of an enemy model that you did NOT declare a charge on. There is nothing stopping you from Piling In to those units, but you now make yourself vulnerable to that unit's attacks, which you were trying to avoid in the first place.
The point of the trick is to force Red to attack with less models OR engage both DB and LtB squads. I can't imagine what pair of units would truly benefit from this. Lots of scenarios to go though...don't bother with this. It's time consuming and has a load of downsides. First things to come to mind is being able to freely shoot one or the other unit without making the charge more difficult & feeding two units (that I assume are melee...and points intensive) to Red
@@PinoyCarter Part of it is more of a thought experiment and theory too. I did have a scenario like this where GK Strike Marines and a grandmaster charged my rubics and termiantors respectively. the strike marines killed the rubrics and consolidated into my terminators so they couldnt combat interrupt and try to finish off the grandmaster before he got to attack
Hahaha
Question no one seems to directly address. In a lotnof these tactics videos the troops are usually lined up in neat ranks. I rarely find terrain accommodates this.
Is it worth to advance slower and maintain these neat formations?
Not really.
There are arguments for maintaining some tighter cohesion for a short ranged unit moving forward (melee too, to a lesser extent). I can move aggressively forward with a 20-warrior blob to get 3-5 guns in range, do very little, but expose myself to much worse return fire/charges. Yet, this could still be worth doing even then if the return fire's inevitable, I'm hunting for objectives, establishing a screen, etc.
Topic one: really only cares about "Dark Blue's" leading models. The idea is to prevent/reduce the shots, charges, & consolidations they are susceptible to.
Topic two: spend the time to try that and watch a dedicated melee unit not give AF about it. Best likely outcomes are you get both units into CC and opponent splits attacks & leaves both squads hurt but alive (which can still leave them less efficient for abilities/strats). Or worse, opponent's unit is a monster, your units are wet tissue paper, and/or he/she rolls hot and both of your units are gone.
3, 4, and 5 are mostly legit but not as related to your question.
@@PinoyCarter I have seen those Armageddon troop trays. Probably not legal for tournament play?
@@gdenight To directly answer your question: I've never had issues using them in competitive events. Sometimes even lauded for using them.
-b-
Trays help early on, but become cumbersome as the game plays out (considered casualty removal, terrain, becoming engaged, etc). I used to run 3x20 warriors on 12 5-model trays. Great for deployment, usually first turn, and maybe second. After that, it's more of a hassle.
[Some amazon/etsy 3D printed ones though...32mm cloud something trays with metal discs for my base magnets to hold onto]
For what we're talking about here, it's not needed for a bubble wrap. Just keep the protected unit's front ranks far enough back and close enough for the counter threat.
There aren't really any trays, I'm aware of, that support what interweaving is trying to accomplish. Placing 2 or more units on a single tray can also sketch some people out, but if it's okay with your OP, run with it. More importantly, if you can come up with a regular scenario where it's been critical to a player's success, I'd be happy to hear it.
@@PinoyCarter Thanks. They are pretty pricey, but in a game where spacing is critical, it might be worth it to give them a try.
Filming in a nearly empty room because he sold everything he owned for more 40k stuff. True Chad.
Send furniture. I have nothing
You cant movement block through ruins. The reach is 1' behind the ruin. So it is the ruin thickness + 1'. Also a lot of tournaments doesnt allow it. You can always fight trhough ruins if you dont fit.
Where do you play?
WTC house rules that you can pretend you're inside the wall if it's the only way of making your charge succeed. Fortunately, tournaments that use the WTC FAQ are in a minority.
@@danielbrewster8642 Sweden. Its either house rules or WTC that forbids it.
Exactly my thoghts, never seen anywhere in Denmark where I attend competitive tournaments, or videos on Vanguard Tactics or Art of War, where they actually use the terrain with those kind of movement blocking rules. Only see people playing with figthing through ruins with the description above from Andreas, who probably plays at Westeros GT tournaments in northern Sweden, which is often mentioned in 40K statscenter.
I hate the false advertising on your thumbnails. It clearly shows you with a moustache, even though you don't have one. Nice video tho
My boy Reza in pakistan makes me thumbnails for 2.50 a piece. Gotta re-use some old ones to get down to a 1.25 average.
Body blocking: Not absolutely sure on this one, but while you quite correctly say that troops can't occupy wall space in assault, does that prevent them from doing so through windows? A window represents a void in the wall and it is arguable that a unit can occupy that space because it is not solid. Then the assaulting unit may have multiple options to engage. Most ruins models representing area terrain tend to carry windows. In the mean time, if there are no windows then there are alternate targets to consider for red over a secondary threat.
ravioli ravioli give me the algo-oli
Yay
Get a donate button on your YT, next to the like button
Just have a patreon :(
Serious question; what has been the reactions you've gotten to using these strategies at an in-person game? It feels like these could be seen as bad sportsmanship to the uninitiated. Maybe wear a shirt with a ruler on it as fair warning! :0)
I don't.
Objectives denied by Heroic intervention. If there is no assault happening, how does a Heroic intervention come into play? I don't know what you mean by OBSEC? Many armies have models that can occupy and steel an objective just by being within range of it. For example, my Guardians will claim an objective irrespective of the number of enemy models. It is an attribute they have . And a very handy one if I take the very last turn.
Love your comments Stephen. Lots to think about.
Your Guardians have ObSec - "objective secured", though the CWE codex calls it by another name because it's 8th edition. It's a rule every army has which says that if one of your models on an objective has it and none of the enemy's do, the objective is yours regardless of model count. But if both sides have at least one ObSec model on the objective, it's back to counting models.
If you end a move within 3" of an enemy that can heroically intervene, they can heroically intervene into you even if you don't charge. Your Guardians can't steal the objective if they're dead, which is what could happen if they walk onto an objective that a dangerous melee character is sitting in the middle of.
"I'm a competitive 40k content"... think you missed some words?
my video editing skills are not my strong suit
Ur so informational if you up ur production value you would get a fuck ton more views
As in camera? I'm not a videographer by trade
Hit the like button for the joke alone.
Your weave tactics are as flawed as F. Point 1. Quite simply, if you set the blue units up in the fashion you demonstrated in your diagram, then red is not entitled to attack either unit individually. Why because no charge can end within engagement range of a unit they did not declare a charge on.
But lets say you could. Your premise that the second rank cannot engage is wrong. If you have 5 models engaged with DB you have 7 models in the second row. This means they can occupy the same frontage as the first five and set themselves within unit coherency and half an inch of the engaged models in the front row. Bearing in mind that the Red unit must have all of its units in coherency with two models from its team because there are 12 models all up, I refer of course to the fact that 6+ models are required to do this. So the rules themselves actually encourage this tactic. Consequently, you can nominate your attacks to overload the DB units because all up you outnumber their combined strength.
There are plenty more faults in your presentation on this one, but I will give you one more issue to consider.
Point 3. If the Red are considering an assault, then they would have had a movement and shooting phase. Now with over double the troops in Red v DB the shooting phase becomes critical. This is because, while Red can't charge one unit without declaring on the other, they can specifically nominate one unit as a target in shooting and Blue can't nominate casualties from another discrete unit to minimise the effect of shooting. Now one presumes that the Red unit is a threat to DB because the weave tactic would not be necessary. So with 12 shots, (Assuming they were not equipped with RF or Ass weapons) at say S4 against T4 means that DB are going to lose some models. Then Red declares a charge on both units and hammers away probably with a superior outcome.
I don’t think the tactic is so much flawed as it is situational. There are situations in which an opponent does want to, with an exclusively combat unit, only tag or “snipe,” one unit, without charging any other units, as is the case when attempting a wrap, in order to prevent a unit from shooting beyond the aggressing unit.
Let’s say the aggressing unit is an under strength unit of repentia, attempting to charge a unit of Plasma Inceptors, interspersed with Blade Guard. He’s not likely to kill either unit, but if the models had not been interspersed, he would absolutely go after the inceptors, in order to prevent them from shooting the next turn. Because of the limited range, the player playing the inceptors, couldn’t afford to post the blade guard as a screen, so instead, he interweaves the models to make it impossible to avoid charging both units.
This can be especially handy if either unit has a fight last ability. Essentially the move functions as a screen, without losing any movement.
Consider Skitarri Vanguard being interspersed with Rustalkers, or Fulgarite Electro-priests. A player may want to avoid the rad saturation aura of the Vanguard, that have tons of defensive buffs on them, in order to snipe the combat unit. But with a fight last strat in the pocket, and an aura that would mean the opponent is wounding on 4’s instead of 3’s, the charge may simply be deterred. It’s a win-win for the Ad Mech player: if his opponent charges, he wins, if he doesn’t charge he wins.
I have used interweaving tactics, and terrain, to make an effect buffer out of a Cullexus assassin and two Achillus dreadnoughts, at various times. It was extremely effective into Blood Angels, and into Orks with lots of squig riders. The interwoven formation, due to the Culexus’ fight last aura, along with the use of terrain, completely stifled my opponents axis of advance, which allowed my superior shooting fire power to simply kill every unit within range turn by turn, in the case of the Orks. When he finally made desperate charges, the result was largely the same as it would have been if he charged in the beginning. He did regret not charging early which demonstrates that the tactic also has a psychological component: it culled my into a worse outcome.
In these cases, there are other rules in play that amplify the tactics effectiveness. For sure. It’s not a tactic generally used against shooting armies, or armies that can effectively clear a unit with shooting, before charging. It’s not unbeatable, but it can be very effective in certain circumstances. It’s also come in handy against Space Wolves (can advance and charge a Bike Chaplain 20+2D6 inches), and Tyranids, the latter who can double move things like the Dimacheron, and get first turn charges off thereby.
For the last one, why should dark red assault first. The process of consolidation should light red attack first is the same unless dark blue are a tougher enemy. Then I get your point. By the way, in your diagram it would appear that light red has finished its charge move within engagement range of both units. A no no unless he declared against both units. Got to be careful of not misleading your viewers on that one.
Majority of these are very circumstantial, keep them in mind yes but don't make a list based on this.
Once again there are huge flaws in the reasoning behind your descriptions of the tactics described. Bubble wrapping, I have seen this used primarily for the purpose of protecting characters. Don't forget characters can be surrounded by a friendly unit and is still not a part of that unit. For the purposes of your example however, you have no perfect answer for the bubble wrap tactic. In fact you have a screen not a bubble wrap. This is because, the wider the gap between the screening unit and the unit behind. The greater the likelihood that the unit you were screening is vulnerable from the flank to shooting. In fact a secondary red unit could close from the flank and shoot at dark blue. Then the primary red unit could shoot at light blue. Then both units could charge light blue which is now isolated and most likely will be annihilated by the assault. The result would then be for secondary red to consolidate onto DB with PR following in behind. Thus reversing the "Bubble Wrap" you thought you had and costing you a unit while damaging the other. Then in DB's turn he/she has to decide if they want to attack the lead red element or shoot and withdraw.