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

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.

been following this thread for a few days and I cant help but be amused by it.

An IG player is arguing "I want more tanks. how do I get more?? oh yeah avoid troops"

When as an elder player its "I want more tanks. how do I get more tanks? oh yeah take as many cheap troops as I can and take wave serpents."

We may as well be arguing what's the better beer. it depends on what you play and how you play.

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.

@ Ailaros.

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?

 Dracos wrote:

 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.

 JGrand wrote:

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.

 JGrand wrote:

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.

 JGrand wrote:

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?

Which is still an absolutely ridiculous argument. The Vendetta has gained so much in the way of durability and mobility.

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.

Nazdreg: Take a look at this wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontransitive_dice

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.