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.

Stelek wrote:Nope, no such rule.

.....

Ixe wrote:
But mathhammer that talks about "making points back" is not relevant to 40k. I often use 1000+ points to kill 300-500 points with my Sisters of Battle list. Why? Because the opponent loses 1/3 of his points while I lose nothing. The way some people do mathhammer, they say that excessive pointage is a "waste" mathematically. But that's completely wrong. Equal pointed units rarely have the chance to wipe each other out. If you throw a 100 pt unit at another 100 pt unit, there's a good chance you'll get slow attrition for the whole game... When you throw 500 points at 100 points, the enemy gets part of their army obliterated, permenantly depriving them of a strategic asset. It's the "efficiency" and "making points back" side of matthammer which fundamentally misunderstands how you play 40k effectively.

I both agree and disagree with you. Efficiency IS a useful measure and has its place. But, that place is largely to be found when deciding what units to bring, not how to use them on the table.

On the other hand, you're right, 100 points versus 100 points, and you're looking at attrition. Most modern military doctrines espouse engaging only when you have 3:1 odds. In a tabletop wargames, I've found that 3:1 in terms of points is what you want to aim for, in a localized area of the table, and if you can pull that off (and it's rarely possible to do this against a skilled opponent) you will end up wiping your opponent from that local area for very little loss.

But, back to the value of mathhammer, and "making points back" - it's a way of thinking about trades. In Chess, if you take a knight in exchange for a pawn, you're up in terms of material. In 40k, if your 100 point unit manages to kill 200 points of enemy models before dying, you're up points. It's the same exact concept. If at all possible, you want to destroy enemy models for no loss. But, if you can make favourable trades, even if you're losing models in the process, you're winning the game. If all your units are able to make their points back, you're not going to lose many games.

I agree that Orks do tend to struggle with heavy vehicles at range but I think stelek's point about the gun line hurting a bit in 5th is valid.