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.

So, I've recently noticed that there seems to be a large degree of confusion and debate over what the best approach is for listbuilding in 6th edition. I think this is perhaps the edition that most rewards bringing Troops to the table to the point where my armies have greatly increased in average model count from 5th edition-- a 1500 point 6th edition army for me often has as many or more models as a 2000 point 5th edition army did! I recently had a game where my army went up against a much "killier" army-- however, I had enough Troops to "go the distance" and take the objective, despite the game going to turn 7. Ultimately, it seems that most armies simply cannot take enough killing power to take out enough guys in an army that focuses on bringing a large amount of bodies to the table-- especially given the 6th edition changes to cover (2+ cover saves for going to ground are common), casualty removal (models out of Line of Sight or range cannot be killed in most cases), and so on.

However, I've seen several posters advocating the opposite-- a "more toyz, less boyz" approach. In my experience, armies without enough Troops often find themselves forced to play to secondary objectives only-- I've had several games now where I've killed all my opponent's minimal Troops by turn 3 or 4, nearly guaranteeing a win. While this can sometimes be mitigated by Big Guns Never Tire or The Scouring missions allowing non-Troops to go for objectives, many common non-Troops are ill-suited to this task. Similarly, many Troops units-- like Tau Fire Warriors-- actually offer excellent killing power, especially when paired with the proper support elements.

Overall, it seems to me that taking more Troops is usually a better bet in 6th edition-- to the extent where, at 1500 points, my Tau army has about 90 models, the majority of which are Troops. However, I'm interested in hearing other people's experiences and thoughts on this matter. Which is more important-- boyz or toyz?

11 th company podcast has had great coverage of this topic. Infantry blobs and good troops are extremely critical. The Necrons dominate because their troops are very mobile and versatile with the night scythe.

The problem with this scheme is that books with poor troops are in a massive hole.

IMO it depends on whether you're playing book missions or tournament missions.

In the book missions a minimal-troops list is a viable plan, especially now that Tau and their cover-ignoring weapons make holding objectives difficult anyway. Locking down your "home" objectives and killing enemy troops for a narrow win, or even a 1-0 win with first blood being the only VP anyone scores, is just as good as claiming all of the objectives.

In many tournaments this isn't a viable plan because margin of victory counts. You can't just win by 1 VP, you have to overwhelmingly crush your opponent and score as many objectives as possible. And obviously that means taking a troops-heavy list. Meanwhile non-standard objectives like table quarters can make troops even more important.

I lean towards more troops in my list but this is based on how good your troops are.
I find CSMs to be cheap enough and shooty enough to still contribute to the battle.

I agree completely. 6th edition to me is about 3 things scoring/denying, speed, durability. If you control 2/3 in a game your probably going to win most of your games. Tau may be changing that paradigm by bringing just an obscene amount of anti infantry that intercepts, skyfires, ignores cover, and sometimes even line of sight.

It depends, IMO, on the army at hand and it's assets.

At the risk of stating the obvious, you should always endeavour to get the best of both worlds. Troops are requisite units so scoring units that are both survivable and can deal some damage should be the aim of every list. Your scoring units will likely be threatened at some point. Hopefully they have the capacity to hurt the things that are trying to hurt them and/or have the ability to make an impact on the battle either way.

My eldar now do this fairly well now. Our troop choices, especially with spirit seer, can potentially kill most things in the game while having special rules that make them very survivable if you use them right.

All my lists have at least 3 scoring units that can stand up to a variety of attacks and have the capacity to hurt anything in the game.

PsycicSpaceElf wrote:
At the risk of stating the obvious, you should always endeavour to get the best of both worlds. Troops are requisite units so scoring units that are both survivable and can deal some damage should be the aim of every list. Your scoring units will likely be threatened at some point. Hopefully they have the capacity to hurt the things that are trying to hurt them and/or have the ability to make an impact on the battle either way.

^ What he's saying. And, as the saying goes "common sense isn't all that common." I'm a bigger fan of more troops for reasons already stated, though. I like having more versatility with more troops and it adds more factors into your opponent's decisions. I usually favor taking more troops against a big point sink of armor/daemon engines, mostly for lower point games, though. Bigger games for me are lots of boots on the ground with some heavy support. I don't like the idea of having only a couple of single units as the backbone of my force. I like versatility, but that's me.

At least in smaller games, troops all the way, if you lose em all to a round or two of decent shooting from the other side, then you're not likely to win. So, not only are troops key, but outflanking troops are the absolute business. 1-3 turns of staying absolutley unmolested and then pouncing on the enemy when they least expect it is pretty nice

 ImotekhTheStormlord wrote:
It depends, IMO, on the army at hand and it's assets.

This. Having some of the worst troops in the game doesn't really make you want to spend more points on them.

Peregrine wrote:IMO it depends on whether you're playing book missions or tournament missions.

In the book missions a minimal-troops list is a viable plan, especially now that Tau and their cover-ignoring weapons make holding objectives difficult anyway. Locking down your "home" objectives and killing enemy troops for a narrow win, or even a 1-0 win with first blood being the only VP anyone scores, is just as good as claiming all of the objectives.

In many tournaments this isn't a viable plan because margin of victory counts. You can't just win by 1 VP, you have to overwhelmingly crush your opponent and score as many objectives as possible. And obviously that means taking a troops-heavy list. Meanwhile non-standard objectives like table quarters can make troops even more important.

Generally speaking, my response to greater threats to my Troops is to bring more of them. Many of the weapons that can make holding forward objectives difficult can also penetrate into the backfield and kill units holding "home" objectives. In particular, Riptides with Smart Missiles can pretty much engage a unit no matter where it tries to hide-- sometimes with as many as 8 shots.

Wolfnid420 wrote:At least in smaller games, troops all the way, if you lose em all to a round or two of decent shooting from the other side, then you're not likely to win. So, not only are troops key, but outflanking troops are the absolute business. 1-3 turns of staying absolutley unmolested and then pouncing on the enemy when they least expect it is pretty nice

I concur. Outflanking Troops units are very strong in this edition, even if their normal capabilities are underwhelming. Even the humble Space Marine Scout has proven very effective for me in 6th edition. In fact, I think an army is almost incomplete without at least one or two highly mobile-- perhaps Outflanking-- Troops units.