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 concur that a strategy of contesting objectives (not relying on Troops) is more flexible than claiming them. My current SM army has 2 maneuver Tac Squads (no Rhinos) optimized for seizing objectives and 1 SOB squad for occupying an initially-held objective. The rest is heavy weapons, elites and fast attack for attritting the enemy and contesting objectives.

DN

winterman wrote:Anyways, I'd personally like to see a 5ed list that you feel exemplifies your strategy, preferably an SM/DA/BA/CSM list(s) since they have troops many people consider to be very good compared to elites from other armies. This would be a better frame of reference for discussion I think at this point. Right now the discussion is just rambling on about theoretical situations and the like.

Scuddman is an IRL friend of mine...after going 0-1-2 one of these past weekends against him and my other buddy Phoenix, him and I sat down to talk about list design, 5ed, etc. Here's the beginnings of a BA army he helped me write for 1750.

Lemartes
10-man Tac with Missle/Plasma
10-man Tac with Missle/Plasma
10-man Assault with Fist
8-man Vet Assault with 2 Melta/Fist
3 Attack Bikes
3 Attack Bikes

I forget point totals, but I think it leaves roughly 340 or 350 points left over to basically do whatever I wanted with. It formed a "core" to work with. The last 350 points could be spent on however I wanted the army to perform. More assaulty? Get another vet squad and some DC. Shooty? Maybe a Dev squad, or a couple dreads or some tanks. After I decide what to do with it, is it lacking strong anti-tank? upgrade the missles to lascannons. I need some small amount of points somewhere? Take the plasmas away. With this basic core it can go anywhere

Thanks for that Lormax. Seems like a good base for a non-jumpack spam army. It is not the kind of army I pictured scuddman designing after reading his post, although it does adhere to the basic premise.

Winterman, what type of list were you expecting, if I may ask?

@OP:

Well said. You put into words what I learned the hard way after only a couple games of 5th.

I'm liking this edition a lot more than 4th, in that there is an actual need for troops beyond the minimum 2 slots, but not so much that your entire list should consist of them.

As a rule of thumb, I've found it beneficial to follow two guidelines when making an army list in the 1200-2000 points range (I would imagine that most games are of a points level within this 800-point range). They are:

1. Have approximately a 1:1 ratio of Troops to Non-Troops (excluding compulsory HQ).

2. At least 30% of the list's points should consist of Troops.

Naturally, there are exceptions to this -- just thought I'd share a more generalized observation.

CK

Though, some troop units are way better than others

Necron warriors and fire warriors

@ scuddman

I think we just have a misunderstanding. I didn't mean to be anything but objective in this thread. I wouldn't bother debating with you if I didn't think your opinion had merit. I guess I thought you were saying you never need more than 3-4 troops and I think it sounded like I was arguing for max troops in every army. I probably just misread your original post, I should have thought about it more before responding. At some point in the first page I clarify that I am not arguing for maxing on weaker units like Guants and Firewarriors. I don't even remember arguing for maxing, just that having 3-4 might not be enough and less than 4 be dangerous. I should have stated that explicitly.

scuddman wrote:Okay, if contesting isn't easier than killing the other troop choice, what do you propose as your winning strategy?

Instead of criticizing my ideas, why don't you tell me what's better? Why is maxing on troops the better way to go? Maybe I can learn something.

Actually I do have one, killing all of their troop choices. Preferably their entire army if possible. I think that is easier than minimally engaging them and then outmaneuvering them towards the end of the battle. Proactively seeking and destroying seems to be the best tactic possible. I think it is why Zilla is widely feared, it can bear down on the enemy giving them little room to maneuver.

scuddman wrote:
40k is a toy game with simple rules and variables.

I think toy game may be an obscure term. It means something kind of like Tic Tac Toe.

scuddman wrote:
Besides, getting straight massacres implies that I need to completely annihilate my opponent. Doesn't this still mean I shouldn't max on troops?

Alot of the best armies have had max troops, or at least 2-3 huge squads.

That doesn't answer the question about why maxing on troops is the better way to go. If you max on troops, my army is superior in firepower and manuverability in general. Assuming equal skill my army is more destructive. You will NEVER kill all of my troop choices, because you are ignoring the destructive elements.

I think the idea you're thinking is that if you max on troops, if I kill half your army, your other half is troops. If you kill the half of my army is troops, there is no way I can win.
The problem is three fold.
1. I am always going to kill what's going after my troops first.
2. Non troop units are more destructive than troop units.
3. You need to kill every single one of my troop models to win. I do not need to kill every single one of your troop models to win.

2-3 huge squads of troops is not maxing on troops. Maxing on troops is taking 6 squads of plague marines or spending every point on troops.

The classic example is necrons. Typically in fifth necron players feel pressured to just max out on necron warriors. Necron warriors just don't have any teeth. How can you win without some destroyers, or a monolith, or whatever?

Let's look at some of the top armies of 4th edition:
Ultramauleens with 6 man las plas. <-min troops
Ironwarriors <- min troops, 6 man las plas.
Godzilla niids <- max on monsters, min troops
Mech Eldar <- Max on falcons, waveserpent, 5 man squads <-min troops

The only top tournament army that maxed on troops was orcs, and that's because there is no other viable option as good as their basic troop.

Let me rephrase it,
In what situation is having 3-4 troop units not going to be enough?
In what situation is having more than 4 troop units going to be beneficial in the case that 4 troop units was not enough?

Plus, another logical fallacy. contesting does not equal minimum engagement or manuvering at the last turn.
If my death company charges your troop choice on turn 1 and I wipe them out, they're not holding an objective.
If somehow after 6 turns of fighting there's 1 death company left, your troop choices are still not holding an objective. I attack with nontroops and hold with troops. You're mistaking my premise for a wood elf strategy.

Unless there are no enemy models on an objective, what would be the point of sending troops? Troops on an objective do not imply success. Destructive power is necessary.

scuddman wrote:Unless there are no enemy models on an objective, what would be the point of sending troops? Troops on an objective do not imply success. Destructive power is necessary.

This is the crux of 5th edition.

Anyone not paying attention, really should.

You can still win in 5E against troops based armies that are determined to shoot or assault your small troops contingent off the board, because you brought killy and they brought takey.

Killy > takey.

As soon as tactical marines can beat their way through a ork horde, nidzilla, etc lemme know.

Marines will soon enough have answers to those lists--but not all of them, all of the time...and certainly not in their troops choices, but in their non-troops choices.

i.e. They will have Killy, and they will have Takey. Will those be the same units? Nope, they will not be.

WC_Brian wrote: Actually I do have one, killing all of their troop choices. Preferably their entire army if possible. I think that is easier than minimally engaging them and then outmaneuvering them towards the end of the battle.

And that is, more or less, the crux of this topic. Non-troop units are, in almost all cases, more destructive than troop choices. So if you want to kill off all the enemy troops, you should probably bring heavy support and elite choices to do it rather than more troops. That way, you can kill the enemy and then take an objective or two with the troops you do have since you will be able to kill enemy units that are contesting and the enemy will not be able to return the favor.

The troops portion of my tau list isn't changing much at all. Still 2-3 choices, while the supporting elements are changing quite a bit.

From what I've seen playing with my orks, 4 troops is plenty. The only reason I even take 4 squads of orks is because for the points, they are good.

Control one objective and contest all the others and you win.

Winterman, what type of list were you expecting, if I may ask?

Basically more shooty and less assault shooty mix I guess, like two 10 man squads troops instead of 3, max heavies, and DC for counter charge. More teeth basically (although as you say there's points left over).

scuddman wrote:That doesn't answer the question about why maxing on troops is the better way to go.

Let's look at some of the top armies of 4th edition:
Ultramauleens with 6 man las plas. <-min troops
Ironwarriors <- min troops, 6 man las plas.
Godzilla niids <- max on monsters, min troops
Mech Eldar <- Max on falcons, waveserpent, 5 man squads <-min troops

The only top tournament army that maxed on troops was orcs, and that's because there is no other viable option as good as their basic troop.

Look I never said you had to max on troops. I was just pointing out that the scenario you offered up was very unrealistic.

The only list you posted that isn't easy to beat is Mech Eldar and only because of Holo-Fields. In 5th edition it wouldn't be that hard to neuter.

Here are some armies my friend Marc Parker has used to win 5 GTs with:

Dark Eldar - 6 troops

Wych Cult - 6 troops

Tyranids - 2x36 Hormaguants, 2-3 squads of stealers. this is kind of like 7 troops

Feral Orks - Only 4, but hey who needs more than 80 Str 5 Orks?

Speed Freaks - This only had 4 I think but that was because he had to have the unit of Burnas and the unit of Str 4 Orks, one of those may have been a troop choice.

Sisters - 4 squads of redemptionists, 2 Sisters. He didn't win with this one but he didn't have time to get the paint up to his usual standards and got tanked by a couple of IW players(he played and beat 4 of them) who couldn't believe their 4 pie plates lost to a horde of infantry.



Most of my armies have had no less than 4 troops, usually 6. And I'm like you guys I win about 85% of my games. I think any skilled general is going to do well regardless of his approach. But automatically assuming you only need a small amount of troops will limit the number of armies you can potentially field. Why cut yourself off from so many powerful options? It seems a little dogmatic to me.

Phoenix wrote:

WC_Brian wrote: Actually I do have one, killing all of their troop choices. Preferably their entire army if possible. I think that is easier than minimally engaging them and then outmaneuvering them towards the end of the battle.

And that is, more or less, the crux of this topic. Non-troop units are, in almost all cases, more destructive than troop choices. So if you want to kill off all the enemy troops, you should probably bring heavy support and elite choices to do it rather than more troops. That way, you can kill the enemy and then take an objective or two with the troops you do have since you will be able to kill enemy units that are contesting and the enemy will not be able to return the favor.

I thought that specific elite and heavy support units are usually easier to target and destroy(especially when they aren't spammed and you can knock off the most troublesome units first). There are fewer of them and they usually have fewer models or represent a higher percentage of the armies point total. If they shoot you can take cover, even from your own and their units. If they are assault units they can be easily overwhelmed by numerous supporting squads.

It still seems like a dicey strategy to me. Neutralize the enemy and then hop onto some objectives. It just seems unreliable and when playing competitively what is most effective is a strategy that goes off just about every time. The OP at one point defended his position by saying at worst you will tie. Even if his position is true you should never be trying to tie. That is only slightly better than losing.

I'm not sure if my emphasis on tournament play is poisoning this thread or if you guys are talking about being competitive outside of the tournament setting.

I think you're missing the point. Regardless if you have troops or not, neutralize the enemy and hop onto objectives is the ONLY WAY to take an objective in 5th edition. It doesn't matter if I try to take an objective with troops or non troops because I have to kill every enemy troop model. This is not a difficult concept.

Your examples with Marc Parker's armies is terrible. Every one of those armies, the best choice are the basic troops. You don't see people taking scourges for a reason.
Dark eldar, wych cult, orks, sisters of battle.
I think we already talked about those armies and their troops being better than other choices.

The only exception was tyranids, which he didn't max on troops.

I think maybe you should ask your friend Marc Parker what he thinks.

Most of my armies have had no less than 4 troops, usually 6. And I'm like you guys I win about 85% of my games. I think any skilled general is going to do well regardless of his approach. But automatically assuming you only need a small amount of troops will limit the number of armies you can potentially field. Why cut yourself off from so many powerful options? It seems a little dogmatic to me

My premise does not imply a small amount of troops is a good idea. Please reread my first post on the first page.

WC_Brian wrote: Most of my armies have had no less than 4 troops, usually 6. And I'm like you guys I win about 85% of my games. I think any skilled general is going to do well regardless of his approach. But automatically assuming you only need a small amount of troops will limit the number of armies you can potentially field. Why cut yourself off from so many powerful options? It seems a little dogmatic to me.

[DELETED] Oh, scudd already torpedoed part of what what I was gonna say.

I don't think anyone is automatically assuming you need a small amount of troops.

I think it's a viable alternative to troops heavy armies, for those armies with subpar troop-killing units.

Others on this forum don't. Personally, I hope those people that have a thing for troops, get to play against those who have a thing for troop-killers.

Just to see what happens when the troops go up against troop-killers.

Why don't you ask your friend Mr. Parker how many times he's LOST at a GT, and what with....you might find the answers surprising.

Or you might come back with some more "fun" comments.

I saw a little of Marc Parkers matchup against Bill Kim at the Gladiator this year. Epic! Ork horde, full troop selections vs Stealer shock! Talk about well matched.

So what you are saying is…

Some armies can max out on troops, and others can be fine with 3-4.

It is good to have a well balanced army that can both be destructive, and take objectives.

Is there something here that we didn’t know?

Blackmoor wrote:So what you are saying is…

Some armies can max out on troops, and others can be fine with 3-4.

It is good to have a well balanced army that can both be destructive, and take objectives.

Is there something here that we didn’t know?

Thanx Black, this is exactly why this thread is an interesting discussion, but basically pointless.

You cannot put a blanket guidline such as "maxing troops is not the way to go" when building armies. Not when some armies have Troops that will win the game for you...orks, wytches, stealers....ect.

Parker typically chooses an army that has a strong troop choice. Why? Because he likes quantity over quality...and troops are generally the cheapest choices in a codex. Tell him its a bad idea to bring troops in any large amount and he'll be laughing at you while he's blasting your army with 20 or so dark lances a turn....oh, you have cover?...make that 360 shoota rounds a turn....

Sometimes, Troops are the best choice a codex has, and a good portion of the time, thats one of the horde codeii. If you're running space marines...fine, troops arent that great and its a good thing there are combat squads to split off in the right situation garnering you more troops to handle objectives, you can get away with 2-3 troops and lots of gunz. Other times, 180 ork boyz is awesome, lots of dark lance firepower is great, and genestealers are obviously good....and they're troops as well, maybe its a good idea to bring lots.

You cannot blanket 40k army building with a philosophy such as "Maxing on troops is not the way to go"..why? Because sometimes, it IS the way to go. Depends on your army of choice.

Maxing on troops is definitely not that way to go with my Eldar.

Touche, that is a good response, definitely a flaw in my argument is in the situation where the nontroops aren't better or more destructive than the troops.
I like deadshane's response, "Is there something here we didn't know?"
Looks like Dakka's already on it. Hopefully the rest of the world will follow.

Darrian13 wrote:Maxing on troops is definitely not the way to go with my Eldar.

Depending on your build, maybe not.

On the other hand, I think you can max out on troops with Eldar if you choose to.

WC_Brian runs 6 slots of Jetbikes and does very well with it.

You want to you can use lots of Guardians, or Dire Avengers if you like them.

40K is still about killing the enemy army as best you can.

Now however, shooty infantry armies aren't necessarily the easiest way.

Tank armies and assault armies are also viable.

Some are more oriented to killing troops, others to killing troop killers.

This might be nothing new for a handful of players, but I think it really is eye opening for alot of them.

It's a whole new world.

Darrian13 wrote:Maxing on troops is definitely not that way to go with my Eldar.

Right. I concur with the concept of a balanced force of scoring units and contesting units.
In all Eldar armies, three to four troops will suffice.

I just hope GW releases some rules pertaining to 5th edition GTs like they did for the beginning of 4th edition.

I agree with you Darrian, 5th edition GTs will be very interesting to say the least.

Nice convo, but masses of troops can win you games, with space marines, i found that 3 to 4 tac squads, backed up with a venerable, some terminators, land raider, and a normal dread, and assualt squad, are enough to provide great backup for the pawn marines

great analysis but would like to mention that orks are an exception to this rule

All of my 5th Ed. experience thus far really makes me feel that the real key to winning battles is being able to coordinate firepower in such a way that you can truly control whole areas of the board. In this respect, having groups of about three units usually consisting of a troops choice, elite or HQ, and a heavy or vehicle are best for actually holding areas. It also makes sense to keep these groups within range of each other so that they can support each other and not get overextended. The core idea is to grab the best positions you can and make the other guy pay if he tries to take them away from you. Then from there you can have your faster units go and contest his objectives once you've got him on the back foot.

Accordingly, about a third of the army's points are spent on troops. I think that this approach works pretty well for most tactically flexible armies, although hordes and mechanized armies will no doubt have a different set of tactics.