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.

Rockit wrote:To contest or claim and objective your unit must be within 3" of the marker. If the enemy masses troops on the marker(s) you'll literally have to wipe them out to be able to get close enough to contest. While the enemy only needs one model left within 3" to claim it.

Well, tanks can't score, but they can contest. So tank shock them to get through.

Good article scuddman, made me rethink a couple of things. Which is good because going a very troop heavy Eldar list always seemed a bit odd to me

The only problem with the tank-shocking tactic is that you do not know which turn is the final turn. If you tankshock on turn 5, you have a 66% of your opponent being able to assault/shoot the crap out of your tank. If you wait til turn 6, you have a 33% of missing your opportunity and still a chance of the game continuing.

@WC_Brian, I am very curious to see how the scoring for the GT's will work in 5th. I guess Vegas will be the first 5th ed GT.

Darrian13 wrote:The only problem with the tank-shocking tactic is that you do not know which turn is the final turn. If you tankshock on turn 5, you have a 66% of your opponent being able to assault/shoot the crap out of your tank. If you wait til turn 6, you have a 33% of missing your opportunity and still a chance of the game continuing.

At the same time though you have a chance of breaking the squads that are on the objective and having them run away. The more units that are there, the higher the chance that at least one will run. Not exactly something to count on, but it is an important point of note. And even if the game doesn't end when you send your tank over to the objective, you have another turn to try it again if you have another tank around. All the more reason to have more tanks.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm rather cheered to see that the question of how many troops choices appears to depend on the prevailing conditions rather than on any absolute necessity.

@Phoenix, I agree. That is one reason that I will use either 0 tanks/transports or 4+tanks/transports in my army designs. Either have enough to ensure that they can help or none and make do.

@Nurglitch, Amen, I never thought I would love troop selections so much. The necessity makes them fun in a wierd way. Now it is just a question of how amny and what type. I love 5th ed.

Yeah 5th is the bomb. It looks to be truly dynamic, hopefully we will see a wide variety of lists.

Hopefully if there is an inbalance balance won't have to come in the form of massive quanitites of new terrain(which I doubt will ever be built).

This article is more accurately 'how to deal with plague marines'.

The analysis of troops vs non troops is too diverse to fall into the model presented here, insightful though it is.

The example given doesnt even compute well, normally there are five or six objectives, not two. In the example given the plague marines only need to wipe out at one location to gain an objective, to win you must eitherv hold off all thet your opponents conests with your own limited troops, or ensure that none of the objectives are stripped. Meanwhile iof he loses an objective to your elites it costs him nothing.

An army consisting entirely of plague marines is going to lose anyway, every army should have some backup.


Dont over-rely on troops true, but still take at least four units of them large or small. Any army can do that.

In which game type are there five or six objectives??

The most you can get in the D3 +2 is five. The average roll is 4....

In the Home / Away game (can't remember what it's called) there are 2.

In Annihilation there are zero.

It is good that 5Ed is changing things. For the better imo too.

I doubt we will see 'cookie cutter' lists, at least for a while. Some people will go the route of maxing troops while others will not.

It remains to be seen, however which option will work and for which army

Just build the terrain people. There's a terrain section in the organizing a battle section. Read it and follow it. Balance will follow.

To Orlanth: I'm not doing any fighting with my limited troops. I'm completely ignoring the plague marines on the objective until turn 5. Anything coming for me gets killed first. Like I said, a couple plague marine squads in the back doing absolutely nothing suits me just fine. At the very worst, if he contests my objective (and two troops choices with 10 marines each is not easy to kill or take either) and I contest his, then the game is a draw. The worst I'll do is a draw. Besides, my "limited" troops are doing more because I kit them with range, knowing that their job is to sit around.

As for the d3 + 2 objectives, like I said there's always going to be at least one objective in each deployment zone. In the 5 objective one, there is at least 2 in his and 2 in mine. Adding another objective to each deployment zone doesn't change anything. You each have at least 2 troop choices. 1 choice sits on one, the other sits on the other. There's more depth to the game when there's 5 objectives, but there is no point in having 5 troop choices try to hold or take each objective. It's not going to happen and it's a waste of effort to try because of my assertion about contesting.

regardless what you take i still liked the info at the beginning of the thread thanks to the op. =)

All of this seems to point at a flaw in the mission system. It encourages each player to simply sit in place with shooty units for the majority of the game, with a land grab at the endgame.

Hopefully this will prove to be short-lived as tactics develop for the new edition.

All of this seems to point at a flaw in the mission system.

Seems like a lot of theory rather then actual playing to me.

Random game length makes the last turn land grab a bit harder then you think.

Also, the contesting unit has to be within 3" of the objective. Now if it is the standard objective size (eg the one coming with the new templates is pretty small) that is a pretty tight area. Many largish scoring units (or multiple units) can simply deny you the chance to even get close to 3". I don't think the OP takes this into account at all.

Finally, there's an assumption here that troops are automatically complete suckage compared to non-troops. In 5ed, I don't see that is as true as it was in 4ed. Elite shooty units have to contend with all the 4+ cover saves. Elite assaulters can't hop scotch between units nor can they hide in assault as easily. Your basic trooper gets much better because of this -- he is more resilient for the same cost and doesn't lose effectiveness from cover saves. There's also the troop units that are as effective as other armies non-troops, these can not only wipe the min troops but can actually claim if you aren't careful.

Not saying taking an HQ and the rest in troops is going to win you games, but like many here I think relying on non-troops and minimum troops to win an objective mission is asking for trouble.

@ winterman:

The more shooty you are, the better you are in 5E. Especially compared to troop heavy armies. It's not about removing armor saves, it's about making you take tons of saves.

If I can kill your Vet Sarge, Flamer, and Lascannon....and five Bolter marines are left, what are they gonna do? Bolter me to death? Please try.

Go ahead, combat squad. Means alot more headless platoons running around with nothing but basic guns and alot less effort to do it.

If you have a place to hide your troops (in a transport, off board, behind a russ, etc) you can do quite well with minimal troops.

If you want a good 5E army, you either need to commit entirely to troops or entirely to non-troops.

Why?

If you are half-troops / half-elite, a full elite army will trump your elites and a full troop will take what your elites can dish out and still control objectives.

Go strong, or go home, in my honest opinion.

I think it always depends on the utility of your troop selections. Tau are quite limited with their FW's and Kroot. To a greater degree than some other armies, they need to rely on their other FO slots.

Chaos Space Marines are the other extreme. Many of their troops are the equivalents of specialists in other armies. Need some anti-MEQ: Thousand sons. Need some anti-horde: NM's with SB's. Need a rock hard unit: PM's. Need a moderate body count who are flexible and can be kitted to fit different roles: CSM's with IoCG.

Phoenix wrote:

Darrian13 wrote:The only problem with the tank-shocking tactic is that you do not know which turn is the final turn. If you tankshock on turn 5, you have a 66% of your opponent being able to assault/shoot the crap out of your tank. If you wait til turn 6, you have a 33% of missing your opportunity and still a chance of the game continuing.

At the same time though you have a chance of breaking the squads that are on the objective and having them run away. The more units that are there, the higher the chance that at least one will run. Not exactly something to count on, but it is an important point of note. And even if the game doesn't end when you send your tank over to the objective, you have another turn to try it again if you have another tank around. All the more reason to have more tanks.

And then there is the tendency for players to put objective markers in terrain or upper levels of ruins and sit units on them. That would certainly complicate the tank shock tactic!

FWIW, Tau laugh at terrain blocking attempts. If they can legally tank shock you, they will bum rush you right off it.

I don't see a problem with bringing max amount of firewarriors. Even 2+ saves gotta fold some what against 96 pulse rifle rounds.

My Tau plan on completely tabling the other guy, but still loose out in the KP battle. Too many free KPs with gun drones off of transports.

My current list has 17 KPs. I can cut that down to 13 if I combine a few monat units together, but the list looses effectiveness against the other missions.

If you still have gun drones on your hammerhead, you should be shot for the greater good.

For the devilfish, you should have SMS now too.

Piranha's, yes...it sucks, what can ya do? At least you can group all of them into one squadron, so it's only 1 KP for the unit that disembarks.

That isn't so bad, right?

Ohh yeah. Warfish the only way to go. But the Piranha bit sucks rocks. I'd rather not have them in a squadron if you have the slots to run them singularly.

The crisis suits are the same way. I'd rather run two seperate individuals close together as a team rather than one unit of two.

Hammerheads never had gundrones. That would actually cost extra. Sniper teams are also a bust in this regard. Three potential KP generated for a single HS slot.

scuddman wrote: At the very worst, if he contests my objective (and two troops choices with 10 marines each is not easy to kill or take either) and I contest his, then the game is a draw. The worst I'll do is a draw.

And yet the goal of the game is to win, not draw. You can't gain any glory by drawing and you probably won't win any tournaments. For quite some time the major events on the circuit have been scored on a margin of victory as opposed to a simple w/l/d system. I imagine if they do not continue that in some way they will use Adepticon scoring and you will still have to be more active than you describe. I've only played one RTT in the last two years and I forget if they use margin of victory.

scuddman wrote: As for the d3 + 2 objectives, like I said there's always going to be at least one objective in each deployment zone. In the 5 objective one, there is at least 2 in his and 2 in mine.

I believe the mission states they cannot be within 12 inches of each other or of a table edge. So they would only be in your deployment zone in Dawn of War or quarters and even then based on how set up unfolds their may be none in your zone. I think what people are trying to say is the game as you describe it is rarely that simple. You make it sound like a toy game with very simple rules and variables. However 40K is often not like that at all.

The bit about gun drones on hammerheads was tongue-in-cheek. I've seen it, thus it's funny to me. lol

Okay, if contesting isn't easier than killing the other troop choice, what do you propose as your winning strategy?

Instead of criticizing my ideas, why don't you tell me what's better? Why is maxing on troops the better way to go? Maybe I can learn something.

You talk about margin of victory, to get the best margin of victory you usually need to hold every single objective. This implies you always need at least 5 troop choices because the max objectives is 5. I'm not sure, but I think your assertion is that you should always max out on troop choices because that gurantees you can always take every objective.

Why is this a superior strategy?

40k is a toy game with simple rules and variables. Like I said, if you require a different strategy because the rules are different (like in hardboyz example) play accordingly. But there is no margin of victory in the rulebook.

Besides, getting straight massacres implies that I need to completely annihilate my opponent. Doesn't this still mean I shouldn't max on troops?

Lastly, not maxing on troops does not mean minimize troops. I thought that was a basic assumption that didn't need mentioning.

winterman wrote:

All of this seems to point at a flaw in the mission system.

Seems like a lot of theory rather then actual playing to me.

Random game length makes the last turn land grab a bit harder then you think.

Also, the contesting unit has to be within 3" of the objective. Now if it is the standard objective size (eg the one coming with the new templates is pretty small) that is a pretty tight area. Many largish scoring units (or multiple units) can simply deny you the chance to even get close to 3". I don't think the OP takes this into account at all.

Finally, there's an assumption here that troops are automatically complete suckage compared to non-troops. In 5ed, I don't see that is as true as it was in 4ed. Elite shooty units have to contend with all the 4+ cover saves. Elite assaulters can't hop scotch between units nor can they hide in assault as easily. Your basic trooper gets much better because of this -- he is more resilient for the same cost and doesn't lose effectiveness from cover saves. There's also the troop units that are as effective as other armies non-troops, these can not only wipe the min troops but can actually claim if you aren't careful.

Not saying taking an HQ and the rest in troops is going to win you games, but like many here I think relying on non-troops and minimum troops to win an objective mission is asking for trouble.

1. Assuming that contesting means going for a land grab is an incorrect assumption. It is actually my goal to use a non scoring unit to kill as many scoring units as possible, as long as I know the enemy cannot easily contest my objective.

2. It is possible to have enough troops to completely keep an enemy unit assaulting more than 3" away.
A> You do no need more than one troop choice to do this strategy
B> It is possible to do this with only one troop choice, even easier with two. It is also possible to do with 1 troop model backed up by other non troop units.
C> How would having more troop choices in a list change this in any way? Are my troop choices going to magically be more effective against other troop choices?
D> This strategy is ridiculously easy to counter.
E> All right, let me change my assertion with an additional addon It is easier to kill enough troop models to contest and then contest an objective than it is to kill every last troop choice. This also doesn't imply that you play like a slow and not kill troop choices if the opportunity presents itself.

Lastly, I never said taking minimum troops is the way to go. I said "maxing on troops not the way to go."
Since people aren't reading the whole thing: Let me quote my original post

"It is much easier to contest than it is to score. I see other people maxing out on troop choices, but still, tactical squads dont' have the firepower of devestators, guardians are so so compared to the rest of the eldar army, etc etc. People are maxing on troops so they have more scoring choices, but they're losing games because their army has no teeth. While I agree that you must have more than minimum troops, I think it's terrible army design to max out on troops and then try to hold every objective with 1 troop choice, or to surround 1 objective with every single troop choice. All those designs are too easy to counter."

"A balanced approach is still the best approach. At least 2 of your troop choices should be resilient ones with large squad numbers, but you need the firepower to stop enemy units trying to contest."

Gangsta_Tau wrote:I don't see a problem with bringing max amount of firewarriors. Even 2+ saves gotta fold some what against 96 pulse rifle rounds.

This is why Plague Marines are such an awesome troops choice.

96 pulse rifle rounds
48 hits
24 wound
8 failed armor saves
4 failed FNP
----------
4 dead PMs.

As stated before. Some troops choices are more 'elite' than other troops choices. Armies that have these kinds of options are able to break free of the supposed "max troops or max elite" choice. Eldar have a similar situation with many of their specialized troop types. Ork Nob biker armies, Tyranid Genstealer shock...the list is extensive.

YMMV

One of the big inherent flaws in the system is that not all troop choices were created equal. While chaos marines (all flavors), orc boyz and stealers are good, things like guardians, ig troopers, and fire warriors are kind of lack luster in comparison. Even when you consider the difference in point cost. So the thing is that some armies will probably be ok with lots of troops where as others will need to focus on other elements to get things done. In either case, I think Scuddman has a point that even with codexes that have great troop units, maxing out on them tends to leave you with a 1 dimensional army that, at the end of the day, is not going to do as well as those that diversify.

So why not max out on Firewarriors and give them some XV-8 Battlesuits with Plasma Rifles to clear away the Plague Marines?

@scuddman. I read the your post and tend to agree with your assesment for the most part. However you aren't the only posting in the thread. My comments were not really directed at you or your original posts but primarily the comment that theres a flaw in the missions that can be exploited by shooty armies and last turn moves to contest (what I assumed Democratus meant by landgrab). There's also others asserting a balanced list is not the way to go either, which I'd be curious to see your response to this.

Anyways, I'd personally like to see a 5ed list that you feel exemplifies your strategy, preferably an SM/DA/BA/CSM list(s) since they have troops many people consider to be very good compared to elites from other armies. This would be a better frame of reference for discussion I think at this point. Right now the discussion is just rambling on about theoretical situations and the like.