Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I've been running a Renegade and Heretics list with 8 Infantry squads (2 platoons). The mass of bodies I can take for a dirt cheap price is the whole backbone of my army. I focus on the objectives and I love having more bodies then one of the local deathstars can chew through has been surprisingly effective.

When I play CSM, it's Typhus and Zombies. Every army I play, every list, it's the troops that are the lynchpin of making the army work.

 Furyou Miko wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 kronk wrote:
If you could take 2 special weapons in a 10-man tactical squad, I'd be all over 3 in every SM list. Alas, you cannot.

It's literally the easiest fix for Tactical Marines to be more appealing. I say that over and over (though Heavy Flamers would be nice, seeing as Blood Angels get them but Salamanders don't...)

Just use your Marines as Battle Sisters then. Cheaper per model and they get double specials. Oh, and a 6++ so you can occasionally shrug off the deluge of AP3 Ignores Cover.

You'd think, but no Drop Pods and they still end up being worse Bikers. As well, Iron Hands have 6+ FNP so, they kinda have it anyway, though it isn't the same.

If you do a search of my posts since 7th edition came out, you will notice that there are several posts where I mention the objective secured rule. At least a few of them in the carbo copies of this exact same thread as a variation of it seems to pop up every time you turn around. So yes, I HAVE pointed it out myself on a few occasions.
You implied that the rule was gone so I was taking you at your word and assumed you were being honest as I have not read the latest FAQ that has come out. Yes, I have a link to the site rules in my sig. Because i am one of the few that actually follow them. They are there for a reason. For us all to get along. Not for you (not you in particular but anyone to whom the statement applies) to use as a tool to instigate arguments or cause disruption. If you wish to continue this train of conversation, feel free to use the PM function.

If the rule IS still in place, that would mean that troops are better at claiming objectives than other troops.This is something that comes up pretty often in games where players take more troops. They win more games by playing to the mission and coming up with more objectives. In games where both players just try to table their opponant and dont use them, it desnt come up as often. Playing to the mission wins more games I would say. At least it works for me while I win games by playing to the mission and claiming more objectives while my opponant's elites and fast attack units scratches their heads while standing next to my puny guardsmen who claimed the objective from under their noses.

The end answer is pretty simple.
You can learn to use them effectively and enjoy the game using as many as you think you need
or
You can complain about them and not enjoy the game using as few of them as you can get away with.

 EVIL INC wrote:
If you do a search of my posts since 7th edition came out, you will notice that there are several posts where I mention the objective secured rule. At least a few of them in the carbo copies of this exact same thread as a variation of it seems to pop up every time you turn around. So yes, I HAVE pointed it out myself on a few occasions.
You implied that the rule was gone so I was taking you at your word and assumed you were being honest as I have not read the latest FAQ that has come out. Yes, I have a link to the site rules in my sig. Because i am one of the few that actually follow them. They are there for a reason. For us all to get along. Not for you (not you in particular but anyone to whom the statement applies) to use as a tool to instigate arguments or cause disruption. If you wish to continue this train of conversation, feel free to use the PM function.

If the rule IS still in place, that would mean that troops are better at claiming objectives than other troops.This is something that comes up pretty often in games where players take more troops. They win more games by playing to the mission and coming up with more objectives. In games where both players just try to table their opponant and dont use them, it desnt come up as often. Playing to the mission wins more games I would say. At least it works for me while I win games by playing to the mission and claiming more objectives while my opponant's elites and fast attack units scratches their heads while standing next to my puny guardsmen who claimed the objective from under their noses.

The end answer is pretty simple.
You can learn to use them effectively and enjoy the game using as many as you think you need
or
You can complain about them and not enjoy the game using as few of them as you can get away with.

You were rude and sarcastic, not 'taking him at his word.' Get off your high horse.

I'm the one "in my head' so I am pretty sure that I would be the one in the know on that issue.
if you misread it and inserted motivations that were not there, that would not be on me. I was polite. It IS rude however to make accusations of such things. If you wish to continue that line of conversation, feel free to use the PM function.

As someone mentioned earlier, it is often a good tactic to have a cheap troop sit back on your home objectives to hold/claim (possibly with heavies to help defend) and send the fast attacks and elites to knock the enemy off of theirs (possibly escorting a troop or two to claim the mid ground ones. Of course, how successful you are varies depending on the skill levels of the players and of course how fickle the dice are. There is nothing wrong with using the troop transports to move the elites and such across the board. After all, they served their purpose in getting the troops to the battlefield already, why not repurpose them to assist other units? Or you can use them to help defend and claim. I can think of a few games where moving them in front of and near objectives have won me games just because they slowed down an enemy enough to keep them out of claiming/contesting range because they had to move around them.

We'll end this particular diversion here.

i notice (and I'm sure that I'm not the only one) that this thread or a variation of it comes up every time ya turn around. A lot of time and effort goes into them and its the same members putting the same arguments into it every time. You could almost just copy and paste them and they would be the same conversations.

I think a thread or tactical file would be helpful. Maybe a section for each of the codices with tips and ideas for effectively using the troops units to their max potential. Covering all of the different variations, loadouts and transports. The question is would this be possible to do with everyone ONLY putting in positive input and ideas/tips without trying to tear apart the tried and true strategies and tactics of others. Accept that just because what works for someone else doesnt work for you and rather than try to tear theirs down, just add your own. Would this be possible? If it is, would someone be able to compile them into a single living document that could be added to? A pipe dream I know but IF it were possible, it would be a boon to us all.

I realize there is a tactics section but the topics are varied and become lost in time with only necromancy or restarting from scratch bringing up a topic again. I think something like this would merit a stable place.

Objective secured really don't matter. Unless ofc it's my Gk objective secured land raider...those things really can be a pain after you've destroyed all the anti tank in an opponents army

Normal CSM... god no. Cultists, well, they can use a Quad Gun. Plague Marines, good but too expensive - you can get better things with the points.

 RunicFIN wrote:
Normal CSM... god no. Cultists, well, they can use a Quad Gun. Plague Marines, good but too expensive - you can get better things with the points.

Really? I think CSM in terms of variety of what they can take are way better than Cultists, who die to a stiff breeze. Plague Marines, however, I think are awesome. They have Poison and FNP as well as can be Troops, no?

Personally I find normal CSM just don't do enough for their points, and they lack a proper, normally costed Drop Pod and are also scared too easily. Power Armour alone these days just doesn't get one very far. But the main point is the same for both Plague Marines and normal CSM: there are just better things to be gained by saving the points elsewhere ( games for me atleast come down to obsec scoring rarely. )

Cheap effective HQ's with spawn/biker retinues, heldrake, obliterators, cheap suicide terminators with combi-meltas and a chainfist to force that Knight -players hand. I also make extensive use of Forgeworld myself so that makes it even more apparent. That Sicaran definetly needs to be there, etc.

I can however see a place for Plague Marines especially in certain builds: Having lots of them in some lists actually works very well. I just don't play those type of lists personally. Usually taking minimum Troops of Cultists opens up things like Be'lakor. He gets more stuff done than the basic CSM will most of the time.

And yeah, Cultists do nothing, but they don't cost that much, which again leaves the points for stuff. I pray to the Chaos Gods every day for GW to make the normal CSM actually preferable to wield in the new Codex. I don't like leaving my MK3 Iron Warriors home just so I can compete with that Eldar list.

When I know I'm playing a casual game though I bring out the metal bawkses and their passengers.

As a sidenote: In my last tournament I said the names of all the Chaos gods out loud before rolling for seize in 3 out of 4 games. I seized in all the 3 games I did it in. They're there, I swear...

Effectiveness aside, I love footslogging armies. I have enough SM bodies to footslog with my Blood Ravens and that's how I like it ; p Definitely effectiveness aside ; p

 Yonan wrote:
Effectiveness aside, I love footslogging armies.

Me too.

 vipoid wrote:

 Yonan wrote:
Effectiveness aside, I love footslogging armies.

Me too.

Agreed. Tanks are there to blow the crap out of the enemy, not operate a taxi service!

Even with Obsec the fact that in 7th everything scores hurt the necessity/viability of the troop slot.

I don't like Obsec stuff. My object is to kill the enemy because if I kill them, they won't be able to claim objectives.

Another thing is that I can't stand some units not contributing anything for the game apart from just sitting the on the objective the whole game, and shoot 1 Lascannon per turn.

bibotot wrote:
I don't like Obsec stuff. My object is to kill the enemy because if I kill them, they won't be able to claim objectives.

Another thing is that I can't stand some units not contributing anything for the game apart from just sitting the on the objective the whole game, and shoot 1 Lascannon per turn.

Seriously. "You can't hold objectives if you're dead!" should be a quote

If I could do it and keep my +1 init, I'd dump all the tacs.

I like running Troops in my DE, since I can get fast ObSec Transports that just take Objectives.

Tyranids? Yay, DS Rippers woo...

With my CSM army, I only bring two squads of Cultists, to fill the two troop choices. They're cheep and I'd rather spend the majority of my points on units with more firepower and survivability.

I just use my Cultists to camp the objectives, closest to my deployment zone. And pretty much forget about them for the rest of the game.

Like others have stated, regular CSM troops, are not effective enough to be worth their point cost.

Depends on the army.

Necrons orks guard Eldar love troops

Tau and DE are kind of Troop Ambivalent

SM types tend to like troops less because elite units do more of the same stuff but are more focused.

4 Squads of 10 man grey hunters with 2 melta guns and a combi melta, Deepstriking all near each each other has had enemies panic.

 Frozocrone wrote:
I like running Troops in my DE, since I can get fast ObSec Transports that just take Objectives.

Tyranids? Yay, DS Rippers woo...

Tyranid Troops are a must have in my opinion. Termagants and a troop Tervigon? Yes please. Warriors? Yes please. Even Hormagaunts? Sure.

Well, what else are you going to hide your Elites, heavies and Fast attack behind?

I think it varies wildly between codexes, and how you use the army. Normal Tau? Troops are just a mandatory drain on your resources. Dark Eldar? I wouldn't take them if I didn't have to, (although the Warriors can still prove very useful when used correctly). Regular Eldar? For my armies, nothing but a tax I have to pay to get Psykers and anti-armor into my DE lists. Drop Pod Salamanders? They are the workhorses of my lists. I would take tactical squads in those lists even if troops weren't compulsory.

I love black tide and sometimes have problems maxing out my troops choice lol 4-5 squads of crusaders belting forwards with support from covering units can be quite overwhelming. especially if you DS sternguard and terminators in to the back field to try and deal with the heavier stuff. ...at least I usually get linebreaker

I come from the days of simple, standard Force Org charts, so troops have always been a huge part of my builds. The idea of Unbound lists and the like make me cringe to no end.

I play guard without many vehicles. That should be answer enough.

I play Grey Knights, I use a fair number of GK terminators. so yes I use troops. but my troops are basicly better then the elites in 90% of codexes.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Frozocrone wrote:
I like running Troops in my DE, since I can get fast ObSec Transports that just take Objectives.

Tyranids? Yay, DS Rippers woo...

Tyranid Troops are a must have in my opinion. Termagants and a troop Tervigon? Yes please. Warriors? Yes please. Even Hormagaunts? Sure.

I was with you at Termagants and a troop Tervigon. It is not the SUPER MUST WIN competitive list, but it is good enough to deal with a semi-competitive to fun game and it is a lot of fun. Warriors? They can stay on the shelf where they belong. I guess some people never see S8 weapons thrown around because I can't imagine a reason to take something so squishy that lacks a decent amount of punch. They cost as much as terminators, with worse armor, no invulnerable, and they hit like wet noodles. They also cost WAAAY to many points in my opinion, I would love them if a base size squad didn't cost almost as much as a carnifex. Hormagaunts I want to love sooooo bad, they are literally the reason I started playing Tyranids in 3rd, I love that damn model and I feel like THEY are what Tyranids are supposed to be all about. But currently Hormagaunts are just worse than Termagants in almost every way, and in most cases the areas where they come out ahead just aren't worth it.