For Saim hann. Wind riders should count as troops. You can’t get CP for crap without this. Unless you just break the spirit of the army and start taking many squads worth of troops which are all going to be on foot. Yes I know you can mount them in a wave serpent but it ruins the feel of the army. They are supposed to be all jetbikes and grav tanks. Their troop is the wind rider. If you stick to a fluff list it becomes painfully difficult to have many CP at all.

Only if my Crimson Fists count Sternguard as Troops. Blood Angels count Assault Marines and Death Company as Troops. Deathwing count Deathwing Terminators as Troops. White Scars bike squads as Troops. And so on and so forth.

Sometimes playing to the fluff has consequences.

Yea, the troop transformations were taken out of the game for a reason.

You got the detachments to play troopless armies if you want, but you don't have CPs if you dont have the backbone of the army.

Just because Saim Hann like their bikes doesn't mean they don't need something capable of actually capturing and holding objectives. I don't really see what's wrong with taking some Guardians in Wave Serpents, or Dire Avengers in Falcons, or some Rangers to scout ahead etc. They are all good options to take.

As much as I like thematic armies, part of the idea behind command points, detachment powers, objective secured etc. is to encourage people to play balanced lists; overly specialised lists should come at a trade-off, and come with risks, because they also come with the possibility of opponents struggling to deal with them (e.g- the sheer speed of jet bikes can make a mockery of enemy deployment).

If you want to play thematic and fluffy games then have a chat with your opponent first; see if there's a scenario they'd like to play with a high speed raider type enemy, give them a chance to tweak their list if they can, or start in a good defensive location or just play Unbound and agree on a pool of CPs. For balanced pick-up play though troops tweaking was dropped for a reason.

I do think the vanguard/etc formations should be 3-6 of the given slot instead of what they are, which would help (for instance, if you want to play a Spirit Host with 5 units of Wraithguard).

Saim Hann love them their bikes. But they certainly have Guardians (and some DAs, too). And even Saim Hann has more tactical flexability with some boots on the ground (Guardians/DAs/Rangers) than pure Windrider squads from a fluff perspective (although mechanized, almost certainly). Have you ever tried to ride your bike into a building to take control of the imperial naval cannons? Have you tried gathering spirit stones strewn about the ground while zooming through? And that's before getting into the actual crunch of warfare - holding a position and establishing presence simply requires bodies.

So you can play a Clan out for a fun afternoon of space-elf Biker mischief (Sons of Aeldari style!). But a Battle Company or a Tau Firewarrior-cored force are going to have a lot more tactical flexability. Sure, your entire force can zip around them. But good luck actually holding territory or getting the "job done".

And that's represented now, in part, by CP. I liked that only Troops could score way back when, and would have loved to have it say "only Infantry troops" on that rule or ObSec. But the mechanic has changed.

It took me a really long time to adjust to Windriders not being troops. They were Troops, as in full fledged regular Troops that did not require special conditions to be Troops, for an entire decade prior to 8th.

I see the merit in making them Fast attack now that the Outrider detachment exists, but it is rather annoying that I had to go buy 2 additions whole Troop units I didn't own before just to have enough to field a legal Battalion to get the appropriate amount of CPs. Windriders were always my mandatory Troops, so when they change to Fast Attack, I could no longer field a legal Battalion without buy more models.

Alaitoc Rangers or Gaurdians are acceptable choices, but the fact that Saim-hann players had to drastically alter their play-style to fit these in (again with regards to acquiring adequateCPs) is disappointing.
Having said that, I don't think altering bike to be Troops just for Saim-hann is a can of worms you don't want to get into.

-

Bharring wrote:


Saim Hann love them their bikes. But they certainly have Guardians (and some DAs, too). And even Saim Hann has more tactical flexability with some boots on the ground (Guardians/DAs/Rangers) than pure Windrider squads from a fluff perspective (although mechanized, almost certainly). Have you ever tried to ride your bike into a building to take control of the imperial naval cannons? Have you tried gathering spirit stones strewn about the ground while zooming through? And that's before getting into the actual crunch of warfare - holding a position and establishing presence simply requires bodies.

And that's represented now, in part, by CP. I liked that only Troops could score way back when, and would have loved to have it say "only Infantry troops" on that rule or ObSec. But the mechanic has changed.

You know, your fluff explanation doesn't really make a lot of sense. You know there were actually motor cycle troops in World War 2. They drove their motorbikes to the location, then they dismounted, and fought on foot. It was basically an infantry transport- which coincidentally is how cavalry was generally used in WW2 as well. I suppose what I'm getting at is a Saim Hann Windrider can hop off his bike, draw his shuriken catapult, and storm the building. He is only glued to his bike on the table top! Its also worth noting that this is the first edition since the 4th edition codex that has not had Windriders as troops. That is 4 editions of Warhammer 40K where Jetbike Players could take them as troops, and now its been inexplicably taken away.

Also having different options for troop choices adds a lot of flavor to the armies. One of the unfortunate side effects of 8th edition is that armies start to look very samey. This is in part due to how important command points are, and in part due to how good cheep screening units are. Chaos does a good job with this, with the dedicated legions unlocking their cult marines as troops, which leads to more varied armies and distinctly World Eaters or Emperor's Children armies on the table (obviously T Sons and D Guard have their own books at this point). But to that same note, it might be actually more fun if more factions could actually build armies around their fluffy choice and not be horribly gimped. Crimson Fists should get Sternguard as troops, White Scars should get bikers as troops. It would let players make fun fluffy armies for those groups and help players to break away from the monotony of 8th edition imperial list building which staples an Imperial Guard Battalion and 3 Costodes Bike Captains to EVERY LIST.

Wouldn't it be fun to see more varied armies on the table, and players being given more options to build armies which suit their groups fluff on the battlefield. Would a Farsight Enclave getting Crisis Suits as a Troop be broken? Would Saim Hann with Jetbikes as troops honestly be enough to compete with Alaitoc? Do you think Emperor's Children getting Noise Marines as troops is unrealistic and narrative breaking? Do you think that armies getting more fluffy force organization charts would actually have any effect on competitive lists just souping in guard for cheap obsec and command points?

The truth is it will only help add variety to the game and make armies feel more unique on the tabletop. MORE SPECIALTY TROOPS, not less.

Yes, basically era-appropriate dragoons/cav. It really bothered me in 6th grade to see a painting of the Rough Riders charging up a hill with the caption about it being Roosevelt's volunteer *cavalry*. I just didn't get that until a decade later when I read up on how cav worked in the age of firearms. It's for mobility, but you fight on foot.

(Sidenote - it's also one of the reasons I don't like the all-bikes-are-T+1 rules. A Biker is going to be easier to take out of the battle than an infantry if you hit them, even if the bike isn't as fragile as the rider.)

A Windrider can hop off his bike, grab a 3rd Catapault, then walk into the building. But you have far fewer Windriders than infantrymen. Similarly, Alexander's Compainions (cav) could pick up a shield and hop on the phalanx. But, to win the battles the way he did, he needed to leverage his Companions as Cav. This translates into, yes, Windriders can do that, in theory. But you're now paying a lot more points for a lot fewer bodies. And saturation of bodies does actually matter.

I don't necessarily disagree with Windriders as the core of the army. Troops, if that's what the rules need to be. I just don't see a Windrider-core army as having the same tactical options and capacity as a Guardian-core or Tac-core or Guardsman-core army.

That actually seems fitting, to me, of a Windrider host. Sure can move a hell of a lot. Some good firepower, too. But you don't have boots on the ground. You don't have a well-rounded force. In some ways, you can force the engagement to go the way you want, with your mobility.

I like the idea of a Crimson Fist force with Sternies as their core. But they don't need to be troops. They don't get many CP at all if they go with Vanguard instead, but fewer CP seems right. Same with White Scars.

As I think about it, though, these specialty armies are overly constrained. I'd rather Vanguard/etc be:
1-2 HQ
3-6 Elite
0-3 Troop/FA/HS
So, basically, a Battalion, but swap Elite and Troops.

The other problem they have is that, especially now that Battalion/Brigade have gone up on CP, the cost in CP is too much. I don't want them to overcorrect either, though, because we should still see infantry Troops as core, too.

Consider Spirit Hosts. Like Windrider Hosts, they will typically have some infantry Troops in them now. And fluffwise, both would actually have infantry troops. But players should be able to play each. Windrider Hosts can mostly spam FA and maybe HQ/HS. If a Spirit Host wants to bring a Wraithlord, it needs to bring 3 or take Aux. It makes any potential Spirit Host army very demanding about what you actually bring.

There are really 2 ways to do allow for these "specialist troops": make them Troops or make the alternate CADs viable. I like the idea that the specialist armies have fewer CPs, and really like the idea of "traditional" troops (as in infantry) having the slot. So I think CAD changes would probably be better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Specifically, my counterproposal of trying to accomplish what all of us seek:

Vanguard/Outrider/etc become:
1-4 HQ
3 manditory [Slot]
0-3 [Slot]/Troop/FA/HS
+2 CP

Essentially a Brigade with the core slot swappable, but for fewer CP. Not perfectly dialed in, certainly.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Only if my Crimson Fists count Sternguard as Troops. Blood Angels count Assault Marines and Death Company as Troops. Deathwing count Deathwing Terminators as Troops. White Scars bike squads as Troops. And so on and so forth.

Sometimes playing to the fluff has consequences.

Plenty of those actually need to move back to the troop section so I fail to see how this is an argument

To me, the issue isn't so much that certain units aren't troops as it is that vanguards, outriders, and spear heads give so few command points compared to batallions.

I'm not sure if the increase to 5CP for batallions was meant to increase the overall number of CP in the game or if it was meant to incentivize troops over vanguards, etc. If the former, I don't think there would be much harm in raising the CP for vanguards etc. to 2 or 3 CP. If the latter... I sitll don't think there would be much harm in raising the CP to 2 or 3.


It feels like there are competing, non-complimentary objectives when it comes to CP, detachments, and unit roles. The core assumption seems to be that troops will generally be less efficient combatants than non-troops (i.e. your heavy support will kill more stuff than your troops will) and that players who take lots of points-inefficient troops should be rewarded for it by getting extra CP.

The problem there is that some armies have troops that are more useful than others. A tactical marine basically only exists for obsec and CP. A couple of guardsmen squads are a pretty good include in any army because they also give you obsec and CP, but they do it cheaply while giving you enough bodies to screen reasonably well. Necron warriors are actually a fantastic tool in the 'cron toolbox (despite being less flashy than other options). In 7th edition, scatbikes were troops and were also one of the most points efficient things out there.

So it feels like troops are being assumed to be less "good" than other options and that CP are sort of an apology for them.

But stratagems are fun and powerful, so you want players to have enough of them to actually use a range of stratagems, thus the increase to 5CP for batallions.

But then you have perfectly fluffy armies such as a bike-heavy Saim-Hann force that got left in the dust on CP generation because they don't get the "apology CP" for taking troops.

Just making your preferred units troops is weird. On one hand, it basically solves the CP problem. A Saim-Hann army with biker troops will have plenty of CP and look very fluffy. On the other hand, you're discarding the notion that troops might be less efficient than their specialized counterparts.

I kind of feel like the "troops are worse than specialists" thing is an artefact of the era of the force org chart. Ideally, each individual troop unit would be points-efficient and viable in its own right, perhaps with special rules or stratagems that give them abilities non-troops lack. And at that point, you could divorce CP from troops entirely. I have 1,000 points of X. You have 1,000 points of Y. Presumably we should each be getting enough out of our points investments that we don't need to receive a second resource (command points) to balance out how bad some of our units are.

Except Windriders were always troops and it's silly they don't have the option anymore. It's literally making them unviable along with them being mildly expensive.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Except Windriders were always troops and it's silly they don't have the option anymore. It's literally making them unviable along with them being mildly expensive.

Weren't they changed to troops in 4th edition? But having biker troops goes agaisnt the notion of having Fast Attack.

I could understand it in the context of a faction that only has bikers, but Eldar have many other things.

 Galas wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Except Windriders were always troops and it's silly they don't have the option anymore. It's literally making them unviable along with them being mildly expensive.

Weren't they changed to troops in 4th edition? But having biker troops goes agaisnt the notion of having Fast Attack.

I could understand it in the context of a faction that only has bikers, but Eldar have many other things.

As someone that hates how the Eldar Codices have been, I still feel it's unfair how that went about. Same with Marines not getting troop Bikers either.

I believe they 100% should be considered Fast Attack, but I think a huge missed opportunity is that factions should have each received a custom detachment which would give them decent CP even while not amassing a Battalion - much in the way the Dark Eldar have that random "three patrols" thing.

This was a real missed step with the way the game is currently designed. It would have taken two extra pages per codex. Just one detachment per faction, and books such as Dark Angels could have one for green wing, one for deathwing, and one for ravenwing. These detachments could even be more specific.

A sample: "Ghostwalkers of Iyanden"
-This detachment consists of 3-5 units of Wraithguard, led by a Spiritseer, etc. This generates 3 CP.

Something very simple like this could have worked a lot of these issues out without actually changing anything in the book itself.

With Ghostwalkers, here's what I'd do:
3CP
1 Spiritseer
0-1 HQ
3 Wraithguard/blades
0-2 Troops/FA/Elite/HS

With no rule restricting the other HQ or Elite slots from being more SpiritSeers/Wraithguard.

This way, you can build out your detatchment as the core of your army. Because if the detatchment only allowed SpiritSeers or Wraithguard, adding a Wraithlord or 2 gets odd.

Similarly, Windirder Host:
3CP
1 HQ on a bike
0-1 HQ
3 Windriders
0-2 Troops/FA/Elite/HS

SM Biker (not necessarily White Scars):
3CP
1 HQ on a bike
0-1 HQ
3 SM Bike Squads
0-2 Troops/FA/Elite/HS

Numbers can obviously be tweaked, but the same core format with variances as appropriate could be applied to Sternies and more, while still requiring Outriders for FA/etc that would never be core (Shining Spears, Centurions, Incubi, etc).

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Sometimes playing to the fluff has consequences.

Except when you have a AM CP battery on a SM list.

Bharring wrote:
With Ghostwalkers, here's what I'd do:
3CP
1 Spiritseer
0-1 HQ
3 Wraithguard/blades
0-2 Troops/FA/Elite/HS

With no rule restricting the other HQ or Elite slots from being more SpiritSeers/Wraithguard.

This way, you can build out your detatchment as the core of your army. Because if the detatchment only allowed SpiritSeers or Wraithguard, adding a Wraithlord or 2 gets odd.

Similarly, Windirder Host:
3CP
1 HQ on a bike
0-1 HQ
3 Windriders
0-2 Troops/FA/Elite/HS

SM Biker (not necessarily White Scars):
3CP
1 HQ on a bike
0-1 HQ
3 SM Bike Squads
0-2 Troops/FA/Elite/HS

Numbers can obviously be tweaked, but the same core format with variances as appropriate could be applied to Sternies and more, while still requiring Outriders for FA/etc that would never be core (Shining Spears, Centurions, Incubi, etc).

Hello formations!

Nah just move stuff where appropriate. Windriders For Troops 2020

But I want my Sternies to be elites. But I don't want to hamstring Crimson Fists players.

Same could be said of Wraithguard, Windriders, and SM Bikers.

A big difference between the above and formations is that:
-They are alternate CADs with manditory Troops replaced with manditory X. This means lots of options, instead of a very rigid FOC.
-No special rules were added to the detatchments - in fact, they "pay" for the option in that they get fewer CP than Troops-based lists.

Bharring wrote:
But I want my Sternies to be elites. But I don't want to hamstring Crimson Fists players.

Same could be said of Wraithguard, Windriders, and SM Bikers.

A big difference between the above and formations is that:
-They are alternate CADs with manditory Troops replaced with manditory X. This means lots of options, instead of a very rigid FOC.
-No special rules were added to the detatchments - in fact, they "pay" for the option in that they get fewer CP than Troops-based lists.

Sternguard were NEVER an option as troops. What Kantor did was make them scoring in 5th and then Objective Secured in 6th/7th. It was a bad argument to support that narrative.

I wish Sammy made bikes troops so my RW army has 18 CP's.

Fine.

"But I want my [SM Bikes|Wraithguard|Windriders] to be [Elites|FA]. But I don't want to hamstring [White Scars|Aspect Host|Saim Hann] players."

Same statement, with the picked nit removed.

To my mind the whole "(X) as Troops!" thing was overdone and unhelpful in earlier editions, because it ended up pushing a weird vision of some armies. A fluffy White Scars list will contain Tactical Marines in Rhinos, a fluffy Saim-Hann list will contain Guardians in Wave Serpents, a fluffy Black Legion list will contain Chaos Marines, etc.

The suggestion that "because this thing is used more frequently by this army it needs to be Troops so I can take only that thing" is silly. A Saim-Hann jetbike-only force exists. It uses Outrider detachments and has fewer command points than a balanced force that's taking some Guardians. Deal with it.

 akaean wrote:
The truth is it will only help add variety to the game and make armies feel more unique on the tabletop. MORE SPECIALTY TROOPS, not less.

Ah yes let's have more powerful models and not even have to pay tax of being non-troop. Yes that's a great idea.

Also people have weird idea that just because some faction likes X it means it's fluffy to be all X. like white scars and all bike armies that are horribly unfluffy as most of white scars in battle would actually be tacticals in rhinos...

Here's the thing with this discussion - it absolutely doesn't need to happen.

Someone said earlier (and were right) that this change wouldn't affect the competitive builds that people take. Making windriders troops for saim hann wont suddenly push them in front of Alaitoc or Ulthwe in terms of competitive strength. Hence Mr TopTournamentGoer isn't going to take the list anyway, over what is currently considered top tier Aeldari.

So the change isn't proposed for competitive play. So why bother with it at all? Concerns around CP are only for competitive play - just take an outrider detachment or home brew extra CP for your pure bike list with your mates.

I guess my point is that there is no value to GW making this ruling official, in this particular case I don't think it would change the top lists and the rules are a lot more flexible in job-competitive play anyway.

I appreciate people wanting to run Jetbike Guardians as troops for Saim Hann, but I don't think that - at all - justifies arbitrarily making them troops (something they should have never been). So you need a Saim Hann exception, not a blanket Craftworld change.

There is a reason we have a "Fast Attack" entry and have for a long time.

 Elbows wrote:
I appreciate people wanting to run Jetbike Guardians as troops for Saim Hann, but I don't think that - at all - justifies arbitrarily making them troops (something they should have never been). So you need a Saim Hann exception, not a blanket Craftworld change.

There is a reason we have a "Fast Attack" entry and have for a long time.

Except it needs to be a blanket change. That's how it's been for probably a dozen years. Making them a Fast Attack was just one of several nerfs that didn't need to happen to appease the Scatterbike moaners.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

 akaean wrote:
The truth is it will only help add variety to the game and make armies feel more unique on the tabletop. MORE SPECIALTY TROOPS, not less.

Ah yes let's have more powerful models and not even have to pay tax of being non-troop. Yes that's a great idea.

Also people have weird idea that just because some faction likes X it means it's fluffy to be all X. like white scars and all bike armies that are horribly unfluffy as most of white scars in battle would actually be tacticals in rhinos...

Only in your mind.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Except it needs to be a blanket change. That's how it's been for probably a dozen years. Making them a Fast Attack was just one of several nerfs that didn't need to happen to appease the Scatterbike moaners.

Neither was special HQ's making non-troop units into Troop choice.

This whole CP starvation situation for specialist unit army is somewhat blown out of proportion - typically, when you make a specialist armies, you are looking to end the game within 2 turns, or at the least make a enough impact to eliminate significant retaliation to drag the game out. This roughly translates to spending anywhere from 8~10 CP's within two turns. If we compare this CP expenditure, the only thing specialist armies with typically 6 (or 10 if you brought a CP battery) CP misses out is spamming command reroll in every phase or going through less than competitive stratagems because you have CP left over. As specialist army playing in matched play, you generally only need and can only spend 4~5 CP per turn for those game changer stratagems.

But the re-roll strat is by far the most useful. Not having enough CPs to do your special strats and the re-roll one per phase can have a dramatic affect on the game.

I have stated in many threads since 8th edition that I love all the changes made to Windriders ... except making them FA. Having a fast Troop just FEELS right for Eldar and was want got me interesting in them as an army in 4th ed.
By making them FA, they now compete with other choices in that slot, meaning Windriders will never be taken over Spears.

I've made peace with WRs being FA, but the sad truth is that it just encourages Shining Spear spam as player with 7th ed Scatterbike spam just slap spears on them and run them as Shining Spears.
If Spears did not exist, than WRs being FA would make sense, but it is clear by their design that WRs are supposed to be a far more common unit than Spears. They are too similar to occupy the same slot.

I'd even be happy if Spears went to Elites, or if the Outrider detachment was 2 or more CPs.

-

 Galef wrote:
But the re-roll strat is by far the most useful. Not having enough CPs to do your special strats and the re-roll one per phase can have a dramatic affect on the game.

I have stated in many threads since 8th edition that I love all the changes made to Windriders ... except making them FA. Having a fast Troop just FEELS right for Eldar and was want got me interesting in them as an army in 4th ed.
By making them FA, they now compete with other choices in that slot, meaning Windriders will never be taken over Spears.

I've made peace with WRs being FA, but the sad truth is that it just encourages Shining Spear spam as player with 7th ed Scatterbike spam just slap spears on them and run them as Shining Spears.
If Spears did not exist, than WRs being FA would make sense, but it is clear by their design that WRs are supposed to be a far more common unit than Spears. They are too similar to occupy the same slot.

I'd even be happy if Spears went to Elites, or if the Outrider detachment was 2 or more CPs.

-

I personally think improving Battle Forged command benefit from 3 CP to 5 CP is the first step in balancing the CP discrepancy rather than bumping up CP's for specialist detachments.

Battalion and brigade will benefit from the change as well but not as significantly as it will be surplus CP's.

CP's shouldn't be squandered in a specialist armies - it should be used sparingly and decisively.

 skchsan wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Except it needs to be a blanket change. That's how it's been for probably a dozen years. Making them a Fast Attack was just one of several nerfs that didn't need to happen to appease the Scatterbike moaners.

Neither was special HQ's making non-troop units into Troop choice.

This whole CP starvation situation for specialist unit army is somewhat blown out of proportion - typically, when you make a specialist armies, you are looking to end the game within 2 turns, or at the least make a enough impact to eliminate significant retaliation to drag the game out. This roughly translates to spending anywhere from 8~10 CP's within two turns. If we compare this CP expenditure, the only thing specialist armies with typically 6 (or 10 if you brought a CP battery) CP misses out is spamming command reroll in every phase or going through less than competitive stratagems because you have CP left over. As specialist army playing in matched play, you generally only need and can only spend 4~5 CP per turn for those game changer stratagems.

Special Snowflake? In what manner? Biker Marine HQ was generic. Windriders were generic for all Craft World armies. In fact, more people wanted generic HQ units to unlock different choices because they want the core of the Army to fit a specific theme. Formations from 7th helped achieve that in a sense, and players were only annoyed at the weird rules that formations entailed.

 Elbows wrote:
I believe they 100% should be considered Fast Attack, but I think a huge missed opportunity is that factions should have each received a custom detachment which would give them decent CP even while not amassing a Battalion - much in the way the Dark Eldar have that random "three patrols" thing.

This was a real missed step with the way the game is currently designed. It would have taken two extra pages per codex. Just one detachment per faction, and books such as Dark Angels could have one for green wing, one for deathwing, and one for ravenwing. These detachments could even be more specific.

The problem was that those custom detachments in each codex became so broken and unbalanced so quickly.

When GW announced the standard formations I was really hyped, but then there was so little real variation. What's needed are some specialist medium to large formations in the standard set that can be balanced in how many CPs they get, allowing anyone to build a fast-attack or elite heavy list with any codex, and have it be balanced against the standard mixed formations.

What became broken so fast? I'm talking about 8th edition, not 7th. I'm not referring to formations and all of that "get free stuff" garbage. Giving factions a small or simple custom detachment in 8th would be giving them a couple extra CP for building a thematic list. That shouldn't break anything. Again, if Dark Eldar get it (bonus CP for building a "fluffy" multi-patrol list) then why not other armies?

With the basic Battalion and Brigade generating more CP now, it wouldn't break the game if you had some special detachments which generated 3CP etc. Of course it would also add some nice flavor to the army building - but I'm not extolling free units or special sweeping changes to anything.

 Elbows wrote:
What became broken so fast? I'm talking about 8th edition, not 7th. I'm not referring to formations and all of that "get free stuff" garbage. Giving factions a small or simple custom detachment in 8th would be giving them a couple extra CP for building a thematic list. That shouldn't break anything. Again, if Dark Eldar get it (bonus CP for building a "fluffy" multi-patrol list) then why not other armies?

With the basic Battalion and Brigade generating more CP now, it wouldn't break the game if you had some special detachments which generated 3CP etc. Of course it would also add some nice flavor to the army building - but I'm not extolling free units or special sweeping changes to anything.

The point of the main rule book including so many different types of detachments is so that every faction has equal access to them, rather than Faction X getting this and Faction Y getting that.
In theory, this is a good idea. Dark Eldar getting a special way to use detachments needs to be a "one-off" edge case that does not need to continue.

The fact that Saim Hann armies can use and Outrider detachment to field all jetbikes is great, but it should cost 4 CPs for that privilege, which is essentially what is happening. If it were 3CPs that would be ok for Saim-Hann, but not so ok for the game as a whole.
You also have to factor in several other consequences of WRs being FA instead of Troops, namely in Matched play it means you can only have 3 units max and they do not get Objective secured.
With all these restrictions on WRs, there really is no point in taking them over Spears. This is very sad for players, like me, whose core has ALWAYS been Guardian Jetbikes years prior to Scatterbike spam being a thing.

But as I've said, I try to make peace with that by just slapping spears on my jetbike models and calling it a day.
My main issue is when people outright dismiss WRs as "belonging" in FA when in reality they have been designed to be Troops for over a decade. WRs and WKs are apparently being punished for the sins of 7th ed.

---------------------------------
EDIT: Counter proposal to the OP. Rather than making WRs Troops just for Saim-Hann, why not drop the points of WRs by 2-3 ppm and add a rule to Saim-Hann detachments that Outrider Detachments give 3CPs instead of 1? This would keep WRs as FA to appease the moaners, but by decreasing their points they are appealing over Spears and would not penalize Saim-hann as severely by not taking the detachment that they clearly should be taking.

-

 Galef wrote:

EDIT: Counter proposal to the OP. Rather than making WRs Troops just for Saim-Hann, why not drop the points of WRs by 2-3 ppm and add a rule to Saim-Hann detachments that Outrider Detachments give 3CPs instead of 1? This would keep WRs as FA to appease the moaners, but by decreasing their points they are appealing over Spears and would not penalize Saim-hann as severely by not taking the detachment that they clearly should be taking.

-

So can can Ravenwings also get 3CP per outrider as well? I mean, they are CLEARLY supposed to be all FA too. Can deathwing vanguard also get 3CP as well? I mean, after all, they're clearly supposed to be all Elite.

The bottom line is, in the words of our friends, you cant have a cake and eat it too.

 skchsan wrote:

 Galef wrote:

EDIT: Counter proposal to the OP. Rather than making WRs Troops just for Saim-Hann, why not drop the points of WRs by 2-3 ppm and add a rule to Saim-Hann detachments that Outrider Detachments give 3CPs instead of 1? This would keep WRs as FA to appease the moaners, but by decreasing their points they are appealing over Spears and would not penalize Saim-hann as severely by not taking the detachment that they clearly should be taking.

-

So can can Ravenwings also get 3CP per outrider as well? I mean, they are CLEARLY supposed to be all FA too. Can deathwing vanguard also get 3CP as well? I mean, after all, they're clearly supposed to be all Elite.

The bottom line is, in the words of our friends, you cant have a cake and eat it too.

I'm sure Galef would agree to that. Hell I wanted generic Deathwing and Ravenwing HQ to unlock those dudes as troops last edition. Then again Dark Angels and Blood Angels shouldn't be separate codices. That's a different topic though.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I'm sure Galef would agree to that. Hell I wanted generic Deathwing and Ravenwing HQ to unlock those dudes as troops last edition. Then again Dark Angels and Blood Angels shouldn't be separate codices. That's a different topic though.

Exactly this is why I'm against the OP because making WR troops for Saim-Hann and no other factions armies is going to open up a HUGE can of worm.

I am on the boat for dumbing down fluff for the sake of consistency.

Edit: I seem to have misread your post slayer-fan

It seems odd people clinging to Jetbike Guardians being troops when they were only made that more or less by accident. Fast Attack as a slot exists for a reason. It's why Space Marine bikers are Fast Attack, and why almost every single other fast moving unit in the game is a Fast Attack choice.

I still think they missed a chance at making a fluffy bonus detachment for factions. I think a couple spare CP would not have broken the game at all. It's nothing like granting them free units or special impossibly good rules.

 Elbows wrote:
It seems odd people clinging to Jetbike Guardians being troops when they were only made that more or less by accident. Fast Attack as a slot exists for a reason. It's why Space Marine bikers are Fast Attack, and why almost every single other fast moving unit in the game is a Fast Attack choice.

I still think they missed a chance at making a fluffy bonus detachment for factions. I think a couple spare CP would not have broken the game at all. It's nothing like granting them free units or special impossibly good rules.

An accident that lasted how many years and how many codices?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
It seems odd people clinging to Jetbike Guardians being troops when they were only made that more or less by accident. Fast Attack as a slot exists for a reason. It's why Space Marine bikers are Fast Attack, and why almost every single other fast moving unit in the game is a Fast Attack choice.

I still think they missed a chance at making a fluffy bonus detachment for factions. I think a couple spare CP would not have broken the game at all. It's nothing like granting them free units or special impossibly good rules.

An accident that lasted how many years and how many codices?

Or bias and favoritism.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
It seems odd people clinging to Jetbike Guardians being troops when they were only made that more or less by accident. Fast Attack as a slot exists for a reason. It's why Space Marine bikers are Fast Attack, and why almost every single other fast moving unit in the game is a Fast Attack choice.

I still think they missed a chance at making a fluffy bonus detachment for factions. I think a couple spare CP would not have broken the game at all. It's nothing like granting them free units or special impossibly good rules.

An accident that lasted how many years and how many codices?

Exactly my point. It wasn't an "accident" it was to show that Eldar have more jetbikes and competent riders that Marines have. Shining Spears were the "elite" Fast Attack biker.
But I did share this opinion more so when Jetbikes could only get 1 Shuricannon per 3 bikes when other Troops have limitations like this.

By giving every bike the option for a bigger gun, it has strengthened the position that WRs should be Fast, which is a shame.
If I had to chose between WRs that could only have 1 special weapon per 3 model, but were Troops, and FA WRs that can all have special weapons, I'd pick the Troop option.
But we don't have that option, so I have to be content with what we have (which ends up being fielding my preferred play-style in non-competitive games, sadly)

-

 Galef wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
It seems odd people clinging to Jetbike Guardians being troops when they were only made that more or less by accident. Fast Attack as a slot exists for a reason. It's why Space Marine bikers are Fast Attack, and why almost every single other fast moving unit in the game is a Fast Attack choice.

I still think they missed a chance at making a fluffy bonus detachment for factions. I think a couple spare CP would not have broken the game at all. It's nothing like granting them free units or special impossibly good rules.

An accident that lasted how many years and how many codices?

Exactly my point. It wasn't an "accident" it was to show that Eldar have more jetbikes and competent riders that Marines have. Shining Spears were the "elite" Fast Attack biker.
But I did share this opinion more so when Jetbikes could only get 1 Shuricannon per 3 bikes when other Troops have limitations like this.

By giving every bike the option for a bigger gun, it has strengthened the position that WRs should be Fast, which is a shame.
If I had to chose between WRs that could only have 1 special weapon per 3 model, but were Troops, and FA WRs that can all have special weapons, I'd pick the Troop option.
But we don't have that option, so I have to be content with what we have (which ends up being fielding my preferred play-style in non-competitive games, sadly)

-

But why does this translate to allowing a jetbike in the troops section?

It seems like Troops are defined in the game as "fillers that don't necessarily change the course of the battle" as far as the game goes. Why does eldar get more "competent" troops just because they seemingly have more of them as per lore?

 skchsan wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
It seems odd people clinging to Jetbike Guardians being troops when they were only made that more or less by accident. Fast Attack as a slot exists for a reason. It's why Space Marine bikers are Fast Attack, and why almost every single other fast moving unit in the game is a Fast Attack choice.

I still think they missed a chance at making a fluffy bonus detachment for factions. I think a couple spare CP would not have broken the game at all. It's nothing like granting them free units or special impossibly good rules.

An accident that lasted how many years and how many codices?

Or bias and favoritism.

But they were still a choice. You can't just say they shouldn't have access to Windriders as troops again because you don't like the idea. That's not up to you.

 skchsan wrote:
But why does this translate to allowing a jetbike in the troops section?

It seems like Troops are defined in the game as "fillers that don't necessarily change the course of the battle" as far as the game goes. Why does eldar get more "competent" troops just because they seemingly have more of them as per lore?

"Troops" are meant to be the most common type of rank-n-file unit that an army has access too. They should be the easiest to train and bring to bare against an enemy and are often the most numerous.
Eldar having jetbike Troops was an expression of how proficient and "better than humans" they were. It reflected both their skill and tech level above humanity.

The "mistake" was giving each model access to a Scatter laser in an addition in which stripping Hull points made you king. That is what forced them into being Fast Attack.
For balance reasons, WRs should be Fast Attack, but sadly this makes them useless compared to Shining Spears or even Vypers.
I have 12 WRs that will never be WRs in anything but the most casual of games. And I have to pick from one of 3 Troops that I am not all that fond of to take a Battalion.

-

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
It seems odd people clinging to Jetbike Guardians being troops when they were only made that more or less by accident. Fast Attack as a slot exists for a reason. It's why Space Marine bikers are Fast Attack, and why almost every single other fast moving unit in the game is a Fast Attack choice.

I still think they missed a chance at making a fluffy bonus detachment for factions. I think a couple spare CP would not have broken the game at all. It's nothing like granting them free units or special impossibly good rules.

An accident that lasted how many years and how many codices?

Or bias and favoritism.

But they were still a choice. You can't just say they shouldn't have access to Windriders as troops again because you don't like the idea. That's not up to you.

But it's not really about what I like or dislike. My stance is purely from external balance and consistency of the game - one faction shouldn't have a FA equivalent unit as Troop choice just because of lore.

Once GW starts to make those "special snowflake" exceptions, there will be no end to it.

By that extension, Dev Squad in imperial fists army should be troop choice since they specialize in long range seige tactics, deathwing termies troops, RW bikers troops, farsight crisis troops, etc, all the meanwhile where certain faction/army doesn't have such specialization be left out on all of this 'special snowflake' 7th formation-esque treatments.

Jetbikes as a Fast Attack choice is a weird, mutated leftover from the former existence of a force org chart. In the days when troops were literally mandatory, what you could take as troops dramatically altered the look and feel of your list. Allowing Saim-Hann to take jetbikes as troops gave a Saim-Hann army the feeling of being faster but less numerous than an army with a bunch of guardians wandering around.

Formations were the first step in abandoning a mandatory, standardized force org chart in favor of something fluffier. Now, the force org chart is dead, but you can generally field a fluffy list by sacrificing easy access to CP in a given detachment for the ability to avoid taking troops entirely. Theoretically, the opportunity to get CP is sort of baked into the cost of inefficient troop units.

The issue as I see it these days is that some armies have "good" troops that also happen to be fluffy for the armies they appear in while other armies have "bad" or "unfluffy" troops. So the space marine player that gets stuck taking some tactical marines immediately starts eyeballing imperial guard for his command point needs. Meanwhile, armies with decent troops are pretty happy with their access to CP.

I guess what I'm saying is that being a "troop" doesn't really mean anything these days. Other than obsec, the only thing being a troop means is that you happen to be required for more CP-per-points efficient detachments. Which is just a weirdly roundabout way of overpaying points for "bad" (read: "inefficient") units when what you're really paying for is CP.

So maybe we should just be letting people pay points for CP, designing units to be efficient at a job regardless of whether or not they're troops, and letting people play fluffy Saimi-Hann (or whatever) armies without being at a big CP disadvantage.

But really. I'm not sure there's much harm in just upping the CP of vanguards, etc. to 3CP. Two vanguards versus two batallions would be a 4 CP difference. A batallion and vanguard versus two batallions would be a 2CP difference. That seems about right to me


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elbows wrote:
What became broken so fast? I'm talking about 8th edition, not 7th. I'm not referring to formations and all of that "get free stuff" garbage. Giving factions a small or simple custom detachment in 8th would be giving them a couple extra CP for building a thematic list. That shouldn't break anything. Again, if Dark Eldar get it (bonus CP for building a "fluffy" multi-patrol list) then why not other armies?

With the basic Battalion and Brigade generating more CP now, it wouldn't break the game if you had some special detachments which generated 3CP etc. Of course it would also add some nice flavor to the army building - but I'm not extolling free units or special sweeping changes to anything.

Putting aside everything I just said, I think this would be really cool. Perhaps such detachments would be a good way of rewarding mono-faction armies? I.e. if all detachments in your army share the Saim-Hann keyword, you can use this flavorful variant detachment. Want to play all Iyanden? You're giving up the benefits of Alaitoc rules on your gunline elements and the ability to ally in harlequins and dark eldar, but you can take this detachment that grants 1CP per wraith unit you field. Something like that.

Wyldhunt wrote:
Allowing Saim-Hann to take jetbikes as troops gave a Saim-Hann army the feeling of being faster but less numerous than an army with a bunch of guardians wandering around.

Again, fluff is fluff - it should not be basis on which the external/internal balance of the game depends on.

Troops are the basic rank-and-file cannon fodders as far as the game goes. Of course, some armies have better Troops selection than others, but it never steps on the toes of other specialized roles. For example, tac squad can take a heavy weapon and special weapon per 5/10 models in the unit. At no given time, are they allowed to equip 4 heavy weapons as this would begin to step on dev squad's role. If you want 4 special weapons, you buy a vet squad.

If you want guys running (or flying) around on a jetbike, you should turn to FOS other than Troops. Troops that double as a FA/Elite/Heavy will outright break the game as it is, just as formations ruined 7th ed.

The reason why you get so much CP for taking batt or brigade is because Troops are lackluster units only worth the CP it grants.

I get your wishlist - but for the sake of the little balance that exist in the game, troops need to stay as it is. And this is coming from a person with RW army as his primary army. Oh how I would LOVE 15+ CP's for only taking Outrider.

 skchsan wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
Allowing Saim-Hann to take jetbikes as troops gave a Saim-Hann army the feeling of being faster but less numerous than an army with a bunch of guardians wandering around.

Again, fluff is fluff - it should not be basis on which the external/internal balance of the game depends on.

Troops are the basic rank-and-file cannon fodders as far as the game goes. Of course, some armies have better Troops selection than others, but it never steps on the toes of other specialized roles. For example, tac squad can take a heavy weapon and special weapon per 5/10 models in the unit. At no given time, are they allowed to equip 4 heavy weapons as this would begin to step on dev squad's role. If you want 4 special weapons, you buy a vet squad.

If you want guys running (or flying) around on a jetbike, you should turn to FOS other than Troops. Troops that double as a FA/Elite/Heavy will outright break the game as it is, just as formations ruined 7th ed.

The reason why you get so much CP for taking batt or brigade is because Troops are lackluster units only worth the CP it grants.

I get your wishlist - but for the sake of the little balance that exist in the game, troops need to stay as it is. And this is coming from a person with RW army as his primary army. Oh how I would LOVE 15+ CP's for only taking Outrider.

Except it doesn't break the game just because you say it will.

What's the actual balance harm in having Windriders in the Troop slot? Dire Avengers and Rangers still have their roles and Guardians just need to be fixed. Windriders as Troops dont negate that.

 skchsan wrote:

Spoiler:

Again, fluff is fluff - it should not be basis on which the external/internal balance of the game depends on.

Troops are the basic rank-and-file cannon fodders as far as the game goes. Of course, some armies have better Troops selection than others, but it never steps on the toes of other specialized roles. For example, tac squad can take a heavy weapon and special weapon per 5/10 models in the unit. At no given time, are they allowed to equip 4 heavy weapons as this would begin to step on dev squad's role. If you want 4 special weapons, you buy a vet squad.

If you want guys running (or flying) around on a jetbike, you should turn to FOS other than Troops. Troops that double as a FA/Elite/Heavy will outright break the game as it is, just as formations ruined 7th ed.

The reason why you get so much CP for taking batt or brigade is because Troops are lackluster units only worth the CP it grants.

I get your wishlist - but for the sake of the little balance that exist in the game, troops need to stay as it is. And this is coming from a person with RW army as his primary army. Oh how I would LOVE 15+ CP's for only taking Outrider

.

I can agree with you from a balance standpoint (only because GW made the mistake of giving them all special weapons), but I adamantly disagree that fluff shouldn't dictate some rules. There are some wildrider clans within Saim-Hann that are 100% mounted armies. Their "rank-n-file" cannon fodder ARE their Jetbike. they have no infantry at all.
The issue was when GW released the newest plastic WRs and wanted every bike to be able to take a special weapon. THAT is what pushed them into not being "Troop" material.
If WRs could only take twin Shuricats, they would still fit your criteria of "lack-luster cannon fodder"

Side note, Eldar are not supposed to have "cannon fodder" at all. #Eldarlivesmatter
And BTW, Grey Knights still have Terminators as Troops. Do you think they should be Elites? Cuz that would suck for GKs, which are already considered the worst army in 8th.

By taking WRs as my "core" I am already losing "objective secured" It'd be nice not to also have to "pay" 4CPs for the privilege. A better fix would be for Battalions to drop down to 4CPs, and Outrider/Spearhead/Vangaurds to go up to 2 or 3.

-

 Galef wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

Spoiler:

Again, fluff is fluff - it should not be basis on which the external/internal balance of the game depends on.

Troops are the basic rank-and-file cannon fodders as far as the game goes. Of course, some armies have better Troops selection than others, but it never steps on the toes of other specialized roles. For example, tac squad can take a heavy weapon and special weapon per 5/10 models in the unit. At no given time, are they allowed to equip 4 heavy weapons as this would begin to step on dev squad's role. If you want 4 special weapons, you buy a vet squad.

If you want guys running (or flying) around on a jetbike, you should turn to FOS other than Troops. Troops that double as a FA/Elite/Heavy will outright break the game as it is, just as formations ruined 7th ed.

The reason why you get so much CP for taking batt or brigade is because Troops are lackluster units only worth the CP it grants.

I get your wishlist - but for the sake of the little balance that exist in the game, troops need to stay as it is. And this is coming from a person with RW army as his primary army. Oh how I would LOVE 15+ CP's for only taking Outrider

.

I can agree with you from a balance standpoint (only because GW made the mistake of giving them all special weapons), but I adamantly disagree that fluff shouldn't dictate some rules. There are some wildrider clans within Saim-Hann that are 100% mounted armies. Their "rank-n-file" cannon fodder ARE their Jetbike. they have no infantry at all.
The issue was when GW released the newest plastic WRs and wanted every bike to be able to take a special weapon. THAT is what pushed them into not being "Troop" material.
If WRs could only take twin Shuricats, they would still fit your criteria of "lack-luster cannon fodder"

Side note, Eldar are not supposed to have "cannon fodder" at all. #Eldarlivesmatter
And BTW, Grey Knights still have Terminators as Troops. Do you think they should be Elites? Cuz that would suck for GKs, which are already considered the worst army in 8th.

By taking WRs as my "core" I am already losing "objective secured" It'd be nice not to also have to "pay" 4CPs for the privilege. A better fix would be for Battalions to drop down to 4CPs, and Outrider/Spearhead/Vangaurds to go up to 2 or 3.

-

The problem wuth dropping battalion CP down is it goes against what GW has been trying to do to reduce the diffrence between the armies with cheap spamable troops and those without.

Also adding CP to spearheads etc just makes hard skew lists more viable and that's not what most people want after the broken mess of 7th formations.

Also your capped at 3 units of shining spears, wind riders do have a place its called I have taken 3 units of spears and still want jet bikes.

Also if you give extra CP to outrider people won't take windriders they just take an all shining spear outrider detachment anyway.

The only way to make it work would be along the same lines as the imperial knights codex.

Sham Him outrider detachment containing 3 units of wind riders changes the command benifit from +1CP to +3CP.

Yeah, rather than putting Battalions to 4CP, the specialist detachments should give 2CP instead.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
Allowing Saim-Hann to take jetbikes as troops gave a Saim-Hann army the feeling of being faster but less numerous than an army with a bunch of guardians wandering around.

Again, fluff is fluff - it should not be basis on which the external/internal balance of the game depends on.

Troops are the basic rank-and-file cannon fodders as far as the game goes. Of course, some armies have better Troops selection than others, but it never steps on the toes of other specialized roles. For example, tac squad can take a heavy weapon and special weapon per 5/10 models in the unit. At no given time, are they allowed to equip 4 heavy weapons as this would begin to step on dev squad's role. If you want 4 special weapons, you buy a vet squad.

If you want guys running (or flying) around on a jetbike, you should turn to FOS other than Troops. Troops that double as a FA/Elite/Heavy will outright break the game as it is, just as formations ruined 7th ed.

The reason why you get so much CP for taking batt or brigade is because Troops are lackluster units only worth the CP it grants.

I get your wishlist - but for the sake of the little balance that exist in the game, troops need to stay as it is. And this is coming from a person with RW army as his primary army. Oh how I would LOVE 15+ CP's for only taking Outrider.

Except it doesn't break the game just because you say it will.

What's the actual balance harm in having Windriders in the Troop slot? Dire Avengers and Rangers still have their roles and Guardians just need to be fixed. Windriders as Troops dont negate that.

I'm not really arguing for moving windriders back to the troops slot so much as I'm suggesting that being a "troop" doesn't actually mean anything and that the leftover assumptions about what a "troop" is might actually be leading to problematic design decisions. Currently, the assumption of what a "troop" should be seems to be that, "Troops are the basic rank-and-file cannon fodders as far as the game goes," as you say. But that's kind of slipping back into using fluff as a justification for rules. As Galef points out, no eldar is really meant to be a bullet catcher. Guardian lives are precious and to be spent as a last resort. Rangers go to great lengths to not be hit in the first place. From a rulesperspective, neither guardians nor rangers are expendable bullet catchers the way guardsmen are. If the low points cost for a guardsman is what makes guardsmen "troops," then guardians and rangers feel like they shouldn't be in the troops category. As Galef has also pointed out, some armies, such as GK, don't really have cheap units at all. From both a lore and rules perspective, GK (and their pointy-eared cousins the harlequins) don't have any units expendable/cheap enough to really qualify as "cannon fodder."

So using the description you yourself provided, the argument could be made that some armies really don't have "troops" at all. In the same way that we understand the FA slot to be intended for mobile units, we understand troop slots to be intended for cheap and numerous units. I'd propose that a tactical marine or GK terminator (or a windrider) therefor makes about as much sense in the troops slot as a dreadnaught would in the FA slot.

Which brings us back to the idea that part of being a troop is being inefficient in terms of ability but that essentially being an overpriced unit is somewhat compensated for by the CP they unlock when taken in a batallion or brigade. At which point, I suggest we skip the awkwardness of having overpriced troops and instead simply allow players to pay X points for a command point. Instead of taking tactical marines when you really want sternguard or devastators just to get the CP, take the devs and sternguard instead and simply buy the CP with points. A devastator hypothetically has X value per point. A tactical marine has Y value per point where Y is less than X. So let's just figure out the value of X-Y and go from there to determine how much you're theoretically paying for CP. The intended end result would be that Saim-Hann (or whatever) armies wouldn't feel compelled to field things like guardians or rangers just so they can participate in the happy fun time adventure that is stratagems, but the points spent on CP would mean that they aren't fielding all big guns with no downside. In this scenario, you'd also want to redesign the "bad" troops that only exist to fill mandatory slots/unlock CP to actually be useful and desirable in their own right.

So if 4 of the points on a tac marine's pricetag represent "tax" you pay for unlocking CP (i.e. they're only worth 8 points apiece instead of 12 or whatever), and it takes 3 squads of 10 tacs to get 5 CP in a batallion, let's just let the Raven Wing player spend 24 points (4 * 30 = 120; 120/5 = 24) to buy CP instead of being required to field tactical marines in an RW-themed army. You're still spending the same points on CP that you were originally (although obviously we can disagree on the cost of a CP), but you don't have to break your army's theme. Then, either lower the cost of "bad troops" or increase their performance to make them more desirable on their own merit.

Basically, I'm advocating divorcing troops from CP generation. Troops as CP generators isn't the worst idea, but it punishes those armies whose themes or troop usefulness discourage them from taking a lot of troops. Instead of a marine player taking 200 points of guard to get bonus CP, let him field tacitcals or not according to his fluff/play style and then spend the same number of points on CP his guard friend would.

Another option might be to give Saim-Hann detachments "Objective Secured" to Windrider units. It wouldn't impact the CP situation at all, but might encourage some players to take Windriders in Outrider detachments, instead of just Shining Spears.

Or yet another option is to drop the points for Windriders dramatically. Not being Troops, only having a 4+ armour (which I do like about them) makes them a very hard pick over Spears or even Vypers.
If you drop them to >15ppm (so >20ppm with TwinCats or >25ppm with either special weapon) might, MIGHT make them a decent choice over their competition

The issue is that Windriders have been a CORE choice for over a decade, and can no longer be so because they are being punished for being OP in 7th.
Taking them in Outrider detachments is NOT adequate compensation.

-

 Galef wrote:

The issue is that Windriders have been a CORE choice for over a decade, and can no longer be so because they are being punished for being OP in 7th.
-

And we have a winner!

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Galef wrote:

The issue is that Windriders have been a CORE choice for over a decade, and can no longer be so because they are being punished for being OP in 7th.
-

And we have a winner!

And it shouldn't be that way. The WK is in the same boat.
What GW could have and should have done is make 2 Windrider datasheets (just like with Black Guardians Windriders at the end of 7th):
1 Troop Windrider unit that can only take 1 special weapon per 3 models (or even just TwinCats with no option for special weapons).
1 Elite or Fast Attack option for Black Guardian Windriders that can have all the special weapons, and maybe has in-built Webway drop and is more expensive for it.

That would solve both problems. GW could still have the kit that includes special weapons for each bike, but the rules would allow an option for a less effective unit filling the Troop requirements for detachments that need Troops.
Everyone wins.

-

 Galef wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Galef wrote:

The issue is that Windriders have been a CORE choice for over a decade, and can no longer be so because they are being punished for being OP in 7th.
-

And we have a winner!

And it shouldn't be that way. The WK is in the same boat.
What GW could have and should have done is make 2 Windrider datasheets (just like with Black Guardians Windriders at the end of 7th):
1 Troop Windrider unit that can only take 1 special weapon per 3 models (or even just TwinCats with no option for special weapons).
1 Elite or Fast Attack option for Black Guardian Windriders that can have all the special weapons, and maybe has in-built Webway drop and is more expensive for it.

That would solve both problems. GW could still have the kit that includes special weapons for each bike, but the rules would allow an option for a less effective unit filling the Troop requirements for detachments that need Troops.
Everyone wins.

-

No Eldar players win everyone else who doesn't have 16 inch move obsec troops gets rofl stomped. Making jetbikes troops was only remotely balanced when everyone else could likewise take bikers or other such nonsence as obsec troops.

They are back where they always should have been troops should be just that basic infantry not the fastest unit with additional shooting and resilience.
This is reminiscent of Tau players complaining that they can't take crisis suits as troops in 8th edition.

It is good you can't do it in 8th edition because you shouldn't have been able to do it in the first place.

GW has taken the opportunity that the complete reboot of the ruleset that is 8th edition mechanics to correct the mistakes of the past. Just because you used to be able to do it doesn't mean still allowing it was the right decision for game balance.

Ice_can wrote:
They are back where they always should have been troops should be just that basic infantry not the fastest unit with additional shooting and resilience.
This is reminiscent of Tau players complaining that they can't take crisis suits as troops in 8th edition.

It is good you can't do it in 8th edition because you shouldn't have been able to do it in the first place.

GW has taken the opportunity that the complete reboot of the ruleset that is 8th edition mechanics to correct the mistakes of the past. Just because you used to be able to do it doesn't mean still allowing it was the right decision for game balance.

I cannot disagree with you more. I played in 4th & 5th edition prior to Windriders getting access to special weapons on every bike. They were not a "competitive" choice then, merely one of the 2 options that didn't suck.
6th & 7th was when the issues started and it wasn't because they were Troops, it's because they were Troops that could all carry special weapons.

No one was complaining about them as Troops until then.
This is a science fantasy based game. Infantry shouldn't be the only valid Troop option.
I'd be ok with "Objective Secured" only applying to Infantry if I meant I didn't HAVE to take Rangers, Guardians or Dire Avengers as a mandatory choice.
Those are all fine choice, but they aren't Jetbikes, the unit that was the deciding factoring in choosing Eldar a decade ago for me.

Make them 30ppm, deny them OS, remove their special weapons. I'd still take them as a Troop choice. Because that is the play-style I want

-

 Galef wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
They are back where they always should have been troops should be just that basic infantry not the fastest unit with additional shooting and resilience.
This is reminiscent of Tau players complaining that they can't take crisis suits as troops in 8th edition.

It is good you can't do it in 8th edition because you shouldn't have been able to do it in the first place.

GW has taken the opportunity that the complete reboot of the ruleset that is 8th edition mechanics to correct the mistakes of the past. Just because you used to be able to do it doesn't mean still allowing it was the right decision for game balance.

I cannot disagree with you more. I played in 4th & 5th edition prior to Windriders getting access to special weapons on every bike. They were not a "competitive" choice then, merely one of the 2 options that didn't suck.
6th & 7th was when the issues started and it wasn't because they were Troops, it's because they were Troops that could all carry special weapons.

No one was complaining about them as Troops until then.
This is a science fantasy based game. Infantry shouldn't be the only valid Troop option.

-

They were only used in 6th as a potential last minute objective grabber and then we had the mess of 7th.

Now the Scatterlaser took a hit, their armor went down to 4+ (which was an often suggested fix in 7th) AND they took a hit by being moved to a different FOC slot. It was too much. Dont make the unit entry pay because of the dumpster fire known as 7th Edition.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Now the Scatterlaser took a hit, their armor went down to 4+ (which was an often suggested fix in 7th) AND they took a hit by being moved to a different FOC slot. It was too much. Dont make the unit entry pay because of the dumpster fire known as 7th Edition.

Thank you. I do still think that a Troop with all special weapons is a bit much, but that could be an easy fix by dropping it back to 1 per 3. With all the nerfs they took coming into 8th, there is no legitimate reason they shouldn't still be Troops (aside from some silly notion that only Infantry should be Troops)

-

Nothing is currently stopping you running an all jetbike army under the current rules.
Yes you get less CP but that is GW's attempt to balance the advantage you have in objectives by having such a mobile force.
Yes some units are still being overcosted for their sins in 7th edition but that doesn't mean they should go back to being troops.

Ice_can wrote:
Nothing is currently stopping you running an all jetbike army under the current rules.
Yes you get less CP but that is GW's attempt to balance the advantage you have in objectives by having such a mobile force.
Yes some units are still being overcosted for their sins in 7th edition but that doesn't mean they should go back to being troops.

That's fair. At this point I agree that WRs should not be Troops, but as I've said, it's b/c of their access to weapons, not b/c of their mobility.
Troops with superior mobility can and do exist. Making Troops an "infantry only club" is not an idea I like, regardless of how balanced it can be in theory. There are other ways to balance.

 Galef wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Nothing is currently stopping you running an all jetbike army under the current rules.
Yes you get less CP but that is GW's attempt to balance the advantage you have in objectives by having such a mobile force.
Yes some units are still being overcosted for their sins in 7th edition but that doesn't mean they should go back to being troops.

That's fair. At this point I agree that WRs should not be Troops, but as I've said, it's b/c of their access to weapons, not b/c of their mobility.
Troops with superior mobility can and do exist. Making Troops an "infantry only club" is not an idea I like, regardless of how balanced it can be in theory. There are other ways to balance.

I basically agree with this. I actually always liked the 1 per 3 limitation on big guns in jetbike squads. It forced you to choose between staying at a safe distance and assault moving out of line of sight or getting in close to bring all your guns to bare.

Basically, I think we all agree that an army full of all-heavy-weapons jetbikes should be worse at generating CP than rangers, avengers, etc. The main issue in my eyes is that building a fluffy list without infantry troops means you're at a massive CP disadvantage. I find the use of stratagems to be an engaging part of the game and don't feel that people with non-troop armies should be punished as severely as they are for fielding fluffy armies that don't happen to include a handful of basically arbitrary units.

Each outrider you field instead of a batallion costs you 4CP. A 2 outrider army versus a 2 batallion army is looking at 5 CP against 13 CP. That gap feels a bit too big to me regardless of whether we're talking about Saim-Hann or Death Wing armies.

Wyldhunt wrote:
Each outrider you field instead of a batallion costs you 4CP. A 2 outrider army versus a 2 batallion army is looking at 5 CP against 13 CP. That gap feels a bit too big to me regardless of whether we're talking about Saim-Hann or Death Wing armies.

Exactly.
The thing I am most disappointed about is that there are so, so many other options:
A) Make WRs Troops again. Obviously not the favorite option and really would require removal of special weapon accessibility.
B) Make WRs really, really cheap so that you can take them over Vypers or Spears and not feel like you are missing out
C) Give Outrider/Vanguard/Spearhead Detachment more CP in "special" situations. Saim-Hann Outriders, or Deathwing Vanguards should get 4CPs instead of only 1.

I like option C the most, but it doesn't help WRs at all because Spears benefit as well.

-

 Galef wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
Each outrider you field instead of a batallion costs you 4CP. A 2 outrider army versus a 2 batallion army is looking at 5 CP against 13 CP. That gap feels a bit too big to me regardless of whether we're talking about Saim-Hann or Death Wing armies.

Exactly.
The thing I am most disappointed about is that there are so, so many other options:
A) Make WRs Troops again. Obviously not the favorite option and really would require removal of special weapon accessibility.
B) Make WRs really, really cheap so that you can take them over Vypers or Spears and not feel like you are missing out
C) Give Outrider/Vanguard/Spearhead Detachment more CP in "special" situations. Saim-Hann Outriders, or Deathwing Vanguards should get 4CPs instead of only 1.

I like option C the most, but it doesn't help WRs at all because Spears benefit as well.

-

Copy the imperial Knight's codex

Saim Hann outrider detachment containing 3 units of wind riders changes the command benifit from +1CP to +3CP. I think +4 is a bit far as your still getting a massive mobility buff in an edition where board control is very powerful especially turn 1 board control.

That's not bad.

Yeah. I'd be fine with that. +3 feels about right. A 2 CP difference compared to a batallion could be 2 fewer extra psychic powers in a phase, 2 less re-uses of serpent shields, 1 less Lightning Fast Reactions, etc. It's enough to make me consider taking a batallion instead, but not so much as to make me feel like I'm missing out on stratagems entirely if I build my list around outriders.

 Galef wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Now the Scatterlaser took a hit, their armor went down to 4+ (which was an often suggested fix in 7th) AND they took a hit by being moved to a different FOC slot. It was too much. Dont make the unit entry pay because of the dumpster fire known as 7th Edition.

Thank you. I do still think that a Troop with all special weapons is a bit much, but that could be an easy fix by dropping it back to 1 per 3. With all the nerfs they took coming into 8th, there is no legitimate reason they shouldn't still be Troops (aside from some silly notion that only Infantry should be Troops)

-

I don't believe in units paying for past sins. Simple as that.

Ice_can wrote:

 Galef wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
Each outrider you field instead of a batallion costs you 4CP. A 2 outrider army versus a 2 batallion army is looking at 5 CP against 13 CP. That gap feels a bit too big to me regardless of whether we're talking about Saim-Hann or Death Wing armies.

Exactly.
The thing I am most disappointed about is that there are so, so many other options:
A) Make WRs Troops again. Obviously not the favorite option and really would require removal of special weapon accessibility.
B) Make WRs really, really cheap so that you can take them over Vypers or Spears and not feel like you are missing out
C) Give Outrider/Vanguard/Spearhead Detachment more CP in "special" situations. Saim-Hann Outriders, or Deathwing Vanguards should get 4CPs instead of only 1.

I like option C the most, but it doesn't help WRs at all because Spears benefit as well.

-

Copy the imperial Knight's codex

Saim Hann outrider detachment containing 3 units of wind riders changes the command benifit from +1CP to +3CP. I think +4 is a bit far as your still getting a massive mobility buff in an edition where board control is very powerful especially turn 1 board control.

I would also add additional restriction/requirements of having the HQ slot also have the JETBIKE keyword for this to work. After all, why should a detachment of all bikes gain any sort of command benefits when there's no commander (in jetbike) leading them into battle?

Okay so good house rule for Saim hann could be.

Windriders count as troops for Saim hann but HQ must have keyword jetbike.
+3CP

1HQ (jetbike)
3-5 Troops (wind riders)

Reasoning for 3 CP is. Going shining spears is always a given instead of wind riders. The only real benefit to wind riders is the CP bonus. Shining spears outperform them in every other way

warpedpig wrote:
Okay so good house rule for Saim hann could be.

Windriders count as troops for Saim hann but HQ must have keyword jetbike.
+3CP

1HQ (jetbike)
3-5 Troops (wind riders)

Reasoning for 3 CP is. Going shining spears is always a given instead of wind riders. The only real benefit to wind riders is the CP bonus. Shining spears outperform them in every other way

You're just describing a outrider detachment but making them troops which was agreed earlier is probably too powerful and would need the unit re written to be remotely balanced. They are a Fast attack choice so it's the easiest solution is a faction specific outrider detachment.

Rule
Saim Hann outrider detachment containing 3 units of wind riders and HQ models on Jetbike changes the command benifit from +1CP to +3CP.

obsec
You could possibly add obsec to them but it would need to be worded carefully to prevent it resulting in ObSec HQ's and shining spears.
*Windrider units in this detachment gain ObSec

Who agreed that Windriders being troops was too powerful? All the complaints were just saying they shouldn't be troops because...reasons.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Who agreed that Windriders being troops was too powerful? All the complaints were just saying they shouldn't be troops because...reasons.

I actually agreed they shouldn't be Troops anymore, but I was very specific on the reasons:

1) No other army has bikes as Troops. 8E is the age of Infantry only Troops, apparently
2) WRs were great as Troops when only 1 per 3 bikes could upgrade their weapon. When the newest plastic kit dropped, GW gave them all special weapons options.
Their damage output dramatically spiked because of this. No other Troops can move as fast and put out as much damage for so little.

So while I am certainly bitter that I had to go buy Infantry Troops just to play a legal viable list (because let's face it, Battalions are the only viable option), I can certainly concede there are "good" reasons why WRs got bumped to Fast Attack.
They could be Troops again (cuz reason 1 above can be ignored), but only if their access to special weapons dropped back to 1 per 3.

Since that won't happen, WRs will be relegated to Fast Attack. And as I have said, that creates a wholly different issue in which WRs are now completely and utterly redundant as Spears and Vypers are far better options.
WR's need to either be DRAMATICALLY cheaper (by 5ppm), or give you some other incentive to be taken (other than fluff)

-

 Galef wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Who agreed that Windriders being troops was too powerful? All the complaints were just saying they shouldn't be troops because...reasons.

I actually agreed they shouldn't be Troops anymore, but I was very specific on the reasons:

1) No other army has bikes as Troops. 8E is the age of Infantry only Troops, apparently
2) WRs were great as Troops when only 1 per 3 bikes could upgrade their weapon. When the newest plastic kit dropped, GW gave them all special weapons options.
Their damage output dramatically spiked because of this. No other Troops can move as fast and put out as much damage for so little.

So while I am certainly bitter that I had to go buy Infantry Troops just to play a legal viable list (because let's face it, Battalions are the only viable option), I can certainly concede there are "good" reasons why WRs got bumped to Fast Attack.
They could be Troops again (cuz reason 1 above can be ignored), but only if their access to special weapons dropped back to 1 per 3.

Since that won't happen, WRs will be relegated to Fast Attack. And as I have said, that creates a wholly different issue in which WRs are now completely and utterly redundant as Spears and Vypers are far better options.
WR's need to either be DRAMATICALLY cheaper (by 5ppm), or give you some other incentive to be taken (other than fluff)

-

1. Which most people agree is stupid outside certain people who don't like Bikes because...reasons. Believe it or not, there are people that don't like them and just want them nerfed because they hate the aesthetic.
2. The problem was the price of the Scatterlaser, not how many you could take.

There really isn't an excuse and it is sad you're conceding because some people think that they needed to be nerfed to uselessness because they did well in 7th.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
it is sad you're conceding because some people think that they needed to be nerfed to uselessness because they did well in 7th.

You didn't seem to read my post at all. I have in NO way conceded "because some people think that they needed to be nerfed to uselessness because they did well in 7th". That's the stupidest reason.
I've conceded because WRs as they became in 6th-7th were as effective as a Fast Attack choice (which are limited for a reason) but with all the privileges of being Troops.
The need to be less effective to be fair as a Troops choice.

Imagine if Tactical Marines could move 12+ inches, Fly and every model could take a Plasma or Heavy Bolter. That is essentially what WRs were in 7E and still are in 8E, but at least cannot get all the bonuses for being Troops.
I want them to be Troops, but only if they are limited in how many Shuricannons and Scatter lasers they can take. It is only fair to trade a bit of effectiveness for all the benefits of beign Troops. TwinCats are still a really good choice, but includes the higher risk of getting closer.

-

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Galef wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Who agreed that Windriders being troops was too powerful? All the complaints were just saying they shouldn't be troops because...reasons.

I actually agreed they shouldn't be Troops anymore, but I was very specific on the reasons:

1) No other army has bikes as Troops. 8E is the age of Infantry only Troops, apparently
2) WRs were great as Troops when only 1 per 3 bikes could upgrade their weapon. When the newest plastic kit dropped, GW gave them all special weapons options.
Their damage output dramatically spiked because of this. No other Troops can move as fast and put out as much damage for so little.

So while I am certainly bitter that I had to go buy Infantry Troops just to play a legal viable list (because let's face it, Battalions are the only viable option), I can certainly concede there are "good" reasons why WRs got bumped to Fast Attack.
They could be Troops again (cuz reason 1 above can be ignored), but only if their access to special weapons dropped back to 1 per 3.

Since that won't happen, WRs will be relegated to Fast Attack. And as I have said, that creates a wholly different issue in which WRs are now completely and utterly redundant as Spears and Vypers are far better options.
WR's need to either be DRAMATICALLY cheaper (by 5ppm), or give you some other incentive to be taken (other than fluff)

-

1. Which most people agree is stupid outside certain people who don't like Bikes because...reasons. Believe it or not, there are people that don't like them and just want them nerfed because they hate the aesthetic.
2. The problem was the price of the Scatterlaser, not how many you could take.

There really isn't an excuse and it is sad you're conceding because some people think that they needed to be nerfed to uselessness because they did well in 7th.

You can still take an all mobile Saim Hann army ok post FAQ it might need some footdar and waveserpents but still a highly mobile list.

Detachments were supposed to be how you built your all bike armies, your armoured spearheads you vanguard deathwing lists.
You trade opsec and command points for the ability to not pay a troops tax.

Making units back into troops makes all the specialist detachments utterly pointless.
Also it will just lead to another form of powercreep that ends in who has the most powerful non troop, troop choice to spam winning everything.

CP's are supposed to be a balancing mechanism that rewards people for taking less optimised lists. Turning everything into troops makes all the specialist detachments and the bonouses in CP for troops tax detachments utterly pointless.

Ice_can wrote:

Making units back into troops makes all the specialist detachments utterly pointless.

While I mostly agree with the rest of your post, ^this sentence is the source of our misunderstanding.
I agree that "specialists" should not be Troops, but WRs are NOT supposed to be specialists.
They were made this way in late 6th, but they were not originally designed as specialists. They were designed as a Core "rank-n-file" choice.

This is why FOR OVER A DECADE Guardian Jetbikes could only take 1 Shuricannon per 3 bikes and had no other weapon upgrade. They were not very effective, you took them to fill your Troops and take pot-shots.
It wasn't until the recent plastic kit that each bike was given access to either Shuricannon or Scatter laser.
That is when they drifted into a more "specialist" role.

They current sit in a weird limbo state. Not belonging in Troops, but not good enough to be a Fast Attack choice either.

-

 Galef wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Making units back into troops makes all the specialist detachments utterly pointless.

While I mostly agree with the rest of your post, ^this sentence is the source of our misunderstanding.
I agree that "specialists" should not be Troops, but WRs are NOT supposed to be specialists.
They were made this way in late 6th, but they were not originally designed as specialists. They were designed as a Core "rank-n-file" choice.

This is why FOR OVER A DECADE Guardian Jetbikes could only take 1 Shuricannon per 3 bikes and had no other weapon upgrade. They were not very effective, you took them to fill your Troops and take pot-shots.
It wasn't until the recent plastic kit that each bike was given access to either Shuricannon or Scatter laser.
That is when they drifted into a more "specialist" role.

They current sit in a weird limbo state. Not belonging in Troops, but not good enough to be a Fast Attack choice either.

-

If you could take 3 wind rider units for a battalion plus shining spears etc in the fast attack slots of said battalion what purpose does an outrider detachment bring to the game?

If dark angles could take deathwing knights as troops why include the vanguard detachment? If units start being given troop status for fluff reason why bother with the detachment system at all?

We have this great tool for allowing armies to specialise in different slots why waste it by just making everything back into troops choices?
Making the specialist detachments work for a theam also allows GW to adjust balance of the fluff detachment via CP without nerfing the unit for other subfactions of the codex.

Ice_can wrote:

 Galef wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Making units back into troops makes all the specialist detachments utterly pointless.

While I mostly agree with the rest of your post, ^this sentence is the source of our misunderstanding.
I agree that "specialists" should not be Troops, but WRs are NOT supposed to be specialists.
They were made this way in late 6th, but they were not originally designed as specialists. They were designed as a Core "rank-n-file" choice.

This is why FOR OVER A DECADE Guardian Jetbikes could only take 1 Shuricannon per 3 bikes and had no other weapon upgrade. They were not very effective, you took them to fill your Troops and take pot-shots.
It wasn't until the recent plastic kit that each bike was given access to either Shuricannon or Scatter laser.
That is when they drifted into a more "specialist" role.

They current sit in a weird limbo state. Not belonging in Troops, but not good enough to be a Fast Attack choice either.

-

If you could take 3 wind rider units for a battalion plus shining spears etc in the fast attack slots of said battalion what purpose does an outrider detachment bring to the game?

If dark angles could take deathwing knights as troops why include the vanguard detachment? If units start being given troop status for fluff reason why bother with the detachment system at all?

We have this great tool for allowing armies to specialise in different slots why waste it by just making everything back into troops choices?
Making the specialist detachments work for a theam also allows GW to adjust balance of the fluff detachment via CP without nerfing the unit for other subfactions of the codex.

Except it wouldn't be Deathwing Knights being troops but rather the generic Deathwing (who aren't specialist. Just like Windriders).

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Except it wouldn't be Deathwing Knights being troops but rather the generic Deathwing (who aren't specialist. Just like Windriders).

The fact that Ice_Can considers DW Termies and DW Knights as the same unit kinda highlights how we will never agree on the subject.
A unit can be in Terminator armour, or riding a bike/jetbike and still not be a specialist. Especially when other units in the same codex actually perform the specialist role.

DW Termies, RW bikes and WRs are NOT DW Knights, RW Black Knights and Shining Spears/Vypers. The later are the "specialists", the former are the "general filler"
If you can't tell the difference and think that are all "specialists" because they aren't generic non-heavy armoured infantry, than I don't think anyone will convince you otherwise.

-

Since we are talking about Siam Han (this is the most common eldar list I fight against and it is strong.) Autarch with Nova lance is super strong.

The biggest beef I have with the army is the tactic. Yeah it's not a bad tactic but I think they realized it need a bit more but did not follow through.

They allowed their bikers to ignore move and shoot penalty but I really think it should extend to every unit in the army. It would be really nice to see something other than a SC on a wave serpent you know?

As far as the bikes go - not being troops is not a problem. Siamhan deploy their troops in transports also (not just on bikes) so you can still be fluffy and get your battalions.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Since we are talking about Siam Han (this is the most common eldar list I fight against and it is strong.) Autarch with Nova lance is super strong.

The biggest beef I have with the army is the tactic. Yeah it's not a bad tactic but I think they realized it need a bit more but did not follow through.

They allowed their bikers to ignore move and shoot penalty but I really think it should extend to every unit in the army. It would be really nice to see something other than a SC on a wave serpent you know?

As far as the bikes go - not being troops is not a problem. Siamhan deploy their troops in transports also (not just on bikes) so you can still be fluffy and get your battalions.

I agree. There is only 1 unit that actually gets both of the Saim-hann traits and it's an Index option. Specifically the Autarch Skyrunner with Reaper launcher.
All other units either do not have Heavy Weapons, or do not want to get into melee.

Making the move with heavy at no penalty apply to all units, not just bikes would certainly open up Saim-Hann, not only as a mobile/fluffy list, but also as a semi competitive CW that might actually see play instead of Alaitoc all day everyday.

Still doesn't help WRs though. There is not reason to take Scatter lasers over Shuricannons on WRs, even with the Saim-Hann trait. 3 shots that you can advance and shoot with no penalty that might be AP-3 are a non-brainer compared to 4 shots that you cannot advance with and never have AP.

-

I mean I'd get on the boat to make WR's troops if RW bikers also get the same treatment.

Afterall, they're in no way 'specialist' with two special weapon limitations.

 skchsan wrote:
I mean I'd get on the boat to make WR's troops if RW bikers also get the same treatment.

Afterall, they're in no way 'specialist' with two special weapon limitations.

Most people are annoyed that Ravenwing can't do that anymore so...

I'd actually be ok with WRs not being Troops, if there was a reason to take them. Even if that is a points reduction by at least 3-5ppm.
But yes, RW bikes, DW Termies, etc should all get the same treatment.

 Galef wrote:
I'd actually be ok with WRs not being Troops, if there was a reason to take them. Even if that is a points reduction by at least 3-5ppm.
But yes, RW bikes, DW Termies, etc should all get the same treatment.

What about scout bikes though? Should they remain in fast attack?

Also, what do you think about BA DC's? Should they also get DC as troops again? What do you think the limitations/requirements should be?

 Galef wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Since we are talking about Siam Han (this is the most common eldar list I fight against and it is strong.) Autarch with Nova lance is super strong.

The biggest beef I have with the army is the tactic. Yeah it's not a bad tactic but I think they realized it need a bit more but did not follow through.

They allowed their bikers to ignore move and shoot penalty but I really think it should extend to every unit in the army. It would be really nice to see something other than a SC on a wave serpent you know?

As far as the bikes go - not being troops is not a problem. Siamhan deploy their troops in transports also (not just on bikes) so you can still be fluffy and get your battalions.

I agree. There is only 1 unit that actually gets both of the Saim-hann traits and it's an Index option. Specifically the Autarch Skyrunner with Reaper launcher.
All other units either do not have Heavy Weapons, or do not want to get into melee.

Making the move with heavy at no penalty apply to all units, not just bikes would certainly open up Saim-Hann, not only as a mobile/fluffy list, but also as a semi competitive CW that might actually see play instead of Alaitoc all day everyday.

Still doesn't help WRs though. There is not reason to take Scatter lasers over Shuricannons on WRs, even with the Saim-Hann trait. 3 shots that you can advance and shoot with no penalty that might be AP-3 are a non-brainer compared to 4 shots that you cannot advance with and never have AP.

-

I've seen a few uses of it being pretty effective. A huge unit with SL is a excellent target for forewarning. Huge Range and can pretty much blast any infantry squad off the table after a deep strike.
Think Tyranid termagants or chaos cultists.

Obviously it's pretty good for vipers. They don't have good weapon synergy though. What do you give them? An EML or a bright lance or Star Cannon? Their best weapon is actually the SC because it goes well with the other SC or TLSC they have to take. If it affected war-walkers it would be amazing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:
I'd actually be ok with WRs not being Troops, if there was a reason to take them. Even if that is a points reduction by at least 3-5ppm.
But yes, RW bikes, DW Termies, etc should all get the same treatment.

Yeah they are clearly too expensive also. Getting their 3+ save back would go a long way.

 Galef wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Except it wouldn't be Deathwing Knights being troops but rather the generic Deathwing (who aren't specialist. Just like Windriders).

The fact that Ice_Can considers DW Termies and DW Knights as the same unit kinda highlights how we will never agree on the subject.
A unit can be in Terminator armour, or riding a bike/jetbike and still not be a specialist. Especially when other units in the same codex actually perform the specialist role.

DW Termies, RW bikes and WRs are NOT DW Knights, RW Black Knights and Shining Spears/Vypers. The later are the "specialists", the former are the "general filler"
If you can't tell the difference and think that are all "specialists" because they aren't generic non-heavy armoured infantry, than I don't think anyone will convince you otherwise.

-

I'm obviously not comunitating what I mean clearly

I'm not taking about the units in the detachment being specialist.
I mean the new for 8th edition detachments of vanguard, outrider, spearhead.

Vanguard is a specialised detachment for elites
Spearhead being a specialised detachment for Heavy support is what I mean by specialist detachments .

Battalion brigade is really juat the old Force organisation chart.
With the troops tax, HQ Tax etc.

By having 3 outrider detachments (pre FAQ) you could build all bike armies, 3 vanguard = all veteran armies, Spearhead = all tank armies.

A unit doesn't have to be a troop choice for you to be able to build an army around it.

The rule of 3 broke this but I think the rule of 3 really could do with some rework as while it achieved its broad aim it also caused collateral damage to units it shouldn't have hit.

What about this simple kind of change:

Saim Hann: Wild Riders

An Outrider Detachment with the Saim Hann Craftworld Trait generates 3 CP instead of 1 CP if it contains the following units: One or more Autarch Skyrunners, three or more Windrider units, and two or more Vyper units.

___________________________

You could do the same with most of the Craftworlds, and various other armies. It's not game breaking, would give you a minor excuse to have fluff and would keep CPs relatively inline with the larger Battalions, etc. An Iyanden version of the above could include a Spiritseer, three or more Wraithguard/Wraithblade units, and two Wraithlords etc. A very easy fix which wouldn't rustle any jimmies. It doesn't change any battlefield roles (because yes...bikers should still not be troops), and doesn't change any game mechanics. Constructed properly they'll fit into existing detachment rules. It's more akin to the Dark Eldar ability, giving players a few CP generation options for units which are more fluffy.

Ice_can wrote:
The rule of 3 broke this but I think the rule of 3 really could do with some rework as while it achieved its broad aim it also caused collateral damage to units it shouldn't have hit.

I wonder who the culprit behind this was...

 Elbows wrote:
What about this simple kind of change:

Saim Hann: Wild Riders

An Outrider Detachment with the Saim Hann Craftworld Trait generates 3 CP instead of 1 CP if it contains the following units: One or more Autarch Skyrunners, three or more Windrider units, and two or more Vyper units.

___________________________

You could do the same with most of the Craftworlds, and various other armies. It's not game breaking, would give you a minor excuse to have fluff and would keep CPs relatively inline with the larger Battalions, etc. An Iyanden version of the above could include a Spiritseer, three or more Wraithguard/Wraithblade units, and two Wraithlords etc. A very easy fix which wouldn't rustle any jimmies. It doesn't change any battlefield roles (because yes...bikers should still not be troops), and doesn't change any game mechanics. Constructed properly they'll fit into existing detachment rules. It's more akin to the Dark Eldar ability, giving players a few CP generation options for units which are more fluffy.

Yeah if you wanted to really drive the fluff in you could tie the detachment into having to have a single subfaction keyword, though I think that might be a bit too restrictive. But it would gice fluff players a bonus over soupers.

 Elbows wrote:
What about this simple kind of change:

Saim Hann: Wild Riders

An Outrider Detachment with the Saim Hann Craftworld Trait generates 3 CP instead of 1 CP if it contains the following units: One or more Autarch Skyrunners, three or more Windrider units, and two or more Vyper units.

___________________________

You could do the same with most of the Craftworlds, and various other armies. It's not game breaking, would give you a minor excuse to have fluff and would keep CPs relatively inline with the larger Battalions, etc. An Iyanden version of the above could include a Spiritseer, three or more Wraithguard/Wraithblade units, and two Wraithlords etc. A very easy fix which wouldn't rustle any jimmies. It doesn't change any battlefield roles (because yes...bikers should still not be troops), and doesn't change any game mechanics. Constructed properly they'll fit into existing detachment rules. It's more akin to the Dark Eldar ability, giving players a few CP generation options for units which are more fluffy.

What if fulfilling specific detachment requirements instead granted another trait? Something that's not game breaking but at a level of benefit one would get at the cost of CP's? I don't play eldar so I'm gonna go with a RW specific one:

Ravenwing Strike Force: The Rapid Hunt
An Outrider Detachment where every unit has the keyword RAVENWING may claim the benefits of 'Jink' during the first turn even though it has not advanced. The detachment may include CHARACTERS with BIKER keyword, but they do not benefit from 'Jink". In addition, if an entire army is made of units with RAVENWING keyword, then you may add 1 to the roll to see who goes first and seize the initiative roll.

Something in the lines of this where it only triggers abilities it already has or something that helps establish tempo in the game.

 skchsan wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
The rule of 3 broke this but I think the rule of 3 really could do with some rework as while it achieved its broad aim it also caused collateral damage to units it shouldn't have hit.

I wonder who the culprit behind this was...

don't follow what your saying

 skchsan wrote:

 Galef wrote:
I'd actually be ok with WRs not being Troops, if there was a reason to take them. Even if that is a points reduction by at least 3-5ppm.
But yes, RW bikes, DW Termies, etc should all get the same treatment.

What about scout bikes though? Should they remain in fast attack?

Also, what do you think about BA DC's? Should they also get DC as troops again? What do you think the limitations/requirements should be?

I wasn't aware that Scout bikes were ever Troops. Those seem like they would be rare. Keep in mind that rarity also plays a part in this.
If a unit is extraordinarily common, like WRs, it is acceptable to form the core of any army. Units that are similar, but rare, might not be able to form the core.
Take that as you will.

The fact is, the bridge is burnt. WRs will never be Troops again.
But at least it would be nice if GW acknowledged that these iconic units that used to be central to certain sub-factions have some incentive, other than fluff, to be taking.
Instead, GW "overcorrected" and just shoved them into Fast Attack and Elite slots and said "Here, spend 4 Command points to take them as core again"
4 CPs is too harsh. 2CP might be acceptable, but you still lose ObSec, which can be a big deal

It also creates an issue where there is not incentive to take the traditional "filler" units over the true specialists. For example, if I have to take an Outrider detachment to field an all bike Saim-Hann army, why would I choose WRs over Spears or Vypers? WRs are not cheap enough to offer any advantage over the other 2.

The best solution might be to create special alterations for subfactions. As discussed, Saim-Hann outriders could get +3CP for taking 3 units for WRs and those WRs gain ObSec.
The same could be done for Death Company, and for Scout Bikers for whatever Chapter has the most of them.
But this gets too complicated and reeks of 7th formations.

-

 Galef wrote:

But this gets too complicated and reeks of 7th formations.

-

This is precisely why I was against this idea in the first place. It's like what your high school teacher always told you: "if you don't have enough gum to give out to the rest of the class, don't chew gum in the class."

Yep. And why I am ok with WRs being Fast attack. It is simple and prevents the slippery slop of just making everything Troops.

My issue is that now that WRs are Fast Attack, they are a completely redundant and utterly useless choice. I get the feeling DW and RW players feel the same about their regular Termies and Bikes.
If WRs were SUPER cheap, they might be an appealing choice, but you'd need like 4-5 WRs (fully loaded) for less than the cost of 3 Spears or something like that.

-

 skchsan wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
What about this simple kind of change:

Saim Hann: Wild Riders

An Outrider Detachment with the Saim Hann Craftworld Trait generates 3 CP instead of 1 CP if it contains the following units: One or more Autarch Skyrunners, three or more Windrider units, and two or more Vyper units.

___________________________

You could do the same with most of the Craftworlds, and various other armies. It's not game breaking, would give you a minor excuse to have fluff and would keep CPs relatively inline with the larger Battalions, etc. An Iyanden version of the above could include a Spiritseer, three or more Wraithguard/Wraithblade units, and two Wraithlords etc. A very easy fix which wouldn't rustle any jimmies. It doesn't change any battlefield roles (because yes...bikers should still not be troops), and doesn't change any game mechanics. Constructed properly they'll fit into existing detachment rules. It's more akin to the Dark Eldar ability, giving players a few CP generation options for units which are more fluffy.

What if fulfilling specific detachment requirements instead granted another trait? Something that's not game breaking but at a level of benefit one would get at the cost of CP's? I don't play eldar so I'm gonna go with a RW specific one:

Ravenwing Strike Force: The Rapid Hunt
An Outrider Detachment where every unit has the keyword RAVENWING may claim the benefits of 'Jink' during the first turn even though it has not advanced. The detachment may include CHARACTERS with BIKER keyword, but they do not benefit from 'Jink". In addition, if an entire army is made of units with RAVENWING keyword, then you may add 1 to the roll to see who goes first and seize the initiative roll.

Something in the lines of this where it only triggers abilities it already has or something that helps establish tempo in the game.

Sure, there's no limit to what you can get people to try...I'm just leaning toward the simplest, least-invasive option. We know how awful gamers are at creating balanced rules - so the less inventive the more well received it's likely to be at a local event/club.

 Galef wrote:
Yep. And why I am ok with WRs being Fast attack. It is simple and prevents the slippery slop of just making everything Troops.

My issue is that now that WRs are Fast Attack, they are a completely redundant and utterly useless choice. I get the feeling DW and RW players feel the same about their regular Termies and Bikes.
If WRs were SUPER cheap, they might be an appealing choice, but you'd need like 4-5 WRs (fully loaded) for less than the cost of 3 Spears or something like that.

-

Well termies were always only for fluffy non-competitive games. Bikes on the other hand was seriously hamstringed as RW was the only REAL competitive choice DA army had. At least DA traits allow them to be true gunline army now...

How is giving an mono subfaction army that's taking thematic units a small bonus of extra CP comparible to 7th edition formations?

I get they would have to release them all at once say in CA or such but given the inherent advantages of Aeldari soup, Imperial Soup.
You are not talking the same level of game breaking power creap that 7th edition had, Also with the new balancing FAQ's etc it would be what 3/4 months max until any blatantly OP stuff gets nerfed.

8th edition was supposed to have CP's to balance fluff players thematic lists against Competitive players. If subfaction army/detachment bonuses narrow that gap IMHO it's good for the game. It would also introduce more variety into event lists.

The balance changes have improved the situation but soup lists are still more commonly placing than pure subfaction lists.

Ice_can wrote:
The balance changes have improved the situation but soup lists are still more commonly placing than pure subfaction lists.

The issue with soups in 8th ed is that taking allies provide multiplicative benefits as opposed to additive.

Allies system in 6h and 7th was to provide abilities for armies to bolster certain role that army lacked - good example was eldar-tau lists where the two armies compliment each other (unbelieveably well, if I might add).

In 8th, taking allies, especially in the often seen AM CP farm imperium soup, the AM portion of the army provides CPs as well as much needed cheap screens for SM.

I would certainly love to see thematic armies buffed, but it's a very slippery slope.

What if for simplicity purposes, make a universal rule for vanguard, outrider, patrol and spearhead tp grant extra CPs if taken 3 or more times (similar to how Raiding Force rule works for DE).

Saim-hann Wild Riders
If your battleforged army includes at least 3 SAIM-HANN Outrider detachments, you receive +X Command Points. If your army includes more than 6 SAIM-HANN Outrider detachments you receive +2X instead.

I think it's safe to say we won't be seeing any update like this from GW, so I imagine we're just discussing group and local changes. House rules, etc.

I agree though, a minor CP bump for theme, etc. is nothing remotely similar to the absurdity of 7th edition formations.

 Elbows wrote:
I think it's safe to say we won't be seeing any update like this from GW, so I imagine we're just discussing group and local changes. House rules, etc.

I agree though, a minor CP bump for theme, etc. is nothing remotely similar to the absurdity of 7th edition formations.

For me, this is all theoretical. I don't like house rules because I don't always play against the same people.
I just like to discuss what I think "should" happen.

And while a minor CP bonus for theme is not similar to 7th, creating special snowflake detachments for "theme" is how 'the absurdity' started with 7th.
It was a slippery slope that GW fell down and I'd prefer 8E as it is than for it to get out of control again.

-

 Galef wrote:
Yep. And why I am ok with WRs being Fast attack. It is simple and prevents the slippery slop of just making everything Troops.

My issue is that now that WRs are Fast Attack, they are a completely redundant and utterly useless choice.
-

To be frank though, each army has slots that are overcrowded - it makes sense that eldar be one with overcrowded with FA choices given their forte is "strike fast."

Overcrowding if fine, but the unit that is meant to be the most common of all the "Fast Attacks" ends up being the least used. That is unacceptable and easily fixed by reducing the point cost significantly.

It would be the equivalent of saying you can have a raven wing army where bikes are the most common unit but they have no place in the army since another type of unit is priced slightly higher and is twice as effective. Either lower points cost of wind riders a bit or make them Troops so they are worth taking for the command points

Same problem with terminators. Either lower their points or make them better

 Galef wrote:
Overcrowding if fine, but the unit that is meant to be the most common of all the "Fast Attacks" ends up being the least used. That is unacceptable and easily fixed by reducing the point cost significantly.

Eh. You don't just want to reduce the points of things purely because they're less cost effective than another unit in the same slot. That was lies arms racing and power creep.

Honestly, I get the impression that most Saim-Hann players would be pretty happy with returning to 1 heavy weapon per 3 bikes and moving them back to troops. Surely most of the people who spammed scatbikes last edition have stopped fielding scatbike spam in favor of the flavor of the month. Meanwhile, those looking for a fluffy troop option would probably be happy to tone down the offense of windriders in exchange for having their iconic troop back without competing for FA slots or giving up CP.

Wind Riders don't need to be obsec troops because you can already make them that - you just play open play. You're not going to be taking Wind Riders in a competitive list anyway (even if they were troops) so you don't need the rule change for competitive play, nor do you need the CP. I genuinely don't understand the problem - unless they receive a change Wind Riders won't be taken over other troops for competitive play and if you're not playing competitive you can house rule how you want. If you're playing against someone who absolutely won't allow house rules then just take outrider detachment and have 3 massive blobs of bikers. You lose CP - that's the price for taking a fluff bunny army.

The same goes for the other specialist armies of White Scars bikers, Ravenwing, Deathwatch and Evil Sunz bikers (in my case) who all had special troops.

Did you really just say who cares because you're not going to use them?

The irony here is "You lose CP - that's the price for taking a fluff bunny army." (note the casual insult included).

GW stated openly that the intent was actually to benefit lore/fluff related armies with CP, etc. Something which hasn't taken place unfortunately.

The CP difference between a batallion and an outrider felt about right pre-FAQ, but the overall amount of CP available felt too low. Now the CP gap just feels too vast, but the amount of CP available (to batallions) is about right.

If you just made outriders, spearheads, and vanguards grant 3 CP instead of 1, the disparity between an Iyanden/RavenWing/Slaaneshi Cavalcade and a batallion might be fixed. Then you could tackle the issues of Windriders competing against Shining Spears for slots as its own issue.

If GW wants Saim-Hann to be assault army for some unreal reason, then just give them +1S or +1S on charge. Or/and give shooting from heavy weapons without penalty on all skimmers.

 Shadenuat wrote:
If GW wants Saim-Hann to be assault army for some unreal reason, then just give them +1S or +1S on charge. Or/and give shooting from heavy weapons without penalty on all skimmers.

This thread isn't about making saim hann stronger in melee, but rather the CP system being unfavorable for fluffy lists for armies that specializes in certain playstyle/FOC slots.

If GW errata'd Battalions to go back to 3CP and instead gave 5CPs to all Battle Forged lists, I think the disparity between Battalions and the other special detachments would not look so extreme

Being Battle Forged should give more CPs than a Battalion. It would also make the gap much smaller between lists that spam Battalions to game the system vs. lists that are trying to play their themed army.
You shouldn't have to choose between being competitive and playing the army you like. They should be one and the same.

-