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.
2013/10/25 14:01:18
Subject: Making "bad" or "broken" units work to great effect
Hey all! I think we all know that for some odd reason, most of the codexes nowadays ( at least some of the outdated ones ) have some "bad" units, whether it be lackluster stats, or overcosted. One thing I've heard thrown about is that these "bad" units are misunderstood, for example, sure ratlings have appalling toughness and leadership, however they are quite cheap, and 30 points can get you one hell of an annoying unit if placed in cover.
Another example would be warp talons, ok well, they all lightning claws right? You'd think they'd mulch most things, how come they're seldom deployed in competitive lists?
My question is, in friendly games, how have you made such units work effectively? Also - "Bad" or "broken" can be a matter of your opinion of a unit, for example i think ratlings are excellent, some people just want to stomp them to death under piles of dice. Post how you've made otherwise poopy units work i suppose! One example is that i bombarded the hell out of my opponent with 3 looted wagons, they got rather LUCKY die rolls
It's really hard to overcome overcosted, because the Tau and Eldar make your models go away so quickly. You need to have as many bullet sponges as possible now. We are all the Orks now.
2013/10/25 15:27:18
Subject: Making "bad" or "broken" units work to great effect
Martel said it best. Overcosted units against a more competitive army (especially Tau/Eldar) means bad.
Another thing to consider is competition in the codex. Ratlings aren't that terrible because they can do some damage, they're cheap, and they don't compete with anything else in the IG codex. Warp Talons are bad because they mean fewer Heldrakes, Bikes, and Chaos Spawn.
That being said, I think it's a lot of fun to make subpar units work. I still take Genestealers and CC Carnifexes and Tyranid Warriors. For the most part, unless you're up against a competitive list and an excellent player, "crappy" units can still work fine.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/25 15:31:07
2013/10/25 15:57:58
Subject: Making "bad" or "broken" units work to great effect
A few of the "crappy" units can do quite well as part of a list.
A list made from them will have issues.
Of note is that people will often ignore "crappy" units to shoot more important stuff, MM immolators charging at you with dominons next to them means you won't be looking at those oncoming repentia with much firepower, even though they can happily down multiple land raiders in a turn if they're allowed to multi-charge them...
Similarly, warp talons walking up behind plague marines untilthey hit charge range are likely to take less fire when facing off against MEQs which they can turn into soup.
These units all seem to be about misdirecting your opponents into ignoring something until it can do its job for you by drawing attention with more conventional threats.
I collect:
Guard - 2k of mostly infantry
DA - 2k of deathwing, 2k of other bits (no vehicles)
Sisters - mostly converted/proxy because I'm waiting for therange to go plastic.
Tau - 2k with no riptides because I can.
2013/10/25 16:30:04
Subject: Making "bad" or "broken" units work to great effect
I routinely play with pyrovores and have found them to be quite effective.
The key with any 'bad' unit is target selection. SM scouts, Tau firewarriors, anything IG and even rear armor of vehicles can be hurt by 'Tyranid heavy flamers.' They've gotten me first blood before and countered 'annoyance' units my opponent had posted around in various pieces of terrain.
I guess we should pick a unit and discuss rather than just apply blanket statements.
2013/10/25 17:38:29
Subject: Making "bad" or "broken" units work to great effect
Another example would be warp talons, ok well, they all lightning claws right? You'd think they'd mulch most things, how come they're seldom deployed in competitive lists?
most of the codexes nowadays ( at least some of the outdated ones ) have some "bad" units, whether it be lackluster stats, or overcosted.
Here's the thing: most people, especially on the Internet, like to throw around the word "competitive" without understanding what it means in a game like W40K. To them, "competitive" is some mystical word meaning the same as "good" or "strong". They treat it like its a synonym. The misunderstand. Because that the guy at their FLGS that they hear is competitive and makes competitive lists and does well in tournaments. This guy is a good, strong player so clearly they must be "competitive" to become good, strong players and have fun winning at this game of toy soldiers.
And then they do something daft. They start calling their lists competitive or say ridiculous things like their favorite unit "can" be competitive if some contrived circumstances are perfect.
In short, they have no idea what the word means but they parrot it like fools thinking it makes them what they want to be instead of making the hard journey there themselves.
If you are making a competitive army list there are certain things you are going to want to consider: Unit point cost (that is, bang for your buck), unit opportunity cost (what it costs you to take the unit in the first place, as well as what it limits you from being able to take), how it interacts with other units (don't compare things in a vacuum), redundancy, performance consistency, and so on. Its cold, hard logic and most people would rather just not deal with it because its hard. It doesn't let you take that "really cool" unit or model, or (usually) make themed lists.
Detailed rant/example:
Spoiler:
Let's stick with your example: Warp Talons. Warpflame Strike lets you Blind all enemy units within 6" when you arrive from Deep Strike. Each enemy unit takes an Initiative test and if they fail they are WS and BS 1 until the end of their next turn. They are Jump Infantry so they can Deep Strike and move 12" and ignore most Terrain and possibly get Hammer of Wrath on the charge. They all come with a pair of Lightning Claws meaning they are all getting 2-3 S 4 AP 3 attacks a model with Shred (re-rolls To Wound). They can't take an Icon of any kind and their Marks are 2-3 times the cost for alternatives in the Fast Attack slot. Lack of ranged attacks mean they can't do anything but Run the turn they arrive from Deep Strike, and if you don't Deep Strike them you are throwing away something you already paid for.
They also cost 30 points a model and have an initial buy-in of 160 points plus a Fast Attack slot. You only have three Fast Attack slots, and you have other choices: Heldrakes, Chaos Spawn, Bikers, and Raptors. All of these are more competitive choices:
Heldrake with Baleflamer costs 170 points versus the 160 points for a bare-bones unit of Warp Talons. Anyone who has faced even a signle Heldrake can tell you how downright deadly it is.
Chaos Spawn are S 5 T 5 W 3 Beasts with D6 attacks, Rage, and either a 4+ Sv, more likely to have 5-6 attacks, or Poison (4+) depending on the outcome of their Mutated Beyond Reason roll. They are nasty in combat, cost the same amount of points as a single Warp Talon per model, and you can take them in units of 1 if you want. They are ideal for delivering a Chaos Lord on a Bike across the battlefield. Hell, you can make them T 6 as well!
Chaos Bikers have a 70 point buy-in, can bring multiple Special Weapons for some low AP ranged attacks, are Bikes with all that entails: Relentless, Hammer of Wrath, 12" move and T 5, and bring their own cover save. They get as many attacks in close combat as Warp Talons do, though they are lacking Shred and an AP value. They also are ideal for delivering a Chaos Lord on a Bike across the battlefield. And they can also be made T 6!
Raptors cost only 17 points per model and have an initial buy-in of 95 points. They can take two Special Weapons and they get as many attacks in close combat as Warp Talons, though they are lacking Shred and an AP value. They're still Jump Infantry like the Warp Talons, but their Marks are cheaper and they can bring Icons. on top of being able to do anything at range. You can also take 15 of them in a single squad.
If you take a unit of Warp Talons, you lose out on the opportunity to take one of these other alternatives in the Fast Attack range. Everyone one of them is more versatile. Warp Talons are only good at killing MEQ in the Assault Phase. Heldrakes are only 10 points more and kill MEQ better and more reliably. Bikers and Raptors can threaten multiple other things in the Shooting Phase as they bring highly mobile Flamers, Meltaguns, and Plasma Guns. Chaos Spawn and Bikers are already tougher for the enemy to kill than Warp Talons, and can be made even tougher for only 6 points per model.
5 Warp Talons are likely to kill 5-6 Space Marines on the charge, so unless its a 10 man unit you are going to be left sitting in the open when its the opponent's Turn instead of 'safe' in close combat (and are still going to lose a guy in the process). A Heldrake with its 360 degree S 6 AP 3 Torrent Template that ignores Cover plus Vector Strike is going to kill more MEQ than that, far more reliably, and is an HP 3 Flyer (and a Daemon to boot) with all the durability over 5 Infantry models that entails.
So let's review, and see how much of the "competitive" criteria they meet:
Opportunity Cost: High. There are other Fast Attack units that are less expensive that can fulfill the same role and perform others and almost all of them are more durable.
Actual Cost: High. Again, there are other options that do the same job for less points.
Consistency: They can decimate in close combat, but a little too well. You usually won't be left in close combat during the enemy's turn, making you vulnerable to their Shooting. This is actually a bad thing. You can expect these guys to do well in one round of combat before dying off.
Redundancy: You aren't going to want to take two units of Warp Talons given the above, and if you really need a scary close combat unit you have to take an HQ anyways, and a Chaos Lord will always be scarier than an entire unit of Warp Talons.
Warp Talons are bad.
Its a game of dice where not all generals are created equal. Bad units can do well. Good units can do poor. That doesn't matter so much, and isn't that surprising. I just really hate it when people actually believe that a bad unit can do well so that makes it "competitive".
I still love deepstriking Jump Pack Assault Marines and Terminators. Some people seem to think they're not that useful anymore but I love running around with them. With Vanguard Vets in Jump Packs it get awesome for me, I drop behind a vehicle with all plasma pistols and blast away. Then if they survive they all have melta-bombs. I pretty much made an Anti-Tank assault squad. My marines are great cuz they tie everything up when they land, They'll typically drop in and start unloading with assault cannon and storm bolters and everything turns on the spot to hit them. Frees up a turn to run around with everyone else!
Eagles soar, but weasels don't get sucked into Jet Engines.
There are a lot of people who view competitive as "it must come from a netlist". For example, Necron Wraiths are a fantastic unit; however, many players say other fast attack options (like Destroyers) aren't because they aren't Wraiths and you don't see them in some of the larger tournament top table lists. The fact of the matter is that it's a crowded spot in the codex and there's a lot of decisions as to what will be better for a given situation. Major tournaments like NOVA and Feasts here in the US are completely different than local leagues or even regional RTTs. Competitive at a FLGS is goign to be a lot different than a national level tournament.
As for other "non-competitive" units, there's also stigmas and a lack of critical thinking at times. Many people instantly discount any melee-based unit because they heard 6th edition is a shooting edition. You cited Warp Talons. Other's have mentioned how competitive that part of CSM is; however, there's also the fact that Allies can be used to give WarpTalons a 2++ save. 2++ for an assault infantry squad with duel AP3 weapons can make just about any army cringe. It has to be done along with another unit or allies; however, that's part of the strategy. Some of the "non-competitive" units are best when you have to think about how to play them instead of just setting them on the table and assuming they will just win.
2013/10/25 22:42:29
Subject: Making "bad" or "broken" units work to great effect
Martel732 wrote: It's really hard to overcome overcosted, because the Tau and Eldar make your models go away so quickly. You need to have as many bullet sponges as possible now. We are all the Orks now.
What does that make Orks?
Hail the Emperor.
2013/10/25 22:58:18
Subject: Making "bad" or "broken" units work to great effect
Martel732 wrote: It's really hard to overcome overcosted, because the Tau and Eldar make your models go away so quickly. You need to have as many bullet sponges as possible now. We are all the Orks now.
What does that make Orks?
Ork word:- bigger number, the better.
2013/10/25 23:38:46
Subject: Making "bad" or "broken" units work to great effect
Well Tau are good but you can make a crappy Tau list with underpowered/overcosted units.
Play something that contains these models:
HQ Ethernal
Troops:
Kroot
Kroot hounds
Elites:
XV25 Stealth team
Fast Attack:
3 unit pirahna team
6 Vespid sting wings
Sunshark Bomber
Heavy Support:
Sniper Drone team
Now I am sure you could win with a list containing these models and they are all cool but they are really overpriced for what they do (Not all of them tho) and most are under used. The pirahna are cheap as dirt yet noone uses them even when you can feild 3 of them for like 150 points lol
Personally I would love to try to make an army with these unit (I still use a lot of these) I think it makes the game more challenging and tactical.
Vespids with AP3 weapons are good but expensive point wise but you can fit them in if you are using other units
But using underused models can actually work to your advantage if your oppenent knows what army your taking.
I mean when someone says they are playing Tau most people think:
Broadsides, Riptides, Hammerheads, XV8s and firewarriors with a bunch of markerlights but that is not the only way to play the army
2013/10/26 11:02:19
Subject: Re:Making "bad" or "broken" units work to great effect
It depends on you the player. How well do you know your army and how well you know your opponent's list and then how well you know the rules. If you understand that, you can use the layout of the table for terrain and placement of units to your advantage. If you misplay your units, it doesn't matter how 'good' they are, your making them bad. I saw a kid playing IG/SM vs Nids and he kept advancing to get in rapid fire range instead of falling back to give himself extra rounds of shooting. The Nids promptly charged him and slaughtered him. Saw another guy charge 5 TH/SS Terminators into a blob of 20 Plague marines. Guess who won with like 3-4 losses?
You can take a 'questionably valued' unit, like Warp Talons, and be successful with them if you use them right. Five guys with MoT is 190pts and gives them a 4++ save. That can be do-able. But because you have to be so close to use their special 'Bamph' rule, your being risky because your using a scatter dice (hit on 33%) to come in. Your really risking losing them in a DS mishap, and most players do not like taking that risk. Also if they were more like Vanguard Vets (their logical opposite number) and could charge as soon as they popped in, they would be more up to par. That 'demon' rule to give them a 5++ apparently really tilts the game balance scale in GW eyes.
From my experience, any game is won based off of 3 things. A good list, using that list properly, and good dice. If all 3 of those things go off for you, you will never lose. If any combination of 2 go off for you, you have a 50-75% chance to win. If only one goes off for you, you have a 25-50% to win, depending if your opponent only has one aspect going for him as well. And if I was going to pick one aspect, it would be lucky dice. Luck makes everything work.
Been playing 40k on and off since 89.
Armies...
Orks, Eldar, Lamentors, Pre-Heresy EC, CSM EC, and IG.
2013/10/26 15:28:38
Subject: Making "bad" or "broken" units work to great effect
Ive had a hard time running Pentinent Engines. I want to use them effectively but most times I find its hard to get them into combat. being a walker with Rhino armor is a challenge
Black Templars 4000 Deathwatch 6000
2013/10/26 15:33:45
Subject: Re:Making "bad" or "broken" units work to great effect
BlkTom wrote: It depends on you the player. How well do you know your army and how well you know your opponent's list and then how well you know the rules. If you understand that, you can use the layout of the table for terrain and placement of units to your advantage. If you misplay your units, it doesn't matter how 'good' they are, your making them bad. I saw a kid playing IG/SM vs Nids and he kept advancing to get in rapid fire range instead of falling back to give himself extra rounds of shooting. The Nids promptly charged him and slaughtered him. Saw another guy charge 5 TH/SS Terminators into a blob of 20 Plague marines. Guess who won with like 3-4 losses?
You can take a 'questionably valued' unit, like Warp Talons, and be successful with them if you use them right. Five guys with MoT is 190pts and gives them a 4++ save. That can be do-able. But because you have to be so close to use their special 'Bamph' rule, your being risky because your using a scatter dice (hit on 33%) to come in. Your really risking losing them in a DS mishap, and most players do not like taking that risk. Also if they were more like Vanguard Vets (their logical opposite number) and could charge as soon as they popped in, they would be more up to par. That 'demon' rule to give them a 5++ apparently really tilts the game balance scale in GW eyes.
From my experience, any game is won based off of 3 things. A good list, using that list properly, and good dice. If all 3 of those things go off for you, you will never lose. If any combination of 2 go off for you, you have a 50-75% chance to win. If only one goes off for you, you have a 25-50% to win, depending if your opponent only has one aspect going for him as well. And if I was going to pick one aspect, it would be lucky dice. Luck makes everything work.
This is probably the best explanation ever, if you cant position yourself even with the "BEST" army you're going to lose. I've seen guys take an army that should be horrible and win because they knew what they were doing. Just last game I played I wanted to lock down an objective with my tac squad against deamonettes, worst choice ever, should have just let them run up and grab it then shot them off. But my opponent knew what he was doing and had almost every model ducking through cover as they advanced, best game ever.
Eagles soar, but weasels don't get sucked into Jet Engines.
Yeah, Tau and Eldar rock. They're the shootiest of the shooty in a pro-shooty edition of shooty game. Their weakness lies in being torn limb from limb in close combat (well, most eldar and tau units...their are a few exceptions), but since they can either bubble wrap (tau) or play keep away while they shoot (eldar), it's an uphill battle on almost every table you'll play on.
Unless that table has proper line of sight blocking terrain. With tau and eldar both ignoring cover, peeps and stores need to recalibrate their playing tables with some decent line of sight blocking terrain. If all that's on a battlefield is one or two level ruins with windows, area terrain, and a few short hills here and there, the superior fire-power of the tau and eldar will just blow most armies away. It's not a game as much as it is a die rolling exhibition with the opposing player putting away his models almost as fast as he unpacked them. Not even the winning player has fun...
Oh, and as for the thread's actual topic. Play what you want. It's always been the best way to play this game.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/26 16:29:12
2013/10/26 16:35:12
Subject: Making "bad" or "broken" units work to great effect
Almost every unit in the game can be played succesfully. It's just so damn hard with some of them.
Have a unit that you like. Use it in your games. Be patient to try different loadouts and roles for that unit. Eventually you should be able to find succesful uses to them. May not be the most effective of units, but they will serve their purpose on the game and be worthwhile.
I used Death Company for a while without seeing a reason to field them. I simply used them in different ways and finally I've found a role for them. They do not shine or win me the game but they work well with the rest of my army.
I firmly believe there is no worst unit in the game. There are better units, and there are worse, but I struggle to think there are any models that would be detrimental to a list to include/not include in an army in all but the more brutal of tournaments.
General views aside, though, I find that you do need to have a plan for each unit in an army. For example, Space Marine Assault Squads. If you include them 'just because' then they are not going to perform well, but if you take them with the objective of achieving a specific purpose, whether that's 'DS and flame stuff to death' to 'tie up that deathstar for a few turns' to 'find the weakest enemy units, and tear them a new one' then they are fine, and an asset to the list. Synergy also plays a big part here, as 10 AM and 10 with a JP chaplain are a world apart, and 10+chaplain+SP out of a Land Raider is just brutal. This is expensive, but not a waste of points, as every unit in there can fulfil its role, rather than just focusing on making the AM better. The LR can kill stuff as it moves up, the Chappy can go vehicle/character hunting, and the SP can, if you need it more, be assigned to another squad.
For another example, IG Stormtroopers. These are usually considered a suicide DS unit at best, and useless at worst, and yet when I bring 30 of them with the intent on obliterating an entire secion of the enemy army in a single turn then they become instrumental in my lists. Entire armies have vanished under the combined assault of 30 stormtroopers and then 100+ infantry walking up the board towards them.
In terms of how I've made bad units work to great effect, aside from the SM and ST mentioned above, I get a lot of use out of Carapace Armour veterans on foot, as opposed to in fliers/chimeras, I've used Death Company and Sanguainary Guard better than their online critics would say was possible, and Terminators are one of my go-to options despite their reputation as overcosted/weak.
The key is to keep an open mind, be prepared to be satisfied with 'good enough' rather than 'the best' units, and above all, remember that this game is played for fun, so at the end of the day, there's more to it than one unit being objectively better or worse than another.
2013/10/26 18:11:12
Subject: Making "bad" or "broken" units work to great effect
Martel732 wrote: DC and SG can look like world beaters in any given game. It's just that over 1000 games, they will cost you victories. Probably a lot of them.
Well I mainly play games from 500 to 1250p so that might explain it
Martel732 wrote: DC and SG can look like world beaters in any given game. It's just that over 1000 games, they will cost you victories. Probably a lot of them.
You say that, but I cannot think of a game where I have taken them and then been underwhelmed by them or where they have failed in doing what I brought them for. They have certainly never lost me a game (I think my BA have only lost three times and drawn once, they won everything else). I do not always use them, but when I do I am never disappointed.
I think this proves the point that any unit can be made to work if used well. I never place an expectation on them to win me the game single-handed, but by using them in the roles of character/elite killers (SG) or as horde slicers/full-on assault units (DC) they have always performed. Are there units that could do the same better? Yes. Do I feel the need to use those units? No.
2013/10/26 20:09:43
Subject: Making "bad" or "broken" units work to great effect
I don't know what to tell you. I've lost with BA three times in one week before, but never to another BA list that used SG or DC.
SG and DC are both quite poor and fail constantly in my experience. Since I never use them, their failure is usually on the other end of my smoking gun barrels. It's all a matter of model count.
2013/10/26 21:16:56
Subject: Making "bad" or "broken" units work to great effect
The fact you have not found them useful does not prove they are bad any more than what I have achieved with them proves they are good.
What it does prove is that it is possible to use a unit one person thinks is poor to great effect, and at the same time just because the consensus of opinion of a unit is that it is good it doesn't mean that you personally will find success with it.
I think this illustrates my point that there are no best/worst units, as there are so many factors that will differ between players that affects this. level of competitiveness, frequently seen armies, general board setup, player skill, army choice and luck all have an input, so it isn't really possible to say that one unit is better or worse than another in anything more that the most similar of units.
2013/10/26 21:27:54
Subject: Making "bad" or "broken" units work to great effect
No, there's irrefutable mathematics as well, such as pts/W. The lack of durability of 3+ and even 2+ armor suggests that there are indeed superior and inferior units. There is utility in minimizing the points you lose for each failed save.
It's not that I don't know what to do with SG or DC, it's that they can't physically perform those tasks as the game is currently structured. They die too quickly for their points cost. There is no strategy or scheming to fix this mathematical reality.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/26 21:28:55
2013/10/26 21:39:19
Subject: Making "bad" or "broken" units work to great effect
I have not found 3+/2+ saves to lack durability at all, to be honest. This again proves the point that other variables affect the usefulness of units. I don't see eldar locally. I am one of only 2 MEQ players I regularly see. I know only one Tau player, and he doesn't use Riptides. The biggest threat to my SG/DC are IG Leman Russes, so I make sure that I always have something to counter them before they hit. I use MM speeders and melta-pods to take out the tanks, and then send the DC to hack up a platoon (led by a chaplain and coming out of a Redeemer so they hit at full strength and with the best possible support). So in this case, 2+/3+ units are doing just fine.
And really, the point I am trying to make that while I freely admit there are superior and inferior units, it does not invalidate the usefulness of the latter if you don't have the mentality of needing to use the former. As I say. despite mathematics and endless theorising, there is no substitute for experience. You find them poor, I find them useful, and both of us can provide arguments for our respective cases. In the end, only the player can decide on the worth of any particular unit.
2000 Points IG
2000 Points SM 
Orks, 
Eldar, 
Lamentors, 
Pre-Heresy EC, 
CSM EC, and 
Black Templars 4000 
Deathwatch 6000
4000p
1500p
