Apart from troops choice compulsory (pending on which detachment, but generally 2 for CAD), which people can consider a kind of tax to keep the game balanced and fluffy, does anyone here find troops (in any Codex) really worth taking more than minimum required? I mean, troops are versatile, but it's actually better to run specialized armies where each unit can play limited, but significant instead of multiple, but diluted roles. Tactical Marines, Eldar Guardians and Tau Fire Warriors may look good on paper, but they are less cost effective than what other units in the Codex can do.

One thing that bias my judgement is that troops have Objective Secure, which allow them to win objective contest against those that don't. However, if you kill the enemies, they won't be grabbing any objective anyway. I play 1000 point games, and usually by turn 3-4, one player is clearly going to get tabled (we normally play till the end).

Tell me what you think. Thank you.

Given that I run Farsight Enclave i have the fantastic options of Crisis Suits as troops, they are excellent multi tools and fill nearly any fire power related role in the army with ease. Similarlly I will be allying Eldar to my Saim Hann and can take Guardian Jetbikes as troops, which I fully intend to take beyond the compulsary 2.

Footsloggin' 100 Boyz? Yeah.

I would use more troops over being forced to spend points on HQ any day. I wish the requirement was 3+ troops.

Not sure about your games, but most troops are quite useful in my gaming area. They all have their place when used properly.

Objective secured is quite useful when playing maelstrom missions with random objectives each turn.

People always say "what's the point when you can just kill the enemy". In the OPs original example he only plays 1k games. AT 1500, 1750, 1850, and 2k the game dynamics change quite a bit and quite often it's not as simple as just killing your enemy. Some lists can be set up more for attrition, than wiping the table. Necron decurions with lots of troops (warriors and immortals) are very resilient. Eldar lists with a lot of wraith units that have a high toughness value. Objective secured makes these units quite powerful, and only troops get. There are quite a few good troops in the game. I disagree that tacticals fall short of contributing to the game.

Yes, the minimum Troop and HQ tax has become more arbitrary now that everything is scoring.

Other wargames don't resort to required minimums. Rather, the game mechanics are such that bringing no "core" units is suicidal. Massed core units are often some of the best bang-for-your-buck that you can get, and specialist/elite units are used for specific purposes. In 40k, a lot of the troops choices are just overall inferior choices compared to options, and so you have to be forced to take them.

Orks are an example of doing core troops right. You want to take hordes of boyz. As is farsight enclave - crisis suits are one of the most flexible units in the game. There exist Ork or Farsight lists that minimize troops, but most of them include more than the minimum because players choose to. Compare that to Tyranids, where you get things likethe Pentyrant build, which radically minimize the number of troops because the rest of the codex so outshines them.

I like troops in my armies. For Space Wolves, I do like Grey Hunters as they are quite useful, Always fun to charge them into enemies and cut them down. With my au, I realy like Firewarriors are they have cool models and strong guns. And with my Necrons I realy enjoyed having a large unit of 20 Warriors acompanied by 10 Warriors in Ghost Ark and 2 units of 10 Immortals as the main part of my army. (Havent tried Necrons in their new codex yet though.)

I really like troop tactics in games. The shape of a troop blob has a huge impact on which models get to fight in combat, which ones can shoot, or get shot at.

It's kind of like pawn structure in chess. I think it makes the game a subtle, visual conflict, more than just "did my unit earn it's points back" mathhammer.

Always, unless the theme required otherwise (all First Company, for example). Not only does it makes sense to take them from a fluffy standpoint, but they are usually pretty integral to how an army functions (Ork Boys, IG, Fire Warriors, Cron Warriors/Immortals) or decent units in their own right (Tacticals, Grey Hunters, Cron/Tau/IG/Eldar Troops).

Really depends on the army. Usually my Troops are dedicated objective grabbers. We are talking Land Speeder Storms, Jetbikes, Kroot or Cultists.
When it comes to Orks and IG, I really love my Troops. They have solid bang for their buck.
When it comes to SW, I avoid Troops altogether with Champions of Fenris. I use two lone Servitors as my mandatory choice. 20pts tax ain't bad.

But generally, I dislike Troops. They do not feel strong and more like a burden in most cases. There are three Troops choices I actually like. Windrider Jetbikes, Ork Boys, IG Veterans. Anything beyond just can not compete with specialists.

Depends on the Codex. My fifty-point five-man Guardsman squad with Deep Strike, a Heavy Flamer, and a Valkyrie in D99 is fantastic, the five-man Dire Avenger squad in a Wave Serpent is notorious for breaking the game. Most armies' regular Troops haven't been able to keep up with the arms race; Troops with powerful transports (Valkyries, Wave Serpents, that sort of thing) or massive numbers (Ork Boyz, Guardsman or Cultist Fearless tarpit blobs) tend to be fairly effective but most Troops are an objective-holding tax that don't contribute significantly to the flow of the game.

I play Necrons. Yes, I love to bring troops.

Not always. In CSM's and SM's, for example, I have to make the switch for Plague Marines and Bikers, respectively. Vanilla CSM's are worse for the points, and Tacticals can't take two special weapons (WHICH COULD LITERALLY BE THE EASIEST FIX TO MAKE THEM MORE APPEALING).

Yep, in all my armies my Troops are very important.

Necron Immortals speak for themselves.

Battle Sisters are a highly solid choice capable of being kitted out for multiple roles or specialised to do one very well.

Drop Platoons and Drop Veterans are the heart of an Elysian army.

Defiantly, all that lovely cannon fodder... just kidding, their cheaper than the other categories, thus meaning you can have an extensive amount on there (although with armies like SM they're still really expensive) like Tyranids, troops are nessecary to win.

I have based my armies solidly around troops units for 20 years, unless it's something like Deathwing, obviously. Most of my more uniform armies like Space Marines, Necrons, and Sisters of Battle have enough models to field at least three 10-man troops units.

It feels wrong to field my Ultramarines without a tactical squad or two. I will admit to not fielding more then the basic two squads for a while now, but I don’t mind using the two the FOC insists I take.

I utilize the troops from the corsair list, almost exclusively. Between the corsairs themselves, the jetbikes, and the wasp assault walkers, it is a rare game with them where I have not filled up all available slots with them

Outflanking Kroot blobs allows me to grab mid-to-backfeild objectives arguably quicker without a Devilfish tax.

Also getting the drop on Wraithknights with Infiltrate has been pretty funny with 2/2 knights tallied so far

Tacticals mounted in a Razorback.

5x tactical marines w/ meltagun
techmarine w/ combi-melta & melta bombs
veteran sergeant w/ combi-melta & melta bombs
infernum razorback w/ storm bolter & dozer blade

They're like mini-Sternguard. If you run Clan Raukaan and take two MOTFs, you can deploy six of these. Give one MOTF the Ironstone, and run him up the board with the Razorbacks. They'll have IWND on a 4+ as long as they're in-range, and they absolutely destroy vehicles and high toughness creatures with the melta fire. Sure, they're AV11, but I never knew a winner who didn't bet.

If you wanna be REALLY cool, try some scouts in a LSS.

5x scouts w/ camo cloaks, pistols & ccws
veteran sergeant w/ bolt pistol & ccw
landspeeder storm w/ heavy flamer

These suckers can Outflank when deploying from Reserves. Each turn, they can Blind a unit with the Cerebrus launcher (reducing their WS to 1), thin the very same unit out with the Heavy Flamer (template weapons mitigate a low BS score), and the scouts can then jump out of the LSS (which is conveniently an assault vehicle courtesy of the Open-Topped rule) and pile into assault, cutting down the entire unit by drowning them in wounds (because of the WS difference of 3 to 1). If you have extra points you can give the sergeant a fancy kit, too.

Not too shabby for a codex with "weak" troops choices.

I actually rather like troops in every army but my Blood Angels. My Eldar is about 80% troops, Tyranids always have a few good broods of gribblies, Ultramarines HAVE to have atleast two squads of Tacticals or it feel weird and my Dark Angels will be built with pretty much everything being built as Troops because of Azrael.

It's only Blood Angels that I have to use the Deathstorm troop choices to be happy or just Scouts. And I'll just say, them friggin Scouts have ruined lists before.

I primarily play Necrons

my Troops are the backbone of my army, and do pretty much everything to an ok degree in the new book

bibotot wrote:
Apart from troops choice compulsory (pending on which detachment, but generally 2 for CAD), which people can consider a kind of tax to keep the game balanced and fluffy, does anyone here find troops (in any Codex) really worth taking more than minimum required? I mean, troops are versatile, but it's actually better to run specialized armies where each unit can play limited, but significant instead of multiple, but diluted roles. Tactical Marines, Eldar Guardians and Tau Fire Warriors may look good on paper, but they are less cost effective than what other units in the Codex can do.

One thing that bias my judgement is that troops have Objective Secure, which allow them to win objective contest against those that don't. However, if you kill the enemies, they won't be grabbing any objective anyway. I play 1000 point games, and usually by turn 3-4, one player is clearly going to get tabled (we normally play till the end).

Tell me what you think. Thank you.

Well, to some extent it is a "style" thing. I use Lots of Troops (I play Nids) but plenty of others avoid them. They win games by not taking them, I win games by taking them...Potato, Poh-tah-toe.. If I played Space Marines, I think I would want to full strength Tac squads, just because that suits my style (likely I would Combat squad them most of the time).

I like Tactical Marines, I just wish they did more. Scouts are decent objective holders with Camo Cloaks.

Plague Bearers and Pink Horrors are pretty good troops, as are Daemonettes. Bloodletters are so so.

Depends on the army.

Some armies have relatively elite, hard hitting units as Troops, like Grey Knights. I don't consider taking GKT's to be a waste a tall. Likewise, in my CSM army, my basic CSM's are there to give the army some staying power and something other than just shooting platforms, even if they're usually the most expendable units.

With IG, I'm somewhat conflicted. Previously, with the old codex, I really liked fielding mechanized platoons. They went *way* up in cost (up 40pts for a minimum sized mechanized platoon) for zero gain, and it's difficult to justify their presence now, particularly as Vets stayed the same price with cheaper doctrines, however I find myself minimizing with the Vets in ways I didn't with the Platoons, and largely they're just there to metla stuff that gets too close to everything else at this point. My IG I think are the only army I would consider not taking Troops in if I did not have to.

For my DKoK Assault Brigade, the Troops are by far the weakest link in the army and notably the least effective units, but they're also why I built the army in the first place, so...

Demons get Pink horrors squads of 11 for 2 WC that can go to ground for 3+ cover that rerolls 1s. They also get deep strike nurglings with shrouding to get 2+ saves on far objectives.

Also, Dire Avengers with wave serpent.

If IG troops were different I would probably want more, but the units cost too much for what they do and have close 0 mobility and even less resilience.
Maybe in 8th GW will remove all the cover ignoring stuff and fixs shunt, making IG troops better.

- I like troops with Necrons.

- I used to like troops with Nids, prior to the 6th edition book

- With my DE I'm somewhat conflicted. I use a lot of troops, but I can't help but think that I'm using them for their Venoms, rather than for their own merits. Also, I suspect that I'd replace any raider ones with Ravagers, if I owned more Ravager models.

- With my IG, I use a lot of troops simply because I don't have enough vehicles to flood the field with tanks. It's really aggravating, because I really want to use a lot of infantry, but they just don't do nearly as much as my vehicles. I have tried the occasional all-infantry army, but it's a laughable concept these days. My weapons can barely dent units - even en masse and with FRFSRF, but just about any unit in the game can make a huge dent in one of my platoons - and many weapons just remove whole swathes of guardsmen.

SM bike troops are very good unit. Tacticals are not so bad because ATSKNF.

The way I play Necrons mostly, I find myself wondering how many troops I am losing by adding this or that unit.

On the other hand, with Nids, I must admit that I view troops as a tax. 95% of the time we are playing CAD, so everyone needs 2 troops. At least Nid trooops are cheap, and if you get multiple units of Hormogants going they add pressure to the opponent because they're up in your face in 2 turns typically.

I've been a marine player for most of my history in 40k. Almost all of my armies used to use 2 5 man tacs with las cannons and no transports. Then I got 2 LSS with scouts and put the tacs away. LSS are good enough that I don't view them as a tax because their chance of getting their points back is actually pretty high when I give the Sargent melta bombs and a combi melta.

 SharkoutofWata wrote:
...my Dark Angels will be built with pretty much everything being built as Troops because of Azrael.

And then GW will release a new DA codex where Azrael no longer makes wings troops because of Unbound. Seriously I gave up on planning future armies as you cant rely on rules having a constant points or even a direction unless it's crap like IGOUGO without interruption mechanism or shooting into cc not being allowed. Now I only buy what I like if avilable second hand and play what I have. They force you into the whole collection thing fast but sorry Im out. Well I saved myself a lot of money on models I'll never buy so thanks GW I guess.

I run Tau, Necrons and Blood Angels. So I love troops.

I normally run about 50-60 Necrons Warriors, 48 Tau Firewarriors with one Fireblade Cadre, and I used to run a 90 troop Blood angels list. I would not give the heavy weapons unit any heavy weapons. Troops over all are the best point units in the game and you can really amass a lot of firepower and wounds.

I like troops. Imperial Guardsmen are pretty nice weapon carriers, Dire Avengers have rending Bolters, Tactical Marines are useful objective campers and let's not even talk about Windrider Jetbikes.

Grey Knight Terminators, best Troop choice in the game.

SJ

The Necron Decurion formation certainly makes it advantageous to loud up on troops.

If you could take 2 special weapons in a 10-man tactical squad, I'd be all over 3 in every SM list. Alas, you cannot.

Why you say this! Cultists were my best friends, but then they had to charge flayed ones to buy my Berzerkers some time... Poor Billy he didn't stand a chance! *Starts Sobbing* WHY DID IT HAVE TO END THIS WAY!
But seriously it entirely depends which army, for Chaos our OBSCENELY high point cost per model makes cultists amazingly cheap bodies to keep on the field, able to tarpit or distract units to allow your specialists to get their job done

I really want to play an all-Ravenwing DA army with bikes as troops, but I don't have the money to spend on all those bikes! Maybe when I get my tax return I'll look into it if the Sammael on Jetbike model ever stops being out of stock. Back on topic, DA have several options to make things other than tacticals and scouts troops (which is good since our scouts cant have the aforementioned LSS). Even standard Land Speeders can be troops when taken as part of a Ravenwing attack squadron if Sammael or Azrael is in the list. Fast Objective Secured Skimmers? Yes, please!

Hey man, IG veterans are the best elit...I mean best value troops in the game!

 ZergSmasher wrote:
I really want to play an all-Ravenwing DA army with bikes as troops, but I don't have the money to spend on all those bikes! Maybe when I get my tax return I'll look into it if the Sammael on Jetbike model ever stops being out of stock. Back on topic, DA have several options to make things other than tacticals and scouts troops (which is good since our scouts cant have the aforementioned LSS). Even standard Land Speeders can be troops when taken as part of a Ravenwing attack squadron if Sammael or Azrael is in the list. Fast Objective Secured Skimmers? Yes, please!

Check here- they have the Dark Vengeance ones for 15 bucks for three, which makes a Ravenwing a pretty damn palatable idea if all you have to do is buy other bits for weapons options:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/40K-Dark-Vengeance-Dark-Angels-Ravenwing-Bike-Squad-Bits-3-Bitz-S-/191516261700?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2c97423d44

 kronk wrote:
If you could take 2 special weapons in a 10-man tactical squad, I'd be all over 3 in every SM list. Alas, you cannot.

It's literally the easiest fix for Tactical Marines to be more appealing. I say that over and over (though Heavy Flamers would be nice, seeing as Blood Angels get them but Salamanders don't...)

Troops fill a very important role in the Imperial Guard - after all a single one of our troops choices can have over 130 bodies, only the worst riptide spam has a chance of killing them all before turn 6

And if you do it right you can have two of those in a 500 point game, I know I have only been outnumbered once and that was another IG player

How often do you think your actually going to totally table your opponent? If you think you can do it every single game and actually do it, then you dont need troops. However, you may need to find opponents who are better players.
I have no problem taking troops and i have some of the weakest ones in the game. This because I understand the concept of using them to their strengths and making effective decisions in games. I dont win every game but I win more than I lose.
The thing you want to think about is do you really want to spend all your time complaining about "having to take them" and not enjoying the game or do you want to learn to use them effectively and enjoy the game?

 EVIL INC wrote:
How often do you think your actually going to totally table your opponent? If you think you can do it every single game and actually do it, then you dont need troops.

You do realize that everything scores in 7th, right?

I use tacticals with heavy weapons (Missile launchers or lascannons). They are good for home objectives.

 Peregrine wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
How often do you think your actually going to totally table your opponent? If you think you can do it every single game and actually do it, then you dont need troops.

You do realize that everything scores in 7th, right?

I'm well aware that everything "scores in 7th". thats why I pointed that out myself. However, i had thought I read about some sorta rule like objective secured or something like that where troops choices were better at it than non-troop choices. I had not realized they had ditched that so soon. For some reason, I thought that was a current rule.

Draco, your right. that is exactly the sort of way you can maximize their effectiveness. Combat squads allow one slot to claim 2 objectives. if you have a few, you can layer them to provide extra cheap coverage that can take pot shots at enemy and stand up to most attackers.

 EVIL INC wrote:
I'm well aware that everything "scores in 7th". thats why I pointed that out myself. However, i had thought I read about some sorta rule like objective secured or something like that where troops choices were better at it than non-troop choices. I had not realized they had ditched that so soon. For some reason, I thought that was a current rule.

You know, it's funny how someone who cares so much about rule #1 that they have to mention it in their signature doesn't seem to have any problem making sarcastic posts (or making stuff up about "pointing it out yourself" when you did no such thing). It's almost like for you the forum rules are just an opportunity to provoke people and "win" the argument...

Anyway, "objective secured" doesn't change the point I was making: that your "you need troops unless you're going to table your opponent every game" claim is just laughably wrong in 7th. Objective secured is a rule that doesn't come up all that often, most of the time units without it are sufficient to win the game. And don't forget that taking fewer troops often means doing a better job of killing opposing scoring units and leaving your own in uncontested control of objectives. There are plenty of viable strategies that win the game by scoring objectives without investing in troops, and tabling is only a tiny and mostly irrelevant part of that.

I use Iyanden, so troops are awesome.
That being said I do actually like the troops of pretty much all the codices. I think it's good to still have a decent core of them and to strengthen that with others. Everything is scoring, but troops with objective secured can be useful for denying.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Grey Knight Terminators, best Troop choice in the game.

SJ

They are okay but not great. Much rather have AM vets in a chimera or Necron Immortals.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 kronk wrote:
If you could take 2 special weapons in a 10-man tactical squad, I'd be all over 3 in every SM list. Alas, you cannot.

It's literally the easiest fix for Tactical Marines to be more appealing. I say that over and over (though Heavy Flamers would be nice, seeing as Blood Angels get them but Salamanders don't...)

Exactly. If Chaos can, why can't my Imperial Fists?

Jerks.

CSM: I hate regular CSM as they're awful. Plague Marines are good, but pricy, and I need a lord to unlock them. Cultists are good, but are often a tax more than anything.

Daemons: Horrors are great, Nurglings are good, Daemonettes are decent

IG: Both Veterans and Platoons are good but play very differently. I dislike having to take the PCS-tax, but blob guard is a lot of fun to play. Just gotta use orders and other strength multipliers properly (good thing our psykers get Divination, eh?)

Renegades: Plague Zombies are excellent, but require me to make my demagogue my WL. Mutant Rabble are cultists just better (cheaper with better options for upgrades). Infantry Squads seem really good with the new Vraks-formation where destroyed units come back on a 2+, but I haven't had the chance to try it nor do I own enough models to do it the way I think will be the most efficient.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Grey Knight Terminators, best Troop choice in the game.

SJ

No way. Ork Boyz. Best troops in the game.

I wish inquisition got troops. Then I can run MSU henchmen again XD

I think Objective Secured has come up once for me in a game, and my opponent was the one to point out that I got that benefit. Honestly, I don't think I've ever gone "Darn, if only I had a Tactical/Bike/Scout squad there to secure that objective!"

I mean, considering that you draw and score on your turn, it's not come up often.

That being said, I have only played two eternal war missions since 7th came out.

I'm not a big fan of troops. I usually take them more for the transport than what they can do (serpents and pods). With everything scoring, AP2 weapons everywhere, more OP big models coming out, etc I just haven't found troops very useful.

The 55pt spawn I just used in my last battle turned out to be one of the most effective units I've ever used for their points.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
(They're troops btw)

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 kronk wrote:
If you could take 2 special weapons in a 10-man tactical squad, I'd be all over 3 in every SM list. Alas, you cannot.

It's literally the easiest fix for Tactical Marines to be more appealing. I say that over and over (though Heavy Flamers would be nice, seeing as Blood Angels get them but Salamanders don't...)

Just use your Marines as Battle Sisters then. Cheaper per model and they get double specials. Oh, and a 6++ so you can occasionally shrug off the deluge of AP3 Ignores Cover.

Both on my Blood Angels and Harlequins - hell yes.

With BA, Tacticals can equip arguably one of best heavy choices in-game - Heavy Flamer, as well as they are versatile and solid army choice by themselves - one which can stand both in shooting as well as in assault (thanks to glorious Furious Charge).
And Harlequin Troupes - no words needed, just look on dem crispy detailed models and amazing CC weaponry

My armored battlegroup hinges on my siege tank and battle tank squadrons.

I've been running a Renegade and Heretics list with 8 Infantry squads (2 platoons). The mass of bodies I can take for a dirt cheap price is the whole backbone of my army. I focus on the objectives and I love having more bodies then one of the local deathstars can chew through has been surprisingly effective.

When I play CSM, it's Typhus and Zombies. Every army I play, every list, it's the troops that are the lynchpin of making the army work.

 Furyou Miko wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 kronk wrote:
If you could take 2 special weapons in a 10-man tactical squad, I'd be all over 3 in every SM list. Alas, you cannot.

It's literally the easiest fix for Tactical Marines to be more appealing. I say that over and over (though Heavy Flamers would be nice, seeing as Blood Angels get them but Salamanders don't...)

Just use your Marines as Battle Sisters then. Cheaper per model and they get double specials. Oh, and a 6++ so you can occasionally shrug off the deluge of AP3 Ignores Cover.

You'd think, but no Drop Pods and they still end up being worse Bikers. As well, Iron Hands have 6+ FNP so, they kinda have it anyway, though it isn't the same.

If you do a search of my posts since 7th edition came out, you will notice that there are several posts where I mention the objective secured rule. At least a few of them in the carbo copies of this exact same thread as a variation of it seems to pop up every time you turn around. So yes, I HAVE pointed it out myself on a few occasions.
You implied that the rule was gone so I was taking you at your word and assumed you were being honest as I have not read the latest FAQ that has come out. Yes, I have a link to the site rules in my sig. Because i am one of the few that actually follow them. They are there for a reason. For us all to get along. Not for you (not you in particular but anyone to whom the statement applies) to use as a tool to instigate arguments or cause disruption. If you wish to continue this train of conversation, feel free to use the PM function.

If the rule IS still in place, that would mean that troops are better at claiming objectives than other troops.This is something that comes up pretty often in games where players take more troops. They win more games by playing to the mission and coming up with more objectives. In games where both players just try to table their opponant and dont use them, it desnt come up as often. Playing to the mission wins more games I would say. At least it works for me while I win games by playing to the mission and claiming more objectives while my opponant's elites and fast attack units scratches their heads while standing next to my puny guardsmen who claimed the objective from under their noses.

The end answer is pretty simple.
You can learn to use them effectively and enjoy the game using as many as you think you need
or
You can complain about them and not enjoy the game using as few of them as you can get away with.

 EVIL INC wrote:
If you do a search of my posts since 7th edition came out, you will notice that there are several posts where I mention the objective secured rule. At least a few of them in the carbo copies of this exact same thread as a variation of it seems to pop up every time you turn around. So yes, I HAVE pointed it out myself on a few occasions.
You implied that the rule was gone so I was taking you at your word and assumed you were being honest as I have not read the latest FAQ that has come out. Yes, I have a link to the site rules in my sig. Because i am one of the few that actually follow them. They are there for a reason. For us all to get along. Not for you (not you in particular but anyone to whom the statement applies) to use as a tool to instigate arguments or cause disruption. If you wish to continue this train of conversation, feel free to use the PM function.

If the rule IS still in place, that would mean that troops are better at claiming objectives than other troops.This is something that comes up pretty often in games where players take more troops. They win more games by playing to the mission and coming up with more objectives. In games where both players just try to table their opponant and dont use them, it desnt come up as often. Playing to the mission wins more games I would say. At least it works for me while I win games by playing to the mission and claiming more objectives while my opponant's elites and fast attack units scratches their heads while standing next to my puny guardsmen who claimed the objective from under their noses.

The end answer is pretty simple.
You can learn to use them effectively and enjoy the game using as many as you think you need
or
You can complain about them and not enjoy the game using as few of them as you can get away with.

You were rude and sarcastic, not 'taking him at his word.' Get off your high horse.

I'm the one "in my head' so I am pretty sure that I would be the one in the know on that issue.
if you misread it and inserted motivations that were not there, that would not be on me. I was polite. It IS rude however to make accusations of such things. If you wish to continue that line of conversation, feel free to use the PM function.

As someone mentioned earlier, it is often a good tactic to have a cheap troop sit back on your home objectives to hold/claim (possibly with heavies to help defend) and send the fast attacks and elites to knock the enemy off of theirs (possibly escorting a troop or two to claim the mid ground ones. Of course, how successful you are varies depending on the skill levels of the players and of course how fickle the dice are. There is nothing wrong with using the troop transports to move the elites and such across the board. After all, they served their purpose in getting the troops to the battlefield already, why not repurpose them to assist other units? Or you can use them to help defend and claim. I can think of a few games where moving them in front of and near objectives have won me games just because they slowed down an enemy enough to keep them out of claiming/contesting range because they had to move around them.

We'll end this particular diversion here.

i notice (and I'm sure that I'm not the only one) that this thread or a variation of it comes up every time ya turn around. A lot of time and effort goes into them and its the same members putting the same arguments into it every time. You could almost just copy and paste them and they would be the same conversations.

I think a thread or tactical file would be helpful. Maybe a section for each of the codices with tips and ideas for effectively using the troops units to their max potential. Covering all of the different variations, loadouts and transports. The question is would this be possible to do with everyone ONLY putting in positive input and ideas/tips without trying to tear apart the tried and true strategies and tactics of others. Accept that just because what works for someone else doesnt work for you and rather than try to tear theirs down, just add your own. Would this be possible? If it is, would someone be able to compile them into a single living document that could be added to? A pipe dream I know but IF it were possible, it would be a boon to us all.

I realize there is a tactics section but the topics are varied and become lost in time with only necromancy or restarting from scratch bringing up a topic again. I think something like this would merit a stable place.

Objective secured really don't matter. Unless ofc it's my Gk objective secured land raider...those things really can be a pain after you've destroyed all the anti tank in an opponents army

Normal CSM... god no. Cultists, well, they can use a Quad Gun. Plague Marines, good but too expensive - you can get better things with the points.

 RunicFIN wrote:
Normal CSM... god no. Cultists, well, they can use a Quad Gun. Plague Marines, good but too expensive - you can get better things with the points.

Really? I think CSM in terms of variety of what they can take are way better than Cultists, who die to a stiff breeze. Plague Marines, however, I think are awesome. They have Poison and FNP as well as can be Troops, no?

Personally I find normal CSM just don't do enough for their points, and they lack a proper, normally costed Drop Pod and are also scared too easily. Power Armour alone these days just doesn't get one very far. But the main point is the same for both Plague Marines and normal CSM: there are just better things to be gained by saving the points elsewhere ( games for me atleast come down to obsec scoring rarely. )

Cheap effective HQ's with spawn/biker retinues, heldrake, obliterators, cheap suicide terminators with combi-meltas and a chainfist to force that Knight -players hand. I also make extensive use of Forgeworld myself so that makes it even more apparent. That Sicaran definetly needs to be there, etc.

I can however see a place for Plague Marines especially in certain builds: Having lots of them in some lists actually works very well. I just don't play those type of lists personally. Usually taking minimum Troops of Cultists opens up things like Be'lakor. He gets more stuff done than the basic CSM will most of the time.

And yeah, Cultists do nothing, but they don't cost that much, which again leaves the points for stuff. I pray to the Chaos Gods every day for GW to make the normal CSM actually preferable to wield in the new Codex. I don't like leaving my MK3 Iron Warriors home just so I can compete with that Eldar list.

When I know I'm playing a casual game though I bring out the metal bawkses and their passengers.

As a sidenote: In my last tournament I said the names of all the Chaos gods out loud before rolling for seize in 3 out of 4 games. I seized in all the 3 games I did it in. They're there, I swear...

Effectiveness aside, I love footslogging armies. I have enough SM bodies to footslog with my Blood Ravens and that's how I like it ; p Definitely effectiveness aside ; p

 Yonan wrote:
Effectiveness aside, I love footslogging armies.

Me too.

 vipoid wrote:

 Yonan wrote:
Effectiveness aside, I love footslogging armies.

Me too.

Agreed. Tanks are there to blow the crap out of the enemy, not operate a taxi service!

Even with Obsec the fact that in 7th everything scores hurt the necessity/viability of the troop slot.

I don't like Obsec stuff. My object is to kill the enemy because if I kill them, they won't be able to claim objectives.

Another thing is that I can't stand some units not contributing anything for the game apart from just sitting the on the objective the whole game, and shoot 1 Lascannon per turn.

bibotot wrote:
I don't like Obsec stuff. My object is to kill the enemy because if I kill them, they won't be able to claim objectives.

Another thing is that I can't stand some units not contributing anything for the game apart from just sitting the on the objective the whole game, and shoot 1 Lascannon per turn.

Seriously. "You can't hold objectives if you're dead!" should be a quote

If I could do it and keep my +1 init, I'd dump all the tacs.

I like running Troops in my DE, since I can get fast ObSec Transports that just take Objectives.

Tyranids? Yay, DS Rippers woo...

With my CSM army, I only bring two squads of Cultists, to fill the two troop choices. They're cheep and I'd rather spend the majority of my points on units with more firepower and survivability.

I just use my Cultists to camp the objectives, closest to my deployment zone. And pretty much forget about them for the rest of the game.

Like others have stated, regular CSM troops, are not effective enough to be worth their point cost.

Depends on the army.

Necrons orks guard Eldar love troops

Tau and DE are kind of Troop Ambivalent

SM types tend to like troops less because elite units do more of the same stuff but are more focused.

4 Squads of 10 man grey hunters with 2 melta guns and a combi melta, Deepstriking all near each each other has had enemies panic.

 Frozocrone wrote:
I like running Troops in my DE, since I can get fast ObSec Transports that just take Objectives.

Tyranids? Yay, DS Rippers woo...

Tyranid Troops are a must have in my opinion. Termagants and a troop Tervigon? Yes please. Warriors? Yes please. Even Hormagaunts? Sure.

Well, what else are you going to hide your Elites, heavies and Fast attack behind?

I think it varies wildly between codexes, and how you use the army. Normal Tau? Troops are just a mandatory drain on your resources. Dark Eldar? I wouldn't take them if I didn't have to, (although the Warriors can still prove very useful when used correctly). Regular Eldar? For my armies, nothing but a tax I have to pay to get Psykers and anti-armor into my DE lists. Drop Pod Salamanders? They are the workhorses of my lists. I would take tactical squads in those lists even if troops weren't compulsory.

I love black tide and sometimes have problems maxing out my troops choice lol 4-5 squads of crusaders belting forwards with support from covering units can be quite overwhelming. especially if you DS sternguard and terminators in to the back field to try and deal with the heavier stuff. ...at least I usually get linebreaker

I come from the days of simple, standard Force Org charts, so troops have always been a huge part of my builds. The idea of Unbound lists and the like make me cringe to no end.

I play guard without many vehicles. That should be answer enough.

I play Grey Knights, I use a fair number of GK terminators. so yes I use troops. but my troops are basicly better then the elites in 90% of codexes.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Frozocrone wrote:
I like running Troops in my DE, since I can get fast ObSec Transports that just take Objectives.

Tyranids? Yay, DS Rippers woo...

Tyranid Troops are a must have in my opinion. Termagants and a troop Tervigon? Yes please. Warriors? Yes please. Even Hormagaunts? Sure.

I was with you at Termagants and a troop Tervigon. It is not the SUPER MUST WIN competitive list, but it is good enough to deal with a semi-competitive to fun game and it is a lot of fun. Warriors? They can stay on the shelf where they belong. I guess some people never see S8 weapons thrown around because I can't imagine a reason to take something so squishy that lacks a decent amount of punch. They cost as much as terminators, with worse armor, no invulnerable, and they hit like wet noodles. They also cost WAAAY to many points in my opinion, I would love them if a base size squad didn't cost almost as much as a carnifex. Hormagaunts I want to love sooooo bad, they are literally the reason I started playing Tyranids in 3rd, I love that damn model and I feel like THEY are what Tyranids are supposed to be all about. But currently Hormagaunts are just worse than Termagants in almost every way, and in most cases the areas where they come out ahead just aren't worth it.

If I could, I'd leave every BA troop at home.

Yes, always. Multiple's of as well usually.

Not only are they usually quite iconic unit's they usually provide good value as well.

Both as a Marine player and a Mechanicum player, I'd never leave home without my troops. For Marines, the Tactical Marine is still pretty damn verisitile, able to gear up to tackle most threats. Plus the Rhino is a fantastic, cheap transport that can easily act as a wall if need be

As for Mechanicum, the Thallax are incredibly sticky, provided you keep S10 templates away from them, able to very quickly hop around with a good range of wargear options. Tech-thralls are VERY cheap troops who can (with the right upgrades and support) get boosted up to a 4+ FNP. Sit them behind an Aegis and go to ground, watch your opponent never remove them

"s still pretty damn verisitile"

But incapable of actually getting anything done. They are 4th rate at all the jobs in game.

Depends on the army.

Daemonettes are awesome. Cheap, killy, resilient and deep strikable.

The bare minimum of Tactical Marines get taken to unlock the Razorback. I give them a ML and park them on the backline, then send the bus up.

Martel732 wrote:
"s still pretty damn verisitile"

But incapable of actually getting anything done. They are 4th rate at all the jobs in game.

I'm not on love wit tacticals, but they aren't THAT bad. 4th rate would be.... Tactical terminators . Remember when cyclones were good?!? (how long ago was THAT lol)

 Zed wrote:
Depends on the army.

Daemonettes are awesome. Cheap, killy, resilient and deep strikable.

The bare minimum of Tactical Marines get taken to unlock the Razorback. I give them a ML and park them on the backline, then send the bus up.

Yes to all but the resilient. They die to a stiff breeze. Pink Horrors are more resilient than they are.

I'd love to take Troops, but GW doesn't want me to.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Zed wrote:
Depends on the army.

Daemonettes are awesome. Cheap, killy, resilient and deep strikable.

The bare minimum of Tactical Marines get taken to unlock the Razorback. I give them a ML and park them on the backline, then send the bus up.

Yes to all but the resilient. They die to a stiff breeze. Pink Horrors are more resilient than they are.

Ah true. Resilient in the sense that they aren't going to run away. Making them one of four or five threats to deal with at once also helps.

Well what is meant by "Troops" exactly ?

I notice some armies have what might be called "irregular" troop choices such as:


Dredmob Orks: Deff Dreads

Space Marine Siege Assault Vanguard: Dreadnought Talon, Centurion Siege Assault Squad

Mechanicum: Castellax

Farsight Enclaves: Crisis suits.

 Talys wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"s still pretty damn verisitile"

But incapable of actually getting anything done. They are 4th rate at all the jobs in game.

I'm not on love wit tacticals, but they aren't THAT bad. 4th rate would be.... Tactical terminators . Remember when cyclones were good?!? (how long ago was THAT lol)

They really were never good, even in 2nd.

Necron Warriors and Marines are more or less equivalent in durability (with variation depending on what is shooting at them), so I think it's a little funny that the former are regarded in Internetland as absurdly durable and the latter as dying to a stiff breeze.

I think this impression exists because Warriors are taken in big 10- or 20-undead robot blobs, whereas people tend to min-max Tactical Marines, seeing the bolter guys as ablative wounds for a special or heavy weapon. Which I believe is the opposite of the designers' intent, which was for them to do most of their killing with bolter and CC attack weight of fire, the special or heavy being a supplement rather than the main feature.

Well, reanimation protocols does significantly change the math.

I myself respect the durability of meqs (more or less), but I despise their offense/pt. At least Necrons have gauss on their weapons can threaten a wider range of targets.

Alcibiades wrote:
Necron Warriors and Marines are more or less equivalent in durability (with variation depending on what is shooting at them), so I think it's a little funny that the former are regarded in Internetland as absurdly durable and the latter as dying to a stiff breeze.

I think this impression exists because Warriors are taken in big 10- or 20-undead robot blobs, whereas people tend to min-max Tactical Marines, seeing the bolter guys as ablative wounds for a special or heavy weapon. Which I believe is the opposite of the designers' intent, which was for them to do most of their killing with bolter and CC attack weight of fire, the special or heavy being a supplement rather than the main feature.

To my knowledge, there is no Chapter Tactic that can give Marines army wide 4+ FNP. This is why the "former" are regarded here in Internetlandia as so strong, which they are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zed wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Zed wrote:
Depends on the army.

Daemonettes are awesome. Cheap, killy, resilient and deep strikable.

The bare minimum of Tactical Marines get taken to unlock the Razorback. I give them a ML and park them on the backline, then send the bus up.

Yes to all but the resilient. They die to a stiff breeze. Pink Horrors are more resilient than they are.

Ah true. Resilient in the sense that they aren't going to run away. Making them one of four or five threats to deal with at once also helps.

Definitely. That is probably one of Daemons best features, is the semi-Fearless rule.

Of course. Necrons, Eldar, and GK are my favorite armies.
They have very useful troops.

Martel732 wrote:
Well, reanimation protocols does significantly change the math.

I myself respect the durability of meqs (more or less), but I despise their offense/pt. At least Necrons have gauss on their weapons can threaten a wider range of targets.

Threaten on a 6 only haha

as opposed to the "wound everything common on their save" or "instagib anything commonly seen on a 2+" options of the Grav & Melta respectively option

 IHateNids wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Well, reanimation protocols does significantly change the math.

I myself respect the durability of meqs (more or less), but I despise their offense/pt. At least Necrons have gauss on their weapons can threaten a wider range of targets.

Threaten on a 6 only haha

as opposed to the "wound everything common on their save" or "instagib anything commonly seen on a 2+" options of the Grav & Melta respectively option

Grav on tactical marines is terrible Grav on biker troops is very good, but everyone knows biker troops are awesome in general. Tacs can only get two melta shots, which is very unreliable and only threatens hard targets at a paltry 6". Gauss can glance out a LR from 24". That's much more useful, imo.

Martel732 wrote:

 IHateNids wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Well, reanimation protocols does significantly change the math.

I myself respect the durability of meqs (more or less), but I despise their offense/pt. At least Necrons have gauss on their weapons can threaten a wider range of targets.

Threaten on a 6 only haha

as opposed to the "wound everything common on their save" or "instagib anything commonly seen on a 2+" options of the Grav & Melta respectively option

Grav on tactical marines is terrible Grav on biker troops is very good, but everyone knows biker troops are awesome in general. Tacs can only get two melta shots, which is very unreliable and only threatens hard targets at a paltry 6". Gauss can glance out a LR from 24". That's much more useful, imo.

Yeah, granted.

But bearing in mind, we have absolutely no special weapons at all, we're stuck on that "hope for a 6" mentality to everything that our infantry shoot at, at least a Plasmagun or Melta can hurt an MC/Vehicle reasonably efficiently

When I play orks its a must you need a good amount of boyz.

SM I find some usage in tacticals but it is annoying at times to figure a good balance of points for them.

I use the green tide formation so I say hell yes to all da boys.