Warhammer 40k Forum and Wargaming Forums banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,861 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
We often see the word 'competitive' floating around the Army List section.

But I'm interested in what makes a unit/army 'competitive' in your eyes.

To me, a unit that is competitive is a unit that is caperble of destroying at least 150% worth of it's own value.

For Example.
One of my Deathwing terminator units costs 250 points average. In a game, I'd like to see that unit destroy 375 points worth on my opponents force.
Hypothetically, 5 terminators will NOT do this amount of damage unless they destroy a tank or character. Thus making Deathwing terminator units not competitive enough in the eyes of someone who is after pure tournement winning power.

2nd Example.
The Dark Eldar Ravager. 115 points basic buys you a Fast skimmer with 3 of the most reliable anti-tank wepaons in game. This is a vehicle caperble of destroying any vehicle ingame in one turn. Although only being made of paper armour, its output is miles higher than it's points investment.
I would quite happily let one of these lose on a landraider in the knowledge that, if I blow it to bits and then get destroyed myself, I've made 135 points. In a 1500 point game, thats exceptional.

I know we don't use points anymore as such, we focus on wipeouts/KPs/Objectives. But I enjoy this mathematical approach to games.

Any input?
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
4,491 Posts
I disagree with the OP completely, sorry.

It all comes down to the tactical advantage the unit brings.

There are plenty of things that i take that will never make their points back, but they help in a far greater way.

My Big Mek with the KFF will NEVER make his points back, but he allows almost my whole army to soak up twice the firepower.

My Lash Princes will never make their points back, but the tactical ability for objectives and the combination with Vindicators/Obliterators more than makes up for it.

Gaunts. They wont make their points back, but they provide cover for the other bugs.

Gretchin. They couldn't kill a fly, but they are a cheap objective grabber.

Inquisitors with Mystics. Not going to do much themselves, but giving another friendly unit the chance for a free shot.

Vulkan. Sometimes he can kill his points worth, but usually he wont. But his ability to melta/flamer weapons provides a massive bonus.

A Battlewagon, Land Raider, etc. Not going to take out its points worth, but can provide a unit protection and mobility that more than makes up for it.

The list goes on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,122 Posts
i have to say i dislike the word "Compeative" as the most important part of any game is having fun and that should be what is used.

However i belive what they mena by competavie is that they play to win or torney worthy. What actualy is competative is anothe rmatter. Personaly i would sya an army that can do anything and do it well. Be other people will spam units and claim competative. It isn't Competative if you run 3 Baal Preditors jsut becuase you want to use flamestrom cannons on the horde. that's being cheesey or abusing the spirirt of the game.
I'm not say peaopl shouldn't but if yoiu make an army that is desinded to piss people off them please pack your stuff up and play agianst you pet hamster.

Now i have atleast 2 armys that are effective but i wouldn't consider them competative as i just play what i love form them. My Eldar has Wraiguard and Lords and keeps to the fluff of Ilydean and has no tanks(tho a squad of 3 war walkers) and having as few Aspect warirors as possible(10 Dire Avenger, 10 Scorpions and about 7 Spiders is all i have). My Marine army is maintaing my Chapter fluff(tho a made up chapter) and uses alot of Drop pods and jump infantry deep strikes since my chapte rlove drop pods and Thunder hawks. I would possibly consider it cheesey(7 drop pods in a 2000pts game does cause some panic) but i would say it was overpowered really. It has major weak points as well as major strengths(Point blank shooting is a weak point and strength).

In all i jsut think you should enjoy the game rahter than try winning at any cost and i have had plenty of games that i have lost or drawn that i have enjoyed more than when i won. Ok Rant over:victory:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,539 Posts
There are a few ways to know if a unit is competitive or not.

The first is if the unit can easily kill units that are far and away more expensive than they are. For example, a squad of two Attack Bikes or Land Speeders with multi-meltas can fairly easily destroy basically anything up to a Land Raider.

The second is if a unit can absorb amounts of punishment that's out of proportion with its point cost and/or unit size. A couple good examples are Plague Marines, Plaguebearers and Terminators with Thunder Hammers and Storm Shields.

Lastly, when a unit is just a genuinely insanely good deal for its cost. Grey Hunters, Plague Marines, Imperial Guard Veterans, Vendettas, etc are all prime examples of this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,359 Posts
Katie is pretty much spot on. Competitiveness is usually defined by cost to efficiency ratio, where efficiency often is how good the given unit is in the situations it was designed for and how easily it can be applied as such.

Like termagants. Their best use aka what they were designed for? Providing cover, being firemagnets and sometimes grabbing/holding objectives.

Well being cheap makes it easy for all as they can appear in large numbers (which also is allowed for the squads. Not all have this luxury remember). Being fearless (when in synapse) and having assault weapons certainly helps with the latter as it makes them flexible and hard to rout. They will never be very killy but if they can force your opponent to direct fire, which might be perfectly capable of taking down something 2 times the firer's own cost, making your opponent wasting time and effectively resources makes them quite competitive. Providing the pricetag is right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
230 Posts
@jaws900; competitive and fun aren't on a dichotmous scale, you can have both you know. I would always prefer versusing a balanced and competitive list compared to a "fluffy" list becuase the game, tactics wise, is much more interesting as there are more options available on each side. If I wanted for a storyline I'd play in a campaign. There is also a misconceptions of cheese/OP/etc. which is generally just building redundency and flexbility into a list and generally gets handed out when there a competitive list faces off against a bad list. GW has done an admiral job with their latest releases to make a very balanced (internally and externally) edition. Whilst some armies are currently behind the 8 ball (Necrons, Orks, Chaos, Daemons, etc.) they are attempting to rectify that and they deserve the credit for what they've done compared to past editions.

Competitive is NOT to be confused with WAAC. WAAC is cheating, not playing a good list. i.e. loaded dice, rule bending/breaking, etc.

@OP; like others I'm disagreeing here. This is a concept held over from 3rd/4th where Victory Points were a bit more common and a unit was based on the actual damage output. 5th edition is a lot more tactical and the majority of games have nothing to do with how much you kill but what you control. Troop squads aren't going to make their points back often for example because army composotion generally demands they be less threatening than the rest of your army to confuse targert priority (exceptions including IG/SW/BA). A Tactical squad for example w/flamer/MM/Rhino is a very good midfield Troop but is rarely going to reap 205 pts in kills whilst a 200pt TH/SS unit will very often get more than it's fair share of points. You can't win most games without the Tac squads though.

P.S. Termagants are awesome in assault w/CA/PE/poison/FC/Fearless for 5 pts <3.

oh and I recommend for a competitive How To you read this article by AbusePuppy: http://kirbysblog-ic.blogspot.com/2010/05/playing-competitively-vaguest-of-how.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
537 Posts
Even back in 3rd and 4th the old phrase "making their points back," was really at best a good way of explaining to new players about unit efficientcy. With the goal posts significantly moved in 5th edition the old phrase is almost redundant. Even in the earlier days a good army list would have units that although did not make their points back, but provided valuable support and benefits to the rest or part of the army.

In 4th Edition my Eldar had two units of 3 jetbikes as troops to provide the minimum troop requirement and to capture parts of the battle feild late game. This in many ways is not drastically different from now. Even with the shuriken cannon there was very little chance of making their points back but a good chance of them helping secure victory.

Competative lists range from sledge hammer types such as a Nob biker army to more versatile lists which have core elements which will cause problems and make people think. It very much depends on the player as much as the army list. People like to build lists around their own playing style or style they use with a particular army. I personally always like to feild a unit that can outflank whether it is effective or not just to keep the opponent on their toes and force deployment problems for them.

Often a potential threat of something is more potent then the actual outcome. A Vindicator is a good example where generally the bark is worse than it's bite, unless you are in the open and a hit is rolled, then the bite will hurt.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,861 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Having re-read my initial post I can now see why quite a few of you disagree with it. It's very badly worded for the point I was trying to make.

I was taking points values into account for points efficiency rather than actual scoring Values.

I'm well aware there are other traits that make other units important, one example being gaunts.

Sorry for the confusion.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
4,491 Posts
Points efficiency still has nothing to do with what they can kill.

For example, the Big Mek with the KFF...
Lets say the opponent is unloading a torrent of fire at my 4 Battlewagons, and with his rolls he will destroy all 4 in that turn.
The Big Mek with the KFF allows me a 50% to ignore it (lets assume they are all within 6), and on average he will only destroy 2.

This means that assuming the Battlewagons are around 130 points each, he has just SAVED myself 260 points, and he only costs me 85.

But its worth even more than the 260, because the tactical advantage of still keeping 2 of them alive and the ability for the 2 remaining Battlewagons to kill more of the opponents models increases that value, even more so if the unit of Boyz/Nobz inside gets into close combat the next turn, and even more so if its in the later turns and allowed me to take an opponents objective.

So the initial cost of 85 points and he never killed a single model, although he did save 260, and allowed a couple of my units to kill well over their points cost, and gave me a massive strategic advantage that is impossible to express in points.

I would say he is VERY efficient for his points.



There are often units that i will sacrifice and never make their points back that are very efficient in what they do.

And then you have things like Assault Terminators. You cant say "My Assault Terminators killed a HQ that was worth 220 points, then died, but they killed more than they were worth so they were efficient". WRONG
You use other things in your army to compliment the Assault Terminators. If they dont kill at least 300-400 points worth of stuff, then i would say that they are inefficient and that you really need to re-think the way you use them.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top