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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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 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.
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 CSMFMC) 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.
Don't forget about Dark Eldar, our troops are extremely useful. Looking at my 1500pt skimmer list, I have 900+ points of scoring units and a unit of bikes for Scouring and a Cronos for Big Guns. It was mentioned earlier that all you have to do is kill their scoring units before they kill yours. That would be a difficult feat against anything similar to what I try to run. Most of my games devolve into Purge though, regardless of mission.
I like my fire warriors. With an ethereal they can put out a lot of dakka. In fact, when I have non-vehicle stuff land behind me I usually rely on my fire warriors to kill it if I don't wipe it out by interceptor.
That said, I'm guessing one unit of outflanking kroot could be a reasonable troops choice for scoring.
This goes in my file of "interesting ideas I probably won't try".
Troops need to be both cost effective sources of damage. IA12DKoK are great at this. 12 PPM for carapace vets with hotshot lasguns that dont take shooting leadership checks and are ws4. They provide a lot of damage for a small point cost and are reliably and tough enough to front line a push.
However, 90% of armies out there are using something other than troops to do damage. Most troops dont have the resiliency, firepower, or cost effectiveness to contribute to removing the enemy army before they are removed in turn.
This is why MSU troops win games. My favorite is 3x Windrider jetbikes and a cannon for 61 points. 5x of those are about the same cost as 2 full tactical squads. However, mine are much, much better at providing the objective capping and are probably tougher between the jink save, assault jump, difficulty of assigning enough firepower for MSU units, and have a LOT of firepower between them. 15x S6 AP5 rending shots is pretty good for 300 points, along with the 20 TL rending bolter shots.
MSU makes it multiple times as difficult to deal with your troops. Most things in this game are based around one squad doing something to only one squad, and if they do effect two its often to a lesser degree. If you direct one or two battle cannons at a marine squad, most of the time the squad is going to be left with only a few members no matter its starting size. If you had two squads, however, not only would the blast hit less, but the other squad could be on the other side of the map doing something useful as the other half of the squad is going to ground and being generally useless. Only KP, 1/6 of missions, penalize MSU.
I don't know how I feel about bringing only a single Troops choice. Bringing only 1 scoring unit means that your army was, the entire tournament, one Barrage shot away from having 0 scoring units. In tournaments scored by VPs, you actually want to have multiple objectives.
I guess I can see the argument for Marine players taking only the minimum 2 Tactical Squads, or a Tac Squad and a Scout Squad, but IG has pretty cheap scoring choices to add to things they were going to take anyway (i.e., Vendettas).
I agree with peregrine, but would take it even farther.
Firstly, as mentioned, not all missions need troops. On purge, you don't need them at all, and on big guns and scouring, non-troops also score.
Secondly, as Peregrine notes, you just need to have more objectives, not a lot more. Once again, I'd take this even further, though. I'd say that you don't even need more objectives than your opponent if you build your army to win the game on secondaries.
Because of the existence of secondary objectives, on ANY mission, you can win the game without having more objectives than your opponent. You just can't have fewer.
And that opens up a lot of possibilities. For example, you don't need to control a single objective on any game so long as you can always prevent your opponent from scoring, whether this be by applying enough firepower to kill your opponent's scoring units, or whether it's bringing durable or fast enough units to simply contest your opponent's objectives.
In this case, you can think of non-scoring fast or durable units as being just as useful as having scoring units. After all, a 10-man non-scoring terminator squad that's contesting an objective is doing just as much for your relative points totals as your opponent keeping that objective with you scoring one more.
To bring this to an abstract level, then, you have to ask yourself, what is stronger in 40k nowadays, the durability of scoring units, or the firepower of anti-scoring-unit units? Clearly, to me at least, 6th edition favors the latter than the former. If you sink all your points into killing stuff, you will have more killing power than your opponent will have the durability to resist it.
Or, to put it another way, it's more efficient to blow your opponents off of their objectives than to sink those points into defending your own.
Then when you consider the other advantages of the pro-firepower, rather than the pro-scoring. Pro-firepower means that you do better on those half of the missions that aren't REALLY objective missions to begin with (purge, will, and relic, or other missions with an odd number of objectives where you get to place first). It also means that you are going to kill off your opponent's stuff more quickly, which means he has less to kill your stuff with, a benefit that cascades down through the entire rest of the game after you make the kills.
And, of course, because you're more or less obliged to take at least a couple of scoring units, having more firepower is still better, because if you can shut down your opponent's anti-scoring-unit firepower in a giant salvo on turn 1, then you only NEED to have a single scoring unit or two, because your opponent will simply not have the means of seriously threatening them, because whatever they were going to use to threaten them is now dead.
Or, and I'm going to need to take a shower after saying this, it's like Sun Tsu said. You can defend with nothing but a line in the sand if your enemy can't attack you. In this case, if your opponent can't attack you because you killed their attacking stuff, then you can defend (or, in this case, score) with even the crappiest, flimsiest units that you spend the fewest number of points on.
So, combine objective missions that aren't really objective missions with the fact that you never need to score more objectives than your opponent does (because of secondaries), and the many benefits of just taking more killing power, and yeah, I wouldn't put much value, per se, on troops choices anymore nowadays.
Now, that all said, that doesn't mean that troops are completely pointless, it's just that you can't give them very much credit for being scoring. For example, imperial guard mechvets are still worth taking, in my opinion, because it's an AV12 vehicle that can take 3 heavy weapons and 3 BS4 melta/plasma guns. That kind of killing power means that they can still be worth taking in their own right, whether they score or not.
And there are a few other small examples I can think of, like thawn or SiTNW conscripts, because they fundamentally defeat your opponent's efforts to equalize on objectives and play for secondaries.
Otherwise, though... yeah. Not much point to troops. At least, not by means of being scoring.
My Necrons never leave home without 3 10 man squads of immortals.
There are far too many bodies for an army to take out, and the strength 5 tesla weapons are amazing against hordes.
This frees up my wraiths, barges, dlords and flyer to tank hunt and deal with other elite units that they match up well against. My troops are pretty much guarenteed to outshoot yours.
Interesting concept. I just played my Orks in an 1850 tournament and really my Nob Bikers were the MVP, and they barely qualify as troops. Meanwhile the Boyz mobs that I brought managed to not score and basically just die against cover ignoring fire from the new Tau.
See, now the funny thing is you can design a list that doesn't really concentrate on killling the enemy and still win by going after their scoring or more importantly being able to contest late game and survive a few turns.
This ties direclty into secondaries as mentioned which then become a game decider.
Secondaries are huge as said above which means giving them up is bad.
You do see a lot of lists taking cheap troops which have one job which is to score and survive through various tactics.
This most definitely means points are freed to spend on trying to make your opponent cry.
SlaveToDorkness wrote:Ok, forgive me, how exactly are you able to only field one scoring unit with IG?
Take the Armoured Battlegroup from IA:1 2nd Edition, allowing your main FoC to take Leman Russ Squadrons as Troops
Ally in Codex: Imperial Guard and take a unit of Harker vets as your min troops for the ally detachment.
Continuing on from the topic, maybe it is better if we phrase it this way:
We know that 5/6 missions are based on holding objectives.
The troops slot is in most cases the only way to get a scoring unit (The scouring and big guns never tire aside)
We know that at most, we only need 2 more objectives than our opponent to win (We have 0 secondaries, they have 3, putting aside VP - for kills warlord traits)
Knowing this, if the FoC did not require us to take any troops at all would it be worth taking troops?
It really depends on the army. I mean when I play Orks I rarely put down less thatn 3x 20boyz squads on the field. As DW I usually have atleast 3 squads of terminators (depends on points). As IG, I only have 2 troops choices technically, but I use platoonns so I can have like, 10 different scoring units from those 2 troop choices if I want.
Basically, it depends on the army, some are more reliant on bodies than others (like orks who need lots of boyz generally)
Krellnu wrote:We know that 5/6 missions are based on holding objectives
But that's not true.
6/6 missions are based on who has the most points at the end. Objectives are just one way of getting points. Given that you only need one more point than your opponent to win, that means it's very possible to win games without ever holding an objective.
If you need things in the concrete, then yes, consider purge, but also consider Relic (which I've only seen someone win by actually holding the relic at the end of the game once), and Will (which, likewise, almost always sees both players holding their objective or neither holding them, and it being resolved on secondaries). Furthermore, holding objectives isn't always equally difficult. For example, if we're playing Crusade with 3 objectives, and I get to place first, then all I need to do is contest a single objective on my opponent's side of the board, and he's pretty much screwed.
Then add in the fact that non-troops score on 1/3rd of the missions, and the question is when are you really at an advantage by taking troops? On one mission - crusade - and only when there are 4 objectives, or when there are an odd number and you don't get to place first. That's pretty narrow.
And even then, you still don't need troops because you can always force a tie on objectives (by several means) and win on secondaries.
My 1500 Tau/Ba list has 135 points of scoring troops. 3 units of 10 man kroot with dogs. They stay off the board as long as I can and only run on from outflank to contest/score. The rest of the game I spend taking my opponent off objectives and killing his killy stuff. Killy stuff gets targeted first 2 turns, and last 2 turns is troops and scoring units.
It doesn't work all the time though and can have it's draw backs. If your opponent has hard to kill troops (GK termies/pallies) or fast moving troops (jetbikes) then it's a little bit of a different game.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: Ok, forgive me, how exactly are you able to only field one scoring unit with IG?
Armored Battlegroup (FW list) has tanks as troops. So I had a primary detachment of ABG with two Leman Russes which were non-scoring troops, and an allied codex IG detachment with a single Harker veteran squad as my only scoring unit.
Breng77 wrote: 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.
Yes, I'm assuming that we're talking about the standard game. If you're playing in a tournament with weird house rules for scoring this is probably a bad idea, but I'm not even going to attempt to cover the full range of weird objectives TOs keep dreaming up.
MarkyMark wrote: my troops which either have 2 plus cover saves (plague bearers)
See, this is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. I bet those troops aren't cheap, and Tau don't care about your cover save. So you've got a lot of points spent in paperweights with no offensive threat and not really enough durability to guarantee that you'll hold the objectives.
LValx wrote: 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.
Isn't this kind of a contradiction? If it's easy to keep troops alive then how can the smart opponent just kill them? Especially when you're out-gunning them by a solid margin and forcing them to play defense?
We know that 5/6 missions are based on holding objectives.
The troops slot is in most cases the only way to get a scoring unit (The scouring and big guns never tire aside)
This is kind of contradictory, since 2/5 objective missions have non-troops scoring. What we really have:
One mission where scoring is completely irrelevant (kill points).
One mission where scoring is almost completely irrelevant because holding the center objective against a maximum-firepower list is difficult at best (relic).
One mission where scoring is almost completely irrelevant because each player tends to hold their single "home" objective in a perfect castle position and fails to contest the opponent's (will).
One mission where scoring is relevant, but heavy support scores (big guns).
One mission where scoring is relevant, but fast attack scores (scouring).
One mission where scoring is relevant and only troops score.
So what we have is really 5/6 missions where either scoring is not all that important or you get additional scoring units from outside the troops slot. Only in one mission do you have to worry about scoring a lot of objectives with only your troops to do it. And even there you can still kill enemy scoring units and win with a single objective or secondaries.
I'm going to throw out the "it depends on your army" card as i see some people have. I play Tyranids and some of my most valuable units are scoring units so if i cut out genestealers, warrios, hormeguant, and termigaunts to field 6 carnifexes i may have a very unbalanced army. But when i look at my friends Dark Angels i could see cutting down on troops possibly being a benefit.
Hard to say for me though because i've only ever played Necrons and Nid's
I really think it depends on the event. Some events are objective heavy and points are awarded accordingly. If the Relic is involved you need more troops(scoring units), but if an event is basically win/loss, you can generally get by with minimal troops as you need only to go for certain victory conditions. Honestly though I've seen more of a trend toward multiple scoring units and with IG armies I have seen many 90%+ scoring armies especially when heavies are scoring as Heavies are pretty solid choices in 6th edition. Elites across the board seem to be what people are willing to leave home without unless they are able to score.
Kain wrote: The golden boy of the Tyranid's troop list is the Tervigon. There's no ifs and buts about that.
Yeah but what does a Tervigon poop out? troops
I guess technically a person could say that all you need to do is take minimum troop choice of termagants to get two Tervies as troops and then they can make all the scoring units you need (barring he don't get plugged up). But then again if you do that you're taking 4 troop choices in the end anyways. Unless of course you take them as an HQ
Automatically Appended Next Post: i think this all just comes back around to Tyranids being void from this topic. We're mostly troops
NecronLord3 wrote: If the Relic is involved you need more troops(scoring units)
I think this is actually the opposite. The relic is where you barely care about troops more than in a kill points mission. A single objective in the center of the table means that any unit attempting to hold it can take focused fire from your entire army, and even a single scoring unit protected until the end of the game can pop out and claim it at the end. Bringing lots of troops and throwing them into the midfield meat grinder to try to hold the objective is just a great way to get a lot of troops killed.
Personally i find the "win condition system" in 40k to be rather...unpolished, if not extremly onesided and borderline bad.
5 out of 6 missions is about objectives with a "special" to it, and one killpoint, and none of the missions have any variation that makes them that different, and when there first is there is no "hybrid" one that isnt a houserule.
A few they could had is similar to Fantasy where you go point-by-point for every unit you destroy ( not 1 VP per unit, but rather their points total if they are destroyed ), or another one that is a mixture of the two that count both killpoints and objectives and the total wins ( and not "most objectives win and then kills is tiebreaker" )
So basic 40k in its current state: Spam troops, transports with troops, flyers with troops, troops on bikes, troops in reserve, troops that hide under a rock, troops that would be better spendt actually doing anything the first 3 turns, and then fill the rest with the flavor unit of the month and congratulations you have a "competitive list"
I might be a little Bias`d from fantasy, but in fantasy the variation you can put into a game is so much grander than 40k, and i think the current objective play is quite restrictive as you are forced to have "optimal" troops at all times if you really want to win, and i still kinda feel it as a hollow victory when he got 80% of his units alive, but i won because i had my 2 last half-dead troop units on the objectives when the dice didnt want another round...
NecronLord3 wrote: If the Relic is involved you need more troops(scoring units)
I think this is actually the opposite. The relic is where you barely care about troops more than in a kill points mission. A single objective in the center of the table means that any unit attempting to hold it can take focused fire from your entire army, and even a single scoring unit protected until the end of the game can pop out and claim it at the end. Bringing lots of troops and throwing them into the midfield meat grinder to try to hold the objective is just a great way to get a lot of troops killed.
Your opponent can easily pick off your troops in a relic mission then ignore it and go for kill points. If you have multiple scoring units on the board and keep them graded you can make a grab for the relic in late turns with your scoring units and focus you attention any opposing units that may be denying the objective.
If you are solely playing book missions you have an entirely different set of criteria to design your army around. At most events there are multiple victory conditions, one of which can be the relic and in that you need something to claim or deny the relic and the other scoring units to go for other objectives like the Emperors will.
NecronLord3 wrote: If the Relic is involved you need more troops(scoring units)
I think this is actually the opposite. The relic is where you barely care about troops more than in a kill points mission. A single objective in the center of the table means that any unit attempting to hold it can take focused fire from your entire army, and even a single scoring unit protected until the end of the game can pop out and claim it at the end. Bringing lots of troops and throwing them into the midfield meat grinder to try to hold the objective is just a great way to get a lot of troops killed.
With my Tau I honestly just play the Relic as a Mission where only the secondary objectives matter. I think it's just a poor mission idea all together. now if any infantry unit could move it, but only troops could score it, that would make for a different game.
I think your IA tank company is a poor example for this argument. It's all one-sided in your tanks favor. Even with my Tau, which only bring about 400-500pts of troops in a 2k battle, which i feels leaves plenty of point of firepower and still gives me 6 units which can go in reserves and come in a score later in the game. 1600pts of firepower in Tau can be very effective and Tough to kill. I still don't think it's good enough to go with min troops and expect to win all your games.
Having a very good rock/paper/scissor army can mask your lack of troops very very well.
My chaos army would be useless without my plague marines and CSM squads. I mean sure we all like a hell turkey or 2 but the plague marines are the ones who win me the matches and I usually only lose in the event that somebody kills all of them (which is hard as hell).
SlaveToDorkness wrote: Ok, forgive me, how exactly are you able to only field one scoring unit with IG?
Armored Battlegroup (FW list) has tanks as troops. So I had a primary detachment of ABG with two Leman Russes which were non-scoring troops, and an allied codex IG detachment with a single Harker veteran squad as my only scoring unit.
Breng77 wrote: 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.
Yes, I'm assuming that we're talking about the standard game. If you're playing in a tournament with weird house rules for scoring this is probably a bad idea, but I'm not even going to attempt to cover the full range of weird objectives TOs keep dreaming up.
MarkyMark wrote: my troops which either have 2 plus cover saves (plague bearers)
See, this is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. I bet those troops aren't cheap, and Tau don't care about your cover save. So you've got a lot of points spent in paperweights with no offensive threat and not really enough durability to guarantee that you'll hold the objectives.
LValx wrote: 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.
Isn't this kind of a contradiction? If it's easy to keep troops alive then how can the smart opponent just kill them? Especially when you're out-gunning them by a solid margin and forcing them to play defense?
We know that 5/6 missions are based on holding objectives.
The troops slot is in most cases the only way to get a scoring unit (The scouring and big guns never tire aside)
This is kind of contradictory, since 2/5 objective missions have non-troops scoring. What we really have:
One mission where scoring is completely irrelevant (kill points).
One mission where scoring is almost completely irrelevant because holding the center objective against a maximum-firepower list is difficult at best (relic).
One mission where scoring is almost completely irrelevant because each player tends to hold their single "home" objective in a perfect castle position and fails to contest the opponent's (will).
One mission where scoring is relevant, but heavy support scores (big guns).
One mission where scoring is relevant, but fast attack scores (scouring).
One mission where scoring is relevant and only troops score.
So what we have is really 5/6 missions where either scoring is not all that important or you get additional scoring units from outside the troops slot. Only in one mission do you have to worry about scoring a lot of objectives with only your troops to do it. And even there you can still kill enemy scoring units and win with a single objective or secondaries.
Not talking about house rules for missions, but often in 3 round tournaments the overalls champion is determined by wins + margin of victory because multiple players will be undefeated. So if this is the case and I win my game 5-0 on objectives and you win 1-0 I end up with more tournament points. Take war games con for example your final place in the event was determined by total vps scored throughout all your games, so if I win my games 5-0, 6-2 and 8-4, and you have 3 1-0 wins I win the tournament and take the prize.
BaconUprising wrote: My chaos army would be useless without my plague marines and CSM squads. I mean sure we all like a hell turkey or 2 but the plague marines are the ones who win me the matches and I usually only lose in the event that somebody kills all of them (which is hard as hell).
But they are also an incredible durable special weapons platform so are no way scoring deadweight like for example cultists without an IC.
NecronLord3 wrote: Your opponent can easily pick off your troops in a relic mission then ignore it and go for kill points. If you have multiple scoring units on the board and keep them graded you can make a grab for the relic in late turns with your scoring units and focus you attention any opposing units that may be denying the objective.
But look at it this way: if my opponent can easily pick off my troops and ignore the relic after spending hundreds of points on troops of their own then I can certainly do the same back to them with several hundred points more firepower. So regardless of troops the relic just sits in the middle of the table while any unit that tries to claim it dies before it can do anything.
If you are solely playing book missions you have an entirely different set of criteria to design your army around. At most events there are multiple victory conditions, one of which can be the relic and in that you need something to claim or deny the relic and the other scoring units to go for other objectives like the Emperors will.
Well, like I said, I'm not even going to attempt to cover the huge range of weird victory conditions you can make if you don't follow the book rules. Sure, there are missions with multiple victory conditions, but there are also events like the one last weekend where you can get tabled with zero VP your first game and then win the tournament based on the third game where it's kill points except each kill point is really three VPs.
(That's exactly what happened. The scoring for the third mission was kill points with additional VPs for the difference in kill points between you and your opponent and +1 VP if you killed the unit in assault. All-assault demons tabled MSUIG for ~45 VP in an event where each mission was supposed to be about 15 VP. So that would be the broken extreme where nothing you do with objectives matters because the kill point mission gives out the most points.)
@ Peregrine. It isn't difficult to kill 1 squad of troops. It's rather difficult to kill 6+ squads however.
I just think this is a terrible idea for anyone who plays competitively.
Look at lists that generally win events. Most will be troops heavy because it is very important to be able to secure objectives. The only armies that I believe can get away with not packing lots of troops are Necrons and Eldar. Both have very, very durable and very fast transport options.
Missions and what not also impact this heavily. Almost every tournament will have their own missions and most of the big events I can think of have missions that favor holding objectives.
If it works for you, then keep doing it, but I wouldn't recommend this strategy to most players.
Breng77 wrote: Not talking about house rules for missions, but often in 3 round tournaments the overalls champion is determined by wins + margin of victory because multiple players will be undefeated.
But that's a house rule. 40k by the book is a straight win/loss/draw system, if you're counting margin of victory you're playing with your own house rules that change the victory conditions. So it's not surprising that if you change the victory conditions you also change the best strategy for winning.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LValx wrote: @ Peregrine. It isn't difficult to kill 1 squad of troops. It's rather difficult to kill 6+ squads however.
Really? Because so far I've found the exact opposite, even when I haven't taken the maximum-firepower list idea to that extreme. Troops that move out into the open die fast, and troops that GTG in terrain in a desperate attempt to stay alive aren't really doing anything (and aren't even protecting themselves against Tau) in exchange for dying a bit slower.
Look at lists that generally win events.
Well, that isn't really the best comparison since many of those events have non-standard missions which favor different armies and strategies than the normal ones. Obviously an event where you have table quarters (won by adding up the point total of scoring units in each quarter) will strongly favor giant blobs of expensive troops over token scoring units. But that's really no different than having a hypothetical event where it's nothing but kill points missions and troops are double VPs.
Well, I believe that scoring an objective, or threatening to do so is useful in and of itself. It forces your opponent to allocate firepower to the squad.
It isnt hard to kill lots of troops, but it can be quite difficult to remove entire squads of them. That is why i'd always take 5+ in a 1750 or above game.
Also, you didnt really clarify that this was solely for book missions. Most tournaments, GT or RTT, will have missions that stray from the book, either due to battle points or tiered missions, or entirely new missions.
Anyway, I think eschewing troops in favor of more killing power is a dubious prospect. Certain armies can pull it off, but I think most armies are better off building a balanced list with multiple troop options.
LValx: In book missions only would you agree with peregrin? If not, why not?
This thread is about book missions, not house ruled missions.
Edit; Also, who cares about holding objectives when you can stop them from scoring theirs (by holding them in combat or killing them) and win with first blood, warlord & linebreaker? Lots of non-scoring units can deny objectives just by being in range.
I think this boils down to how effective your lists troops are at killing. The books with better troops, ie Necrons, don't have to entertain such a compromise. Space marines, on the other hand, might want to consider this.
LValx wrote: Also, you didnt really clarify that this was solely for book missions. Most tournaments, GT or RTT, will have missions that stray from the book, either due to battle points or tiered missions, or entirely new missions.
I said in my first or second reply that this is just standard by-the-book 40k, since trying to come up with strategy for the huge range of very different house rules involved in non-standard missions would be impossible.
TedNugent wrote: By contrast, if he has 2-3 scoring units, you have to destroy that many more targets.
Sure, but I also have a lot more points in firepower to do it since I'm not putting hundreds of points into a point sink unit that just sits on an objective all game.
If he rolls first turn and you only have one scoring 10 man Tactical Squad, he only needs enough firepower to destroy that one Tactical Squad.
But it's not that simple. My two 5-man tactical squads will GTG for a 2+ cover save, and every shot thrown at 2+ cover is a shot not going to one of my killing units. And if you don't try to stop the killing units I will table you.
Breng77 wrote: Not talking about house rules for missions, but often in 3 round tournaments the overalls champion is determined by wins + margin of victory because multiple players will be undefeated.
But that's a house rule. 40k by the book is a straight win/loss/draw system, if you're counting margin of victory you're playing with your own house rules that change the victory conditions. So it's not surprising that if you change the victory conditions you also change the best strategy for winning.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LValx wrote: @ Peregrine. It isn't difficult to kill 1 squad of troops. It's rather difficult to kill 6+ squads however.
Really? Because so far I've found the exact opposite, even when I haven't taken the maximum-firepower list idea to that extreme. Troops that move out into the open die fast, and troops that GTG in terrain in a desperate attempt to stay alive aren't really doing anything (and aren't even protecting themselves against Tau) in exchange for dying a bit slower.
Look at lists that generally win events.
Well, that isn't really the best comparison since many of those events have non-standard missions which favor different armies and strategies than the normal ones. Obviously an event where you have table quarters (won by adding up the point total of scoring units in each quarter) will strongly favor giant blobs of expensive troops over token scoring units. But that's really no different than having a hypothetical event where it's nothing but kill points missions and troops are double VPs.
So essentially you are saying if you don't play tournaments, because here are no brb rules for declaring a tournament winner and a majority of events factor in margin of victory as a way to break ties between players with identical records.
LValx wrote: Also, you didnt really clarify that this was solely for book missions. Most tournaments, GT or RTT, will have missions that stray from the book, either due to battle points or tiered missions, or entirely new missions.
I said in my first or second reply that this is just standard by-the-book 40k, since trying to come up with strategy for the huge range of very different house rules involved in non-standard missions would be impossible.
TedNugent wrote: By contrast, if he has 2-3 scoring units, you have to destroy that many more targets.
Sure, but I also have a lot more points in firepower to do it since I'm not putting hundreds of points into a point sink unit that just sits on an objective all game.
If he rolls first turn and you only have one scoring 10 man Tactical Squad, he only needs enough firepower to destroy that one Tactical Squad.
But it's not that simple. My two 5-man tactical squads will GTG for a 2+ cover save, and every shot thrown at 2+ cover is a shot not going to one of my killing units. And if you don't try to stop the killing units I will table you.
Lots of assumptions here.
Your minimal troops are inexpensive. Perhaps your two 5 man tactical squads cost more than my three cultist units.
Maybe what I shoot them with ignore their cover saves.
You table me just because I take a turn to wipe your troops.
But it's not that simple. My two 5-man tactical squads will GTG for a 2+ cover save, and every shot thrown at 2+ cover is a shot not going to one of my killing units. And if you don't try to stop the killing units I will table you.
Not that simple for most armies, maybe, but you still have Heldrakes to worry about. Wounds on 2s, template autohits, ignores cover and AP3. Plus assaults. You can't shoot something once it's in assault.
I don't think that wiping out your opponent is a sound strategy.
@ Blaggard. I think even with book missions, it is wise to invest in troops.
How many troops a person should take is going to be dependent on a TON of factors. Fast denial units can allow you to field less troops. Super durable troops can allow you to field less troops, etc. Codex is also important, for example you can grab 6x 10 Kroot for less than 400 points. For marines to take 6 squads they will generally be spending more than that and then the squads would still be quite small.
Yeah, I think it's interesting that Perregrine is relying on GtG to save his 2x5 Scoring, but is confident that he will be able to shoot through and entire army's worth of scoring...which could very well GtG itself...
NecronLord3 wrote:If you have multiple scoring units on the board and keep them graded you can make a grab for the relic in late turns with your scoring units and focus you attention any opposing units that may be denying the objective.
Not if your army got wasted by your opponent and he's got more or less his entire army in-tact against just a couple of scoring units.
Virtually every relic game I've seen has been determined by who got first blood. The fact that a model, not a unit, picks up the relic, and you've got to deal with 6th ed wound allocation, and you can only score at the end of your movement phase, it's really, really, really easy to stop a scoring model from holding the relic at the end of the game.
Going for the relic early on seems to be the worst way to play that mission, and going for the relic late means against any degree of savviness, your opponent will just stop you from getting it.
Breng77 wrote:Not talking about house rules for missions, but often in 3 round tournaments the overalls champion is determined by wins + margin of victory because multiple players will be undefeated.
Well, that depends. Furthermore, getting to undefeated is better than having a few losses, but getting more points on the ones you win.
It's a real sacrifice to take low-killing-power troops units. Especially if you don't have to.
LValx wrote: It isn't difficult to kill 1 squad of troops. It's rather difficult to kill 6+ squads however.
Firstly, you don't have to. You can also contest objectives.
Secondly, there are plenty of units in 40k that are dedicated to killing scoring units. Killing 6 troops squad isn't that difficult.
Thirdly, if you're bringing 6 scoring units, what else are you bringing in your list? If you're packing all those low-killing-power troops units, that means you're not being competitive on killing power. I've played enough foot guard to know that having a giant damage sponge of 100+ guardsmen that don't do much damage just getting tabled on turn 4. Bringing 9 scoring units is NOT a guarantee that you're going to have any of them left at the end of the game (much less uncontested, and on objectives), especially against an opponent who has focused on killing power.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: Yes, because picking which unit your opponent won't be able to shoot or move next turn is a bad thing...
You don't pick them, they do. And when the units primary purpose is to score, as delineated by the OP, then they really don't care if they aren't moving or shooting next turn. So yes, it is a bad thing if they can easily remove your modicum of scoring and you can't do the same. Glad we can agree on that.
It's hard to see the importance of Infantry when your requisite units have battlecannons.
This. You probably should not say tournaments are invalid when the main point of reference is an IA list.
Yes, certain troop units are mostly dead weight, but those are generally in the minority. Most troop units may not be as killy as other FOC options, but the difference is relatively minor (especially when cost is factored in). Unless you go to the extreme and take tons of dead weight troops, the minor loss in firepower should be offset by having multiple paths to victory rather than hoping you get first blood.
Gornall wrote:Yes, certain troop units are mostly dead weight, but those are generally in the minority.
Really?
Of course, you're correct when you're talking about elites choices that can be taken as troops per special rules. Deathwing terminators with Belial are going to be just as killy as deathwing terminators without.
Also, there are a few others I can think of that punch like a heavier unit, like imperial guard veterans who get to tote around 3 BS4 special weapons and a BS4 heavy weapon (and can take a chimera), and firewarriors with their heavy-weapons-as-small-arms. That's elites-level punching for a troops-level unit. I'm scouring my brain to think of others, though. Tac marines don't kill things like sternguard, CSM don't kill things like terminators, guardians, cultists, penal legionnaires, scouts, DE warriors, ork boyz, infantry platoons, strike squads...
... the list goes on and on of troops choices that don't have even close to the amount of killing power as their points spent in other slots, and by no small amount. It seems to me that you really do have to pay a premium for the ability to score. An ability that's not actually as useful as it initially seems.
And not for it's cost either. I'm kind of starting to think that units have to overpay for scoring like units have traditionally overpayed if their weapons were Ap3.
Gornall wrote: You probably should not say tournaments are invalid when the main point of reference is an IA list.
First of all, the IA list is part of standard 40k. Weird tournament scenarios that reward one-sided massacres more than a narrow victory are not part of standard 40k.
Second, I only took the ABG list because I wanted to enter a tank in the "best painted troops choice" contest. I could have taken the same kind of list, except probably more powerful, with a codex IG list + allies.
Of course I do. If I toss a few Basilisk shots at your scoring unit I've chosen to make it go to ground and be useless next turn (or just die). So you're staying alive, but now your expensive legitimate troops unit is no better than my cheap penal legion squad.
And when the units primary purpose is to score, as delineated by the OP, then they really don't care if they aren't moving or shooting next turn.
But they still cost points. The whole point here is that you're spending a lot of points on units which don't contribute anything until the game is over, while I'm spending those points on units that are killing stuff all game. So really we're playing a 1500 vs 1000 point game for 5-7 turns while your point sink scoring units hide behind an ADL.
Breng77 wrote: So essentially you are saying if you don't play tournaments, because here are no brb rules for declaring a tournament winner and a majority of events factor in margin of victory as a way to break ties between players with identical records.
All you have to do is play enough rounds that you have a single undefeated winner.
Anyway, the point is that tournaments have a huge range of house rules. Some play straight win/lose/draw with enough rounds to determine a winner, some play margin of victory with a short event, some have various weird victory conditions, etc. There's no point in trying to analyze a general strategy that covers all of them, so we stick to the standard rules as a default.
And you consider Fire Warriors weapons as special but not DE Warriors? I would say wounding everything in the game on a 4+ from a rapid fire weapon is pretty special.
And all of the new Eldar basic troops have some pretty special fire power, albeit short range, but with fleet, battle focus, and Wave Serpents that isn't really as limiting a factor as it use to be.
ImotekhTheStormlord wrote: This varies massively over armies. Tau are reliant on fire warriors/kroot in the same way orks need boyz. IG however...
Perhaps it would be best to narrow this topic to a specific army.
I find CSM to be reliant on plague marines for objective, and the othe option as cultist to do nothing on objectives.
CSM may fall under the list of armies that can take low number of troops, most...all of the killy units are in other FOC really. Minimal troops will improve the armies killing power, but weaken its tactical advantages.
Actually Tau were one of the armies I was thinking of that best use a minimal-troops strategy. Since you have overwhelming firepower from your shooting units and the ability to ignore cover with everything (no-cover Riptide pie plates wipe entire scoring units off the table with a single shot) you're great at killing enemy scoring units, but your own scoring units aren't really that great at scoring.
ShadarLogoth wrote: I would say wounding everything in the game on a 4+ from a rapid fire weapon is pretty special.
I wouldn't. They're literally no better than a bolter against anything T4, and they're WORSE than a bolter against anything T3. Really, it's against just one class of target that they have any serious advantage, but said class of target also tends to have a lot of wounds and a decent save.
Meanwhile, pulse weapons are something properly special, because, while they're only wounding MCs on 5's, rather than 4's (which is still better than 6's), they also have a 30" range and can blow up rhinos and fliers and a whole host of light vehicles. And they wound T3 on 2+, rather than 4+, which is pretty nifty, especially combined with said range advantage and being in a codex that can ignore cover saves.
Splinter weapons are basically lasguns that are also good against monstrous creatures. Pulse weapons are heavy bolters with -1 Ap. There's a pretty big difference between those two.
ShadarLogoth wrote:And all of the new Eldar basic troops have some pretty special fire power, albeit short range, but with fleet, battle focus, and Wave Serpents that isn't really as limiting a factor as it use to be.
Once again, nothing special.
A guardian squad with a meltagun isn't nearly the same as a squad of fire dragons when you're talking about killing power. In fact, eldar troops (excepting wraithguard - who are usually elites) are badly outclassed per-point by other stuff in their codex.
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? ability.
The more troops you have means the higher probability of being able to hold those objectives. If you have only a few troop squads then they may not be able to hold that one objective.
ShadarLogoth wrote: Tell that to MVB who just one a GT with 100 Kroot. Kroot are definitely in the discussion of very efficient scoring units.
And which house rules were in effect at this event?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Remulus wrote: The more troops you have means the higher probability of being able to hold those objectives. If you have only a few troop squads then they may not be able to hold that one objective.
But it's not that simple. Having fewer troops squads also means you have a lot more firepower in your list, so your few troops will quickly be taking less and less firepower. That is, if your opponent can even think about shooting at models with a 2+ cover save instead of trying to stop the giant blob of guns that is busy wrecking all their stuff.
and they're WORSE than a bolter against anything T3
That's not true. They are generally 30 to 50% cheaper then a bolter.
but said class of target also tends to have a lot of wounds and a decent save.
And....how does that diminish their advantage against said target?
Splinter weapons are basically lasguns that are also good against monstrous creatures.
Horribly inaccurate statement. They would T4 on a 4+, T5 on a 4+, T6 on a 4+, T7 on a 4+, T8 on a 4+, T9 on a 4+, T10 on a 4+. The first two classes don't belong to MCs. Also, MCs are much more prolific in the current Meta then they use to be. Also, you forget about Nurgle, Bikes, Grots, and all the other Higher then 4 T units in the game.
Pulse weapons are all in all a nice bump, but they never enjoy the super efficiency that Splinter has against T5+, and they are also on BS 3 Models that require an additional investment in points to even be on par with Splinter weapons against T4 and higher.
A guardian squad with a meltagun isn't nearly the same as a squad of fire dragons when you're talking about killing power.
Relative to their point cost, a guardian squad is MUCH better at killing infantry of all kinds then a dragon squad. And it's not even close.
And which house rules were in effect at this event?
One issue with minimal scoring is that it's very hard to protect any given unit against someone who brings the right things. A Manticore will wipe out guys hiding behind an Aegis, Go to Ground or no Go to Ground. A unit with camo-cloaks in area terrain may be able to get a 2+ from Going to Ground, but then cover-ignoring weapons like the Colossus, Thunderfire Cannon, or any Tau unit with Markerlight support can still take you down.
Worse still, Tau Smart Missile Systems can kill you from out of Line of Sight and ignore cover to boot. Riptides can fire 8 SMS shots per turn on a mobile and threatening platform. All in all, I think "just hide" armies are-- deceptively enough-- very effective in low-level play (where people don't know how to deal with them), but quite ineffective in advanced play, where people will field a variety of units and be experienced with dealing with such methods.
ShadarLogoth wrote:That's not true. They are generally 30 to 50% cheaper then a bolter.
So? It still doesn't make them a high-killing-power unit.
ShadarLogoth wrote:They would T4 on a 4+, T5 on a 4+, T6 on a 4+, T7 on a 4+, T8 on a 4+, T9 on a 4+, T10 on a 4+
But get real. Just how many T5, 6, 7, and 8 units are you actually coming up against? Not that many. A huge majority of what you're going to come across is T3, in which case, the splinter weapon is a lasgun, or T4, in which case the splinter weapon isn't better than a bolter, or something with an AV, in which case, once again, the splinter weapon is only as good as a lasgun.
It's not that there is NOTHING better about splinter weapons compared to regular small arms, it's just that its bonuses fall into a pretty narrow niche. Outside of that niche, they're nothing special. They're just Sv 6+ dudes with a regular small arm.
Ho hum.
ShadarLogoth wrote:Relative to their point cost, a guardian squad is MUCH better at killing infantry of all kinds then a dragon squad. And it's not even close.
The only thing that's "not close" is when you look at all your options compared to guardians. Find something guardians can do, and you'll find an elites choice (or FA, or HS) that does its job much better.
Because if you're going to compare guardians against infantry to fire dragons (rather than against tanks, which was the point of what I was saying), then you've got to compare guardians against infantry compared to scorpions or banshees or warp spiders or scatter laser spam or a huge pile of other stuff that still does what guardians do better.
Kingsley wrote: One issue with minimal scoring is that it's very hard to protect any given unit against someone who brings the right things. A Manticore will wipe out guys hiding behind an Aegis, Go to Ground or no Go to Ground. A unit with camo-cloaks in area terrain may be able to get a 2+ from Going to Ground, but then cover-ignoring weapons like the Colossus, Thunderfire Cannon, or any Tau unit with Markerlight support
Right, but the question here is which option helps more with this problem: bringing more scoring units to die helplessly against those threats, or bringing more killing units to remove them from the table faster.
Because if you're going to compare guardians against infantry to fire dragons (rather than against tanks, which was the point of what I was saying), then you've got to compare guardians against infantry compared to scorpions or banshees or warp spiders or scatter laser spam or a huge pile of other stuff that still does what guardians do better.
Guardians are more efficient infantry killers then just about everything just just mentioned. It turns out that 9 point Assault 2 rending weapons are pretty efficient at killing infantry. They have there range limitations, to be sure, but that is a rather small bridge to cross.
If by "small bridge" you mean "gets hideously butchered trying to get in range to fire once", then yeah, it's no big deal. Furthermore, shuriken weapons don't ignore cover saves, and, as mentioned, time is against them as they're not going to get to fire for the first couple of turns. And then when they do, they're going to be killed the turn after, if they weren't already wiped out before they got a chance to shoot.
Guardians don't do more than most troops units - sitting around most of the game twiddling their thumbs and hoping that a target falls into their lap that's weak enough for them to be able to handle.
Mopping up broken squads eventually isn't as good as killing them straight-away right now. Especially since killing power in the beginning of the game has a lot of benefits.
Ailaros wrote: If by "small bridge" you mean "gets hideously butchered trying to get in range to fire once", then yeah, it's no big deal. Furthermore, shuriken weapons don't ignore cover saves, and, as mentioned, time is against them as they're not going to get to fire for the first couple of turns. And then when they do, they're going to be killed the turn after, if they weren't already wiped out before they got a chance to shoot.
Guardians don't do more than most troops units - sitting around most of the game twiddling their thumbs and hoping that a target falls into their lap that's weak enough for them to be able to handle.
Mopping up broken squads eventually isn't as good as killing them straight-away right now. Especially since killing power in the beginning of the game has a lot of benefits.
Uh.....They have Rending...or..."rending" so, yeah, they do ignore armor saves. They also have access to Wave Serpents, which it turns out are pretty good in there own right, and keeps them alive and gets them into the fray a lot quicker then you seem to realize.
Plus, if you think its that easy to kill Guardians once they are in range and start dancing in and out of rapid fire range and LOS with Battle Focus, you clearly haven't played a competent Eldar player yet with the new book.
Replace Guardians with DA's and this problem is magnified. Battle Focus, it turns out, is a pretty good ability too.
And practically everything in the eldar codex has access to a wave serpent. Filling them with crummy units isn't the best way to go.
And I think guardians are plenty easy to kill. It's called torrent weapons. It's called whirlwinds, colossuses, TFCs, and eradicators. It's called deepstriking flamer weapons.
There are LOTs of weapons out there that can kill off infantry before they get a chance to shoot short-ranged guns of their own.
My guess is that you haven't played against a competent player who knows how to kill scoring units with minimal effort yet.
ShadarLogoth wrote: Plus, if you think its that easy to kill Guardians once they are in range and start dancing in and out of rapid fire range and LOS with Battle Focus, you clearly haven't played a competent Eldar player yet with the new book.
I think you're really overstating the difficulty here. With a 12" assault weapon you have to be significantly inside 12" to use it (if you're 11.99999" away you can only wound the closest model), and battle focus only takes you D6" away. Your target unit can then move 6" closer to you and return fire. Most of them should be in rapid fire range of at least one model, and the 24" maximum range ensures that your entire unit within range to be wounded even if only a few models are within 12".
Now, you can of course choose to be really cautious and stay at the extreme edge of your range, but then you aren't really killing enough for the unit to matter.
I can agree with some of the dexs' out there. IG except for sabre platforms is either completely inefficient for fire power or semi-inefficient.
Vets can be good if you can get them where they need to be (which can be a challenge but that is a different discussion).
Scoring only troops are not really worth it but for the same reason no one likes hydras or any other unit that is only barely competent to perform 1 task. I think scoring should be judged just like killing purpose. So when you decide to take a vendetta because it is good against both AA and AV killing or broadsides because they are excellent AV killing. You should also judge are the scoring troops you are bringing bringing enough staying power vs fire power utility.
Ailros I believe you will never value any eldar unit as you have many times discounted speed as a benefit. Eldar/D.Eldar both pay a premium for this speed. I have found that the real star of the eldar troops slot are jetbikes, wraithguard, or waveserpents. If I could load waveserpents with cultists from CSM to save points I would. However on that note you should recognize that guardians and direavengers are pretty great against GEQ. This is one unit type the CWE mech lists tend to have relatively little fire power to deal with so they can bring a necessary firepower component to these lists.
Lots of eldar units have speed. Good ones, too, that can actually kill stuff.
Anyways, here's another way to think about it. Take a squad of guardsmen, and ask yourself how much you would pay for them if they WEREN'T scoring.
If your answer is more towards "I'd still pay 50 points", that means that scoring isn't a very useful ability. It's 50 points for the guardsmen, and the scoring is free. If, on the other hand, your answer is more like "Without scoring, I'd only pay 10 points for them", then what you're saying is that guard squads are complete and utter garbage. To which I'd say, why are you taking garbage units that aren't good enough to affect the course of the game?
Even if you do think that scoring is useful, and the guardsmen are terrible, when you start to take into account all of the things that make scoring units less important, you're left with pretty much a terrible unit that can only be anywhere near worth their points so long as your opponent doesn't know how to contest objectives, or to bring weapons that can kill scoring units.
Basically, you're spending X number of points for the unit itself, and spending the remainder up to their actual cost on a wager that your opponent is dumb, or didn't bring the right list. Not to say that you can't win on that gamble, but I don't know how much it's worth putting your proverbial money down on purpose most games.
Fair enough, sure did. But, then again, just about anything you are comparing them against will have to deal with cover as well. Math Hammer 90 points of Guardians with 95 points of Spiders if you don't believe me, and take cover into account.
And practically everything in the eldar codex has access to a wave serpent. Filling them with crummy units isn't the best way to go.
You are begging the question here. You are saying Guardians (or DA's) are crumy, because they are crummy.
And I think guardians are plenty easy to kill. It's called torrent weapons. It's called whirlwinds, colossuses, TFCs, and eradicators. It's called deepstriking flamer weapons.
And how do those kill 9 point Guardians anymore efficiently then the kill 17 to 19 point aspects? (the answer is they don't)
There are LOTs of weapons out there that can kill off infantry before they get a chance to shoot short-ranged guns of their own.
Not if they are in a Wave Serpent.
My guess is that you haven't played against a competent player who knows how to kill scoring units with minimal effort yet.
Yeah. I can't imagine a meta where such a thing even exists. Your guess, like your dubious position here, would be wrong.
I think you're really overstating the difficulty here. With a 12" assault weapon you have to be significantly inside 12" to use it (if you're 11.99999" away you can only wound the closest model), and battle focus only takes you D6" away. Your target unit can then move 6" closer to you and return fire. Most of them should be in rapid fire range of at least one model, and the 24" maximum range ensures that your entire unit within range to be wounded even if only a few models are within 12".
You are forgetting the casualties the opponent takes widens the gap between you and them. Also, you are forgetting Guardians can take a weapon platform with a 24" range (or more), allowing them to kill anything in the unit even if only one Guardian is 11.9" away
SO..If you kill roughly 3 bases/salvo, and only put yourself within range of the closest base, and kill them plus the next 3 closest bases, then the next base is already 12" plus base plus spacing (generally 2" if you have any templates in the army that are concerned with, which you should...) away. So before even running back, you are already 15 to 21" away. Don't need a very lucky run roll (with a re-roll) to fill in the rest, and get you out of double tap range.
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:
The problem is, the moment you face a similar list your solo troop gets blown away by a casual Manticore round. This strategy seems to rely heavily on being the only guy taking advantage of Imperial Big Guns.
Dakkamite wrote: The problem is, the moment you face a similar list your solo troop gets blown away by a casual Manticore round. This strategy seems to rely heavily on being the only guy taking advantage of Imperial Big Guns.
So why can't I just return fire, kill their single scoring unit, and win the game on secondaries?
Also, I should point out that the list I took didn't have any Vendettas. If I take a competitive version of the list it's going to have at least 1-2 Vendettas, each with a cheap scoring unit aboard that I can deliver late in the game.
Well assuming your opponent has built a more TAC list, he will have more scoring units that need firepower allocated to them than you do.
I think by taking very few troops (especially in a codex that gives easy access to very cheap troops) is a bit of gamble, one I certainly wouldn't take in a competitive setting. But that is also a bit of personal preference, I'll always take the army with a higher floor, even if it also has a lower ceiling.
LValx wrote: Well assuming your opponent has built a more TAC list, he will have more scoring units that need firepower allocated to them than you do.
But the hypothetical there was facing a similar list. And if my opponent brings the same list I don't really see much of a problem, mirror matches are often 50/50 coin flips so saying "you struggle with the mirror match" isn't really saying very much.
By similar I'm referring more to the IG Barrage Weapons aspect than the solo troop choice. Anything that can kill your one troop through cover, aegis etc is gonna leave you with a maximum possible 3 VP without Big Guns Never Tire and such.
Dakkamite wrote: By similar I'm referring more to the IG Barrage Weapons aspect than the solo troop choice. Anything that can kill your one troop through cover, aegis etc is gonna leave you with a maximum possible 3 VP without Big Guns Never Tire and such.
Well, like I said, in the competitive version of the list my 1-2 troops will be aboard 1-2 Vendettas until late in the game, so the barrage threat is a lot less impressive.
Sticking them in Vendettas makes it slightly more viable, but not by much. Cron Air works because it has 4 of them. 2 Vendettas isn't terrible difficult for most armies to shoot down.
I just dont see what you gain by dropping troops to the minimum. At 1750 and above you can easily fill out most of your non-troops slots while still fielding a lot of troops. For example, Andrew Gonyo's (and MVBs) "Skytide":
Guard can also do this quite easily. And since you are for the inclusion of FW you can just grab Sabres which are both much more resilient than regular troops and offer useful supporting fire that rivals what is available in other slots.
I'm just not sure you are gaining enough firepower to make up for the flexibility you lose in taking a multitude of troops.
LValx wrote: I just dont see what you gain by dropping troops to the minimum.
Points. That list has 720 points spent on Kroot, which is over a third of your points spent on units that aren't going to contribute very much until you count objectives at the end of the game.
And since you are for the inclusion of FW you can just grab Sabres which are both much more resilient than regular troops and offer useful supporting fire that rivals what is available in other slots.
I admit that Sabre spam makes this plan pointless, since they're powerful shooting units you'd bring even if they weren't troops, on top of being excellent objective holders. But since Sabres are so hated (when they aren't outright banned) I've been looking at ways of playing IG without them. Which, TBH, makes things more interesting. I know I can build a Sabre spam list and do well, and there isn't really much to discuss about it.
LValx wrote: I just dont see what you gain by dropping troops to the minimum.
Points. That list has 720 points spent on Kroot, which is over a third of your points spent on units that aren't going to contribute very much until you count objectives at the end of the game.
And since you are for the inclusion of FW you can just grab Sabres which are both much more resilient than regular troops and offer useful supporting fire that rivals what is available in other slots.
I admit that Sabre spam makes this plan pointless, since they're powerful shooting units you'd bring even if they weren't troops, on top of being excellent objective holders. But since Sabres are so hated (when they aren't outright banned) I've been looking at ways of playing IG without them. Which, TBH, makes things more interesting. I know I can build a Sabre spam list and do well, and there isn't really much to discuss about it.
If you honestly think those Kroot only contribute by scoring and staying alive, you are really out of touch with the Tau codex. Outflanking Kroot will almost always alphastrike and with Ethereal support they can do a great deal of damage.
Guard blobs, Marines, Warriors/Immortals, Tervigons, etc. There are plenty of troops that can contribute in meaningful ways to an army. In fact, i'd say that useless "deck chairs" are in the minority with Plaguebearers and Cultists being the two popular units that best exemplify such a role. I do agree that it is harder to stomach investing massive amounts of points in such units. But you can easily field 60 Cultists for little cost and by doing so greatly increase the probability of winning a game by holding objectives. Plaguebearers are quite hardy for their cost against all armies not named Tau.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And I understand you gain points, obviously that is a given. What point level are we talking about? What does your list look like? How many HS, Elites and FA do you still have available? Then tell me exactly what you are trading troops to gain. Once we've got all that info I think it becomes a bit easier to debate the usefulness of skimping on troops.
LValx wrote: If you honestly think those Kroot only contribute by scoring and staying alive, you are really out of touch with the Tau codex. Outflanking Kroot will almost always alphastrike and with Ethereal support they can do a great deal of damage.
I don't really see it. Even at close range with the ethereal bonus it's just a bunch of bolter shots from a T3/no-save unit. I guess you just hope your opponent isn't playing a mech list, or MEQs/TEQs, or willing to GTG in decent cover?
LValx wrote: If you honestly think those Kroot only contribute by scoring and staying alive, you are really out of touch with the Tau codex. Outflanking Kroot will almost always alphastrike and with Ethereal support they can do a great deal of damage.
I don't really see it. Even at close range with the ethereal bonus it's just a bunch of bolter shots. I guess you just hope your opponent isn't playing a mech list, or MEQs/TEQs, or willing to GTG in decent cover?
20 Kroot will put out 60 Bolter shots with the bonus. Without markerlights thats an average of 15 wounds on T4. That's half a squad of marines dead, or a few TEQs. Lots of Guard vehicles have AV10 side, meaning the Kroot will likely wreck the vehicle. With accurate outflank it also isn't otherworldly to think that the Kroot could get rear armor, which is likely 10 as well. GTG is usually going to be a 3+ and the models GTG will most likely be T3 meaning more wounds to save. Add in the ability for Markerlights to boost them heavily and you start to get an idea of how devastating it can be. You may not believe it works, but coming from someone who has tested the Tau codex heavily, I can say with full confidence that Kroot are a great tool for any army to have.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Kroot have very little defensive capability, but a savvy Tau player should be focusing on removing things that can ignore cover, etc, early on, that way the Kroot can better abuse rules such as GTG to vastly increase their durability. With Markerlight shenanigans and mass shots the Kroot can even do damage while snapshotting, so they could still contribute even after having GTG.
I know I'm getting in kind of late, but I dig on my troops. As a Salamander pod player, I get a lot of mileage out of my tactical squads. I also frequently take a scout sniper squad, although if I had access to better snipers, I would probably be tempted to take those instead.
Still, I've been fairly satisfied with my troops. I've got several units in my codex that I'm not a fan of, but my troops are way down the list.
Necessary? Probably not. But worth it? I think so.
Kingsley wrote: One issue with minimal scoring is that it's very hard to protect any given unit against someone who brings the right things. A Manticore will wipe out guys hiding behind an Aegis, Go to Ground or no Go to Ground. A unit with camo-cloaks in area terrain may be able to get a 2+ from Going to Ground, but then cover-ignoring weapons like the Colossus, Thunderfire Cannon, or any Tau unit with Markerlight support
Right, but the question here is which option helps more with this problem: bringing more scoring units to die helplessly against those threats, or bringing more killing units to remove them from the table faster.
In practice, bringing more scoring units seems more effective. As I said earlier, I think that taking minimal scoring-- like most unbalanced builds-- is a "trap option" that can wreck low-level players but ends up killing you against high-level players.
Basically, this thread boils down to "There is more than one way to build a list" and "it is important you have a clear battleplan in mind when deciding how many troops to take," does it not?
I would suggest that you either need to minimise the number of troops you take, whilst not denying yourself a chance of winning, or find a way to build your list in which your troops can still be effective, without denying yourself other effective options from your codex.
No single list will ever have an answer to every possibility here. One side of this argument needs to admit that whilst a low troop strategy may be very effective, it won't win you every single game (and I don't think Peregrine is trying to argue such a list will win every match, just that it will often be very effective. Forgive me for putting words in your mouth though) and the other side need to admit that just because you can find situations that will counter this strategy, it doesn't make it a bad strategy (and I am not sure some of the more vocal opponents realise that imperfect != bad)
I believe the argument is to advocate taking fewer scoring troops and focus on other units who have much better skills or stats or what have you to make your list more effective.
schadenfreude wrote: The title of the thread assumes troops are weak units, and the tripe of an army list.
I didn't think it assumed anything. It seems pretty clear that Peregrine was attempting to start a useful discussion over the validity of troops over other, possibly (possibly not) more competitive unit choices. Like you, I don't agree with the stance that troops are not worth it, but that's no reason to think the thread was unjustified. It's a legitimate question based on some real-world experiences, and worthy of some closer examination.
Gornall wrote: You probably should not say tournaments are invalid when the main point of reference is an IA list.
First of all, the IA list is part of standard 40k. Weird tournament scenarios that reward one-sided massacres more than a narrow victory are not part of standard 40k.
Second, I only took the ABG list because I wanted to enter a tank in the "best painted troops choice" contest. I could have taken the same kind of list, except probably more powerful, with a codex IG list + allies.
Of course I do. If I toss a few Basilisk shots at your scoring unit I've chosen to make it go to ground and be useless next turn (or just die). So you're staying alive, but now your expensive legitimate troops unit is no better than my cheap penal legion squad.
And when the units primary purpose is to score, as delineated by the OP, then they really don't care if they aren't moving or shooting next turn.
But they still cost points. The whole point here is that you're spending a lot of points on units which don't contribute anything until the game is over, while I'm spending those points on units that are killing stuff all game. So really we're playing a 1500 vs 1000 point game for 5-7 turns while your point sink scoring units hide behind an ADL.
Breng77 wrote: So essentially you are saying if you don't play tournaments, because here are no brb rules for declaring a tournament winner and a majority of events factor in margin of victory as a way to break ties between players with identical records.
All you have to do is play enough rounds that you have a single undefeated winner.
Anyway, the point is that tournaments have a huge range of house rules. Some play straight win/lose/draw with enough rounds to determine a winner, some play margin of victory with a short event, some have various weird victory conditions, etc. There's no point in trying to analyze a general strategy that covers all of them, so we stick to the standard rules as a default.
A relatively few gts have enough rounds to have a single undefeated players and single day event almost never do (once you have more than 8 players most 3 round events are too short, and once you go to more than 16 one day events will not be win loss.). So when looking at general tournaments we would be better served looking at margin of victory as a typical rule.
SlaveToDorkness wrote:The difference is he's stacking his deck with LRMBTs.
It's hard to see the importance of Infantry when your requisite units have battlecannons.
Battlecannons are overrated when your playing Xenos armies.
Peregrine wrote:I think you're really overstating the difficulty here. With a 12" assault weapon you have to be significantly inside 12" to use it (if you're 11.99999" away you can only wound the closest model), and battle focus only takes you D6" away. Your target unit can then move 6" closer to you and return fire. Most of them should be in rapid fire range of at least one model, and the 24" maximum range ensures that your entire unit within range to be wounded even if only a few models are within 12".
Now, you can of course choose to be really cautious and stay at the extreme edge of your range, but then you aren't really killing enough for the unit to matter.
That's why you stick at heavy weapons platform in the guardian squad. Maybe you should read the FAQsagain.
Q: When making a Shooting attack against a unit, can Wounds
from the Wound Pool be allocated to models that were not within
range any of the shooting models when To Hit rolls were made (i.e.
half the targeted model are in the shooting models’ range, and half
are not)? (p15)
A: No.
I think 6th edition has moved to a much more deadly game than 5th. Vehicles aren't the indestructible boxes of doom they once were. Gone are the days of the universal 4+ cover save. Shooting got much deadlier, moving around got much harder. You have to take minimal troops choices or you have to take a troops choice that is durable or offensively front loaded. You take a gamble on drawing and winning objective missions in exchange for some drop off in firepower-per-point or you take a gamble in the other direction, minimum troops, maximum offensive potential.
Examples of durable troops with decent firepower: Ork Shoota Blobs, Chaos Space Marine Blobs, Scoring Terminators
Examples of front loaded offensive troops: IG Vets, Full Purifier Squads (With Crowe of course), Min Plague Marine squads with dual plasmas
I don't like it, but I think that it is an absolutely valid, and EFFECTIVE, strategy to minimize your troops. Pay the minimum tax, some crappy troops going to ground every turn and then load up on your havocs, vindicators, leman russ, etc. It's possible that, with the extra firepower, you'll table a troop heavy army before the game ends. This game favors offensive power. That being said, I like to make sure that none of my list is dead weight. My 20 x CSM with dual specials is a unit that is durable, scoring, and can offer appreciable anti infantry and anti tank/TEQ. It's a great generalist unit. I'd rather have two strong blobs of them, than some min squads of cultists that do absolute gak. I'd probably be able to fit in a few more havoc squads, maybe more Chaos Termies or oblits if I chose to do so, but I like having all the models on the table be good for something other than sitting on their ass.
Frankly speaking, unless you have a codex that has a very strong troops choice, I'd say you're right Peregrine. Troops aren't really worth it based solely on their ability to score, especially considering two of the scenarios allow your fast attack or heavy support to score as well.
Considering we now have 3 VPs for getting all the secondaries, it's very possible that you can win without taking a single objective. Especially if you blow the other troops choices to gak. Then if you nab first blood and warlord while protecting you're own then you've won, even if they decided to try and blow up your paltry squads of 10 cultists sitting in the back field.
Considering we now have 3 VPs for getting all the secondaries, it's very possible that you can win without taking a single objective. Especially if you blow the other troops choices to gak. Then if you nab first blood and warlord while protecting you're own then you've won, even if they decided to try and blow up your paltry squads of 10 cultists sitting in the back field.
This.
First blood and warlord are mostly the defining factor the games I play. In many games, it isn't enough to hold the objective, you have to be able to stop the opponent contesting the objective in order to get the points. Given that in at least 2 of the objective missions you'll "get" scoring units from Fast Attack and Heavy Support I will often run minimal troops units. I think that the key issue is to make sure that you can contest objectives at the right time, even if you can't score them.
I recently started a GK army (for a change from Crons) which was interesting. After a few games, despite how good the GKSS are (compared to warriors!), I converted up some warrior acolytes for troops. I've found my army works better with more interceptors and another DK. I guess I value mobility over scoring.
Even with the Crons, I'll happily reduce troops to free up points for something else - and I don't play Cron Air.
I think this argument suffers from a lack of stasis. The two people who are staunchly in favor of minimizing troops in a unilateral sense are both those who hold minority viewpoints--one plays with strange limitations and consistently argues against the accepted norm for attention, the other believes that all tournaments are a perversion of standard 40k. The term "house rules" are thrown around in a disparaging manner in some vague attempt to discredit tourneys.
The truth is that if we are arguing competitive 40k, one must include tournaments, which consistently feature troop heavy armies at the top tables. There are departures to this, and some armies do very well by minimizing troops. However, this is more of the exception. I also tend to find the same type of lists excel when simply rolling out of the book.
It really isn't worth arguing straight book missions, as there are few major events that run them (even those usually limit things like mysterious terrain). In addition, the book contains no set instructions as to how to place terrain, so one could argue that every event is creating "house rules."
The only thing to say is that if min troops really do win games, prove it. Go to these events, or hold your own. Hook up with people here on Vassal and make bat reps. If one wants to discredit the accepted norm, some kind of evidence is useful.
Here's why I think Troops still matter: Half the games you go second. In these games, at larger point values commonly played (1500+), it's pretty easy to get First Blood. That's a two VP swing, because it's a VP you can't get if your opponent goes first. It's not guaranteed, but it's not hard if an army has a lot of firepower. Now you're down 2 VPs, they can turtle and deny Warlord, and probably deny Linebreaker. If I'm going for objectives, it sucks, but isn't a big deal, because I can often score more points than they can through objectives.
I can't just use Heavy Support and Fast Attack to score in a bunch of missions, because they also give up points in those missions. If I run up against someone with 1 scoring Troops in Scouring, I kill the Fast Attack choices, so I kill a dangerous unit, prevent them from scoring, and get some more VPs in the process. Now my opponent doesn't score, and has an even harder time winning secondaries because he just gave up a VP for each Fast Attack he lost. If Troops are the relied upon scorers, this is less of an issue.
If you see merit in this argument (and you may not), this ups the number of "true" objective missions from 1/6 to 3/6, which means you need good objective scorers in half the missions. Now throw in Emperor's Will. From my point of view, it's trivial to kill a single Troops choice. I can have three for pretty cheap hiding back near my one objective, and it will be three times harder for you to remove it. It's one thing to kill a single Troops choice on an objective, it's another thing to kill three or four. My 2000 point Tau army has 4 Troop choices for about 450 points. Even if they only score (they do more than that), It means I have about 1500 points to kill 1 Troop choice, while you need 1900 points (assuming 100 points for your single choice) to kill 3 Troops choices to prevent me from winning 1-0 on objectives. There's just so little margin for error with 1 scoring unit.
JGrand wrote:
The only thing to say is that if min troops really do win games, prove it. Go to these events, or hold your own. Hook up with people here on Vassal and make bat reps. If one wants to discredit the accepted norm, some kind of evidence is useful.
I don't disagree with the sentiment, however I feel that it would be difficult to get enough evidence that the nay sayers would believe. The main problem is that ymmv applies big time. Every player is different. Also, every opponent is different (as are most metas). How is it possible to get evidence to prove that min troops work? Play a game with a list optimised for min troops, then another game with "max" troops?
The original question was whether troops are worth it. Anecdotally, I can say that with my GK, I have "easier" games when I use acolytes for troops because I end up with more mobile attacking units which provides me with more flexibility. That suits my playstyle. If someone else picks up one of my lists, they get tabled. Evidence or not?
The original question was "are troops worth it?". I don't think they are for the armies (GK,Cron) I play. Even in CronAir (which I don't play) the only reason to take multiple troops is to get the Scythe. It isn't for the warriors inside. Sure, in some cases you want the guns etc - that's great if your army gets something that makes the troops worthwhile. But if your army doesn't, why have a "rule" that says 1 troop for every 500 pts?
Biophysical wrote:
If you see merit in this argument (and you may not), this ups the number of "true" objective missions from 1/6 to 3/6, which means you need good objective scorers in half the missions. Now throw in Emperor's Will. From my point of view, it's trivial to kill a single Troops choice. I can have three for pretty cheap hiding back near my one objective, and it will be three times harder for you to remove it. It's one thing to kill a single Troops choice on an objective, it's another thing to kill three or four. My 2000 point Tau army has 4 Troop choices for about 450 points. Even if they only score (they do more than that), It means I have about 1500 points to kill 1 Troop choice, while you need 1900 points (assuming 100 points for your single choice) to kill 3 Troops choices to prevent me from winning 1-0 on objectives. There's just so little margin for error with 1 scoring unit.
Interesting point, but it comes back to assumptions:
a) You assume that going second will always give up first blood
b) you seem to assume that having troops while the other player doesn't means you get objectives. Even if I have no troops left, all I have to do is contest the objectives you hold and no one gets points for those. Which brings it back to my 1900 points having to kill your warlord, get first blood and contest your objectives. You have to do the same thing, but you only have 1500points to do it. (Assuming our troops are equally useless - which they aren't )
Overall, I don't think my troops are worth it. Their transports might be, but the troops aren't.
JGrand wrote:one plays with strange limitations and consistently argues against the accepted norm for attention
Yeah, does ad hominem make you feel like a big man?
JGrand wrote:The only thing to say is that if min troops really do win games, prove it. Go to these events, or hold your own. Hook up with people here on Vassal and make bat reps. If one wants to discredit the accepted norm, some kind of evidence is useful.
So, you want a small number of uncontrollable subjective data points to determine if an ad populum argument should be overturned?
What if a person believes in objectivity and reason?
For everyone else, I'd go back and read the first few pages. Everything has already been covered.
JGrand wrote: The term "house rules" are thrown around in a disparaging manner in some vague attempt to discredit tourneys.
No, that's not it at all. It's not about discrediting tournaments, it's about the simple fact that trying to consider all the different house rules involved at tournaments is beyond any reasonable scope of discussion. There are just too many different objectives/scoring methods/etc to make general strategy statements without explicitly limiting the discussion to a single event. Limiting the discussion to the missions found in the standard rules is the only way to narrow the scope enough to have a constructive discussion.
It really isn't worth arguing straight book missions, as there are few major events that run them (even those usually limit things like mysterious terrain).
Why are we assuming that the only games worth discussing are the ones that happen at major tournaments?
If one wants to discredit the accepted norm, some kind of evidence is useful.
I don't have to discredit the accepted norm. I started this thread as a discussion of what might work, to see if anyone else agreed that the idea had potential. I refuse to accept some bizarre burden of proof where I need to go win major events and convince everyone that they are wrong beyond any disagreement.
Just about any conversation pertaining to 40k that involves determining what is best or optimal is going to include subjective data. This isn't science, this isn't mathematics, we will not come to conclusions that are objective truths.
So if I am going to use data for an argument, I will use the data that seems most relevant, which in my opinion is results of events.
Of course, all of this is pretty null and void because the OP does not play in "competitive" events, or at least has indicated as much.
Regardless, taking a multitude of troops seems to be a perfectly logical action. It increases the likelihood of you capturing objectives which, like it or not, is going to be the determining factor in the majority of games. Sure your heavy support and FA have a chance to score, but it isn't going to happen that often. Those missions also encourage your opponents to go after those choices due to the extra VPs they provide.
As I said before, YMMV, but in my own experience and based off of what I have seen at the events I find to be the most competitive, i'll stick with the side that says troops are very important and should not be skimped on in favor of extra shooting.
LValx wrote: Of course, all of this is pretty null and void because the OP does not play in "competitive" events, or at least has indicated as much.
And, again, why are the only games that matter the ones that happen at major competitive events?
It increases the likelihood of you capturing objectives which, like it or not, is going to be the determining factor in the majority of games.
And that is the point of discussion here: do you capture more objectives by putting point sink scoring units on them, or by killing your opponent until they have nothing left to shoot back at your cheaper scoring units? So far in 6th I've found that, unless I want to take Sabre spam, my troops have been really disappointing and my games have more frequently involved 1-0 objectives at the end than 3-2 objectives.
I like the topic and the logic. I have minimized my troops many times in lists, to take "more guns", or just more of my fave dreadknights.
I do try and make an effort to have denial units just in case I am losing on the objective front.
Of course, if you take many units of troops, especially ones that are very capable, that is a good strategy as well. Different styles make great matches- or so they say something like that in boxing
Certain armies do it better than others. I, for instance, run minimum troops as a daemons player, because I know I have a portal to summon new troops. Therefore, I don't need to rely on a lot of boots on the ground, as I can almost ensure that I will have troops arriving late in the game just to hop onto objectives.
Other armies can rely on the sheer killyness of their army, to ensure that they can kill the enemy's troops, while keeping their own safe.
Others still, can rely on small, but super durable troops, so that they can focus the rest of their army on taking out the opponent's.
Boots on the ground, is an effective strategy for scoring, but it's by no means the only one, merely the most popular.
In this instance, it isn't just GTs that support what i'm saying. Just about every RTT i've played in or seen the results of in 6th, also featured armies that won with heavy troop numbers (just to reiterate, there are armies that can succeed by skimping on troops, but they usually feature durable, fast and killy transports. Daemons can also do so due to things such as the Portalglyph, for Daemons it also helps to have overwhelming assault force)
For an army such as IG, I don't think it is wise. You have very little ignores cover, outside of the Hellhound (which is IMO, subpar due to its competition with the Vendetta and Vulture). Barrage is nice, but the best IG barrage (Manticore), has limited shots. We also cannot ignore the fact that barrage is very, very inaccurate. It also will allow for a cover save if the troops are in terrain, that cover save can be boosted if GTG. So it isn't THAT easy for IG armies to simply remove all the opponents troops, assuming there is a balanced mixture of BLoS terrain and 25% coverage.
Also winning 1-0 isn't as easy as you make it sound if you only take minimum troops. I'd say a lot of my games are won by 1 objective to 0 and I always field 5+ troops and invest about a 1/3 or more into my troops.
This all becomes easier, if as I suggested earlier, you just provided an example list. That way it's easier to see what you are ACTUALLY gaining vs. what you may hypothetically gain. I've played IG quite a few times and at 1850+ they can easily fill out most of their slots while still being able to take 5-6 troops.
I guess still don't buy the argument that taking troops overly cuts into your more "killy" options. Taking INEFFICIENT (note I didn't necessarily say cheap) troops cuts into your firepower, in the exact same manner as taking inefficient units from other FOC selections. With allies, pretty much every army has access to solid troop choices such as Kroot (hard to argue with outflanking/infiltrating 6 point psuedo bolters), Acolytes (5 point bolters or 7 point stormbolters), IG blobs (cheap, decent firepower and melee), and others. These types of units can put out decent amounts of firepower for their points while being fairly annoying to remove. Honestly, I don't think these units sacrifice that much in the way of firepower when compared to other FOC selections. Spamming MEQs is probably not the best use of points in the current meta, but that doesn't mean all troops choices are inefficient.
I would argue that taking minimum troops to buy more killy units can be a legitimate technique for certain armies, but I think that is the exception rather than the rule.
MarkCron: Yes, I am making certain assumptions. Whoever gets first turn is not certain to get First Blood, but they do have a pretty big advantage. In regards to the second point, I'm saying that 1500 points (plus whatever utility the Troops can provide, which can be significant) has an easier time clearing/contesting a single objective of 1 Troop than 1900 points has of clearing/contesting an objective of 4 Troops. As everyone has been saying, this is heavily army dependent.
Maybe it's just been my recent experiences with Tau, but I've won my last two Emperor's Will games by claiming both objectives. The threat of infiltrating Stealth Suits and outflanking Kroot basically force other players to keep units back to defend their objective, which means they're not engaging my forces with full strength. If they go whole hog towards my lines (the old anti-Tau tactic), then the Kroot wipe their objective holder fairly easily.
I think this speaks more to the quality of Tau Troops than my innate skill, but hopefully future codeces will get this sort of quality Troop. I'm not sure about how Eldar would fit this trend. Dire Avengers seem like quality mid-field objective holders, and I guess if you want Wave Serpents, getting a 10 man squad of Guardians isn't the worst thing in the world to annoy enemy units of opportunity.
Yeah, does ad hominem make you feel like a big man?
Does using an unnecessary lexicon that everyone who has been to one semester of college understands make you feel one one? Seriously, you have to admit that you
a. play with strange, non-normative self limitations
b. argue against the grain, no matter what (hence, in 5th you said mech was bad, 6th foot is bad)
So, you want a small number of uncontrollable subjective data points to determine if an ad populum argument should be overturned?
What if a person believes in objectivity and reason?
For everyone else, I'd go back and read the first few pages. Everything has already been covered.
Again, no need for all the debate lingo. It doesn't make you seem more right or more intelligent. There is no objectivity and reason in 40k. That would require a "best" or "pure" way to play, which there isn't. It is also why there is so much disagreement on what is competitive and what missions to run. Welcome to the postmodern world.
No, that's not it at all. It's not about discrediting tournaments, it's about the simple fact that trying to consider all the different house rules involved at tournaments is beyond any reasonable scope of discussion. There are just too many different objectives/scoring methods/etc to make general strategy statements without explicitly limiting the discussion to a single event. Limiting the discussion to the missions found in the standard rules is the only way to narrow the scope enough to have a constructive discussion.
I completely disagree. "Competitive" 40k is in my opinion (and the opinion of many others) the results of tournaments. Obviously, this adds a number of variables; however, you consistently see the same faces at the top again and again, giving credence to the notion that there is a consistency in the slightly inconsistent mission design.
Why are we assuming that the only games worth discussing are the ones that happen at major tournaments?
Because of two reasons. First, they bring together a large sample of players than that of LGS or basement-hammer. Second, they are the attempt (and I did say attempt) to mitigate some of the more random and bad aspects of the book missions while still staying true to them.
I don't have to discredit the accepted norm. I started this thread as a discussion of what might work, to see if anyone else agreed that the idea had potential. I refuse to accept some bizarre burden of proof where I need to go win major events and convince everyone that they are wrong beyond any disagreement.
Ok...it might work. Hell, it does with a number of armies. However, if the results of "competitive" 40k has shown us anything thus far, it is that by in large, high numbers of troops are useful in winning. And sure, you can say that "such and such has worked for you." I'm sure some players out there are beating the two other opponents they play against with Pyrovores. However, that doesn't mean that against a large field of competent opponents it will work.
JGrand wrote: Does using an unnecessary lexicon that everyone who has been to one semester of college understands make you feel one one? Seriously, you have to admit that you
a. play with strange, non-normative self limitations
b. argue against the grain, no matter what (hence, in 5th you said mech was bad, 6th foot is bad)
Again, no need for all the debate lingo. It doesn't make you seem more right or more intelligent. There is no objectivity and reason in 40k. That would require a "best" or "pure" way to play, which there isn't. It is also why there is so much disagreement on what is competitive and what missions to run. Welcome to the postmodern world.
Why are you attacking the words he is using? Who are you to tell anyone what words they should use? This is one of the weakest criticisms I've ever read about anyone or anything "he used too many big words!"
Just because you don't know how to analyze a topic objectively doesn't mean that others can't. Maybe if you don't understand how to be or simply just don't want to try to be objective, you could just leave the discussion for those that do?
JGrand wrote: Does using an unnecessary lexicon that everyone who has been to one semester of college understands make you feel one one? Seriously, you have to admit that you
a. play with strange, non-normative self limitations
b. argue against the grain, no matter what (hence, in 5th you said mech was bad, 6th foot is bad)
Again, no need for all the debate lingo. It doesn't make you seem more right or more intelligent. There is no objectivity and reason in 40k. That would require a "best" or "pure" way to play, which there isn't. It is also why there is so much disagreement on what is competitive and what missions to run. Welcome to the postmodern world.
Why are you attacking the words he is using? Who are you to tell anyone what words they should use? This is one of the weakest criticisms I've ever read about anyone or anything "he used too many big words!"
Just because you don't know how to analyze a topic objectively doesn't mean that others can't. Maybe if you don't understand how to be or simply just don't want to try to be objective, you could just leave the discussion for those that do?
I can see where JGrand was coming from. In the forums posters frequently bring up logical fallacies (often times they are misused), when it really isn't necessary to do so. You can speak in a more colloquial manner, to me it seems like a bit of elitism. I also know JGrand and I can vouch for the fact that he is very objective in his reasoning (basically married to a Phil major). And if all you got from his reply was that, then you didn't read it very well. Ailaros is well known for his dissenting opinions (for example, he believes Vendettas aren't good). Opinions like that make it more difficult for me to trust in what someone says. It hurts his credibility and I think more than anything, that is what JGrand was attempting to do.
Biophysical wrote: MarkCron: Yes, I am making certain assumptions. Whoever gets first turn is not certain to get First Blood, but they do have a pretty big advantage. In regards to the second point, I'm saying that 1500 points (plus whatever utility the Troops can provide, which can be significant) has an easier time clearing/contesting a single objective of 1 Troop than 1900 points has of clearing/contesting an objective of 4 Troops. As everyone has been saying, this is heavily army dependent.
Maybe it's just been my recent experiences with Tau, but I've won my last two Emperor's Will games by claiming both objectives. The threat of infiltrating Stealth Suits and outflanking Kroot basically force other players to keep units back to defend their objective, which means they're not engaging my forces with full strength. If they go whole hog towards my lines (the old anti-Tau tactic), then the Kroot wipe their objective holder fairly easily.
I think this speaks more to the quality of Tau Troops than my innate skill, but hopefully future codeces will get this sort of quality Troop. I'm not sure about how Eldar would fit this trend. Dire Avengers seem like quality mid-field objective holders, and I guess if you want Wave Serpents, getting a 10 man squad of Guardians isn't the worst thing in the world to annoy enemy units of opportunity.
The point I'm trying to support is that troops are not necessarily the answer in all cases and certainly not for all armies. Almost the entire benefit of troops seems to be based on the fact that they are scoring, objectives make up 5/6 of the book games = more troops is better. I don't think that is true.
I seriously doubt that by T5 your 1500 points will have reduced my 1900 points to such an extent that I can't contest the objectives. Not saying it can't happen, but I'd have to be doing something really wrong (or your troops would have to make a big difference - which is the case for the Tau...Tau troops are offensive weapons, not objective sitters imho). But necron warriors and immortals aren't as effective as wraiths, barges, scarabs or deathmarks. So, in my lists I tend to run small troop units.
I'm not disputing that holding an objective is a great advantage...after all they are worth 3 points. I'm disputing that you have to have an objective to win the game. It may be risky to have smaller troop units, but that just means you have to play to your strategy more closely. The risks are easily manageable (Reserve, GTG, smart deployment) and the benefits can be huge.
Why are you attacking the words he is using? Who are you to tell anyone what words they should use? This is one of the weakest criticisms I've ever read about anyone or anything "he used too many big words!"
It isn't about using "big" words. I have no issue with the various forms of communication that people choose. I am by no means anti-academic, as I am pursuing a career in academia. What I'm critiquing is the incessant and often incorrect use of terms to call out logical fallacies. Anyone who has taken a high school level debate course knows them. Here, I've often seen them used as a way to attempt to appear intelligent or dismiss arguments. They rarely add anything productive to these conversations and succeed in merely ducking an actual argument.
Just because you don't know how to analyze a topic objectively doesn't mean that others can't. Maybe if you don't understand how to be or simply just don't want to try to be objective, you could just leave the discussion for those that do?
I never said that I have an issue with being objective. I was simply arguing against the notion that there exists some form of "objective" or "correct" way to play 40k. There isn't. Everyone has an opinion which is relative to what kind of game they subscribe to. My personal opinion as to the best way to analyze the game is through the lens of "competitive" 40k as defined via the major GT events. There are plenty of people who dispute that. There are also plenty of people who agree with it.
I recognize that there isn't one form of 40k. Nevertheless, it is narrow minded to assume that following the rulebook in a dogmatic sense is inherently more "pure", "competitive", or "correct". Furthermore, the OP and others have stated that one cannot argue "house rules" implemented by tournaments, and thus, cannot argue the results of anything but straight book missions. I happen to disagree with this. That doesn't make me any more or less correct. (However, I do have the ability to analyze some kind of "meta" from data results, something they cannot provide).
Finally, my disagreement with Aliaros in particular is that I do not find him/her a credible source based on past advocacies. While he/she is certainly free to disagree with me, I do not feel his/her opinions are qualified based on some of the radical statements he/she has previously made. I have often chalked them up to hyperbole, as some of them have seemed incredibly off base.
JGrand wrote: What I'm critiquing is the incessant and often incorrect use of terms to call out logical fallacies.
Except in this case it was entirely correct. What you said was a textbook ad hominem fallacy, you attacked the people making the argument rather than the argument itself.
My personal opinion as to the best way to analyze the game is through the lens of "competitive" 40k as defined via the major GT events.
Only if you ignore the effects of the house rules those events are played under. It's not exactly difficult to see the value in troops when you have house rules for margin of victory scoring that require you to do more than just win the game.
Furthermore, the OP and others have stated that one cannot argue "house rules" implemented by tournaments, and thus, cannot argue the results of anything but straight book missions.
No, I said that you can't productively argue them. Consider four possible tournaments:
Tournament A is a "typical" GT with lots of objectives, multiple simultaneous victory conditions, and margin of victory scoring. This will of course reward lots of troops because you have to run up the score on your opponent if you want to win the tournament.
Tournament B is the same as A, but with NOVA-style win/lose/draw scoring that ignores margin of victory. The "lots of objectives" factor still might favor troops to some degree, but removing margin of victory scoring makes a 1-0 win just as valid as a 10-0 win.
Tournament C has (arguably) an organizer mistake where the third mission is kill points and gives so many more points than the others that you can almost entirely ignore the first two missions and still win the tournament (not just hypothetical, this is last weekend's tournament). Now troops are irrelevant because you can lose both objectives missions as long as you tailor to the final kill points mission.
Tournament D has painting worth 40% of your score. Now the whole debate is irrelevant and you win by taking the army with the models you're best at painting.
So please, come up with a single strategy that is equally effective in all four events so that we can discuss the general concepts without having to constantly specify which set of house rules we're playing under. Otherwise I'll continue to stick to the standard book missions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JGrand wrote: I completely disagree. "Competitive" 40k is in my opinion (and the opinion of many others) the results of tournaments. Obviously, this adds a number of variables; however, you consistently see the same faces at the top again and again, giving credence to the notion that there is a consistency in the slightly inconsistent mission design.
You know, I just read the OP again and I never said this was specifically about competitive tournaments.
And no, seeing the same winners doesn't mean there's consistency in mission design. It just means there's enough consistency in the game overall that you can be good at it even when the missions change, which is a fact I'm not disputing.
Second, they are the attempt (and I did say attempt) to mitigate some of the more random and bad aspects of the book missions while still staying true to them.
Ok, so you admit that competitive tournaments change the game to be more like what certain players want it to be. Now can we drop this tangent?
Except in this case it was entirely correct. What you said was a textbook ad hominem fallacy, you attacked the people making the argument rather than the argument itself.
I agree that the way I went about could have been better. However, I maintain the stance that Ailaros is, in my opinion, not a credible poster. He/she freely admits to playing 40k in a very different and constricted manner.
Only if you ignore the effects of the house rules those events are played under. It's not exactly difficult to see the value in troops when you have house rules for margin of victory scoring that require you to do more than just win the game.
Perhaps. There are plenty of events that are simple W-L-D--points are largely irrelevant. The Nova Open uses points for Swiss-pairing, but the ultimate victor of the event is determined by win-loss. All that matters is winning by one victory point--same as the BRB.
No, I said that you can't productively argue them. Consider four possible tournaments:
Tournament A is a "typical" GT with lots of objectives, multiple simultaneous victory conditions, and margin of victory scoring. This will of course reward lots of troops because you have to run up the score on your opponent if you want to win the tournament.
Tournament B is the same as A, but with NOVA-style win/lose/draw scoring that ignores margin of victory. The "lots of objectives" factor still might favor troops to some degree, but removing margin of victory scoring makes a 1-0 win just as valid as a 10-0 win.
Tournament C has (arguably) an organizer mistake where the third mission is kill points and gives so many more points than the others that you can almost entirely ignore the first two missions and still win the tournament (not just hypothetical, this is last weekend's tournament). Now troops are irrelevant because you can lose both objectives missions as long as you tailor to the final kill points mission.
Tournament D has painting worth 40% of your score. Now the whole debate is irrelevant and you win by taking the army with the models you're best at painting.
So please, come up with a single strategy that is equally effective in all four events so that we can discuss the general concepts without having to constantly specify which set of house rules we're playing under. Otherwise I'll continue to stick to the standard book missions.
Tournaments C and D are pretty shaky examples. Which GT in particular had the problematic third mission? I didn't make it to Killadelphia if that is what you are referencing, but I haven't seen that complaint. While many events have a "best overall", which factors painting, I know that the "winner" is general recognized via best general.
Regardless of which major event we are talking about, the faces at top tables are largely the same. While these events differ, effective armies (many of which are troop based, some of which are troop light) rarely differ from a few accepted paradigms. This edition, having large numbers of cheap scoring bodies has been effective regardless of format.
You know, I just read the OP again and I never said this was specifically about competitive tournaments.
And no, seeing the same winners doesn't mean there's consistency in mission design. It just means there's enough consistency in the game overall that you can be good at it even when the missions change, which is a fact I'm not disputing.
I come to forums to talk about competitive 40k. You come to talk about your version of "competitive" or "real" 40k. If you want to limit discussion, that is fine. I see little point in putting up a thread just to get people to agree with you.
Ok, so you admit that competitive tournaments change the game to be more like what certain players want it to be. Now can we drop this tangent?
And playing whatever house version of 40k you play is alternately what you want it to be. There is no "set" 40k. Players must always decide elements like terrain, points, and other non-faq'd issues. One is playing "house rules" regardless.
It isn't tangential to argue based on a "competitive" lens influenced by tournament results. Many, many players consider it far more relevant.
I won't bother replying again, as it seems this thread is based on narrow confines and has taken a turn which you consider irrelevant. Sure, when playing straight book missions, small amounts of troops CAN be superior in some cases. Agreed. Cool.
Why are you attacking the words he is using? Who are you to tell anyone what words they should use? This is one of the weakest criticisms I've ever read about anyone or anything "he used too many big words!"
It isn't about using "big" words. I have no issue with the various forms of communication that people choose. I am by no means anti-academic, as I am pursuing a career in academia. What I'm critiquing is the incessant and often incorrect use of terms to call out logical fallacies. Anyone who has taken a high school level debate course knows them. Here, I've often seen them used as a way to attempt to appear intelligent or dismiss arguments. They rarely add anything productive to these conversations and succeed in merely ducking an actual argument. .
I totally agree with this. Literally in every thread like this you will find at least 5 people dong this and it really annoys me. They come to no conclusion and despite their obvious attempts to prevent one, it almost always leads to a pointless argument.
If someone's argument for something is so terrible that it can be dismissed with two latin words, I don't see why I should have to go to the bother of explaining every fallacy every time.
For example, I could say "arguments for or against an idea based on a consideration of the person who is speaking on the subject, rather than their arguments themselves, and furthermore doing it in a way as if to win the discussion by nothing more than the power of being rude, nitpicking a person's choice of words, and arguing semantics rather than abstract principles is not a foundation for a reasonable argument."
Or I could just say "ad hominem" while I click the "ignore" button.
Except in this case it was entirely correct. What you said was a textbook ad hominem fallacy, you attacked the people making the argument rather than the argument itself.
I agree that the way I went about could have been better. However, I maintain the stance that Ailaros is, in my opinion, not a credible poster. He/she freely admits to playing 40k in a very different and constricted manner.
I don't see how imposing restrictions on what you use in 40k makes you any less credible when posting on the internet.
I ran Farsight lists in 5th edition when it meant I was severely restricted with what choices I could take as a direct result. Does that constriction which I placed upon myself make me any less credible?
And you say that someone who plays in a different manner is less credible. A different manner to what? I wasn't aware that there is a set manner which we should adhere to if we are to be credible on the internet. People can play with their little plastic toys however they want. If they want to go against the general consensus and play differently with unusual units then good for them, variety makes the game fun.
I don't see how imposing restrictions on what you use in 40k makes you any less credible when posting on the internet.
I ran Farsight lists in 5th edition when it meant I was severely restricted with what choices I could take as a direct result. Does that constriction which I placed upon myself make me any less credible?
And you say that someone who plays in a different manner is less credible. A different manner to what? I wasn't aware that there is a set manner which we should adhere to if we are to be credible on the internet. People can play with their little plastic toys however they want. If they want to go against the general consensus and play differently with unusual units then good for them, variety makes the game fun.
He/she is the same poster who said "mech sucked" in 5th edition. He/she now claims "foot sucks" and continues non-sense like "Vendettas aren't good". That is my main complaint. I like trying to come up with creative lists too, but I don't go around making hyperbolized statements just to get attention on the internet. /shrug.
I don't see how imposing restrictions on what you use in 40k makes you any less credible when posting on the internet.
I ran Farsight lists in 5th edition when it meant I was severely restricted with what choices I could take as a direct result. Does that constriction which I placed upon myself make me any less credible?
And you say that someone who plays in a different manner is less credible. A different manner to what? I wasn't aware that there is a set manner which we should adhere to if we are to be credible on the internet. People can play with their little plastic toys however they want. If they want to go against the general consensus and play differently with unusual units then good for them, variety makes the game fun.
He/she is the same poster who said "mech sucked" in 5th edition. He/she now claims "foot sucks" and continues non-sense like "Vendettas aren't good". That is my main complaint. I like trying to come up with creative lists too, but I don't go around making hyperbolized statements just to get attention on the internet. /shrug.
I thought the Vendetta argument was that it was not as good as it used to be when editions changed and flyer rules eliminated the Vendetta's ability to be on the board turn one to fully maximize its lascannon payload?
To all those who compare win/lose/draw to battlepoints:
If you have a tournament with win/lose/draw, the guy with the most wins will win the tournament, correct?
If you use battlepoints, the guy with the highest results wins the tournament.
So how would a guy who has to win big would have a disadvantage under conditions, where he only has to win? If I have the possibility to win 5:0, but only need to win 1:0 does that make my army somehow worse?
Experience shows that you need a certain number of troops in order for them to stay alive throughout the game and make it to an objective. But you shouldn't pay too much points just for having mass scoring units.
If they are used from reserve, 2-3 small units is absolutely enough. Use terrain, bring them in place, hide, kill the opponent -> profit.
1 Troop is certainly not enough. It can be, but against a good opponent he will either jam that troop from scoring with some contesting stuff or he will try scoring twice or he will eliminate it. Just too many possibility for that to go wrong, which isn't necessary. Troops are cheap enough that you can by 2 or 3 without losing any significant output.
You can make compromises in your army list so that you're more apt to win big, but it often comes at the expense of a marginal win elsewhere. That's the difference.
This may be backtracking a bit, but I didn't see it addressed.
I think it's also important to note that taking Harker + Camo Cloaks is hardly a bunch of wimpy guardians GtG in cover. It's a hard unit, and it does not lose effectiveness like other guard squads because it does not have to GtG. It can still fire it's 3 plasmas and/or heavy weapons and/or Quadgun while maintaining its 2+ cover. And if it gets barrag'd from inside an aegis, 4+ GtG is much better than 6+ as well.
So this particular situation has been optimized to Peregrine's list as well. It's sufficiently "killy," but also happens to score.It's not an inexpensive unit; it's 200 at its cheapest. But it's good at what it needs to do.
JGrand wrote: If you want to limit discussion, that is fine. I see little point in putting up a thread just to get people to agree with you.
Sigh. Can you really not see the difference between "I don't want to talk about house rules at some random event I'm not playing in" and "I don't want anyone to disagree with me"?
-Nazdreg- wrote: So how would a guy who has to win big would have a disadvantage under conditions, where he only has to win? If I have the possibility to win 5:0, but only need to win 1:0 does that make my army somehow worse?
Because the metagame changes. You've made certain decisions in building your list to ensure that you can win overwhelmingly (for example, taking enough scoring units to claim and hold all five objectives plus the table quarters victor condition), but so has everyone else in the tournament. If you remove the margin of victory factor then now people are willing to change lists and you don't necessarily have an ideal list anymore. You might find that you have too many points invested in blobs of scoring infantry and don't have enough offensive threats to push out of your own deployment zone successfully, while people who don't take an excessive amount of points in scoring units don't have the same problem.
@Peregrine & @ Ailaros. I have said in many previous posts that this is the way to go with book missions. On occations you both claimed this to be sill. Ailaros you have have admittedly changed your statement in a recent post I read. So what what I'm trying to say is. I told you so.
Killing power is so much more important now and it is even easier now to get off a good alpha strike since 50% of an army must start on the board.
Max damage out put is a lot more important now than hold an objective as there are other ways to win a game outside of holding objectives.
With the whole debate of unit X on an objective is tough to remove because of its cover save. The answer is to charge it. You don't even need to charge with an awsome close combat unit. An Average unit will win vs sub par unit any day of the week. Thats why I've been taking some Crusaders with my IG. They aren't the greatest unit of all time but can be solid tarpits and can assault a unit in cover to tie them up and contest an objective. With Cotaez they also score but I d take them.even they didn't. Cheep and useful.
P.S. Its nice to see you guys agree on something for a change.
I run DA so my elites and fast attack are my troops. Also, I sure have been doing a ton of harassment by infiltrating a few squads of snipers around the board. I wouldn't say that troops are worthless in the slightest bit. Furthermore, if you only have one scoring unit, and for whatever reason it dies, what do you do then?
Icarusthepilot wrote: I run DA so my elites and fast attack are my troops. Also, I sure have been doing a ton of harassment by infiltrating a few squads of snipers around the board. I wouldn't say that troops are worthless in the slightest bit. Furthermore, if you only have one scoring unit, and for whatever reason it dies, what do you do then?
Edit: need to read the post more carefully.
Thanks for agreeing that you don't use your troop units but prefer to use Fast Attack and Elites instead.
Peregrine wrote: No, that's not it at all. It's not about discrediting tournaments, it's about the simple fact that trying to consider all the different house rules involved at tournaments is beyond any reasonable scope of discussion. There are just too many different objectives/scoring methods/etc to make general strategy statements without explicitly limiting the discussion to a single event. Limiting the discussion to the missions found in the standard rules is the only way to narrow the scope enough to have a constructive discussion.
The straight book missions make it very clear that one can win to varying degrees, and has a point system to tally how much one won by. It even has a term for a particularly high scoring win, the "Crushing Defeat". That this produces nothing but bragging rights in an average 1 vs 1 game of 40K does not make it irrelevant or house ruled when one uses these differences in win margin in a tourney, campaign, or any other set up besides a basic 1 vs 1 game. It is built right into the rules that some wins are more winning than others.
MarkCron wrote: Thanks for agreeing that you don't use your troop units but prefer to use Fast Attack and Elites instead.
Yeah, this kind of thing is just another argument in favor of minimum troops. DA troops are unappealing and you use non-troops units instead, even paying an HQ tax to make them your troops and get rid of the basic ones.
MarkCron wrote: Thanks for agreeing that you don't use your troop units but prefer to use Fast Attack and Elites instead.
Yeah, this kind of thing is just another argument in favor of minimum troops. DA troops are unappealing and you use non-troops units instead, even paying an HQ tax to make them your troops and get rid of the basic ones.
The only use I have found for the basic DA troops is a 5 man Tac Squad with melta and combi melta in a Drop Pod to fill the manditory troops slot. They just pod in a die and hopelfull take down some heavy armour. Other wise there all pretty meh.
To be honest: I don't get the relationship between the wikipedia article and this problem.
If I play lets say 2000p of an army and spend roughly 300p in Troops instead of 100p to win big in my world this is a marginal difference in killing power. (1700p instead of 1900p)
@peregrine
Because the metagame changes. You've made certain decisions in building your list to ensure that you can win overwhelmingly (for example, taking enough scoring units to claim and hold all five objectives plus the table quarters victor condition), but so has everyone else in the tournament. If you remove the margin of victory factor then now people are willing to change lists and you don't necessarily have an ideal list anymore. You might find that you have too many points invested in blobs of scoring infantry and don't have enough offensive threats to push out of your own deployment zone successfully, while people who don't take an excessive amount of points in scoring units don't have the same problem.
Again, we are talking about a difference of about 200p here. You certainly don't need to capture 6 objectives. Chances that you actually pull it off are marginal and the risk of losing too much killing power is too high. There are lists, that could do it without suffering at all (Necrons, Coteaz, DE, Nids) as their Troop choices contribute to the fight.
But if your troops are neither dirt cheap nor somehow useful apart from scoring, it would be foolish to spend more points on them than absolutely necessary even in a meta where you have to win big. (Because you won't win against the lists with more efficient troops).
What the meta does is not that all guys spam troops, thats rubbish imho. It limits the number of viable lists to very few (Lists that have enough troops AND enough killing power). Those lists do perform as well under W/D/L-conditions. But a greater variety of lists is possible when a close win is enough. Thats certain.
But still 1 Troop is just a risk too high and you don't gain that much. (or do you think that spending 130p for a minimum Platoon instead of Harker would have changed your output to an abysmal level? I wouldnÄt think so. )
So how do you guys invalidate the effectiveness and utility of 180 ork boyz, 120 kroot, and tony kopach/brandts list of double blob. (not even to mention coteaz henchman spam unlocking razors, and grey hunter spam) All of these are great troop units.
All of the above are troop spammy lists, all three are extremely effective lists. I honestly do not see how you guys can say " I took one troop this one tournament and it worked out okay because I went 2-1". How is one tournament an adequate sample size for anything?
While the above three strategies are extremely strong and proven lists. Do you also think nob biker squads with a warboss on bike useless because they are troops?
Markcon, that is not the point being made. The point being made by icarusthepilot is that his BEST troops are made available via HQs which is in many codexes.
So does that mean that you guys only dislike bad troops, kinda like everyone doesn't inefficeint units, so then the argument is that bad units are bad..Nice..
I still fail to see how you guys can say troops should be minimized when 180 ork boys is good at any missions, 120 kroot is a hassle, and 2 50 man blobs is extremely difficult to move in 5-7 turns. Along with the fact a 10 man paladin unit with draigo is a troop with bikerboss with nob bikers, all troops.
If I ever face anyone with one scoring unit within regular 40k rules(outside of apoc/cityfight/other books) I would be happy to kill his one troop then save one of my many, it is an extremely simple concept to counter.
Nazdreg also makes a good point a very good point about point value ratios between ratios and killing power, that alone shows how you need troops.
Using Nob Bikers or Draigo Paladins as an example doesn't further your argument that troops are good. Those are both units from other parts of the FOC which can be taken as troops due to the inclusion of an HQ.
Lets say that Shadowsun had a rule which meant that Stealth Teams could be taken as troops. Who wouldn't want to take a couple of small units of troops with 2+ cover in any terrain without needing to go to ground and who can outflank, infiltrate or deep strike?
But that doesn't mean that troops are good, only that being able to take Elites choices in the troops slot is good.
Actually, I have never seen stuff like Nob Bikers and Paladins taken as Elites... only as troops. Maybe their durability/killing power is not worth their points without being scoring?
I do think this arguement boils down to "taking bad troops is bad." Just like taking any inefficient unit is bad. However, plenty of good, efficient troops are available so I personally do not see a benefit to going minimum troops except in extreme cirmcumstances.
They are no longer elite choices, they are troop choices now. 10 paladins with dragio. IS A TROOP CHOICE. it is no longer an elite choice. it is that simple. Thus that troop choice is extremly strong and useful. Thus pretty much closing this argument on min troops=better.
Thank you for nit picking a tiny bit of my post an attempting to refute it when the next poster agrees with me.
Shadowsun has no rule with that, so that has no effect on this argument, at all. Now draigo, coteaz, and many other do. They make very effective troops. Like henchman, paladins and nobz.
Thank you Gornall for providing an objective view, something that is hard to find on this forum when people(like A town called malus) try to prove their point by making fictitious rules to attempt to invalidate a truth (that paladins,nobs,henchman,purifies and troops under a specific HQ).
Using Nob Bikers or Draigo Paladins as an example doesn't further your argument that troops are good. Those are both units from other parts of the FOC which can be taken as troops due to the inclusion of an HQ.
Lets say that Shadowsun had a rule which meant that Stealth Teams could be taken as troops. Who wouldn't want to take a couple of small units of troops with 2+ cover in any terrain without needing to go to ground and who can outflank, infiltrate or deep strike?
But that doesn't mean that troops are good, only that being able to take Elites choices in the troops slot is good.
Come on. You hardly ever see Nob Bikers taken without a Warboss or Pallies without Dragio. For all intents and purposes, these units are troops choices.
That would be akin to having a discussion about transports and claiming that taking a Land Raider as a heavy support choice doesn't count because it is not a dedicated transport. Be reasonable.
Furthermore, even if you want to arbitrarily exclude troop choices that require a hq unlock, there are a myriad of troop choices that players do well to take en masse.
The only armies that I see consistently profiting from taking low amounts of troops are Necrons, CSM, and Chaos Daemons (maybe Eldar will join this soon). Almost all of the MEQ codices heavily benefit from a Guard blob (hence, you see it regularly at events). Sisters are the same way. Early successful Tau lists have featured gobs of Kroot (80+). Dark Eldar players often take Warrior blobs behind an Aegis.
People claiming that 2 min troop choices are doing the job must be fortunate enough to play in environments that lack Drakes, Tau, and barrage weapons. However, I can promise you if you bring 2x3 Windriders out to play versus the new meta, you will be playing a very uphill battle.
But according to Ailaros and Peregrine Guard blobs are too easy to remove!!!
I've played vs. mass orks, mass kroot, mass guardsmen. You are very, very unlikely to remove all those troops. If you take 1-2 troops, it makes thegame much easier for your opponent. They simply have to keep 1 troop model alive longer than you and deny the ability tor the contest.
Contesting, or killing exposed troops also becomes much more difficult if you've got to go first. The player going 2nd has huge advantages in objective based missions. Taking more troops increases the chance you'll have enough alive to grab an objective.
Taking very few troops results in an imbalanced list. Those can win, and win big. But I think you'll lose too many close games vs. higher caliber players.
Clauss wrote: So how do you guys invalidate the effectiveness and utility of 180 ork boyz, 120 kroot, and tony kopach/brandts list of double blob. (not even to mention coteaz henchman spam unlocking razors, and grey hunter spam) All of these are great troop units.
Ok, and no one is saying not to use troop units which are effective. However, the worth of taking crappy units just to have scoring troops is the point of the thread.
Clauss wrote: Markcon, that is not the point being made. The point being made by icarusthepilot is that his BEST troops are made available via HQs which is in many codexes.
And the point we are making is that he is NOT using troops. He is filling Troop slots with Elite units which is an entirely different thing. Not a bad thing, but not the same as investing 400 points in tac marines because someone said he had to have 4 troops at 2000 points.
So does that mean that you guys only dislike bad troops, kinda like everyone doesn't inefficeint units, so then the argument is that bad units are bad..Nice..
The point, imho, is that IF you have bad troops DON'T feel obliged to take 4 squads of troops just because you read on the internet that you have to have 2 troops plus and extra one for every 500 points.
Clauss wrote: I still fail to see how you guys can say troops should be minimized when 180 ork boys is good at any missions, 120 kroot is a hassle, and 2 50 man blobs is extremely difficult to move in 5-7 turns.
Good. Because that isn't what is being said. The question was are troops worth it any more? and the answer is army specific.
Clauss wrote: Along with the fact a 10 man paladin unit with draigo is a troop with bikerboss with nob bikers, all troops.
and putting an elite unit is a troop FOC is not what this thread is about. It is about using units listed under "Troop" in the codex.
Clauss wrote: If I ever face anyone with one scoring unit within regular 40k rules(outside of apoc/cityfight/other books) I would be happy to kill his one troop then save one of my many, it is an extremely simple concept to counter.
For the love of Russ.....You have to have 2 troops. No one is saying to take only 1 troop because we are talking about BOOK missions with a NORMAL FOC. The point is that if you have inefficient troop units, don't have too many of them.
Clauss wrote: Nazdreg also makes a good point a very good point about point value ratios between ratios and killing power, that alone shows how you need troops.
And this was covered before as well. The point is that having more killing power increases the chances of getting First Blood and Warlord, at which point you only need to contest the objectives that the opponent is on to win....for book missions.
Oh yeah I totally forgot about 180 boyz. (which has some problems though with time restrictions...) But still very effective army with a ton of troops.
@Gornall
I do think this arguement boils down to "taking bad troops is bad." Just like taking any inefficient unit is bad. However, plenty of good, efficient troops are available so I personally do not see a benefit to going minimum troops except in extreme cirmcumstances.
With allies it becomes easy for every army to field useful troops. They may not be as efficient in terms of shooting as a heavy slot, but you are paying for versatility. I'll take that.
Also. While things such as Paladins and Henchmen aren't listed under troops, they can easily be made such (and generally you'll see them used this way) so I think it is very valid to consider.
I can only think of a handful of troops I find to be truly useless, but most of them are so cheap that I really couldnt field much firepower instead of them.
I think the toughest part--even if we want to go off of straight book missions--is that you HAVE to stop the opponent from taking objectives. The posters who defend min troops are working from the assumption that even blobs of 50 guardsmen are "easy" to kill. I would imagine that they would then have to concede that against competent opponents, their min troops will be killed off even easier. If you have 2x3 Guardian Jet Bikes and the opponent has 120 Kroot backed by two Ethereals, it is very, very difficult to ensure that none of these 120 survives to take just one objective.
In these instances, you are banking on First Blood (which is incidentally, often more difficult to obtain from heavy infantry lists). There are plenty of times when first blood isn't conceded unit turn 2-3. You are also banking on slay the warlord (again, often tough to obtain when the Warlord is hiding in a cushion of bodies). Linebreaker is relatively easy for both parties to obtain.
What this ultimately means is that you have to go for the all out tabling almost every game. I'd love to see the lists that are tabling 120 Kroot, 2 Ethereals, 3 Skyrays, and 3 Riptides. I'd love to have the golden goose of lists that can wipe off the Kopach/Brandt ThunderStorm. It would be cool to see something guaranteed to lay the smackdown on 180+ Boyz (+ all of their toys). The problem is, these lists are designed to whether the storm of the nastiest lists out there. They win by attrition. Even among the rare kill point game, these lists are likely packing less overall KP than those that bring tons of toys.
Whether we are talking about the top tables of Adepticon or a random house game in Timbucktoo, it is easier to win if you have an overwhelming troop advantage. It is a game of objectives. Sure, you CAN win by denying all objectives and simultaneously getting first blood, slay the warlord, and linebreaker. However, it really isn't that easy. If just one of those 120+ troops survive to take just one of those (often 3-5) objectives, you lose. Not a worthwhile gamble in most cases.
JGrand wrote: I think the toughest part--even if we want to go off of straight book missions--is that you HAVE to stop the opponent from taking objectives. The posters who defend min troops are working from the assumption that even blobs of 50 guardsmen are "easy" to kill. I would imagine that they would then have to concede that against competent opponents, their min troops will be killed off even easier. If you have 2x3 Guardian Jet Bikes and the opponent has 120 Kroot backed by two Ethereals, it is very, very difficult to ensure that none of these 120 survives to take just one objective.
That's incorrect. The point I was making is that you have to CONTEST objectives, not take them.
JGrand wrote: In these instances, you are banking on First Blood (which is incidentally, often more difficult to obtain from heavy infantry lists). There are plenty of times when first blood isn't conceded unit turn 2-3. You are also banking on slay the warlord (again, often tough to obtain when the Warlord is hiding in a cushion of bodies). Linebreaker is relatively easy for both parties to obtain.
True. And in most cases First Blood and Warlord determine the result of book missions.
JGrand wrote: What this ultimately means is that you have to go for the all out tabling almost every game.
I disagree completely. If I set out to get First Blood and contest your objectives, why do I have to table you?
JGrand wrote: Whether we are talking about the top tables of Adepticon or a random house game in Timbucktoo, it is easier to win if you have an overwhelming troop advantage. It is a game of objectives. Sure, you CAN win by denying all objectives and simultaneously getting first blood, slay the warlord, and linebreaker. However, it really isn't that easy. If just one of those 120+ troops survive to take just one of those (often 3-5) objectives, you lose. Not a worthwhile gamble in most cases.
True....if your troops are worth a pinch in the first place. If they aren't then loading up 5 units of them isn't going to help.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LValx wrote: With allies it becomes easy for every army to field useful troops. They may not be as efficient in terms of shooting as a heavy slot, but you are paying for versatility. I'll take that.
Ok, so you agree then. If you don't have effective units listed under your Troop options in the codex, get some different ones. I agree.
Also. While things such as Paladins and Henchmen aren't listed under troops, they can easily be made such (and generally you'll see them used this way) so I think it is very valid to consider.
Again, glad you agree. Spend the points on more effective units.
I can only think of a handful of troops I find to be truly useless, but most of them are so cheap that I really couldnt field much firepower instead of them.
Good, so if you were playing Dark Angels, you'd have no problem taking 4 squads of tacs or snipers. Cool. I guess the point is that not everyone wants to take tac squads and snipers with a DA army.
Contesting is harder than before since you need infantry to do so. Most codices feature infantry in the various slots that aren't more inherently durable than the respective troops choices.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If you have access to good troops, you ought to take them. Since all the codices have access, I think every army would be better served filling out a good portion of troops before turning go killier units.
If I played Da i'd take Azrael for a Guard blob and Bikes, hell i'd take guard with just about any of the SM codices.
To be honest: I don't get the relationship between the wikipedia article and this problem.
Think of the dice as "army lists." Each die has six sides, and some fixed number of points to distribute. In the first example, Die A will beat Die B 5/9 of the time. It's a "favorable matchup" -- but it comes at the expense of losing 5/9 of its games with Die C. Depending on the local "metagame", one die may achieve more wins than another, since it will have more favorable matchups. But if you simply tally up the score for each roll, all of them have the same average, and that advantage disappears.
LValx wrote: Contesting is harder than before since you need infantry to do so. Most codices feature infantry in the various slots that aren't more inherently durable than the respective troops choices.
Incorrect. All units are denial units except vehicles, swarms and falling back etc.
If you have access to good troops, you ought to take them. Since all the codices have access, I think every army would be better served filling out a good portion of troops before turning go killier units.
Agreed. IF you have point efficient troops, why not fill out ALL your troop slots before you do anything else. After all, as you have said, it is a game of objectives so by definition this is the best move.
LValx wrote: If I played Da i'd take Azrael for a Guard blob and Bikes, hell i'd take guard with just about any of the SM codices.
So you don't want tac marines and scouts? Might need to work on consistency here....there is nothing bad about tac marines...Better than Cron warriors.
So if vehicles and swarms arent denial, then denial units are infantry? Which is what I said. Not being able to contest with vehicles is a BIG change.
I also imagine one of the reasons this thread was made is that infantry units are finding it more difficult to live until the end of the game. If that holds true for scoring units, it should also hold true for denial units.
Cron Warriors are completely different than Marines. They are most often fielded in the best overall transport in the game. That is what makes them good. Rhinos are now lackluster and Marines have seen a dropoff due to Heldrakes. In fact, in a Heldrakeless world, i'd definitely take Tac Marines. As it stands I'd rather take scouts or bikes. All of that doesn't really matter though. There isn't a single codex I wouldn't take at least 4 troops with, though i'd generally lean towards 5+ at anything above 1750.
Even if I played CSM/Daemons, i'd probably take 4-5 units of Cultists + Plaguebearers/Horrors and a Portalglyph (I only bring this up specifically because I'd say those codices have the worst overall troops). I think troops are that important.
That's incorrect. The point I was making is that you have to CONTEST objectives, not take them.
Which isn't always easy. A blob of 20 models can easily spread out in a way that precludes opponents from coming within 3" of an objective. Vehicles, swarms, and flyers cannot contest, which means that you often do have to first kill off models in order to contest them.
True. And in most cases First Blood and Warlord determine the result of book missions.
Agreed. However, it is often easier to deny both of these with mass infantry. Lists that start with 60 out of 120 Kroot, 3 Riptides, and 3 Skyrays on the board aren't giving up any freebies.
True....if your troops are worth a pinch in the first place. If they aren't then loading up 5 units of them isn't going to help.
Just so we can get on the same page, which armies do you feel have no access to worthwhile troops (including allies)? Even CSM/Daemon rushes--perhaps the most aggressive lists out there--often take 2-3 Plaguebearers and 1x10 Cultists minimum (and usually with a Portalglyph). Otherwise, what are these troop deprived lists?
So you don't want tac marines and scouts? Might need to work on consistency here....there is nothing bad about tac marines...Better than Cron warriors.
The issue with MEQ in general largely stems from the Helldrake. In addition, the ability of cheap bodies to gain cover advantages via stealth, shrouded, terrain, or an Aegis places a higher premium on them.
LValx wrote: So if vehicles and swarms arent denial, then denial units are infantry? Which is what I said. Not being able to contest with vehicles is a BIG change.
Monstrous Creatures, Cavalry, Beasts, Walkers can still contest, just not capture. And they are not "infantry" per say.
LValx wrote: So if vehicles and swarms arent denial, then denial units are infantry? Which is what I said. Not being able to contest with vehicles is a BIG change.
I also imagine one of the reasons this thread was made is that infantry units are finding it more difficult to live until the end of the game. If that holds true for scoring units, it should also hold true for denial units.
ummm...you've forgotten about monstrous creatures? edit: ninja'd
LValx wrote: Cron Warriors are completely different than Marines. They are most often fielded in the best overall transport in the game. That is what makes them good.
Precisely, thanks. standard loadout - 5 warriors which is the absolute minimum you can get to take the Scythe. In fact, you don't even see 5 Immortals in them, which would make a lot more sense if troops and scoring were that important.
LValx wrote: Rhinos are now lackluster and Marines have seen a dropoff due to Heldrakes. In fact, in a Heldrakeless world, i'd definitely take Tac Marines. As it stands I'd rather take scouts or bikes. All of that doesn't really matter though. There isn't a single codex I wouldn't take at least 4 troops with, though i'd generally lean towards 5+ at anything above 1750.
Cool. Thing is, are you taking the troop units listed as troops in the codex, or are you taking allies/elites as troops. Because for me, that it the purpose of the thread.
LValx wrote: Even if I played CSM/Daemons, i'd probably take 4-5 units of Cultists + Plaguebearers/Horrors and a Portalglyph (I only bring this up specifically because I'd say those codices have the worst overall troops). I think troops are that important.
Cool, we can agree to disagree. As has been said before, it is army specific and I also think player specific.
If nothing else, at least this has been debated to death
And as I said before, certain codices, those with great transports can very easily field MSU. Crons are best at it because their transports can place them just about anywhere on the board. That helps tremendously.
I thought the purpose of the thread was simply debating the usefulness of investing in troops vs. superior shooting options (I never got the feeling that it mattered where the troops came from, be it FOC manipulation or allies).
LValx wrote: And as I said before, certain codices, those with great transports can very easily field MSU. Crons are best at it because their transports can place them just about anywhere on the board. That helps tremendously.
I thought the purpose of the thread was simply debating the usefulness of investing in troops vs. superior shooting options (I never got the feeling that it mattered where the troops came from, be it FOC manipulation or allies).
It greatly matters where the troops come from. By taking a unit from another FOC slot as troops you are effectively investing more points in their original slot, not Troops, as they are fulfilling the role of that slot more than any other. So you're still minimizing Troops in order to take more of other stuff, just in a different way.
So in the example of the OP and taking Leman Russ tanks as troops. That is effectively investing more points in Heavy Support as just because the Russ is now a troop choice it is going to fulfill the same role in the battle as a Leman Russ in the Heavy Support slot, rather than what a Troops choice is usually effective at.
JGrand wrote: I would imagine that they would then have to concede that against competent opponents, their min troops will be killed off even easier.
Against equal shooting, yes. But the whole point is you don't have equal shooting. Two 50-man blobs is a minimum of 560 points without even counting the price of weapon upgrades, attached ICs/commissars to fix their morale problems, etc. In a 1500 point game you're probably spending almost half your points on units that will do absolutely nothing until you count objectives at the end of the game. Meanwhile the minimum-troops list is spending a lot less, so they have a lot more firepower to focus on your troops.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Clauss wrote: How is one tournament an adequate sample size for anything?
It isn't, and I never said it is. What it did is make me thing more seriously about something I've been noticing for all of 6th, that my troops have been consistently the most disappointing part of my lists and games have frequently come down to a question of who is best at killing the other army with troops only scoring a token single objective at the end.
The point being made by icarusthepilot is that his BEST troops are made available via HQs which is in many codexes.
IOW, troops are so bad in 6th that everyone is willing to pay an HQ tax just to get rid of them and make something else into a scoring unit.
And meanwhile the only option I have to fiddle with my troops slot are Termagants unlocking Tervigons. But Tervigons are so good I'd be silly not to take them. Broodlords are also excellent; shame about the stealers they need with them though.
You keep saying 50 man blobs dont do anything.. which I think is a ridiculous thing to say. But you also believe Kroot dont do anything. Do you not see value in massive amounts of Lasguns or pseudo-Bolters?
Blobs do very well vs. assaulty lists and shooty lists. How do your IG "easily" remove 100+ Guardsmen?
Keep in mind that at 1750 and above you can still fill out your HS and FA, so it isnt as though your shooting would be gimped. And what kind of HS/Elites/FA are you taking for Guard that require all of your points? Vendettas/Vultures are cheap as chips. A lot of the HS options arent too bad either (unless you go Lemans, which really arent that efficient at killing troops due to the ability to gain cover and GTG).
The IG Elites slot is pretty poor, so I dont imagine you'll be filling that up as well.
This whole debate is a bit silly because the answers are so dependent on knowing what point level, what codex and what sort of environment you are playing.
If you honestly think those units do nothing or drag your army down in the game, you are either trolling or play at such a low level that is doesn't matter what units you take.
Against equal shooting, yes. But the whole point is you don't have equal shooting. Two 50-man blobs is a minimum of 560 points without even counting the price of weapon upgrades, attached ICs/commissars to fix their morale problems, etc. In a 1500 point game you're probably spending almost half your points on units that will do absolutely nothing until you count objectives at the end of the game. Meanwhile the minimum-troops list is spending a lot less, so they have a lot more firepower to focus on your troops.
You do realize that troops are able to shoot and assault, right?
A blob of 50 Guardsmen with 5 power axes is 300 points. A naked PCS is 30. Attaching a character, such as the ubiquitous Rune Priest is only an additional 100 points. Of course, one is free to add in melta bombs, kraks, autocannons, meltaguns, and flamers--but they aren't necessary. So 430 points. Even if I wanted to take two of these, that costs 860. From here, I can STILL add three Vendettas, 3 Griffons, and 2x5 Grey Hunters and be around 1600 points. That means 110 GEQ (100 of which have ATSKNF), 10 MEQ, 3 AV12 flyers, and 3 barrage platforms with room to play with. Have to add in a cheap guard HQ as well somewhere. Not saying this is the be all to end all, just bringing a hypothetical list into the mix.
With FRFSRF and Prescience, the Guard blobs are putting out between 100 and 150 st 3 shots with re-rolls. Which means, they put the hurt on just about anything on foot they aim their weapons at. In combat, they win a slow war of attrition, as they are able to pump out 15 st 4 ap 2 attacks a turn (with Prescience re-rolls, again), as well as all the other GEQ punches. They do far more than just score at the game's end.
If you have ever wondered why players are rushing out to get torrent templates and barrage weapons, now you know.
I'd be interesting in seeing these magical lists that somehow eschew troops for substantially more firepower. Again, the above (and unoptimized) example still manages to cram in plenty of additional firepower. The aforementioned 120 Kroot Tau lists still have 3 Riptides and 3 Skyrays. I can make Ork lists with 150 Boyz and still fit 3x10 Lootas and a couple of Dakka Jets (or whatever else). The list goes on. What are you adding that is so much more potent?
JGrand wrote: With FRFSRF and Prescience, the Guard blobs are putting out between 100 and 150 st 3 shots with re-rolls. Which means, they put the hurt on just about anything on foot they aim their weapons at.
And how much of this 'effectiveness' is because they're used in events where you need to spend 900 points on troops because of margin of victory scoring? I can see how a lot of lasguns can be decent (but short ranged) against infantry in a game where you must capture objectives outside of your own deployment zone if you want to win by enough of a margin that it's a true "win", and therefore everyone brings lots of similar scoring blobs to shoot at. But how well is that going to work in a metagame focused on holding "home" objectives with small infantry units and bringing lots of vehicles? Now you've got an extremely expensive unit that doesn't have the range to hit backfield objective holders and isn't even remotely effective against tanks.
And how much of this 'effectiveness' is because they're used in events where you need to spend 900 points on troops because of margin of victory scoring? I can see how a lot of lasguns can be decent (but short ranged) against infantry in a game where you must capture objectives outside of your own deployment zone if you want to win by enough of a margin that it's a true "win", and therefore everyone brings lots of similar scoring blobs to shoot at. But how well is that going to work in a metagame focused on holding "home" objectives with small infantry units and bringing lots of vehicles? Now you've got an extremely expensive unit that doesn't have the range to hit backfield objective holders and isn't even remotely effective against tanks.
Do you realize that 24" is a pretty substantial range once you hit midfield? Because it is. Take a tape measure and make a circle around the center if you don't believe me. In addition, you assume that I want to place my objectives entirely in my backfield. Also, the relic starts midboard. Good luck that game.
Finally, I had 3 Griffons in my hypothetical list. Perhaps your MSU objective holders will survive, but is seems very unlikely to me.
No matter what game of 40k you are playing, troops like Guard blobs, Boyz, and Kroot are valuable. Period. End of story. You can't assume opponents want to hide their lone objective in a 1v1 objective game. What happens if I get 2 of 3? Or 3 of 5? You really think you can stop my mass of troops from taking any of them, especially once your min units die? Remember, even if you get First Blood, Slay the Warlord, and Linebreaker and I don't, you still tie AT BEST if you can hold me to just one objective. That is a tall order, considering the ease of hiding Warlords in blobs, the difficulty of poaching first blood off of lists designed like this, and the ease at which one can take linebreaker.
Essentially--no matter how you slice it, you are playing an uphill battle. We don't even need to bring events into the mix (and lots of those don't require margin of victory: see-Nova).
JGrand wrote: Do you realize that 24" is a pretty substantial range once you hit midfield?
IF you hit midfield, you mean. Once you move that blob out into the open you're going to find that 50-man blobs with no save aren't much more durable than 10-man tactical squads that cost half as much.
Finally, I had 3 Griffons in my hypothetical list.
Three 12/10/10 open-topped vehicles. Yeah, they have good firepower, but you're depending on having complete 100% LOS blocking, and anything that can get a shot from a different angle around the LOS blocker is going to kill them very quickly.
IF you hit midfield, you mean. Once you move that blob out into the open you're going to find that 50-man blobs with no save aren't much more durable than 10-man tactical squads that cost half as much.
I play with 25% terrain coverage spread equally. There is not "out in the open" smack in the center of the map. Aegis lines are also pretty cheap, popular, and a good bet for a list like this. And, they are still 50 wounds... I have never seen a blob fail to get midfield.
Three 12/10/10 open-topped vehicles. Yeah, they have good firepower, but you're depending on having complete 100% LOS blocking, and anything that can get a shot from a different angle around the LOS blocker is going to kill them very quickly.
Sure. We can back and forth all kinds of hypotheticals here. It is pretty laughable that you are trying to claim that it won't be easy to kill off your two min objective grabbers while simultaneously stating that 50 guard "aren't that durable."
My main advice is to go to some events. Try to find some that fit your tastes. Most TOs are making a concerted effort to stay true to 6th edition missions (while adding the necessary points to eliminate ties). Like I said, the winner of Nova will be the person who goes 8-0. Margin of victory is meaningless (besides Swiss-pairing). Two min troops may work for you, I'd just be very, very surprised.
Gornall wrote: If you really think blobs do not contribute until the end of the game, then this debate is probably pointless.
It's not whether or not they contribute, really, but whether by minimising them you can maximise another option which contributes a lot more.
Fair enough... but I think the difference in killing power between good troops and other FOC selections is being overstated. I think you really have to scrimp on troops to get enough additional firepower to notice. And at that point I think the loss of flexibility offsets the gain in firepower.
I'm curious as to why you think units like Guardsmen, Boyz and Kroot are hard to kill, especially with the rise of new Tau and Markerlights stripping cover for Large Blasts.
All of those blobs evaporate under a submunition shot from a Hammerhead, or an overcharged Ion Cannon or Accelerator.
Why does the relic starting in the middle of the board make taking small units of troops a liability? The whole point is to kill the other persons troops, the Relic mission makes that easier due to there being only one objective which is in the middle of the board. You know that if the opponent wants to capture it they must move forwards, pick it up and take it back. Add in the fact that any unit carrying the Relic can only move 6", which makes it very hard for your opponent to get away after they've picked it up.
So hide your minimal troops away and position your killer units so that when the opponent tries to capture the relic they come under such a vicious amount of firepower that it's a suicide mission for any unit attempting it.
JGrand wrote: It is pretty laughable that you are trying to claim that it won't be easy to kill off your two min objective grabbers while simultaneously stating that 50 guard "aren't that durable."
It's all about relative firepower. 50-man blobs aren't all that durable against an entire army focusing on them, token objective holders can be durable when only a small amount of firepower can even attempt to hit them. If we're playing a 1500 point game those blobs are facing ~1300 points of firepower while my token scoring units are at most dealing with ~750.
And sure, those blobs might be hard to kill if you camp them in your own deployment zone, but that's playing the game I want. Now we're both holding our "home" objectives, except I'm doing it with ~2-300 points while you're doing it with ~750 points (or more). I have a lot more points to spend on trying to kill your scoring units, keeping you out of midfield, ensuring I get the secondary VPs, etc.
Like I said, the winner of Nova will be the person who goes 8-0. Margin of victory is meaningless (besides Swiss-pairing). Two min troops may work for you, I'd just be very, very surprised.
Unfortunately NOVA does not allow FW units, and I refuse to support comp-heavy events like that.
It greatly matters where the troops come from. By taking a unit from another FOC slot as troops you are effectively investing more points in their original slot, not Troops, as they are fulfilling the role of that slot more than any other. So you're still minimizing Troops in order to take more of other stuff, just in a different way.
So in the example of the OP and taking Leman Russ tanks as troops. That is effectively investing more points in Heavy Support as just because the Russ is now a troop choice it is going to fulfill the same role in the battle as a Leman Russ in the Heavy Support slot, rather than what a Troops choice is usually effective at.
A Leman Russ is an extreme example on one end of "Troops", just as a unit of Succubi compared to Wyches is an extreme example on the other. This whole conversation is ridiculous because troops do wildly different things, fill different roles, and vary massively in ability.
The only possible aspect of the discussion that can be looked at alone is this - "Is it worth it to spend points on scoring at the expense of firepower." In this sense it does not matter at all if FOC manipulation is happening, all that matters is whether the scoring unit comes at the expense of firepower and whether the points spent on scoring is worth the points lost elsewhere. This is a discussion that must, and always has, been done on the level of individual units, and on the Codex level to a lesser extent. Talking about Troops as a whole is pointless and useless.
The whole thread would be better off titled as "Is scoring less important than commonly believed?"
A Town Called Malus wrote: I'm curious as to why you think units like Guardsmen, Boyz and Kroot are hard to kill, especially with the rise of new Tau and Markerlights stripping cover for Large Blasts.
All of those blobs evaporate under a submunition shot from a Hammerhead, or an overcharged Ion Cannon or Accelerator.
Why does the relic starting in the middle of the board make taking small units of troops a liability? The whole point is to kill the other persons troops, the Relic mission makes that easier due to there being only one objective which is in the middle of the board. You know that if the opponent wants to capture it they must move forwards, pick it up and take it back. Add in the fact that any unit carrying the Relic can only move 6", which makes it very hard for your opponent to get away after they've picked it up.
So hide your minimal troops away and position your killer units so that when the opponent tries to capture the relic they come under such a vicious amount of firepower that it's a suicide mission for any unit attempting it.
A blob evaporates from 1 pie plate? You understand that you can keep your models 2" away from one another and maintain coherency? It is very, very easy to minimize casualties to templates, you just have to be meticulous enough to care.
The relic mission rewards you for taking a durable unit that can survive casualties in order to move into midfield. I'd also argue that in the odd-objective games, it is very useful to have durable troops. If you end up on the wrong end of odd objectives you may be forced from the get-go to cross the field. That is very difficult to do with simple deck-chair units.
50 Guardsmen are very durable, even with an entire army focusing on them. Ask Clauss. Last year at NOVA he had the unfortunate experience of playing vs Kopach's SW/blob list during the final rounds. I remember seeing him pour tons of Tesla and other Necron shots into the blob, yet it still lived. It isn't as though you take these troops and then have no shooting. Most of these armies still have their Heavy Support (generally the best shooting slot) filled out, as well as either the Elites or Fast Attack.
On a decent board, with 25% coverage and a mixture of terrain you'll be able to gain cover saves for your blob quite easily (and if you dont trust the terrain, take an Aegis). Tau are the only army that can reliably remove cover and the units that allow this to happen are generally quite fragile (Skyray isnt, but it also doesn't pack enough Markers to reliably strip cover for multiple units).
GTG makes a HUGE difference in 40k now. It is so easy for almost any troop unit to gain a 2+ cover save. I'm envisioning that your response to this will be that you've done your job by forcing the units to go to ground and then reducing their effectiveness. However, the main objective any troop unit has is to score, contributing to combat (shooting, charging) is a secondary objective. If I can deny Warlord/First Blood (not horribly difficult if I deploy defensively and only present extremely durable targets), all I need to do is kill your troops and then outlast you. I'd wager that having a much larger number of troops will generally give me a much better chance of keeping some of them alive till the end of the game.
You also might be overestimating the value of mech. Especially IG mech. Vendettas are great, Manticores are good (though they have some issues, such as limited shots and cost), but Chimera chassis aren't what they once were. Leman Russes tend to be a pretty inefficient shooting platform, paying a huge premium for their durability. I'd really like to see a sample 1850-2k list, if you don't mind.
If I play the Kroot-centric Tau list, you don't think my 3 Riptides and 3 Sky Rays are going to be able to knock out some of your anti-infantry? Hell, I dont even need to kill your AT weapons if my troops consist of GEQ-hordes, Meltas, Lascannons, etc are incredibly inefficient at removing non-MEQ/TEQ troops (and arguably those as well). So the only things I'd really need to worry about knocking out are your Barrage platforms or Hellhounds.
Some armies are definitely great at destroying Xenos style troops. Tau are going to shake things up due to the prevalence of SMS. However, there are plenty of armies that really, really struggle to deal with that many bodies (Marines, Necrons, GK, possibly Eldar).
I think this entire conversation would be SO much more productive if both sides toned down a bit on the hyperbole. I
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, most of the lists that are utilizing mass troops like this, also bring shooting that is meant to target opposing troops. For example Tony Kopachs list takes 2 Thunderfires and a Manticore to remove opposing troops. His blob can outflank, giving him the ability to show up and alphastrike troops. Storm Talons are mobile and make for decent anti-infantry (especially when shooting at small units), they and the Vendettas also offer decent, though not great anti-tank.
For the massed Kroot list, you'll see lots of SMS, which are great for hunting troops, outflanking Kroot that will very likely alpha strike opposing troops with possible Ethereal/Marker buffs.
It's a very specific strategy of being able to remove opposing troops and outlast. These lists are endurance tests and they are much harder to beat then they may seem on paper, regardless of format or mission.
One more bonus to foot lists is, that vehicles are generally thankful targets for first blood. 3ish Lascannons with searchlights are enough to pose a big threat for AV12 vehicles to concede first blood under any condition. Infantry hordes if deployed properly (some behind BLOS to ensure no unit can be killed as a whole) won't concede first blood as easily.
So having First Blood secured and the Warlord safely denied makes it an uphill battle for the opponent if he is inferior in Troops because all you have to do is not being tabled and shove your troops at the opponent to keep him busy. You can even throw away almost your whole army as long as the objective draw is secured, then you will win.
@Corollax
Think of the dice as "army lists." Each die has six sides, and some fixed number of points to distribute. In the first example, Die A will beat Die B 5/9 of the time. It's a "favorable matchup" -- but it comes at the expense of losing 5/9 of its games with Die C. Depending on the local "metagame", one die may achieve more wins than another, since it will have more favorable matchups. But if you simply tally up the score for each roll, all of them have the same average, and that advantage disappears.
We don't have the Rock/Paper/Scissors metagame conditions here. It would be foolish to count on the opponent having a troop heavy but soft list.
But as proven many times there are lists that win under both conditions. Thing is, in a W/D/L-environment you can have more variety because you can afford to a certain extent to take minimum troops as well. But that doesnt make max troop lists less viable per se.
Troops are what you make of them. They aren't strong, generally don't have great firepower, and their only real use is to score. You have to find that middle ground between having enough to not fail objective games and still be able to blow enemy units out of the water.
For instance, two infiltrating units of Kroot and two Jetbike squads. Now what is that unit of kroot going to do by itself? Fuch all, that's what. 10 S4 AP6 rounds or 10 sniper shots isn't killing much of anything. What about the Jetbikes? The new Eldar have similar rending shenanigans with assault 2 weapons, but there's only six in this unit. why would I take two units of six jetbikes when I could add onto a unit of Warp Spiders? I'll tell you.
Trolling.
No really. Don't take large blobs of guard because of their damage output, don't take squads of tactical marines because they're sturdy objective holders (that title goes to both Plague Marines and Wraithguard). Troops add two things: the ability to hold objectives and a bit of firepower. So use the fear of them getting to an objective as a weapon against your opponent.
In objective games, as many people have said, your troops will be the first (generally) to get blown away... but that means that your other units are still intact. play it smart and keep your troops in cover as they advance to objectives (but not taking them, unless the objective is in cover), and you have a unit that is as scary in an objective game as a Flyrant is in Kill point games. If you make your list correctly, you'll have to force your opponent to choose between shooting your scoring dudes who can't really do much to their army or shooting the huge Riptide that's about to lay down a Ion Accelerator blast on his terminators.
Peregrine wrote: Unfortunately NOVA does not allow FW units, and I refuse to support comp-heavy events like that.
So ... your argument is that your list is great when you're not fighting against great lists?
Well, to defend him, he never made such a claim.
@ Peregrine
The whole "I refuse to support comp-heavy events like that" bit bothers me. You seem overly committed to the (poor) rule-set GW provided us. I've got to ask, have you ever played a NOVA format game? Honestly? Or do you simply make assumptions about it?
I've played straight book missions, with all the silliness involved and i've played a few different tournament formats. I can, with full confidence, say that all the different tournament formats i've tried felt more balanced than playing straight book missions. I think slight modifications to the book mission, while keeping with the flavor of them, is the way to go. It creates a game that seems a little more fair and less dependent on dice.
Regardless, you could always play WargamesCon, or Adepticon or BAO. Why don't you?
that being said, there is a different aspect to this that seems to have been forgotten, in my humble view at least.
That is the fact that when considering touneys, you build a list that takes into acocunt the missions that you will be fighting etc. In that sense taking 1/2 troops is probably a very bad idea, however if the tourney you are attending is one based on how much you kill (i did go to one of these once...) then by all means take 2 troops and load up on the killy stuff.
For the run of the mill random games from the rule book, i see the point to an extent
However some armies have good troops and others have ones that are not very good at all for what you get... and there lies the other part of this. Its army dependent, IG can do it due to the fact that their troops are cheap and you can scimp on them if you want to and fill up on the heavy stuff, and for some like orks taking loads of Boyz is a perfectyl viable tactic. Marines.. i'm really not sure that you could do it wit them but i'm sure someone could come up with something.
that being said, there is a different aspect to this that seems to have been forgotten, in my humble view at least.
That is the fact that when considering touneys, you build a list that takes into acocunt the missions that you will be fighting etc. In that sense taking 1/2 troops is probably a very bad idea, however if the tourney you are attending is one based on how much you kill (i did go to one of these once...) then by all means take 2 troops and load up on the killy stuff.
For the run of the mill random games from the rule book, i see the point to an extent
Sure. It has been mentioned that tournaments add a myriad of factors that one must account for (and which also influence list construction). However, lots of GTs try to stay true to the book, which means objectives--lots of them.
However some armies have good troops and others have ones that are not very good at all for what you get... and there lies the other part of this. Its army dependent, IG can do it due to the fact that their troops are cheap and you can scimp on them if you want to and fill up on the heavy stuff, and for some like orks taking loads of Boyz is a perfectyl viable tactic. Marines.. i'm really not sure that you could do it wit them but i'm sure someone could come up with something.
Just my humble opinion
Agreed. I don't think those here who are in favor of taking a number of scoring units (or large numbers of bodies) are making the statement unilaterally. Some armies don't have good troops, though most can ally with good troops. Some lists aim to be hyper aggressive, hence, you see CSM/Daemon builds that often feature low numbers of small scoring units. Some lists possess transports that are actually viable in 6th edition. This means you see Necrons with squads of min Warriors in Scythes, or Serpents with 5 DA. Much is dependent on the list.
Nevertheless, it still pays to invest in scoring units. 20 Warriors in 4 Scythes or 20 DA in 4 Serpents is on the low end of scoring. Yet, there are still more than the two minimum units required by the rules and these units are durable and fast. These examples are more of the exception than the rule though.
So he is arguing for a list/book that is not accepted at the vast majority of tournaments.
Yeah. Okay, no.
The rules in those stupid IA books are on the same level as apoc, is it absolutely ridiculous for him to say anything on the topic of actual competitive 40k. Which does not allow rules that are "that" poorly imbalanced to be used.
I saw kroot rundown a necron lord yesterday...granted dice rolles went badly for the necron player but man that was awesome.
My side is this, I think it's about the army. Most books look built on their troops but my CSM if I have enough scarey threats on the table my two big blobs of cultists will be fine to objective hold. Whereas boyz or term/hormagaunts make all the difference in lists. I think it's all about the list inside of an army and the value a player puts on them.
I actually tend to agree that blob squads are increasingly less relevant in the modern environment. It may be that I've always been rather heavy on anti-infantry-- I took 2 TFCs even in 5th edition and love them in 6th edition-- but I've been finding that blobs have been becoming less and less effective as 6th edition progresses.
My Tau just love seeing them in particular-- remove casualties from front and the 6th edition cover nerfs mean that these units are much less resilient and often don't even get to meaningfully attack, with the closest models being removed before they get in range. Ultimately I think that blob-centric lists are very "late 5th/early 6th" and will fall by the wayside as people adapt to Dark Angels, Daemons, Tau, etc.
Clauss wrote: The rules in those stupid IA books are on the same level as apoc, is it absolutely ridiculous for him to say anything on the topic of actual competitive 40k.
Nope, try again. According to GW, the people who actually decide what is and isn't part of the game, FW rules are part of the game. The fact that a lot of self-declared "competitive" players have decided to play under a house rule that excludes those rules does not make it any less of a house rule. It's just funny how the same "competitive" players screamed about comp for all of 5th (remember those "bring more than three dedicated transports and we ban you" events?), but when it comes to the specific form of comp they want they declare any non-comp event "not 'real' 40k".
But I'm glad to see that you're both obsessed with "competitive" 40k in a thread where I never said I'm just talking about competitive tournaments AND the bad stereotype of the arrogant "competitive" player who can't imagine a world outside of their house rules.
Quark wrote: So ... your argument is that your list is great when you're not fighting against great lists?
No, my argument is that I've spent a lot of time and money on an army that uses units GW says are part of standard 40k, and I'm not going to play in a comp-heavy event that bans them. If people want to play the game with house rules that restrict what armies and units you're allowed to take they obviously have the right to do so. But I'm not going to support their events.
LValx wrote: You seem overly committed to the (poor) rule-set GW provided us.
That's not really it. I'd be willing to play in events with non-standard missions, I just don't see much point in discussing them in a thread that isn't about a specific event. There's just too many different non-standard missions, many of them with contradictory best strategies, to make broad statements about how to win them. Focusing on the book missions is just limiting the scope of the discussion to something where you can talk about these things.
Regardless, you could always play WargamesCon, or Adepticon or BAO. Why don't you?
Travel. I'm not spending hundreds of dollars on airline tickets (on top of hundreds of dollars on a hotel room) and risking damage to my models by letting the airline handle them, so that means the only events I'm interested in are the ones in driving range. NOVA would be great and I'd love to go, but not when they have a house rule that says "you are not welcome".
The entire post sounds like: I can't use my super overpower IA book so I will not play in any tournament that doesnt allow me to utilize every tank I have.
Those rules are excluded the majority of the time because they imbalance the game, it is that simple. People do not want to play with those rules because they make the game even more imbalanced. Those rules are poorly made and imbalance the game more so than anything else.
Do not find it odd that most people here disagree with you about this?
Clauss wrote: The entire post sounds like: I can't use my super overpower IA book so I will not play in any tournament that doesnt allow me to utilize every tank I have.
Yeah, how dare I want to use the models I paid for just because GW says they're part of the game. Besides, I thought all the "competitive" players agree that troops are mandatory and an all-tank IG army will just lose to the blob squads/kroot/etc? You can't really have it both ways.
Those rules are excluded the majority of the time because they imbalance the game, it is that simple.
So did a lot of things in 5th, but that didn't stop the "competitive" players from screaming about how much comp sucks and we should play the game as written by GW. Why is comp suddenly a good thing when it's limiting the units you want to limit?
Do not find it odd that most people here disagree with you about this?
I do find it odd that so-called "competitive" players are so afraid of their metagame changing. Coming from MTG I can't help laughing at how 40k players have a ban first, ask questions later policy while real competitive games only use bans as a last resort when it is absolutely clear that the thing in question is destroying the game.
Clauss wrote: So he is arguing for a list/book that is not accepted at the vast majority of tournaments.
Yeah. Okay, no.
The rules in those stupid IA books are on the same level as apoc, is it absolutely ridiculous for him to say anything on the topic of actual competitive 40k. Which does not allow rules that are "that" poorly imbalanced to be used.
Well, this thread had a nice run.
Congrats, now the next ten pages will be filled with nerd rage and yet another "is FW balanced or not?" debate. (The answer is, about as much as the GW codices, actually more so, Eldar, Tau, and Necrons all ignore a laundry list of unfavorable rules and a good Tau player can make an entire phase of the game irrelevant).
Troops are mandatory. Look at the FoC, as far as I can see you have to take at least 2. FW is essentially a new game completely, given how ridiculous thudd guns are along with other units.. Yes I am happy I dont have to face them, because they are too good for their points.
What things in 5th were so imbalanced, please tell me and we can show you tournament results that show you exact opposite over the past years.
So saying people on dakka crying about unit X being too good equates to OP? If you went to more tournaments you would experience this. The vast majority of big tournaments you will see good players make it to top tables, not OP units.
Competitive players are not afraid of the metagame changes, it changes with every codex. Why don't you go ask TOs who run tournaments why they don't allow IA and FW units, then we can get a 1st hand answer instead.
If it was so balanced and accepted, then the logical assumption would be TOs to allow FW to attract players who have FW units which would increase the attendees. So why do they not include FW?
Kain, no, this thread did not have a nice run, it was ridiculous from page one.
Actually Clauss, on this very board many of the TOs from large events have cited more that people have the impression that FW is imbalanced, and its that impression stopping them from allowing FW in their events.
Certainly, some also think this impression is true. There are also many who disagree with this impression.
I'd like to note the irony in your post decrying people for their opinion that various Codex units are OP, while simultaneously disparaging all of IA because "they are too good for their points."
12 str 5 ap 4 barrage blasts for 150 points. Is enough for them to be banned from any major GT. Compare that to any artillery piece in the game, and say that unit is fair for its points. If that unit is fair for its points, then I would have no problem using FW. But is that unit even close to fair?
I am asking him what units he believes are OP, I never said any units in any regular codex are op.
Clauss wrote: Troops are mandatory. Look at the FoC, as far as I can see you have to take at least 2.
Sigh. You know it was perfectly obvious in that sentence that I'm talking about taking significant troops, not merely following the FOC rules. The "competitive" players have been telling us all about how the best way to win in 6th is to take large blobs of troops (platoons, Kroot, etc) and an all-tank army with FOC-minimum troops would just lose. And now you're complaining that my all-tank ABG list is so overpowered it can't be allowed. How can it be both? If it's an auto-lose to Kroot blobs how can it be too powerful?
What things in 5th were so imbalanced, please tell me and we can show you tournament results that show you exact opposite over the past years.
Remember MSU Razorback spam? People got tired of it and added comp rules to their tournaments to discourage it (or outright ban it), and the self-titled "competitive" players complained endlessly about how stupid comp is and how players shouldn't ruin the game by second-guessing GW. And now the "competitive" players are arguing to the death for a different kind of comp.
Competitive players are not afraid of the metagame changes, it changes with every codex.
Of course they are. They're terrified of a FW-legal metagame that might require them to buy new armies, so they ban all the FW stuff based on little more than theory and speculation about what might happen. Coming from MTG this is just laughably un-competitive behavior.
Nope, try again. According to GW, the people who actually decide what is and isn't part of the game, FW rules are part of the game. The fact that a lot of self-declared "competitive" players have decided to play under a house rule that excludes those rules does not make it any less of a house rule. It's just funny how the same "competitive" players screamed about comp for all of 5th (remember those "bring more than three dedicated transports and we ban you" events?), but when it comes to the specific form of comp they want they declare any non-comp event "not 'real' 40k".
I know this is a bit tangential, but you are incorrect. The community decides what is part of the game. GW has nothing to do with any kind of organized gaming. Really, GW has nothing to do with the game besides creating the boiler plate rules. You see community consensus and splintering in everything. Just about every video game gets tinkered with by players who want to make the game more competitive or just more to their liking. People turn off items in Super Smash Brothers all the time. Players routinely change the guns on Halo maps. 40k is the same way.
Regardless, just because GW puts something in the book doesn't mean it is the "one true way" to play. I hardly ever see people play with all aspects of the book missions (mysterious terrain...hello?). As I've previously mentioned, there are always "house rules", no matter what. Things like point level, terrain placement, and questions not answered by FAQ are all elements that players must come to a consensus on before games. By your definition, these are "house rules", as they are not explicit in the BRB.
There is no need to be so dogmatic about anything in life. In my first post in this thread, I made it clear that I don't believe there is a "real" way to play 40k. I personally favor the balance created by many GT missions, but that is my opinion. If things were so clear-cut, there would never be room for disagreement.
Clauss wrote: The rules in those stupid IA books are on the same level as apoc, is it absolutely ridiculous for him to say anything on the topic of actual competitive 40k.
Nope, try again. According to GW, the people who actually decide what is and isn't part of the game, FW rules are part of the game. The fact that a lot of self-declared "competitive" players have decided to play under a house rule that excludes those rules does not make it any less of a house rule. It's just funny how the same "competitive" players screamed about comp for all of 5th (remember those "bring more than three dedicated transports and we ban you" events?), but when it comes to the specific form of comp they want they declare any non-comp event "not 'real' 40k".
But I'm glad to see that you're both obsessed with "competitive" 40k in a thread where I never said I'm just talking about competitive tournaments AND the bad stereotype of the arrogant "competitive" player who can't imagine a world outside of their house rules.
Quark wrote: So ... your argument is that your list is great when you're not fighting against great lists?
No, my argument is that I've spent a lot of time and money on an army that uses units GW says are part of standard 40k, and I'm not going to play in a comp-heavy event that bans them. If people want to play the game with house rules that restrict what armies and units you're allowed to take they obviously have the right to do so. But I'm not going to support their events.
LValx wrote: You seem overly committed to the (poor) rule-set GW provided us.
That's not really it. I'd be willing to play in events with non-standard missions, I just don't see much point in discussing them in a thread that isn't about a specific event. There's just too many different non-standard missions, many of them with contradictory best strategies, to make broad statements about how to win them. Focusing on the book missions is just limiting the scope of the discussion to something where you can talk about these things.
Regardless, you could always play WargamesCon, or Adepticon or BAO. Why don't you?
Travel. I'm not spending hundreds of dollars on airline tickets (on top of hundreds of dollars on a hotel room) and risking damage to my models by letting the airline handle them, so that means the only events I'm interested in are the ones in driving range. NOVA would be great and I'd love to go, but not when they have a house rule that says "you are not welcome".
Well, FWIW, Brandt does have FW events at NOVA. So for a hobbyist, I believe it would still be a fun and rewarding experience.
Troops tend to be worth it in the abstract, though there are certain armies where Troops are underwhelming most armies have something awesome and murderous in the Troops selection, or a way to get it there via "x is Troops" Special Characters. If you're playing Imperial Guard, though, they usually aren't worth it when weighed against your armor, unless they're overarmed Veterans.
I played in dozens of tournaments, and a couple GTs in 5th. None of them had any restriction on razorspam. I dont know what tournaments you were going to, but I never in my tournament life in 5th saw any childish restriction on transports. FW-Legal metagame is imbalanced by the pure existence of the thudd gun alone. I go back to my previous post, please show me how the thudd gun is equivalent to anything else point wise.
MTG is a completely different game with completely different rules, you cant compare the two effectively.
Poor choice with the vendetta, the scythe is much better, as you spam them for 100 points. At least try to pinpoint the best flyer if you are going to attack them.
Go play in NOVA trios then, some FW is allowed there. Odd how the most serious events like his GT and his invitational of the events don't allow FW.
Clauss wrote: Troops are mandatory. Look at the FoC, as far as I can see you have to take at least 2. FW is essentially a new game completely, given how ridiculous thudd guns are along with other units.. Yes I am happy I dont have to face them, because they are too good for their points.
What things in 5th were so imbalanced, please tell me and we can show you tournament results that show you exact opposite over the past years.
So saying people on dakka crying about unit X being too good equates to OP? If you went to more tournaments you would experience this. The vast majority of big tournaments you will see good players make it to top tables, not OP units.
Competitive players are not afraid of the metagame changes, it changes with every codex. Why don't you go ask TOs who run tournaments why they don't allow IA and FW units, then we can get a 1st hand answer instead.
If it was so balanced and accepted, then the logical assumption would be TOs to allow FW to attract players who have FW units which would increase the attendees. So why do they not include FW?
Kain, no, this thread did not have a nice run, it was ridiculous from page one.
Allow me to go through a lot of the perceived imbalances with FW and enlighten you.
The main problem with the Thudd gun is that it takes forever to resolve but it's not really all that killy. Even against my Swarmnids list it isn't particularly killy. I have never lost any more than my Tervigons can replace with interest in one turn to them. Now if you want imbalanced, look at the Vendetta, the ability for the Tau to completely ignore large swathes of the rulebook like cover and assault and having to deal with a mediocre BS, the nigh invincible wave serpent, or the current cookie cutter cheese lists the Necrons have.
The Contemptor dread is pretty balanced and is probably one of the only forms of dreads that ever get used this edition as the rest are made of paper.
Lucius drop pod: 250 points for three power fist attacks at initiative out of a drop pod that has a chance of immobilizing your dread outright...whoop de fething doo.
Night shroud bomber: It's just a doomscythe with a different gun, yes S10 AP1 large blast is nasty, no it is not unhandleable. I mean, do Medusas dominate the meta despite firing out more S10 termi killing shots? No.
Tesseract ark: An annihiliation barge that gets an Executioner's gun, can kill much of your own army if it bites it, and can get AV14 from quantum shielding, is otherwise AV12 and costs nearly as much as a land raider.
Land Raider Achilles: With the advent of hull points, the Achilles is now paying for a -1 on the damage chart that's going to come up a lot less, and while ignoring lance and melta is nice, it can still simply be smashed open by the nearest monstrous creature or walker.
Vulture: Largely inferior to the Vendetta in most every way, only one build (double punisher cannons) is really all that viable and even then it won't kill as many infantry as you'd think (not enough shots to kill big 30 model bricks, or kill a good sized MEQ group), it is surprisingly good for hullpoint stripping on rear armor though.
Avenger: While it is very nice, it's quite reasonably priced and doesn't do anything too out of the ordinary, indeed a Heldrake is a better MEQ slayer than it is and is far more durable too.
Sabre gun platform: Undercosted? Yes. Game breaking? No. In the end, they're nothing more than tougher heavy weapons teams that can shoot at fliers without gimping themselves. Still nothing an Ion pieplate that ignores cover can't wipe off the map.
Stonecrusher Carnifex: Yes it has better regeneration, AP1, and a 2+, it is still just a four wound monstrous creature with no ranged options and it still dies just as easily to lascannons.
Nightwing: A very nice fighter, perhaps the best air superiority fighter in the game. It is however, made of paper and if it rolls a one on it's jink save that is probably the last one it'll ever roll, at which point you can kiss your points goodbye.
Hornet: Cheap, very snazzy, but not fliers, and you know what that means? Yes, autocannon time, and unlike the now ridiculously invincible wave serpent it doesn't have that snazzy shield of "feth your high strength."
Shadow spectres: Oh look overpriced MEQ killing Jump infantry in a codex full of MEQ slaying options, next.
Meiotic spores: Spore mines are bad and these are still glorified spore mines.
Malanthrope: Used to be awesome as hell, then nerfed into sucking.
Hades Breaching drill: was one legitimately overpowered, is now unreasonably terrible and will accomplish nothing other than mishapping itself and dying like a second rate mawloc.
DkoK: Are they a nice army in both flavors? Why yes. Are they inarguably superior to the guard? Well no. Peregrine can explain it better than I can.
Elysian Drop troopers: Yes they can spam fliers to an extent only Cron air can match, but most of those fliers are valkyries, whose best options are rocket pods that do little to MCs and vehicles unlike the Vendetta's heavy bolters and lascannons of kill everything.
Siege Assault Vanguard list: Yes they can spam huge numbers of tanks, yes they can reroll armor saves, guess what? If they don't get the objective they need to place in your side of the table, they can only ever tie. And rerollable armor saves means diddly to AP3 or better weapons.
Decimator daemon engine: Only truly good when run with Nurgle, and even then it costs nearly as much as a Land raider. Feth.
Mortis dreadnought: Delivers much needed skyfire to the Dark Angels, but it's still a dreadnought and is thus still AV12 with no options for added survivability.
Spartan Assault tank: While better than it's smaller land raider brother at everything for only fifty or so points more, you are now investing nearly three hundred points into a 5 HP AV14 all around unit. Which will make you a very sad man indeed when a cheap unit of Eldar drops in, haywires it into oblivion and drops out, or when JSJ fusion suits come in and fry it, or when you roll into rapid fire range of necron warriors and lose all your hull points in one go.
Legions list: Only meant for games in the 2k+ point range, any oddities for smaller games are there because you're trying to use an army that requires horde marines but doesn't make them any cheaper. And why would a primarch be assed to join a 500 pt battle?
Eldar Corsairs: Once better than Craftworld Eldar in every way, now drearily out of date.
Dreadmob list: Like the Armored Battle group, but Orky and with walkers instead of tanks. The only battle brothers you'll ever get for Orks, has all the issues with trying to spam a lot of an expensive unit with no points deduction for said units.
Armored battle group: Yet again, you are trying to spam a lot of tanks that aren't actually cheaper. This is a list that requires skill because even Draigowing lists can outnumber you modelwise.
Maynarch dynasty: The main change is a Necron specific warlord table, the exceedingly overcosted Acranthites, some special characters, flayed one troops with shred, a few special rules, lychguards attatched to HQs, and immortals can't be mandatory troops. Otherwise pretty much the same as Codex Necrons, also not battle brothers with Codex Necrons for some inexplicable reason. Maybe one of them spat in Szarekh's tea.
Lightning fighter: Made of paper with crappy weapons, garbage.
Hell blade: Made of paper with even *crappier* weapons, garbage.
Hell talon: Schizofrenic paper flier, also garbage.
Fighta: Inferior to a dakkajet.
Fighta-bomma: GROT BOMMS! But still has smaller shootas than a plane flown by grots. Huh?
That one ork kopter: An AV11 skimmer, because the Orks need land speeders too. Made of paper, but pretty fun.
Malcador: Probably the worst superheavy ever, actually inferior to it's cost in Leman Russes by a good margin and is overall a really bad tank, taking this in regular 40k is like taking Old One Eye, it eats up so many points for so little in return you're hurting your army.
Thunderbolt: Actually a worse air to air fighter than the Vendetta, which is an armed transport. Funny how things work huh?
I could keep on going but you probably get the point by now.
Clauss wrote: Kain, thank you for enlightening me on those units. Many of those I did not know.
Yet, again, the thudd gun is still a sore thumb, no matter how many bad units FW has, there is still the thudd gun to show how off certain rules are.
Maybe it's because I play one of the only armies that can actually replace losses in large numbers, but I've never been bothered by the Thudd gun's firepower. It can't kill my MCs and what it can kill (my gants) I can replace in one turn with interest.
My main issue is when you look at it in comparison to a TFC, mortars, eldar artillery or any other artillery. Comparing points and number of blasts it is absolutely horrendous.
But I completely understand where you are coming from, you just lose a few extra gaunts then laugh and make 20 more.
I consider myself a competitive gamer and i'm not the least bit "scared" of FW. I doubt Clauss is and most of the other players i've spoken to don't feel that way either. If it becomes the standard, i'll accept that, adapt and move on. That is fine with me.
I'm not for the standardization of FW. My biggest issue with it is the fact that certain armies receive far more options than others. I could care less about the units that are perceived to be OP, such as Thudds and Sabres (Sabres, IME, haven't been any more OP than Vendettas), it bothers me however that IG receive a much bigger variety of units than say, Tyranids.
If GW were to update all the FW units and rules in a streamlined manner and balance out the amounts of units each codex received, i'd be all for it. But as it stands, i'm not going to support the imperial players receiving an abundance of new toys while many other codices get left with next to nothing new.
You CANNOT compare MTG to 40k. WOTC has an active hand in the competitive arena of that game, whereas GW all but ignores the 40k tournament scene. I'd be very, very happy to see unit bans, etc. in 40k, but I doubt we will see that coming any time soon, as GW seems unwilling to admit to when it makes mistakes.
I consider myself a competitive gamer and i'm not the least bit "scared" of FW. I doubt Clauss is and most of the other players i've spoken to don't feel that way either. If it becomes the standard, i'll accept that, adapt and move on. That is fine with me.
I'm not for the standardization of FW. My biggest issue with it is the fact that certain armies receive far more options than others. I could care less about the units that are perceived to be OP, such as Thudds and Sabres (Sabres, IME, haven't been any more OP than Vendettas), it bothers me however that IG receive a much bigger variety of units than say, Tyranids.
If GW were to update all the FW units and rules in a streamlined manner and balance out the amounts of units each codex received, i'd be all for it. But as it stands, i'm not going to support the imperial players receiving an abundance of new toys while many other codices get left with next to nothing new.
You CANNOT compare MTG to 40k. WOTC has an active hand in the competitive arena of that game, whereas GW all but ignores the 40k tournament scene. I'd be very, very happy to see unit bans, etc. in 40k, but I doubt we will see that coming any time soon, as GW seems unwilling to admit to when it makes mistakes.
You're probably too young to remember this but the last time GW outright banned an element of the game was in 2e when in white dwarf it apologized for the virus outbreak strategy card and asked everyone to burn theirs.
And yes, it was in fact that bad.
This was an edition where single characters could pretty much single handedly wipe out large sections of your army, where Basilisks WOULD ruin a vehicle's day no matter what, the tyranids ignored the strategy card system in favor of monstrously overpowered dice rolls, and it was THIS card that was gamebreaking above all the rest.
I'm with you Peregrine, why play in a tournament you don't really want to tha restricts you taking an army you have spent lots and time and money putting together. I don't see why people can't understand that...
Clauss wrote: The entire post sounds like: I can't use my super overpower IA book so I will not play in any tournament that doesnt allow me to utilize every tank I have.
Yeah, how dare I want to use the models I paid for just because GW says they're part of the game. Besides, I thought all the "competitive" players agree that troops are mandatory and an all-tank IG army will just lose to the blob squads/kroot/etc? You can't really have it both ways.
Those rules are excluded the majority of the time because they imbalance the game, it is that simple.
So did a lot of things in 5th, but that didn't stop the "competitive" players from screaming about how much comp sucks and we should play the game as written by GW. Why is comp suddenly a good thing when it's limiting the units you want to limit?
Do not find it odd that most people here disagree with you about this?
I do find it odd that so-called "competitive" players are so afraid of their metagame changing. Coming from MTG I can't help laughing at how 40k players have a ban first, ask questions later policy while real competitive games only use bans as a last resort when it is absolutely clear that the thing in question is destroying the game.
Competitive players in 5th didn't have a "play the game as written" mentality. Even in 5th, the NOVA format changed many aspects of the book missions in order to achieve a greater level of balance. That is when I was first introduced to the format and I have loved it ever since.
Adding FW to 40k would be akin to introducing a new set of cards to MTG that featured a highly disproportionate amount of black cards to the others, with no mind paid to equal distribution of new choices. That, IMO, is the biggest problem with FW. I agree with you that GW fully intends for FW to be part of the game, no different than a codex. However, I think GW did not follow through and took the lazy route of simply saying, "FW is now standard 40k" without considering how it effects the game by offering certain codices far more choices than others. If GW were a bit more diligent in trying to balance out the game, I think FW would be more widely accepted.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaconUprising wrote: I'm with you Peregrine, why play in a tournament you don't really want to tha restricts you taking an army you have spent lots and time and money putting together. I don't see why people can't understand that...
I understand that just fine. I do believe that there are still options. NOVA has multiple different "tournaments" throughout its duration and they are designed to accommodate a wide-range of players.
I imagine that if Peregrine played in 5th, he had to have an army that was non-FW reliant, so it should be pretty easy for him to field both FW and non-FW armies.
There's playing an army you have and playing an army you want to take. I have lots and lots of space marines geared up from 5th. Sure they would have worked well in 5th now they suck. They are also badly painted and not an army I would want to take to a tournament, just because you have anther army it doesn't mean you are going to want to take it...
BaconUprising wrote: There's playing an army you have and playing an army you want to take. I have lots and lots of space marines geared up from 5th. Sure they would have worked well in 5th now they suck. They are also badly painted and not an army I would want to take to a tournament, just because you have anther army it doesn't mean you are going to want to take it...
Sure, but you could always play in the events that allow FW (which NOVA has, because MVBrandt didn't want to alienate those players who want to use their FW models). Hell, I'd attend NOVA even if I couldn't play, but I enjoy watching others, seeing the armies and just being there. It's a really good time that i'd recommend to everyone!
LValx wrote: Adding FW to 40k would be akin to introducing a new set of cards to MTG that featured a highly disproportionate amount of black cards to the others, with no mind paid to equal distribution of new choices.
They actually did that, a deliberately black-heavy set (for "fluff" reasons). Tournaments continued to work just fine.
I imagine that if Peregrine played in 5th, he had to have an army that was non-FW reliant, so it should be pretty easy for him to field both FW and non-FW armies.
I played in 5th, but only against people who were willing to play against FW rules. So no, I can't field a non-FW army, and even if I could I still wouldn't support events with ridiculous comp systems.
Clauss wrote: Yet, again, the thudd gun is still a sore thumb, no matter how many bad units FW has, there is still the thudd gun to show how off certain rules are.
So because one unit is overpowered you need a blanket ban on dozens of unrelated units? This makes about as much sense as banning IG because the Vendetta is obviously too cheap.
LValx wrote: Sure, but you could always play in the events that allow FW (which NOVA has, because MVBrandt didn't want to alienate those players who want to use their FW models).
I'm not really interested in spending a lot of time and money on traveling so I can play in the side events. I'm sure somebody enjoys them, but I don't see any need to support that kind of second-tier policy.
Clauss wrote: I played in dozens of tournaments, and a couple GTs in 5th. None of them had any restriction on razorspam. I dont know what tournaments you were going to, but I never in my tournament life in 5th saw any childish restriction on transports.
Then go spend a few minutes searching for 5th edition comp debates, you'll find endless pages of "competitive" players complaining about comp-heavy events with restrictions designed specifically to penalize transport spam.
MTG is a completely different game with completely different rules, you cant compare the two effectively.
I'm comparing the community attitudes towards bans, not the rules of the games.
MTG players accept that the game exists as it is published by WOTC and bans are only used as an absolute last resort, once there is indisputable evidence (from high-level competitive play) that a card is ban-worthy. Cards are never banned without that evidence, no amount of theoretical analysis and forum speculation will get a card banned. Only consistent dominance of sanctioned competitive tournaments counts as evidence, and even then the standard for "dominance" is a hard one to meet. And once WOTC decides to use that last resort policy only the narrowest possible bans are used, not a blanket ban of everything vaguely related to the offending deck.
40k players, on the other hand, impose blanket bans on entire classes of units just because someone read the rules and speculated that it would be too powerful. There's no need for actual evidence, just a feeling that "it would be too powerful".
Poor choice with the vendetta, the scythe is much better, as you spam them for 100 points. At least try to pinpoint the best flyer if you are going to attack them.
You're missing the point there. Regardless of other 5th edition flyers (note that the Helldrake was probably written under 5th edition design standards) and whether or not they're overpowered the Vendetta is clearly better than the "true" 6th edition flyers. So if thudd guns need to be banned just because their point cost is too cheap, without any evidence that they would dominate tournaments to an unfair degree, so do Vendettas (along with all of the IG codex).
Not really seeing how the IA debate adds anything to the discussion...
Personally, I think good troops are just as important in standard missions as they are in most tournament formats. They provide cheap bodies that generally have to be dealt with in most games, often requiring a higher "firepower-per-point" ratio to remove. In non-objective games they can always act as bubble wrap or fodder to keep more killy stuff alive. I guess my thought is everything in moderation.
At the end of the day I do not think there is a way for either side to "prove" their point, though. I think I am going to just agree to disagree.
What was the black heavy set? And was it followed by other color heavy sets? When was it? Because in all the time I played MTG (admittedly a while ago, last time I played was around Mirrodin), the different colors all had similar numbers of available card choices (I'm actually just curious about this now!).
Comparing the MTG community to the 40k community doesn't work too well. Due to the support from WOTC, the MTG competitive community is far better developed than the 40k one. As someone who played both games, I definitely see a much larger dichotomy between casual and competitive 40k players than I ever saw when I played MTG.
Competitive MTG is part of MTG as a whole because WOTC supports it. Competitive 40k is it's own thing because GW shows little support. It's unfortunate. I am also inclined to agree that blanket bans are silly.
If GW emulated WOTC just a bit more, we wouldn't need to have silly FW arguments. GW hatred should unite us all!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gornall wrote: Not really seeing how the IA debate adds anything to the discussion...
Personally, I think good troops are just as important in standard missions as they are in most tournament formats. They provide cheap bodies that generally have to be dealt with in most games, often requiring a higher "firepower-per-point" ratio to remove. In non-objective games they can always act as bubble wrap or fodder to keep more killy stuff alive. I guess my thought is everything in moderation.
At the end of the day I do not think there is a way for either side to "prove" their point, though. I think I am going to just agree to disagree.
Gornall wrote: Not really seeing how the IA debate adds anything to the discussion...
It doesn't really. Someone just had to come in and declare that even though I never said this thread was about major competitive tournaments the fact that I'm talking about FW units means I'm not competitive and therefore the thread is pointless.
The fact that they had to complain about my "overpowered" ABG list right after all the other competitive players said how much it sucks and will never win games just makes it especially funny.
I played in 5th, but only against people who were willing to play against FW rules. So no, I can't field a non-FW army, and even if I could I still wouldn't support events with ridiculous comp systems.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Gornall wrote: Not really seeing how the IA debate adds anything to the discussion...
It doesn't really. Someone just had to come in and declare that even though I never said this thread was about major competitive tournaments the fact that I'm talking about FW units means I'm not competitive and therefore the thread is pointless.
The fact that they had to complain about my "overpowered" ABG list right after all the other competitive players said how much it sucks and will never win games just makes it especially funny.
Hey!
I never said your list sucked and you wouldn't win games!
LValx wrote: What was the black heavy set? And was it followed by other color heavy sets? When was it? Because in all the time I played MTG (admittedly a while ago, last time I played was around Mirrodin), the different colors all had similar numbers of available card choices (I'm actually just curious about this now!).
It was balanced out in the next set (which had fewer black cards), but the other colors never got their own sets. But IIRC even when the following set hadn't been released yet it was just a weird new mechanic, not a complete tournament-disrupting mistake.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LValx wrote: I never said your list sucked and you wouldn't win games!
Well, not in those exact words. And I'm not complaining about your criticism, it's just funny that after a few pages of discussing the weaknesses of the minimal-troops list compared to the tournament-winning troops blob lists Clauss came and declared that it was too overpowered to allow in tournaments.
Yeah I remember Torment, that was around the same time that I was playing.
If GW hurried up and released more FW supplements for all the armies, i'd be much more inclined to support it! I've got nothing against FW and don't find the FW units to be inherently more OP than codex units. We at least agree when it comes to that.
I think the idea of min/max is very important in some armies. Especially with the Tau. A minimum amount of fire warriors to hold objectives with a maximized amount of fire power.
Nafarious wrote: I think the idea of min/max is very important in some armies. Especially with the Tau. A minimum amount of fire warriors to hold objectives with a maximized amount of fire power.
I tried this route and was impressed, but still found myself wanting to at least have 6 troops. For me it's all about being balanced and having numerous troops squads helps me achieve that, regardless of format.
I don't build a list for tournament A, then change it for tournament B. Once I finalize a list, that is my list and i'll stick with it regardless of format. A good list should be able to handle various missions.
Well, for Tau you can either go 12x3 or 6x6 units of Firewarriors, if you are trying to use less than 400 points on troops, tho i personally would have them 12x2 and 6x2 ( 36 FWs only for examples )
But personally i would love to include FW, as they have some of the only good optional choices for a few races in a few of their slots, in Taus example, Turrets as Troops, and the Baracuda and the Remora as Fast Attack which is way better than the default flyers.
I tend to use two rules of thumb. If your troops are good, you build your army around them. If your troops suck, you take as few as are necessary to score you objectives.
For the former, see IG blobs, Kroot, Terivgons and Termagants, Dark Eldar Warriors, and Wraithguard
For the latter, look at every variety of Space Marine, including Chaos and Grey Knights, or Necrons.
Blob squads will probably see a dip in popularity with Tau able to take cover dependant light infantry off the table with a shovel, but a pair of 50 man blobs led by Space Marines is still a solid backbone of an army.
I've been messing around with a Codex:IG interpretation of the ABG, using a mix of Russ hulls and the bare minimum number of MechVet squads and I think the only problem the list has is that I've spent way too long playing power armor and haven't properly adjusted my mindset yet. For straight up garagehammer, using terrain set up via the rulebook method, playing straight win/loss against a single opponent, it works kind of well.
The army runs into a challenge when it loses the strategic initiative (ie I have no say in dictating the terrain I'm fighting over), when it has to try to win by a margin, or when it has to deal with denying one avenue of victory while exploiting another.
Nafarious wrote: I think the idea of min/max is very important in some armies. Especially with the Tau. A minimum amount of fire warriors to hold objectives with a maximized amount of fire power.
I tried this route and was impressed, but still found myself wanting to at least have 6 troops. For me it's all about being balanced and having numerous troops squads helps me achieve that, regardless of format.
I don't build a list for tournament A, then change it for tournament B. Once I finalize a list, that is my list and i'll stick with it regardless of format. A good list should be able to handle various missions.
I do something similar. I have been running the same Tau list that everyone said wouldn't work since the new codex came out.
I'm sorry if this thread is considered resolved, but I just slogged through the 8 and a bit pages while taking notes and I wanted to share my thoughts. Sorry if it feels like I'm dragging stuff up, but I kept making notes as I went instead of at the end. I'm sorry that it's a wall of text, I'm going to spoiler it and you can read it or ignore it.
First, the basic tactic is the OP is describing is a well-known army list type (like MSU or Alpha Strike) with a not well known name. I'm not sure if this has been posted here or not, but the first reference I saw of it was on BoLS (link) where it was called "Maximum Threat Overload" or MTO. I think everyone in this thread agrees that MTO is strong for CSM, Daemons, Necrons, Tyranids and perhaps Eldar pending some ironing out of the MSUWS lists. For the purposes of discussion, I was to identify the ideas supporting the OP as "pro-MTO" and the ideas against it as "anti-MTO."
I wanted to preface any further discussion with a few observations I noted while reading the whole thread:
Spoiler:
- The IA thing came up near the end, but was a sticking point early in the thread as well. The trick when discussing IA is that it's not universally included into games (regardless of whether it should or shouldn't be), and that GW has purportedly stated that they are not interested in balancing the game around tournament play which is an interesting stance to take when you're marketing a competitve game. I am going to discuss non-IA lists (with at least 2 scoring units) because that is the most useful discussion to most forum members.
- The pro-MTO people are not arguing that troops choices are inherently bad, just that taking a unit with the intention of scoring is not as good as adding more firepower. Alternatively: if an army's troops have low firepower, spend the minimum amount to fulfill FOC requirements then spend the rest on stronger units
- As a corollary to the previous point, pro-MTO people are not saying that Troops are bad because they take a Troops slot on the FOC - especially when they originally came from a different section of the FOC (such as Elites). The anti-MTO people have pointed out that some units, such as Paladins and Biker Nobz are not played unless they are Troops and can score which indicates that these units are often taken to be durable scoring units and not just because they are bigger threats than Troops. It has also been suggested that these lists might benefit from allied troops (such as scoring Paladins with Guardsmen blobs).
- Everyone agrees that marines are inefficient and that SM/CSM should only take 2 minimum-size squads (or scouts/cultists), or only take them if you have a goal (like in a drop pod list). The discrepancy is that anti-MTO advocates would likely ally in more troops in order to secure objectives, but pro-MTO would spend these points on bigger guns. It is not fair for either side to suggest that the members of the opposite camp would take a bunch of marines because of more troops/threats or any other reason.
These things came up a few times and I've seen some people's opinions repeatedly misrepresented because the argument gets simplified to "minimum points on troops" or "maximum points on troops".
My own opinions on the necessity of scoring units are in here:
Spoiler:
Some things I wanted to mention about the content of the discussion is that the only objective data we can get is games played. Winning or losing and with what is score IS objective data, but your interpretation of why the game was won or lost is subjective as is any discussion on the subject without evidence. It would be nice to see the tournament list in the OP so that we can understand what is being discussed. If possible, it would be nice if someone could come up with a non-IA army because IA is not accepted at every tournament, but it's not necessary. It would also be incredibly valuable if someone could play more games of these types of armies with non-tradition MTO armies (traditional are CSM, Daemons, Necrons and Tyranids) and post battle reports to see if this applies universally and why.
One other thing is that, to me, I think that killing the two scoring units on the first turn is probably a trap. It looks like these types of lists generally plan to table the opponent and have incredibly squishy scoring units which don't intend to leave the backfield and wil GTG in cover, making them harder than they need to be. The scoring units are not a credible threat and it seems to me that the strategy should be to go for the highest output unit in order to stymie the amount of damage received and only target scoring units when scoring becomes the objective in later turns. ie. If you focus the enemy's Penal Legions in cover and their LRBT shells your wraithguard in the next turn then your target priority is probably off. I think that you should be able to recognize this type of MTO list before deployment and understand that they don't want to score as much as they want to table you or contest with VP advantage and play accordingly. In most army lists, denial units will be not much tougher than scoring units (they often aren't) but they will cost more which means it might be more effective to remove the highest threat as early as you can.
There is some discussion as to whether or not CWE, DE and Tau troops are "inherently bad" and the real answer is that they can be, but don't have to be. CWE troops are incredibly cost effective for what they're capable of and can be played on foot or in minimum quantities in order to field WSs. This does not mean that it is better to field Fire Dragons than Guardians because Guardians are more effective per point against certain targets and are a cheap way to field WS. Basically, If you have 2 squads of Fire Dragons, it's not always better to prune from troops in order to field more Fire Dragons. DE lists probably can't survive without troops with certain possible exceptions. Tau troops are also situational and must compliment the army is order to perform effectively. It is possible the Tau MTO is strong, but I doubt that it's the only strong option or even the strongest one. Generally troops from these three armies should not be discarded as "inherently bad" and probably shouldn't feature in this discussion.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned is that MTO is not the first army list type which has the goal of tabling the opponent. DE Alpha Strike and any Flyer spam list is not a strong threat against objectives, but will seek to either table you or rack up a lot of secondary objectives and contest in the last turn. Some armies are doomed to be picked apart if they try to fight a head-on battle, but can succeed by spreading out their units and moving tactically to secure primary and secondary objectives while losing units every turn. In fact, this tactic can be employed against any army which you won't beat head-on to varying degrees of success. MTO type lists do not have this option available to them because of their low amount of scoring units and are forced to table their opponent or lose.
Secondary objectives have been mentioned periodically but not really hashed out. In large point games (1500pts+, I'm looking at 2000pts here), it becomes quite easy for the army which goes first to secure first blood. It seems that this MTO list relies on getting first blood, but first blood is often given up by vehicles which will likely feature in most MTO lists. The best chance an MTO list has of getting first blood is to get the first turn, but if the other army gets first turn then they will likely secure first blood if 1200pts shoot at the same thing. Having 1700pts of high power units doesn't help secure first blood if you don't go first. Also having low amounts of scoring units is likely to make Linebreaker hard to achieve and I think that most games I've played in have either resulted in HQs being traded or both surviving (this varies by army though). Essentially, MTO cannot guarantee secondary objectives even if it has a reliable method of contesting objectives. But if the MTO army gets 1st turn, then it's harder to make a last-turn move to secure objectives on account of having fewer units on the table which means that they might lose by a wider margin if they do get 1st turn. IMHO it seems as though the plan with these MTO type lists is to table the opponent and fight for objectives only if it becomes clear that they won't be able to finish the opponent by turn 5.
Another hokey thing is that boards with more cover will likely favour the non-MTO army because they have more scoring units which can take cover or hide behind BLOS and survive the war of attrition against fewer units. But having less cover does not necessarily benefit the MTO army, rather it favours the codex which is better without cover. This is an odd interaction and forgive me if I read this wrong. Certainly a large guard blob will suffer against tanks if there isn't ANY cover on the board, but harder armies like SM and Crons aren't hit as hard.
It seems that if the discussion won't consider the tournament environment, then it is a less useful discussion. I think the most important thing to consider is that most tournaments do care about the margin of victory even if they use the BRB match rules because this is the only way to choose a victor out of a set of undefeated players. Even if this type of MTO list wins every game, then it is not likely to win the event if it wins by 1 VP every game. If you don't consider tournaments at all, then you are likely looking at LGS or basement-hammer which is prone to list tailoring. This is fine, but it eventually leads to the scenario where your buddy brings a list just to crush you and it has little to do with the viability of your list in a vacuum.
What I think I'm going to take away from this thread is, whether your are pro- or anti-MTO, you agree that it is very inefficient to invest in troops if their only goal is to sit on an objective. But it looks as though for most armies that this isn't an issue because they will used the most valuable slots of the FOC and still take 4+ troops. I think that most MTO players will have a new appreciation for scoring troops, and if you're the type of player who runs maxed units then you will now understand how taking away special weapons to spend elsewhere can increase your army's strength or utility.
As Hollowman stated, the real title of this thread should have been: "Is scoring less important than commonly believed?" and the response is mixed. I think the point of the thread is that tabling your opponent may be a viable alternative to fighting for objectives all game.
At higher points levels, where most lists will have their FOC nearly maxed, the question becomes: "Is it worth taking allies in order to field more troops instead of using 1 or 2 of my Elites or Fast Attack slots?" and the answer is that it depends on what troops you can field and what exactly is in your Elites and Fast Attack options.
PS: Does anybody have an official statement from GW saying that FW rules are a part of the game? My personal grief with the FW rules are that, as a Canadian xenos player, I can't convert the models from scratch so I need to get FW box sets. The last Games Day in Canada was in 2009, and since then I either have to go to the States (not an option) or I have to order online which is an expensive option for me. If GW wants FW on every tabletop, then it would be a great boon if they carried it in their stores. I suspect that the real reason that FW would say that FW is legal is that they are financially involved in it and not that they care about the impact it has on the game. But I like a lot of the stuff and I wouldn't mind if it was legal in tournaments.
Because of all the naysayers suddenly turning it into a FW debate. This thread was derailed by others, not the OP.
This. People went after Peregrine because he plays a Forge World army list and, for some reason, tried to invalidate his input because of that. It makes 0 sense.
Because of all the naysayers suddenly turning it into a FW debate. This thread was derailed by others, not the OP.
This. People went after Peregrine because he plays a Forge World army list and, for some reason, tried to invalidate his input because of that. It makes 0 sense.
I am SURE that there's a Latin phrase for when people do that...I'm not sure what it is just now...
I was trying. There was some debate a few pages back about whether or not Ailaros was an intellectual snob for using the phrase 'ad hominem."
Anyway, this whole idea is very appealing to me. As Martel has noted a great many times, the Blood Angels troop choices are pretty terrible (even by marine standards). I currently minimize their crumminess by keeping them inside a razorback, but I rather like the idea of keeping that to two garbage units and then being able to afford filling out my HS and FA slots. I'm not sure how great it might work, but troop poor codexes need to think outside the box to keep winning.
Because of all the naysayers suddenly turning it into a FW debate. This thread was derailed by others, not the OP.
This. People went after Peregrine because he plays a Forge World army list and, for some reason, tried to invalidate his input because of that. It makes 0 sense.
I am SURE that there's a Latin phrase for when people do that...I'm not sure what it is just now...
Not to sound like an intellectual snob, but when people pick on an issue unrelated to the point you are trying to make then that is called a Red Herring.
I was trying. There was some debate a few pages back about whether or not Ailaros was an intellectual snob for using the phrase 'ad hominem."
Ugggh. Please re-read my response. Being intellectual has nothing to do with the activities and responses here. My qualm is that people far too often feel as though they can weasel out of a disagreement by throwing out terms from a high school debate lexicon.
As for the Forgeworld stuff, it has little to do with this thread (besides the idea of "house rules"). The truth is that there is no "one correct" way to play 40k. Min troops work for some armies. For most, they don't. In addition, this strategy often places one in an uphill battle so to speak. That being said, it can work. The main disagreement is to the frequency of effectiveness. At this point, you either agree, or you don't. Both sides have spoken ad nauseam about it (see, I have no problem with Latin phrases )
Not to sound like an intellectual snob, but when people pick on an issue unrelated to the point you are trying to make then that is called a Red Herring.
But it really wasn't a Red Herring. Context is everything when discussing and idea such as this one. The meta that includes IA is very different from the meta that doesn't. Particularly when you can garner some very efficient damage units out of IA, it becomes significantly more relevant to forego the less then inspiring troop choices. Of course, on the flip side, there are a handful of more efficient troops out of IA.
This doesn't mean it is right or wrong to discuss it either way, merely that it needs to be clear which parameters we have set. It is well known on this board that Peregrine operates within a meta that includes IA. I don't think there is anything wrong with discussing such a detail in the context of an idea that he is presenting.
I was trying. There was some debate a few pages back about whether or not Ailaros was an intellectual snob for using the phrase 'ad hominem."
Ugggh. Please re-read my response. Being intellectual has nothing to do with the activities and responses here. My qualm is that people far too often feel as though they can weasel out of a disagreement by throwing out terms from a high school debate lexicon.
As for the Forgeworld stuff, it has little to do with this thread (besides the idea of "house rules"). The truth is that there is no "one correct" way to play 40k. Min troops work for some armies. For most, they don't. In addition, this strategy often places one in an uphill battle so to speak. That being said, it can work. The main disagreement is to the frequency of effectiveness. At this point, you either agree, or you don't. Both sides have spoken ad nauseam about it (see, I have no problem with Latin phrases )
From my reading, it wasn't really an ad hominem attack either. You just said that Ailaros plays with certain game limitations and plays devil's advocate in every thread, so you find it hard to find his arguments credible. This is valid and it's not like you outright called him stupid, just that his opinions are for a version of the game which most forumites won't be playing. To Peregrine you just said that his argument relies on using IA armies which are not universally accepted at every table, and thus might not be valuable in a context where a player is unable to choose between vanilla IG or Armored Company. Then Ailaros got defensive and claimed ad hominem fallacy, asked if JGrand felt like a big man then presented a reductio ad absurdum as a rebuttal (more latin!).
ShadarLogoth wrote:
Not to sound like an intellectual snob, but when people pick on an issue unrelated to the point you are trying to make then that is called a Red Herring.
But it really wasn't a Red Herring. Context is everything when discussing and idea such as this one. The meta that includes IA is very different from the meta that doesn't. Particularly when you can garner some very efficient damage units out of IA, it becomes significantly more relevant to forego the less then inspiring troop choices. Of course, on the flip side, there are a handful of more efficient troops out of IA.
This doesn't mean it is right or wrong to discuss it either way, merely that it needs to be clear which parameters we have set. It is well known on this board that Peregrine operates within a meta that includes IA. I don't think there is anything wrong with discussing such a detail in the context of an idea that he is presenting.
I agree that it wasn't really a Red Herring. After reading the whole thread within the context of the Armored Company list, it seems like the original proposition was most accurately that Armored Company IG outperform vanilla IG on account of how many more threats are fields and the ability to table an opponent. The problem is that not everyone will allow this list at their table (whether or not they should), the idea was presented like every army should consider dropping scoring units in order or killing units. Most people wanted to discuss an non-IA list (which even the OP seemed fine with), but discussion kept looping back to where the points coming from Troops are going. It later became evident that they don't have anywhere to go unless you play the Armored Company list, and that most of the new ground covered in this thread only relates specifically to Armored Company list because any army which can play MTO is probably already doing it. So what appeared at first to be a Red Herring (people are arguing that IA isn't always included in games), turned out to be the crux of the argument (and IAIG list might be stronger than vanilla on account of the ability to field more tanks). I don't think that was the intent of the OP, but after looking at what IG can do with their points, it seems that they don't have an option except to play a lot of troops (unless we actually see some demo army lists).
For BA, 5 men in a TLHF razor with a hand flamer and flamer are not a horrible substitute for assault. Can it hold the jock strap of plague marines or even Kroot? No. But I'm dancing as fast as I can for Sangiunius here.
Are troops worth it anymore? It depends on your strategy, meta, list, army and points value. I think players should try things out for themselves before deciding what's good and what isn't unless money is tight.
Speaking from experience, my troops have done well right up until the point where I try to cap an objective. Then they die horribly to anything that looks at them funny. If your guys aren't good at killing stuff then minimize the amount of points you are dumping into them. Scoring objectives isn't that crucial if you have the firepower to deny your opponent his scoring abilities.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'd take Mechvets even if I didn't have to. They destroy deep strikers before they can do too much damage (Thank god for GW banning assaulting from Deep Strike /sarcasm). I just don't honestly value them as scoring units as much as BS4 Plasma/Meltaguns/Lascannons/Autocannons.
Anyhow, as a Black Templars player, troops haven't been "worth it" for a long time. I usually fill out my lists with one 20-man squad to have a somewhat resilient scoring unit for midfield objectives and then add 2 5-man troops who hide somewhere safe. I've had lots of problems with having too few troops to claim objectives, but every time I try to increase the number of troops I lose out on too much dakka/stabbing. Only being able to take one special weapon and no combi-weapons really hurts.
Hope this isn't thread necro but I have a practical question on this subject:
at 1600 I am debating between
A) 4 units of Mech Vets in Chimeras
B) 3 units of the same, by dropping one I can basically take a pair of Colossi vs a single one (along with being able to fully kit out an Executioner with plasma sponsons and hull LC)
Thoughts on this reduction of scoring vs the increase in killing power??
I was trying. There was some debate a few pages back about whether or not Ailaros was an intellectual snob for using the phrase 'ad hominem."
Ugggh. Please re-read my response. Being intellectual has nothing to do with the activities and responses here. My qualm is that people far too often feel as though they can weasel out of a disagreement by throwing out terms from a high school debate lexicon.
As for the Forgeworld stuff, it has little to do with this thread (besides the idea of "house rules"). The truth is that there is no "one correct" way to play 40k. Min troops work for some armies. For most, they don't. In addition, this strategy often places one in an uphill battle so to speak. That being said, it can work. The main disagreement is to the frequency of effectiveness. At this point, you either agree, or you don't. Both sides have spoken ad nauseam about it (see, I have no problem with Latin phrases )
From my reading, it wasn't really an ad hominem attack either. You just said that Ailaros plays with certain game limitations and plays devil's advocate in every thread, so you find it hard to find his arguments credible. This is valid and it's not like you outright called him stupid, just that his opinions are for a version of the game which most forumites won't be playing. To Peregrine you just said that his argument relies on using IA armies which are not universally accepted at every table, and thus might not be valuable in a context where a player is unable to choose between vanilla IG or Armored Company. Then Ailaros got defensive and claimed ad hominem fallacy, asked if JGrand felt like a big man then presented a reductio ad absurdum as a rebuttal (more latin!).
I don't see how someone playing devil's advocate allows someone else to validly call them out on it. It wasn't even stated why those limitations are valid for the context of this thread. Fliers, afaik, can never become troops. In the question of whether troops are worth it are fliers to be considered? This is another red herring. Fliers? Who talked about fliers? This is about the worthiness of troops.
IA not being accepted isn't a valid argument either. The question is in regards to troops being worthy whilst using an example of a tournament as a eureka moment. People associated that moment with peregrine and his/her previous views and preconceptions based on those views, distracting them from the main question and invalidating that question based on those perceptions.
ShadarLogoth wrote:
Not to sound like an intellectual snob, but when people pick on an issue unrelated to the point you are trying to make then that is called a Red Herring.
But it really wasn't a Red Herring. Context is everything when discussing and idea such as this one. The meta that includes IA is very different from the meta that doesn't. Particularly when you can garner some very efficient damage units out of IA, it becomes significantly more relevant to forego the less then inspiring troop choices. Of course, on the flip side, there are a handful of more efficient troops out of IA.
This doesn't mean it is right or wrong to discuss it either way, merely that it needs to be clear which parameters we have set. It is well known on this board that Peregrine operates within a meta that includes IA. I don't think there is anything wrong with discussing such a detail in the context of an idea that he is presenting.
I agree that it wasn't really a Red Herring. After reading the whole thread within the context of the Armored Company list, it seems like the original proposition was most accurately that Armored Company IG outperform vanilla IG on account of how many more threats are fields and the ability to table an opponent. The problem is that not everyone will allow this list at their table (whether or not they should), the idea was presented like every army should consider dropping scoring units in order or killing units. Most people wanted to discuss an non-IA list (which even the OP seemed fine with), but discussion kept looping back to where the points coming from Troops are going. It later became evident that they don't have anywhere to go unless you play the Armored Company list, and that most of the new ground covered in this thread only relates specifically to Armored Company list because any army which can play MTO is probably already doing it. So what appeared at first to be a Red Herring (people are arguing that IA isn't always included in games), turned out to be the crux of the argument (and IAIG list might be stronger than vanilla on account of the ability to field more tanks). I don't think that was the intent of the OP, but after looking at what IG can do with their points, it seems that they don't have an option except to play a lot of troops (unless we actually see some demo army lists).
It is a red herring because it was designed, knowingly or no, to distract from the main question. Are troops worth it? You yourself are focused on the IA aspect and have failed the see the herring. Justifying the blindness of it's existence to others as well. You also seem the suggest that tanks are powerful. In 6th? Really? They're fluffy at best.
Non nobis solum.
Oh yeah, don't forget the fallacy fallacy. People seem to be falling into that trap. In fact let's all become expects and read wikipedia. It's so wonderful being able to be a savant in an age of easy information.
My opinion on the original matter is this: The current role of troops is to unlock killy things (2 troops minimum being the key role here, scouts for space marines being the ideal example) or to be killy themselves (through unlocks, ala necron fliers, or by being themselves vis a vis space wolves, terminators, monstrous creatures et al). Current rule book missions and newly released codices do not favour troops being a primary compoment of a force unless those troops themselves are not just for holding objects. In DA we have Terminators, Bikes and DoV Tac Marines, all killy and required to do more than just hold objectives at generally much better rates than scouts. In CSM the troops on offer generally do more than just sit on the side line, even the lowly cultists role is to be a tarpit (of their killy units) or bodyguard, rather than scoring alone. Daemons we have nurgle troops but they're generally taken in minimal units to be able to max out on the killy stuff. Tau? Stupidly killy. Troops here hold objectives second to shooting the crap out of stuff. Kroot infiltrating with rapid fire snipers and fire warriors with S5 out of the wazoo with lots of lists trying to maximize killing potential to objective holding. Eldar? Again, the troops are used as killy in their own right or to unlock vehicles (in this case, hard to kill wave serpents with god knows how many weapons on top).
Troops, as they are now, are to be used to get stuff done during the game. If they survive long enough to hold an objective then they've not been a high enough priority to target, a couple of shots thrown near the end of the game after the threats are taken care off.
It is a red herring because it was designed, knowingly or no, to distract from the main question.
How could it be "designed" if it wasn't done so knowingly?
And, again, it wasn't a red herring. It introduced a very relevant piece of context to the discussion. The meta Per plays in is quite different then the meta most competitive players play in. If you only bring two MSU scoring units to Nova or Adepticon, you are going to get rolled, simple as that. Highly competitive players will quickly remove your modicum of scoring potential and then GtG on their objectives and call it a day.
However, if you are playing in the "strictly by the book+IA meta..." then the strategy may or may not pay off. I doubt it. I still think good players are going to exploit your lack of scoring potential, but it's still a different paradigm and needs to be properly treated as such.
In 6th? Really? They're fluffy at best.
AV14 Tanks are quite good in 6th, and some people are calling the Wave Serpent overpowered. Of course, relative to the current discussion, this may indeed be a red herring .
Oh yeah, don't forget the fallacy fallacy. People seem to be falling into that trap. In fact let's all become expects and read wikipedia. It's so wonderful being able to be a savant in an age of easy information.
Some of us a formally educated in rhetoric and like to encourage sound, rational, and logical discussion. Don't be so dismissive.
Troops, as they are now, are to be used to get stuff done during the game. If they survive long enough to hold an objective then they've not been a high enough priority to target, a couple of shots thrown near the end of the game after the threats are taken care off.
This just isn't how it works in the highly competitive scene. There is a reason Warriors in Night Scythes and Windrider Jetbikes are so popular, and in most cases ALL these units do throughout the course of the game is score. You win games by playing the mission and scoring. Trying to table your opponent is not a reasonable goal when playing against competent players. It just isn't.
It is a red herring because it was designed, knowingly or no, to distract from the main question.
How could it be "designed" if it wasn't done so knowingly?
Do you know your own mind at all times?
And, again, it wasn't a red herring. It introduced a very relevant piece of context to the discussion. The meta Per plays in is quite different then the meta most competitive players play in. If you only bring two MSU scoring units to Nova or Adepticon, you are going to get rolled, simple as that. Highly competitive players will quickly remove your modicum of scoring potential and then GtG on their objectives and call it a day.
However, if you are playing in the "strictly by the book+IA meta..." then the strategy may or may not pay off. I doubt it. I still think good players are going to exploit your lack of scoring potential, but it's still a different paradigm and needs to be properly treated as such.
Did I mention IA other than to dismiss it as a herring? Strictly by the book, I believe, should be the de facto setting. House ruled tournaments such as Nova or Adepticon require the adjusted thinking by that argument.
In 6th? Really? They're fluffy at best.
AV14 Tanks are quite good in 6th, and some people are calling the Wave Serpent overpowered. Of course, relative to the current discussion, this may indeed be a red herring .
The wave serpent has got a constant cover save and it reduces pens to glances. It's fast. It's got 12/12/10. It can take really killy guns and can be spammed. The units inside them can also be very killy, in the form of wraiths or fire dragon things.
AV14 Is only scary if you forget they cost, for "killy" ones, 200+ points for Russes (which are very slow), or 500+ for loaded LR's.
Oh yeah, don't forget the fallacy fallacy. People seem to be falling into that trap. In fact let's all become expects and read wikipedia. It's so wonderful being able to be a savant in an age of easy information.
Some of us a formally educated in rhetoric and like to encourage sound, rational, and logical discussion. Don't be so dismissive.
We're debating who used what fallacy on the internet. Anonymouty almost gaurenteed. You take everyone as a lay person and be surprised when they roll something out which isn't easily googleable or you go around thinking that everyone's a savant.
Troops, as they are now, are to be used to get stuff done during the game. If they survive long enough to hold an objective then they've not been a high enough priority to target, a couple of shots thrown near the end of the game after the threats are taken care off.
This just isn't how it works in the highly competitive scene. There is a reason Warriors in Night Scythes and Windrider Jetbikes are so popular, and in most cases ALL these units do throughout the course of the game is score. You win games by playing the mission and scoring. Trying to table your opponent is not a reasonable goal when playing against competent players. It just isn't.
Both of those units are either killy in their own right (jet bikes) or unlock fliers.
Of course, but I don't see a single skeptic response that shows skepticism
So you are saying it was a subconscious "design" to be a red herring? But it was a conscious design to submit context. Where ever you decide to place the goal posts here doesn't make it a red herring.
Did I mention IA other than to dismiss it as a herring? Strictly by the book, I believe, should be the de facto setting. House ruled tournaments such as Nova or Adepticon require the adjusted thinking by that argument.
Your mentioning of IA has nothing to do with the original discussion, where the accusation of red herring took place. That accusation was the one I was refuting.
And "your beliefs" are only relevant to you. Many, probably most, people on this board talking competitive tactics within the context of tournaments. So there is no defacto setting. Context needs to be made clear in each individual discussion.
The wave serpent has got a constant cover save and it reduces pens to glances. It's fast. It's got 12/12/10. It can take really killy guns and can be spammed. The units inside them can also be very killy, in the form of wraiths or fire dragon things.
AV14 Is only scary if you forget they cost, for "killy" ones, 200+ points for Russes (which are very slow), or 500+ for loaded LR's.
Cool. That has nothing to do with your original assertion that tanks are only fluffy.
We're debating who used what fallacy on the internet. Anonymouty almost gaurenteed. You take everyone as a lay person and be surprised when they roll something out which isn't easily googleable or you go around thinking that everyone's a savant.
Um, I think when someone demonstrates they clearly understand the words they are using by using them correctly, you don't question it and move on. If someone tries to use a word incorrectly, you are at liberty to point that fact out.
Both of those units are either killy in their own right (jet bikes) or unlock fliers.
Jet Bikes aren't particularly killy in their own right, and you don't just take Warriors to unlock fliers. Otherwise you would take Immortals, or Deathmarks, or some other more killy unit. Warriors are specifically taken in this regard do to their efficient scoring. In most cases they do nothing but hide on board till turn 5 and score, making them quite relevant to this discussion.
I was trying. There was some debate a few pages back about whether or not Ailaros was an intellectual snob for using the phrase 'ad hominem."
Ugggh. Please re-read my response. Being intellectual has nothing to do with the activities and responses here. My qualm is that people far too often feel as though they can weasel out of a disagreement by throwing out terms from a high school debate lexicon.
As for the Forgeworld stuff, it has little to do with this thread (besides the idea of "house rules"). The truth is that there is no "one correct" way to play 40k. Min troops work for some armies. For most, they don't. In addition, this strategy often places one in an uphill battle so to speak. That being said, it can work. The main disagreement is to the frequency of effectiveness. At this point, you either agree, or you don't. Both sides have spoken ad nauseam about it (see, I have no problem with Latin phrases )
From my reading, it wasn't really an ad hominem attack either. You just said that Ailaros plays with certain game limitations and plays devil's advocate in every thread, so you find it hard to find his arguments credible. This is valid and it's not like you outright called him stupid, just that his opinions are for a version of the game which most forumites won't be playing. To Peregrine you just said that his argument relies on using IA armies which are not universally accepted at every table, and thus might not be valuable in a context where a player is unable to choose between vanilla IG or Armored Company. Then Ailaros got defensive and claimed ad hominem fallacy, asked if JGrand felt like a big man then presented a reductio ad absurdum as a rebuttal (more latin!).
I don't see how someone playing devil's advocate allows someone else to validly call them out on it. It wasn't even stated why those limitations are valid for the context of this thread. Fliers, afaik, can never become troops. In the question of whether troops are worth it are fliers to be considered? This is another red herring. Fliers? Who talked about fliers? This is about the worthiness of troops.
IA not being accepted isn't a valid argument either. The question is in regards to troops being worthy whilst using an example of a tournament as a eureka moment. People associated that moment with peregrine and his/her previous views and preconceptions based on those views, distracting them from the main question and invalidating that question based on those perceptions.
I'm not exactly sure where this is coming from but I think you talked about flyers just here and I don't recall seeing it before. Perhaps you could quote some relevant text so I have a better understanding of what you're trying to say? Or perhaps I just misunderstand you. After reading the OP's posts, I think the real question he was asking is whether filling up on Troops is better than the alternative of taking from other FOC options rather than just "are troops worth it?". I don't know if I've stated my opinion on the matter or not.
Not to sound like an intellectual snob, but when people pick on an issue unrelated to the point you are trying to make then that is called a Red Herring.
But it really wasn't a Red Herring. Context is everything when discussing and idea such as this one. The meta that includes IA is very different from the meta that doesn't. Particularly when you can garner some very efficient damage units out of IA, it becomes significantly more relevant to forego the less then inspiring troop choices. Of course, on the flip side, there are a handful of more efficient troops out of IA.
This doesn't mean it is right or wrong to discuss it either way, merely that it needs to be clear which parameters we have set. It is well known on this board that Peregrine operates within a meta that includes IA. I don't think there is anything wrong with discussing such a detail in the context of an idea that he is presenting.
I agree that it wasn't really a Red Herring. After reading the whole thread within the context of the Armored Company list, it seems like the original proposition was most accurately that Armored Company IG outperform vanilla IG on account of how many more threats are fields and the ability to table an opponent. The problem is that not everyone will allow this list at their table (whether or not they should), the idea was presented like every army should consider dropping scoring units in order or killing units. Most people wanted to discuss an non-IA list (which even the OP seemed fine with), but discussion kept looping back to where the points coming from Troops are going. It later became evident that they don't have anywhere to go unless you play the Armored Company list, and that most of the new ground covered in this thread only relates specifically to Armored Company list because any army which can play MTO is probably already doing it. So what appeared at first to be a Red Herring (people are arguing that IA isn't always included in games), turned out to be the crux of the argument (and IAIG list might be stronger than vanilla on account of the ability to field more tanks). I don't think that was the intent of the OP, but after looking at what IG can do with their points, it seems that they don't have an option except to play a lot of troops (unless we actually see some demo army lists).
It is a red herring because it was designed, knowingly or no, to distract from the main question. Are troops worth it? You yourself are focused on the IA aspect and have failed the see the herring. Justifying the blindness of it's existence to others as well. You also seem the suggest that tanks are powerful. In 6th? Really? They're fluffy at best.
Non nobis solum.
Oh yeah, don't forget the fallacy fallacy. People seem to be falling into that trap. In fact let's all become expects and read wikipedia. It's so wonderful being able to be a savant in an age of easy information.
I think the title is probably more likely a red herring than the content, and there have been a few people who have mentioned that the title isn't exactly what Peregrine was trying to argue. I'm not arguing that tanks are powerful or not powerful in 6th edition. My stance is that the premise for the thread is weak until I see what the troops are being sacrificed for, and I think that this thread only makes sense if you understand that the OP is planning to play an armored company instead of a vanilla IG list and this is how he's able to move more points to vehicles than the FOC will likely allow. I think this lost a lot of people because IA lists might not be allowed in their preferred gaming environment (whether their gaming group, FLGS or at tournaments), regardless of whether or not they should be. In fact, I don't know if I've stated a real opinion in all of the text you've quoted apart from the tangential red herring debate, and the ones you think I've made have been misrepresented.
As ShadarLogoth said, the so-called red herring was a relevant piece of context and modified how everyone understood the discussion. Without this information it was confusing what the alternative to troops were when it was shown that a standard 1850pt IG list could have Fast Attack and Heavy Support completely filled and then some.
Blaggard wrote: My opinion on the original matter is this: The current role of troops is to unlock killy things (2 troops minimum being the key role here, scouts for space marines being the ideal example) or to be killy themselves (through unlocks, ala necron fliers, or by being themselves vis a vis space wolves, terminators, monstrous creatures et al). Current rule book missions and newly released codices do not favour troops being a primary compoment of a force unless those troops themselves are not just for holding objects. In DA we have Terminators, Bikes and DoV Tac Marines, all killy and required to do more than just hold objectives at generally much better rates than scouts. In CSM the troops on offer generally do more than just sit on the side line, even the lowly cultists role is to be a tarpit (of their killy units) or bodyguard, rather than scoring alone. Daemons we have nurgle troops but they're generally taken in minimal units to be able to max out on the killy stuff. Tau? Stupidly killy. Troops here hold objectives second to shooting the crap out of stuff. Kroot infiltrating with rapid fire snipers and fire warriors with S5 out of the wazoo with lots of lists trying to maximize killing potential to objective holding. Eldar? Again, the troops are used as killy in their own right or to unlock vehicles (in this case, hard to kill wave serpents with god knows how many weapons on top).
Troops, as they are now, are to be used to get stuff done during the game. If they survive long enough to hold an objective then they've not been a high enough priority to target, a couple of shots thrown near the end of the game after the threats are taken care off.
I think that this is, to some degree, what most people have concluded in this thread. That there is no point in sinking a lot of points into troops which aren't going to contribute outside of scoring. The only exception is that every army should probably plan to score, so making minimum investments into a lot of troops (whether they be IG blobs or at least 4x10 cultists or whatever) in order to be able to claim objectives in case your main plan of tabling the opponent with a lot of guns (as Peregrine argued might be a superior strategy to surviving until the end of the game to score) doesn't pan out. I think everyone agreed that there should be a balance in list design between killy units and scoring units and that it's up to the player to find this balance. Everybody feel free to correct me if I've misrepresented your opinion.
Of course, but I don't see a single skeptic response that shows skepticism
So you are saying it was a subconscious "design" to be a red herring? But it was a conscious design to submit context. Where ever you decide to place the goal posts here doesn't make it a red herring.
The herring here is to focus on the "design" part of the statement. What if I were to have used the sentence "it is a red herring because it distracted people from the main question?"? We throw out the word designed and it still means the same thing except there's no accusative tone regarding the perpetrators.
Did I mention IA other than to dismiss it as a herring? Strictly by the book, I believe, should be the de facto setting. House ruled tournaments such as Nova or Adepticon require the adjusted thinking by that argument.
Your mentioning of IA has nothing to do with the original discussion, where the accusation of red herring took place. That accusation was the one I was refuting.
I mentioned it because you did.
And "your beliefs" are only relevant to you. Many, probably most, people on this board talking competitive tactics within the context of tournaments. So there is no defacto setting. Context needs to be made clear in each individual discussion.
I agree that there is no de facto and that my believes are only relevant to me. However if that de facto was in place then only clarification would be required when discussing things outside of that de facto. It was made perfectly clear that the discussion was not about Nova or Adepticon but what is written by GW.
The wave serpent has got a constant cover save and it reduces pens to glances. It's fast. It's got 12/12/10. It can take really killy guns and can be spammed. The units inside them can also be very killy, in the form of wraiths or fire dragon things. AV14 Is only scary if you forget they cost, for "killy" ones, 200+ points for Russes (which are very slow), or 500+ for loaded LR's.
Cool. That has nothing to do with your original assertion that tanks are only fluffy.
How do you figure that? I was listing reasons why a better vehicle is better while AV14 generally isn't good for killing. They're a fluffy unit because you can get better units for the cost.
We're debating who used what fallacy on the internet. Anonymouty almost gaurenteed. You take everyone as a lay person and be surprised when they roll something out which isn't easily googleable or you go around thinking that everyone's a savant.
Um, I think when someone demonstrates they clearly understand the words they are using by using them correctly, you don't question it and move on. If someone tries to use a word incorrectly, you are at liberty to point that fact out.
But the usage of the term red herring wasn't used incorrectly.
Both of those units are either killy in their own right (jet bikes) or unlock fliers.
Jet Bikes aren't particularly killy in their own right, and you don't just take Warriors to unlock fliers. Otherwise you would take Immortals, or Deathmarks, or some other more killy unit. Warriors are specifically taken in this regard do to their efficient scoring. In most cases they do nothing but hide on board till turn 5 and score, making them quite relevant to this discussion.
Warriors being ~120 points cheaper than immortals allowing you to purchase more killy things in the other slots? Deathmarks taking up even more points? Jet Bikes are very killy with the new pseudo-rending rules. They're also cheap, spammable and tough.
fuhrmaaj wrote: I'm not exactly sure where this is coming from but I think you talked about flyers just here and I don't recall seeing it before. Perhaps you could quote some relevant text so I have a better understanding of what you're trying to say? Or perhaps I just misunderstand you. After reading the OP's posts, I think the real question he was asking is whether filling up on Troops is better than the alternative of taking from other FOC options rather than just "are troops worth it?". I don't know if I've stated my opinion on the matter or not.
I've no idea. I think it's time for bed.
I think the title is probably more likely a red herring than the content, and there have been a few people who have mentioned that the title isn't exactly what Peregrine was trying to argue. I'm not arguing that tanks are powerful or not powerful in 6th edition. My stance is that the premise for the thread is weak until I see what the troops are being sacrificed for, and I think that this thread only makes sense if you understand that the OP is planning to play an armored company instead of a vanilla IG list and this is how he's able to move more points to vehicles than the FOC will likely allow. I think this lost a lot of people because IA lists might not be allowed in their preferred gaming environment (whether their gaming group, FLGS or at tournaments), regardless of whether or not they should be. In fact, I don't know if I've stated a real opinion in all of the text you've quoted apart from the tangential red herring debate, and the ones you think I've made have been misrepresented.
As ShadarLogoth said, the so-called red herring was a relevant piece of context and modified how everyone understood the discussion. Without this information it was confusing what the alternative to troops were when it was shown that a standard 1850pt IG list could have Fast Attack and Heavy Support completely filled and then some.
It's 4am, what I think you're wanting is to see Peregrins list?
The herring here is to focus on the "design" part of the statement. What if I were to have used the sentence "it is a red herring because it distracted people from the main question?"? We throw out the word designed and it still means the same thing except there's no accusative tone regarding the perpetrators.
I see what you mean. The IA discussion became a red herring, but the only purpose of mentioning it originally was to properly inform to readers of the paradigm Per operates in.
I agree that there is no de facto and that my believes are only relevant to me. However if that de facto was in place then only clarification would be required when discussing things outside of that de facto. It was made perfectly clear that the discussion was not about Nova or Adepticon but what is written by GW.
Then he should have mentioned it in his title, or at least his OP, which he did not. On the other hand, he makes several references to "competitive," which most people think means "tournaments" yet Per disregards all tournaments because of his silly notions regarding "house rules."
How do you figure that? I was listing reasons why a better vehicle is better while AV14 generally isn't good for killing. They're a fluffy unit because you can get better units for the cost.
But you can't get better units then Wave Serpents. You pointing out why you can't only helps my argument.
AV14 is good at surviving, and the longer it does so the more it kills. It also generally brings other things to the table like resilient LOS, and mobility for other units. Factors people all to commonly don't include in their online discussions, where we pretend that the first turn alpha strike is the only matter pertinent to the discussion (an assumption that runs common to the proponents of the OP's idea).
But the usage of the term red herring wasn't used incorrectly.
It was and it wasn't. The discussion itself became a red herring, the original mention of Per and IA, however, was not a red herring. It was context.
Warriors being ~120 points cheaper than immortals allowing you to purchase more killy things in the other slots? Deathmarks taking up even more points?
You're arguing my point for me and don't even seem to realize it. You keep saying that killier troop choices are inherently better, and that scoring alone isn't enough. Warriors are a pretty clear exception to this rule.
Jet Bikes are very killy with the new pseudo-rending rules. They're also cheap, spammable and tough.
They are not cheaper then Guardians, which, if taken, would allow for "more killy things in the other slots." You just contradicted yourself in four short sentences.
ShadarLogoth wrote: On the other hand, he makes several references to "competitive,"
No I did not. Go back and read the OP, I used the word "competitive" exactly twice: once to describe my opponent's list (a competitive Necron/GK list), and once to state that the event in question was NOT a hardcore competitive tournament. Other people just assumed that if there's any strategy discussion it must be about competitive events with no-FW house rules played at 1850 points.
)
