Stupid Warhammer40Kisms.

A new series of annoying things people say and believe about Warhammer 40K.

1. "Ooh, you went first, ZOMG, I'm screwed now."

No you're not, you get to claim/contest objectives last, you can see the enemy's deployment, and you can opt to reserve. Quit whining, if you don't like taking fire first turn, there is always Warmachine.

2. "Well, this unit definitely made its points back."

Uh, who cares? I'm really wondering where this got started, I think 3rd edition might've counted the points costs of units as a victory condition under certain scenarios, but why has this masterpiece of illogic persisted? The game mechanics do not track whether or not your 100 point unit killed 200 points of enemies! Most 40K games are about objectives, how on earth do you not see that the amount of damage a unit does is completely irrelevant to its value if said unit performed some other vital task? You can kill most of my army, and if I'm still in control of more objects, bam I win. Also, would you say my anti-tank units "failed to earn back their points" if they just kept enemy tanks stunned the entire game? What about Venomthropes, they don't earn back their points, they just confer a passive bonus to your units. Transports? So stop focusing on how much a unit kills, and pay attention to what it does.

If a unit of wyches charges a group of guard, only kills 3 and on the turnaround 5 of your 9 wyches dies, then they get cut down in combat resolution, they haven't performed the function that you intended, and not only that, but they haven't taken out enough points from the enemy army to leave you at a surplus. If on any turn a unit gets destroyed and they haven't performed well enough to warrant the cost you paid for the unit, it didn't earn its points back.

As soon as your opponent gets one point up on you, you are at a disadvantage. If you take vect and 9 bloodbrides and it costs 400 points, and that squad only manages to take out 100 points of units before eating it, now it's not a 1 point disadvantage, you're at a 300 point disadvantage. It is going to make it significantly harder to win the game. This case I'm counting point for point, what I kill and what of mine gets killed, since this is a unit whos sole function is to kill as much as it can.

Or say you take 5 scourges w/HWB. You need them to keep a rhino with some longfangs in it tied up until the longfangs jump out, and they repeatedly fail to not only stun, but even to hit the rhino and eat the bullet without fulfilling that purpose, they failed to make their points back. Whereas, if they keep it stunned for 4 rounds and then the longfangs jump out (or if you get that lucky 6 and blow it up), I would say those scourges made their points back, regardless of whether or not the point value they destroyed was the same.

....

IDK whats up with #1.... I often prefer to go second

And here we see the flaw inherent in this type of "pawn versus pawn" thinking: It reduces the battlefield analysis to a simplistic calculation of "how much damage" you're doing. This is irrelevant, it's not how much total damage you're doing, it's when and where the damage happens. Furthermore, Warhammer40K isn't a game of individual unit performance, it's about collective performance. In the case of close combat units "not performing", my question is, did you soften up the target good enough first? Or did you just assume they wouldn't need support. If you're committing assault troops against targets that might conceivably beat them, then you probably didn't soften up the unit good enough first. (People that play games where they act like "getting the charge" is enough to win a close combat are just ignorant generals that don't understand localized supremacy.) If a unit fails to win what should've been an easy assault, I don't think, "Well, they didn't make back their points.", I think, "Well, that was some unlucky dice, maybe karma will hold out in my favor later on."

Also, you are not inherently at a disadvantage as soon as you have less points on the table than the opponent. Where are your opponents points sitting? If they're on the other side of the table, away from objectives, unable to contribute to the battle, then they don't matter. It's not about points, it's about objectives and killing what needs to be killed to attain them.

Arrex wrote:

Also, you are not inherently at a disadvantage as soon as you have less points on the table than the opponent. Where are your opponents points sitting?

Actually, that's exactly what it means... If you started out with 250 points less than your opponent, would you say that both of your armies are equal? Why is it any different if you lose 250 points on your first turn, before it serves a purpose?

Not really a tactica, seems more like a discussion.

Ran into a fun new one from a guy in my local 40k group:

"Techmarines repairing Hull Points means I can put 2 Techmarines in a Land Raider and repair it every turn! Deathwing are top tier again!"

And yes, he really believes that having 4 Hull Points will keep a Land Raider from being taken down in one turn.

but... but.. but... deathwing are top tier again! XD

Ruke wrote:

but... but.. but... deathwing are top tier again! XD

That's what makes his Land Raider-with-a-mobile-garage love-fest so funny.

Ruke wrote:

Arrex wrote:

Also, you are not inherently at a disadvantage as soon as you have less points on the table than the opponent. Where are your opponents points sitting?

Actually, that's exactly what it means... If you started out with 250 points less than your opponent, would you say that both of your armies are equal? Why is it any different if you lose 250 points on your first turn, before it serves a purpose?

There is a BIG difference between taking damage and starting with a lower point limit than your opponent!

If you are not going first, you are almost guaranteed to be taking damage before you do anything, but that is different than starting with less in the first place.

That damage is going to be directed somewhere. Some of your units are going to take casualties or even be wiped out before they get to even move and any affect you can have on that is important.

This is where a unit can be very successful with out even firing a shot.

Couple of examples

A 10 man warrrior squad with dark lance, in a raider that obscures a venom (with a WWP carrier inside) from sight is shot down T1, but saves the WWP delivery system from taking fire meaning you can get that portal out and open further away, ready for T2 reserves. The cost of this is 1 raider.... but that raider has not been a complete waste of time or points.

From a 'must make points back' perspective, that raider was a useless failure, those warrior may as well not have a transport, deployed in cover and not wasted points on a vehicle that did not make back it's points.

From a tactical perspective, this raider 'could' have won you the game, shielding your WWP carrier to ensure that you get the WWP where is was supposed to go to be effective, and not stranded 6" outside your deployment zone or even worse.... killed before they even deployed it, leaving you reserves to footslog it from the rear table edge.

And that is only T1.

If you've not heard of the term 'buuble wrap' before, maybe check out an Imperial Guard forum and see how that benefits their armies. They do very little on their own, but are mandatory for several list builds. A cheap unit, protects an expensive battle tank. The cheap unit dies, and does little or nothing as far as their own damage output goes, but are essential to the army list anyway.

I try to build my lists so that practically everything is disposable/sacrificial if they need to be, even (in fact for me, specifically) HQ options.

The Master of the forge in my dread heavy marine list is simply there to unlock the extra dreads, and be my mandatory HQ unit. After that,..... well if he fixes a damaged weapon, great..... but I don't ever expect him to be 'making back his points'..... in fact he is one of the first things I will throw in to a 'hopeless assault' if it can drag it out long enough to keep dangerous units away from my troops/scoring units. Giving my other, more essential units breathing room is one of his core jobs, and so far, he usually does it very well, but it is a very rare game indeed that his costs are ever matched by the damage he does.

ANY unit that can disrupt your enemies plans, draw off a unit from their goal, stop a unit from firing for a turn or 2 (even at the expense of that unit) can be successful without killing a single model back in return.

The notion of making back it's points can be useful to access a units performance but much like mathammer, can often give off false impressions/conclusions.

Killing a unit holding an objective late game is always going to be useful, but tank shocking the same unit off an objective in the last turn is just as effective as far as winning a game goes, yet doesn't kill the unit or 'make back' any points what so ever and in some situations, has a much higher success rate.

Interesting thread! I really liked your previous topic on the refused flank.

1. I generally prefer going second. First isn't a bad thing though.

2. In a lot of my games my venoms don't kill much (i.e don't make their points back), however they block enemy units from assaulting my reavers which is game winning.

My haemi always dies at some point after setting up a WWP (i.e doesn't make his points back). He set's up the WWP which helps me outmanoeuvre my opponent. He also forces my opponent to split his forces in order to get the Warlord Secondary Objective, which normally makes outmanoeuvring my opponent easier.

Here is one I hear all the time:

3. "Flyers are game breaking and overpowered! They can't be killed."

It is really easy to limit their damage with good positioning. You don't actually have to kill them, just minimise their damage and ignore them.

Actually, the "that unit definitely made its points back" was even around in second edition (not sure about first, but I would believe it).

However, I think it is far from a stupid 40kism. I believe there has been a certain amount of confusion between "well, this unit definitely made it's points back" and "that unit failed to make its points back". Even then, its another logical step to "that unit failed to make its points back, and therefore was a poor choice for the list and should not be included in the future".

I am a big proponent of metrics, and I think whether or not a unit kills more points than its worth is indeed a valuable metric. Its definitely not the only one, and not always the most important one (as I have pointed out in my defense of mandrakes). However, if you are taking a unit whose purpose is to do damage, and it fails to do more damage than you purchased it for-- or another unit would be better in the role of dishing damage to (x) type of unit. In fact, average damage against a certain unit calculates into a metric I like to use that I call a points efficiency rating.

Yes, there are a lot of other ways to measure a unit's effectiveness, but points efficiency or damage output v. cost is a far cry from a completely worthless one and even further from a stupid one. It's simply not the best measure of a units worth in all scenarios.

sooo...if my incubi and archon have killed 40 shas'la, 2 xv8 unites, 1 xv88 unite, 1 full unite of kroot and a shas'o with bodyguard count as having made his points back? Or do the 4 unites of support-assaulting wyches and 2 gunbarges of warriors take the points back option for suftening up that target?
and the razorwings, and the voidravens, and the haemonfires from the empty raiders, and the voidravens...that mostly covers it XD

Enfernux wrote:

sooo...if my incubi and archon have killed 40 shas'la, 2 xv8 unites, 1 xv88 unite, 1 full unite of kroot and a shas'o with bodyguard count as having made his points back? Or do the 4 unites of support-assaulting wyches and 2 gunbarges of warriors take the points back option for suftening up that target?
and the razorwings, and the voidravens, and the haemonfires from the empty raiders, and the voidravens...that mostly covers it XD

That sounds like a great scenario! Definitely sounds like it would end up in a win. How one calculates the points might vary from person-to-person, but I usually only count direct kills (i.e. the wyches get the points for however many models they fell or wounds they dished).

But this is a great example that goes directly to the point I was making. The incubi performed outstanding in this scenario, making their points back many-fold. And everything else performed wonders-- each piece of the army did what it was supposed to and you got the victory. Saying "good, that unit made its points back" is not the same thing as "that unit failed to reclaim its points". Different metrics must be used for different circumstances. I only hope I have an incubi squad that dominating in one game or two.