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 I've seen more "Are X worth it?" posts recently than I ever have. I'm curious as to why that is. I mean, for me personally, if I'm wondering if something is "worth it", I try to work it in to a list, I try to see what I'm giving up for that unit, I see what that unit can deliver in the way of game-changing mechanics and then I do a few mock-rolls to see if I think they may be effective.

Point is, when you post here, "is X worth it?" You're going to get experiences from any number of people saying two different things. Last month (I think it was), there was a "Is Karandras worth it?" post. Well, it ended up getting a little heated when I discussed the fact that I use Asurmen and he is worth every point I pay for him. Others called me crazy. So, to those people, Asurmen is not "worth it" and that's what you're going to hear. But, from me, you'd hear a completely different side of the story. Now, that may be what you're looking for in "Worth it?" topics, but it doesn't actually tell you if it's worth it to you.

The way that I settled on Asurmen? I worked him into a list, tried some mock rolling and decided I liked what I saw. I took the list to a tournament and did fairly well. Then, I tweaked the list. That's how I determine if something is "worth it" rather than evaluating the opinion of a few people that not only have different lists, but different playstyles, different interpretation of the armies they face and different ways to handle certain threats. One person's experience is going to be totally different from another's. And, while that may be exactly what you're looking for, it doesn't tell you if a unit is "Worth it", because we don't know how you play, we don't know how you build your list and we don't know what you think is "Worth it" or not.

Units don't exist in a vaccuum. Something isn't "worth" anything until it's done a job. If my Fire Dragons got popped out of their Wave Serpent and died Turn 1, were they worth it? Nope. Are they normally "worth it"? To me, yes. To someone else who runs Saim-Hann or a foot-slogging Eldar army, probably not.

I'm not saying don't post these things, but do a little self-testing before you do. See if you can decide for yourself if something is "Worth it". What did you have to give up to get that unit? What could you get instead? Will it do its job well or do you have to work it into a situation? Then, without posting at all, you'll have an idea whether something is "Worth it" or not.

I agree...as what may be worth it for 1 player will not be for another, as they may have different playstyles even with the same codex.

I just hope that people who give their opinion on what is worth it or not actually have given the unit a go several times, and not just say yes or no due to hearsay or theoryhammer.

It's the tactics section, people are looking for advice on how to run their army, and like to question units in their codex, I don't see anything wrong with that.

In fact, the only threads I see problems with are threads like this, which have nothing to do with the section they are posted in.

Dedrith wrote:It's the tactics section, people are looking for advice on how to run their army, and like to question units in their codex, I don't see anything wrong with that.

In fact, the only threads I see problems with are threads like this, which have nothing to do with the section they are posted in.

First of all, it was posted in this section because it refers to other threads in this section. Secondly (and more on topic) people who are looking for advice who start the threads see:

"Yes X unit is awesome and here's why. . ."

and

"No, X unit sucks and here's why. . ."

So, what do they do? They use the unit or don't use the unit for either reason, the same dilemma that they had before they even posted when, instead, they could take a thousand other factors that we're not privy to (their playstyle, their list-building, the way they size up opponents, etc.) and make their own decision.

Actually, threads complaining about other threads are not discussing tactics and should be posted elsewhere. You have to look at it from the perspective of someone opening the section and looking for tactics to read about.

In the spirit of talking tactics: I think you're absolutely right. Each unit must be judged in the context of the rest of the army and the way in which you play it. The tactics you use willn dictate the units you should take.

I think "worth it" refers to whether you can do the same tactics for fewer points. Are Swooping Hawks awesome and effective in some situations? Yes! Someone who can use them will find them quite worth it in their list. The problem is that at their points cost you could get much better units that fill the same anti-infantry jump-infantry role much better.

powerclaw wrote:Actually, threads complaining about other threads are not discussing tactics and should be posted elsewhere. You have to look at it from the perspective of someone opening the section and looking for tactics to read about.

Point taken.

powerclaw wrote:In the spirit of talking tactics: I think you're absolutely right. Each unit must be judged in the context of the rest of the army and the way in which you play it. The tactics you use willn dictate the units you should take.

I think "worth it" refers to whether you can do the same tactics for fewer points. Are Swooping Hawks awesome and effective in some situations? Yes! Someone who can use them will find them quite worth it in their list. The problem is that at their points cost you could get much better units that fill the same anti-infantry jump-infantry role much better.

Exactly. So, the thread asks, "Are swooping hawks worth it?" And you get 10 answers for yes, 10 answer for no and 10 neutral answers. So you're in the same place you were. I'm all for bouncing ideas off of people, but it feels like when I see those threads it's like the people at your FLGS saying, "What's a good unit to use? Can you take a look at my list?"

Your right there. There will always be people in both camps. A more productive route would be to ask "How do you use your Swooping Hawks" to figure out the tactics used to make the units worth it.

I just like to read these for ideas. Someone elses reason for it being "worth it" may well be one I had not yet seen and make me rethink my builds or type of builds I put that unit into.

Exactly. So, the thread asks, "Are swooping hawks worth it?" And you get 10 answers for yes, 10 answer for no and 10 neutral answers. So you're in the same place you were.

This may be true in some degree but there are some exceptions. Many people ask if some unit is viable not to spend cash on unit's that they won't be using. If you get 10/10/10 opinions it's a tough call, but I would be very, very surprised if Swooping Hawks got less than twice bad votes comparing to good/neutral ones. That is the biggest reason so far I don't have them (yet!).
Sometimes people had bad results with some unit testing and they want confirmation or a bit of explanation how to use them better.
Those are not pointless topics, but I agree many opinions are similar to: ZOMG this unit sucks! 35 points for 4T? You must be stupid to use that!

If the posts go beyond a simple yes/ no then "worth it?" can indeed be well worth reading.

Posts from people who have used the unit in question can give a good overall perspective on what other people find to be good/ bad about the unit. For example, if one has never used valks for the IG then one probably has never even considered how much room they take up and how awkward they are to field because of their size.

There is a recent thread about eldar wraithguard. As an overview, if one has never played with then before, the thread brings up a wide variety of concerns and uses for the wg.

Threads that explain WHY are very valuable indeed when examining a new unit.



Sliggoth

puma713 wrote:

powerclaw wrote:In the spirit of talking tactics: I think you're absolutely right. Each unit must be judged in the context of the rest of the army and the way in which you play it. The tactics you use willn dictate the units you should take.

I think "worth it" refers to whether you can do the same tactics for fewer points. Are Swooping Hawks awesome and effective in some situations? Yes! Someone who can use them will find them quite worth it in their list. The problem is that at their points cost you could get much better units that fill the same anti-infantry jump-infantry role much better.

Exactly. So, the thread asks, "Are swooping hawks worth it?" And you get 10 answers for yes, 10 answer for no and 10 neutral answers. So you're in the same place you were. I'm all for bouncing ideas off of people, but it feels like when I see those threads it's like the people at your FLGS saying, "What's a good unit to use? Can you take a look at my list?"

To be honest, the consensus for Swooping hawks is usually a 5 for, 20 against, despite the awesome models and the crazy flying rules.
Back on topic, it seems that you're suggesting that these threads be titled "How would you play (x)?" ?

Exactly. So, the thread asks, "Are swooping hawks worth it?" And you get 10 answers for yes, 10 answer for no and 10 neutral answers. So you're in the same place you were.

...but then when you actually read the answers it's usually fairly obvious to figure out which insights are good and which are bad.

"Swooping hawks are great because one time I killed a whole platoon of guardsman with them and they're so pretty that they make my pants tight!" = bad

"Swooping hawks are terrible because of their high points cost and extremely low offensive capabilities. They're weak enough to be completely ignored by just about every army. They also lack any durability. Everything they do is done better and for less points by another unit in the codex." = good

I'd say because people would like to know if "X" is a Viable tactic(worth it). you've had the IG, SW and 'Nids all get a new codex in the last year. so, "is this "X" in my CSM army still viable Vs. this?" or "is "X" good at this now". i don't see a problem with it. it's promoting discussion on tactics, unlike this topic. not that it isn't valid. it's just a "discussion", discussion, not a tactical one.


edit:
forgot the Orc's codex too!

I would recommend using the term 'viable?', in your own posts, instead of saying 'worth it?'.

These threads in general are great means to understanding a specific unit's best uses/roles.

Also, this is very important.

Danny Internets wrote:

Exactly. So, the thread asks, "Are swooping hawks worth it?" And you get 10 answers for yes, 10 answer for no and 10 neutral answers. So you're in the same place you were.

...but then when you actually read the answers it's usually fairly obvious to figure out which insights are good and which are bad.

"Swooping hawks are great because one time I killed a whole platoon of guardsman with them and they're so pretty that they make my pants tight!" = bad

"Swooping hawks are terrible because of their high points cost and extremely low offensive capabilities. They're weak enough to be completely ignored by just about every army. They also lack any durability. Everything they do is done better and for less points by another unit in the codex." = good

Very, very true. There simply ARE units in many codices that are not effective in any respect. You may like the models, and they may do something worthwhile on occasion. In terms of tactics, solid units that provide relatively consistent results is what really matters. Opinions are always more potent when they are backed up with real numbers, not anecdotal evidence.