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.

You keep saying 50 man blobs dont do anything.. which I think is a ridiculous thing to say. But you also believe Kroot dont do anything. Do you not see value in massive amounts of Lasguns or pseudo-Bolters?

Blobs do very well vs. assaulty lists and shooty lists. How do your IG "easily" remove 100+ Guardsmen?

Keep in mind that at 1750 and above you can still fill out your HS and FA, so it isnt as though your shooting would be gimped. And what kind of HS/Elites/FA are you taking for Guard that require all of your points? Vendettas/Vultures are cheap as chips. A lot of the HS options arent too bad either (unless you go Lemans, which really arent that efficient at killing troops due to the ability to gain cover and GTG).

The IG Elites slot is pretty poor, so I dont imagine you'll be filling that up as well.

This whole debate is a bit silly because the answers are so dependent on knowing what point level, what codex and what sort of environment you are playing.

If you really think blobs do not contribute until the end of the game, then this debate is probably pointless.

Gornall and Lvalx sum it up pretty well.

If you honestly think those units do nothing or drag your army down in the game, you are either trolling or play at such a low level that is doesn't matter what units you take.

 Gornall wrote:
If you really think blobs do not contribute until the end of the game, then this debate is probably pointless.

It's not whether or not they contribute, really, but whether by minimising them you can maximise another option which contributes a lot more.

Against equal shooting, yes. But the whole point is you don't have equal shooting. Two 50-man blobs is a minimum of 560 points without even counting the price of weapon upgrades, attached ICs/commissars to fix their morale problems, etc. In a 1500 point game you're probably spending almost half your points on units that will do absolutely nothing until you count objectives at the end of the game. Meanwhile the minimum-troops list is spending a lot less, so they have a lot more firepower to focus on your troops.

You do realize that troops are able to shoot and assault, right?

A blob of 50 Guardsmen with 5 power axes is 300 points. A naked PCS is 30. Attaching a character, such as the ubiquitous Rune Priest is only an additional 100 points. Of course, one is free to add in melta bombs, kraks, autocannons, meltaguns, and flamers--but they aren't necessary. So 430 points. Even if I wanted to take two of these, that costs 860. From here, I can STILL add three Vendettas, 3 Griffons, and 2x5 Grey Hunters and be around 1600 points. That means 110 GEQ (100 of which have ATSKNF), 10 MEQ, 3 AV12 flyers, and 3 barrage platforms with room to play with. Have to add in a cheap guard HQ as well somewhere. Not saying this is the be all to end all, just bringing a hypothetical list into the mix.

With FRFSRF and Prescience, the Guard blobs are putting out between 100 and 150 st 3 shots with re-rolls. Which means, they put the hurt on just about anything on foot they aim their weapons at. In combat, they win a slow war of attrition, as they are able to pump out 15 st 4 ap 2 attacks a turn (with Prescience re-rolls, again), as well as all the other GEQ punches. They do far more than just score at the game's end.

If you have ever wondered why players are rushing out to get torrent templates and barrage weapons, now you know.

I'd be interesting in seeing these magical lists that somehow eschew troops for substantially more firepower. Again, the above (and unoptimized) example still manages to cram in plenty of additional firepower. The aforementioned 120 Kroot Tau lists still have 3 Riptides and 3 Skyrays. I can make Ork lists with 150 Boyz and still fit 3x10 Lootas and a couple of Dakka Jets (or whatever else). The list goes on. What are you adding that is so much more potent?

 JGrand wrote:
With FRFSRF and Prescience, the Guard blobs are putting out between 100 and 150 st 3 shots with re-rolls. Which means, they put the hurt on just about anything on foot they aim their weapons at.

And how much of this 'effectiveness' is because they're used in events where you need to spend 900 points on troops because of margin of victory scoring? I can see how a lot of lasguns can be decent (but short ranged) against infantry in a game where you must capture objectives outside of your own deployment zone if you want to win by enough of a margin that it's a true "win", and therefore everyone brings lots of similar scoring blobs to shoot at. But how well is that going to work in a metagame focused on holding "home" objectives with small infantry units and bringing lots of vehicles? Now you've got an extremely expensive unit that doesn't have the range to hit backfield objective holders and isn't even remotely effective against tanks.

And how much of this 'effectiveness' is because they're used in events where you need to spend 900 points on troops because of margin of victory scoring? I can see how a lot of lasguns can be decent (but short ranged) against infantry in a game where you must capture objectives outside of your own deployment zone if you want to win by enough of a margin that it's a true "win", and therefore everyone brings lots of similar scoring blobs to shoot at. But how well is that going to work in a metagame focused on holding "home" objectives with small infantry units and bringing lots of vehicles? Now you've got an extremely expensive unit that doesn't have the range to hit backfield objective holders and isn't even remotely effective against tanks.

Do you realize that 24" is a pretty substantial range once you hit midfield? Because it is. Take a tape measure and make a circle around the center if you don't believe me. In addition, you assume that I want to place my objectives entirely in my backfield. Also, the relic starts midboard. Good luck that game.

Finally, I had 3 Griffons in my hypothetical list. Perhaps your MSU objective holders will survive, but is seems very unlikely to me.

No matter what game of 40k you are playing, troops like Guard blobs, Boyz, and Kroot are valuable. Period. End of story. You can't assume opponents want to hide their lone objective in a 1v1 objective game. What happens if I get 2 of 3? Or 3 of 5? You really think you can stop my mass of troops from taking any of them, especially once your min units die? Remember, even if you get First Blood, Slay the Warlord, and Linebreaker and I don't, you still tie AT BEST if you can hold me to just one objective. That is a tall order, considering the ease of hiding Warlords in blobs, the difficulty of poaching first blood off of lists designed like this, and the ease at which one can take linebreaker.

Essentially--no matter how you slice it, you are playing an uphill battle. We don't even need to bring events into the mix (and lots of those don't require margin of victory: see-Nova).

 JGrand wrote:
Do you realize that 24" is a pretty substantial range once you hit midfield?

IF you hit midfield, you mean. Once you move that blob out into the open you're going to find that 50-man blobs with no save aren't much more durable than 10-man tactical squads that cost half as much.

Finally, I had 3 Griffons in my hypothetical list.

Three 12/10/10 open-topped vehicles. Yeah, they have good firepower, but you're depending on having complete 100% LOS blocking, and anything that can get a shot from a different angle around the LOS blocker is going to kill them very quickly.

IF you hit midfield, you mean. Once you move that blob out into the open you're going to find that 50-man blobs with no save aren't much more durable than 10-man tactical squads that cost half as much.

I play with 25% terrain coverage spread equally. There is not "out in the open" smack in the center of the map. Aegis lines are also pretty cheap, popular, and a good bet for a list like this. And, they are still 50 wounds... I have never seen a blob fail to get midfield.

Three 12/10/10 open-topped vehicles. Yeah, they have good firepower, but you're depending on having complete 100% LOS blocking, and anything that can get a shot from a different angle around the LOS blocker is going to kill them very quickly.

Sure. We can back and forth all kinds of hypotheticals here. It is pretty laughable that you are trying to claim that it won't be easy to kill off your two min objective grabbers while simultaneously stating that 50 guard "aren't that durable."

My main advice is to go to some events. Try to find some that fit your tastes. Most TOs are making a concerted effort to stay true to 6th edition missions (while adding the necessary points to eliminate ties). Like I said, the winner of Nova will be the person who goes 8-0. Margin of victory is meaningless (besides Swiss-pairing). Two min troops may work for you, I'd just be very, very surprised.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Gornall wrote:
If you really think blobs do not contribute until the end of the game, then this debate is probably pointless.

It's not whether or not they contribute, really, but whether by minimising them you can maximise another option which contributes a lot more.

Fair enough... but I think the difference in killing power between good troops and other FOC selections is being overstated. I think you really have to scrimp on troops to get enough additional firepower to notice. And at that point I think the loss of flexibility offsets the gain in firepower.

I'm curious as to why you think units like Guardsmen, Boyz and Kroot are hard to kill, especially with the rise of new Tau and Markerlights stripping cover for Large Blasts.

All of those blobs evaporate under a submunition shot from a Hammerhead, or an overcharged Ion Cannon or Accelerator.

Why does the relic starting in the middle of the board make taking small units of troops a liability? The whole point is to kill the other persons troops, the Relic mission makes that easier due to there being only one objective which is in the middle of the board. You know that if the opponent wants to capture it they must move forwards, pick it up and take it back. Add in the fact that any unit carrying the Relic can only move 6", which makes it very hard for your opponent to get away after they've picked it up.

So hide your minimal troops away and position your killer units so that when the opponent tries to capture the relic they come under such a vicious amount of firepower that it's a suicide mission for any unit attempting it.

 JGrand wrote:
It is pretty laughable that you are trying to claim that it won't be easy to kill off your two min objective grabbers while simultaneously stating that 50 guard "aren't that durable."

It's all about relative firepower. 50-man blobs aren't all that durable against an entire army focusing on them, token objective holders can be durable when only a small amount of firepower can even attempt to hit them. If we're playing a 1500 point game those blobs are facing ~1300 points of firepower while my token scoring units are at most dealing with ~750.

And sure, those blobs might be hard to kill if you camp them in your own deployment zone, but that's playing the game I want. Now we're both holding our "home" objectives, except I'm doing it with ~2-300 points while you're doing it with ~750 points (or more). I have a lot more points to spend on trying to kill your scoring units, keeping you out of midfield, ensuring I get the secondary VPs, etc.

Like I said, the winner of Nova will be the person who goes 8-0. Margin of victory is meaningless (besides Swiss-pairing). Two min troops may work for you, I'd just be very, very surprised.

Unfortunately NOVA does not allow FW units, and I refuse to support comp-heavy events like that.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

It greatly matters where the troops come from. By taking a unit from another FOC slot as troops you are effectively investing more points in their original slot, not Troops, as they are fulfilling the role of that slot more than any other. So you're still minimizing Troops in order to take more of other stuff, just in a different way.

So in the example of the OP and taking Leman Russ tanks as troops. That is effectively investing more points in Heavy Support as just because the Russ is now a troop choice it is going to fulfill the same role in the battle as a Leman Russ in the Heavy Support slot, rather than what a Troops choice is usually effective at.

A Leman Russ is an extreme example on one end of "Troops", just as a unit of Succubi compared to Wyches is an extreme example on the other. This whole conversation is ridiculous because troops do wildly different things, fill different roles, and vary massively in ability.

The only possible aspect of the discussion that can be looked at alone is this - "Is it worth it to spend points on scoring at the expense of firepower." In this sense it does not matter at all if FOC manipulation is happening, all that matters is whether the scoring unit comes at the expense of firepower and whether the points spent on scoring is worth the points lost elsewhere. This is a discussion that must, and always has, been done on the level of individual units, and on the Codex level to a lesser extent. Talking about Troops as a whole is pointless and useless.

The whole thread would be better off titled as "Is scoring less important than commonly believed?"

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I'm curious as to why you think units like Guardsmen, Boyz and Kroot are hard to kill, especially with the rise of new Tau and Markerlights stripping cover for Large Blasts.

All of those blobs evaporate under a submunition shot from a Hammerhead, or an overcharged Ion Cannon or Accelerator.

Why does the relic starting in the middle of the board make taking small units of troops a liability? The whole point is to kill the other persons troops, the Relic mission makes that easier due to there being only one objective which is in the middle of the board. You know that if the opponent wants to capture it they must move forwards, pick it up and take it back. Add in the fact that any unit carrying the Relic can only move 6", which makes it very hard for your opponent to get away after they've picked it up.

So hide your minimal troops away and position your killer units so that when the opponent tries to capture the relic they come under such a vicious amount of firepower that it's a suicide mission for any unit attempting it.

A blob evaporates from 1 pie plate? You understand that you can keep your models 2" away from one another and maintain coherency? It is very, very easy to minimize casualties to templates, you just have to be meticulous enough to care.

The relic mission rewards you for taking a durable unit that can survive casualties in order to move into midfield. I'd also argue that in the odd-objective games, it is very useful to have durable troops. If you end up on the wrong end of odd objectives you may be forced from the get-go to cross the field. That is very difficult to do with simple deck-chair units.

50 Guardsmen are very durable, even with an entire army focusing on them. Ask Clauss. Last year at NOVA he had the unfortunate experience of playing vs Kopach's SW/blob list during the final rounds. I remember seeing him pour tons of Tesla and other Necron shots into the blob, yet it still lived. It isn't as though you take these troops and then have no shooting. Most of these armies still have their Heavy Support (generally the best shooting slot) filled out, as well as either the Elites or Fast Attack.

On a decent board, with 25% coverage and a mixture of terrain you'll be able to gain cover saves for your blob quite easily (and if you dont trust the terrain, take an Aegis). Tau are the only army that can reliably remove cover and the units that allow this to happen are generally quite fragile (Skyray isnt, but it also doesn't pack enough Markers to reliably strip cover for multiple units).

GTG makes a HUGE difference in 40k now. It is so easy for almost any troop unit to gain a 2+ cover save. I'm envisioning that your response to this will be that you've done your job by forcing the units to go to ground and then reducing their effectiveness. However, the main objective any troop unit has is to score, contributing to combat (shooting, charging) is a secondary objective. If I can deny Warlord/First Blood (not horribly difficult if I deploy defensively and only present extremely durable targets), all I need to do is kill your troops and then outlast you. I'd wager that having a much larger number of troops will generally give me a much better chance of keeping some of them alive till the end of the game.

You also might be overestimating the value of mech. Especially IG mech. Vendettas are great, Manticores are good (though they have some issues, such as limited shots and cost), but Chimera chassis aren't what they once were. Leman Russes tend to be a pretty inefficient shooting platform, paying a huge premium for their durability. I'd really like to see a sample 1850-2k list, if you don't mind.

If I play the Kroot-centric Tau list, you don't think my 3 Riptides and 3 Sky Rays are going to be able to knock out some of your anti-infantry? Hell, I dont even need to kill your AT weapons if my troops consist of GEQ-hordes, Meltas, Lascannons, etc are incredibly inefficient at removing non-MEQ/TEQ troops (and arguably those as well). So the only things I'd really need to worry about knocking out are your Barrage platforms or Hellhounds.

Some armies are definitely great at destroying Xenos style troops. Tau are going to shake things up due to the prevalence of SMS. However, there are plenty of armies that really, really struggle to deal with that many bodies (Marines, Necrons, GK, possibly Eldar).

I think this entire conversation would be SO much more productive if both sides toned down a bit on the hyperbole. I


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, most of the lists that are utilizing mass troops like this, also bring shooting that is meant to target opposing troops. For example Tony Kopachs list takes 2 Thunderfires and a Manticore to remove opposing troops. His blob can outflank, giving him the ability to show up and alphastrike troops. Storm Talons are mobile and make for decent anti-infantry (especially when shooting at small units), they and the Vendettas also offer decent, though not great anti-tank.

For the massed Kroot list, you'll see lots of SMS, which are great for hunting troops, outflanking Kroot that will very likely alpha strike opposing troops with possible Ethereal/Marker buffs.

It's a very specific strategy of being able to remove opposing troops and outlast. These lists are endurance tests and they are much harder to beat then they may seem on paper, regardless of format or mission.

One more bonus to foot lists is, that vehicles are generally thankful targets for first blood. 3ish Lascannons with searchlights are enough to pose a big threat for AV12 vehicles to concede first blood under any condition. Infantry hordes if deployed properly (some behind BLOS to ensure no unit can be killed as a whole) won't concede first blood as easily.

So having First Blood secured and the Warlord safely denied makes it an uphill battle for the opponent if he is inferior in Troops because all you have to do is not being tabled and shove your troops at the opponent to keep him busy. You can even throw away almost your whole army as long as the objective draw is secured, then you will win.

@Corollax

Think of the dice as "army lists." Each die has six sides, and some fixed number of points to distribute. In the first example, Die A will beat Die B 5/9 of the time. It's a "favorable matchup" -- but it comes at the expense of losing 5/9 of its games with Die C. Depending on the local "metagame", one die may achieve more wins than another, since it will have more favorable matchups. But if you simply tally up the score for each roll, all of them have the same average, and that advantage disappears.

We don't have the Rock/Paper/Scissors metagame conditions here. It would be foolish to count on the opponent having a troop heavy but soft list.
But as proven many times there are lists that win under both conditions. Thing is, in a W/D/L-environment you can have more variety because you can afford to a certain extent to take minimum troops as well. But that doesnt make max troop lists less viable per se.

Troops are what you make of them. They aren't strong, generally don't have great firepower, and their only real use is to score. You have to find that middle ground between having enough to not fail objective games and still be able to blow enemy units out of the water.

For instance, two infiltrating units of Kroot and two Jetbike squads. Now what is that unit of kroot going to do by itself? Fuch all, that's what. 10 S4 AP6 rounds or 10 sniper shots isn't killing much of anything. What about the Jetbikes? The new Eldar have similar rending shenanigans with assault 2 weapons, but there's only six in this unit. why would I take two units of six jetbikes when I could add onto a unit of Warp Spiders? I'll tell you.

Trolling.

No really. Don't take large blobs of guard because of their damage output, don't take squads of tactical marines because they're sturdy objective holders (that title goes to both Plague Marines and Wraithguard). Troops add two things: the ability to hold objectives and a bit of firepower. So use the fear of them getting to an objective as a weapon against your opponent.

In objective games, as many people have said, your troops will be the first (generally) to get blown away... but that means that your other units are still intact. play it smart and keep your troops in cover as they advance to objectives (but not taking them, unless the objective is in cover), and you have a unit that is as scary in an objective game as a Flyrant is in Kill point games. If you make your list correctly, you'll have to force your opponent to choose between shooting your scoring dudes who can't really do much to their army or shooting the huge Riptide that's about to lay down a Ion Accelerator blast on his terminators.

 Peregrine wrote:
Unfortunately NOVA does not allow FW units, and I refuse to support comp-heavy events like that.

So ... your argument is that your list is great when you're not fighting against great lists?

Quark wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Unfortunately NOVA does not allow FW units, and I refuse to support comp-heavy events like that.

So ... your argument is that your list is great when you're not fighting against great lists?

Well, to defend him, he never made such a claim.

@ Peregrine
The whole "I refuse to support comp-heavy events like that" bit bothers me. You seem overly committed to the (poor) rule-set GW provided us. I've got to ask, have you ever played a NOVA format game? Honestly? Or do you simply make assumptions about it?

I've played straight book missions, with all the silliness involved and i've played a few different tournament formats. I can, with full confidence, say that all the different tournament formats i've tried felt more balanced than playing straight book missions. I think slight modifications to the book mission, while keeping with the flavor of them, is the way to go. It creates a game that seems a little more fair and less dependent on dice.

Regardless, you could always play WargamesCon, or Adepticon or BAO. Why don't you?

This thread has been an interesting read...

that being said, there is a different aspect to this that seems to have been forgotten, in my humble view at least.

That is the fact that when considering touneys, you build a list that takes into acocunt the missions that you will be fighting etc. In that sense taking 1/2 troops is probably a very bad idea, however if the tourney you are attending is one based on how much you kill (i did go to one of these once...) then by all means take 2 troops and load up on the killy stuff.

For the run of the mill random games from the rule book, i see the point to an extent

However some armies have good troops and others have ones that are not very good at all for what you get... and there lies the other part of this. Its army dependent, IG can do it due to the fact that their troops are cheap and you can scimp on them if you want to and fill up on the heavy stuff, and for some like orks taking loads of Boyz is a perfectyl viable tactic. Marines.. i'm really not sure that you could do it wit them but i'm sure someone could come up with something.

Just my humble opinion

 LValx wrote:

Regardless, you could always play WargamesCon, or Adepticon or BAO. Why don't you?

They don't allow ABG lists, which is Peregrine's main/preferred list.

This thread has been an interesting read...

that being said, there is a different aspect to this that seems to have been forgotten, in my humble view at least.

That is the fact that when considering touneys, you build a list that takes into acocunt the missions that you will be fighting etc. In that sense taking 1/2 troops is probably a very bad idea, however if the tourney you are attending is one based on how much you kill (i did go to one of these once...) then by all means take 2 troops and load up on the killy stuff.

For the run of the mill random games from the rule book, i see the point to an extent

Sure. It has been mentioned that tournaments add a myriad of factors that one must account for (and which also influence list construction). However, lots of GTs try to stay true to the book, which means objectives--lots of them.

However some armies have good troops and others have ones that are not very good at all for what you get... and there lies the other part of this. Its army dependent, IG can do it due to the fact that their troops are cheap and you can scimp on them if you want to and fill up on the heavy stuff, and for some like orks taking loads of Boyz is a perfectyl viable tactic. Marines.. i'm really not sure that you could do it wit them but i'm sure someone could come up with something.

Just my humble opinion

Agreed. I don't think those here who are in favor of taking a number of scoring units (or large numbers of bodies) are making the statement unilaterally. Some armies don't have good troops, though most can ally with good troops. Some lists aim to be hyper aggressive, hence, you see CSM/Daemon builds that often feature low numbers of small scoring units. Some lists possess transports that are actually viable in 6th edition. This means you see Necrons with squads of min Warriors in Scythes, or Serpents with 5 DA. Much is dependent on the list.

Nevertheless, it still pays to invest in scoring units. 20 Warriors in 4 Scythes or 20 DA in 4 Serpents is on the low end of scoring. Yet, there are still more than the two minimum units required by the rules and these units are durable and fast. These examples are more of the exception than the rule though.

So he is arguing for a list/book that is not accepted at the vast majority of tournaments.

Yeah. Okay, no.

The rules in those stupid IA books are on the same level as apoc, is it absolutely ridiculous for him to say anything on the topic of actual competitive 40k. Which does not allow rules that are "that" poorly imbalanced to be used.

I saw kroot rundown a necron lord yesterday...granted dice rolles went badly for the necron player but man that was awesome.

My side is this, I think it's about the army. Most books look built on their troops but my CSM if I have enough scarey threats on the table my two big blobs of cultists will be fine to objective hold. Whereas boyz or term/hormagaunts make all the difference in lists. I think it's all about the list inside of an army and the value a player puts on them.

I actually tend to agree that blob squads are increasingly less relevant in the modern environment. It may be that I've always been rather heavy on anti-infantry-- I took 2 TFCs even in 5th edition and love them in 6th edition-- but I've been finding that blobs have been becoming less and less effective as 6th edition progresses.

My Tau just love seeing them in particular-- remove casualties from front and the 6th edition cover nerfs mean that these units are much less resilient and often don't even get to meaningfully attack, with the closest models being removed before they get in range. Ultimately I think that blob-centric lists are very "late 5th/early 6th" and will fall by the wayside as people adapt to Dark Angels, Daemons, Tau, etc.

 Clauss wrote:
The rules in those stupid IA books are on the same level as apoc, is it absolutely ridiculous for him to say anything on the topic of actual competitive 40k.

Nope, try again. According to GW, the people who actually decide what is and isn't part of the game, FW rules are part of the game. The fact that a lot of self-declared "competitive" players have decided to play under a house rule that excludes those rules does not make it any less of a house rule. It's just funny how the same "competitive" players screamed about comp for all of 5th (remember those "bring more than three dedicated transports and we ban you" events?), but when it comes to the specific form of comp they want they declare any non-comp event "not 'real' 40k".

But I'm glad to see that you're both obsessed with "competitive" 40k in a thread where I never said I'm just talking about competitive tournaments AND the bad stereotype of the arrogant "competitive" player who can't imagine a world outside of their house rules.

Quark wrote:
So ... your argument is that your list is great when you're not fighting against great lists?

No, my argument is that I've spent a lot of time and money on an army that uses units GW says are part of standard 40k, and I'm not going to play in a comp-heavy event that bans them. If people want to play the game with house rules that restrict what armies and units you're allowed to take they obviously have the right to do so. But I'm not going to support their events.

 LValx wrote:
You seem overly committed to the (poor) rule-set GW provided us.

That's not really it. I'd be willing to play in events with non-standard missions, I just don't see much point in discussing them in a thread that isn't about a specific event. There's just too many different non-standard missions, many of them with contradictory best strategies, to make broad statements about how to win them. Focusing on the book missions is just limiting the scope of the discussion to something where you can talk about these things.

Regardless, you could always play WargamesCon, or Adepticon or BAO. Why don't you?

Travel. I'm not spending hundreds of dollars on airline tickets (on top of hundreds of dollars on a hotel room) and risking damage to my models by letting the airline handle them, so that means the only events I'm interested in are the ones in driving range. NOVA would be great and I'd love to go, but not when they have a house rule that says "you are not welcome".

I think I fall into the cynical "Why would GW make Troops useful, when they make bigger Profit margins on Tanks, Planes, and Uber Characters".

The entire post sounds like: I can't use my super overpower IA book so I will not play in any tournament that doesnt allow me to utilize every tank I have.

Those rules are excluded the majority of the time because they imbalance the game, it is that simple. People do not want to play with those rules because they make the game even more imbalanced. Those rules are poorly made and imbalance the game more so than anything else.

Do not find it odd that most people here disagree with you about this?

I don't understand why you have to grill the man about his premise.

"Super overpowered IA book" lol. It sounds like you've never actually tried this stuff out. Or seen the Necron Codex. Or were around when GK came out.

I'm sorry you have a simplistic view of the balance in 40k, but I don't think its all black and white as you are describing.

Can't the man have a conversation without someone attacking him on his desire to use IA? Just ignore the thread if you don't like that premise.

 Clauss wrote:
The entire post sounds like: I can't use my super overpower IA book so I will not play in any tournament that doesnt allow me to utilize every tank I have.

Yeah, how dare I want to use the models I paid for just because GW says they're part of the game. Besides, I thought all the "competitive" players agree that troops are mandatory and an all-tank IG army will just lose to the blob squads/kroot/etc? You can't really have it both ways.

Those rules are excluded the majority of the time because they imbalance the game, it is that simple.

So did a lot of things in 5th, but that didn't stop the "competitive" players from screaming about how much comp sucks and we should play the game as written by GW. Why is comp suddenly a good thing when it's limiting the units you want to limit?

Do not find it odd that most people here disagree with you about this?

I do find it odd that so-called "competitive" players are so afraid of their metagame changing. Coming from MTG I can't help laughing at how 40k players have a ban first, ask questions later policy while real competitive games only use bans as a last resort when it is absolutely clear that the thing in question is destroying the game.

 Clauss wrote:
So he is arguing for a list/book that is not accepted at the vast majority of tournaments.

Yeah. Okay, no.

The rules in those stupid IA books are on the same level as apoc, is it absolutely ridiculous for him to say anything on the topic of actual competitive 40k. Which does not allow rules that are "that" poorly imbalanced to be used.

Well, this thread had a nice run.

Congrats, now the next ten pages will be filled with nerd rage and yet another "is FW balanced or not?" debate. (The answer is, about as much as the GW codices, actually more so, Eldar, Tau, and Necrons all ignore a laundry list of unfavorable rules and a good Tau player can make an entire phase of the game irrelevant).