Question about Purifiers

[IndigoJack]

 

 

There is definitely overkill. For example, using 10 purifers w/ 4 psycannons to kill 3 marines is far less efficient than using 5 purfiers w/ 2 psycannons. And if it really takes 10 purifers to kill those marines, you can fire the second combat squad at it as well, assuming its in range and in LOS. Why use a sledgehammer to drive a nail when a smaller hammer works just fine?

When am I killing 3 Marines? If its only a few dudes left, I'll just ignore them or use a PsyDread to force a fall back or something. I've watched too many games fail because I couldn't concentrate force on the right targets. I very rarely suffer from being too powerful and wasting shots. It's usually the complete opposite.

 

 

Losing games because you can't concentrate force on the right targets has nothing to do with combat squads. Combat squads in no way reduces the amount of damage your army can put out. If you can't see how the advantages they present then continue not using them. It doesn't change the fact that they are more efficient, which is all I'm trying to say.

 

 

While I agree that you shouldn't let whiners affect list building, if you're playing in a meta dominated by fluff and you're playing an ultra-competitive list, you might now win new friends. There is a bit of cheese in the GK codex and an okay GK list will give many good lists a run for there money. For example, a purifier and a strike have a difference of 4 pts. This makes sense because purifiers have an extra attack and are fearless. However, if you give both models a halberd, now there's only a 1 pt between the two. Isn't that a little cheesy? GKs have rightly earned the fear that they put into many opponents. So if you're trying to get into a game group that uses a lot of fluff armies, a fluffy army is going to get you more games.

Firstly, and I want to be clear, the mythical 'fluff only' player doesn't exist. I'm dead serious. I've never met one, and I think they're impossible, like unicorns.

Like unicorns, they require you to believe things that aren't true (that horses can grow a horn out of their skull because magic). In the case of 'fluff only', its people hiding behind 'theme' and bashing other players because they, the high priest of what is and isn't 'themed', suck. I've met plenty of 'that guy' people who sigh and moan when I bring Knights out of the box. I laugh, because it is absurd. They aren't bitching about my lists and guilting me for taking my list because they genuinely care about 'fluff'. They're moaning because I stomp them, because Knights are the noob-gate in this game. If you can beat Knights, you can beat anyone. Emphasis on can, not will.

 

Likewise, they're fielding a terrible list not because of theme, but because they either A: can't write a good list or B: aren't a good player. Sometimes both. If a tourney-level player can make Henchmen+Sisters work, you can make anything work. Yeah, even Tau or Daemons, they have good Allies now that bring them up.

 

For the longest time, both us and IG were the butt of jokes. 4th edition was when the rot set in, but 5th was unbearable until our new codex dropped (mainly because IG got buffed first). You may not remember, but I do. The horrible threads where we all circlejerked over 'Water Strategy', triple Raider lists and other utter garbage the old codex funneled us into. It was our trial by fire. The other long-term members all know this. And yeah, back then, we all used the 'but I like the background and aesthetics, your army choice shouldn't be based on power level' arguments, because we were in denial. The old Daemonhunter codex was and is a bad joke, brought about due to bad marketing strategy and confusion about what the army should be about (long story short, they were trying to sell the Inquisitor RPG at the same time).

 

So, when I get the same utter tosh thrown back at me by people with terrible Marine lists, or xenos players who take garbage units in their lists, I laugh. You should too. This cancer of 'I am not a WAAC gamer, I play for fluff' is disingenuous and insulting. If your local player base moan about you taking a winning list, tell them to step up their game. The real sore losers will sulk and not do anything about it, the winners will build good lists and give you good matchups.

 

 

You may not have met the fluffy player before, but I've met several. In fact, the game group at my FLGS is comprised mosty of fluffy players. They are most certainly real. If the majority of your gaming group is playing fluffy lists and you're bringing GK/Crons every week, they're not going to want to play with you very often. Remember, this game is a social contract and the primary rule is that both sides have fun. If you're crushing your opponents week after week they're probably not having fun. Why should they change their lists when they can just play someone else?

[boreas]

Yep, we have fluffy games here. Of course, that one tournement a year we attend is not fluffy at all... for my group. But it's mostly "for fun" players around here, so my team has been the butt of jokes so many times our team name is "The fluffless". We've won this tournement six of the last 8 years (out of 8-10 teams). But the rest of the time? I've had Mordrak go against massed ork helicopters (can't remember the name). Crowe took out Ghazghkull Thraka once. Once you've got two sub-optimal armies pitted against one another, it's a lot of fun. We're right now practicing/tooling/finetuning for the annual tournement I was mentionning above (it's mid-March), and going through the rote optimal action each turn with the same optimal units is really the worst thing I can think about when playing WH40k...

[Reclusiarch Darius]

 

Losing games because you can't concentrate force on the right targets has nothing to do with combat squads. Combat squads in no way reduces the amount of damage your army can put out. If you can't see how the advantages they present then continue not using them. It doesn't change the fact that they are more efficient, which is all I'm trying to say.

I just mentioned psychic buffs, but another thing to consider is positioning. Keeping the unit full strength forces you to deploy them all at one location, and they move+attack together. If you Combat Squad, you're more inclined to split them off to engage different targets/capture different objectives (otherwise, what is the point?). One final point I would make is engagements; wiping out two Combat squads is usually an easier proposition than wiping out a full squad. Your opponent doesn't need a powerful rock to bash down say your Purifiers (ie Terminators, because nothing else will survive usually), he might only need to wipe out the half that is crucial (ie contesting, or in a good sniping position). Ablative wounds are even more important this edition, as positioning now determines death sequence from failed saves. 

 

I dunno. I'm sure there are merits to doing it (especially in the d3+2 objects mission), but I personally never do it or find it useful. My more common strategy is to wipe out enemy Troops, then make sure I have one objective locked down to seal the deal (seeing as I usually get First Blood and Linebreaker fairly easily). And of course in 'Purge', Combat Squadding is insanity. 

 

 

You may not have met the fluffy player before, but I've met several. In fact, the game group at my FLGS is comprised mosty of fluffy players. They are most certainly real. If the majority of your gaming group is playing fluffy lists and you're bringing GK/Crons every week, they're not going to want to play with you very often. Remember, this game is a social contract and the primary rule is that both sides have fun. If you're crushing your opponents week after week they're probably not having fun. Why should they change their lists when they can just play someone else?

 

I'm cool with people not taking the game seriously (I play infrequently myself, I know many in my area don't have a lot of time for wargaming outside of weekends). If they wanna run a terrible list but are self-aware of its limitations, I'm happy. I just hate those annoying idiots who show up with the same terrible list every time, then complain my army is OP because I win. I've stopped going to stores now, got a local group I game with instead. 

 

I agree about the social contract aspect. In one of my recent games, my opponent basically gave up Turn 2 (a first for me). I coached him back into the match, and even though I still won bottom of Turn 4, it was more fun because we played it out. 

There are two sides to the coin though. I'd rather play someone with a decent list who knows how to use it, than someone with a terrible list. The thing is, no one likes losing. You should be calm about it, and accept it, but no one actually writes a list thinking 'hah this will never win'. Well, unless you build the Troll Servitor list, but that is still in the works for me :) . So, y'know, maybe suggest to your local guys that they try a bit harder? The thing is, you can do themed lists and have background that fits, and still have a competitive list. The two are never mutually exclusive. 

 

 

Once you've got two sub-optimal armies pitted against one another, it's a lot of fun. We're right now practicing/tooling/finetuning for the annual tournement I was mentionning above (it's mid-March), and going through the rote optimal action each turn with the same optimal units is really the worst thing I can think about when playing WH40k...

 

I don't get this argument. I play chess as well, and you'd think that game is figured out. And yet, each time I play, it works out differently (mostly I lose differently lol). 40k is significantly more complicated, and I can honestly say I have never had the same game. I've had units do similiar things in a match (for example, my DK dies every game), but even that can be different. 40k is only boring if you try the same strategy/counter strategy every match, which would actually be hard to pull off in any case (people aren't robots). 

[Gentlemanloser]

Damn RD!  I'd forgotten, but you've reminded me that now the new Chaos Dex is out, we go back to the top of the pile for "worst army build ever".

 

The Lesser Daemon / No Icon list is gone.

 

Long live the Powerfist Servitor list!

 

;)

[boreas]

I don't get this argument. I play chess as well, and you'd think that game is figured out. And yet, each time I play, it works out differently (mostly I lose differently lol). 40k is significantly more complicated, and I can honestly say I have never had the same game. I've had units do similiar things in a match (for example, my DK dies every game), but even that can be different. 40k is only boring if you try the same strategy/counter strategy every match, which would actually be hard to pull off in any case (people aren't robots). 

 

I mostly agree. It all comes down to your local players, I guess. A well-tuned list vs a fluff list is not a lot of fun, you're right. But one of the reason I play 40k and not chess is the whole cinematic feel. I find that "tournement-style" 40k loses that feel pretty quickly, just like chess.

 

As for the combat-squad thing, I guess it's pretty situationnal. I might combat squad or not, depending on so many factors it's hard to list them all. Terrain, opposing army and mission being the most common factors. But most of the time, I agree with you that GKs (as most MEq) get pretty fragile under 10 guys, which is something we can't afford... A 10-men squad with psycannons and psybolts is a really well-rounded unit for me. It can hurt medium vehicles as well as any infantry, so I never feel like I'm wasting shots or that my regular GK are fodder for the psycannon guys.

 

 

One nice reason to combat-squad purifiers is to get double the cleansing flames though! VS hordes, it's pretty terrifying!

[Reclusiarch Darius]

 

Damn RD!  I'd forgotten, but you've reminded me that now the new Chaos Dex is out, we go back to the top of the pile for "worst army build ever".

 

The Lesser Daemon / No Icon list is gone.

 

Long live the Powerfist Servitor list!

 

 

I dunno...we face serious competition from the all Cultist list. Behold!

 

HQ:

 

Fabius Bile

(165)

 

Warpsmith

(110 points

 

Troops:

 

(8) Champ w/shotgun, 3 x Cultists w/heavy stubbers, 32 x Cultists w/autoguns, Mark of Khorne

(269 points each)

 

Champ w/autopistol+ccw, 3 x Cultists w/autoguns, 6 x Cultists w/autopistol+ccw, Mark of Khorne

(73 points)

 

Total: 2,500 exactly

 

I really can't do better than this. Neither HQ has any synergy with Cultists, and in game I'd attach them to the ten-man squad so they can be killed faster. Meanwhile, a horde of T3 dudes charges at you, hipfiring S3 and snap-shooting S4. Yeah!

 

 

I mostly agree. It all comes down to your local players, I guess. A well-tuned list vs a fluff list is not a lot of fun, you're right. But one of the reason I play 40k and not chess is the whole cinematic feel. I find that "tournement-style" 40k loses that feel pretty quickly, just like chess.

 

I completely disagree. I've had narrative games with competitive lists that worked great. The two are not mutually exclusive. 

 

 

 

 

One nice reason to combat-squad purifiers is to get double the cleansing flames though! VS hordes, it's pretty terrifying!

 

 

 

With reduced cover now, it's unlikely they'll ever reach your lines with enough manz to even bother Purifiers. Add in Overwatch, halberds, power armour...hell, sometimes I cast 'Hammerhand' instead. I agree though, when you double 'Cleanse' an Ork/Nid/IG blob, they weep blood.