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.

Yes, but if you bring them against me, I can assure you you'll be at a severe disadvantage. My experience is that DC and SG are easily cut to ribbons both when I use them and when they are used against me.

BA already have model count and throw weight problems. By bringing some of the most inefficient models in the codex, you are magnifying areas where the BA are already weak.

Trying to say that luck and limited competition make bad units better is not a valid statement in my opinion.

The main problem is that i'm going to field units such as rough riders, storm troopers and ratlings in most games, but if i were going to play a serious game were i wanted to win, (not win at all cost that is) i would love to include rough riders, because they are awesome for conversion opportunities, but i hear they just get overshadowed by the devildog and for that matter, every other fast attack slot :/

@ Martel: I admit that bringing them against a more competitive army would place me at a disadvantage, but I don't tend to play against that kind of army.

I'm not saying that 'luck and limited competition make them better', only that they are not immediately unusable just because better options are available. I'd rather play with the units whose fluff and models I like and be at a disadvantage than to sacrifice that for more gain. As I say, I have won a large portion of my games with them despite their perception as poor units. I am not saying they are better, I am saying they don't always need to be.

This thread is about how to get use from units that are generally regarded as 'poor', not whether they should be taken, so just saying that they are not worth taking kind of defeats the purpose.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ThunderFury 2575 wrote:
The main problem is that i'm going to field units such as rough riders, storm troopers and ratlings in most games, but if i were going to play a serious game were i wanted to win, (not win at all cost that is) i would love to include rough riders, because they are awesome for conversion opportunities, but i hear they just get overshadowed by the devildog and for that matter, every other fast attack slot :/

Using RR requires a great deal of finesse, but I fully appreciate your reasoning for wanting to take them. In 'competitive' terms, everything in the IG FA slots are overshadowed by the Vendetta, but as I have said, there is nothing that means taking an alternative unit will cost you the game. For RR, they are best used with Kamir and HL as a counter-assault unit. You need to make a huge effort to keep them hidden, ideally behind some tanks or LOS-blocking terrain. They will probably wreck the first unit they hit if they can reach CC, but with the durability of 10 guardsmen it is a real difficulty to keep them safe. They will also be demoted to near-uselessness after the first charge. (as a consolation, I expect them to get much, much better with the new codex.)

ST and Ratlings are fine, you shouldn't have any real issues there.

Death company is suitable unit for my army lists, because they are like ork in power armour that really good at combat. Hell you can take bolter for better shooter, and they can take up to 6 dreadnought in their squad. And hey. Good thing that death company do not score toward my enemy.

So far death company do not disappoint me.

"This thread is about how to get use from units that are generally regarded as 'poor', not whether they should be taken, so just saying that they are not worth taking kind of defeats the purpose. "

What I'm saying is that GW has made this extremely difficult to even contemplate. Shooter lists like Eldar and Tau can just pick out your good stuff, or units that threaten them and delete them. Having units in your list that are consuming more points that can justify their cause a snowball effect once you start taking damage.

SG and DC aren't really even good in a casual environment, because even casual lists bring plasma guns. And also casual lists can spoiling assault the DC just fine as well, which is all it really takes.

Martel732 wrote:
No, 1000 games played. I meant over the course of many, many games.

Ah, yes. My mistake

Martel732 wrote:
"This thread is about how to get use from units that are generally regarded as 'poor', not whether they should be taken, so just saying that they are not worth taking kind of defeats the purpose. "

What I'm saying is that GW has made this extremely difficult to even contemplate. Shooter lists like Eldar and Tau can just pick out your good stuff, or units that threaten them and delete them. Having units in your list that are consuming more points that can justify their cause a snowball effect once you start taking damage.

SG and DC aren't really even good in a casual environment, because even casual lists bring plasma guns. And also casual lists can spoiling assault the DC just fine as well, which is all it really takes.

You know what, your making Paradigm's point for him because one of your main points with Eldar is that they 'pick out your good stuff'. Only thing that can do that is characters and snipers, and competitive elder lists don't take snipers anymore. I find it funny your using what is considered a sub-optimal unit by most as an example why Para's sub-optimal unit will not work. The humble BS 4 Guardian with a heavy weapon team and 5-10 man Dire Avenger squads in Wave Serpents mean you /really/ have to want to take those expensive Rangers as a troop choice, thus most consider them sub-optimal.

Now I am not making fun of you or anything, I am trying to make a point, and it is the whole point behind this thread. Just because people find a unit to be 'sub-optimal', doesn't mean it is bad or can't preform a roll on the battlefield and be effective at that roll. If you want a 10 man Death Company unit to deal with a 10 man Thunder Hammer and Storm Shield Terminator unit and you let the Terminators charge you, yeah, chances are they are going to fail. But I have seen a 10 man squad of Ogryns beat a 10 man squad of TH/SS Terminators who charged them because they had to pound through 30 wounds to kill them, and the Ogryns got to swing first, get 3 attacks base (4 with the Bone Ead) at WS 4, and wound due to their 5 strength. Mathhammer wise, the Terminators failed because they were bound to roll 1s and did. They missed enough times and failed to wound enough times that the Ogryns simply ground them down. Yet no one suggests that 10 man Ogryn squads are 'good' much less 'elite' and talk about them with the same fear and revered whispers folk do with TH/SS Terminators because they can be shot apart by most lists. That is if you march them down the middle of the board with no cover, or as I and others have said, use them poorly.

I have seen DC used effectively, and played them quite a few times. With or Without Jump Packs, with and without bolters. With special characters attached and naked. In transports and in a blob of 15-20 on foot. I have don the 14" dance with them (6" move and a average of 7" on the dice for the charge) and failed and won. I have crushed them and been crushed by them. To me they are a good, hard assault unit and should be played that way. FNP allows them to at least get a save against plasma (you can't take FNP saves against Instant Death, and that is it, pg 35 BRB) so they really are a good unit to absorb a ton of fire while slogging through the middle of the board or in a LR/Rhino barreling up the middle. And who knows what a new codex will do for them.

^ I think Martel means pick out your good units not pick out your good models when he mentions 'stuff'. You don't need precision shots to wipe out dc or sg, just the weight of fire from a few serps or walker squadrons. If you lose your expensive units (which you will early on to eldar or tau) then the units you are left with will be of reduced quality, compared to if you try and spread your points equally over units. That is the snowball effect he is talking about.
DC and sanguinary guard can be used effectively but that is DESPITE their over the top points cost. The mathmatics of points costs factors into the debate of if a unit is 'broken' quite massively! For example, if a wave serpent cost 220pts, would so many people take them? No. But would they always fail to deliver either? No. There will still be many occassions where they do deliver. That doesnt mean the points costs aren't broken though.
To take SG or DC you need to build a list around them to run them effectively, you can't just slot them in and hope they synergise like a regular assault squad. And the reason behind this is the overcosted points values.
Now I may have disagreed with Martel over the effectiveness of other units before, but he is spot on with his assessment of the DC and SG. (Podding the death co works but then they need other podded units in support and we get back to the building a list around that unit issue again).

Thanks, BlkTom, for chipping in here to help me prove the point. I agree fully with pretty much all of what you said there, especially the part about the fact that just because another unit is better, the weaker unit is not redundant. As a final example for death company, they have merits in providing far greater force concentration than most BA options, in terms of potential. Martel's earlier point about pts/W is countered by their comparatively high pts/Attack. To be honest, inside a LR they are probably safe, negating the percieved 'fragility', so when they charge, they have to deal with Overwatch and that's it, and I very much doubt there is anything in the game that could kill a squad of death co in one round of overwatch.

I think that the perception of some units being poor is just that, a perception. Thanks to the ease with which the community can come together to work out the best parts of each army on a global-meta scale (and don't get me wrong, I think that is an asset to the game in many ways), it does also lead to a lot of echoing and blind allegiance. For example, when a new codex comes out, a group will work out the best units and post that, and then when, a few weeks/months later, a new player comes along asking for advice, they are told this. The cycle continues until eventually you end up with the entire community saying that 'x is good so don't use y', even when the player in question is asking about y and has no interest in x.

So long as you can free yourself from this and be willing to experiment with units you like, then you can easily discover something that works for them, regardless of the general consensus on them. I have done something like this myself, testing every unit in the IG codex, and the only one I can find absolutely no place for is Nork Deddog. Everything else has a use and had has performed well, despite hearing at every turn the like of 'stormtroopers only work for DS melta' and 'ogryn will get shot to pieces' (for the record I have never lost an ogryn unit to shooting)

So really, the best advice that can come from this thread is just to be willing to temporarily ignore the online critics of certain units, and if you like a unit, play it. Make an effort to find a use for it, and the chances are you will. This game would be indisputably boring if you only saw people bring the mathematical best units, so go forth and experiment, and you WILL find a use for almost any unit. You'll have fun trying something different, your opponent will enjoy playing something different, and really, at the end of the day that's what matters.

I play my BA as a multiple threat overload list. I throw a lot of armor and annoying units in the face of my opponent and attempt to overwhelm them. It's been the most fun playing BA in a while. I've even brought Mephiston back and he's been great as a fear spreading bully unit. I have been using 7 DC with 1 fist in a Landraider, but haven't had the opportunity to unleash them on something yet as all targets for them were either destroyed befor they got to them of Mephiston (who runs behind the Landraider so LOS is totally blocked) has gotten to them first. I had a KP battle against GK and the highlight was Mephiston taking the enemy librarians final wound with a hammer of wrath attwck and the lib failed his 2+.

I still think DC are best used in a pod, I just don't have a third pod yet and in currently drop a fragnought and a mm/DCCW dread in pods as units to draw fire from my advancing armor spearhead.
Something like:
Meph
2 x 5 assault JP, flamer 2 x hand flamers
2 x 5 assault, MG, MB, razor, twin linked LC
7 DC, 1 pf, Landraider
Predator, AC, las sponsons.
Fragnouhht pod,
Dread mm DCCW pod
Storm raven, mm, AC

My experience has been that most "uber" competitive lists are designed to defeat "a take all comers" list and the most common other "uber" lists.

However, the game is getting enough diversity in units that it is fairly easy to get spoilers in there. Stuff people don't expect, because those units are worthless in their opinion. So they don't know how to react to them, or don't see them as a threat.

For example, everyone seems to have some AA in their list, due to the aforementioned helldrakes. But warpstalkers are not affected by skyfire, so it is an advantage in their favor.

Likewise, the 4 riptide with buff commander looks really good, but IG collosi can kill all the suits from behind cover with relative impunity. That really puts a big wrinkle in the Tau plan, now that they have to move the riptides out to contest objectives instead of hiding in back and potshotting the whole game.

Snipers seem overcosted compared to dire avengers, but if you only want a small unit to babysit a rear objective, or want something to force back infiltrators, they are superior.
Add in wraithfighters, bike warlocks and perhaps shadow spectres, and now your opponent has a significant leadership issue. Of course it will take very skilled play to make use of it, but it is something that is very unexpected.

When biker nob squads were the uberdeathstar unit, I once kept them pinned a whole game with a IG psycher choir and a witch hunter inquisitor.

Every turn I reduced their leadership to 2, and forced them to fall back. In their turn they would rally and advance a little, then I would repeat.

You should have seen the look on the ork player's face. He had all his points tied up in the bikers, and his grots were no challenge for my auto cannon squads to destroy, and I had many, many autocannons left over from my days of running a deathworlds veteran list.

 Paradigm wrote:
Thanks, BlkTom, for chipping in here to help me prove the point. I agree fully with pretty much all of what you said there, especially the part about the fact that just because another unit is better, the weaker unit is not redundant. As a final example for death company, they have merits in providing far greater force concentration than most BA options, in terms of potential. Martel's earlier point about pts/W is countered by their comparatively high pts/Attack. To be honest, inside a LR they are probably safe, negating the percieved 'fragility', so when they charge, they have to deal with Overwatch and that's it, and I very much doubt there is anything in the game that could kill a squad of death co in one round of overwatch.

I think that the perception of some units being poor is just that, a perception. Thanks to the ease with which the community can come together to work out the best parts of each army on a global-meta scale (and don't get me wrong, I think that is an asset to the game in many ways), it does also lead to a lot of echoing and blind allegiance. For example, when a new codex comes out, a group will work out the best units and post that, and then when, a few weeks/months later, a new player comes along asking for advice, they are told this. The cycle continues until eventually you end up with the entire community saying that 'x is good so don't use y', even when the player in question is asking about y and has no interest in x.

So long as you can free yourself from this and be willing to experiment with units you like, then you can easily discover something that works for them, regardless of the general consensus on them. I have done something like this myself, testing every unit in the IG codex, and the only one I can find absolutely no place for is Nork Deddog. Everything else has a use and had has performed well, despite hearing at every turn the like of 'stormtroopers only work for DS melta' and 'ogryn will get shot to pieces' (for the record I have never lost an ogryn unit to shooting)

So really, the best advice that can come from this thread is just to be willing to temporarily ignore the online critics of certain units, and if you like a unit, play it. Make an effort to find a use for it, and the chances are you will. This game would be indisputably boring if you only saw people bring the mathematical best units, so go forth and experiment, and you WILL find a use for almost any unit. You'll have fun trying something different, your opponent will enjoy playing something different, and really, at the end of the day that's what matters.

I agree with pretty much all of what you are saying. And I run DC and/or SG more often than not, although they do require the entire list to be immediate in your face threats like Thelion is advocating. In fact - apart from when running full mech, that is my usual take on BA. However it still does not change the fact that they are overcosted in comparison with most other units and that they require lists to be built around them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
^ just need to add one thing. Whilst I agree that if every player bought along the most mathmatically efficient unit everytime it would turn into a boring game, the implication that people are making; that points cost has little to do with a units effectiveness, is bull.
2 examples:
1) If th/ss termis cost 450pts for 5 would they be effective in any army list? No. If th/ss termis cost 112pts for 5, would they be effective in any army list? Yes. At 225pts are they effective in any army list? Sometimes/depends.
2) Overall is the Swarmlord more effective than 10 guardsmen? (Remember you're implying that points cost has little to do with effectiveness of a unit so we cant use points cost to compare them). I would say yes he is more effective than 10 guardsmen overall. Granted the guardsmen are scoring and have ranged ability but that won't mean jack compared to the swarmlords buffing abilities and assault potential.
Whats that I hear you say? 'Its silly to compare 10 guardsmen to the swarmlord because they are nowhere near the same points!'... yes I suppose you are totally correct, we SHOULD consider the points cost when talking about effectiveness of a unit in a list afterall!

I think that the perception of some units being poor is just that, a perception. Thanks to the ease with which the community can come together to work out the best parts of each army on a global-meta scale (and don't get me wrong, I think that is an asset to the game in many ways), it does also lead to a lot of echoing and blind allegiance. For example, when a new codex comes out, a group will work out the best units and post that, and then when, a few weeks/months later, a new player comes along asking for advice, they are told this. The cycle continues until eventually you end up with the entire community saying that 'x is good so don't use y', even when the player in question is asking about y and has no interest in x.

So long as you can free yourself from this and be willing to experiment with units you like, then you can easily discover something that works for them, regardless of the general consensus on them. I have done something like this myself, testing every unit in the IG codex, and the only one I can find absolutely no place for is Nork Deddog. Everything else has a use and had has performed well, despite hearing at every turn the like of 'stormtroopers only work for DS melta' and 'ogryn will get shot to pieces' (for the record I have never lost an ogryn unit to shooting)

So really, the best advice that can come from this thread is just to be willing to temporarily ignore the online critics of certain units, and if you like a unit, play it. Make an effort to find a use for it, and the chances are you will. This game would be indisputably boring if you only saw people bring the mathematical best units, so go forth and experiment, and you WILL find a use for almost any unit. You'll have fun trying something different, your opponent will enjoy playing something different, and really, at the end of the day that's what matters.

At the end of the day, everything is relative to how one wants to play the game. If you only play a couple of people who bring whatever they like, then you can run just about anything. If you play at a LGS that has a bunch of people who don't care about taking the comparatively better units, then you can win with sub-optimal units as well. If you want to compete in GTs and go to the top tables, there are lots of units and combinations that will place a player at an insurmountable disadvantage--regardless of skill.

It all comes down to expectations and purpose. If you don't care about winning, then go nuts. Fun is relative to the person. It is very cool to come up with new combinations and make a unique list. At the same time, it is incredibly difficult to argue for the viability of certain units in an environment in which skilled players are running more optimized lists. There are units that are undercosted for what they do. Consequently, there are units that are overcosted for what they do. For example, armies with Night Scythes, Anni Barges, and Wraiths win GTs all the time, armies with Lychguard, Praetorians, and Tomb Stalkers don't. This isn't due to some kind of "lack of imagination" from good players. Not everything is balanced. That doesn't mean that one can't ever play the sub-optimal units--players just have to take into account the context and expectations of winning.

I don't bring 'bad' units to competitive events. Its just that simple.

Not all my weekend games are competitive. Often my friend will ask me to play a game and I'll bring 'bad' units to learn how they work. However when playing these casual games lately this is what I've picked up.

I've found that banshees have been performing well when cover is common and there is good supporting elements. (ie, you have to have other things for your opponent to shoot at) Don't run them up the center, but instead a flank. Their surprisingly fast.

Likewise Eldar DA spam is not that bad. They get a lot better with spiritseers added to them giving warlock buffs like conceal. They will fail to serpent spam, but can do serious dmg to wraithknights, riptides, C:SM bikes, etc...

I've found honor guard to be better than expected. I'm considering moving them to my more competitive lists because of that. Kitting them with axes and mauls is pretty keen. They are a great place to drop with Khan. Hit an run on these guys is a must.

Surprisingly, I've found the bare bones hellbrute with dual CCWs to be pretty decent -- depending on the matchup. It wont do jack to competitive Eldar/Tau, but against a static threat its annoying. 100 points is just low enough to make it low on target priority, but you can't let it crash into your lines.

Abbadon is often considered 'non competitive'. I personally think those people are high on crack. Abbadon is an absolute beast -- and probably one of the best things in the codex.

A GUO is often considered 'non-competitive', yet I've had very good luck with it. At adepticon this past year it was my star players -- yet its often undervalued.

Pts/W will trump att/W in the current environment. It's an Eldar/Tau world and the meqs are just living in it.

The utter overcostedness of the SG and even DC is NOT perception. It's a fact given all the other prices of all the other units in the codices all using the same rules set.

The rules killing SG is the fact that 2+ armor is not nearly enough protection for a 40pt model. The rules killing the DC is the fact that they MUST assault to get their full utility. If they themselves get assaulted, like I have done so many times, they are very pedestrian and won't accomplish what you are counting on them to accomplish.

Compare these situations to the models from the better codices.

@ Poly Ranger: I am not trying to say that points costs are not relevant, of course they are, all I am saying is that some things, while not be best option for the points, can still be good options for the points.

@ Martel: Going back to the SG/DC discussion, the effectiveness of a 2+ save is fine from what I've seen. As I say, there are so many variables. I would never bring them against eldar (but more for the fact that AM can handle most eldar units just as well than for their lack of durability), but against Tau I'm more than happy to bring them, as after the 1 turn of shooting they will have to take (usually from only one or two units thanks to terrain) they will be in CC where they are safe and being useful. My DC do not get assaulted as there are few strong assault units in my area, and also because I keep them in a LRR most of the time.

I am sure they will both gets points drops in the new codex, but for now they are still alive and kicking in my army at least.

@: JGrand, that's a good point about expectations, and I am lucky enough to play with players who share my mindset regarding this kind of thing. I admit that taking these 'weak' units to a tourney is a bad idea, but this thread is asking how to get the best from sub-par units in a semi-casual environment, and that is what I am basing the argument on.

There really aren't that many variables with AP 2. Especially only 5 models with no invuln with 2+. Plasma and grav are both a disaster for this unit. Regardless if you see these weapons or not, these weapons are now very common. Eldar have pseudo rending on EVERY catapult shot. If you look around this site, the 2+ save is considered very under powered in the current meta.

DC in a LRR are okay, but they end up being an expensive way to kill a single unit of your opponent's choice. Assuming they don't pop the LRR at range and strand your DC on foot, effectively ending their usefulness. Again like all assault, its fundamentally limited by the fact that your opponent chooses what gets assaulted, not you. And the DC dies, because they will win on the assault and not be in CC for the next turn. I know this because I've had it happen to me over and over and done it to others over and over.

The prevalence of mass mid-strength long range shots from Tau/Eldar has completely changed the world of meqs.

Martel732 wrote:
There really aren't that many variables with AP 2. Especially only 5 models with no invuln with 2+. Plasma and grav are both a disaster for this unit. Regardless if you see these weapons or not, these weapons are now very common. Eldar have pseudo rending on EVERY catapult shot. If you look around this site, the 2+ save is considered very under powered in the current meta.

DC in a LRR are okay, but they end up being an expensive way to kill a single unit of your opponent's choice. Assuming they don't pop the LRR at range and strand your DC on foot, effectively ending their usefulness. Again like all assault, its fundamentally limited by the fact that your opponent chooses what gets assaulted, not you. And the DC dies, because they will win on the assault and not be in CC for the next turn. I know this because I've had it happen to me over and over and done it to others over and over.

The prevalence of mass mid-strength long range shots from Tau/Eldar has completely changed the world of meqs.

And as I have said before, I rarely see eldar, have never seen a grav weapon (and as one of 2 marine players in the area, both of whom think GG are poor, I am not likely to), and when I see plasma it's only even on one or two squads, which are easy to avoid with DS and JP movement. Again, this proves my point that you cannot apply a 'one size fits all' ideology to determining the usefulness of units.

Yes, DC will wipe a unit in a turn, but saying they will die 100% the turn after is a little extreme. This is assuming that they are in LOS of enough enemy units to take them out, who also have no other more pressing targets to shoot at. The chances of this happening are fairly minimal in my experience.

I also disagree with your suggestion that the enemy will always have the ability to dictate the assault. With the mobility of a LR (12" movement, average of 7" charge) they have a great threat range, and again, there is not much chance of the enemy being able to clear this distance around the LR given terrain/other units/other threats.

You can disagree all you like, but that's the way assault works against astute players.

And it's not extreme to say that the DC will be wiped the turn afte are they assault. It's that easy to deal with meqs now.

"Again, this proves my point that you cannot apply a 'one size fits all' ideology to determining the usefulness of units. "

You can't use players fighting with one hand behind their back as your measuring stick for good units. Everything looks good if you opponents aren't using their good units/equipment. Plasma and grav make the SG a joke against C:SM lists. White Scar lists will eat BA lists now.

@Martel

A cruel fact is that the unit with more mobility always decides if and when there's going to be an assault.
If the DC have LR, I'd like to see how you were planning to avoid the assault/assault them.

 soomemafia wrote:
@Martel

A cruel fact is that the unit with more mobility always decides if and when there's going to be an assault.
If the DC have LR, I'd like to see how you were planning to avoid the assault/assault them.

Pop the LR at range, leaving them stranded on foot. I've done that to several LR deathstars. You can premeasure out their reasonable charge range and put sacrificial units in the way. Nearly always, they'll be forced to assault the unit *I* choose. The DC will get their pound of flesh, it just won't be a high value unit, and then they'll die.

So basically, I agree that the mobile troops determine if and when, but not *what* gets assaulted. And that is a big downfall of assault in this edition. This gets worse geometrically against Tau with their supporting overwatch rule.

Compare assault to Eldar shooting, who kill anything THEY choose out to 36". The difference is absolutely enormous. We can't leave Eldar out of the discussion just because one person doesn't see them much. The rest of us aren't so lucky.

A cruel fact is that the unit with more mobility always decides if and when there's going to be an assault.
If the DC have LR, I'd like to see how you were planning to avoid the assault/assault them.

Except that at that point you've spent 500-600+ points on a single assault unit, so while you're using those points to kill one unit worth maybe half it's value, the remaining X+300points worth of enemy are free to do what they want vs your equivalent X-300points army.

A lot of people are throwing around pts/wnd and pts/attack, but what makes good units good units is their efficiency in all area's, or their extreme focus in a few area's.

The good assault units have mobility + killing power in their favour, and the best ones have that plus survivability (whether that be through numbers, insane saves, high toughness/wounds or whatever). Chaos Spawn are good for chaos because you pay 10 points per T5 wound (or a bit more depending on marks) with good movement and decent attacks. That's the best t/w/pts cost ratio in the codex, and on top of that you get very good movement to deliver them to where they need to be.

Heldrakes are good because at 170pts you get a flying (ergo very survivable and mobile) AP3 ignores cover S5 shot with an idiotic effective range.

Warp Talons and Possessed are not very good because the points you spend on them could be just as easily spent on allied Seekers or Daemonettes who will be just as survivable (since they trade defensive stats quality for sheer quantity of models) and idiotically killy. With Daemonettes/Seekers on the charge you pay 3 points per rending attack. With Possessed on the charge you pay over 7 points per S5 attack, without a guaranteed AP3. Warp Talons on the charge are 10points per ap3 re-roll misses attack. Daemonettes are 9 points per wound, while Possessed are 26. Is +1T and a 3+ save worth that extra 17 points? That could buy you almost 2 more daemonettes. Are 3 daemonettes more survivable than a single possessed marine? Probably.


Nobody is saying that you can't find success with SG/DC/Possessed/Warp Talons. What they are saying is that they are not competitive choices. You are spending your points inefficiently if you buy them. If you're playing competitively and winning with them then you're either playing against bad players (ergo not competitively), or you're getting lucky (ergo anecdotal evidence).

Between two players of even skill and even luck, the winner will be the one with the stronger list. Period. That's a hypothetical situation though because no two players are exactly even on decision making, nor is the game ever exactly even when it comes to luck.

That said, using competitive units mitigates the requirement for luck to go in your favour, and mitigates the need to be a better player than your opponent before the game starts. It's the only point of control you have over a game before deployment, so you pick the units that perform the roles you want them for consistently. You don't throw hail marys on outlier units because while they can very much succeed spectacularly, they can also fail miserably.

When people talk about units being bad or inefficient, they're not talking about a casual game environment. They're talking under the assumption that you will be playing someone of equal skill and equal luck.

The phrases 'bad' or 'broken' do not apply in casual environments because there are so many non-list related variables in play that it's probably not going to matter if you use a slightly inefficient option compared to the defacto 'best' alternative.

"Except that at that point you've spent 500-600+ points on a single assault unit, so while you're using those points to kill one unit worth maybe half it's value, the remaining X+300points worth of enemy are free to do what they want vs your equivalent X-300points army. "

You're actually damned lucky to get your hands on a unit that valuable. Especially that now 5 man marine squads get a heavy or special weapons. Here! Kill my disposable 5 man squad, or stay in your tank another turn! Those DC aren't doing a thing while they're in the tank.

Exactly that.

The problem with massive points sink hyper kill units is that they need other points sink units to kill. If you're spending 25% or more of your available points on simply getting one unit to 'work', you've just created the lynchpin of your list (or Achilles heel, I guess), so if you are ever put in a position where that lynchpin cannot do it's job, you're playing from behind.

Luck and skill can certainly save you from the brink of defeat in such a situation, but that same luck and skill applied to a more competitive choice could easily turn an even game into a crushing victory.

Ap0k wrote:
Exactly that.

The problem with massive points sink hyper kill units is that they need other points sink units to kill. If you're spending 25% or more of your available points on simply getting one unit to 'work', you've just created the lynchpin of your list (or Achilles heel, I guess), so if you are ever put in a position where that lynchpin cannot do it's job, you're playing from behind.

Luck and skill can certainly save you from the brink of defeat in such a situation, but that same luck and skill applied to a more competitive choice could easily turn an even game into a crushing victory.

This is a problem I noticed with dark angels, and my deathwing knights. I can get them to work effectively, but there has to be a land raider involved, otherwise I'm just deep striking and letting them take a turn of casualties before I ever do anything.

It's why I don't understand the points costs of bikes. They win the mobility battle everytime, they dictate whether or not they remain in assualt, are a higher toughness than a terminator, and with white scars can easily match a terminator with cover saves.

Terminators are overcosted. Bikes are about right.

There is a gradient of effectiveness, upon which each unit exists at some point.

Some units are amazing, others not so, and others are very bad.

There is a point at which a unit is so bad it would take a set of extremely unlikely circumstances to make that unit effective.

As a unit's quality improves, the unlikelyness of the successful situation decreases, and the unit is easier to use.


Good generals can make less effective units very effective. Some units can be made effective by mentally damaged monkies playing with oven mitts, while blindfolded.


Everyone tells me wraithlords are bad. Non-competitive. I take three in every list. They're always MVPs. This is mostly because people never consider what a wraithlord can do.

Really, there's several kinds of "bad", or "non-competitive" units:

1) Actually bad units. They're terrible. Banshees are a good example. They're T3, 4+sv S3 assault units. They don't have assault transports. They don't have grenades, they can't get S4, and they only have 2A each base. This means that IF you can get into combat against their intended targets (MEQs), you still can only expect 5 wounds. If every banshee survives into assault. And if you aren't charging through cover, or didn't get overwatch'd. So, if you manage to get around all of their shortcomings and get them into assault against their #1 primary target, they still won't kill them.

2) Not-great units. slightly over-costed, or under-effective units. These can be made to work, they can do ok. Eldar Rangers are a great example. Their offense is pitiful. Their defense is slightly less so. They're ok as 60pt objective campers, but that's really it.

3) Good units that are overshadow'd in their slot. These get called 'bad' or 'non-competitive' ALL the time, and it isn't really true. Wraithlords, falcons, dark reapers,fire dragons, scorpions, vypers, guardians (on foot), and many, many more in a lot of codexes. These units are fine, they're well costed, they do their job. But, because they aren't 'optimal', you're probably going to be told (often) that they suck, or shouldn't be taken, etc, usually by people who don't play your codex. Surprisingly, more and more, these units make up the bulk of codicies. 6th edition has decent codex balance, outside of the several well known individual units that are totally off-the-charts stupid.

I've never called slightly less than optimal units bad. However, I will point out that the internal balance of the Eldar and Tau is MUCH better than C:SM. Which really disappointed me.

Martel732 wrote:
I've never called slightly less than optimal units bad. However, I will point out that the internal balance of the Eldar and Tau is MUCH better than C:SM. Which really disappointed me.

Its better than CSM.
Hmmmmm....warp talons or helldrake....

Agreed, but having better internal balance than CSM is not really an accomplishment.