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.

There is merit to the theory of reducing points spent on troops, especially when we are not governed by point requirements in specific FOC slots like WHFB is.

C:SM did it for the longest time paying the minimum "tac tax" and there is an article similar to this idea on 3++ is the New Black here:

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2013/02/40k-maximum-threat-overload-and-chaos.html

The article talks about armies that spend as little as possible on troops, with CSM being able to field 6 scoring squads at only 200-300 points, giving them 1200+ points to spend on units that the opponent cannot ignore in favor of hunting down your weak troops.

It also bears mentioning that certain tournaments over-emphasize scoring as many VP as possible in favor of eking wins by narrow margins and objectives are the easiest way to do this.

Why is a discussion about troops turning into another FW debacle?