I have yet another proposal that most of you will probably dislike. But this is something that I've thought about for a while now, and hey, why not?

Warhammer 40k is a horribly unbalanced game. Points costs are all over the place. And does anybody actually use troops?

As Peregrine once put it (I paraphrase): Why on earth should you use troops? The troops are just a less interesting version of one of the specialized selections. So why bother? You pay the minimum tax and then you put in the interesting (generally overpowered) things.

And nobody likes nerfs. Nerf the riptide? Most people say yes. Tau players cry no. Nerf the wraithknight? Most people say yes. Eldar players say no. Nerf grav? Most people say yes. Space marine players cry "no."

And really, that's not how 40k is going anyway. It's an arms race. 5th edition is gone. And the people who are still hanging in there are playing, whether you like it or not, Apocalypse. 500 points game? Too bad. You're still playing Apocalypse.

So feth it. I offer you a ridiculous idea, an idea so ridiculous it might actually make the game more balanced:

What if troops were valuable BECAUSE they were expendable? What if we took the fluff about the troops being the mainstay of an army seriously? What if you couldn't run out of them? What if it were practically impossible to table someone?

I propose the following.

The following rules apply only to the following:

1. The unit must be in the "troops" section of the army codex ("counts as troops" doesn't count).
2. The unit must have the "infantry" type.
3. These rules don't affect ICs.

Rule 1: So long as you have at least 1 unit of troops in ongoing reserves, you cannot lose the game simply because you have no models on the field.

Rule 2: When a unit of troops is removed from the field, place that unit, in its original composition when initially deployed, into ongoing reserves.

Rule 3: At the beginning of each player turn, each troops unit in ongoing reserves shall be placed within 12 inches of the player's table edge. Each of those units counts as having moved for that turn and may not move again in the movement phase. Any special rule which would allow that unit to be placed on the table outside of 12 inches from the player's table edge may not be used to do so. If the deep strike special rule is used, the unit shall instead be placed within 12 inches of the player's table edge. Do not roll the scatter die.

Rule 4: At any time, a player may remove a unit of troops from the game and place it in ongoing reserves, just so long as that unit is at 50% or less of its original number of component models. This does count, for all rules purposes, as that unit being destroyed by the opponent. If the unit was in close quarter combat when the unit was removed, it counts as being destroyed in close combat by the opponent.

Rule 5: Reanimation protocols, as well as all rules that allow you to place a unit in ongoing reserves upon being destroyed, shall be replaced by: "At the end of each turn, roll a die. On a 4+, any models removed from that unit's original composition shall be replaced into that unit, and any wounds suffered by the original models in that unit shall be removed (no, ICs don't count for this rule).."

Rule 6: Dedicated transports which are wrecked or removed from the game may be brought back into play by rules 2 and 3, but only when the unit of which it is the transported is brought back into play in this fashion. The unit of which it is the transport may be deployed in said transport.

Thoughts?

Something that has been pointed out many times is that this is not the subforum for compounding GW's mistakes. If you don't like how powerful the game is, then fix the brokenly powerful things. I'm sure you can find likeminded people to play with.

In addition, I think you're unfairly characterizing the SM, Tau, and Eldar players. There's at least one in this forum who advocates nerfing Eldar while playing them.

My proposal does "fix" the brokenly powerful things. It lets them be brokenly powerful...but also a finite, limited, irreplaceable resource.

All of a sudden, whether to take multiple flyrants or not would become a real question. Sure, you could take a flyrant and kill a unit every turn. But if those units are troops, I'm going to get them right back. And you're going to suck on objectives.

 Traditio wrote:

So feth it. I offer you a ridiculous idea, an idea so ridiculous it might actually make the game more balanced:

What if troops were valuable BECAUSE they were expendable? What if we took the fluff about the troops being the mainstay of an army seriously? What if you couldn't run out of them? What if it were practically impossible to table someone?

I propose the following.

The following rules apply only to the following:

1. The unit must be in the "troops" section of the army codex ("counts as troops" doesn't count).
2. The unit must have the "infantry" type.
3. These rules don't affect ICs.

Rule 1: So long as you have at least 1 unit of troops in ongoing reserves, you cannot lose the game simply because you have no models on the field.

Rule 2: When a unit of troops is removed from the field, place that unit, in its original composition when initially deployed, into ongoing reserves.

Rule 3: At the beginning of each player turn, each troops unit in ongoing reserves shall be placed within 12 inches of the player's deployment zone. Each of those units counts as having moved for that turn and may not move again in the movement phase.

Rule 4: At any time, a player may remove a unit of troops from the game and place it in ongoing reserves, just so long as that unit is at 50% or less of its original number of component models. This does count, for all rules purposes, as that unit being destroyed by the opponent. If the unit was in close quarter combat when the unit was removed, it counts as being destroyed in close combat by the opponent.

Rule 5: Reanimation protocols, as well as all rules that allow you to place a unit in ongoing reserves upon being destroyed, shall be replaced by: "At the end of each turn, roll a die. On a 4+, any models removed from that unit's original composition shall be replaced into that unit, and any wounds suffered by the original models in that unit shall be removed (no, ICs don't count for this rule).."

Rule 6: Dedicated transports which are wrecked or removed from the game may be brought back into play by rules 2 and 3, but only when the unit of which it is the transported is brought back into play in this fashion. The unit of which it is the transport may be deployed in said transport.

Thoughts?

There's a variant of chess, called monster chess. One side takes a straight set of pieces, the other side (the monster side) takes 4 pawns and a king. The thing is, the monster side gets to move pawns twice each turn. The goal is to get your pawns to the other side to become Queens.

Modifying the mechanics of a game can be very effective at creating an imbalance for lesser units. We see that with the Ynarri Strength from Death Rule, and with other Eldar units that have the ability to repeat a phase of a turn or otherwise ignore a restriction on movement. We see lesser variants of this effect with rules like It Will Not Die, Reanimation Protocols, and other rules that allow models to come back in the game / restore lost hull points.

Unlike chess, 40k has up to 7 turns and a spatial component. There is a lot of ground to cover before a unit can be effective. I have played house rules before that allow a player to bring troops back onto the board once their unit is destroyed. They rarely have an impact on the game.

What I have thought might be more effective is some sort of reinforcement / escalation system, where a squad can get models back during a game turn so long as it's not totally destroyed. Maybe instead of moving, a squad can choose to reinforce to return to full strength. A squad that is at full strength could choose to upgrade, which would confer some kind of benefit.

Have not tried this in an actual game, but could see how this would make troops a lot less of a drag on lists.

techsoldaten wrote:There's a variant of chess, called monster chess. One side takes a straight set of pieces, the other side (the monster side) takes 4 pawns and a king. The thing is, the monster side gets to move pawns twice each turn. The goal is to get your pawns to the other side to become Queens.

Modifying the mechanics of a game can be very effective at creating an imbalance for lesser units. We see that with the Ynarri Strength from Death Rule, and with other Eldar units that have the ability to repeat a phase of a turn or otherwise ignore a restriction on movement. We see lesser variants of this effect with rules like It Will Not Die, Reanimation Protocols, and other rules that allow models to come back in the game / restore lost hull points.

Unlike chess, 40k has up to 7 turns and a spatial component. There is a lot of ground to cover before a unit can be effective. I have played house rules before that allow a player to bring troops back onto the board once their unit is destroyed. They rarely have an impact on the game.

What I have thought might be more effective is some sort of reinforcement / escalation system, where a squad can get models back during a game turn so long as it's not totally destroyed. Maybe instead of moving, a squad can choose to reinforce to return to full strength. A squad that is at full strength could choose to upgrade, which would confer some kind of benefit.

Have not tried this in an actual game, but could see how this would make troops a lot less of a drag on lists.

That's why I proposed the 50% rule. Because without it, you're right: it likely wouldn't affect games. Oh, you have 1 guardsman left? I'll just leave it there, and you can't replace it until its gone.

Except, 50% rule. When the unit is so small as not to be worth keeping, you can just replace it.

What he's saying is that, let's say you have 5 Tacticals. 3 die turn 2, so you respawn them turn 3. They move off the edge, and make it to an objective (that's in your DZ) turn 4. Except that objective is already in your DZ-it's probably already held by something. And their firepower won't contribute much. They might do better than 2 Tacticals, but they're not doing much.

A bit too complex.

Also the returning troop approach has been used allready in a couple detachments and formations.

The thing is that troops are pretty slow and this will mostly be useful for shooty guyz and not choppy guyz.

Not saying that it's completely useless - on the contrary, it's a very useful rule - probably even op. Non-obsec stuff will never be able to really controle your deployment zone. You just msu and infinitely respawn on points. But at the same time it's also quite unbalanced as a broad rule across all units and factions. Skiitari would be even more op. Orks would still lag behind. IG would be ok. Daemons would be increadibly broken. In this regard - it's a very poorly thought through rule - like soulburst.

As for the experience with respawning reinforcements that we allready have:
- There's some sort of renegade detachment with respawning troops - quite mediocre cause they're pretty slow and weak. Ok for scoring and vs agressive mellee armies that like to run towards your deployment zone asap. Close to useless vs shooty mobile stuff.
- CSM LOTD formation of 4+ units of cultists and apostle. When cultists are destroyed they respawn on a 4+ and come on board using outflank. That's pretty good. Especially if you're running them as Alpha Legion cause they can start the game using infiltrate and the apostle can use a mindveil artifact to join other units. I think it's a good formation purely cause of outflank and the fact that cultists are not too overpriced and can have a flamer. No obsec though.
- Castellans. A very flexible imperial detachment. Can respawn troops and their dedicated vehicles on a 5+. Yep, you could get lucky and respawn a landraider on a 5+. Provided you take one in the first place. They still come from your table edge and it's not very reliable but imperial troops are usually shooters and it's nice to have a chance to respawn that rhino. Still considered not worth it over all the other overpowered crazy crap that imperials can take.

There are some others like respawning csm possesed (useless cause possessed) and Chenkov's conscripts (no longer in game).

So I get to recycle my Pink Horrors after they split off into Blue Horrors so that they can split into more Blue Horrors?

Sounds good to me.

koooaei wrote:The thing is that troops are pretty slow and this will mostly be useful for shooty guyz and not choppy guyz.

Trukk spam.

Think about that, Kooaei. Just imagine this for a moment.

Your opponent is running scat bikes and wraithknights.

And you have 54 boys, 6 nobs with power klaws and 6 trucks. And some other stuff.

You don't care how many of your boyz die. Because they're coming right back next turn. With a brand new trukk.

But every model on your opponent's side is irreplaceable.

Oh, your opponent managed to kill your nob? Well, if he killed 5 boys with him, GREAT! New unit for you next turn.

Are you imagining this, Kooaei?

Or perhaps your opponent decided to put a farseer in your DZ and cast eldritch storm.

That's nice. So, in your next turn...

Or...

How many utterly expendable nobs with power klaws would you need to take out a riptide that can't respawn?

You see where I'm going with this?

Not saying that it's completely useless - on the contrary, it's a very useful rule - probably even op. Non-obsec stuff will never be able to really controle your deployment zone. You just msu and infinitely respawn on points.

Exactly. It would shift the focus of the game away from tabling your opponent to controlling midfield objectives and having enough troops to hold the line every turn.

Just like a war game SHOULD be.

But at the same time it's also quite unbalanced as a broad rule across all units and factions. Skiitari would be even more op. Orks would still lag behind. IG would be ok. Daemons would be increadibly broken. In this regard - it's a very poorly thought through rule - like soulburst

Skitarri? I don't really see that. I think that orks and IG would be beastly though.

Can you imagine? How many heavy weapons or special weapons can you fit into a single IG troops slot, Kooaei?

What's exactly that's gona prevent the power balance from shifting to unkillable not too killy obsec tarpits? You're proposing things that would make the current op stuff not op anymore but assuming that people wouldn't just shift to new op stuff. You're talking about elf scatbike spam but in this rulesetting you're proposing, elfs would just switch to something like endless cabalites in raiders.

Balancing stuff is pretty hard to achieve especially with such broad rulechanges. Fixing specific problematic units and gear options is generally a more reliable way to achieve balance.

Love the idea...until I remember Scattbikes are troops.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Love the idea...until I remember Scattbikes are troops.

He did actually think of that. Infantry unit type only-Scatbikes are, well, bikes. (Jetbikes to be exact.)

This is a really, really bad idea.

Rule 1 essentially removes tabling your opponent as a win condition. Unless you play an army with literally zero troops units you will always have at least one unit on the table or one unit of troops in ongoing reserves. While we can argue the merits of losing the game because your on-table forces were destroyed, even though you have units about to arrive from reserve, tabling exists as a win condition for a reason and needs to stay.

The "infantry only" and "no 'counts as troops'" rules are a problem. Yes, it's a way of preventing scatter laser jetbikes from being even more broken than they already are, but the solution to that is to nerf that specific unit. There are fluffy and balanced armies that depend on using non-standard troops, and those armies shouldn't be nerfed into uselessness relative to the armies with standard (and therefore infinite) troops.

Magically teleporting anywhere in your deployment zone is a huge problem. Melee troops immediately enter combat no matter where the enemy unit is or how defensively you might want to play, and the only real counter is "never get within 12" of your opponent's deployment zone". Any objectives in your opponent's deployment zone become virtually impossible to hold, because no matter what you do an obsec scoring unit is going to teleport there next turn. And you have the complete absurdity of things like units teleporting directly to the top level of a ruin, much faster than they could get there by walking normally.

Fluff-wise it's complete nonsense. It makes sense for something like IG conscripts to respawn or a horde of cultists over and over again (and, in fact, those units have had respawn rules), but an endless horde of grey knight terminators? No thank you.

Finally, it still fails the "make troops interesting" test. A bad and boring unit that can be taken in vast quantities isn't really any more interesting, it's just better at winning games. A rough approximation of this rule is "reduce the point cost of troops units by 50%", while the problem with troops has nothing to do with their point efficiency. A tactical squad that costs half as much is still a boring version of a sternguard squad, and has none of the OMG COOL I WANT IT factor. So you'd succeed in making more of the game about who can exploit the respawn mechanic most effectively and generate more points worth of "free" units (hey, this sounds an awful lot like the complaint about formations!), and reinforce the idea that troops are the boring units you take because you want to win games and resent because they remove your ability to use the fun stuff.

Absolutely agreed with Peregrine.

To further compound his point threefold:
I I now get infinite drop pods? So I can just keep dropping Pods all over your objectives to deny them? Wonderful!

Formations don't have Battlefield roles. If I take a Formation, Troops, as I recall, cease to exist, and purely become different units. Your idea only works for Allied Detachments and CAD.

Why do standard Space Marine armies have finite Terminators and Veterans, yet Deathwatch and Grey Knights get infinite Terminators and Veterans? Why do Scions get infinite Scions, but frontline Guardsmen don't? Hell, Legion of the Damned get absolutely nothing reusable, and they're not even corporeal!
There's a major fluff disconnect here, and I don't like that.

Traditio wrote:How many heavy weapons or special weapons can you fit into a single IG troops slot, Kooaei?

In one Troops slot for guardsmen, I can get a Platoon Command Squad, up to five Infantry Squads, up to five Heavy Weapon Squads, and up to three Special Weapon Squads (and a unit of Conscripts, but they can't get anything beyond their lasgun).

I can get two special weapons and a heavy weapon/four special weapons per Platoon Command Squad, a special and heavy per infantry squad, and for every HWS, I can get 3 Heavy Weapons, and for every SWS, I can get three Special Weapons.

At maximum amount, I can get:
18 Special Weapons
20 Heavy Weapons

All from one Troops slot, and that's not even including lasguns or transports.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:I I now get infinite drop pods?

Yes.

So I can just keep dropping Pods all over your objectives to deny them? Wonderful!

No. See proposed rule 3.

"Rule 3: At the beginning of each player turn, each troops unit in ongoing reserves shall be placed within 12 inches of the player's deployment zone. Each of those units counts as having moved for that turn and may not move again in the movement phase. "

Formations don't have Battlefield roles. If I take a Formation, Troops, as I recall, cease to exist, and purely become different units. Your idea only works for Allied Detachments and CAD.

Reread caveat 1:

"1. The unit must be in the 'troops' section of the army codex ('counts as troops' doesn't count)."

Basically, whenever you see "troops" in the rules, mentally replace that with "The list of things that I see when I physically open up my codex and go to this page of the book." That, along with the other caveats.

Why do standard Space Marine armies have finite Terminators and Veterans, yet Deathwatch and Grey Knights get infinite Terminators and Veterans? Why do Scions get infinite Scions, but frontline Guardsmen don't? Hell, Legion of the Damned get absolutely nothing reusable, and they're not even corporeal!
There's a major fluff disconnect here, and I don't like that.

That's not a problem with the proposed rules. That's a problem with the current rules as is. To what extent does it make sense to say that a veteran or a terminator could be classified as a "troop"?

Even so, I don't think it would be game breaking. Because, again, see proposed rule 3.

I can get two special weapons and a heavy weapon/four special weapons per Platoon Command Squad, a special and heavy per infantry squad, and for every HWS, I can get 3 Heavy Weapons, and for every SWS, I can get three Special Weapons.

At maximum amount, I can get:
18 Special Weapons
20 Heavy Weapons

All from one Troops slot, and that's not even including lasguns or transports.

Plus the dedicated transports.

How about we cost things appropriately? Done.

Actually, Sgt_Smudge:

The drop pod point alone is a compelling argument in favor of my proposal.

It would make rhino/razorback vs. drop pod an actual tactical decision when writing an army list.

 Traditio wrote:
Actually, Sgt_Smudge:

The drop pod point alone is a compelling argument in favor of my proposal.

It would make rhino/razorback vs. drop pod an actual tactical decision when writing an army list.

It already is. I actually prefer the Rhino.

Awe, and here I thought the Traditio era had come to an end.

The idea is severely flawed; allowing flowing reserves for just Infantry/Troops is just going to move the game meta towards nothing but Troop lists, especially when you can't lose for being tabled.

An interesting mission type perhaps. Certainly not a central mechanic to the game.

Traditio wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:I I now get infinite drop pods?

Yes.

So I can just keep dropping Pods all over your objectives to deny them? Wonderful!

No. See proposed rule 3.

"Rule 3: At the beginning of each player turn, each troops unit in ongoing reserves shall be placed within 12 inches of the player's deployment zone. Each of those units counts as having moved for that turn and may not move again in the movement phase. "

But Drop Pods can't be "placed" as such. They need to deploy as per their own rules, because the Codex rules trump rulebook rules due to specificity. Drop Pods can go anywhere, due to their rule. Your "rulebook" rule doesn't supersede that.

Why do standard Space Marine armies have finite Terminators and Veterans, yet Deathwatch and Grey Knights get infinite Terminators and Veterans? Why do Scions get infinite Scions, but frontline Guardsmen don't? Hell, Legion of the Damned get absolutely nothing reusable, and they're not even corporeal!
There's a major fluff disconnect here, and I don't like that.

That's not a problem with the proposed rules. That's a problem with the current rules as is. To what extent does it make sense to say that a veteran or a terminator could be classified as a "troop"?

Well, let's see what you have to say about what makes a Troop a Troop.
"What if troops were valuable BECAUSE they were expendable? What if we took the fluff about the troops being the mainstay of an army seriously?" So, from this, we can infer that Troops are expendable, which is their value, and that they form the mainstay of an army.

Tell me, what about Grey Knight Terminators makes them more expandable than Terminators from the Mentor Legion? Why are Veterans from the Praetors of Orpheus more valuable than Deathwatch Veterans? Why are Scions from the Scion codex more expandable than Scions from the Astra Militarum Codex?
In fact, why are Eldar Guardians (every Eldar life is precious, according to fluff), Space Marines (some of the rarest and most elite warriors of mankind and Chaos) and FSE Crisis Suits (valued and vital pieces of tech, doubly so in a fringe empire) classed as expandable? Because they're simply classed as Troops, and are therefore expendable, breaking every bit of fluff we have on these three factions at least?

Just because something is classed as "Troops" doesn't mean it's expandable. That is your own flawed logic. Guardsmen are expandable. Necron Warriors, Tyranid Gaunts, Ork Boyz, etc etc - all expendable. But that's represented by their cheapness (which I admit could be taken further). Not all Troops are expandable, and expendability is not what makes a Troop a Troop. Nothing in the Grey Knight army is what I'd deem expandable.

Troops are Troops because they are the most common and basic units fielded by the army. For Deathwatch, their "Troops" are commonplace, but in any other Chapter, they'd be Elite. That doesn't detract from their Veterancy. They're still Veterans, still precious. It's just that the Deathwatch uses Veterans as their main line of combat - not necessarily being expendable.

Even so, I don't think it would be game breaking. Because, again, see proposed rule 3.

See Drop Pods.

I can get two special weapons and a heavy weapon/four special weapons per Platoon Command Squad, a special and heavy per infantry squad, and for every HWS, I can get 3 Heavy Weapons, and for every SWS, I can get three Special Weapons.

At maximum amount, I can get:
18 Special Weapons
20 Heavy Weapons

All from one Troops slot, and that's not even including lasguns or transports.

Plus the dedicated transports.

And this is where you demonstrate you have no actual care for balance.

And I did mention the transports. For the record.

Martel732 wrote:How about we cost things appropriately? Done.

This. Every time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Traditio wrote:
Actually, Sgt_Smudge:

The drop pod point alone is a compelling argument in favor of my proposal.

It would make rhino/razorback vs. drop pod an actual tactical decision when writing an army list.

Not when a Drop Pod can deploy anywhere it wants, due to Codex rules trumping Rulebook rules.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:But Drop Pods can't be "placed" as such. They need to deploy as per their own rules, because the Codex rules trump rulebook rules due to specificity. Drop Pods can go anywhere, due to their rule. Your "rulebook" rule doesn't supersede that.

See the edited version of proposed rule 3.

And this is where you demonstrate you have no actual care for balance.

If you don't think that it's OP without the respawn rule, why do you think it's OP with the respawn rule? And even with the respawn special rule, good luck taking out a wraithknight or a riptide.

 Traditio wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:But Drop Pods can't be "placed" as such. They need to deploy as per their own rules, because the Codex rules trump rulebook rules due to specificity. Drop Pods can go anywhere, due to their rule. Your "rulebook" rule doesn't supersede that.

See the edited version of proposed rule 3.

And now I can place a wall of Drop Pods and create a castle of Pods, without even needing to worry about scatter.

Such brilliant tactical play.

And this is where you demonstrate you have no actual care for balance.

If you don't think that it's OP without the respawn rule, why do you think it's OP with the respawn rule? And even with the respawn special rule, good luck taking out a wraithknight or a riptide.

I think free units are not okay. You are advocating free units, transports, upgrades, all for units which aren't even destroyed. At my whim, I can instantly replace a unit that's at 50%, renew casualties, combi-weapons, transports, and have them ready to go, all because of a misguided belief that just because it's called "Troops" there are unlimited supplies of them.

I can take out Wraithknights and Riptides without free units and respawns. Even better would be if Wraithknights and Riptides were costed fairer, as well as every other unit in the game being costed more appropriately, possibly with a better rules overhaul.

This doesn't fix anything without causing more problems.

 Traditio wrote:
If you don't think that it's OP without the respawn rule, why do you think it's OP with the respawn rule? And even with the respawn special rule, good luck taking out a wraithknight or a riptide.

Fighting unit imbalance with mechanical imbalance is like trying to swat a fly with a drinking straw. Not gonna work.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:And now I can place a wall of Drop Pods and create a castle of Pods, without even needing to worry about scatter.

Yes you could. I mean, I'm not entirely sure why you would want to.

But yes, that is a thing that you could do.

What's the problem?

think free units are not okay.

Why not?

Pretty much everyone would have access to them.

 Traditio wrote:
Why not?

Pretty much everyone would have access to them.

It'd basically be the same as giving everyone 100 point Wraitknights. You sure that still sounds like a fun idea?

 Traditio wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:And now I can place a wall of Drop Pods and create a castle of Pods, without even needing to worry about scatter.

Yes you could. I mean, I'm not entirely sure why you would want to.

But yes, that is a thing that you could do.

What's the problem?

Because now I can barricade my entire deployment and certain objectives with AV12 3HP immovable objects. I don't even have to leave my deployment zone. I only need to bunker down on objectives with free respawning drop pods.

Free units are not okay.

think free units are not okay.

Why not?

Pretty much everyone would have access to them.

Giving everyone Wraithknights wouldn't change that Wraithknights are OP.

Martel732 wrote:
How about we cost things appropriately? Done.

At this point, I don't think that's going to happen. And given the sheer variety of things in the game, rules mechanics, sheer scale differences, etc., I don't even think it's even realistic.

How are you going to balance a cultist against a wraithknight by points cost alone?

A tactical marine against an imperial knight?

And even if you could, the problem remains that basic troops simply don't have any real kind of role in this game at this point.

And GW certainly doesn't seem to be slowing down the arms race. Magnus exists now. Rowboat Girlyman is apparently entering into the normal 40k game. Eldar can spam D. Practically everyone and his mother have rerollable 2+ everything.

So my proposal is: Fine. Everything should be OP. Make. Everything. OP.

Make heavy supports, elites, fast attacks, etc. really good at their specialized roles. Make them amazing. Make them OP amazing.

And make troops practically unkillable.

At the end of the day, I do think that this would make troops-only armies more viable, but I don't think that it would make them a "must take" in the competitive meta. Even if tactical marines could respawn, the wraithknight would still be very mobile, very durable and will destroy practically whatever you point it at.

It would, of course, shift the way the game is played. Instead of tabling the opponent, the new focus would be on taking out elites, heavy supports, etc. relatively early in the game to cripple the opponent's specialized capabilities, and then control the mid-field objectives.

But then, everyone's supposed to be playing Maelstrom now, right? This is supposed to be an objectives game, right?

So let's play this like an objectives game.

When I see threads like that, I'm pretty sure they're intended as jokes… until I see people actually arguing about it, and end up remembering that GW already did this (the renegade detachment that allows troop to come back and outflank on a 2+).

Sgt_Smudge wrote:Because now I can barricade my entire deployment and certain objectives with AV12 3HP immovable objects. I don't even have to leave my deployment zone. I only need to bunker down on objectives with free respawning drop pods.

And?

Good luck taking mid-field objectives that way. And that won't stop me from sitting on my objectives.

Giving everyone Wraithknights wouldn't change that Wraithknights are OP.

Do you think that respawning infantry-troops would be OP? I mean, you can say "free troops are not OK," but I simply don't share your convictions.

 Traditio wrote:


How are you going to balance a cultist against a wraithknight by points cost alone?

A tactical marine against an imperial knight?

That's... not how balance works.

They're two completely different units with two completely different battlefield roles. 300 points of Marines shouldn't be able to kill 300 points of Wraithknight just as easily as the Wraithknight will kill them.

Because the Knight has stuff designed for killing Marines - that's it's speciality. If everything could counter everything, the game would be incredibly bland.

Naturally, of course, tactical marines would have to lose grav weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

General Annoyance wrote:That's... not how balance works.

They're two completely different units with two completely different battlefield roles. 300 points of Marines shouldn't be able to kill 300 points of Wraithknight just as easily as the Wraithknight will kill them.

Because the Knight has stuff designed for killing Marines - that's it's speciality. If everything could counter everything, the game would be incredibly bland.

That's just it. There's too much variety and too many battlefield roles.

Which is fine.

I think that an IK should be able to tear through waves of infantry with ease.

But the mechanics of the game should make that a waste of your time. You should be using an IK to target specialist units and clear enemy troops from midfield objectives.

 Traditio wrote:
If you don't think that it's OP without the respawn rule, why do you think it's OP with the respawn rule? And even with the respawn special rule, good luck taking out a wraithknight or a riptide.

Ah, there it is, the good ol', tried and true, classic "But does it kill Wraith Knights/Riptides real good?" argument, see also "But are they as good as scatterbikes?". If someone hasn't named this phenomenon, then it ought to happen, as it is ubiquitous in 40k discussions as Godwin's Law elsewhere on the interwebs. WK and Riptides are both mentioned in the first post as well as the quoted post, and the proposed rule is deliberately worded in response to scatbikes existing somewhere in the middle of the thread. Used as a justification for many proposed buffs, nerfs, and rebalances. Regardless of whether the proposed changes are decent or not, that should never, ever be used to try to bring more units up to their level. When you do this, it does not help rebalance the game or make it more fun. You are not fighting the power creep. You ARE the power creep.

If the pattern of "make everything as strong as the strongest thing(s) in the game" continues, we'll end up with "super cool awesome uber units that kill everything". If you want to wipe your opponent using super cool awesome uber units in one or two turns, and they want to do the same, then eventually it'll boil down to who goes first wins. If you want your games to be based on 50/50 odds and to completely invalidate the actual models on the table, you might as well sell your minis and go play a rock paper scissors tournament. And you are actively pushing 40k in that direction, intentional or not, with your relentless "BUFF BUFF BUFF ZOMG" attitude.

Stop. Just stop. That is the very thing that GW is selectively guilty of, and that mindset continually poisons the game. Please, no more.

 Traditio wrote:
That's just it. There's too much variety and too many battlefield roles.

Which is fine.

It can't be if you're saying it's too much

I think that an IK should be able to tear through waves of infantry with ease.

But the mechanics of the game should make that a waste of your time. You should be using an IK to target specialist units and clear enemy troops from midfield objectives.

And how would you make it a waste of time to use the Knight efficiently?


No, the mechanics should be revolving around combined arms - dabbling in various units from across your codex so that you can deal with a wide variety of situations, while also creating a coherency across the force. If we had unit balance, that'd be what we'd get. You can specialise too, but you run the risk of being tipped off balance if you don't know what list your opponent is bringing.

General Annoyance wrote:
No, the mechanics should be revolving around combined arms - dabbling in various units from across your codex so that you can deal with a wide variety of situations, while also creating a coherency across the force.

I completely agree with you, and I think that what I am proposing would accomplish that.

General Annoyance wrote:And how would you make it a waste of time to use the Knight efficiently?

Right. So imagine that you are playing with my proposed rules. You have an IK as well as an HQ and some troops in transports from another codex. Your opponent has a ton of troops in his DZ, but a unit of elites in a transport on a midfield objective.

You have two options:

You could shoot/assault the troops in his DZ.

I think that your IK should slaughter them. Just annihilate them.

But so much good that did.

On your opponent's turn, he puts them right back where they were.

You've accomplished, if not nothing, then very little.

That's option one.

Option two is you target the enemy squad sitting on the midfield objective, move your own troops there and score a VP.

You see what I'm saying?

 Traditio wrote:
Right. So imagine that you are playing with my proposed rules. You have an IK as well as an HQ and some troops in transports from another codex. Your opponent has a ton of troops in his DZ, but a unit of elites in a transport on a midfield objective.

You have two options:

You could shoot/assault the troops in his DZ.
I think that your IK should slaughter them. Just annihilate them.
But so much good that did.
On your opponent's turn, he puts them right back where they were.
You've accomplished, if not nothing, then very little.
That's option one.

Option two is you target the enemy squad sitting on the midfield objective, move your own troops there and score a VP.

You see what I'm saying?

Why do you think that this is a good idea? You've replaced an interesting strategic choice in how to use the knight (take the midfield objectives vs. take the objectives in your opponent's deployment zone) with a single choice. Why do you think that 40k needs to be a game with even less depth?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, you seemed to have missed my earlier comments (I know you wouldn't dishonestly ignore criticism, would you?), so I'll repost them for your convenience:

 Peregrine wrote:
This is a really, really bad idea.

Rule 1 essentially removes tabling your opponent as a win condition. Unless you play an army with literally zero troops units you will always have at least one unit on the table or one unit of troops in ongoing reserves. While we can argue the merits of losing the game because your on-table forces were destroyed, even though you have units about to arrive from reserve, tabling exists as a win condition for a reason and needs to stay.

The "infantry only" and "no 'counts as troops'" rules are a problem. Yes, it's a way of preventing scatter laser jetbikes from being even more broken than they already are, but the solution to that is to nerf that specific unit. There are fluffy and balanced armies that depend on using non-standard troops, and those armies shouldn't be nerfed into uselessness relative to the armies with standard (and therefore infinite) troops.

Magically teleporting anywhere in your deployment zone is a huge problem. Melee troops immediately enter combat no matter where the enemy unit is or how defensively you might want to play, and the only real counter is "never get within 12" of your opponent's deployment zone". Any objectives in your opponent's deployment zone become virtually impossible to hold, because no matter what you do an obsec scoring unit is going to teleport there next turn. And you have the complete absurdity of things like units teleporting directly to the top level of a ruin, much faster than they could get there by walking normally.

Fluff-wise it's complete nonsense. It makes sense for something like IG conscripts to respawn or a horde of cultists over and over again (and, in fact, those units have had respawn rules), but an endless horde of grey knight terminators? No thank you.

Finally, it still fails the "make troops interesting" test. A bad and boring unit that can be taken in vast quantities isn't really any more interesting, it's just better at winning games. A rough approximation of this rule is "reduce the point cost of troops units by 50%", while the problem with troops has nothing to do with their point efficiency. A tactical squad that costs half as much is still a boring version of a sternguard squad, and has none of the OMG COOL I WANT IT factor. So you'd succeed in making more of the game about who can exploit the respawn mechanic most effectively and generate more points worth of "free" units (hey, this sounds an awful lot like the complaint about formations!), and reinforce the idea that troops are the boring units you take because you want to win games and resent because they remove your ability to use the fun stuff.

Peregrine wrote:Why do you think that this is a good idea? You've replaced an interesting strategic choice in how to use the knight (take the midfield objectives vs. take the objectives in your opponent's deployment zone) with a single choice. Why do you think that 40k needs to be a game with even less depth?

Except, I haven't.

It's all based on the objectives you need.

If you need an objective that's in your opponent's DZ, then you could use the IK to clear the objective and then move your troops onto that objective.

Yes, the troops would just come back on the next turn, but you've still scored the VP.

And note, this is why it would still be important to take non-troops. It would be much harder to do that without the IK.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rule 1 essentially removes tabling your opponent as a win condition. Unless you play an army with literally zero troops units you will always have at least one unit on the table or one unit of troops in ongoing reserves. While we can argue the merits of losing the game because your on-table forces were destroyed, even though you have units about to arrive from reserve, tabling exists as a win condition for a reason and needs to stay.

I mean, it technically would still be possible to table your opponent. I can think of two ways:

1. Some armies don't use troops. You could, in principle, table a space marine bike army or an Eldar scatbike army if you were to use these rules.

2. You could essentially table your opponent if you managed to remove all of his models AND make it impossible for him to deploy any models within 12 inches of his side of the board. The game wouldn't technically end there, but practically speaking, the game would end there.

However, tabling your opponent still wouldn't be a win-condition in the second case. You'd still have to have more VPs than your opponent.

But really, this is a problem with the game in general. GW seems to be selling us a ruleset that says "PLAY TO THE OBJECTIVES," but they keep selling us codices that essentially say "IGNORE THE OBJECTIVES; TABLE YOUR OPPONENT."

I say: if the game's supposed to be an objectives game, then it should be an objectives game. My proposed rules would force players to play to the objectives.

The "infantry only" and "no 'counts as troops'" rules are a problem. Yes, it's a way of preventing scatter laser jetbikes from being even more broken than they already are, but the solution to that is to nerf that specific unit. There are fluffy and balanced armies that depend on using non-standard troops, and those armies shouldn't be nerfed into uselessness relative to the armies with standard (and therefore infinite) troops.

It actually serves a threefold purpose:

1. It's not just scatter bikes. It also prevents things like respawnable wraithguard/wave serpents and respawnable space marine bikes.

2. It actually makes troops vs. "counts as troops" a real tactical decision. Would you prefer to take the space marine bikes that can't respawn or the tactical marines that can?

3. It would allow for greater unit specialization. If tactical marines can respawn, but space marine bikes can't, then there's no reason why each and every space marine bike shouldn't be able to upgrade to a grav gun.

I'm serious, man. Make. Everything. OP.

Magically teleporting anywhere in your deployment zone is a huge problem. Melee troops immediately enter combat no matter where the enemy unit is or how defensively you might want to play, and the only real counter is "never get within 12" of your opponent's deployment zone". Any objectives in your opponent's deployment zone become virtually impossible to hold, because no matter what you do an obsec scoring unit is going to teleport there next turn. And you have the complete absurdity of things like units teleporting directly to the top level of a ruin, much faster than they could get there by walking normally.

I don't view this as problematic. All of this is essentially what I intended. As I said, it would shift the focus of the game to hunting down specialist units early and camping on mid-field objectives.

Fluff-wise it's complete nonsense. It makes sense for something like IG conscripts to respawn or a horde of cultists over and over again (and, in fact, those units have had respawn rules), but an endless horde of grey knight terminators? No thank you.

As I said to Sgt_Smudge:

I have two points about this:

1. Given proposed rule 3, even respawning terminators wouldn't be game-breaking.

2. Terminators as troops is a problem with the rules as is, not my rules proposal.

Finally, it still fails the "make troops interesting" test. A bad and boring unit that can be taken in vast quantities isn't really any more interesting, it's just better at winning games. A rough approximation of this rule is "reduce the point cost of troops units by 50%", while the problem with troops has nothing to do with their point efficiency. A tactical squad that costs half as much is still a boring version of a sternguard squad, and has none of the OMG COOL I WANT IT factor. So you'd succeed in making more of the game about who can exploit the respawn mechanic most effectively and generate more points worth of "free" units (hey, this sounds an awful lot like the complaint about formations!), and reinforce the idea that troops are the boring units you take because you want to win games and resent because they remove your ability to use the fun stuff.

So you don't think that zombie cultists or DKOK are interesting?

 General Annoyance wrote:
If everything could counter everything, the game would be incredibly bland.

Like in AoS? Zing!

Anyway, more on topic, you yourself (Tradito, that is) have said that you don't like OP nonsense. So why the sudden change of heart?

Again, as has been said before, this is the PROPOSED RULES forum. We are not bound by GW's mistakes.

JNAProductions wrote:Anyway, more on topic, you yourself (Tradito, that is) have said that you don't like OP nonsense. So why the sudden change of heart?

That's precisely why I propose this.

I think that my proposal would make the OP stuff less OP because it would force objectives-based gameplay.

Do you realize how useless flyrant spam would be with this rule?



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, can you imagine how much this would boost tyrranid troops?

In addition, I think that the little zergling things should basically get my proposed reanimation protocols to represent the never-ending swarm.

Tarpits for days!

 Traditio wrote:
I'm serious, man. Make. Everything. OP.

You said it. Not me.

In addition, how do you deal with the fluff issues? Because Guardsmen swarming like flies, or Gaunts, or stuff like that, yeah, okay. Space Marines of ANY kind? No.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
I'm serious, man. Make. Everything. OP.

You said it. Not me.

In addition, how do you deal with the fluff issues? Because Guardsmen swarming like flies, or Gaunts, or stuff like that, yeah, okay. Space Marines of ANY kind? No.

What I'm proposing isn't much worse than what the rules give us already, fluffwise. The fluff tells me that a tactical marine should be bat man, superman and captain America all rolled into one. I should need 1, 2, at most 5 tactical marines, to slaughter just about anything that might be on the table.

Or, at the very least, a single tactical marine should be 10 times better than a single guardsmen.

That's not what the current rules give me.

And besides. Just how often in the fluff do you think wraithknights or imperial knights get deployed? Meanwhile, on the actual table-top...

Feth the fluff. Purely in terms of game mechanics, I think that my idea make sense.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
One further thought:

And even if tactical marines did cost 50 ppm and were 10 times as good as guardsmen, I don't see why there's anything intrinsically unfluffy about the idea that a space marine force could call for reinforcements. There are roughly 1000 space marines in a chapter. How many do you think you would go through in an 1850 game, even with respawns?

Alright, that's a legitimate fluff stance.

Now you just need to make the rule actually decent and fun. Because as it stands, as has been addressed by several people more intelligent than I... It's not.

Edit: You start with, say, 50. That's 700 points. You lose 25, respawn three squads. You're up to 80. That's damn near a tenth of a chapter in one battle.

 Traditio wrote:
Yes, the troops would just come back on the next turn, but you've still scored the VP.

Assuming you're playing a maelstrom game, which you shouldn't be. If you're playing a normal mission then you've accomplished nothing.

And note, this is why it would still be important to take non-troops. It would be much harder to do that without the IK.

I don't think you understand the sheer power of mass obsec units. You might have a harder time killing something, but you can throw wave after wave of obsec units at the objectives and win even if you don't kill much.

I mean, it technically would still be possible to table your opponent. I can think of two ways:

1. Some armies don't use troops. You could, in principle, table a space marine bike army or an Eldar scatbike army if you were to use these rules.

2. You could essentially table your opponent if you managed to remove all of his models AND make it impossible for him to deploy any models within 12 inches of his side of the board. The game wouldn't technically end there, but practically speaking, the game would end there.

It might be technically possible, but in real games it would never happen. If infinite respawning troops units exist then every army will take at least one unit to abuse the mechanic. And making it impossible to deploy within 12" of the entire table edge is virtually impossible when models can teleport directly to any point in that entire 6'x1' area. If you have enough surviving models to cover the whole area and you've literally removed your opponent's entire army from the table then why did you play such a one-sided game in the first place? That's only going to happen in a seal-clubbing game where one player is completely outclassed and has zero hope of winning.

But really, this is a problem with the game in general. GW seems to be selling us a ruleset that says "PLAY TO THE OBJECTIVES," but they keep selling us codices that essentially say "IGNORE THE OBJECTIVES; TABLE YOUR OPPONENT."

You're a C:SM player, you should know better. Remember how your best formation is MSU obsec spam that wins by sheer objective claiming ability instead of killing power? Remember how 7th edition made all units scoring so that your entire army can participate in the objective game, instead of just your troops tax? Remember how many of the balance problems involve death star armies that are virtually impossible to table? There are certainly balance issues, but winning is still very much about claiming objectives.

1. It's not just scatter bikes. It also prevents things like respawnable wraithguard/wave serpents and respawnable space marine bikes.

If those specific units are a problem then fix them. If bikes/wraithguard/whatever weren't overpowered in the first place then letting them have the same respawning ability as tactical marines wouldn't be a problem.

2. It actually makes troops vs. "counts as troops" a real tactical decision. Would you prefer to take the space marine bikes that can't respawn or the tactical marines that can?

It makes no such tactical decision because "counts as troops" no longer makes units troops, and that rule ceases to matter. At that point there's very little difference between taking "troops" bikes and fast attack bikes.

3. It would allow for greater unit specialization. If tactical marines can respawn, but space marine bikes can't, then there's no reason why each and every space marine bike shouldn't be able to upgrade to a grav gun.

I'm serious, man. Make. Everything. OP.

This is terrible game design. What 40k needs is a return to reasonable power levels, not an even greater arms race between which gimmick is most overpowered at the moment. Your proposed game is no longer an interesting strategy game, it's those obnoxious kids yelling "MY POKEMON IS LEVEL 999999 NO MINE IS BETTER MINE IS YOURS +1 SO THERE I WIN NO I WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!". Contrast this with 30k, which removes much of 40k's "make everything OP" design and is a much better game as a result.

I don't view this as problematic. All of this is essentially what I intended. As I said, it would shift the focus of the game to hunting down specialist units early and camping on mid-field objectives.

Of course it's probelmatic. Why even have deployment zones if the only thing that matters is the 6'x2' section in the middle of the table? Your proposal effectively cuts the size of the table in half, in a game that already suffers badly from the constraints of playing on a 6'x4' table.

1. Given proposed rule 3, even respawning terminators wouldn't be game-breaking.

2. Terminators as troops is a problem with the rules as is, not my rules proposal.

You completely ignored the point of what I said there. I was talking about FLUFF, not balance. Even if respawning terminators is balanced it's completely ing stupid from a fluff point of view. Terminators are the elite of the elite, equipped with priceless relics of a forgotten age, not a horde of expendable conscripts to mindlessly throw at an objective. "Send in the next wave" is not a thing that should ever be applied to them. And it shouldn't be applied to even lower-tier troops like tactical marines, terminators are just the most extreme example of breaking the fluff.

And no, they aren't a problem with the rules. Terminators as troops works just fine in certain armies. They have existed for multiple editions without any problems and are well established as part of the fluff. If your proposal can't handle those armies then the problem is on your end, and you can't just handwave it away.

So you don't think that zombie cultists or DKOK are interesting?

They're interesting in their own ways, mostly because they make sense fluff-wise. But that's missing the point. The issue is not that horde infantry and basic troops are never interesting, it's that many players find them less appealing because they're so boring. Consider a tactical squad vs. a sternguard squad. The sternguard squad is just a better tactical squad in every way. Same bolter marines, same weapon upgrade options, except with a better stat line and that awesome special-issue ammunition. Which one has the "WOW COOL UNIT" factor? Clearly the sternguard. So yeah, taking MSU tactical marines in a gladius army might be good at winning games, but a lot of players are going to spend the whole time wishing they could have more sternguard instead of those boring marines. And making the tactical squad cheaper (and therefore better at winning games) doesn't do anything to fix this problem.

And no, this isn't an easy problem to fix. GW have really backed themselves into a corner with their constant "it's like your existing unit, but so much cooler!" marketing of new units. Sternguard are tactical marines +1. Vanguard are assault marines +1. Centurions are devastators +1. Etc. The basic units are mostly reduced to being the standard for comparison that makes the shiny new toys look good, not units you actually want to have in your army. That's a core design philosophy problem, not something that can be fixed with a buff to troops.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Traditio wrote:
I don't see why there's anything intrinsically unfluffy about the idea that a space marine force could call for reinforcements.

We have that already, it's represented by putting units in reserve. What your respawn idea represents is a "send in the next wave" approach where you're encouraged to send unit after unit into a war of attrition, knowing that it's ok that they get slaughtered because there's plenty more where the first wave came from. In fact, your rules allow you to literally suicide a squad of space marines so you can respawn another one. That's the exact opposite of the kind of carefully targeted precision assaults that space marines are supposed to make.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Traditio wrote:
The fluff tells me that a tactical marine should be bat man, superman and captain America all rolled into one. I should need 1, 2, at most 5 tactical marines, to slaughter just about anything that might be on the table.

No, that would be space marine masturbatory fanfiction, not reasonable fluff. 1-2 space marines slaughtering a whole army is not reasonable at all, especially in a setting where every other faction has their own badass units that are equally effective.

As a person who uses mass troops that re spawn on 4+'s (daemons just to be even more dickish)

The comments on this forums are just funny to watch, also making it that troops can be infinite would have not only some gameplay problems but also actual real world limitations

First, when i think mass spam troops, i suddenly remember apoc games were the whole table is flooded with models.

DO YOU EVEN KNOW HOW LONG IT TAKES TO MOVE THAT MANY MODELS???

It's a clusterfeth, especially when adding dice rolls to EVERY SINGLE UNIT!

the second point is....... who the hell is going to have a massive stash of the same exact unit loadouts in their collection of 40k stuff.

Sure you might have 3-4 units that are the same, but when you have potentially infinite units coming on to the field do you have the brass to cover the madness that is spamming?

For a ruleset, I've played scenarios where troops are infinte and i can tell you, it doesnt work

not because the troops are OP, but because it's the middle of turn 2 and my oponent has only moved a quarter of his guys and it's been 3 hours already

Scaling in 40k is a serious problem, especially with the rulesets and stuff

When i have a formation that dumps 84 models on the field (barebones) and it takes me at least 20 mins to set them up on the turn they arrive with my oponents help, this tells you that 40k is not gracious in terms of big armies.

My advice? price everything adequately in their own unique way, this way you are not comparing apples but rather everything is a different fruit/vegetable, that way people can NEVER compare one unit to another cause they do completely different roles and different utilities

The problem is that this is so biased towards gunline and shooty armies. In choppy armies, half the battle is just getting across the table. Gunline armies don't have to do that. They want to be in their deployment zone. I'm all for certain armies having respawn rules, but only horde armies like guard, orks, and nids. Giving this rule to admech, tau, or even some SM variants is just going to make the shooting phase even more out of balance.

For example, if I my boyz finally make across the table to chew through a group of firewarriors, which is where the markerlights, ethereals, and other support will be, guess what, those firewarriors will be back next turn at full strength in their own deployment zone ready to take out my already weakened boyz. Sure, they don't get their HQ back, but they get all their markerlights and all their shooting. Those boyz are dead. What happens when my boyz respawn? They're at the other end of the table back in their trukk. Now he's got all his units back, I have mine back, but I have lost all my progress towards winning while he's back at full strength.

This is true with any shooty army. Some chaos marines somehow make it across the table to take out a squad of grav cents? Congratulations, the grav cents get to respawn on their next turn and liquidate the chaos marines, who go back to their end of the table. This rule further imbalances the game in favor of shooting, which is already fantastic in this edition.

 Vitali Advenil wrote:
The problem is that this is so biased towards gunline and shooty armies. In choppy armies, half the battle is just getting across the table. Gunline armies don't have to do that. They want to be in their deployment zone. I'm all for certain armies having respawn rules, but only horde armies like guard, orks, and nids. Giving this rule to admech, tau, or even some SM variants is just going to make the shooting phase even more out of balance.

For example, if I my boyz finally make across the table to chew through a group of firewarriors, which is where the markerlights, ethereals, and other support will be, guess what, those firewarriors will be back next turn at full strength in their own deployment zone ready to take out my already weakened boyz. Sure, they don't get their HQ back, but they get all their markerlights and all their shooting. Those boyz are dead. What happens when my boyz respawn? They're at the other end of the table back in their trukk. Now he's got all his units back, I have mine back, but I have lost all my progress towards winning while he's back at full strength.

This is true with any shooty army. Some chaos marines somehow make it across the table to take out a squad of grav cents? Congratulations, the grav cents get to respawn on their next turn and liquidate the chaos marines, who go back to their end of the table. This rule further imbalances the game in favor of shooting, which is already fantastic in this edition.

1. You know that grav cents aren't listed as troops in the SM codex, right?

Are the units that can produce marker lights in the troops section of the Tau codex?

2. 40k is supposed to be an objectives based game. You know that, technically, you don't have to kill a single model to win the game, right? Even if you kill no Tau models and he kills a ton of your boyz, if he doesn't move from his deployment zone, he's not going to be scoring mid-field objectives.

If you play orks, then my proposed rule would directly benefit you. Especially against Tau. Tau gunlines don't move much.

Rules mechanics are really just the expression of design philosophy. And right now, 7th is a dysfunctional patchwork of interesting but discordant ideas. I don't feel a lot of current armies were considered when 7th was designed. So at a certain point, a ground up redesign is best (but you can always take the current mechanics for reference and inspiration).

More practically: I think you are working backwards, Traditio. Balance the game around the Tactical Marine first. It's a lot more work but ultimately you'll have a game with a more intuitive feel.

 Traditio wrote:
Are the units that can produce marker lights in the troops section of the Tau codex?

Yes. Not all of them, or the most efficient ones, but those troops will respawn markerlights.

2. 40k is supposed to be an objectives based game. You know that, technically, you don't have to kill a single model to win the game, right? Even if you kill no Tau models and he kills a ton of your boyz, if he doesn't move from his deployment zone, he's not going to be scoring mid-field objectives.

This is Tau we're talking about. They have their deployment zone locked down completely, and can threaten the midfield objectives with long-ranged weapons sitting in their own deployment zone. The orks, on the other hand, can not threaten anything until they get into melee. So yeah, the orks move into midfield, but then they get shot off the objective and respawn back in their deployment zone. And thanks to the Tau player having all their "home" objectives locked down they can afford to send units into midfield to claim objectives. After all, if those units get killed in melee they just respawn back in the gunline and resume shooting like nothing happened.

 Traditio wrote:

 Vitali Advenil wrote:
The problem is that this is so biased towards gunline and shooty armies. In choppy armies, half the battle is just getting across the table. Gunline armies don't have to do that. They want to be in their deployment zone. I'm all for certain armies having respawn rules, but only horde armies like guard, orks, and nids. Giving this rule to admech, tau, or even some SM variants is just going to make the shooting phase even more out of balance.

For example, if I my boyz finally make across the table to chew through a group of firewarriors, which is where the markerlights, ethereals, and other support will be, guess what, those firewarriors will be back next turn at full strength in their own deployment zone ready to take out my already weakened boyz. Sure, they don't get their HQ back, but they get all their markerlights and all their shooting. Those boyz are dead. What happens when my boyz respawn? They're at the other end of the table back in their trukk. Now he's got all his units back, I have mine back, but I have lost all my progress towards winning while he's back at full strength.

This is true with any shooty army. Some chaos marines somehow make it across the table to take out a squad of grav cents? Congratulations, the grav cents get to respawn on their next turn and liquidate the chaos marines, who go back to their end of the table. This rule further imbalances the game in favor of shooting, which is already fantastic in this edition.

1. You know that grav cents aren't listed as troops in the SM codex, right?

Are the units that can produce marker lights in the troops section of the Tau codex?

2. 40k is supposed to be an objectives based game. You know that, technically, you don't have to kill a single model to win the game, right? Even if you kill no Tau models and he kills a ton of your boyz, if he doesn't move from his deployment zone, he's not going to be scoring mid-field objectives.

If you play orks, then my proposed rule would directly benefit you. Especially against Tau. Tau gunlines don't move much.

Sorry I mean grav servitors. I typo the two kind of often.

Also, I'm fairly certain firewarriors are the ones who have markerlights.

And that rule would absolutely not benefit me. I hate the argument of "you don't have to kill them you know." Sure. Go ahead and play a game vs Tau where you never attack them. Tell me how well that goes. My boyz aren't going to be able to hold that objective if they keep getting killed by the infinitely respawning firewarriors. And what if they're standing on an objective in their deployment zone I need? That whole "play the objective" crap doesn't work with Tau because they do have mobility, they have tons of firepower, and they can hold an objective with tough models. I'm not going to make any progress with my orks getting killed halfway up the board, respawning, and dying again over and over to the immortal gunline. The whole way I manage to cripple Tau is to take out their support, and I cannot do that if their support just respawns every time I kill them.

And this is the same for every gunline army. Every good gunline army has some mobility. Tau have jump suits, admech have fast walkers and infiltrators, marines have vehicles. It's just that both Tau and Admech have fantastic ranged options that are also troops. I would love for my grav servitors and haywire breachers to respawn on death, much more than I'd love my ork boyz to do so.

The main problem with this rule is that it makes every troop choice expendable, when some troops are not supposed to be that way. With boyz, absolutely, I could care less if I lose 15 of them in a single round of shooting, I have 30 more coming. But with admech, losing even one battle-servitor hurts hard because they're about 50-60 points a model. That's why I have to hold them back in safe positions. But if I could just get them back for free? I'd just march those things wherever I wanted because when they die, who cares, I have 60 inches of range! Again, maybe this rule could work for horde armies who only have cheap troop choices, but this gives every army expendable troops, and that is unbalanced.

One blanket rule is not going to fix troops being mediocre at best. This would only make new problems, not solve them.

i can already see KDK just smiling at this.

BFTBG combined with infinitely spawning troops?? and i can just cultist spam and summon infinite BT's ?!?!?!

ARE YOU INSANE!

by the end of turn 1 i could summon a bloodthirster, repeat for 6-7 turns

thx for the 1500 - 1750 extra pts of FMC

 KommissarKiln wrote:
then eventually it'll boil down to who goes first wins

Isn't it allready like this? At least i got this impression when played with a trukkspam list vs scatbike spam list. If elfs go first, they win, if orks go first, they have a chance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

A bad and boring unit that can be taken in vast quantities isn't really any more interesting...A tactical squad that costs half as much is still a boring version of a sternguard squad, and has none of the OMG COOL I WANT IT factor.

Now i can't agree with this. People have different understanding of what's interesting. For example, for me it's more interesting to have regular dudes with a couple special weapons than dudes with all the special weapons. It's much more realistic - special weapons are special for a reason. They're way more costly to produce, maintain, transport. May be more unwieldy to use and don't fit as wide a variety of roles as standard weapons do.

Furthermore, it fits the 'against all odds feeling' much better. I'd prefer special stuff to be really special - means more rare and expensive.

I'm actually drifting more and more in favour of this idea.
Re-spawning footslogging troops would bring Orks and Guard right up the rankings, Dark Eldar and Tyranids-sadly-would see no real benefit, at first glance Necrons would profit big but their natural toughness would actually work against them - rather than getting slaughtered wholesale and re-spawning the next turn like Guard they'd be shambling about in beaten squads that are too small to do real damage but not completely eliminated so not re-spawning.

If the Dedicated Transport is a destroyable re-spawn point then tabling is still a very real possibility.

If they come back with the unit then I'd hope they have to be destroyed as well before the unit can re-spawn - that would mean Drop Pods have to be rediculously well placed or they'd just get left behind as a unit that can't move and can't reach.

Still brings up questions for how Dark Eldar and Nids could possibly get any boost from all this.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
I'm actually drifting more and more in favour of this idea.
Re-spawning footslogging troops would bring Orks and Guard right up the rankings, Dark Eldar and Tyranids-sadly-would see no real benefit, at first glance Necrons would profit big but their natural toughness would actually work against them - rather than getting slaughtered wholesale and re-spawning the next turn like Guard they'd be shambling about in beaten squads that are too small to do real damage but not completely eliminated so not re-spawning.

If the Dedicated Transport is a destroyable re-spawn point then tabling is still a very real possibility.

If they come back with the unit then I'd hope they have to be destroyed as well before the unit can re-spawn - that would mean Drop Pods have to be rediculously well placed or they'd just get left behind as a unit that can't move and can't reach.

Still brings up questions for how Dark Eldar and Nids could possibly get any boost from all this.

What about endless crysis suits and firewarriors? Skiitari shooty dudes? Pink horrors endlessly getting warpcharges on board, killing themselves with sacrafices, generating blue horrors (that are also troops), than come back on board. Imagine this scenario: you have 1 pinkhorror squad. Get allied grey knights, for example 2 purifier squads (or how are those cleansing flame guyz called. Use cleansing flame a couple times, for example, you kill 5 horrors - they split and generate 10 blue horrors. You place blue horrors the way they're >6' away from the furthest model in a pink horror squad. Next purifier squad uses cleansing flame and kills 5 more horrors and 5 blue horrors, for example. But they kill pink horrors out of the blue horror range, so they have to generate another squad. In the end you get 5 blue horrors, another squad of 10 blue horrors and 5 brimstone horrors. Than pink horrors return on board. And than all the blue and brimstones will. That's just from one 90 pt squad - imagine there are 3 around those purifiers - easilly feasible. That's just in case you need 10-20 free extra warpcharges per turn. Or you could just place them and the enemy will NEVER be able to deal with them outside of extreme mellee. But than you just kill a couple yourself and they're invulnerable. There'd be literally no place to fit in your deployment zone.

 Traditio wrote:
I completely agree with you, and I think that what I am proposing would accomplish that.

What you are proposing is a focus on Troop choices that will likely result in nothing but Troop choice lists. Having respawning units is a massive advantage; my Leman Russ battalion could mash your Tactical Squads into the dirt, but with your rules that makes no difference to you - you still get to replace them next turn, and you can't lose the game for being wiped off the board. Chances are I'll lose that game despite having a list that will most likely counter everything you have to offer.

Right. So imagine that you are playing with my proposed rules. You have an IK as well as an HQ and some troops in transports from another codex. Your opponent has a ton of troops in his DZ, but a unit of elites in a transport on a midfield objective.

You have two options:

You could shoot/assault the troops in his DZ.

I think that your IK should slaughter them. Just annihilate them.

But so much good that did.

On your opponent's turn, he puts them right back where they were.

You've accomplished, if not nothing, then very little.

That's option one.

Option two is you target the enemy squad sitting on the midfield objective, move your own troops there and score a VP.

You see what I'm saying?

But then your opponent can do the same back to you, most likely. Either way, the Knight, and any other similar Heavy Support choice, have become nothing more than leaf blowers to push things away from objectives temporarily for you to claim them. Chances are games with this ruleset will become an absolute grind as almost nothing dies except for your support units. And once those are dead, the game's going to grind even worse.

 koooaei wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
I'm actually drifting more and more in favour of this idea.
Re-spawning footslogging troops would bring Orks and Guard right up the rankings, Dark Eldar and Tyranids-sadly-would see no real benefit, at first glance Necrons would profit big but their natural toughness would actually work against them - rather than getting slaughtered wholesale and re-spawning the next turn like Guard they'd be shambling about in beaten squads that are too small to do real damage but not completely eliminated so not re-spawning.

If the Dedicated Transport is a destroyable re-spawn point then tabling is still a very real possibility.

If they come back with the unit then I'd hope they have to be destroyed as well before the unit can re-spawn - that would mean Drop Pods have to be rediculously well placed or they'd just get left behind as a unit that can't move and can't reach.

Still brings up questions for how Dark Eldar and Nids could possibly get any boost from all this.

What about endless crysis suits and firewarriors? Skiitari shooty dudes? Pink horrors endlessly getting warpcharges on board, killing themselves with sacrafices, generating blue horrors (that are also troops), than come back on board. Imagine this scenario: you have 1 pinkhorror squad. Get allied grey knights, for example 2 purifier squads (or how are those cleansing flame guyz called. Use cleansing flame a couple times, for example, you kill 5 horrors - they split and generate 10 blue horrors. You place blue horrors the way they're >6' away from the furthest model in a pink horror squad. Next purifier squad uses cleansing flame and kills 5 more horrors and 5 blue horrors, for example. But they kill pink horrors out of the blue horror range, so they have to generate another squad. In the end you get 5 blue horrors, another squad of 10 blue horrors and 5 brimstone horrors. Than pink horrors return on board. And than all the blue and brimstones will. That's just from one 90 pt squad - imagine there are 3 around those purifiers - easilly feasible. That's just in case you need 10-20 free extra warpcharges per turn. Or you could just place them and the enemy will NEVER be able to deal with them outside of extreme mellee. But than you just kill a couple yourself and they're invulnerable. There'd be literally no place to fit in your deployment zone.

I don't give a damn about Fire Warriors, last I checked Crisis Suits aren't Troops or Foot Sloggers and I've already pulled the Horror trick with Space Mutts Psychic phase.

Crysis suits are troops in farsight enclave.

 koooaei wrote:
Crysis suits are troops in farsight enclave.

Still not footsloggers.
Read the first page - I missed the part where he specified footsloggers as well. I was wondering if he'd lost his marbles letting Eldar have re-spawning Scattbikes.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
Crysis suits are troops in farsight enclave.

Still not footsloggers.
Read the first page - I missed the part where he specified footsloggers as well. I was wondering if he'd lost his marbles letting Eldar have re-spawning Scattbikes.

They're jetpack infantry.

 koooaei wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
Crysis suits are troops in farsight enclave.

Still not footsloggers.
Read the first page - I missed the part where he specified footsloggers as well. I was wondering if he'd lost his marbles letting Eldar have re-spawning Scattbikes.

They're jetpack infantry.

Which makes them not footsloggers.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

 koooaei wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
Crysis suits are troops in farsight enclave.

Still not footsloggers.
Read the first page - I missed the part where he specified footsloggers as well. I was wondering if he'd lost his marbles letting Eldar have re-spawning Scattbikes.

They're jetpack infantry.

Which makes them not footsloggers.

What about mixed squads of firewarriors and drones? FW are infantry - drones are jetpack infantry. They're all in one squad.

Man am I happy Traditio is still around. Really poorly thought out proposed rules are the best.

This idea is really terrible. Many people have gone over all the various reasons why. Besides not actually addressing any issue it just sort of creates new ones.

There are many MANY imbalances that this creates between the various armies in the game. Not to mention you are giving a better version of a nid formation bonus to every army as a default mechanic. Great.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Which makes them not footsloggers.

Crisis suits have the Infantry unit type.

Mixed squads mean they only get the footsloggers back or they move at footslogger pace or they conga-line into combat.

It's always the Nids who fall behind for some reason...

 koooaei wrote:
Now i can't agree with this. People have different understanding of what's interesting. For example, for me it's more interesting to have regular dudes with a couple special weapons than dudes with all the special weapons. It's much more realistic - special weapons are special for a reason. They're way more costly to produce, maintain, transport. May be more unwieldy to use and don't fit as wide a variety of roles as standard weapons do.

Furthermore, it fits the 'against all odds feeling' much better. I'd prefer special stuff to be really special - means more rare and expensive.

Obviously this is something that's subjective and different people have different opinions, I'm talking about the average for the community as a whole. A big part of the perception that troops are a "tax" unit is that GW keeps making units that are "your troops, +1" in other FOC slots and giving them awesome rules/models/etc to make you want to buy them. Some people might want a horde of the basic stuff, but those people generally aren't the ones who see troops as a tax.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
at first glance Necrons would profit big but their natural toughness would actually work against them - rather than getting slaughtered wholesale and re-spawning the next turn like Guard they'd be shambling about in beaten squads that are too small to do real damage but not completely eliminated so not re-spawning.

The proposed rule allows you to voluntarily destroy your unit to place a respawn back in reserve. So yeah, that 10-man unit of GK terminators, elite warriors whose lives and equipment are worth more than an entire chapter of space marines (which is worth many entire regiments of guardsmen)? Well, they're out of position, suicide the unit so you can bring in a new one next turn on that objective in your deployment zone. No problem at all treating the Imperium's most valuable assets as disposable conscripts!

Troops are a tax cause special powerful units are severely underpriced pointwise. For shame.

 koooaei wrote:

What about mixed squads of firewarriors and drones? FW are infantry - drones are jetpack infantry. They're all in one squad.

I would assume the drones are a no go because they are not just plain infantry , but on the other hand the drones are actual wargear for the firewarriors

Dakka Wolf wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
Crysis suits are troops in farsight enclave.

Still not footsloggers.
Read the first page - I missed the part where he specified footsloggers as well. I was wondering if he'd lost his marbles letting Eldar have re-spawning Scattbikes.

Nope. They're Infantry. There's no two ways about it, they're as much of an Infantry unit as Tactical Marines or Grey Knights are.

Dakka Wolf wrote:Mixed squads mean they only get the footsloggers back or they move at footslogger pace or they conga-line into combat.

It's always the Nids who fall behind for some reason...

But that isn't reflected in the rules for that. Drones are squad upgrades, just like a dedicated transport (which also lacks the Infantry rule), so should come back just like a DT.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Nope. They're Infantry. There's no two ways about it, they're as much of an Infantry unit as Tactical Marines or Grey Knights are.

Until they try to step in to a Devilfish. Aside from the Capacity limitations they come with regarding Bulky models, being Jet Pack Infantry would preclude them from Embarking.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
But that isn't reflected in the rules for that. Drones are squad upgrades, just like a dedicated transport (which also lacks the Infantry rule), so should come back just like a DT.

Drones are no more squad upgrades than Neophytes are in Crusader Squads. They are models which are added to the unit, and are taken in to consideration for that more than an IC is. Dedicated Transports are a unit which are added to the detachment list and remain a separate unit. Indeed, they are noted as "additional squad members in all regards". Drones are not a separate unit added to the Detachment list.

If it wasn't for the fact that Drones are noted for being allowed to Embark in to Devlifish by the Devilfish's own Capacity rules, having a single Drone would prevent any unit from embarking on a Devilfish.

 Traditio wrote:

The following rules apply only to the following:

1. The unit must be in the "troops" section of the army codex ("counts as troops" doesn't count).
2. The unit must have the "infantry" type.
3. These rules don't affect ICs.

Rule 1: So long as you have at least 1 unit of troops in ongoing reserves, you cannot lose the game simply because you have no models on the field.

Rule 2: When a unit of troops is removed from the field, place that unit, in its original composition when initially deployed, into ongoing reserves.

Rule 3: At the beginning of each player turn, each troops unit in ongoing reserves shall be placed within 12 inches of the player's table edge. Each of those units counts as having moved for that turn and may not move again in the movement phase. Any special rule which would allow that unit to be placed on the table outside of 12 inches from the player's table edge may not be used to do so. If the deep strike special rule is used, the unit shall instead be placed within 12 inches of the player's table edge. Do not roll the scatter die.

Rule 4: At any time, a player may remove a unit of troops from the game and place it in ongoing reserves, just so long as that unit is at 50% or less of its original number of component models. This does count, for all rules purposes, as that unit being destroyed by the opponent. If the unit was in close quarter combat when the unit was removed, it counts as being destroyed in close combat by the opponent.

Rule 5: Reanimation protocols, as well as all rules that allow you to place a unit in ongoing reserves upon being destroyed, shall be replaced by: "At the end of each turn, roll a die. On a 4+, any models removed from that unit's original composition shall be replaced into that unit, and any wounds suffered by the original models in that unit shall be removed (no, ICs don't count for this rule).."

Rule 6: Dedicated transports which are wrecked or removed from the game may be brought back into play by rules 2 and 3, but only when the unit of which it is the transported is brought back into play in this fashion. The unit of which it is the transport may be deployed in said transport.

Why thank you for unlimited Terminator squads.

I'll just keep bringing these guys back each turn.

10 Grey Knight Terminators(2 psycannons, 2 hammers, 5 halberds): 400 points

Charistoph wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Nope. They're Infantry. There's no two ways about it, they're as much of an Infantry unit as Tactical Marines or Grey Knights are.

Until they try to step in to a Devilfish. Aside from the Capacity limitations they come with regarding Bulky models, being Jet Pack Infantry would preclude them from Embarking.

Terminators can't enter Rhinos. They're infantry and Troops. Are Grey Knights now exempt from this rule now? Can only GK Strike Squads respawn?

You can't say that Crisis Suits are not Infantry. It says so in their rules.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
But that isn't reflected in the rules for that. Drones are squad upgrades, just like a dedicated transport (which also lacks the Infantry rule), so should come back just like a DT.

Drones are no more squad upgrades than Neophytes are in Crusader Squads. They are models which are added to the unit, and are taken in to consideration for that more than an IC is. Dedicated Transports are a unit which are added to the detachment list and remain a separate unit. Indeed, they are noted as "additional squad members in all regards". Drones are not a separate unit added to the Detachment list.

If it wasn't for the fact that Drones are noted for being allowed to Embark in to Devlifish by the Devilfish's own Capacity rules, having a single Drone would prevent any unit from embarking on a Devilfish.

Yes, but in no way do the rules address mixed units. If they do prevent drones respawning, then the rule countermands itself by disallowing certain upgrades. If not, then it countermands itself by allowing a non-Infantry unit. What about a Devilfish makes it okay to respawn, but not the drone in the unit?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Terminators can't enter Rhinos. They're infantry and Troops. Are Grey Knights now exempt from this rule now? Can only GK Strike Squads respawn?

You can't say that Crisis Suits are not Infantry. It says so in their rules.

I can say they are not Infantry for the purposes of Embarking on a Transport, because it says so in the Capacity rules.

Terminators cannot Embark on Rhinos because they are Bulky, same reason Broadside Suits cannot Embark on Devilfish.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Yes, but in no way do the rules address mixed units. If they do prevent drones respawning, then the rule countermands itself by disallowing certain upgrades. If not, then it countermands itself by allowing a non-Infantry unit. What about a Devilfish makes it okay to respawn, but not the drone in the unit?

Not necessarily. Jet Pack Infantry should be included until they are specifically noted as not, such as the Transport Capacity rules. That is why I referenced that as being an exception. To note, Traditio did not make such a notation.

They are still infantry for the purpose of embarking on a transport. Its just that Rhinos have an explicit rule that Bulky models cannot embark. That doesn't make Terminators any less infantry. Their statline quite explicitly says Infantry.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Terminators can't enter Rhinos. They're infantry and Troops. Are Grey Knights now exempt from this rule now? Can only GK Strike Squads respawn?

You can't say that Crisis Suits are not Infantry. It says so in their rules.

I can say they are not Infantry for the purposes of Embarking on a Transport, because it says so in the Capacity rules.

Whether or not they can embark on a transport, they are still classed as Infantry as per Traditio's rules. As it stands, Crisis Suits are as much Infantry for this as are Tactical Squads.

Terminators cannot Embark on Rhinos because they are Bulky, same reason Broadside Suits cannot Embark on Devilfish.

That doesn't make Terminators any less Infantry than Crisis Suits.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Yes, but in no way do the rules address mixed units. If they do prevent drones respawning, then the rule countermands itself by disallowing certain upgrades. If not, then it countermands itself by allowing a non-Infantry unit. What about a Devilfish makes it okay to respawn, but not the drone in the unit?

Not necessarily. Jet Pack Infantry should be included until they are specifically noted as not, such as the Transport Capacity rules. That is why I referenced that as being an exception. To note, Traditio did not make such a notation.

So until it's clarified, we really can't say anything.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Terminators can't enter Rhinos. They're infantry and Troops. Are Grey Knights now exempt from this rule now? Can only GK Strike Squads respawn?

You can't say that Crisis Suits are not Infantry. It says so in their rules.

I can say they are not Infantry for the purposes of Embarking on a Transport, because it says so in the Capacity rules.

Whether or not they can embark on a transport, they are still classed as Infantry as per Traditio's rules. As it stands, Crisis Suits are as much Infantry for this as are Tactical Squads.

That part wasn't in argument, I was merely pointing out that there are times that Jet Pack//Jump Infantry are not considered sufficiently "Infantry" is all.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Terminators cannot Embark on Rhinos because they are Bulky, same reason Broadside Suits cannot Embark on Devilfish.

That doesn't make Terminators any less Infantry than Crisis Suits.

You brought up Terminators, not me. The Rhino restrictions against Terminators have nothing to do with Unit Type, but on USRs they carry.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Yes, but in no way do the rules address mixed units. If they do prevent drones respawning, then the rule countermands itself by disallowing certain upgrades. If not, then it countermands itself by allowing a non-Infantry unit. What about a Devilfish makes it okay to respawn, but not the drone in the unit?

Not necessarily. Jet Pack Infantry should be included until they are specifically noted as not, such as the Transport Capacity rules. That is why I referenced that as being an exception. To note, Traditio did not make such a notation.

So until it's clarified, we really can't say anything.

We can say something, if only to check to see if they are under the same restrictions as noted for Embarking Transports. But until then, you are correct, we have to assume they are sufficiently Infantry to fall under this classification, so long as they are actually Troops ("counting as" does not work)

 Charistoph wrote:
That part wasn't in argument, I was merely pointing out that there are times that Jet Pack//Jump Infantry are not considered sufficiently "Infantry" is all.

They are still Infantry whether they can embark in a transport or not. Anything with the prefix "Infantry" is Infantry, whether they are Jet Pack Infantry, Jump Pack Infantry, or Bulky Jet Pack Infantry.

 General Annoyance wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
That part wasn't in argument, I was merely pointing out that there are times that Jet Pack//Jump Infantry are not considered sufficiently "Infantry" is all.

They are still Infantry whether they can embark in a transport or not. Anything with the prefix "Infantry" is Infantry, whether they are Jet Pack Infantry, Jump Pack Infantry, or Bulky Jet Pack Infantry.

Infantry being the suffix, not the prefix. But if they are still Infantry, why are they singled out by Transport Capacity rules?

Or in other words, they are sufficiently not Infantry to be singled out as such.

 Charistoph wrote:
Infantry being the suffix, not the prefix.

Not in 7th. Perhaps you should review how the rules have changed?

 Charistoph wrote:

 General Annoyance wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
That part wasn't in argument, I was merely pointing out that there are times that Jet Pack//Jump Infantry are not considered sufficiently "Infantry" is all.

They are still Infantry whether they can embark in a transport or not. Anything with the prefix "Infantry" is Infantry, whether they are Jet Pack Infantry, Jump Pack Infantry, or Bulky Jet Pack Infantry.

Infantry being the suffix, not the prefix. But if they are still Infantry, why are they singled out by Transport Capacity rules?

Or in other words, they are sufficiently not Infantry to be singled out as such.

Yet they are still defined by Infantry. Regardless of anything else, you can't deny that they are, essentially, Infantry.

 Charistoph wrote:
Infantry being the suffix, not the prefix. But if they are still Infantry, why are they singled out by Transport Capacity rules?

Or in other words, they are sufficiently not Infantry to be singled out as such.

Suffix, prefix - same difference here. They are still classed as Infantry - Infantry are not classed by whether they can embark in a transport or not.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Regardless of anything else, you can't deny that they are, essentially, Infantry.

There's no "essentially" about it, they have the Infantry unit type. They're Infantry (Jet Pack), Infantry with the Bulky USR, etc. This is not 6th edition anymore, where those units had their own unit types. In 7th they've been consolidated into the Infantry type.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Regardless of anything else, you can't deny that they are, essentially, Infantry.

There's no "essentially" about it, they have the Infantry unit type. They're Infantry (Jet Pack), Infantry with the Bulky USR, etc. This is not 6th edition anymore, where those units had their own unit types. In 7th they've been consolidated into the Infantry type.

Yes, absolutely agreed.

Ok:

I've looked at your comments, and the comments, especially of Vitali Advenil, I found really compelling.

What if we added the following to the caveats:

"Caveat 4: For all rules and intents and purposes, 'infantry' shall not include anything of the "bulky" or higher size class.
Caveat 5: For all rules and intents and purposes, 'infantry' shall not include anything with a 2+ armor save in its codex stat line."

And then what if we changed rule 3 to read:

"Rule 3: At the beginning of each player turn, each troops unit in ongoing reserves shall be placed within 12 inches of the player's table edge. Each of those units counts as having moved for that turn. Nonetheless, they may move, shoot and assault as normal. Any special rule which would allow that unit to be placed on the table outside of 12 inches from the player's table edge may not be used to do so. If the deep strike special rule is used, the unit shall instead be placed within 12 inches of the player's table edge. Do not roll the scatter die."

This would still be a slight nerf to shooty armies (for all salvo and heavy weapons purposes), while at the same time giving things like Ork Trukk spam a real shot.

Not to mention that we get rid of the terminator, etc. nonsense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, with these proposals, how would you guys feel about reintroducing consolidations into close combat and assaults from stationary transports?

It still doesn't solve the idea of Space Marines and other MEQ being essentially cannon fodder, which they are not.

You're still allowing for Troop choices to respawn for free. That's going to create a whole world of problems, even if we tweaked it to say certain types couldn't be spammed to kingdom come.

As for assault consolidation, I think units should be able to do it, but it would probably make the game worse as well in its current state, so also no.

If your proposed rule needs 5 foot notes/ clarifications / amendments then its a bad rule.

Game rules should be concise, direct, and require as few exceptions as possible. Especially if it's a core rule/mechanic. This proposition is a mess.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
It still doesn't solve the idea of Space Marines and other MEQ being essentially cannon fodder, which they are not.

The current state of the game seems to disagree with you.

Because tactical marines and other MEQs are already currently cannon fodder.

 Traditio wrote:
The current state of the game seems to disagree with you.

Because tactical marines and other MEQs are already currently cannon fodder.

Again, fighting something that shouldn't be the case with something that shouldn't exist either. This can't be a fix - it's swapping out one problem for a whole load of new problems

 Lance845 wrote:
If your proposed rule needs 5 foot notes/ clarifications / amendments then its a bad rule.

This. The rule is a mess. Admit defeat and move on.

General Annoyance wrote:What you are proposing is a focus on Troop choices that will likely result in nothing but Troop choice lists. Having respawning units is a massive advantage; my Leman Russ battalion could mash your Tactical Squads into the dirt, but with your rules that makes no difference to you - you still get to replace them next turn, and you can't lose the game for being wiped off the board. Chances are I'll lose that game despite having a list that will most likely counter everything you have to offer.

Warhammer 40k, especially with Maelstrom, is an objectives based game. Why should you expect to do well in a game with a list that doesn't focus on holding objectives?

But then your opponent can do the same back to you, most likely. Either way, the Knight, and any other similar Heavy Support choice, have become nothing more than leaf blowers to push things away from objectives temporarily for you to claim them. Chances are games with this ruleset will become an absolute grind as almost nothing dies except for your support units. And once those are dead, the game's going to grind even worse.

What's the phrases that are always used when some new, OP nonsense comes out? Oh yeah: "Adapt." "Change how you play the game."

You're exactly right about what would happen. Instead of writing lists that basically make it so that you HAVE to table your opponent or lose, your support slots would actually have to function as support slots. Yes, that IK would and should be amazing at clearing objectives. But ultimately useless if you don't have troops to secure said objective.

And you'd also have to be careful about how you use that IK, where you place it, etc. Because if you're careless, you just might lose said IK.

As the game should be. Because, again, 40k is objectives based.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Though, to be clear, I really didn't expect anyone actually to like this proposal. Because most people, it seems, actually don't like playing an objectives based game, even though 40k is, in fact, an objectives based game.

These rules would mean that death stars become much less useful.

These rules would mean that tank spam becomes much less useful.

These rules would mean that OP, game-breaking units...become much less so.

It would mean that you actually might lose the game, no matter how durable or killy your special snowflake units are...if you don't have a healthy supply of base troops.

And heavens forbid that from happening.

 Traditio wrote:
Warhammer 40k, especially with Maelstrom, is an objectives based game. Why should you expect to do well in a game with a list that doesn't focus on holding objectives?

The primary objective in a game of 40k is not always to hold predetermined points. A lot of games will have a tertiary objective of wiping out your opponent's forces though.

What's the phrases that are always used when some new, OP nonsense comes out? Oh yeah: "Adapt." "Change how you play the game."

You're exactly right about what would happen. Instead of writing lists that basically make it so that you HAVE to table your opponent or lose, your support slots would actually have to function as support slots. Yes, that IK would and should be amazing at clearing objectives. But ultimately useless if you don't have troops to secure said objective.

As the game should be. Because, again, 40k is objectives based.

There's nothing wrong with making a high power force, because theoretically that should make your army woefully unprepared to hold objectives in a game that has them. However, balance issues make it easy to table your opponent; you can't penalise this by making it impossible to be tabled if you take Troop choices (which any CAD has to take anyway). Making the game a complete meat grinder for both players should not be a standard method of playing 40k.

 Traditio wrote:

Though, to be clear, I really didn't expect anyone actually to like this proposal. Because most people, it seems, actually don't like playing an objectives based game, even though 40k is, in fact, an objectives based game.

These rules would mean that death stars become much less useful.

These rules would mean that tank spam becomes much less useful.

These rules would mean that OP, game-breaking units...become much less so.

It would mean that you actually might lose the game, no matter how durable or killy your special snowflake units are...if you don't have a healthy supply of base troops.

And heavens forbid that from happening.

IOW - "people won't like this because everyone is a WAAC TFG".

A good motto to play and design all games by - play to win, but not at the cost of the fun. 40k can't enforce this motto even if it tried due to massive imbalance and mechanical breakages. What you are proposing is another woe to add to the woe pile.

General Annoyance wrote:There's nothing wrong with making a high power force, because theoretically that should make your army woefully unprepared to hold objectives in a game that has them. However, balance issues make it easy to table your opponent; you can't penalise this by making it impossible to be tabled if you take Troop choices (which any CAD has to take anyway). Making the game a complete meat grinder for both players should not be a standard method of playing 40k.

Really, at this point, all you are saying is: "But I like being able to win by tabling my opponent and not actually having to score objectives, even though that's what all of the Maelstrom missions are focused on doing."

Agree to disagree on this one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, for those of you who dislike my idea, I wish to point out that what I am proposing is already a mainstay of FPS video games.

This isn't a new idea.

What I am proposing is essentially that we turn 40k into something more like CoD, minus the team deathmatch mode of playing.

I don't want to play an FPS. If I wanted to play an FPS, I'd play one.

I want to play 40k.

 Traditio wrote:
Really, at this point, all you are saying is: "But I like being able to win by tabling my opponent and not actually having to score objectives, even though that's what all of the Maelstrom missions are focused on doing."

Agree to disagree on this one.

First of all, I don't play 40k anymore. Secondly, I never designed my lists to table my opponents. I designed them around the idea of combined arms, and units I like. Like the game should allow me to do without disadvantaging myself.

It did disadvantage me, and being a hardcore-casual, that made me not want to play the game anymore.

Also, for those of you who dislike my idea, I wish to point out that what I am proposing is already a mainstay of FPS video games.

This isn't a new idea.

What I am proposing is essentially that we turn 40k into something more like CoD, minus the team deathmatch mode of playing.

....

What?

So because FPS games have a respawn mechanic, a TT Wargame in a completely different genre should have it too?

Oh FFS, this change makes objective-based games less interesting. Now, instead of having to protect your obsec scoring units and balance the rewards of moving out to claim an objective vs. the risk of losing the unit you just mindlessly throw everything into the meat grinder, knowing that anything you lose will just respawn right back in the fight next turn.

And no, this doesn't make interesting armies with troops and support units, it makes armies that exploit the respawn mechanic as much as possible. Why take a 350 point knight when you can spend 350 points on 700 points (or even 1000 points or more, depending on how many respawns you get!) of troops? Even if troops units are individually a bit less effective the sheer quantity that you get makes virtually every other unit irrelevant.

Despite the bloat that adding USRs inevitably causes over time, wouldn't it be much, much more succinct to have an "Expendable" USR that describes the new fresh troops from reserve effect? That way it'd only be given selectively to a few units, rather than a blanket rule to infantry with a gak ton of exceptions.

CSM/renegades get it on cultists, IG get it on infantry squads and conscripts, Orks get it on Boyz and Gretchin, Nids get it on Termagants and Hormagants, GSC gets it on Neophytes. One or two other units out there may deserve it, but it's really only one or two units per codex for a select handful of codices. Don't bother trying to do a blanket rule then say "No no wait not terminators. No no wait not crisis suits," ad infinitum.

Edit: Also by not giving it to Eldar/SM we prevent horrendous fluff murder.

Peregrine wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Infantry being the suffix, not the prefix.

Not in 7th. Perhaps you should review how the rules have changed?

Perhaps you should review how the words are paired in most cases and how they have been used in this thread.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:Yet they are still defined by Infantry. Regardless of anything else, you can't deny that they are, essentially, Infantry.

But their Infantry aspect does not allow carte blanche to Embark on a Transport. Yes, or no?

General Annoyance wrote:Suffix, prefix - same difference here. They are still classed as Infantry - Infantry are not classed by whether they can embark in a transport or not.

They are if they also have the Jump or Jet Pack type attached to them. The basic Transport Capacity rules state this specifically.

TRANSPORT CAPACITY
...
Only Infantry models can embark upon Transports (this does not include Jump or Jet Pack Infantry), unless specifically stated otherwise.

The fact that the transort rules have to specify that jump/jet infantry are an exception means that jump/jet are still themselves infantry first and formost.

If jump/jet infantry were defaulted to entirely different unit types there would be no need for the transport rules to notate them.

 Lance845 wrote:
The fact that the transort rules have to specify that jump/jet infantry are an exception means that jump/jet are still themselves infantry first and formost.

If jump/jet infantry were defaulted to entirely different unit types there would be no need for the transport rules to notate them.

But also their Infantry type does not allow them to ignore that restriction, either.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
The fact that the transort rules have to specify that jump/jet infantry are an exception means that jump/jet are still themselves infantry first and formost.

If jump/jet infantry were defaulted to entirely different unit types there would be no need for the transport rules to notate them.

But also their Infantry type does not allow them to ignore that restriction, either.

Only because it has been specifically stated as such. If the statement was not there that specifically took those 2 unit subtypes and said these are the exception to the previously stated rule, then jump/jet infantry WOULD be able to embark in transports.

Basically jump/jet infantry are infantry and anything that applies to infantry applies to them unless otherwise noted. Just like a jump mc is still a mc. Nid drop pods allow x number of models or 1 mc. That does not mean you could fit x number of jump mc or 1 mc. The jump subtype does not negate the allowances and restrictions of thr base unit type.

 KommissarKiln wrote:
Despite the bloat that adding USRs inevitably causes over time, wouldn't it be much, much more succinct to have an "Expendable" USR that describes the new fresh troops from reserve effect? That way it'd only be given selectively to a few units, rather than a blanket rule to infantry with a gak ton of exceptions.

That seems like a pretty good implementation.

I remembered on a previous edition they had something like a meat grinder rule (Which was similar to this rule)

It wasnt liked by anyone and most people ignored or removed that mission because of the sheer stupidness of the rule.


BTW if i wanted a FPS in a TABLETOP setting, i wouldn't play a TABLETOP game

This is 40k, not COD

 Charistoph wrote:
They are if they also have the Jump or Jet Pack type attached to them. The basic Transport Capacity rules state this specifically.

IOW: Jump/Jet Pack Infantry don't have the Infantry type because some of them can't embark in transports.