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.

I run DA so my elites and fast attack are my troops. Also, I sure have been doing a ton of harassment by infiltrating a few squads of snipers around the board. I wouldn't say that troops are worthless in the slightest bit. Furthermore, if you only have one scoring unit, and for whatever reason it dies, what do you do then?

 Icarusthepilot wrote:
I run DA so my elites and fast attack are my troops. Also, I sure have been doing a ton of harassment by infiltrating a few squads of snipers around the board. I wouldn't say that troops are worthless in the slightest bit. Furthermore, if you only have one scoring unit, and for whatever reason it dies, what do you do then?

Edit: need to read the post more carefully.

Thanks for agreeing that you don't use your troop units but prefer to use Fast Attack and Elites instead.

 Peregrine wrote:
No, that's not it at all. It's not about discrediting tournaments, it's about the simple fact that trying to consider all the different house rules involved at tournaments is beyond any reasonable scope of discussion. There are just too many different objectives/scoring methods/etc to make general strategy statements without explicitly limiting the discussion to a single event. Limiting the discussion to the missions found in the standard rules is the only way to narrow the scope enough to have a constructive discussion.

The straight book missions make it very clear that one can win to varying degrees, and has a point system to tally how much one won by. It even has a term for a particularly high scoring win, the "Crushing Defeat". That this produces nothing but bragging rights in an average 1 vs 1 game of 40K does not make it irrelevant or house ruled when one uses these differences in win margin in a tourney, campaign, or any other set up besides a basic 1 vs 1 game. It is built right into the rules that some wins are more winning than others.

-D

MarkCron wrote:
Thanks for agreeing that you don't use your troop units but prefer to use Fast Attack and Elites instead.

Yeah, this kind of thing is just another argument in favor of minimum troops. DA troops are unappealing and you use non-troops units instead, even paying an HQ tax to make them your troops and get rid of the basic ones.

 Peregrine wrote:

MarkCron wrote:
Thanks for agreeing that you don't use your troop units but prefer to use Fast Attack and Elites instead.

Yeah, this kind of thing is just another argument in favor of minimum troops. DA troops are unappealing and you use non-troops units instead, even paying an HQ tax to make them your troops and get rid of the basic ones.

The only use I have found for the basic DA troops is a 5 man Tac Squad with melta and combi melta in a Drop Pod to fill the manditory troops slot. They just pod in a die and hopelfull take down some heavy armour. Other wise there all pretty meh.

Well this thread went places.

@corollax

To be honest: I don't get the relationship between the wikipedia article and this problem.

If I play lets say 2000p of an army and spend roughly 300p in Troops instead of 100p to win big in my world this is a marginal difference in killing power. (1700p instead of 1900p)

@peregrine

Because the metagame changes. You've made certain decisions in building your list to ensure that you can win overwhelmingly (for example, taking enough scoring units to claim and hold all five objectives plus the table quarters victor condition), but so has everyone else in the tournament. If you remove the margin of victory factor then now people are willing to change lists and you don't necessarily have an ideal list anymore. You might find that you have too many points invested in blobs of scoring infantry and don't have enough offensive threats to push out of your own deployment zone successfully, while people who don't take an excessive amount of points in scoring units don't have the same problem.

Again, we are talking about a difference of about 200p here. You certainly don't need to capture 6 objectives. Chances that you actually pull it off are marginal and the risk of losing too much killing power is too high. There are lists, that could do it without suffering at all (Necrons, Coteaz, DE, Nids) as their Troop choices contribute to the fight.
But if your troops are neither dirt cheap nor somehow useful apart from scoring, it would be foolish to spend more points on them than absolutely necessary even in a meta where you have to win big. (Because you won't win against the lists with more efficient troops).

What the meta does is not that all guys spam troops, thats rubbish imho. It limits the number of viable lists to very few (Lists that have enough troops AND enough killing power). Those lists do perform as well under W/D/L-conditions. But a greater variety of lists is possible when a close win is enough. Thats certain.

But still 1 Troop is just a risk too high and you don't gain that much. (or do you think that spending 130p for a minimum Platoon instead of Harker would have changed your output to an abysmal level? I wouldnÄt think so. )

So how do you guys invalidate the effectiveness and utility of 180 ork boyz, 120 kroot, and tony kopach/brandts list of double blob. (not even to mention coteaz henchman spam unlocking razors, and grey hunter spam) All of these are great troop units.

All of the above are troop spammy lists, all three are extremely effective lists. I honestly do not see how you guys can say " I took one troop this one tournament and it worked out okay because I went 2-1". How is one tournament an adequate sample size for anything?

While the above three strategies are extremely strong and proven lists. Do you also think nob biker squads with a warboss on bike useless because they are troops?

Markcon, that is not the point being made. The point being made by icarusthepilot is that his BEST troops are made available via HQs which is in many codexes.

So does that mean that you guys only dislike bad troops, kinda like everyone doesn't inefficeint units, so then the argument is that bad units are bad..Nice..

I still fail to see how you guys can say troops should be minimized when 180 ork boys is good at any missions, 120 kroot is a hassle, and 2 50 man blobs is extremely difficult to move in 5-7 turns. Along with the fact a 10 man paladin unit with draigo is a troop with bikerboss with nob bikers, all troops.

If I ever face anyone with one scoring unit within regular 40k rules(outside of apoc/cityfight/other books) I would be happy to kill his one troop then save one of my many, it is an extremely simple concept to counter.

Nazdreg also makes a good point a very good point about point value ratios between ratios and killing power, that alone shows how you need troops.

Using Nob Bikers or Draigo Paladins as an example doesn't further your argument that troops are good. Those are both units from other parts of the FOC which can be taken as troops due to the inclusion of an HQ.

Lets say that Shadowsun had a rule which meant that Stealth Teams could be taken as troops. Who wouldn't want to take a couple of small units of troops with 2+ cover in any terrain without needing to go to ground and who can outflank, infiltrate or deep strike?

But that doesn't mean that troops are good, only that being able to take Elites choices in the troops slot is good.

Actually, I have never seen stuff like Nob Bikers and Paladins taken as Elites... only as troops. Maybe their durability/killing power is not worth their points without being scoring?

I do think this arguement boils down to "taking bad troops is bad." Just like taking any inefficient unit is bad. However, plenty of good, efficient troops are available so I personally do not see a benefit to going minimum troops except in extreme cirmcumstances.

They are no longer elite choices, they are troop choices now. 10 paladins with dragio. IS A TROOP CHOICE. it is no longer an elite choice. it is that simple. Thus that troop choice is extremly strong and useful. Thus pretty much closing this argument on min troops=better.

Thank you for nit picking a tiny bit of my post an attempting to refute it when the next poster agrees with me.

Shadowsun has no rule with that, so that has no effect on this argument, at all. Now draigo, coteaz, and many other do. They make very effective troops. Like henchman, paladins and nobz.

Thank you Gornall for providing an objective view, something that is hard to find on this forum when people(like A town called malus) try to prove their point by making fictitious rules to attempt to invalidate a truth (that paladins,nobs,henchman,purifies and troops under a specific HQ).

Using Nob Bikers or Draigo Paladins as an example doesn't further your argument that troops are good. Those are both units from other parts of the FOC which can be taken as troops due to the inclusion of an HQ.

Lets say that Shadowsun had a rule which meant that Stealth Teams could be taken as troops. Who wouldn't want to take a couple of small units of troops with 2+ cover in any terrain without needing to go to ground and who can outflank, infiltrate or deep strike?

But that doesn't mean that troops are good, only that being able to take Elites choices in the troops slot is good.

Come on. You hardly ever see Nob Bikers taken without a Warboss or Pallies without Dragio. For all intents and purposes, these units are troops choices.

That would be akin to having a discussion about transports and claiming that taking a Land Raider as a heavy support choice doesn't count because it is not a dedicated transport. Be reasonable.

Furthermore, even if you want to arbitrarily exclude troop choices that require a hq unlock, there are a myriad of troop choices that players do well to take en masse.

The only armies that I see consistently profiting from taking low amounts of troops are Necrons, CSM, and Chaos Daemons (maybe Eldar will join this soon). Almost all of the MEQ codices heavily benefit from a Guard blob (hence, you see it regularly at events). Sisters are the same way. Early successful Tau lists have featured gobs of Kroot (80+). Dark Eldar players often take Warrior blobs behind an Aegis.

People claiming that 2 min troop choices are doing the job must be fortunate enough to play in environments that lack Drakes, Tau, and barrage weapons. However, I can promise you if you bring 2x3 Windriders out to play versus the new meta, you will be playing a very uphill battle.

But according to Ailaros and Peregrine Guard blobs are too easy to remove!!!

I've played vs. mass orks, mass kroot, mass guardsmen. You are very, very unlikely to remove all those troops. If you take 1-2 troops, it makes thegame much easier for your opponent. They simply have to keep 1 troop model alive longer than you and deny the ability tor the contest.

Contesting, or killing exposed troops also becomes much more difficult if you've got to go first. The player going 2nd has huge advantages in objective based missions. Taking more troops increases the chance you'll have enough alive to grab an objective.

Taking very few troops results in an imbalanced list. Those can win, and win big. But I think you'll lose too many close games vs. higher caliber players.

 Clauss wrote:
So how do you guys invalidate the effectiveness and utility of 180 ork boyz, 120 kroot, and tony kopach/brandts list of double blob. (not even to mention coteaz henchman spam unlocking razors, and grey hunter spam) All of these are great troop units.

Ok, and no one is saying not to use troop units which are effective. However, the worth of taking crappy units just to have scoring troops is the point of the thread.

 Clauss wrote:
Markcon, that is not the point being made. The point being made by icarusthepilot is that his BEST troops are made available via HQs which is in many codexes.

And the point we are making is that he is NOT using troops. He is filling Troop slots with Elite units which is an entirely different thing. Not a bad thing, but not the same as investing 400 points in tac marines because someone said he had to have 4 troops at 2000 points.

 Clauss wrote:

So does that mean that you guys only dislike bad troops, kinda like everyone doesn't inefficeint units, so then the argument is that bad units are bad..Nice..

The point, imho, is that IF you have bad troops DON'T feel obliged to take 4 squads of troops just because you read on the internet that you have to have 2 troops plus and extra one for every 500 points.

 Clauss wrote:
I still fail to see how you guys can say troops should be minimized when 180 ork boys is good at any missions, 120 kroot is a hassle, and 2 50 man blobs is extremely difficult to move in 5-7 turns.

Good. Because that isn't what is being said. The question was are troops worth it any more? and the answer is army specific.

 Clauss wrote:
Along with the fact a 10 man paladin unit with draigo is a troop with bikerboss with nob bikers, all troops.

and putting an elite unit is a troop FOC is not what this thread is about. It is about using units listed under "Troop" in the codex.

 Clauss wrote:
If I ever face anyone with one scoring unit within regular 40k rules(outside of apoc/cityfight/other books) I would be happy to kill his one troop then save one of my many, it is an extremely simple concept to counter.

For the love of Russ.....You have to have 2 troops. No one is saying to take only 1 troop because we are talking about BOOK missions with a NORMAL FOC. The point is that if you have inefficient troop units, don't have too many of them.

 Clauss wrote:
Nazdreg also makes a good point a very good point about point value ratios between ratios and killing power, that alone shows how you need troops.

And this was covered before as well. The point is that having more killing power increases the chances of getting First Blood and Warlord, at which point you only need to contest the objectives that the opponent is on to win....for book missions.

@Clauss

Oh yeah I totally forgot about 180 boyz. (which has some problems though with time restrictions...) But still very effective army with a ton of troops.

@Gornall

I do think this arguement boils down to "taking bad troops is bad." Just like taking any inefficient unit is bad. However, plenty of good, efficient troops are available so I personally do not see a benefit to going minimum troops except in extreme cirmcumstances.

+1 Perfect summary.

With allies it becomes easy for every army to field useful troops. They may not be as efficient in terms of shooting as a heavy slot, but you are paying for versatility. I'll take that.

Also. While things such as Paladins and Henchmen aren't listed under troops, they can easily be made such (and generally you'll see them used this way) so I think it is very valid to consider.

I can only think of a handful of troops I find to be truly useless, but most of them are so cheap that I really couldnt field much firepower instead of them.

I think the toughest part--even if we want to go off of straight book missions--is that you HAVE to stop the opponent from taking objectives. The posters who defend min troops are working from the assumption that even blobs of 50 guardsmen are "easy" to kill. I would imagine that they would then have to concede that against competent opponents, their min troops will be killed off even easier. If you have 2x3 Guardian Jet Bikes and the opponent has 120 Kroot backed by two Ethereals, it is very, very difficult to ensure that none of these 120 survives to take just one objective.

In these instances, you are banking on First Blood (which is incidentally, often more difficult to obtain from heavy infantry lists). There are plenty of times when first blood isn't conceded unit turn 2-3. You are also banking on slay the warlord (again, often tough to obtain when the Warlord is hiding in a cushion of bodies). Linebreaker is relatively easy for both parties to obtain.

What this ultimately means is that you have to go for the all out tabling almost every game. I'd love to see the lists that are tabling 120 Kroot, 2 Ethereals, 3 Skyrays, and 3 Riptides. I'd love to have the golden goose of lists that can wipe off the Kopach/Brandt ThunderStorm. It would be cool to see something guaranteed to lay the smackdown on 180+ Boyz (+ all of their toys). The problem is, these lists are designed to whether the storm of the nastiest lists out there. They win by attrition. Even among the rare kill point game, these lists are likely packing less overall KP than those that bring tons of toys.

Whether we are talking about the top tables of Adepticon or a random house game in Timbucktoo, it is easier to win if you have an overwhelming troop advantage. It is a game of objectives. Sure, you CAN win by denying all objectives and simultaneously getting first blood, slay the warlord, and linebreaker. However, it really isn't that easy. If just one of those 120+ troops survive to take just one of those (often 3-5) objectives, you lose. Not a worthwhile gamble in most cases.

 JGrand wrote:
I think the toughest part--even if we want to go off of straight book missions--is that you HAVE to stop the opponent from taking objectives. The posters who defend min troops are working from the assumption that even blobs of 50 guardsmen are "easy" to kill. I would imagine that they would then have to concede that against competent opponents, their min troops will be killed off even easier. If you have 2x3 Guardian Jet Bikes and the opponent has 120 Kroot backed by two Ethereals, it is very, very difficult to ensure that none of these 120 survives to take just one objective.

That's incorrect. The point I was making is that you have to CONTEST objectives, not take them.

 JGrand wrote:
In these instances, you are banking on First Blood (which is incidentally, often more difficult to obtain from heavy infantry lists). There are plenty of times when first blood isn't conceded unit turn 2-3. You are also banking on slay the warlord (again, often tough to obtain when the Warlord is hiding in a cushion of bodies). Linebreaker is relatively easy for both parties to obtain.

True. And in most cases First Blood and Warlord determine the result of book missions.

 JGrand wrote:
What this ultimately means is that you have to go for the all out tabling almost every game.

I disagree completely. If I set out to get First Blood and contest your objectives, why do I have to table you?

 JGrand wrote:
Whether we are talking about the top tables of Adepticon or a random house game in Timbucktoo, it is easier to win if you have an overwhelming troop advantage. It is a game of objectives. Sure, you CAN win by denying all objectives and simultaneously getting first blood, slay the warlord, and linebreaker. However, it really isn't that easy. If just one of those 120+ troops survive to take just one of those (often 3-5) objectives, you lose. Not a worthwhile gamble in most cases.

True....if your troops are worth a pinch in the first place. If they aren't then loading up 5 units of them isn't going to help.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LValx wrote:
With allies it becomes easy for every army to field useful troops. They may not be as efficient in terms of shooting as a heavy slot, but you are paying for versatility. I'll take that.

Ok, so you agree then. If you don't have effective units listed under your Troop options in the codex, get some different ones. I agree.

 LValx wrote:

Also. While things such as Paladins and Henchmen aren't listed under troops, they can easily be made such (and generally you'll see them used this way) so I think it is very valid to consider.

Again, glad you agree. Spend the points on more effective units.

 LValx wrote:

I can only think of a handful of troops I find to be truly useless, but most of them are so cheap that I really couldnt field much firepower instead of them.

Good, so if you were playing Dark Angels, you'd have no problem taking 4 squads of tacs or snipers. Cool. I guess the point is that not everyone wants to take tac squads and snipers with a DA army.

Contesting is harder than before since you need infantry to do so. Most codices feature infantry in the various slots that aren't more inherently durable than the respective troops choices.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you have access to good troops, you ought to take them. Since all the codices have access, I think every army would be better served filling out a good portion of troops before turning go killier units.

If I played Da i'd take Azrael for a Guard blob and Bikes, hell i'd take guard with just about any of the SM codices.

 -Nazdreg- wrote:
@corollax

To be honest: I don't get the relationship between the wikipedia article and this problem.

Think of the dice as "army lists." Each die has six sides, and some fixed number of points to distribute. In the first example, Die A will beat Die B 5/9 of the time. It's a "favorable matchup" -- but it comes at the expense of losing 5/9 of its games with Die C. Depending on the local "metagame", one die may achieve more wins than another, since it will have more favorable matchups. But if you simply tally up the score for each roll, all of them have the same average, and that advantage disappears.

 LValx wrote:
Contesting is harder than before since you need infantry to do so. Most codices feature infantry in the various slots that aren't more inherently durable than the respective troops choices.

Incorrect. All units are denial units except vehicles, swarms and falling back etc.

 LValx wrote:

If you have access to good troops, you ought to take them. Since all the codices have access, I think every army would be better served filling out a good portion of troops before turning go killier units.

Agreed. IF you have point efficient troops, why not fill out ALL your troop slots before you do anything else. After all, as you have said, it is a game of objectives so by definition this is the best move.

 LValx wrote:
If I played Da i'd take Azrael for a Guard blob and Bikes, hell i'd take guard with just about any of the SM codices.

So you don't want tac marines and scouts? Might need to work on consistency here....there is nothing bad about tac marines...Better than Cron warriors.

So if vehicles and swarms arent denial, then denial units are infantry? Which is what I said. Not being able to contest with vehicles is a BIG change.

I also imagine one of the reasons this thread was made is that infantry units are finding it more difficult to live until the end of the game. If that holds true for scoring units, it should also hold true for denial units.

Cron Warriors are completely different than Marines. They are most often fielded in the best overall transport in the game. That is what makes them good. Rhinos are now lackluster and Marines have seen a dropoff due to Heldrakes. In fact, in a Heldrakeless world, i'd definitely take Tac Marines. As it stands I'd rather take scouts or bikes. All of that doesn't really matter though. There isn't a single codex I wouldn't take at least 4 troops with, though i'd generally lean towards 5+ at anything above 1750.

Even if I played CSM/Daemons, i'd probably take 4-5 units of Cultists + Plaguebearers/Horrors and a Portalglyph (I only bring this up specifically because I'd say those codices have the worst overall troops). I think troops are that important.

That's incorrect. The point I was making is that you have to CONTEST objectives, not take them.

Which isn't always easy. A blob of 20 models can easily spread out in a way that precludes opponents from coming within 3" of an objective. Vehicles, swarms, and flyers cannot contest, which means that you often do have to first kill off models in order to contest them.

True. And in most cases First Blood and Warlord determine the result of book missions.

Agreed. However, it is often easier to deny both of these with mass infantry. Lists that start with 60 out of 120 Kroot, 3 Riptides, and 3 Skyrays on the board aren't giving up any freebies.

True....if your troops are worth a pinch in the first place. If they aren't then loading up 5 units of them isn't going to help.

Just so we can get on the same page, which armies do you feel have no access to worthwhile troops (including allies)? Even CSM/Daemon rushes--perhaps the most aggressive lists out there--often take 2-3 Plaguebearers and 1x10 Cultists minimum (and usually with a Portalglyph). Otherwise, what are these troop deprived lists?

So you don't want tac marines and scouts? Might need to work on consistency here....there is nothing bad about tac marines...Better than Cron warriors.

The issue with MEQ in general largely stems from the Helldrake. In addition, the ability of cheap bodies to gain cover advantages via stealth, shrouded, terrain, or an Aegis places a higher premium on them.

 LValx wrote:
So if vehicles and swarms arent denial, then denial units are infantry? Which is what I said. Not being able to contest with vehicles is a BIG change.

Monstrous Creatures, Cavalry, Beasts, Walkers can still contest, just not capture. And they are not "infantry" per say.

Yeah, I consider those units, with the exception of walkers, to be infantry. Fast MCs are probably the best denial units in the game currently.

 LValx wrote:
So if vehicles and swarms arent denial, then denial units are infantry? Which is what I said. Not being able to contest with vehicles is a BIG change.

I also imagine one of the reasons this thread was made is that infantry units are finding it more difficult to live until the end of the game. If that holds true for scoring units, it should also hold true for denial units.

ummm...you've forgotten about monstrous creatures? edit: ninja'd

 LValx wrote:
Cron Warriors are completely different than Marines. They are most often fielded in the best overall transport in the game. That is what makes them good.

Precisely, thanks. standard loadout - 5 warriors which is the absolute minimum you can get to take the Scythe. In fact, you don't even see 5 Immortals in them, which would make a lot more sense if troops and scoring were that important.

 LValx wrote:
Rhinos are now lackluster and Marines have seen a dropoff due to Heldrakes. In fact, in a Heldrakeless world, i'd definitely take Tac Marines. As it stands I'd rather take scouts or bikes. All of that doesn't really matter though. There isn't a single codex I wouldn't take at least 4 troops with, though i'd generally lean towards 5+ at anything above 1750.

Cool. Thing is, are you taking the troop units listed as troops in the codex, or are you taking allies/elites as troops. Because for me, that it the purpose of the thread.

 LValx wrote:
Even if I played CSM/Daemons, i'd probably take 4-5 units of Cultists + Plaguebearers/Horrors and a Portalglyph (I only bring this up specifically because I'd say those codices have the worst overall troops). I think troops are that important.

Cool, we can agree to disagree. As has been said before, it is army specific and I also think player specific.

If nothing else, at least this has been debated to death

And as I said before, certain codices, those with great transports can very easily field MSU. Crons are best at it because their transports can place them just about anywhere on the board. That helps tremendously.

I thought the purpose of the thread was simply debating the usefulness of investing in troops vs. superior shooting options (I never got the feeling that it mattered where the troops came from, be it FOC manipulation or allies).

 LValx wrote:
And as I said before, certain codices, those with great transports can very easily field MSU. Crons are best at it because their transports can place them just about anywhere on the board. That helps tremendously.

I thought the purpose of the thread was simply debating the usefulness of investing in troops vs. superior shooting options (I never got the feeling that it mattered where the troops came from, be it FOC manipulation or allies).

It greatly matters where the troops come from. By taking a unit from another FOC slot as troops you are effectively investing more points in their original slot, not Troops, as they are fulfilling the role of that slot more than any other. So you're still minimizing Troops in order to take more of other stuff, just in a different way.

So in the example of the OP and taking Leman Russ tanks as troops. That is effectively investing more points in Heavy Support as just because the Russ is now a troop choice it is going to fulfill the same role in the battle as a Leman Russ in the Heavy Support slot, rather than what a Troops choice is usually effective at.

 JGrand wrote:
I would imagine that they would then have to concede that against competent opponents, their min troops will be killed off even easier.

Against equal shooting, yes. But the whole point is you don't have equal shooting. Two 50-man blobs is a minimum of 560 points without even counting the price of weapon upgrades, attached ICs/commissars to fix their morale problems, etc. In a 1500 point game you're probably spending almost half your points on units that will do absolutely nothing until you count objectives at the end of the game. Meanwhile the minimum-troops list is spending a lot less, so they have a lot more firepower to focus on your troops.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Clauss wrote:
How is one tournament an adequate sample size for anything?

It isn't, and I never said it is. What it did is make me thing more seriously about something I've been noticing for all of 6th, that my troops have been consistently the most disappointing part of my lists and games have frequently come down to a question of who is best at killing the other army with troops only scoring a token single objective at the end.

The point being made by icarusthepilot is that his BEST troops are made available via HQs which is in many codexes.

IOW, troops are so bad in 6th that everyone is willing to pay an HQ tax just to get rid of them and make something else into a scoring unit.

And meanwhile the only option I have to fiddle with my troops slot are Termagants unlocking Tervigons. But Tervigons are so good I'd be silly not to take them. Broodlords are also excellent; shame about the stealers they need with them though.