Game of no game

[Bedroom General]

Dear Bolsketeers,
I have lately been experiencing what my friends have told me is the prevalent tactic nowadays for most, if not all armies. The "whole (or most of) army in reserve" thing. I've not played much recently (work!!!) but when I get to play, I'd like to have something to play against! I've spent literally years collecting a large array of armies, and vast numbers in a couple of cases (Orks, CSM) and I'd like to use them.
I know that this has been addressed somewhat previously by a Fly Lord, I believe, but I feel that I need to whinge, apologies if this post is redundant, but here I go....

When it becomes obvious that the only way to be competitive with some builds/armies is to reserve them all, that army is to me a FAIL!!! Let me explain my philosophy. I paint/model/customise/agonise over my models just as much, or less than most guys out there, and I want to USE them on the battlefield. To be told in tactica of "Ninja tau" or "last round tank shocking to CONTEST!! an objective" etc etc is to me like saying "Don't bother turning up to the game until turn four". (alright that is an obvious oversimplification, but I hope that it illustrates the point.)

I am an Art Teacher by trade and LIKE to see the armies that I and my opponents have lavished so many hours on doing their thing. I can't take a decent photo nowadays as half the time I'm taking a shot of terrain or an empty space. I may be approaching the game from a skewed perspective, but I feel that in any case where you are encouraged to NOT PLAY your army, the game ceases to be fun, and in fact ceases to be a game at all.

Why do I think that this is such a common way of playing the game?
1. Alpha strikes from IG/SM Pods etc
2. True line of sight. (which I strongly believe has RUINED the game.)
3. Mech: as everything is now in a box, lets keep the box safe.
4. The inadequacy of some older books on the current battle field.
5. The good ol' standby: Codex creep.

I think that GW are in trouble here, they want to sell more models, well I'm not spending my hard earned cash on something I'm gonna use once a fortnight for two effin' rounds. Y'know it just doesn't make sense in these fiscally restrained times.

Oh and I know that to be "competitive" we've got to buy transports for everything, but that's a lot of bread for a married man to prioritise on TOYS that I may not use until turn four if it's in reserve.I mean six man dire avenger squads in a wave serpent ftw?? That's not a game, that's tragic.

Don't get me wrong, I love the models, if I were a junkie I'd have lumpy veins from all the figures coursing through my body, but I dislike the game, it has become "rock,paper,scissors"/ you can't shoot me I'm not on the board/I have the latest deathstar/alpha strike ftw. etc etc.

I guess, when all this dust has settled that I am old fashioned enough to think that all of my units should be at least marginally effective on the table, and that I SHOULD'NT have to buy the new kid (model) on the block to have a chance. IG are a prime example of an army that now keeps their opponents off the board. Eldar are sadly, now an army reduced to reserves and hiding in order to try and force a DRAW in the last turn??? Now That's just plain not fun. This is an expensive game, and I want my moneys worth on the playing field, win or lose!

Rant over. Thanks for reading.

[Chumbalaya]

Cool story, bro.

I like having options, the more the better. Reserves is now an option, like Deep Striking and Infiltrating, that wasn't as prevalent before but now can be in use any game.

Not having reserves would make getting first turn and alpha striking your opponent off the board that much more critical. 4th edition had plenty of that, no thanks. You can still make an army reliant on crippling your opponent on turn 1, but since they can just hop into reserve, Deep Strike, or outflank, you may want to consider preparing for those alternatives. Like any other one-dimensional army, you're just playing RPS and hoping for a good matchup.

Reserving also gives older armies new life. Eldar and Tau in particular benefit greatly from not having to be on the board all the time, that way they can make the most of their overpriced everythings.

Since you rarely have ultimate control over reserves, it's not always decided at turn 4. The only army I can think of that can do that is Ninja Tau, and it's a hilariously terribad gimmick army. Less hyperbole, more analysis please.

Being less predictable is what it's all about. The more options you have, the more ways you can surprise your opponent.

[therealjohnny5]

i have to say i'm guilty of this tactic as a SM player, using an almost total DS build, it isn't uncommon for me to come out in later rounds, however, i am built around the majority of my army being on table by round 3 at the latest. That being said i can understand your frustration. One suggestion i have is to consider the WFB come the 8th ed release next year. I started with that game system and moved to 40K when i moved to NY. I've talked my game group into a Fantasy run next year.

[Bedroom General]

Thanks heaps for your input guys.
Chumbalaya, I see your points,especially as regards hyperbole, yet this was unashamedly an emotive rant. Your last line resonates with me. If being unpredictable is what its all about, why can we now predict pretty much what every Tau and Eldar will be doing?

Therealjohnny5, I'm poor enough due to my addiction to 40k, but I do have some WFB units, but I basically dislike the whole "only the front rank can fight" thing, I mean why would I paint up 25 or 30 lil' dudes just for five of 'em to fight and the rest to do the maths after the battle?
Accountants of Sigmar attack! LOL

[ggg]

Motion seconded Mr BG. I agree with your observations (apart from true line of sight point) - a sense of drama has been removed from a number of the games I have played and observed due to the reserve issue. Admittedly there were previous problems with dull gun lines and there is now potential for movement. However, I believe that the overly artificial victory conditions and overly prescribed deployment rules have encouraged correspondingly artificial and predictable play. Perhaps the new battle missions will go someway to change the behaviour of players. Reserves really bug me- i.e. how did my unit not see that leman russ squadron slowly trundling onto the battlefield until they suddenly arrived a mere 6" away from them? - or the weirdness that is turn 1 of dawn of war - whole armies entering from behind a magic curtain. Units should be discouraged from loitering at the edges of the board.

[Sam]

Out of my entire gaming group, I am the only one who has consistently kept an entire army in reserves. And that was drop troop guard in the old codex. And no, I didn't use a net list.

I have yet to encounter a codex that can only build competitive armies by keeping everything in reserves. The only Eldar player I know makes only very limited use of reserves, and that is typically outflanking war walkers and/or striking scorpion, or deep striking warp spiders.

I'd like to point so things out, please note, many of these are simply my opinions:

1. TLoS makes more sense than the silly tiers system of 4th. If you can see a model you can see it, if you can't you can't. None of this crap where all vehicles are the same size, despite the fact that a defiler stands noticeably taller than a sentinel. I fail to see how TLoS ruined the game.

2. Codex creep is bull****. I play IG, SW, CSM, Orks, and Nids. Guess which army wins most consistently? I'll give you a hint, it isn't IG of SW, despite the fact that they are newer codices and were written for 5th edition. It is Orks.

3. "We have to buy transports for everything" to be competitive? Again, bull****. Mech dies to all my armies, and none of my armies are mech.

4. Eldar are reduced to hiding in reserves to force a draw? Tell that to the aforementioned Eldar player of my group. His w/d/l ratio makes mine look like a joke.

5. As for having to buy the newest models: you don't. What, pray tell, is the amazing new unit that MUST be bought for IG to win? The valkyrie/vendetta? The new tank variants? Meh. They are more of a convenience than a necessity. SW? The unit everyone wants to buy doesn't even exist.

[Kahoolin]

Therealjohnny5, I'm poor enough due to my addiction to 40k, but I do have some WFB units, but I basically dislike the whole "only the front rank can fight" thing, I mean why would I paint up 25 or 30 lil' dudes just for five of 'em to fight and the rest to do the maths after the battle?
Accountants of Sigmar attack! LOLha ha, I like you! :D

I also agree with you wholeheartedly, but that's because to me the spectacle is more important than the fake strategifying with little space dolls. I suggest you play against like-minded people and avoid games (not players, games - I'm not stereotyping anyone here) where the win is the thing and damn the hundreds of hours you spent painting your dudes. Plenty of other people feel the way you do, they just aren't as vocal on the internet.

At the end of the day, you're a grown up. If you play against a mature opponent and let them know you would rather play a cinematic game than have a rules-rigid battle of wits I'm sure they'll oblige. If they like the other style maybe you could do them a favour next time and play their way? But I agree, holding everything in reserve for me completely defeats the aim of the game, which is to see awesome painted armies facing off and then running around blasting each other.

[Bedroom General]

Thanks for your considered opinions, Sam. That's why I posted, to get a different perspective, as I am obviously a bit jaded by what I have (not) encountered on the vast and empty battlefields of the 41st millenium.
TLOS is better than the idiotic size thingy that 4th ed had, but slows the game down, especially in heavy terrain, also if one guy can see then the squad gets to shoot? Is that true line of sight? Good excuse to sell a dreadful laser toy to me.
Oh and the same goes for allocating hits to squad members. Slows the game to a crawl.
I'm not overly competitive,nor am I the best tactician, but I like to feel that my army has been worth the time it took to build.
Orks are 5th ed, and they're great fun to play until Imperial Guard Jones and his templates of Boom. Or Dreadnought drop pod holocaust. Or SOB flamey flame overkill.Etc etc.
We all have our problems/playing experiences, I'm glad yours differ to mine, it gives me hope.

[Sam]

If a single model has line of sight the unit may choose to fire at that target. However, under the which models can fire section, it is stated that models that can draw line of sight to at least one model in the enemy unit may fire, not the entire squad.

I like wound allocation, but there is no disputing that it slows down game play and is very open to abuse.

Also, I would like to apologize if my previous comments came off as overly aggressive. I haven't gotten very much sleep and probably didn't read through my comment as well as I should have.

[DarkLink]

2. True line of sight. (which I strongly believe has RUINED the game.)


It only ruins the for so long as people refuse to use appropriate amounts of terrain. Use lots of tall buildings, and stick to the 25% terrain rule of thumb. And don't stick the buildings in the corner of the board where they won't affect anything. Every single board should have several large LOS blocking pieces of terrain in the center area, at least 12" away from the board edge.

See if you still have TLOS problems after making a bunch of cardboard buildings your LR's can hide behind.



I think that GW are in trouble here, they want to sell more models, well I'm not spending my hard earned cash on something I'm gonna use once a fortnight for two effin' rounds. Y'know it just doesn't make sense in these fiscally restrained times.

Oh and I know that to be "competitive" we've got to buy transports for everything, but that's a lot of bread for a married man to prioritise on TOYS that I may not use until turn four if it's in reserve.I mean six man dire avenger squads in a wave serpent ftw?? That's not a game, that's tragic.


I'm planning on expanding my Sisters of Battle. To do that I need Rhinos and Exorcists. I fully agree, I'm not gonna spend a few hundred dollars when I can pick up a big sheet of cardboard for $5 and make my own. Put a little effort into it, and cardboard Rhinos don't look half bad, especially if you can dig up some bits to stick on them.

[Bedroom General]

Sam, this is the internet, I'm used to much more..ahem "robust" discussions than this. I really appreciate your input. Your opinions as stated are not overly aggressive, but thanks for the kind thoughts.
Darklink, again it comes down to, did your game table (terrain set) exist before 5th? mine and my friends (group) did, and we have lots of terrain, of all sorts. Putting a couple of shoeboxes on the table kinda ruins the vibe y'know. Especially if money has been forked out for old city fight terrain. BTW cardboard rhinos ftw, you sir, are legend!

[Nabterayl]

I'm all for the inclusion of Reserves, but I too dislike the dynamic of scoring a point for "holding" an objective that you don't actually control in a tactical sense, just because the game ended before the enemy could take it back.

You know, I wonder how it would change the game if you earned victory points for every turn you spend holding an objective?

[Duke]

@Nab: I have said that for a long time, holding objectives for longer, as opposed to just at the beginning. plus bonus points for holding it at the end... It would actually give FA something to do besides run ahead and die.

@BG: "Accountants of Sigmar," LMAO!

In general I don't like it when people game the system, the trick is to find people who are like minded and who won't do that sort of thing. I don't know how your local gaming group is, but you should try playing against different people. I think you will find a lot of gamers who want to see their things on the table the whole game too.

I often see the reserves trick as a counter to an opponent who is overly competitive. I think people who plan that way from the start are in the minority.

When in doubt remember rule #1

Duke

[Chumbalaya]

Thanks heaps for your input guys.
Chumbalaya, I see your points,especially as regards hyperbole, yet this was unashamedly an emotive rant. Your last line resonates with me. If being unpredictable is what its all about, why can we now predict pretty much what every Tau and Eldar will be doing?

You can't. Eldar and Tau are both very mobile and can really do a lot of things, one of which is reserving. Since you never know what's coming out either, you have to do things differently depending on what's out.


1. TLoS makes more sense than the silly tiers system of 4th. If you can see a model you can see it, if you can't you can't. None of this crap where all vehicles are the same size, despite the fact that a defiler stands noticeably taller than a sentinel. I fail to see how TLoS ruined the game.

2. Codex creep is bull****. I play IG, SW, CSM, Orks, and Nids. Guess which army wins most consistently? I'll give you a hint, it isn't IG of SW, despite the fact that they are newer codices and were written for 5th edition. It is Orks.

3. "We have to buy transports for everything" to be competitive? Again, bull****. Mech dies to all my armies, and none of my armies are mech.

4. Eldar are reduced to hiding in reserves to force a draw? Tell that to the aforementioned Eldar player of my group. His w/d/l ratio makes mine look like a joke.

5. As for having to buy the newest models: you don't. What, pray tell, is the amazing new unit that MUST be bought for IG to win? The valkyrie/vendetta? The new tank variants? Meh. They are more of a convenience than a necessity. SW? The unit everyone wants to buy doesn't even exist.

1) Agreed. The size category thing had potential I think, but on a properly terrained up board, TLOS works fine.

2) Agree re: creep. Orks are garbage though.

3) Mech is king, baby. Some armies can run foot, but mech is better.

4) It's just another trick in the bag, good thing considering how little is left of the Eldar book that is usable.

5) Valks/Vends are handy, but far from essential. New models either end up garbage (Ogryns) or awesome (Vendettas), but never essential.


It only ruins the for so long as people refuse to use appropriate amounts of terrain. Use lots of tall buildings, and stick to the 25% terrain rule of thumb. And don't stick the buildings in the corner of the board where they won't affect anything. Every single board should have several large LOS blocking pieces of terrain in the center area, at least 12" away from the board edge.

See if you still have TLOS problems after making a bunch of cardboard buildings your LR's can hide behind.



I'm planning on expanding my Sisters of Battle. To do that I need Rhinos and Exorcists. I fully agree, I'm not gonna spend a few hundred dollars when I can pick up a big sheet of cardboard for $5 and make my own. Put a little effort into it, and cardboard Rhinos don't look half bad, especially if you can dig up some bits to stick on them.

Good ideas. To help spruce up your terrain collection, crafting buildings, rock formations, etc out of cardboard and whatever stuff you have lying around helps a lot.

And to address the "never using your dollies" issue, they're still on the table (off to the side) and you can ogle painted army men whenever :P

[DarkLink]

I'm all for the inclusion of Reserves, but I too dislike the dynamic of scoring a point for "holding" an objective that you don't actually control in a tactical sense, just because the game ended before the enemy could take it back.

You know, I wonder how it would change the game if you earned victory points for every turn you spend holding an objective?

I agree. I dislike objective games, because objectives really don't matter in real battles until after everyone's killed each other off. It feels like I'm only halfway through the game when someone says 'oh well, let's call it quits." I want to play the whole game (aka, I want to kill every single one of your models:cool:).

It also doesn't help that the game always ends when it is least advantageous for me. If I need one more turn to take and objective, it ends. If my opponent needs one more turn, it keeps going.

[Nabterayl]

I like the idea of objective games; I certainly like it better than fighting over table quarters. It's just that, if you play a certain way (which thankfully none of my group does, at least not yet), the combination of the finite time period and the scoring rules mean that you can claim an objective that you have not actually claimed in any meaningful sense. The random game length helps in this regard, but if this became an issue with my local group I think I'd try to either modify scoring for length of time held, or else do something with the game length.

[sirrouga]

Well the whole what is "competitive" is something that varies from player to player. Depending on how everyone else in your area plays, a strategy that fails completely for me may lend to complete success for you. Also each player has their own personal play style that affects how well certain lists will work, my one friend completely bombs with close combat armies, no matter how well the army was designed. If your group plays near tournament style lists, you are sure to be hurt when trying to go "outside the box" in army design.

Take my necrons, I have fairly good success with them regardless of all the negative campaigning you see online on how they are worthless and many people online told me my necrons should be sold or shelved so I can get a "real" army.

Now I only ever played 5th edition, so TLOS works for me because I never worked with an other system. But I do notice a extreme lack of terrain that blocks LOS so that could be the issue there. Some ruins and buildings go a LONG way in changing how well things work out during games.

I don't really have any problems with reserves, my friend who got interested in 40k the same time I did played a Genestealer focused tyranid army and often outflanked with them and with my necrons I sometimes reserve everything so it may arrive from different directions instead of slowly marching across the field. I never seen a Tau or Eldar army do an all reserves list through.

Mechanized is important, especially with how cheap they can be for certain armies and the benefits they give. Certain armies can avoid it better than others. But depending on your other players, the terrain you use often, and other factors it may not be important to mech at all.

As for codex creep, yes it exists but not to the degree that most people think of. It isn't an end of the world type thing, but the newer codexes do have some good advantages that just aren't available to the older ones. Still even with all that, it is not a promise you will win. I have been Imperial Guard and Space Wolves with my Necrons a few times, but they have a lot more options available to them.

Finally, I love objectives. I think having them adds a lot of tactics needed, giving sometime important to really be concerned about that isn't out to kill you directly. I do agree that having those objectives only count on the last turn kinda stinks. My group does do a custom mission sometimes where you get a victory point every turn you hold an objective and on turn 5 - 7 they give 2 points.

[Nabterayl]

You know, along the terrain lines, when I started making terrain for my group (in 5th) I deliberately tried to make the hills tall. There's actually no limit on how tall each tier of a tiered hill can be, so there's no reason why you can't have hills that are 4" tall or higher. When 5th edition came out I made it a priority to get some 5th edition-sized terrain into the mix. I know that's a pain, but I can testify that you can have a board with lots of blocked sightlines without filling it with buildings and ruins.

[elrodogg]

Bedroom gen - If you're pissed about Tau and Eldar having to hide and enter reserves to be competitive, then complain to GW. In the meantime, those people fielding an army that is clearly outclassed by every newer list will do everything it needs to do to win.The older lists really just don't stack up. Blah blah your gaming group... but look at tournament results. When was the last time an eldar or tau player won a major GT on anything resembling a consistent basis? The answer is 4th edition.

Sam - Regarding some of your other points:
1- TLOS is terrible. Worst change to the game.
2- Codex creep aint BS. It's been around from GW forever, I don't mind it nearly as much as I used to, but then again I play listsl I want to not to be the most ubercompetitive person around. I happen to enjoy playing with a weaker list, but then again I pull every trick I can to win.
3- Mech isn't king, maneuverability is. Focusing 1000pts of troops onto 300pts of troops annihilating them and moving on is tried and true way to win.
4- Local groups are totally local. Look large scale at tournies. Eldar are behind the curve.
5- Do you know anything about GW and how they operate? They've been on this second and third wave kick for a long time. It's how they generate a rush for a release a second and third time. The thunderwolf cav will be out. Probably 1 year after the codex was released, making for people wanting to get the new toy and do the list.

[Melissia]

I prefer objectives games myself. I'm just glad noone does this to me, either....

[Denzark]

I would be hacked off with people doing this to me. But there is qualifiers:

1. You can't guarantee when the troops get there early on.

2. If a Unit comes in on it's own the opposition would get to fire an entire army at it.

3. Using piecemeal units is counter-intuitive to someone with an idea of early allied tank tactics in WWII.

4. You need to be on position for turn 5 and ready to defend for another 2 turns - if you can last for 3 whole turns on you might as well get the benefits of 7 turns of manouevre...

5. If you are only getting onto objective on turn 5 the enemy has had at least 4 turns to set up fire lanes/counter charges.

In poker I would back 1/3 odds with lots of money. In 40k I would never rely on a 1 or a 2 ending the game whilst I''m on objective - who the hell plays for a draw out of anything other than desperation and if I had to do that I would retire that particular army.

[Bedroom General]

Hmmm...thanks for the comments everyone.

I'm not grousing about anyone's particular playing style or anything, I'm just a bit deflated when I turn up to fight,for example with, it must be admitted, sub optimal army lists (mainly for financial reasons) and find that I'm going first with Tau and set up a few units, keeping suits etc in reserve. Then my opponent sets up nothing! I'm gonna pay for the bravery of the Tau with a drop podded dreadnought twin linking lascannons onto one of my vehicles (HH), or something equally valuable, and there you go! No tactics, doesn't scatter into trouble. Predictable as rain, yet there is nowhere to hide, even on the most crowded of tables.

Look I'm not an idiot, and I know that everyone has a way around these things, but if the most use I get from outflanking with my Kroot is to line them up on a table edge 2" apart in order to negate the possibility of my mates deathstar unit coming in behind me, then I don't see that as playing a game, I see it as playing the rules.

I love collecting and painting, and I play as much as I can, but its hard enough to do what you want when you have to roll dice for success without some of the "Tactics" of reserve being applied by some of the most effective all rounders in the game (SM, SOB's) It seems that ,as was pointed out in a previous post, older codexes may have to rely on this to an extent for survival, but the ones that use it most, and are catered for with models and special rules seem to be the guys that in the game, could have handled setting up on the table. Drop pods...there's a reason they took so long to be made, they've skewed the game, along with all bikes turbo boosting. In a weird way I can see that GW were trying to speed things up with these and run and road rules, however I think that it has had the opposite effect, where you have more forces off the table now, more reliance on luck for what comes in and where, therefore less tactics.

I may not be expressing myself too well, but I've seen games where these advantages of luck (right guys,right time,right place) have gutted perfectly good tactical situations for one player, resulting in a walk over that was due to a force that never had to face enemy fire once! Before it pounced. Not due to, and I guess this is the thing, tactical acumen on the part of the player, just on the luck of the dice. That's what is bugging me I guess. Also as I've previously intimated, the most effective forces at doing this are the most survivable generally anyway. You know, MEQs. Its a hard, dirty universe in this rule set of the 41st millenium. I think it needs a review sooner rather than later, there are holes you can drive a landraider through atm. Which will make more and more of us into the emperors finest. It's sad.

I'll stop now.:(

[Xas]

I know how tau stay in reserve until late.

but how do eldar stay in reserve so long?

and how do tau even try to contest your objects if they come in turn 4/5? its not like they have any fast tank to tankshock you off and deepstriking crisis can easily be pushed 4" away from the objective by deploying in a circle.


what I like to do is reserve and come on turn 2 with an astropath for 3+ so I can get the alphastrike but other than that i see no point in it.

[Lord Azaghul]

Dear Bolsketeers,


Why do I think that this is such a common way of playing the game?
1. Alpha strikes from IG/SM Pods etc
2. True line of sight. (which I strongly believe has RUINED the game.)
3. Mech: as everything is now in a box, lets keep the box safe.
4. The inadequacy of some older books on the current battle field.
5. The good ol' standby: Codex creep.



I . IG are a prime example of an army that now keeps their opponents off the board. Eldar are sadly, now
Rant over. Thanks for reading.

I won't criticize your rant...I go off on the current state of fantasy at least once a week, so I sympathise, however I disagree on almost every point.

1) Alpha Stike: SM drop pods are much better then the first attempt at them, were they were always in reserve. Alpha stike Guard: isn't hitting your opponent will lots of templates sort of the point of the game? If the non-guard player goes first, well then no alpha strike!
2) TOLS: this is an awesome addition to the game, it simplifes catigoration and standarized the table top, much better the 4th ed. "Hey I can see 6 of your squad with 8 of my guys..." commence dice rolling
3) Mech: I love to see mech across the board, especially when my army isn't mechinized, it means my opponent is shipping in his troops in neat little packages, which will probably explode, killing some, then allowing the rest to be clustered nice and tightly together, allowing my other template to finish them off even easier! I Espeicially love to see rhinos or Valks - those things are just shiney explosion pods! The other side of it: if you take antimech and not much mech; what is your mech opponent going to do with his antimech?
4) Old Codex: Again, I don't think most of the old codex' are hurting that bad, players just cant used what they are used to using. TAU are a prime example - some of the best antimech in the game, I have seem Tua used to devistating effect in 5th ed, but many tau players thing that they are playing a SM army instead and don't use cover, marker lights, and try to push troops up in the open to force out an enemy! The only really hurting army is necrons!
5) Power creep: Nob bikers are broken... that is all. SW book is not over the time. The Guard book is perfect (execpt for 1 or 2 items with aren't helpful to the IG player). Rumour on the Bugs...actually they sound awesome, much more flexable, maybe nid players will stop taking nid zilla list!


However to conceed you a point: The most boring game I have ever player was in a tourney against blood angels. My bum of an opponet keep everything but a vidicator (which was in cover) in reserve. EVERYTHING else was DSing. Nothing showed up until turn 4. Lame. Just Lame. Most players I know do not use this tactic, and thankfully the SM codex doesn't let Drop Pods do that anymore.

[The.Justinian]

I would be hacked off with people doing this to me. But there is qualifiers:
1. You can't guarantee when the troops get there early on.
2. If a Unit comes in on it's own the opposition would get to fire an entire army at it.
3. Using piecemeal units is counter-intuitive to someone with an idea of early allied tank tactics in WWII.
4. You need to be on position for turn 5 and ready to defend for another 2 turns - if you can last for 3 whole turns on you might as well get the benefits of 7 turns of manouevre...
5. If you are only getting onto objective on turn 5 the enemy has had at least 4 turns to set up fire lanes/counter charges.

In poker I would back 1/3 odds with lots of money. In 40k I would never rely on a 1 or a 2 ending the game whilst I''m on objective - who the hell plays for a draw out of anything other than desperation and if I had to do that I would retire that particular army.

There are good and bad versions of reserving. I'm going to respond to each of these in turn, because the theme of the thread seems to be in bullet/bullets response and as a theme I find that both cute and Socratic. I see your points here, and it sounds like you're on the fence as to how valid, tactically, this strategy is. Thus, I'll respond to your points with a positive partisanship toward reserve strategies.

1) Indeed, with a lack of guarantee one can end up heavily outnumbered in certain parts of the board. Thus reserve players/lists have to think creatively about how to preserve their early arrivals. Think of them as reconaissance units, used to pin the enemy to a position whilst the firepower arrives. Beacons (tau/SM) and Icons (daemon/chaos) leverage this flavor. I enjoy playing these scenarios out.

2) Again, the need to evade as your army thickens up into a doom potion from reserve is another opportunity for the opponent to accomplish defeat in detail. The army that starts onfield instead needs not only to claim objectives, but board space, deterring the threatening deepstrikes and protecting flank areas. Never before has 40k been played with the soil of the whole table at stake, and it can be a whole new mission type.

3) I don't think of it so much as piecemeal as ambush and kill denial. Reserve units have the opportunity to be in the right place, right time. The reason the germans were able to fight three years of a losing war, without air, was because Clauchewitz' adage of the Schwerpunkt was deeply embedded in the ethos of their officer corps. Think of a panther scooting into a hedged lane and taking out five shermans. (other theater) Think of Japanese in spiderholes protecting a battery that overlooks the beach. These things are what reserve represents.

4) The 'benefit' of extra maneuver time, as pointed out by many already, can only be seen if there's adequate terrain to evade around and hide/hedge. With the garden-variety terrain you'll see in most places, the decision is reflexive that units will only have one right-place/time moment. Having seen the way redshirts, FLGS dudes, and even tournament organizers set up boards, the 25% rule+LoS blockers is STILL not in the body politic. (I'd like to take a moment to advocate for more intense partisanship on this.)

5) It's easy to set up a trap if you fight a reserved foe. One way to think of it is that the deployed army becomes the tactical defender, whilst the reserved army is the tactical attacker.

----
For my own thoughts, I'd like to offer a number of conceptual arguments.
a) the over-the-horizon effect of the table edge is easily explained by the fact that it
* could, in fact, be over the horizon,
* Is coming from a more secure sector of the front/responding to urgent calls for reinforcement (Outflank/DS)
* Is behind fortifications, in bunkers just off the table, or in a smoke screen.
b) the OTH effect of the table edge is further emphasized if we look at 40k as a game of battles of MOMENT (the adjective). A game of 40k is a critical point in time where both armies must leverage their might. The winner on the table has dropped demo charges into the silos/popped blue smoke for the paras (SG), Successfully pushed a gap into the enemy lines that can now be exploited (C&C); or depleted enemy combat strength, forcing them to pull back (AN). 40k battles aren't simply All Quiet on the Western Front when it's Not So Quiet; Nay, they are climactic moments where the whole front or war for this planet hangs in the balance.
* The reason the winner is determined by control at the end of the game is found in the adage 'almost counts only in X.' The game ends when reinforcements arrive, when the air support becomes available, or when your general runs out of patience and pulls you off the front. If we imagine reserved armies as having a bigger force on their heels, or thousands of suits and FWs in orcas high above to drop when the coast is clear, or that the eldar's Titan will jet in and zap the enemy once you pin down this hill/root out the arty, then the game ending doesn't seem so arbitrary. Reserving just means that the game lasts less time.

I'd also like to point out that 40k used to last 4-5 turns by default in old editions, and we didn't see much of a problem with that. By reserving the whole army, one can choose to play (3)4-5 turns still. And given that the armies that do so were written with those eras of play in mind, perhaps thats a good option for them to have. If we look at the lack of turn 1, a small turn 2, and a medium turn 3 as merely 'less game,' I think there's a lot less to whine about in general--after all, if the die roll on turn 5 is a 1, or turn 6 a 3, then we in fact play 'less game' all the time, nearly every day we play. If one player makes that decision rather than a die, I don't think it substantively affects the fact that less game is being played, merely whom it benefits.

[imperialsavant]

I agree. I dislike objective games, because objectives really don't matter in real battles until after everyone's killed each other off. It feels like I'm only halfway through the game when someone says 'oh well, let's call it quits." I want to play the whole game (aka, I want to kill every single one of your models:cool:).

It also doesn't help that the game always ends when it is least advantageous for me. If I need one more turn to take and objective, it ends. If my opponent needs one more turn, it keeps going.

:o Gee Darklink, I am just the opposite!
I got really fed up of playing the "Teen" players who only wanted to Kill Everything.
I believe a tactical game to obtain & hold objectives gives a much more enjoyable game & makes you think tactics. I do however agree with someone who suggested Victory Points for Turns holding objectives etc. Now that does sound good.
I do agree with you about the"lets call it quits" or " I resign, I cant win"
I NEVER do that & in fact a few times when in Turn 3 I thought I just could not win, things turned around & I managed to pull a victory from the arms of defeat. It really pisses me off when an opponent does throw in the towl. I feel cheated.:)

[Bedroom General]

Wow, whoever suggested VP's for holding an objective every turn...That's golden right there. This would make games much more cut throat and tactical. This is going to be considered by my group for a house rule. Excellent!
Thanks:)

[Bedroom General]

Credit where credit is due. Hats off to Nabterayl and Sirrouga for the VP thingy. Cheers!

[Bedroom General]

Hey Great Emperor Justinian, my wife thinks I'm cute and Socratic too, she's just given me a nice, steaming cup of hemlock tea, mmm..poisony.