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

Provocative title, but I'm not just trolling here. People say 6th is all about troops, but is it really? A 1-0 objective win is just as good as a 5-0 win, so do you really need to hold those extra objectives? After all, the less you spend on troops the more you get to spend on guns, which means you cripple your opponent's army faster. Once you deal with their biggest threats through overwhelming firepower it's a lot easier to clean up the remaining scoring units and put your own token units on an objective on the final turn. Meanwhile you don't care as much about things like the new Tau, which are perfectly designed to remove scoring units from objectives.

What inspired this thought was a tournament last weekend where I took an 1850 list with one scoring unit (a Harker squad camping on a quad gun). This was less of a strategic move and more to run an armored company list and put a tank into the "best painted troops choice" contest, but at no point did I feel like I was lacking anything by taking only a single scoring unit. My games:

Game 1: "casual" Necrons. One-sided massacre where his scoring units died quickly and he never really got into a position to threaten my one scoring unit. Weight of fire was just completely decisive, I had ~1500 points of tanks and flyers killing stuff every turn while he had a lot of points tied up in troops that never really threatened anything. 1-0 objective win, plus a couple secondary VPs.

Game 2: competitive flyerspam Necrons + GK. This was about as bad as it could get for me, hammer and anvil keeping me outside 36" of his scoring units while his HQ kept night fighting active almost all game. And yet it was still only a narrow loss, mostly on secondary VPs (big guns never tire, with my heavy support flyers off table as time ran out) with my 2+ cover save objective holders doing their job and my heavy guns coming reasonably close to shooting him off his objectives. If I hadn't screwed up my searchlights at a critical moment due to fatigue I might even have finished off his objective holders and won it.

Game 3: marines. Another one-sided massacre, the mission was kill points and I didn't have several hundred points tied up in tactical squads to hold objectives that didn't exist.


Small sample size, not the most competitive event ever, I know. But TBH the least useful thing in my list was the Harker squad, if I had to do it again I'd even consider trading them for a penal legion and just having them GTG behind the ADL all game. Which would free up another 100 points for more guns, without doing anything to hinder my objective holding ability.

You share an idea with alairos? whats happening next? Alairos air-cav?

tommse wrote:
You share an idea with alairos?

TBH I've been thinking about it for a while since I love painting tanks and aircraft but don't really care about infantry. I was just surprised when my "fun" list turned out to work a lot better than I expected, and its biggest "liability" really wasn't one.

I find it depends on the army.
I don't field my Necron army without a good supply of tesla immortals.
The amount of firepower those guys put out is seriously impressive.

 marv335 wrote:
I don't field my Necron army without a good supply of tesla immortals.
The amount of firepower those guys put out is seriously impressive.

I should clarify a bit that I'm thinking of troops where the primary point is to be scoring units. So a tactical squad camping on an objective counts, a suicide melta squad or a warrior squad taken just to get another Night Scythe on the table is really "troops" in name only. If you're taking the latter kind you're still taking the same kind of maximum firepower, minimum scoring list, it just technically uses some models from the troops section of the FOC.

I'd say it greatly depends on what army you're running. For orks I cant do without at least a few dozen boys (so looking at 3+ troops units), but lets not get too many ideas there, its hardly the best codex around. On the marines side I'd agree with you though, I only take 2 TAC squads in 1850 since they just have a rather average output. Then it also depends on whether you're scoring unit will be able to stick around. Generally my 2 TAC squads will have pieces remaining at the end, whereas normally a few ork squads would have been entirely wiped out.
So if you can take just the one troops that can endure it's probably okay, in this case a squad behind an ADL on a quad is very tough so it'll probably work and there are a significant amount of other things in there that demand more immediate attention that 10 gone to ground guardsmen.

If Tigirus didn't cost half an arm, I'd be tempted to try him and take a TAC squad in a drop pod. Then have some suicide unit come in on turn 1, and my objective squad some later with Tigirus hopefully delaying it till the late game. And if the enemy has some trait to delay my reserves, all the better.

This depends on a few things.

1.) is a 1-0 win really the same as a 5-0 win. IF we are just playing a game, or a tournament where only 1 player finishes undefeated and wins sure. If we are playing a battle point format, a 5-0 win is better than a 1-0 win as it scores more points.

2.) How durable is your 1 scoring unit. If as your opponent I can easily wipe out your one scoring unit, it makes it very easy for me to win the game.

3.) If playing a tournament what is the mission format. If You have a bunch of 5 objective missions with no Big guns/scouring, more troops is good. If the missions are Big Guns, Scouring, kill points, you don't need that many troops.

 Peregrine wrote:

I should clarify a bit that I'm thinking of troops where the primary point is to be scoring units. So a tactical squad camping on an objective counts, a suicide melta squad or a warrior squad taken just to get another Night Scythe on the table is really "troops" in name only. If you're taking the latter kind you're still taking the same kind of maximum firepower, minimum scoring list, it just technically uses some models from the troops section of the FOC.

I see where you're coming from, but the minimum scoring part is actually useful and should be emphasized. Yeah, you take the Warrior squad just to field another Night Scythe, but you still have the scoring squad and your opponent still has to deal with it or else you prevent him from taking a 1-0 win. Plus when margin of victory matters you need more than 1-0.

But yeah, I'm playing with Mech Eldar now and I don't take very many models in Troops. Avengers in Serpents are mostly sent to their deaths, but if a squad gets reduced to one or two dudes I'll probably back them off and try to find an objective to camp. If there was no such thing as a scoring unit I guess I'd probably take more Fire Dragons, but maybe not. I do take at least one and usually two small squads of jetbikes for objective snatching. I think it's hard to argue that that's a bad idea since they're so cheap, and they're not bad at actually fighting.

I think this is an easier argument to make when your Troops choices don't bring anything to the table other than model count. But maybe that's part of Codex: Space Marine's problem. Dire Avengers are a reasonably effective unit. Kroot and Fire Warriors are actually pretty great. Basic tactical squads just don't do much damage and everyone has the tools to take them out.

Thats the thing Breng, if I see my opponent has weak scoring I will kill it. Although my current list has weak scoring as well I am giving my opponent the option of either killing one of three daemon princes or my troops which either have 2 plus cover saves (plague bearers) or 3plus invuls (2plus if i am lucky) re rolling 1's. Plus most people take my horrors for granted until they delete a unit off the table.

The best way to beat me is to kill my troops but I gurantee I will kill your troops in return so its a catch 22.

^ thats the thing though, in taking minimum troops there are much more threatening things on the table. So with just one squad of guardsmen on a quadgun, its insignificant enough to brush off as there's other things that will be hurting you a lot more. But if you want to knock it out its gonna take a fair bit of firepower or an assault, which he'd obviously be trying to prevent.

There is merit to the theory of reducing points spent on troops, especially when we are not governed by point requirements in specific FOC slots like WHFB is.

C:SM did it for the longest time paying the minimum "tac tax" and there is an article similar to this idea on 3++ is the New Black here:

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2013/02/40k-maximum-threat-overload-and-chaos.html

The article talks about armies that spend as little as possible on troops, with CSM being able to field 6 scoring squads at only 200-300 points, giving them 1200+ points to spend on units that the opponent cannot ignore in favor of hunting down your weak troops.

It also bears mentioning that certain tournaments over-emphasize scoring as many VP as possible in favor of eking wins by narrow margins and objectives are the easiest way to do this.

Peregrine wrote:Provocative title, but I'm not just trolling here. People say 6th is all about troops, but is it really? A 1-0 objective win is just as good as a 5-0 win, so do you really need to hold those extra objectives? After all, the less you spend on troops the more you get to spend on guns, which means you cripple your opponent's army faster. Once you deal with their biggest threats through overwhelming firepower it's a lot easier to clean up the remaining scoring units and put your own token units on an objective on the final turn. Meanwhile you don't care as much about things like the new Tau, which are perfectly designed to remove scoring units from objectives.

The problem is in the removal of those troops. If you bring min troops choices and someone removes them, your working on an uphill battle to try and claim those objectives. That is what makes necron flyer spam so good -- they can keep their troops safe for a long period of the game.

Peregrine wrote:TBH I've been thinking about it for a while since I love painting tanks and aircraft but don't really care about infantry. I was just surprised when my "fun" list turned out to work a lot better than I expected, and its biggest "liability" really wasn't one.

I have discovered that 'internet wisdom' often is not. I suspect that's what you have encountered here.

People start talking crap about specific units, describing how they are less effective than other units. Often that perception shifts into "Units are either gold or garbage"
You can take moderate units and make a good army out of them. What's even better is you might enjoy the game more when you do.

MarkyMark wrote:
Thats the thing Breng, if I see my opponent has weak scoring I will kill it. Although my current list has weak scoring as well I am giving my opponent the option of either killing one of three daemon princes or my troops which either have 2 plus cover saves (plague bearers) or 3plus invuls (2plus if i am lucky) re rolling 1's. Plus most people take my horrors for granted until they delete a unit off the table.

The best way to beat me is to kill my troops but I gurantee I will kill your troops in return so its a catch 22.

But if I have 6+ scoring units, and various ways of protecting them and I can wipe out yours (2+ cover is no big deal for lots of armies, just ignore it and move on), if you you are grimoiring horrors it means you are not grimioring something else which I can then target more successfuly

The thing with Deamons is that you can take 2 Minimum troops, and have other methods (Rift bringer, Portaglyph) to get scoring units onto the field.

My several of my troops spend a lot of time in reserve making them hard to kill effectively.

I'm also not saying that no armies can work with minimal troops, just that as a general rule taking 1 scoring unit, unless it is very durable, is a good way to lose games early.

 Tyberos the Red Wake wrote:
The article talks about armies that spend as little as possible on troops, with CSM being able to field 6 scoring squads at only 200-300 points, giving them 1200+ points to spend on units that the opponent cannot ignore in favor of hunting down your weak troops.

Its 300 points if you want to bring 60 zombies -- which are your best bet if your playing CSM.

There are some flaws in that logic, however. Your 60 zombies can not do anything other than score. Therefore while your opponents firewarriors are shooting things, your plague zombies are inert. They are literal deck chairs with no effect on the game.

The other problem is those mid-field objectives. How can 60 zombies get to and hold a relic? Sure, zombies are great for getting back field objective, but they will fall apart when they need to get close to hold that objective.

That's why I have 'mid field objective takers'. These are blocks of fairly-very durable troop choices I can use for mid field objective grabbing or relic holding. Normally I use blocks of 20 fearless CSM or 9 plague marines for this role.

Given the increased number of outflanking/deep striking units I've been seeing to target back field objective holders, I'm actually tempted on swapping the 10 man plauge bearer squads out for 10 man CSM squads. I can give them an AC or LC, and they wont fold over when 5 TAC squads come down and threaten them.

With 3 daemon princes and fatey I dont find killing troops a issue, unless it is horde then I have to play the mission rather then my opponent. Plus if you reserve your troops that means my princes get less shots at them turn 1 and 2 if I go first or your reserve rolls are bad, turn 2 I am usually in combat so will be hurting whatever you had on the field turn 1

I think it does open you up to some bad rock/paper/scissor match ups. You will do better against armies that can't just evaporate one troop pick casually. But those that can, you are going to have a hard time with. Weather it's Tau marker lighting/pie plateing you, or Eldar just zipping a unit over to shred you, some armies can just make you go away.

It's a problem with all-in army design. When they work, they work very well. When they fail, there is not a whole lot you can do about it.

MarkyMark wrote:
With 3 daemon princes and fatey I dont find killing troops a issue, unless it is horde then I have to play the mission rather then my opponent. Plus if you reserve your troops that means my princes get less shots at them turn 1 and 2 if I go first or your reserve rolls are bad, turn 2 I am usually in combat so will be hurting whatever you had on the field turn 1

Well considering those troops in reserve tend to be things like Plauge Bearers, and Cultists, they are not adding any shooting at you turn 1 anyway (really not much if anything turn 2 either.). Furthermore if I get first blood on one of your weak troops, and kill the other you are behind the 8 ball and you need to focus on my troops. Like I said FMC circus is a bit different because you can spawn troops with the proper upgrades. But for most armies assuming that 1 or 2 minimum scoring units is enough to win most games is a mistake. There is howerver, no universal rule for troops.

Obviously, some of this advice doesn't apply to certain army builds, such as Deathwing/Ravenwing/Logan Terminators/SM & Ork Bikers, right? The ENTIRE point of those lists is to field more Termies/Bikes/whatever.

Interesting topic.

My gut reaction is it really depends on how useful your troops are outside of claiming an objective.

For example, I'd still probably use Daemonettes over Seekers because they are cheaper and provide more bodies while still being fairly quicker and killy.

Loyalist Marines are probably the best army to consider this with.

I think it's a bad idea. Proper terrain, ETC. Will just see your opponents abusing LOS, reserves and focusing down your troops in order to win.

I think certain armies can do well by taking less troops (Daemons, CSM, Necrons).

Also, mission types effect your ability to do so. For example, minimum troops would be unlikely to net you a single win at NOVA.

I actually had a really good winning streak with Tau after 6th hit because in any game I only brought 120 points of troops and the rest in guns. Then everyone kept telling me I didn't have enough troops for objectives despite pretty much tabling most opponents that didn't have a Necron warrior blob hiding in a building.

After the 6th ed Tau book I end up fielding a couple larger units of troops, but try to keep it at 2 large units of Kroot because I can keep them in reserve and they're fairly cheap.

I certainly understand Peregrine's point on the issue. I always try to build lists around cost effectiveness weighing survivability and firepower above things like objective taking. I'd rather hold one and blast my oponents troops than try to move fragile troops all around the board trying to take as many as I can.

 Peregrine wrote:
This was less of a strategic move and more to run an armored company list...

Game 1: One-sided massacre...

Game 3: Another one-sided massacre

I'm not flaming (I swear), but I've never had a positive experience facing armored company. It's fun to play, but it's terribly one-sided against traditionally formed TAC lists. Most non-IG lists just don't have the long range firepower to deal with that many tanks firing a ton of templates their way. I'd bet game 2 probably would've gone your way had night fighting not been in effect. Sorry if I come off a little sour, but like I said armored company has become a symbol for frustrating defeat.

On the discussion of min troops, I think there is some merit to it. You really do only have to hold 1-2 objectives held while your army clears/contests the others. I would think assault units would do a better job than shooting units. That way you could still contest if you aren't totally destroying them off objectives. I think your troops need to be pretty resilient, or else they spend the whole game in GTG. You would definitely need to play very objectives centric, and ensure you own more than are being contested. You also will fear any backfield infiltrators that may cause your obj holding units to lose their objectives. Otherwise, I see you winning a fair amount of battles by committing more points to offense.

My Imperial Guard lists haven't taken more than two troop selections for months. I take what the FOC demands, but no more.

I've struggled a bit since the Elysian update, though. Getting an additional Vendetta and Vulture through my ally selection was a godsend. It's quite disappointing to lose that option. If I want to field more than 4 flyers, I now need to go double FOC -- and whether I'm adding allies or another primary contingent, I've got additional troop slots to fill out.

The notable exception to this is the Armoured Battle Group, where I can take Thunderer tanks with my troop slots. This may be worth considering. Thanks.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
I actually had a really good winning streak with Tau after 6th hit because in any game I only brought 120 points of troops and the rest in guns. Then everyone kept telling me I didn't have enough troops for objectives despite pretty much tabling most opponents that didn't have a Necron warrior blob hiding in a building.

After the 6th ed Tau book I end up fielding a couple larger units of troops, but try to keep it at 2 large units of Kroot because I can keep them in reserve and they're fairly cheap.

I certainly understand Peregrine's point on the issue. I always try to build lists around cost effectiveness weighing survivability and firepower above things like objective taking. I'd rather hold one and blast my oponents troops than try to move fragile troops all around the board trying to take as many as I can.

The issue is that smart opponents will just kill your scoring units as quickly as possible.

It's easy to keep troops alive with adequate terrain. You can hide and stay in reserves.

That depends on whether your troops are just there to score or are legitimately killy/hard units in of themselves.

Of course. But for the most part, Imperial Guard troops are either "killy" or "hard." If we want both, we have to give up the ability to score.

I like to take plenty of scoring units.
My first priority when playing is to deny my opponent the ability to win the mission.
You'd be amazed at how many people focus on just killing stuff, then in the end, lose because they weren't paying attention to what the mission is.
If you take bare minimum scoring units, you're probably going to lose the game. Once the scoring units are gone you have three options, table your opponent/hold them to a draw by contesting/lose
Only the last one is easy.

Well, interesting thought. But a player worth his salt will go against your troops first.
Recently, I battled Daemons fielding 5 MCs (GUO, 3 Nurgle FMCs, 1 CSM FMC) with my Necrons (left the Wraiths at home). I played a refused flank. In round 2, he was threatening my front ranks (with GUO deep striking) and killed all units there up to the Lord in a cmd barge and my troops transported in Night Scythes. So I went for his troops (Plague Bearers, 7 CSM) wiping them out and winning the objective based game by 1:0.

I think that Legionnaires are secretly good units... because they're the most minimal troops choice and come with Stubborn and Leadership 8 on all models. Plus, they can outflank.

Also, getting to model a bunch of psychopaths, knife-fighters, and gunslingers? Useless stats aside, they can at least look cool.

Honestly have been thinking about it my self.

If feels like it is much more important to have rugged denial units more than scoring.

for the most part there will be at least 2 objectives on each side and as long as you protect your own and deny there's you can win.

Though it entirely depends on the mission and armies. just a thought