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.

Well, I believe that scoring an objective, or threatening to do so is useful in and of itself. It forces your opponent to allocate firepower to the squad.

It isnt hard to kill lots of troops, but it can be quite difficult to remove entire squads of them. That is why i'd always take 5+ in a 1750 or above game.

Also, you didnt really clarify that this was solely for book missions. Most tournaments, GT or RTT, will have missions that stray from the book, either due to battle points or tiered missions, or entirely new missions.

Anyway, I think eschewing troops in favor of more killing power is a dubious prospect. Certain armies can pull it off, but I think most armies are better off building a balanced list with multiple troop options.

One scoring unit means your opponent only has to destroy one scoring unit to remove your ability to hold objectives.

By contrast, if he has 2-3 scoring units, you have to destroy that many more targets.

If he rolls first turn and you only have one scoring 10 man Tactical Squad, he only needs enough firepower to destroy that one Tactical Squad.

LValx: In book missions only would you agree with peregrin?
If not, why not?

This thread is about book missions, not house ruled missions.

Edit; Also, who cares about holding objectives when you can stop them from scoring theirs (by holding them in combat or killing them) and win with first blood, warlord & linebreaker? Lots of non-scoring units can deny objectives just by being in range.

I think this boils down to how effective your lists troops are at killing. The books with better troops, ie Necrons, don't have to entertain such a compromise. Space marines, on the other hand, might want to consider this.

 LValx wrote:
Also, you didnt really clarify that this was solely for book missions. Most tournaments, GT or RTT, will have missions that stray from the book, either due to battle points or tiered missions, or entirely new missions.

I said in my first or second reply that this is just standard by-the-book 40k, since trying to come up with strategy for the huge range of very different house rules involved in non-standard missions would be impossible.

 TedNugent wrote:
By contrast, if he has 2-3 scoring units, you have to destroy that many more targets.

Sure, but I also have a lot more points in firepower to do it since I'm not putting hundreds of points into a point sink unit that just sits on an objective all game.

If he rolls first turn and you only have one scoring 10 man Tactical Squad, he only needs enough firepower to destroy that one Tactical Squad.

But it's not that simple. My two 5-man tactical squads will GTG for a 2+ cover save, and every shot thrown at 2+ cover is a shot not going to one of my killing units. And if you don't try to stop the killing units I will table you.

 Peregrine wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Not talking about house rules for missions, but often in 3 round tournaments the overalls champion is determined by wins + margin of victory because multiple players will be undefeated.

But that's a house rule. 40k by the book is a straight win/loss/draw system, if you're counting margin of victory you're playing with your own house rules that change the victory conditions. So it's not surprising that if you change the victory conditions you also change the best strategy for winning.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LValx wrote:
@ Peregrine. It isn't difficult to kill 1 squad of troops. It's rather difficult to kill 6+ squads however.

Really? Because so far I've found the exact opposite, even when I haven't taken the maximum-firepower list idea to that extreme. Troops that move out into the open die fast, and troops that GTG in terrain in a desperate attempt to stay alive aren't really doing anything (and aren't even protecting themselves against Tau) in exchange for dying a bit slower.

Look at lists that generally win events.

Well, that isn't really the best comparison since many of those events have non-standard missions which favor different armies and strategies than the normal ones. Obviously an event where you have table quarters (won by adding up the point total of scoring units in each quarter) will strongly favor giant blobs of expensive troops over token scoring units. But that's really no different than having a hypothetical event where it's nothing but kill points missions and troops are double VPs.

So essentially you are saying if you don't play tournaments, because here are no brb rules for declaring a tournament winner and a majority of events factor in margin of victory as a way to break ties between players with identical records.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 LValx wrote:
Also, you didnt really clarify that this was solely for book missions. Most tournaments, GT or RTT, will have missions that stray from the book, either due to battle points or tiered missions, or entirely new missions.

I said in my first or second reply that this is just standard by-the-book 40k, since trying to come up with strategy for the huge range of very different house rules involved in non-standard missions would be impossible.

 TedNugent wrote:
By contrast, if he has 2-3 scoring units, you have to destroy that many more targets.

Sure, but I also have a lot more points in firepower to do it since I'm not putting hundreds of points into a point sink unit that just sits on an objective all game.

If he rolls first turn and you only have one scoring 10 man Tactical Squad, he only needs enough firepower to destroy that one Tactical Squad.

But it's not that simple. My two 5-man tactical squads will GTG for a 2+ cover save, and every shot thrown at 2+ cover is a shot not going to one of my killing units. And if you don't try to stop the killing units I will table you.

Lots of assumptions here.

Your minimal troops are inexpensive. Perhaps your two 5 man tactical squads cost more than my three cultist units.

Maybe what I shoot them with ignore their cover saves.

You table me just because I take a turn to wipe your troops.

 Peregrine wrote:


But it's not that simple. My two 5-man tactical squads will GTG for a 2+ cover save, and every shot thrown at 2+ cover is a shot not going to one of my killing units. And if you don't try to stop the killing units I will table you.

Not that simple for most armies, maybe, but you still have Heldrakes to worry about. Wounds on 2s, template autohits, ignores cover and AP3. Plus assaults. You can't shoot something once it's in assault.

I don't think that wiping out your opponent is a sound strategy.

@ Blaggard. I think even with book missions, it is wise to invest in troops.

How many troops a person should take is going to be dependent on a TON of factors. Fast denial units can allow you to field less troops. Super durable troops can allow you to field less troops, etc. Codex is also important, for example you can grab 6x 10 Kroot for less than 400 points. For marines to take 6 squads they will generally be spending more than that and then the squads would still be quite small.

Yeah, I think it's interesting that Perregrine is relying on GtG to save his 2x5 Scoring, but is confident that he will be able to shoot through and entire army's worth of scoring...which could very well GtG itself...

The difference is he's stacking his deck with LRMBTs.

It's hard to see the importance of Infantry when your requisite units have battlecannons.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
The difference is he's stacking his deck with LRMBTs.

It's hard to see the importance of Infantry when your requisite units have battlecannons.

Battlecannons still have to deal with cover right? Not terribly effective when everything you shoot at has a 3+ or 2+ cover save after GtG.

Yes, because picking which unit your opponent won't be able to shoot or move next turn is a bad thing...

NecronLord3 wrote:If you have multiple scoring units on the board and keep them graded you can make a grab for the relic in late turns with your scoring units and focus you attention any opposing units that may be denying the objective.

Not if your army got wasted by your opponent and he's got more or less his entire army in-tact against just a couple of scoring units.

Virtually every relic game I've seen has been determined by who got first blood. The fact that a model, not a unit, picks up the relic, and you've got to deal with 6th ed wound allocation, and you can only score at the end of your movement phase, it's really, really, really easy to stop a scoring model from holding the relic at the end of the game.

Going for the relic early on seems to be the worst way to play that mission, and going for the relic late means against any degree of savviness, your opponent will just stop you from getting it.

Breng77 wrote:Not talking about house rules for missions, but often in 3 round tournaments the overalls champion is determined by wins + margin of victory because multiple players will be undefeated.

Well, that depends. Furthermore, getting to undefeated is better than having a few losses, but getting more points on the ones you win.

It's a real sacrifice to take low-killing-power troops units. Especially if you don't have to.

LValx wrote: It isn't difficult to kill 1 squad of troops. It's rather difficult to kill 6+ squads however.

Firstly, you don't have to. You can also contest objectives.

Secondly, there are plenty of units in 40k that are dedicated to killing scoring units. Killing 6 troops squad isn't that difficult.

Thirdly, if you're bringing 6 scoring units, what else are you bringing in your list? If you're packing all those low-killing-power troops units, that means you're not being competitive on killing power. I've played enough foot guard to know that having a giant damage sponge of 100+ guardsmen that don't do much damage just getting tabled on turn 4. Bringing 9 scoring units is NOT a guarantee that you're going to have any of them left at the end of the game (much less uncontested, and on objectives), especially against an opponent who has focused on killing power.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Yes, because picking which unit your opponent won't be able to shoot or move next turn is a bad thing...

You don't pick them, they do. And when the units primary purpose is to score, as delineated by the OP, then they really don't care if they aren't moving or shooting next turn. So yes, it is a bad thing if they can easily remove your modicum of scoring and you can't do the same. Glad we can agree on that.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
The difference is he's stacking his deck with LRMBTs.

It's hard to see the importance of Infantry when your requisite units have battlecannons.

This. You probably should not say tournaments are invalid when the main point of reference is an IA list.

Yes, certain troop units are mostly dead weight, but those are generally in the minority. Most troop units may not be as killy as other FOC options, but the difference is relatively minor (especially when cost is factored in). Unless you go to the extreme and take tons of dead weight troops, the minor loss in firepower should be offset by having multiple paths to victory rather than hoping you get first blood.

Gornall wrote:Yes, certain troop units are mostly dead weight, but those are generally in the minority.

Really?

Of course, you're correct when you're talking about elites choices that can be taken as troops per special rules. Deathwing terminators with Belial are going to be just as killy as deathwing terminators without.

Also, there are a few others I can think of that punch like a heavier unit, like imperial guard veterans who get to tote around 3 BS4 special weapons and a BS4 heavy weapon (and can take a chimera), and firewarriors with their heavy-weapons-as-small-arms. That's elites-level punching for a troops-level unit. I'm scouring my brain to think of others, though. Tac marines don't kill things like sternguard, CSM don't kill things like terminators, guardians, cultists, penal legionnaires, scouts, DE warriors, ork boyz, infantry platoons, strike squads...

... the list goes on and on of troops choices that don't have even close to the amount of killing power as their points spent in other slots, and by no small amount. It seems to me that you really do have to pay a premium for the ability to score. An ability that's not actually as useful as it initially seems.

And not for it's cost either. I'm kind of starting to think that units have to overpay for scoring like units have traditionally overpayed if their weapons were Ap3.

 Gornall wrote:
You probably should not say tournaments are invalid when the main point of reference is an IA list.

First of all, the IA list is part of standard 40k. Weird tournament scenarios that reward one-sided massacres more than a narrow victory are not part of standard 40k.

Second, I only took the ABG list because I wanted to enter a tank in the "best painted troops choice" contest. I could have taken the same kind of list, except probably more powerful, with a codex IG list + allies.

ShadarLogoth wrote:
You don't pick them, they do.

Of course I do. If I toss a few Basilisk shots at your scoring unit I've chosen to make it go to ground and be useless next turn (or just die). So you're staying alive, but now your expensive legitimate troops unit is no better than my cheap penal legion squad.

And when the units primary purpose is to score, as delineated by the OP, then they really don't care if they aren't moving or shooting next turn.

But they still cost points. The whole point here is that you're spending a lot of points on units which don't contribute anything until the game is over, while I'm spending those points on units that are killing stuff all game. So really we're playing a 1500 vs 1000 point game for 5-7 turns while your point sink scoring units hide behind an ADL.

Breng77 wrote:
So essentially you are saying if you don't play tournaments, because here are no brb rules for declaring a tournament winner and a majority of events factor in margin of victory as a way to break ties between players with identical records.

All you have to do is play enough rounds that you have a single undefeated winner.

Anyway, the point is that tournaments have a huge range of house rules. Some play straight win/lose/draw with enough rounds to determine a winner, some play margin of victory with a short event, some have various weird victory conditions, etc. There's no point in trying to analyze a general strategy that covers all of them, so we stick to the standard rules as a default.

This varies massively over armies. Tau are reliant on fire warriors/kroot in the same way orks need boyz. IG however...

Perhaps it would be best to narrow this topic to a specific army.

Necron Troops?

And you consider Fire Warriors weapons as special but not DE Warriors? I would say wounding everything in the game on a 4+ from a rapid fire weapon is pretty special.

And all of the new Eldar basic troops have some pretty special fire power, albeit short range, but with fleet, battle focus, and Wave Serpents that isn't really as limiting a factor as it use to be.

 ImotekhTheStormlord wrote:
This varies massively over armies. Tau are reliant on fire warriors/kroot in the same way orks need boyz. IG however...

Perhaps it would be best to narrow this topic to a specific army.

I find CSM to be reliant on plague marines for objective, and the othe option as cultist to do nothing on objectives.

CSM may fall under the list of armies that can take low number of troops, most...all of the killy units are in other FOC really. Minimal troops will improve the armies killing power, but weaken its tactical advantages.

 ImotekhTheStormlord wrote:
Tau are reliant on fire warriors/kroot in the same way orks need boyz.

Actually Tau were one of the armies I was thinking of that best use a minimal-troops strategy. Since you have overwhelming firepower from your shooting units and the ability to ignore cover with everything (no-cover Riptide pie plates wipe entire scoring units off the table with a single shot) you're great at killing enemy scoring units, but your own scoring units aren't really that great at scoring.

but your own [Tau]scoring units aren't really that great at scoring.

Tell that to MVB who just one a GT with 100 Kroot. Kroot are definitely in the discussion of very efficient scoring units.

ShadarLogoth wrote: I would say wounding everything in the game on a 4+ from a rapid fire weapon is pretty special.

I wouldn't. They're literally no better than a bolter against anything T4, and they're WORSE than a bolter against anything T3. Really, it's against just one class of target that they have any serious advantage, but said class of target also tends to have a lot of wounds and a decent save.

Meanwhile, pulse weapons are something properly special, because, while they're only wounding MCs on 5's, rather than 4's (which is still better than 6's), they also have a 30" range and can blow up rhinos and fliers and a whole host of light vehicles. And they wound T3 on 2+, rather than 4+, which is pretty nifty, especially combined with said range advantage and being in a codex that can ignore cover saves.

Splinter weapons are basically lasguns that are also good against monstrous creatures. Pulse weapons are heavy bolters with -1 Ap. There's a pretty big difference between those two.

ShadarLogoth wrote:And all of the new Eldar basic troops have some pretty special fire power, albeit short range, but with fleet, battle focus, and Wave Serpents that isn't really as limiting a factor as it use to be.

Once again, nothing special.

A guardian squad with a meltagun isn't nearly the same as a squad of fire dragons when you're talking about killing power. In fact, eldar troops (excepting wraithguard - who are usually elites) are badly outclassed per-point by other stuff in their codex.

 Peregrine wrote:
Provocative title, but I'm not just trolling here. People say 6th is all about troops, but is it really? A 1-0 objective win is just as good as a 5-0 win, so do you really need to hold those extra objectives? ability.

The more troops you have means the higher probability of being able to hold those objectives. If you have only a few troop squads then they may not be able to hold that one objective.

ShadarLogoth wrote:
Tell that to MVB who just one a GT with 100 Kroot. Kroot are definitely in the discussion of very efficient scoring units.

And which house rules were in effect at this event?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Remulus wrote:
The more troops you have means the higher probability of being able to hold those objectives. If you have only a few troop squads then they may not be able to hold that one objective.

But it's not that simple. Having fewer troops squads also means you have a lot more firepower in your list, so your few troops will quickly be taking less and less firepower. That is, if your opponent can even think about shooting at models with a 2+ cover save instead of trying to stop the giant blob of guns that is busy wrecking all their stuff.

and they're WORSE than a bolter against anything T3

That's not true. They are generally 30 to 50% cheaper then a bolter.

but said class of target also tends to have a lot of wounds and a decent save.

And....how does that diminish their advantage against said target?

Splinter weapons are basically lasguns that are also good against monstrous creatures.

Horribly inaccurate statement. They would T4 on a 4+, T5 on a 4+, T6 on a 4+, T7 on a 4+, T8 on a 4+, T9 on a 4+, T10 on a 4+. The first two classes don't belong to MCs. Also, MCs are much more prolific in the current Meta then they use to be. Also, you forget about Nurgle, Bikes, Grots, and all the other Higher then 4 T units in the game.

Pulse weapons are all in all a nice bump, but they never enjoy the super efficiency that Splinter has against T5+, and they are also on BS 3 Models that require an additional investment in points to even be on par with Splinter weapons against T4 and higher.

A guardian squad with a meltagun isn't nearly the same as a squad of fire dragons when you're talking about killing power.

Relative to their point cost, a guardian squad is MUCH better at killing infantry of all kinds then a dragon squad. And it's not even close.

And which house rules were in effect at this event?

lol. not worth my time arguing this.

One issue with minimal scoring is that it's very hard to protect any given unit against someone who brings the right things. A Manticore will wipe out guys hiding behind an Aegis, Go to Ground or no Go to Ground. A unit with camo-cloaks in area terrain may be able to get a 2+ from Going to Ground, but then cover-ignoring weapons like the Colossus, Thunderfire Cannon, or any Tau unit with Markerlight support can still take you down.

Worse still, Tau Smart Missile Systems can kill you from out of Line of Sight and ignore cover to boot. Riptides can fire 8 SMS shots per turn on a mobile and threatening platform. All in all, I think "just hide" armies are-- deceptively enough-- very effective in low-level play (where people don't know how to deal with them), but quite ineffective in advanced play, where people will field a variety of units and be experienced with dealing with such methods.

ShadarLogoth wrote:That's not true. They are generally 30 to 50% cheaper then a bolter.

So? It still doesn't make them a high-killing-power unit.

ShadarLogoth wrote:They would T4 on a 4+, T5 on a 4+, T6 on a 4+, T7 on a 4+, T8 on a 4+, T9 on a 4+, T10 on a 4+

But get real. Just how many T5, 6, 7, and 8 units are you actually coming up against? Not that many. A huge majority of what you're going to come across is T3, in which case, the splinter weapon is a lasgun, or T4, in which case the splinter weapon isn't better than a bolter, or something with an AV, in which case, once again, the splinter weapon is only as good as a lasgun.

It's not that there is NOTHING better about splinter weapons compared to regular small arms, it's just that its bonuses fall into a pretty narrow niche. Outside of that niche, they're nothing special. They're just Sv 6+ dudes with a regular small arm.

Ho hum.

ShadarLogoth wrote:Relative to their point cost, a guardian squad is MUCH better at killing infantry of all kinds then a dragon squad. And it's not even close.

The only thing that's "not close" is when you look at all your options compared to guardians. Find something guardians can do, and you'll find an elites choice (or FA, or HS) that does its job much better.

Because if you're going to compare guardians against infantry to fire dragons (rather than against tanks, which was the point of what I was saying), then you've got to compare guardians against infantry compared to scorpions or banshees or warp spiders or scatter laser spam or a huge pile of other stuff that still does what guardians do better.

 Kingsley wrote:
One issue with minimal scoring is that it's very hard to protect any given unit against someone who brings the right things. A Manticore will wipe out guys hiding behind an Aegis, Go to Ground or no Go to Ground. A unit with camo-cloaks in area terrain may be able to get a 2+ from Going to Ground, but then cover-ignoring weapons like the Colossus, Thunderfire Cannon, or any Tau unit with Markerlight support

Right, but the question here is which option helps more with this problem: bringing more scoring units to die helplessly against those threats, or bringing more killing units to remove them from the table faster.

Because if you're going to compare guardians against infantry to fire dragons (rather than against tanks, which was the point of what I was saying), then you've got to compare guardians against infantry compared to scorpions or banshees or warp spiders or scatter laser spam or a huge pile of other stuff that still does what guardians do better.

Guardians are more efficient infantry killers then just about everything just just mentioned. It turns out that 9 point Assault 2 rending weapons are pretty efficient at killing infantry. They have there range limitations, to be sure, but that is a rather small bridge to cross.