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 played a game against Drakur's Angelus Mortis army (a Blood Angel successor chapter). It was a 1,500 point Capture and Control battle. I brought my Dakka mech Guard list (three Punisher tanks, three mulit-purpose Chimera-riding vets, Marbo, Psyker and a Baenwolf for good measure).

His list was interesting. Two Land Raiders (one was a Redeemer), two Vindicators, two squads of terminators, and only two troop choices. He explained to me at the beginning of the game that he knew he wasn't going to "out-troop" me, so he wasn't playing to necessarily claim objectives as much as ensure the I didn't.

When building lists for competitive play or tournaments, people usually take at least three or four troop choices. Heck, even I take four troops at the 1,850 level. At the 1,500 point level I only bring three and hope that my opponent does not play objective denial tactics.

The theory is that you need troops to take objectives, so bring more troops. That is very one dimensional thinking, as Drakur proved. Objective games are two out of the three scenarios, so everyone yells "more troops" with the expectation of taking the most objectives.

However, the inverse thought to this is that the need to claim more than one objective (or any objective at all) in two out of the three scenarios. If you build a list that is offensive in nature then you have two of the scenarios covered.

It is important to understand that reading the popular tactics in the forums is not the only answer. Sometimes, reading the tactics of too many players may actually hinder your ability to think outside the box.

Drakur's list was designed as an assault force, as a line-breaker force. The fluff of it is great. Playing it on the table is risky, but when he wins, he wins big. Planting a Land Raider with troops on one objective is a good way of keeping the objective during the entire game. Deep Striking a Land Raider behind my lines was a good way of ensuring I had to change my shorts.

It was a brutal game with both of us creating a lot of terrain with craters and wrecked vehicles. It wasn't just the Deep Striking Land Raider that kept me busy, it was the two Terminator squads that forced me into playing defensively on my own objective.

In the end, he destroyed my ability to score. My gambit to contest his objective failed because he didn't allow me to focus on his Land Raider that, in the end, was literally on top of his objective.

Could it have gone differently? Absolutely. This is a game of dice. He actually got a Deep Strike mishap on his Land Raider on turn two, but it was delayed instead of destroyed. But that is what is so awesome about a game like this. He didn't play with a build designed for the optimal chances of winning. He played an assault force and it paid off for him.

The point is to read the forums and blogs with a grain of salt. Yes, you can learn from them and the tacticas are great to get ideas, but the greatest ideas, the greatest games, come from you asking yourself "what if".

By your title I was expecting a whole different kind of thread about pissing off your opponents!

It's a good thing to have a few troops choices for both tactical flexibility and durability's sake. Although you may only have to capture one objective, it's good to have a few units who can do the job. With the kind of firepower and close combat nastiness out there, you need a few squads to reliably hold ground. I'm not saying you should max out your troops allotment every game, but one scoring unit per 500 points is a decent rule of thumb.

Should be "playing offensively".

Did you punch him for beating you?

Yes, the point in objective missions is to capture 1, one, uno, more objective then your opponent.


My objective is to hold one and either contest the rest or make it impossable for him to get any.

i can do that by killing all of his troops and then sitting pretty on my chosen objective which i will make impossable for him to contest.


now a counter to this tactic is to take more troops making it harder for me to kill them all and/or do the same thing i am doing.


winning by 3 objectives is the same as winning by 1 and the same goes for kill points.

Remember kiddos. Annihiliation is always a condition for victory!

kronk wrote:Remember kiddos. Annihiliation is always a condition for victory!

This is how i play objective games...

purplefood wrote:

kronk wrote:Remember kiddos. Annihiliation is always a condition for victory!

This is how i play objective games...

I wont lie, depending on what Im playing against, its an option for me as well

purplefood wrote:

kronk wrote:Remember kiddos. Annihiliation is always a condition for victory!

This is how i play objective games...

Ayup. By turn four of tonight's game, neither of us had any troops left. It was a race to see who could table the other one!

Depends on how offensive you want to be. Nothing quite says "I'm offensive" like a good mama joke.

You know, something like, "Yo mama's so hairy, the only language she speaks is Wookie!"

Depends on your army.

With my Daemons I like to just have 2 units of plaguebearers in my second wave they are less vunerable that way.

Hopefully they'll just come in late and score the objectives.

Meanwhile the more scary daemons have nommed the opponents troops

InquisitorLordAki wrote:The point is to read the forums and blogs with a grain of salt. Yes, you can learn from them and the tacticas are great to get ideas, but the greatest ideas, the greatest games, come from you asking yourself "what if".

Everyone already reads the blogs with a grain of salt. You have to, seeing as how often people espouse contradictory advice.

I'm not really sure how your experience showed the greatest idea. You yourself admit Drakur's list was suboptimal in your second to last paragraph. Playing with multiple troop choice is hardly one dimensional, especially in codecii like C: BA where the troops are rather deadly on their own.