I can't find a threat on it, but search might not work with that many terms.
What do you all think of it? My first thought was "Oh Boy!" My second thought was "People are going to fall for the no-Troops trap". My third thought was "They're just giving up on Detachments now.".
I don't think there's a single faction that can't take advantage of it.
It looks like the Brigade Detachement got together with the Outrider, Vanguard and Spearhead Detachments to plagiarize the movie Twins.
But you only get to "spam" the one FOC slot type. i.e. if you take 6+3 Elites you can't take 6 Heavy. If you take 6 Heavy, you only get 3+3 Elites.
Stick a Fork in the Supreme Command Detachment 99 times out of 100 now.
The Rule of Three just got a lot more important.
Knights can now get 6 (Potentially Titanic) LOWs CP Free.
Fortifications still probably don't fit on the board, but at least you're not paying CP for them anymore.
SM are unlikely to care about 4 HQ's (1CM/Chap, 1Cap, 2 LT, and 1 Libby fits but why?) though the three Character Elites sure looks nice - Plus SW/IH Dreads, or BA Elite Slot Jumpers, DA/WS bikers, and so on.
The extra HQ's will be nice for Aeldari, as all the Phoneix Lords are HQs now. If you can Double-Det this one, The All Phoenix Lord Army is now easy peasy to make.
OK Pure Harlequins may not care given how many different data sheets they have and don't have.
Deathguard are probably oozing their excitement as well being in a similar Marine position on Elites(Two+ kinds of Terminators), Elite characters(3+) and primarchs.
If I played World Eaters I'd already be thinking about Angron and a Khorne Lord of Skulls.
If I played Tau I'd be thinking about how to get a few 128's with a couple troops as Knights without the lack of infantry for Actions and Objectives might play.
GSC could load the three Elites slots with the Kellermorphs, and still have 6 left for Aberrants and Purestrains I guess.
If I'm playing Orks, there are some options here that are intruiging - the Elite Character slots maybe. Multiple CP Free LOW slots, a buncha FA slots for minimal Boyz choices,
If I'm playing Nids, I'm probably window shopping on Forgeworld making ridiculous armies in my head because I could have fun with this detachment and Bill Gates' money.
dominuschao wrote: My first impression is this is bad for the game. Free gak and devaluing troops is never good for balance from my perspective.
Also don't really like the prospect of making dual Tau cammanders easier to access. Those things are a real pita.
I agree no troops can be a mistake but I hate gw actually outright making them even more an afterthought for some.
I liked that part, because it's probably the only way people will learn the lesson. When you make the only "cost" to ignoring troops with this Det the fact that you're missing troops, its going to be hard to blame anything else.
ccs wrote: Not taking troops is NOT the end of the world.
You can make plenty of perfectly viable forces based around Elites/Fast/Heavy units. Even LoW....
And you could do so before this detachment. It just cost you CP.
Now it doesn't.
I know this because those are the types of forces I've been generally playing since this edition launched.
No, its not, but it is (usually) a way to make things more difficult than they need to be. Obvious exceptions being Shenanigans handing out ObSec like Knights, or the DA 1st/2nd Company special rules.
And, as I pointed out that was one of the benefits of this Det. Thematic Lists just got a whole lot easier. Double Det this one, and suddenly you can do RW+DW, or full on Phoenix Lord madness without being taxed for a harder to play list that is more fluffy/thematic.
I am all for thematic lists hell I cut my teeth on DW around 2 decades ago. But blanket approaches feel very governmental to me. Because the game isn't balanced enough and this will break something. Yet again. But maybe I'm just old now lol. I used to hate troops now I hate devaluing them. Fuckit russes and kasrkin spam. That seems cool.
dominuschao wrote: I am all for thematic lists hell I cut my teeth on DW around 2 decades ago. But blanket approaches feel very governmental to me. Because the game isn't balanced enough and this will break something. Yet again. But maybe I'm just old now lol. I used to hate troops now I hate devaluing them. Fuckit russes and kasrkin spam. That seems cool.
Not really, this one isn't bad. They basically turned all the "specialist" Dets into a mix and match ala carte Det. You can do more with this one than you could have with a Spearhead/Vanguard/Outrider etc, but not much more. The most significant changes are the mix-match part I mentioned 3 of this OR 3 of that, OR 3 of something else etc, and more HQ's and the Elite Characters. I tried making an all Phoenix Lord and Aspect Warrior list and it took 3 Dets. Now it takes two of these. A full Deathwing/Ravenwing list takes one, Combi-wing takes two. If they had rules for Wild Riders Lists it would use this one too. I'd guesstimate 90% of lists will still look the same just without a CP Cost for an Aux Super Heavy Det, or having to play a +3 -3 game with Supreme Command Dets etc. I think this is what they should have had from the beginning instead of Giving you CP for Dets and spawning the Loyal 32, or now making you pay for them and harming the thematic double Det lists.
Edit to Add: I'd also like to see them lean into this Stick Objectives for Troops Choices trial baloon. That's what they've always done wrong about troops anyway - they rarely had a really important reason to take troops over non-troops.
I'm not sure why it's suddenly any more important?
Knights can now get 6 (Potentially Titanic) LOWs CP Free.
This seems a great idea, it wasn't hard to get there before and it just stops the annoying model count brackets on the army construction you invariably only ran into at lower points.
Fortifications still probably don't fit on the board, but at least you're not paying CP for them anymore.
Seems a big positive.
The extra HQ's will be nice for Aeldari, as all the Phoneix Lords are HQs now. If you can Double-Det this one, The All Phoenix Lord Army is now easy peasy to make.
You can't
OK Pure Harlequins may not care given how many different data sheets they have and don't have.
Eh?
Deathguard are probably oozing their excitement as well being in a similar Marine position on Elites(Two+ kinds of Terminators), Elite characters(3+) and primarchs.
They already got extra Elites characters iirc
GSC could load the three Elites slots with the Kellermorphs, and still have 6 left for Aberrants and Purestrains I guess.
can't do that.
If I'm playing Orks, there are some options here that are intruiging - the Elite Character slots maybe. Multiple CP Free LOW slots, a buncha FA slots for minimal Boyz choices,
You mean no boyz choices.
If I'm playing Nids, I'm probably window shopping on Forgeworld making ridiculous armies in my head because I could have fun with this detachment and Bill Gates' money.
dominuschao wrote: My first impression is this is bad for the game. Free gak and devaluing troops is never good for balance from my perspective.
Also don't really like the prospect of making dual Tau cammanders easier to access. Those things are a real pita.
I agree no troops can be a mistake but I hate gw actually outright making them even more an afterthought for some.
If you look at the secondaries there's a lot more incentive for troops. You're also going to need stuff to do actions. Anyone dropping all troops is probably in for a bad time.
I would also like to see the sticky objectives thing become a standard troops rule. I think that would balance lists out quite a bit.
I have looked at the new secondaries but the incentive is just pretty low from my perspective.
Its not that we shouldn't have freedom of choice in list design or that having no troops is the end of the world. But troops are a big part of the identity of a faction. Making them optional is okay but they need more than obsec.
Scoring is the alternative to raw stats and IMO this should be almost exclusively the realm of troops. The sticky objective thing is cool though would dig more of that type of thing.
It feels to me like they want to try a more freeform style of list building. Not sure if it's good or bad yet. I still absolutely hate secondaries though
If you look at the secondaries there's a lot more incentive for troops. You're also going to need stuff to do actions. Anyone dropping all troops is probably in for a bad time.
If there was no rule of 3, it would be very hard to convince a GK player to run strikes over 6 units of interceptors. Especialy when after AoC going away thing like terminators or paladins ain't great or even good. People would probably even run a purgator squad over something like paladins or terminators.
But GK are in a situation where it is better to just wait for the next edition, then buy models wondering if they work or not. It is bad with and without troops.
Hey, Dark Eldar players, remember the special multi-Patrol ability we gave your army to compensate for splitting your already tiny codex into 3 mini-armies that can't play together? Yeah, we just threw it out of the window.
It's okay, though. After the book had already gone to print, someone was kind enough to remind us that your army actually exists so we'll get to fixing that. At some point. In the future. The far future. Maybe. Possibly. Hopefully. In the fullness of time.
...
But you like Space Marines, right? Everyone likes Space Marines. Did you know they get their wargear for free now? So if, in the meantime, you want to, you know, play a proper army... well, we're just saying that the option's there.
vipoid wrote: Hey, Dark Eldar players, remember the special multi-Patrol ability we gave your army to compensate for splitting your already tiny codex into 3 mini-armies that can't play together? Yeah, we just threw it out of the window.
It's okay, though. After the book had already gone to print, someone was kind enough to remind us that your army actually exists so we'll get to fixing that. At some point. In the future. The far future. Maybe. Possibly. Hopefully. In the fullness of time.
...
But you like Space Marines, right? Everyone likes Space Marines. Did you know they get their wargear for free now? So if, in the meantime, you want to, you know, play a proper army... well, we're just saying that the option's there.
"Hey this is dark eldar complaining that our 3 mini books are all still as large as many other full armies, plus we now get to whinge about not dominating the game for longer than a year"
I'm poking fun largely, but I do hope they give you a valid way to let you run all your stuff together in one detachment, they could even work in the same minimum requirements that facilitated 3 patrols, maybe call it Realspace Raider or something cool.
I'm not sure why it's suddenly any more important?
Because 9 Apothecaries would be a little ridiculous.
Knights can now get 6 (Potentially Titanic) LOWs CP Free.
This seems a great idea, it wasn't hard to get there before and it just stops the annoying model count brackets on the army construction you invariably only ran into at lower points.
Fortifications still probably don't fit on the board, but at least you're not paying CP for them anymore.
Seems a big positive.
It is. The quicker they get away from double charging you for army creation the better. Either have us pay in power level, points, or CP, but not 2+ of the three.
The extra HQ's will be nice for Aeldari, as all the Phoneix Lords are HQs now. If you can Double-Det this one, The All Phoenix Lord Army is now easy peasy to make.
You can't
I didn't have the book yet, just the freebies and review/leaks. Where does it say that?
OK Pure Harlequins may not care given how many different data sheets they have and don't have.
Eh?
Pure Harlequinns don't have many data sheets. The FOC chart isn't very restrictive when you rarely run out of slots before sheets. They could be one of the few exceptions to the general benefit here.
Deathguard are probably oozing their excitement as well being in a similar Marine position on Elites(Two+ kinds of Terminators), Elite characters(3+) and primarchs.
They already got extra Elites characters iirc
GSC could load the three Elites slots with the Kellermorphs, and still have 6 left for Aberrants and Purestrains I guess.
can't do that.
Why not? Kellermorph doesn't appear to be unique
If I'm playing Orks, there are some options here that are intruiging - the Elite Character slots maybe. Multiple CP Free LOW slots, a buncha FA slots for minimal Boyz choices,
You mean no boyz choices.
No, I mean minimal. If I'm playing Orks with this Det I still take some boys (Or Grots if I'm doing a theme). (Probably) Less than 3 units, (Definitely) more than zero.
If I'm playing Nids, I'm probably window shopping on Forgeworld making ridiculous armies in my head because I could have fun with this detachment and Bill Gates' money.
wtf?
When I say Bill Gates' money - I'm talking about their Forgeworld LOWs. Mix and match a couple of their behemoth really big Bugs with their little bugs options. I think one of the biggest things this changes is the potential to run a Knights style army the way the knights are in the fluff - Durable and Dangerous LOWs (or Close Enough) with bad (quality, quantity or both) GEQ or worse level infantry support. It pretty much skips over the MEQ statistics band, making many of the anti-MEQ choices either too strong or not strong enough. Some of the other armies had something similar - AM, Tau, etc but the Detachment restrictions got in the way of doing it easily and/or get access through cheap Forgeworld LOWs like Nids. The KV139 and the Warhound (among other FW choices) are between a little and way too expensive to really do this. But the Nid FW LOW's and their already sizable Elite/HS choices are in a points sweet spot.
ccs wrote: Not taking troops is NOT the end of the world.
You can make plenty of perfectly viable forces based around Elites/Fast/Heavy units. Even LoW....
And you could do so before this detachment. It just cost you CP.
Now it doesn't.
I know this because those are the types of forces I've been generally playing since this edition launched.
No, its not, but it is (usually) a way to make things more difficult than they need to be. Obvious exceptions being Shenanigans handing out ObSec like Knights, or the DA 1st/2nd Company special rules.
And, as I pointed out that was one of the benefits of this Det. Thematic Lists just got a whole lot easier. Double Det this one, and suddenly you can do RW+DW, or full on Phoenix Lord madness without being taxed for a harder to play list that is more fluffy/thematic.
The Arks of Omen detachment is designed to work with the Arks of Omen Mission Pack. It only allows you to take 1 Arks of Omen detachment and one (highly limited in choice) Allies detachment. No duel AOO detachment shenanigans are possible.
alextroy wrote: The Arks of Omen detachment is designed to work with the Arks of Omen Mission Pack. It only allows you to take 1 Arks of Omen detachment and one (highly limited in choice) Allies detachment. No duel AOO detachment shenanigans are possible.
One step forward, two steps back.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also "designed to" or "required to"? It can be used in regular games right? I have pretty much zero interest in AOO games that further artificially restrict and reduce variety and options.
I booted it up this morning, didn't do the auto-load, then went to the update and clicked 'refresh' on the 40k one, and after it finished it was there.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I booted it up this morning, didn't do the auto-load, then went to the update and clicked 'refresh' on the 40k one, and after it finished it was there.
Now I see it, I had to close, open, check, cancel the check, and check again later. Probably a cache issue.
Best of all the points updates are there too. Having to keep a calculator running in the other window for the over-under changes of points updates was giving me a headache.
I'd like to see 50% or more of the meta consisting of armies with more than 1 Troops unit, I don't know whether that'll be a problem. I think making allies cost CP instead of costing access to Combat Doctrines is better because Combat Doctrines add a lot of bloat to the game and I still want to keep some form of Stratagems in the game.
vict0988 wrote: I'd like to see 50% or more of the meta consisting of armies with more than 1 Troops unit, I don't know whether that'll be a problem. I think making allies cost CP instead of costing access to Combat Doctrines is better because Combat Doctrines add a lot of bloat to the game and I still want to keep some form of Stratagems in the game.
I'll disagree. I think Combat Doctrines/Super Doctrines, Kultures (which REALLY need a rename for over here in the US), Septs and their variants are probably a key to really balancing the factions and subfactions. The problem with them is trying to lift them straight from the Marine Book and Copy and Paste them into another book without more than a minimal substitution for coherency. i.e. changing Marine to Ork. In the case of Orks they shouldn't have been given a mono Clan requirement, they should have been given a Kulture that boosts different units based on the Boss's Pole. There should be a Doctrine for Crusader Armies similar to the Grey Shield thing they did when Indomitus first came out but actually designed for a multi-chapter Crusader force that has a squad of Iron Hands this, and a Squad of Imperial Fists that one that represents a half dozen chapters sending significantly less than a Company to some planet's call for help. And that should be based on your Warlord and their compatibility with the other chapters. And that should have been the basis for the Ork version, or vice versa. But even beyond that, this is the way you have your basic force that makes a basic list, and how you get alternate but still viable lists from the same units under a different (sub)Faction.
In the case of Orks they shouldn't have been given a mono Clan requirement, they should have been given a Kulture that boosts different units based on the Boss's Pole.
vict0988 wrote: I'd like to see 50% or more of the meta consisting of armies with more than 1 Troops unit, I don't know whether that'll be a problem. I think making allies cost CP instead of costing access to Combat Doctrines is better because Combat Doctrines add a lot of bloat to the game and I still want to keep some form of Stratagems in the game.
I'll disagree. I think Combat Doctrines/Super Doctrines, Kultures (which REALLY need a rename for over here in the US), Septs and their variants are probably a key to really balancing the factions and subfactions. The problem with them is trying to lift them straight from the Marine Book and Copy and Paste them into another book without more than a minimal substitution for coherency. i.e. changing Marine to Ork. In the case of Orks they shouldn't have been given a mono Clan requirement, they should have been given a Kulture that boosts different units based on the Boss's Pole. There should be a Doctrine for Crusader Armies similar to the Grey Shield thing they did when Indomitus first came out but actually designed for a multi-chapter Crusader force that has a squad of Iron Hands this, and a Squad of Imperial Fists that one that represents a half dozen chapters sending significantly less than a Company to some planet's call for help. And that should be based on your Warlord and their compatibility with the other chapters. And that should have been the basis for the Ork version, or vice versa. But even beyond that, this is the way you have your basic force that makes a basic list, and how you get alternate but still viable lists from the same units under a different (sub)Faction.
How does Combat Doctrines help balance Space Marines? Super Doctrines wouldn't be necessary if GW went back to forcing players to cycle through the options. The only reason Super Doctrines were necessary is because otherwise Ultramarines players would stay in Devastator Doctrine all game. How does Chapter Tactics help balance Space Marines?
Sorry but I don't understand how you think the Doctrines would look. I'd love for you to give an example in the Proposed Rules section. It seems like you'd need an overwhelming amount of rules to fix issues that could be solved by not having Chapter Tactics in the first place.
How does Combat Doctrines help balance Space Marines? Super Doctrines wouldn't be necessary if GW went back to forcing players to cycle through the options. The only reason Super Doctrines were necessary is because otherwise Ultramarines players would stay in Devastator Doctrine all game. How does Chapter Tactics help balance Space Marines?
Sorry but I don't understand how you think the Doctrines would look. I'd love for you to give an example in the Proposed Rules section. It seems like you'd need an overwhelming amount of rules to fix issues that could be solved by not having Chapter Tactics in the first place.
Well for starters, I'd point out Ultramarines likely want to camp out in Tactical not Devastator: Hand of Dominion, Gauntlets of Ultramar, Heavy Bolt Rifles, Melta Rifles, Combi-Somethings, Auto Boltstorm Gauntlets, Storm Bolters, Occulus Carbines - but still hit them all: Multi-Meltas, (Heavy or Not)Onslaught Gatlings, Lastalons, Astartes Chainswords, Paired Combat Blades, Heavy Bolt Pistols, (Usuallly Master Crafted) Power Swords, Hand of Dominion (Melee), Boltstorm Gauntlets (Melee), Acquittal, and so on.
The second thing I'd do is point out they don't and are not intended to BALANCE Marines, they DIFFERENTIATE them. I'm not sure which rules update you're reading, but the last one I saw from 01/05 says you still have to cycle through them - you can't go from Devastator to Assault. You just get to pick when now. And you're still going to want to. Most lists from most chapters are unlikely to be heavy weapon thick enough to want to stay in Devastator. Some will, Iron Warriors maybe sneaky Speeder heavy Blood Angels and such. By the end of the game you should be in close combat and want Assault Doctrine. And Doctrines are the basis for rules like Speed of the Raven, Fire Discipline, and Implacable for the Dark Angels which helps them use the same pool of units to create a hopefully distinctly different army. Speed of the Raven makes an Outrider squad far more attractive to Dark Angels than Imperial Fists.
One thing I just noticed too - when I make an AOO Det the CP for Battle Size is halved. If I make a list using the AOO Det, I get 6CP for Battle Size, and end up with 5ish after pre-battle spending for Chapter Command and Relics. The Same list with Bat + Supreme Command has 11 CP.
Breton wrote: One thing I just noticed too - when I make an AOO Det the CP for Battle Size is halved. If I make a list using the AOO Det, I get 6CP for Battle Size, and end up with 5ish after pre-battle spending for Chapter Command and Relics. The Same list with Bat + Supreme Command has 11 CP.
yhea, GW changed that like 6 months ago at the start of neliplhim. they were concerned about people loading up with pre game strats and then going for a 1st turn alpha strike, so they cut the starting CP but you gain a CP on BOTH command phases (Ie, you gain in CP in your opponents as well).
also, you now no longer get a free WLT and Relic, you need to a pay a CP for each.
Breton wrote: One thing I just noticed too - when I make an AOO Det the CP for Battle Size is halved. If I make a list using the AOO Det, I get 6CP for Battle Size, and end up with 5ish after pre-battle spending for Chapter Command and Relics. The Same list with Bat + Supreme Command has 11 CP.
yhea, GW changed that like 6 months ago at the start of neliplhim. they were concerned about people loading up with pre game strats and then going for a 1st turn alpha strike, so they cut the starting CP but you gain a CP on BOTH command phases (Ie, you gain in CP in your opponents as well).
also, you now no longer get a free WLT and Relic, you need to a pay a CP for each.
That's all kinds of weird because none of the pre-game strats I spend on are really Alpha Strike enabling. Must have been a different faction or a different playstyle. And another obvious reason these changes should be a downloadable PDF not a charged for rules change. I was too buried to keep up with things and never would have known this.
Breton wrote: One thing I just noticed too - when I make an AOO Det the CP for Battle Size is halved. If I make a list using the AOO Det, I get 6CP for Battle Size, and end up with 5ish after pre-battle spending for Chapter Command and Relics. The Same list with Bat + Supreme Command has 11 CP.
yhea, GW changed that like 6 months ago at the start of neliplhim. they were concerned about people loading up with pre game strats and then going for a 1st turn alpha strike, so they cut the starting CP but you gain a CP on BOTH command phases (Ie, you gain in CP in your opponents as well).
also, you now no longer get a free WLT and Relic, you need to a pay a CP for each.
That's all kinds of weird because none of the pre-game strats I spend on are really Alpha Strike enabling. Must have been a different faction or a different playstyle. And another obvious reason these changes should be a downloadable PDF not a charged for rules change. I was too buried to keep up with things and never would have known this.
SO, the rules change was linked, specifically, to the GT packs of neliplhim and arks of omen, in the "Muster armies" step, its not a core rules change per se. So, if your playing a different GT set (ie Nachmund, Octarius, or the matched play rules in the core book), or not playing matched play, it doesn't actually affect you.
Im not sure if it was pre-game or 1st turn starts, to be honest, but my understanding was that some competitive players were spending most of the CP either on extra relics or detachments, or on wombo-combos on the first turn that basically decided the game before the other player even had a chance to act. GW decided this was bad, and change the CP rules to limit their ability to do this. Arks of omen has, arguably, walked back on this slightly as the new detachment mostly reduces the need to buy extra specialist detachments which frees up CP for other uses.
but yhea, it was as well publicised as possible, i've never purchased a GT pack and i knew about it.
Breton wrote: One thing I just noticed too - when I make an AOO Det the CP for Battle Size is halved. If I make a list using the AOO Det, I get 6CP for Battle Size, and end up with 5ish after pre-battle spending for Chapter Command and Relics. The Same list with Bat + Supreme Command has 11 CP.
yhea, GW changed that like 6 months ago at the start of neliplhim. they were concerned about people loading up with pre game strats and then going for a 1st turn alpha strike, so they cut the starting CP but you gain a CP on BOTH command phases (Ie, you gain in CP in your opponents as well).
also, you now no longer get a free WLT and Relic, you need to a pay a CP for each.
That's all kinds of weird because none of the pre-game strats I spend on are really Alpha Strike enabling. Must have been a different faction or a different playstyle. And another obvious reason these changes should be a downloadable PDF not a charged for rules change. I was too buried to keep up with things and never would have known this.
SO, the rules change was linked, specifically, to the GT packs of neliplhim and arks of omen, in the "Muster armies" step, its not a core rules change per se. So, if your playing a different GT set (ie Nachmund, Octarius, or the matched play rules in the core book), or not playing matched play, it doesn't actually affect you.
Im not sure if it was pre-game or 1st turn starts, to be honest, but my understanding was that some competitive players were spending most of the CP either on extra relics or detachments, or on wombo-combos on the first turn that basically decided the game before the other player even had a chance to act. GW decided this was bad, and change the CP rules to limit their ability to do this. Arks of omen has, arguably, walked back on this slightly as the new detachment mostly reduces the need to buy extra specialist detachments which frees up CP for other uses.
but yhea, it was as well publicised as possible, i've never purchased a GT pack and i knew about it.
Oh I was way too buried for any publicization. Looks like it's carried over to AOO though. Maybe it was for my style, I do load up on some pregame "strats", but I don't have any idea how that leads to some sort of first turn Alpha Strike. 3CP in Chapter Command, 2 CP in Extra Relics. I didn't even pay for the extra Det because it was "free" as a Supreme Command Det. And ironically I think the list where I DID pay for extra Dets still does better one AOO Det because I can't do it in one AOO Det, AND they'll still have more CP with the old way. (Double Wing Dark Angels with a Vanguard and Outrider Det)
It wasn't the pregame strats that were leading to alpha strikes. It was the fact you could spend 3-4CP pregame to get all the WLT and relics you wanted and still have 7+ CP on turn one. You then spend most or all of those CPs on the various "make me better" strats every army has to leave you with around 0-1 CP at the end of turn one. You don't really care about the lack of CP because you spent them all to kill stupid amounts of the opponent's army. By reducing the starting CP and charging for the first WLT/relic, GW effectively kept the total CP per game the same but gave you more to spend it on and reduced the total amount available early on.
Speaking of problems with battlescribe- I built an Arks detachment and it comes up with the error "must have 1 more selection of Arks of Omen Compulsory Type..." . My question is where do I fill in that info? For completeness sake I made an Emp's Children army so it would probably fall under CSM.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: Speaking of problems with battlescribe- I built an Arks detachment and it comes up with the error "must have 1 more selection of Arks of Omen Compulsory Type..." . My question is where do I fill in that info? For completeness sake I made an Emp's Children army so it would probably fall under CSM.
If you click on the error itself it should take you to the right screen. It's somewhere in the detachment set-up screen normally, but really easy to miss.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: Speaking of problems with battlescribe- I built an Arks detachment and it comes up with the error "must have 1 more selection of Arks of Omen Compulsory Type..." . My question is where do I fill in that info? For completeness sake I made an Emp's Children army so it would probably fall under CSM.
Its on the left hand column top where you see the Battle Size, Chapter choice, Game Type etc choices that are Detachment level instead of unit level - its called Configuration above HQ and (If you have any) No Force Org Slot.
I think it further showcases that the 'rules writers' are not truly interested in balancing the game. Their focus is solely on placating whining tournament players.
Whine: Tournament players whined that there were too many starting Command Points, that this allowed alpha strikes, etc.
Change: GW's 'rules writers' lowered the starting Command Points to 6.
Whine: Tournament players whined that they do not have enough starting Command Points. That they are being punished by having to spend resources on pointless detachments.
Change: GW's 'rules writers' create the AoO detachment.
Whine : Tournament players will whine that the new AoO detachment allows for skew-lists. That there needs to be more resource related checks & balances. Change: TBD
Also, the AoO detachment makes 2000 point Strike Force armies the only playable game size. Would be 1000 point Incursion armies are horribly punished by the AoO detachment. Since tournament play is only ever 2000 points, this largely went unnoticed.
I think it further showcases that the 'rules writers' are not truly interested in balancing the game. Their focus is solely on placating whining tournament players.
Whine: Tournament players whined that there were too many starting Command Points, that this allowed alpha strikes, etc.
Change: GW's 'rules writers' lowered the starting Command Points to 6.
Whine: Tournament players whined that they do not have enough starting Command Points. That they are being punished by having to spend resources on pointless detachments.
Change: GW's 'rules writers' create the AoO detachment.
Whine : Tournament players will whine that the new AoO detachment allows for skew-lists. That there needs to be more resource related checks & balances. Change: TBD
Also, the AoO detachment makes 2000 point Strike Force armies the only playable game size. Would be 1000 point Incursion armies are horribly punished by the AoO detachment. Since tournament play is only ever 2000 points, this largely went unnoticed.
Horribly punished seems a little extreme, it forces you to lean into your mandatory slots heavily in comparison but I can't think of anyone it punishes beyond the 2 of each slot fluffy list type situation.
I think it further showcases that the 'rules writers' are not truly interested in balancing the game. Their focus is solely on placating whining tournament players.
Whine: Tournament players whined that there were too many starting Command Points, that this allowed alpha strikes, etc.
Change: GW's 'rules writers' lowered the starting Command Points to 6.
Whine: Tournament players whined that they do not have enough starting Command Points. That they are being punished by having to spend resources on pointless detachments.
Change: GW's 'rules writers' create the AoO detachment.
Whine : Tournament players will whine that the new AoO detachment allows for skew-lists. That there needs to be more resource related checks & balances. Change: TBD
Also, the AoO detachment makes 2000 point Strike Force armies the only playable game size. Would be 1000 point Incursion armies are horribly punished by the AoO detachment. Since tournament play is only ever 2000 points, this largely went unnoticed.
You're so tone deaf on this ridiculous crusade that you missed it when most people on this forum complained about paying for relics or that stratagems were too prominent.
I think it further showcases that the 'rules writers' are not truly interested in balancing the game. Their focus is solely on placating whining tournament players.
Whine: Tournament players whined that there were too many starting Command Points, that this allowed alpha strikes, etc.
Change: GW's 'rules writers' lowered the starting Command Points to 6.
Whine: Tournament players whined that they do not have enough starting Command Points. That they are being punished by having to spend resources on pointless detachments.
Change: GW's 'rules writers' create the AoO detachment.
Whine : Tournament players will whine that the new AoO detachment allows for skew-lists. That there needs to be more resource related checks & balances. Change: TBD
Also, the AoO detachment makes 2000 point Strike Force armies the only playable game size. Would be 1000 point Incursion armies are horribly punished by the AoO detachment. Since tournament play is only ever 2000 points, this largely went unnoticed.
You're so tone deaf on this ridiculous crusade that you missed it when most people on this forum complained about paying for relics or that stratagems were too prominent.
Something something TOURNAMENT PLAYERS!
Tone def... Not at all... I am just able to see the problem. I have been playing this game longer than most, longer than most players have been alive. I know it's history and can see when the mistakes of the past are being repeated, by both GW and the community.
Crusade... Absolutely... As long as I'm throwing dice, I will never stop trying to preserve the heart and soul of this game.
The problem with w40k is that in order to fix problems, GW creates, they make wide all faction affecting changes instead of addressing the problem . The same happens with the fix. GW removes AoC, but buffs doctrines by a lot and drops point costs. Somehow forgets that there are marine factions that don't have doctrines and who didn't get point drops, and some even got points hikes like csm. Somehow expects that the players of those armies will be okey with them.
There are too many single army or single faction players for such a way of game design to work. On top of that GW changes the design paradigma half in to every edition, making the , tone down from the crazy, books of early edition practicaly unplayable vs the stuff that comes out in the second half of the edition. And the fact that there can be 2+ years spread between rules updates of two people playing the same game is just mind blowing. I hope that IG players will have fun in the next 4-5 months, because with GW you never know if your fun army translates in to the next edition at all.
Karol wrote: The problem with w40k is that in order to fix problems, GW creates, they make wide all faction affecting changes instead of addressing the problem . The same happens with the fix. GW removes AoC, but buffs doctrines by a lot and drops point costs. Somehow forgets that there are marine factions that don't have doctrines and who didn't get point drops, and some even got points hikes like csm. Somehow expects that the players of those armies will be okey with them.
There are too many single army or single faction players for such a way of game design to work. On top of that GW changes the design paradigma half in to every edition, making the , tone down from the crazy, books of early edition practicaly unplayable vs the stuff that comes out in the second half of the edition. And the fact that there can be 2+ years spread between rules updates of two people playing the same game is just mind blowing. I hope that IG players will have fun in the next 4-5 months, because with GW you never know if your fun army translates in to the next edition at all.
most sensible players are fine with the idea of overperforming units in their armies getting hit with nerfs....
Sure, i would have prefered if terminators werent able to take the rune instead of getting a points hike, but as it is, its still fine. Same with Abaddon
I think it further showcases that the 'rules writers' are not truly interested in balancing the game. Their focus is solely on placating whining tournament players.
Whine: Tournament players whined that there were too many starting Command Points, that this allowed alpha strikes, etc.
Change: GW's 'rules writers' lowered the starting Command Points to 6.
Whine: Tournament players whined that they do not have enough starting Command Points. That they are being punished by having to spend resources on pointless detachments.
Change: GW's 'rules writers' create the AoO detachment.
Whine : Tournament players will whine that the new AoO detachment allows for skew-lists. That there needs to be more resource related checks & balances. Change: TBD
Also, the AoO detachment makes 2000 point Strike Force armies the only playable game size. Would be 1000 point Incursion armies are horribly punished by the AoO detachment. Since tournament play is only ever 2000 points, this largely went unnoticed.
You're so tone deaf on this ridiculous crusade that you missed it when most people on this forum complained about paying for relics or that stratagems were too prominent.
Something something TOURNAMENT PLAYERS!
I know it's history and can see when the mistakes of the past are being repeated, by both GW and the community.
I didn't realize it was the community's fault that the unit entry for Scatterbikes was created in 7th, or it was the community's fault that Iron Hands had that first iteration of their supplement.
How does it feel to just be blatantly wrong and simping for GW "rules writers" that are obviously incapable of doing even a mediocre job?
most sensible players are fine with the idea of overperforming units in their armies getting hit with nerfs....
Sure, i would have prefered if terminators werent able to take the rune instead of getting a points hike, but as it is, its still fine. Same with Abaddon
Aha. Okey so, I guess Paladins getting worse with the change and strikes being better then terminators still, combined with a nerf to both power psychic secondaries and the removal of AoC , the rule that was suppose to help GK according to GW, is just to nerf those over performing units. No wait. GK players run paladins only because of AoC, terminators are still point by point worse then strikes and interceptors, and the only thing that stops GK players from wanting to run 6 units of them, is the fact that the rule of 3 exist. Yeah over performing units get nerfed, for a faction that wa already under 50% win rate.
But to not be monothematic, I wonder if you could explain the changes to a DG player. Wonder they what they think about the Omen changes. Guess their 8th ed GK style nerfs that hit them for like a 7th or 8th time, is because the army was too overperforming.
most sensible players are fine with the idea of overperforming units in their armies getting hit with nerfs....
Sure, i would have prefered if terminators werent able to take the rune instead of getting a points hike, but as it is, its still fine. Same with Abaddon
Aha. Okey so, I guess Paladins getting worse with the change and strikes being better then terminators still, combined with a nerf to both power psychic secondaries and the removal of AoC , the rule that was suppose to help GK according to GW, is just to nerf those over performing units. No wait. GK players run paladins only because of AoC, terminators are still point by point worse then strikes and interceptors, and the only thing that stops GK players from wanting to run 6 units of them, is the fact that the rule of 3 exist. Yeah over performing units get nerfed, for a faction that wa already under 50% win rate.
But to not be monothematic, I wonder if you could explain the changes to a DG player. Wonder they what they think about the Omen changes. Guess their 8th ed GK style nerfs that hit them for like a 7th or 8th time, is because the army was too overperforming.
Sorry, i legitimately forgot about GK. And i play DG, i welcome the changes, plague marines are gonna be super good now (and blight hauler dropping points is also very nice)
I think it further showcases that the 'rules writers' are not truly interested in balancing the game. Their focus is solely on placating whining tournament players.
Whine: Tournament players whined that there were too many starting Command Points, that this allowed alpha strikes, etc.
Change: GW's 'rules writers' lowered the starting Command Points to 6.
Whine: Tournament players whined that they do not have enough starting Command Points. That they are being punished by having to spend resources on pointless detachments.
Change: GW's 'rules writers' create the AoO detachment.
Whine : Tournament players will whine that the new AoO detachment allows for skew-lists. That there needs to be more resource related checks & balances. Change: TBD
Also, the AoO detachment makes 2000 point Strike Force armies the only playable game size. Would be 1000 point Incursion armies are horribly punished by the AoO detachment. Since tournament play is only ever 2000 points, this largely went unnoticed.
You're so tone deaf on this ridiculous crusade that you missed it when most people on this forum complained about paying for relics or that stratagems were too prominent.
Something something TOURNAMENT PLAYERS!
I know it's history and can see when the mistakes of the past are being repeated, by both GW and the community.
I didn't realize it was the community's fault that the unit entry for Scatterbikes was created in 7th, or it was the community's fault that Iron Hands had that first iteration of their supplement.
How does it feel to just be blatantly wrong and simping for GW "rules writers" that are obviously incapable of doing even a mediocre job?
...how does it feel to be so far off the mark, you're on a different stage entirely?
Nothing oni has said in either of the posts in this quote chain is "simping for GW "rules writers"", my dude.
oni wrote: I have been playing this game longer than most, longer than most players have been alive. I know it's history and can see when the mistakes of the past are being repeated, by both GW and the community.
Crusade... Absolutely... As long as I'm throwing dice, I will never stop trying to preserve the heart and soul of this game.
I've been in this since second edition.
What it really comes down to is if you want GW to try and balance the game or not. From second edition to eighth GW never really made a concerted attempt to do so -- that's 24 years. For exceptionally brief points they managed to make things "ok", but that was ONLY with extreme effort from the community to shore up FAQs, missions, and even points. Remember comp?
And I would say GW only started getting better ( certainly not perfect ) at balancing in the past year. Obviously a bunch of what changed recently won't stick, but these are the changes they can make until a new codex can be released. It's a terrible release model, but it's the same one that's existed for three decades so surely that isn't the bone to pick?
You don't need to preserve the game. It's more vibrant than it's ever been in it's history and there are tons of super high quality channels that cover all aspects of the hobby.
Despite all the calls of incompetence and what not -- I find the following to be true, in my opinion :
- The balance has never been better ( jury is out for the new slate still )
- The missions have never been more engaging ( not everyone likes this style, I know )
- The models have never been better ( some people are stressed about monopose )
- The communication has never been better ( some people say it's just marketing )
- The rules have never been as clear ( some people just want old rules back)
Sometimes that isn't saying much when the bar was at zero, but progress is progress. And certainly we can disagree about matters of taste and pedantry, but at the same time they released narrative only books without forcing more army rules in a cool environment with interesting restrictions to make other ways to play enjoyable. You don't have to play matched play games if you don't like that part of the system, but you ( not "you" you ) can't also come and complain about balance.
I think it further showcases that the 'rules writers' are not truly interested in balancing the game. Their focus is solely on placating whining tournament players.
Whine: Tournament players whined that there were too many starting Command Points, that this allowed alpha strikes, etc.
Change: GW's 'rules writers' lowered the starting Command Points to 6.
Whine: Tournament players whined that they do not have enough starting Command Points. That they are being punished by having to spend resources on pointless detachments.
Change: GW's 'rules writers' create the AoO detachment.
Whine : Tournament players will whine that the new AoO detachment allows for skew-lists. That there needs to be more resource related checks & balances. Change: TBD
Also, the AoO detachment makes 2000 point Strike Force armies the only playable game size. Would be 1000 point Incursion armies are horribly punished by the AoO detachment. Since tournament play is only ever 2000 points, this largely went unnoticed.
You're so tone deaf on this ridiculous crusade that you missed it when most people on this forum complained about paying for relics or that stratagems were too prominent.
Something something TOURNAMENT PLAYERS!
I know it's history and can see when the mistakes of the past are being repeated, by both GW and the community.
I didn't realize it was the community's fault that the unit entry for Scatterbikes was created in 7th, or it was the community's fault that Iron Hands had that first iteration of their supplement.
How does it feel to just be blatantly wrong and simping for GW "rules writers" that are obviously incapable of doing even a mediocre job?
...how does it feel to be so far off the mark, you're on a different stage entirely?
Nothing oni has said in either of the posts in this quote chain is "simping for GW "rules writers"", my dude.
Yes it is the moment you attempt to blame the players for somehow playing the game wrong
I think it further showcases that the 'rules writers' are not truly interested in balancing the game. Their focus is solely on placating whining tournament players.
Whine: Tournament players whined that there were too many starting Command Points, that this allowed alpha strikes, etc.
Change: GW's 'rules writers' lowered the starting Command Points to 6.
Whine: Tournament players whined that they do not have enough starting Command Points. That they are being punished by having to spend resources on pointless detachments.
Change: GW's 'rules writers' create the AoO detachment.
Whine : Tournament players will whine that the new AoO detachment allows for skew-lists. That there needs to be more resource related checks & balances. Change: TBD
Also, the AoO detachment makes 2000 point Strike Force armies the only playable game size. Would be 1000 point Incursion armies are horribly punished by the AoO detachment. Since tournament play is only ever 2000 points, this largely went unnoticed.
You're so tone deaf on this ridiculous crusade that you missed it when most people on this forum complained about paying for relics or that stratagems were too prominent.
Something something TOURNAMENT PLAYERS!
I know it's history and can see when the mistakes of the past are being repeated, by both GW and the community.
I didn't realize it was the community's fault that the unit entry for Scatterbikes was created in 7th, or it was the community's fault that Iron Hands had that first iteration of their supplement.
How does it feel to just be blatantly wrong and simping for GW "rules writers" that are obviously incapable of doing even a mediocre job?
...how does it feel to be so far off the mark, you're on a different stage entirely?
Nothing oni has said in either of the posts in this quote chain is "simping for GW "rules writers"", my dude.
Yes it is the moment you attempt to blame the players for somehow playing the game wrong
Interesting choice of wording. Cheating is also playing the game wrong, is it suddenly not the players fault if they cheat?
before you get your little black knight panties in a twist, no I'm not "defending" GW or absolving anyone of their stance but feeling the rules team pander to competitive players or a minority vocal group too much is a perfectly fine opinion to have even if you disagree. That's not "simping".
I think it further showcases that the 'rules writers' are not truly interested in balancing the game. Their focus is solely on placating whining tournament players.
Whine: Tournament players whined that there were too many starting Command Points, that this allowed alpha strikes, etc.
Change: GW's 'rules writers' lowered the starting Command Points to 6.
Whine: Tournament players whined that they do not have enough starting Command Points. That they are being punished by having to spend resources on pointless detachments.
Change: GW's 'rules writers' create the AoO detachment.
Whine : Tournament players will whine that the new AoO detachment allows for skew-lists. That there needs to be more resource related checks & balances. Change: TBD
Also, the AoO detachment makes 2000 point Strike Force armies the only playable game size. Would be 1000 point Incursion armies are horribly punished by the AoO detachment. Since tournament play is only ever 2000 points, this largely went unnoticed.
You're so tone deaf on this ridiculous crusade that you missed it when most people on this forum complained about paying for relics or that stratagems were too prominent.
Something something TOURNAMENT PLAYERS!
I know it's history and can see when the mistakes of the past are being repeated, by both GW and the community.
I didn't realize it was the community's fault that the unit entry for Scatterbikes was created in 7th, or it was the community's fault that Iron Hands had that first iteration of their supplement.
How does it feel to just be blatantly wrong and simping for GW "rules writers" that are obviously incapable of doing even a mediocre job?
...how does it feel to be so far off the mark, you're on a different stage entirely?
Nothing oni has said in either of the posts in this quote chain is "simping for GW "rules writers"", my dude.
Yes it is the moment you attempt to blame the players for somehow playing the game wrong
...re-read the spoilered text again - what oni is complaining about is that, in his opinion, the GW rules team are caving to complaints too quickly, rather than defining how they believe the game should be played/structured. That's not blaming players for "playing the game wrong" - that's blaming the rules team for not having a backbone between them.
oni wrote: Also, the AoO detachment makes 2000 point Strike Force armies the only playable game size. Would be 1000 point Incursion armies are horribly punished by the AoO detachment. Since tournament play is only ever 2000 points, this largely went unnoticed.
In what way does the AoO detachment punish Incursion armies? Unless you are playing a single Patrol, AoO has the same or lessor requirements than any other detachment configuration.
oni wrote: Also, the AoO detachment makes 2000 point Strike Force armies the only playable game size. Would be 1000 point Incursion armies are horribly punished by the AoO detachment. Since tournament play is only ever 2000 points, this largely went unnoticed.
In what way does the AoO detachment punish Incursion armies? Unless you are playing a single Patrol, AoO has the same or lessor requirements than any other detachment configuration.
We're struggling with Custodes, as the high ppm is forcing us to use minimum sized squads. You can't actually use things.
Combining the AoO detachment with the Rule of 2 can really mess up list building.
oni wrote: Also, the AoO detachment makes 2000 point Strike Force armies the only playable game size. Would be 1000 point Incursion armies are horribly punished by the AoO detachment. Since tournament play is only ever 2000 points, this largely went unnoticed.
In what way does the AoO detachment punish Incursion armies? Unless you are playing a single Patrol, AoO has the same or lessor requirements than any other detachment configuration.
We're struggling with Custodes, as the high ppm is forcing us to use minimum sized squads. You can't actually use things.
Combining the AoO detachment with the Rule of 2 can really mess up list building.
as custodes you should probably run some sisters at such a low pts level
oni wrote: Also, the AoO detachment makes 2000 point Strike Force armies the only playable game size. Would be 1000 point Incursion armies are horribly punished by the AoO detachment. Since tournament play is only ever 2000 points, this largely went unnoticed.
In what way does the AoO detachment punish Incursion armies? Unless you are playing a single Patrol, AoO has the same or lessor requirements than any other detachment configuration.
We're struggling with Custodes, as the high ppm is forcing us to use minimum sized squads. You can't actually use things.
Combining the AoO detachment with the Rule of 2 can really mess up list building.
That is the one wrinkle with the AoO detachment. If your army was a Patrol, you have to mix it up to get into the AoO detachment with a third of something (Troops, Elites, Fast Attack, or Heavy Support).
I think it further showcases that the 'rules writers' are not truly interested in balancing the game. Their focus is solely on placating whining tournament players.
Whine: Tournament players whined that there were too many starting Command Points, that this allowed alpha strikes, etc.
Change: GW's 'rules writers' lowered the starting Command Points to 6.
Whine: Tournament players whined that they do not have enough starting Command Points. That they are being punished by having to spend resources on pointless detachments.
Change: GW's 'rules writers' create the AoO detachment.
Whine : Tournament players will whine that the new AoO detachment allows for skew-lists. That there needs to be more resource related checks & balances. Change: TBD
Also, the AoO detachment makes 2000 point Strike Force armies the only playable game size. Would be 1000 point Incursion armies are horribly punished by the AoO detachment. Since tournament play is only ever 2000 points, this largely went unnoticed.
You're so tone deaf on this ridiculous crusade that you missed it when most people on this forum complained about paying for relics or that stratagems were too prominent.
Something something TOURNAMENT PLAYERS!
I know it's history and can see when the mistakes of the past are being repeated, by both GW and the community.
I didn't realize it was the community's fault that the unit entry for Scatterbikes was created in 7th, or it was the community's fault that Iron Hands had that first iteration of their supplement.
How does it feel to just be blatantly wrong and simping for GW "rules writers" that are obviously incapable of doing even a mediocre job?
...how does it feel to be so far off the mark, you're on a different stage entirely?
Nothing oni has said in either of the posts in this quote chain is "simping for GW "rules writers"", my dude.
Yes it is the moment you attempt to blame the players for somehow playing the game wrong
Interesting choice of wording. Cheating is also playing the game wrong, is it suddenly not the players fault if they cheat?
before you get your little black knight panties in a twist, no I'm not "defending" GW or absolving anyone of their stance but feeling the rules team pander to competitive players or a minority vocal group too much is a perfectly fine opinion to have even if you disagree. That's not "simping".
You don't need to cheat when the rules are quite frankly easy to break as is thanks to no effort put into them.
Dai wrote: So no simping then and you were being a tad ridic all round?
From experience you've greater odds of winning the lottery whilst simultaneously having a plane land on your head as you're struck by lightning than getting that admittance.
Blndmage wrote: We're struggling with Custodes, as the high ppm is forcing us to use minimum sized squads. You can't actually use things.
Combining the AoO detachment with the Rule of 2 can really mess up list building.
So just play some MSU? Usually MSU is a good strategy anyway, and 3x MSU troops is only 405 points. That leaves plenty of points free for an expensive unit or two, I really don't see what the problem is.
(And remember that rule of 2/3 does not apply to troops so you can always fill detachment slots with them.)
I think it further showcases that the 'rules writers' are not truly interested in balancing the game. Their focus is solely on placating whining tournament players.
Whine: Tournament players whined that there were too many starting Command Points, that this allowed alpha strikes, etc. Change: GW's 'rules writers' lowered the starting Command Points to 6.
Whine: Tournament players whined that they do not have enough starting Command Points. That they are being punished by having to spend resources on pointless detachments. Change: GW's 'rules writers' create the AoO detachment.
Whine : Tournament players will whine that the new AoO detachment allows for skew-lists. That there needs to be more resource related checks & balances. Change: TBD
Also, the AoO detachment makes 2000 point Strike Force armies the only playable game size. Would be 1000 point Incursion armies are horribly punished by the AoO detachment. Since tournament play is only ever 2000 points, this largely went unnoticed.
Asking tournament players how to make the game more balanced and following their suggestions is the best GW can do without having any game designers that know what they're doing. When the designers can't determine that it's a bigger problem that every Necron character's ability is boring and unthematic instead of mono-Dynasty lists needing a reward or that Bullgryn are used more in the meta than Ogryn or that players will use the two flamer Stratagems printed in the same supplement together in a combo, it's hopeless that they'll improve game balance on their own. The AoO simplifies list building, something that casuals have been asking for. You don't have to play in tournaments to be faced with alpha strike armies, alpha strikes are actually a bigger problem if you don't have enough terrain, while that is a problem at some tournaments, it's not as big a problem at the really big ones where the tournament players they listen to play at. Skew lists have always been allowed by having vehicles in Elites, Fast Attack and Heavy Support and sometimes even in the HQ and Troops slot, all AoO Detachments do is not reward lists based around Troops, but you could do a Troops skew list previously as well. The only downside to AoO is not being able to take 9 Elites/HS/FA and GW choosing not to put in a 3CP reward for picking Troops as the base of the Detachment and banning 3 ingredient soup.
Dai wrote: So no simping then and you were being a tad ridic all round?
He IS simping. He's blaming the community for playing game as it was written.
Again, read what was actually written by oni, rather than what you're projecting.
The community plays the game as written at the time, and a subset of the community (tournament players, in this case) complain about aspects of that play.
The observation is that the 40k rules team seem to think that such complaints require action, rather than the designers saying that this is how the game is meant to be.
The problem is with a perceived lack of spine with the design team, not with the community. At no point is oni simping for the design team, for crying out loud.
The closest you might say he comes to having a problem with the community is that these tournament types have some form of route to feed these complaints through, which the casual/garagehammer players don't - and even that's more of an issue with GW that the bleeding edge tournament types.
How you're reading a 180 on that is... inconceivable.
I'll simp for the tournament players - they don't care about this. They are happy to operate in whatever environment GW make.
"Its all alpha strikes cos of too many CP" was a casual complaint.
"It sucks that now I can't take 2-3 characters with warlord traits and relics to make them cool" - was a casual complaint.
"There's skewed lists... or people can take a bit of everything (...?)" - is again, going to be a casual complaint.
I was initially very wary AoO was going to be super loose and combined with super-loose ally rules, this would be a "free for all, screw balance, just have fun cos the editions over" season. It doesn't immediately look like that's the case - although I admit its mega early days, and some monsters may make themselves known.
I think there are fundamental issues with "Troops" that GW have never really managed to resolve through the editions. Unfortunately I don't see there being an answer. Tournament players don't care - if troops are good (lots of 8th edition codexes), take them, if troops are bad, give them a miss as far as you are able. It tends to be more fluffy players, who have a fixed idea that an X army should have a lot of unit Y that feel bad about it.
Tyel wrote: I'll simp for the tournament players - they don't care about this. They are happy to operate in whatever environment GW make.
"Its all alpha strikes cos of too many CP" was a casual complaint.
"It sucks that now I can't take 2-3 characters with warlord traits and relics to make them cool" - was a casual complaint.
"There's skewed lists... or people can take a bit of everything (...?)" - is again, going to be a casual complaint.
I was initially very wary AoO was going to be super loose and combined with super-loose ally rules, this would be a "free for all, screw balance, just have fun cos the editions over" season. It doesn't immediately look like that's the case - although I admit its mega early days, and some monsters may make themselves known.
I think there are fundamental issues with "Troops" that GW have never really managed to resolve through the editions. Unfortunately I don't see there being an answer. Tournament players don't care - if troops are good (lots of 8th edition codexes), take them, if troops are bad, give them a miss as far as you are able. It tends to be more fluffy players, who have a fixed idea that an X army should have a lot of unit Y that feel bad about it.
I think the issue is that a vocal minority from the professional scene will have an opinion or make a comment, which the wider playerbase then parrot and reverb to make it a generalised statement.
There was a lot of focus on alpha striking and first turn advantage, which was largely filtered down from those same top players and talked about in popular forums/sites/podcasts etc.
The relics and traits thing isn't just a casual complaint, tournament topping level players were shocked and not overly happy with the inability to do this for daemons in their recent book. Before that they were always promoting lists and builds with multiple extras and blowing early CP. Again this echoes into being a general comment/concern.
Skewed lists are more of a problem for casual lists ad they're generally boom or bust, it came out of the talk about how you build a list to kill marines then you go from there, or you counter meta with a skew to sneak out a lucky matching streak.
I agree troops are an issue, I'm wondering if fixed formation cores might be an idea for the future? You can build a imperial fists with 1 of 3 core mandatory builds (could be a captain/Lieutenant, 2 units of tacticals/intercessors/heavy intercessors and a predator/gladiator for exmaple) which then unlock the core "faction bonus" according to that detachment and you then bolt on from there. It is still a "tax" and people will optimise around it, but it means that there's an assured nessus that lists will have a fluff component and those troops will be there irrespective of relative usefulness.
At the moment I like the idea of modifying the ObSec rule to include 'sticky objectives' for the Troops battlefield role units only (so no 'sticky objectives for non-Troops units that somehow gain ObSec). I believe that if all Troops with ObSec. had 'sticky objectives' it would be a strong incentive to have several Troops units in an army.
This might reduce the current advantage SM's have, but it also might not.
oni wrote: Also, the AoO detachment makes 2000 point Strike Force armies the only playable game size. Would be 1000 point Incursion armies are horribly punished by the AoO detachment. Since tournament play is only ever 2000 points, this largely went unnoticed.
In what way does the AoO detachment punish Incursion armies? Unless you are playing a single Patrol, AoO has the same or lessor requirements than any other detachment configuration.
We're struggling with Custodes, as the high ppm is forcing us to use minimum sized squads. You can't actually use things.
Combining the AoO detachment with the Rule of 2 can really mess up list building.
That is the one wrinkle with the AoO detachment. If your army was a Patrol, you have to mix it up to get into the AoO detachment with a third of something (Troops, Elites, Fast Attack, or Heavy Support).
Meh, I get that the Patrol Game size must use the Patrol Det is one directional, meaning you can use a patrol Det in larger games usually by the time you get to that point you're ready to move into a different Det or adding that third Troop unit anyway. I'm sure there are a few Incursion level Combat Patrols who don't have a third troop, but I'd also guess they're pretty rare and revolve around some sort of super-unit that just barely fits Shenanigans.
Tyel wrote: I'll simp for the tournament players - they don't care about this. They are happy to operate in whatever environment GW make.
"Its all alpha strikes cos of too many CP" was a casual complaint.
"It sucks that now I can't take 2-3 characters with warlord traits and relics to make them cool" - was a casual complaint.
"There's skewed lists... or people can take a bit of everything (...?)" - is again, going to be a casual complaint.
I was initially very wary AoO was going to be super loose and combined with super-loose ally rules, this would be a "free for all, screw balance, just have fun cos the editions over" season. It doesn't immediately look like that's the case - although I admit its mega early days, and some monsters may make themselves known.
I think there are fundamental issues with "Troops" that GW have never really managed to resolve through the editions. Unfortunately I don't see there being an answer. Tournament players don't care - if troops are good (lots of 8th edition codexes), take them, if troops are bad, give them a miss as far as you are able. It tends to be more fluffy players, who have a fixed idea that an X army should have a lot of unit Y that feel bad about it.
I think the issue is that a vocal minority from the professional scene will have an opinion or make a comment, which the wider playerbase then parrot and reverb to make it a generalised statement.
There was a lot of focus on alpha striking and first turn advantage, which was largely filtered down from those same top players and talked about in popular forums/sites/podcasts etc.
The relics and traits thing isn't just a casual complaint, tournament topping level players were shocked and not overly happy with the inability to do this for daemons in their recent book. Before that they were always promoting lists and builds with multiple extras and blowing early CP. Again this echoes into being a general comment/concern.
Skewed lists are more of a problem for casual lists ad they're generally boom or bust, it came out of the talk about how you build a list to kill marines then you go from there, or you counter meta with a skew to sneak out a lucky matching streak.
I agree troops are an issue, I'm wondering if fixed formation cores might be an idea for the future? You can build a imperial fists with 1 of 3 core mandatory builds (could be a captain/Lieutenant, 2 units of tacticals/intercessors/heavy intercessors and a predator/gladiator for exmaple) which then unlock the core "faction bonus" according to that detachment and you then bolt on from there. It is still a "tax" and people will optimise around it, but it means that there's an assured nessus that lists will have a fluff component and those troops will be there irrespective of relative usefulness.
The solution to troops is both foundationally simple, and logistically complex. In the first place you need more of them. When the only choice is "boyz" or "Tactical Squads" (for the first born-only people) the ability to theme, or personalize is next to nil. In the second place, they need to be worthwhile to take on their own, not as a "tax" or a throw away "unlocker". They need to be some of the most versatile and efficient units in your list. Troops should get there, where ever there is cheaper, elites/FA/HS should get there faster.
Yeah, troops need a fundamental fix. Some armies like GSC have their troops choices as the heavy lifters of their codex. Other books don't have good troops choices at all, or even any options for troops.
A few possible solutions;
1. Make troops useful. Sticky objectives could easily be a trademark of ObSec troops choices, not just a Marine only feature.
2. Give people actual variety. Using Orks as an example, we have Grots, Boys and Boys but spiky. None of them have any real options to speak of, other than heavy weapons you're never going to take, or the decision for a Power Klaw or dual Choppas on the Nob. Give us more unit options (even making shoota boys a separate datasheet with a bespoke rule or two would be a start), and give them weapon options that are relevant for what they want to achieve. Let Boys take Big Choppas over Big Shootas, Snagga Boys take Squighounds, etc.
When you have an army that exemplifies the "troops tax" mindset, of course you're going to take the absolute cheapest option because otherwise you have a significant portion of your list not contributing anything of worth to the overall game.
Give troops a role in the game other than detachment fillers, and give them the options that allow them to be interesting, and suddenly people won't feel like their units are a burden.
Dudeface wrote: I agree troops are an issue, I'm wondering if fixed formation cores might be an idea for the future? You can build a imperial fists with 1 of 3 core mandatory builds (could be a captain/Lieutenant, 2 units of tacticals/intercessors/heavy intercessors and a predator/gladiator for exmaple) which then unlock the core "faction bonus" according to that detachment and you then bolt on from there. It is still a "tax" and people will optimise around it, but it means that there's an assured nessus that lists will have a fluff component and those troops will be there irrespective of relative usefulness.
"Formations done right" is always an interesting idea - but I have no faith in GW doing it in a sensible way. They don't have the discipline. We saw that most recently with almost every 2022 codex.
Afrodactyl wrote: Yeah, troops need a fundamental fix. Some armies like GSC have their troops choices as the heavy lifters of their codex. Other books don't have good troops choices at all, or even any options for troops.
A few possible solutions; 1. Make troops useful. Sticky objectives could easily be a trademark of ObSec troops choices, not just a Marine only feature.
2. Give people actual variety. Using Orks as an example, we have Grots, Boys and Boys but spiky. None of them have any real options to speak of, other than heavy weapons you're never going to take, or the decision for a Power Klaw or dual Choppas on the Nob. Give us more unit options (even making shoota boys a separate datasheet with a bespoke rule or two would be a start), and give them weapon options that are relevant for what they want to achieve. Let Boys take Big Choppas over Big Shootas, Snagga Boys take Squighounds, etc.
When you have an army that exemplifies the "troops tax" mindset, of course you're going to take the absolute cheapest option because otherwise you have a significant portion of your list not contributing anything of worth to the overall game.
Give troops a role in the game other than detachment fillers, and give them the options that allow them to be interesting, and suddenly people won't feel like their units are a burden.
How does variety make Troops better? Do you mean for different types of lists to all have a viable Troops choice instead of only the lists that have synergy with the the one type of Troops the faction has access to?
I think it's perfectly possible to pay a more expensive Troops tax to get more out of your Troops investment. Let's say that Ork Boys are overcosted at 10 pts/model, Gretchin are 8 pts/model and Beastyboys are 15 pts/model in a world of 3 mandatory Troops. You're going to take the Ork Boys most likely because the extra 60 pts to upgrade your 30 Gretchin to 30 Boys is worth it. You also might pay an extra 3 points to get klaws on the Nobs because at 1 pt a klaw would be a steal even if the unit is still overall overcosted at 101 pts.
I think most of the problem with unviable Troops is due to high pts-costs, but making them too cheap is also a danger because GW doesn't want to see tides of models on tables and Troops are unaffected by Ro3. Adding Ro3 and making Troops undercosted would be an option if GW aren't interested in seeing 60 Tactical Marines anyway. OP Stratagems is an option, but I think AdMech took it too far.
Dudeface wrote: I agree troops are an issue, I'm wondering if fixed formation cores might be an idea for the future? You can build a imperial fists with 1 of 3 core mandatory builds (could be a captain/Lieutenant, 2 units of tacticals/intercessors/heavy intercessors and a predator/gladiator for exmaple) which then unlock the core "faction bonus" according to that detachment and you then bolt on from there. It is still a "tax" and people will optimise around it, but it means that there's an assured nessus that lists will have a fluff component and those troops will be there irrespective of relative usefulness.
Awarding/saving CP seems easier to balance. Is giving Space Marines an extra AP on some of their weapons too much when Necrons only get to do actions and still shoot? That's hard to know. But Space Marines getting 5 CP or saving 5 CP while Necrons save 11 CP is pretty clearly off.
Awarding/saving CP seems easier to balance. Is giving Space Marines an extra AP on some of their weapons too much when Necrons only get to do actions and still shoot? That's hard to know. But Space Marines getting 5 CP or saving 5 CP while Necrons save 11 CP is pretty clearly off.
So would you advocate faction rules go away instead? using CP as a mechanism to reward thematic builds etc. which in turn doubles down stratagem play.
Awarding/saving CP seems easier to balance. Is giving Space Marines an extra AP on some of their weapons too much when Necrons only get to do actions and still shoot? That's hard to know. But Space Marines getting 5 CP or saving 5 CP while Necrons save 11 CP is pretty clearly off.
So would you advocate faction rules go away instead? using CP as a mechanism to reward thematic builds etc. which in turn doubles down stratagem play.
Yes. Have you tried AoS? It doesn't do Stratagems perfectly either, but I think 40k has the worst possible implementation of Stratagems, I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Do you want to go back to something like 7th with no Stratagems but still keep 0 pts Combat Doctrines but locked behind a Detachment wall instead of a purity wall? I understand that that implementation was terrible as well, so I'm not trying to make you sound stupid if you think it's right. My pet theory is that Stratagems should only be used to represent sub-faction differences because it's not scaleable so it'll shift the focus of your list without overly incentivizing spammy builds or disincentivizing units that don't synergize.
Awarding/saving CP seems easier to balance. Is giving Space Marines an extra AP on some of their weapons too much when Necrons only get to do actions and still shoot? That's hard to know. But Space Marines getting 5 CP or saving 5 CP while Necrons save 11 CP is pretty clearly off.
So would you advocate faction rules go away instead? using CP as a mechanism to reward thematic builds etc. which in turn doubles down stratagem play.
Yes. Have you tried AoS? It doesn't do Stratagems perfectly either, but I think 40k has the worst possible implementation of Stratagems, I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Do you want to go back to something like 7th with no Stratagems but still keep 0 pts Combat Doctrines but locked behind a Detachment wall instead of a purity wall? I understand that that implementation was terrible as well, so I'm not trying to make you sound stupid if you think it's right. My pet theory is that Stratagems should only be used to represent sub-faction differences because it's not scaleable so it'll shift the focus of your list without overly incentivizing spammy builds or disincentivizing units that don't synergize.
I'd rather stratagems end up like AoS where they're a limited range of generic strats everyone can use with a very limited pool. I'm happy with free faction traits, they've been around a long while and whilst they're not all made equal always, they add a base flavour to the forces they otherwise lack. I understand what your intent is with stratagems there though, but I'd rather reduce the mental load than increase it.
Afrodactyl wrote: Yeah, troops need a fundamental fix. Some armies like GSC have their troops choices as the heavy lifters of their codex. Other books don't have good troops choices at all, or even any options for troops.
A few possible solutions;
1. Make troops useful. Sticky objectives could easily be a trademark of ObSec troops choices, not just a Marine only feature.
2. Give people actual variety. Using Orks as an example, we have Grots, Boys and Boys but spiky. None of them have any real options to speak of, other than heavy weapons you're never going to take, or the decision for a Power Klaw or dual Choppas on the Nob. Give us more unit options (even making shoota boys a separate datasheet with a bespoke rule or two would be a start), and give them weapon options that are relevant for what they want to achieve. Let Boys take Big Choppas over Big Shootas, Snagga Boys take Squighounds, etc.
When you have an army that exemplifies the "troops tax" mindset, of course you're going to take the absolute cheapest option because otherwise you have a significant portion of your list not contributing anything of worth to the overall game.
Give troops a role in the game other than detachment fillers, and give them the options that allow them to be interesting, and suddenly people won't feel like their units are a burden.
How does variety make Troops better? Do you mean for different types of lists to all have a viable Troops choice instead of only the lists that have synergy with the the one type of Troops the faction has access to?
I think what he means is give them more utility, and in the case of some factions make them either better (I.e. Eldar Storm Guardians), or cheaper. Things like GSC Neophytes or SM Tacticals are good (relatively speaking) is because of their utility. They're cheap, but you can do a lot with them. Essentially the idea is they either need to give the troops choices more utility, or make more that are more specific but better at that job. Hence the suggestion of Splitting Choppa and Shoota boyz.
vict0988 wrote: I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater
With stratagems there is no baby, only some lumps of floating in an increasingly filthy bucket of water. Dump the whole thing out and consider it a lesson in what not to do with a game.
No. The whole point of troops is that they're supposed to be basic and emphasizing "variety" is how 9th became such a mess. Give everything a Bespoke™ weapon and a Bespoke™ rule and a Bespoke™ stratagem and some more Bespoke™ buffs to stack and now you're spending 30 minutes adding up modifiers and rolling dice to delete whatever you point the unit at and you need to cover the entire table in LOS blocking terrain to make the game last more than one turn. Troops need to go back to being basic units with a basic stat line, the basic weapons of their faction (with all of the stupid buffs removed), and no special rules. And we need to go back to troops being at least 50% of your army. The game plays a lot better when the core is basic bolter marines vs. basic orks, not Primaris™ Supermarines™ with Primaris™ Bolt™ PrimarisRifles™ and 15 different Bespoke™ special rules to shoot twice at BS 2+ with full re-rolls and extra hits on 6s and AP -4 and D3 and ignoring FNP and ignoring things that ignore rules that ignore rules that ignore rules that ignore rules that ignore invulnerable saves. Or maybe add an extra "ignore" in there, I lost count after the latest exchange of "I IGNORE UR SAVE" and "NO U DONT I IGNORE THAT RULE".
As for how to make people pay the tax? Go back to the rule that only troops can ever score objectives. Non-troops can deny control, but if you don't have troops on that objective you get nothing. And remove secondary objectives, no more of this nonsense where you pick the easiest 15 VP for your army to achieve and decide that's going to be your objective. Fight for primary objective control with troops or lose 100-0.
Variety is indeed not the issue of troops, but rather flexibility and working as intended for factions and their subfactions.
Which is why mono-equipment primaris will always remain on a fundamental level for a troop choice inferior to a tactical marine unit. A good desigend troop unit is one which can satisfy the core identity of a faction and has the flexibility to do it's job with a degree of specialisation available to it. A gold standard for this was R&H which tied it's subfaction identity to it's troops and available manipulation of an already very felxibly designed troop choice. A bad exemple for this is literally all primaris troop choices.
GW also needs to take a look at transports for mechanised forces and subfactions (cue ork boys and trucks) AND NOT create a Boy +1 which snaggas are. (nvm that they are ugly).
When I say variety I mean to give people basic options for various roles. Orks have three options, but one is objectively worse than the other two, so it is only ever taken in one specific scenario; trukk boys suicide unit.
Then you have Grots for doing actions, and Snagga Boys for maybe hurting something or contesting the midfield. Neither of these units have customisation options outside of the Thump Gun, and Lord know why you would ever take that because its terrible and doesn't work with the units identity.
So realistically we have two troops choices, which are either something to fill out a kill rig with, or objective campers because they die to a fart on the wind. Vanilla Space Marines on the other hand have six choices. They all fulfill slightly different roles, and have options they can take to differentiate the units from one another; sergeant weapons, special weapons, etc.
I agree that troops choices should be basic and be the core of the army, but when you're forced to choice between bland trash unit #1 or bland trash unit #2 it feels bad and makes you resent having to take them because they're a burden more than anything else.
I'm not asking for loads of different units that all have super special rules, I want troops to have a purpose in the list, and give the player the options and variety to fulfill that purpose and support your list rather than just suck and take up space. I'd be happy with Orks having "Boys" and "Grots" as their only troops choices as long as they functioned well and you were actually able to somewhat specialise the units with points cost upgrades/sidegrades (Slugga Boys, Shoota Boys, 'Ard Boys, Snagga Boys, Stikkbombas, whatever).
Tactical Marines are a good example of this. They can MSU or go around in groups of ten. They can be built to an extent to support a gun line, or a mechanised force, or an assault heavy list, etc. They get weapon options that make them better at doing whatever role you want them to do without stepping on the toes of your special troop+1 units too much, and they can take and hold objectives.
At no point should a mandatory unit feel like a bad pick, or even be a detriment to the overall list. Give us a reason to take troops rather than just saying "because you must", give them a purpose and a role to fulfill.
We had a lengthy discussion about the value of Troops in our group. Some argued that a great part of their value was that they were essentially disposable. However the consensus was that they needed a little boost, so we came up with the following:
For a 5% increase to a Troops unit cost it may choose any two of the following abilities and use one during a game ~
Close Order Drills - if a unit is entirely in base contact with itself, each model adds an additional close combat or ranged attack (this does not apply to special or heavy weapons)
Battle Focus - any roll of 1 to wound may be re-rolled
Stim Packs - once per game the unit receives Feel No Pain (4+)
Ensconced - a deployed unit may improve its cover save by 1 until it moves
Advance - before the game starts a unit may make a free normal move before any normal movement commences
Tactical Dash - once per game a unit may add 2D3" to any move that doesn't initiate contact with the enemy
The idea was to give Troops a little optional boost for a cost in relation to the unit's power, but keep it relatively basic. Other options are certainly possible. Since we roll up scenarios ahead of time, players have an easier time deciding if an upgrade is worth using.
The problem with Troops is that GW has largely built the units of the other Battlefield Roles as Troops+. First Born Space Marines are a perfect example of this problem:
Troops are Tactical Squads.
Elites has Sternguard Veterans, which are Tacticals with better Bolters and better stats.
Fast Attack has Assault Marines, which are Tacticals but faster.
Heavy Support has Devestator Squads, which are Tacticals with more Heavy Weapons.
Outside of Objective Secured, there is nothing the makes Tacticals better at their job than a properly outfitted unit from a different Battlefield Role. There needs to be a minus to the other units and a plus to the Troops to make them worth taking. It need not be the same thing from unit to unit, nor army to army, but it needs to be there.
alextroy wrote: The problem with Troops is that GW has largely built the units of the other Battlefield Roles as Troops+. First Born Space Marines are a perfect example of this problem:
Troops are Tactical Squads.
Elites has Sternguard Veterans, which are Tacticals with better Bolters and better stats.
Fast Attack has Assault Marines, which are Tacticals but faster.
Heavy Support has Devestator Squads, which are Tacticals with more Heavy Weapons.
Outside of Objective Secured, there is nothing the makes Tacticals better at their job than a properly outfitted unit from a different Battlefield Role. There needs to be a minus to the other units and a plus to the Troops to make them worth taking. It need not be the same thing from unit to unit, nor army to army, but it needs to be there.
You can draw that comparison with most armies. Remember when Gargoyles were FA instead of Troops? Raveners vs Warriors? Warriors vs Scourges? Guardians vs Pick-An-Aspect? Warriors vs Destroyers? I don't believe we should be giving a negative to any of the specialist units so much as giving a boost to the Troops units. I'd like to see a universal decrease to lethality, and a targeted increase to Troops. I'd like to see ObSec be keyword based, and I'd like to see the units/keywords that shouldn't get ObSec get a keyword that also plays a role - I called it Objective Denial. In an X" bubble around Objective Denied, your opponent does not get ObSec. Making a vehicle count as 5 models does not in and of itself make enough difference. Making 5 Obsec Marines jumping out of a Razorback swing the objective because the Razorback removes Obsec from the 10 Gretchin makes a much stronger case for the Razorback. For some factions - Custodes lacking many transport tanks leaps to mind - this would break down but as a general fix it's not a bad start. ObSec on troops is a bandaid. And a dirty useless one at that. Troops need to be valuable enough on their own. As long as players look at them as a "tax" instead of a unit they care about, we're going to have this problem.
A negative could be a little as not getting a significant rule that the comparable Troops unit has.
If the job of a Tactical Squad is to hold ground against a threat, it needs a rule that improves their ability to do that. But Devastators job is to destroy the enemy. They don't get the rule that makes them better at holding ground. Right now, that rule is the lackluster Objective Secured. It needs to be more.
If Tactical Marines were always allowed to either Hold Steady or Set to Defend when charged, that is something more substantial that would make Devastators worst at holding ground than Tactical Marines.
Elite units like Sternguard wouldn't get the rule. Their job is to take ground, which is already represented by their improved stats and weapons.
Ideally, such rules would be carefully designed to make each army play according to their background. Infantry Squads hold ground, but mostly by not dying as easily as they should. Those shovels are not on their backpacks for combat, they are there to dig holes to hide their vulnerable bodies! Nobody knows how important taking cover is than IS. Special rule is Infantry Squads that don't move or that are in Cover get a +1 AS (above and beyond that granted by the Cover).
alextroy wrote: The problem with Troops is that GW has largely built the units of the other Battlefield Roles as Troops+. First Born Space Marines are a perfect example of this problem:
Troops are Tactical Squads.
Elites has Sternguard Veterans, which are Tacticals with better Bolters and better stats.
Fast Attack has Assault Marines, which are Tacticals but faster.
Heavy Support has Devestator Squads, which are Tacticals with more Heavy Weapons.
Outside of Objective Secured, there is nothing the makes Tacticals better at their job than a properly outfitted unit from a different Battlefield Role. There needs to be a minus to the other units and a plus to the Troops to make them worth taking. It need not be the same thing from unit to unit, nor army to army, but it needs to be there.
So I actually don’t think that’s too bad from a initial design, and more how GW have warped it.
Back when I started, I always thought of terminators being rather close to a tactical squad.
Less models, but tougher, with shooting comparable.
And with the desire for terminators as troops from players, I think they could have been used just like that.
But assault marines, give up shooting for a faster profile, and more attacks in close range.
Choice for players to do similar roles, and different access to weapons.
Give terminators access to chain swards as default and I think would be really cool.
It’s more how GW has built the game from there that’s the issue, marines are supposed to be elite, in a army where they have elites, in a game with so much imperium elite units.
They have stepped on the toes of there own space marines, and it has filter out to other army’s from a design.
It’s one reason I am quite positive for these little changes now, hoping they will at least be looking at how to reign in some of those out of control design issues that previous design has dumb on them.
alextroy wrote: A negative could be a little as not getting a significant rule that the comparable Troops unit has.
If the job of a Tactical Squad is to hold ground against a threat, it needs a rule that improves their ability to do that. But Devastators job is to destroy the enemy. They don't get the rule that makes them better at holding ground. Right now, that rule is the lackluster Objective Secured. It needs to be more.
If Tactical Marines were always allowed to either Hold Steady or Set to Defend when charged, that is something more substantial that would make Devastators worst at holding ground than Tactical Marines.
Elite units like Sternguard wouldn't get the rule. Their job is to take ground, which is already represented by their improved stats and weapons.
Ideally, such rules would be carefully designed to make each army play according to their background. Infantry Squads hold ground, but mostly by not dying as easily as they should. Those shovels are not on their backpacks for combat, they are there to dig holes to hide their vulnerable bodies! Nobody knows how important taking cover is than IS. Special rule is Infantry Squads that don't move or that are in Cover get a +1 AS (above and beyond that granted by the Cover).
Wacky concept: TACs get a 6+++, that can be buffed into a 4+++ by an Apothecary, and a special rule that makes them harder to break from morale (let's call it "Obstinate") when on an objective. And give them an option to be at least mildly effective at holding an objective from a melee opponent and slightly better at shooting if they're just "standing still". If their job is "holding objectives", then make them good at it.
Totally not just stealing this idea from a rules set written by component rules writers.
alextroy wrote: A negative could be a little as not getting a significant rule that the comparable Troops unit has.
If the job of a Tactical Squad is to hold ground against a threat, it needs a rule that improves their ability to do that. But Devastators job is to destroy the enemy. They don't get the rule that makes them better at holding ground. Right now, that rule is the lackluster Objective Secured. It needs to be more.
If Tactical Marines were always allowed to either Hold Steady or Set to Defend when charged, that is something more substantial that would make Devastators worst at holding ground than Tactical Marines.
Elite units like Sternguard wouldn't get the rule. Their job is to take ground, which is already represented by their improved stats and weapons. Their role is to do everything Tactical Squads do, just with better weapons and better stats.
Except that's not true, and you've already said so yourself.
Sternguard Veterans, which are Tacticals with better Bolters and better stats
They were even started as Veteran Space Marine Squads in Codex Ultramarine, while Vanguard Veterans started as Veteran Space Marine Assault Squads for Blood Angels. They were invented as a way of further expanding on the First Company vs Deathwing which did not get a Power Armor'ed variant, and because the fluff of the entire UM First Company dying to a man while holding the polar ground in the Battle for Macragge. We also have stories of Blood Angel Devastators holding the wall of the Arx Angelicum against hordes of Nids. More recently we have one of my favorite pet peeves, the Veteran Intercessor squad.
Ideally, such rules would be carefully designed to make each army play according to their background. Infantry Squads hold ground, but mostly by not dying as easily as they should. Those shovels are not on their backpacks for combat, they are there to dig holes to hide their vulnerable bodies! Nobody knows how important taking cover is than IS. Special rule is Infantry Squads that don't move or that are in Cover get a +1 AS (above and beyond that granted by the Cover).
I get the feeling you're trying to DOW2 the squads here - Tacticals are the Warriors, Devastators are the Wizards, Scouts are the Rogues, Assaults are the Berserkers. And that's fine as far as it goes, but that's more about their focus than making Troops more viable. Troops (collectively) should be a jack of all/most trades. There should be few if any things you can't do with your Troops that you can with a non-troop, and those things should be part of or decided by your (sub)Faction's flavor. As made up examples: Drukhari as raiders could be more interested in speed and surprise than anti-tank warfare. Their troops (and army in general) may be weak (but not impotent) against tanks. I've heard tell that Mortarion didn't believe Infantry should be carrying around heavy weapons. His infantry (inlcuding the troops) might be weak at long range.
The issue when it comes to the jack-of-all-trades role for troops is that the primary Space Marine veteran-tiers are also jacks-of-all-trades, just in better or more concentrated form. Sternguard are Tacticals+, and Terminators are still rocking improved shooting and improved CC. So I don't think "role" has to be part of the focus for troops.
Instead I would look at cost and availability. The old FOC did a great job of this. You just couldn't have more than 3 Elite units, so you had to be spare with them. But people don't like limits, and they want to take their themed lists. So I would focus on cost, and just start applying taxes on non-troops as you take more of them, which I feel works better than making Troops cheaper the more you take of them, though I think it's effectively a purely psycological difference.
I dont think it is that difficult a thing, i merely have an amateur interest in game design but it seems to me the main barrier as alluded too is that a lot of people want armies with many troops, WD armies if you will. Whereas many others want no limits, no tax, warhammer libertarianism. And it is not a matter of casual/narrative/comp. Plus of course GW dont want anyone feeling limited in which models to purchase. Much harder to compromise between these two mindsets, i think they do try, swaying back and forth between editions but its rarely a satisfying answer.
Dai wrote: And it is not a matter of casual/narrative/comp.
Sometimes it is. The whole reason I picked up DA in addition to my UM was to make the Biker/Terminator double-wing army they put out in 5th? 6th? It was fluffy AND different than my UM.
Ideally the game would have suppression mechanics or reactions that are easier to do with Troops, or with troops being harder to suppress than others, or easier to activate or what not.
With what we got you either have to give them stratagem support which is... not bad as a concept but we've seen two editions of GW not really knowing how to handle stratagems and they're all over the place.
So the other way is working with objectives.
Sticky objectives is one thing.
Could also be an idea that troops can claim objectives at the end of their movement phase while other slots can only claim objectives at the start of your command phase. (Meaning non-troops have to survive the opponent's turn to claim objectives). I know this doesn't really align with how some of the current missions are written but I'm expecting these to change with 10th anyway
Insectum7 wrote: The issue when it comes to the jack-of-all-trades role for troops is that the primary Space Marine veteran-tiers are also jacks-of-all-trades, just in better or more concentrated form. Sternguard are Tacticals+, and Terminators are still rocking improved shooting and improved CC. So I don't think "role" has to be part of the focus for troops.
Instead I would look at cost and availability. The old FOC did a great job of this. You just couldn't have more than 3 Elite units, so you had to be spare with them. But people don't like limits, and they want to take their themed lists. So I would focus on cost, and just start applying taxes on non-troops as you take more of them, which I feel works better than making Troops cheaper the more you take of them, though I think it's effectively a purely psycological difference.
The main problem with a jack of all trades is that 40k has always rewarded specialists far more than generalists
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dai wrote: I dont think it is that difficult a thing, i merely have an amateur interest in game design but it seems to me the main barrier as alluded too is that a lot of people want armies with many troops, WD armies if you will. Whereas many others want no limits, no tax, warhammer libertarianism. And it is not a matter of casual/narrative/comp. Plus of course GW dont want anyone feeling limited in which models to purchase. Much harder to compromise between these two mindsets, i think they do try, swaying back and forth between editions but its rarely a satisfying answer.
Feelings probably vary depending on how diverse and good your troop roster is.
For my eldar, I don't want to be married to troops, eldar troops suck. For my custodes, it's not as big a deal, custodes troops are solid.
Dai wrote: And it is not a matter of casual/narrative/comp.
Sometimes it is. The whole reason I picked up DA in addition to my UM was to make the Biker/Terminator double-wing army they put out in 5th? 6th? It was fluffy AND different than my UM.
I think what Dai was meaning that the two army-building camps he described (want people to use troops vs. no limits) aren't cleanly split between the casual/narrative/competitive playing camps, if that makes sense.
Insectum7 wrote: The issue when it comes to the jack-of-all-trades role for troops is that the primary Space Marine veteran-tiers are also jacks-of-all-trades, just in better or more concentrated form. Sternguard are Tacticals+, and Terminators are still rocking improved shooting and improved CC. So I don't think "role" has to be part of the focus for troops.
Instead I would look at cost and availability. The old FOC did a great job of this. You just couldn't have more than 3 Elite units, so you had to be spare with them. But people don't like limits, and they want to take their themed lists. So I would focus on cost, and just start applying taxes on non-troops as you take more of them, which I feel works better than making Troops cheaper the more you take of them, though I think it's effectively a purely psycological difference.
The main problem with a jack of all trades is that 40k has always rewarded specialists far more than generalists.
That's a problem with the user. I've got 25 years of experience winning games with generalist Tacticals.
Depends on your local meta. Tournament lists tend to shy away from them. The most popular use they ever had were when people spammed LasPlas MSU, during Iron Hands reign or when they had to take them for free transports.
8th and 9th edition have been quite generous to generalist troops, since split fire went the way of the dodo.
Many times the top competitive choices were generalists in these 2 editions (say hello to deathspitter/bonesword warriors).
I'm in the field of "I like troops and I like competitive games". IMO the best way to appease both sides is to introduce a "Kill non-troops" secondary. This represents the fact that each loss inflicted on your army weights more than losing rank and file troops.
That is a good thing for factions that had very good troops or at least troops that are extremly cheap. Marine troops tend to be, both inefficient and over priced, so marine players tend to take minimum, because if they take more of them, their lists just don't work, when faced with much point efficient and deadly lists.
But yeah having a multi wound troop option, with super efficient range and melee options and build in defence mechanic , on top of other options being undercosted is awesome. Like the pre omen harlequin troops or when eldar scatter bikers were a thing, or when DE could take wrecks with MW spaming liquifires. With troops like that one sometimes could ask, why you need elite in the list at all.
In extrem cases we get the nurgle+tzeench lists of prior edition, where killing a tzeench demon, ment it splits in to two demons and at the same time, spawns a pox walker. Ton of armies couldn't even mechanicaly kill the army through the entire game. Or when IH and Salamanders had their PA books, when intercessors were not only good, but also ablative wounds for character dreandoughts.
Insectum7 wrote: The issue when it comes to the jack-of-all-trades role for troops is that the primary Space Marine veteran-tiers are also jacks-of-all-trades, just in better or more concentrated form. Sternguard are Tacticals+, and Terminators are still rocking improved shooting and improved CC. So I don't think "role" has to be part of the focus for troops.
Instead I would look at cost and availability. The old FOC did a great job of this. You just couldn't have more than 3 Elite units, so you had to be spare with them. But people don't like limits, and they want to take their themed lists. So I would focus on cost, and just start applying taxes on non-troops as you take more of them, which I feel works better than making Troops cheaper the more you take of them, though I think it's effectively a purely psycological difference.
OR you make the troop worth considering to begin with. Taxes wouldn't have made people from taking 5th Grey Hunters because you wanted Grey Hunters to begin with.
But then we enter the circular argument of, if GW made the game, armies, models, rules, etc good, then people would have problems with them, as there would be no bad options, no feels bad builds or even entire factions. IMO if an organisation can't do something for 3-4 decades, then one has to assume that the things which are considered out of ordinary. Are not that, they are actualy the norm. And it doesn't even matter, if the group of people do it on purpose or not. In the end what matters is that the end effect is the way it is.
And it doesn't take a genius to find those really bad options. I am sure everyone could just find a plathora of units or unit options, that may not exist, if game play is the focus, but super impactful, in a bad way, if someone picked the faction, army exactly for those options.
I mean what is an older player suppose to tell a new marine player who says, he likes the land raider models and he only picked marines, because the tank exists? Wait for next edition, play w30k, learn to love painting and paint LR, but never play with them? Those aren't that good options to pick from.
Karol wrote: But then we enter the circular argument of, if GW made the game, armies, models, rules, etc good, then people would have problems with them, as there would be no bad options, no feels bad builds or even entire factions. IMO if an organisation can't do something for 3-4 decades, then one has to assume that the things which are considered out of ordinary. Are not that, they are actualy the norm. And it doesn't even matter, if the group of people do it on purpose or not. In the end what matters is that the end effect is the way it is.
And it doesn't take a genius to find those really bad options. I am sure everyone could just find a plathora of units or unit options, that may not exist, if game play is the focus, but super impactful, in a bad way, if someone picked the faction, army exactly for those options.
I mean what is an older player suppose to tell a new marine player who says, he likes the land raider models and he only picked marines, because the tank exists? Wait for next edition, play w30k, learn to love painting and paint LR, but never play with them? Those aren't that good options to pick from.
Insectum7 wrote: The issue when it comes to the jack-of-all-trades role for troops is that the primary Space Marine veteran-tiers are also jacks-of-all-trades, just in better or more concentrated form. Sternguard are Tacticals+, and Terminators are still rocking improved shooting and improved CC. So I don't think "role" has to be part of the focus for troops.
Instead I would look at cost and availability. The old FOC did a great job of this. You just couldn't have more than 3 Elite units, so you had to be spare with them. But people don't like limits, and they want to take their themed lists. So I would focus on cost, and just start applying taxes on non-troops as you take more of them, which I feel works better than making Troops cheaper the more you take of them, though I think it's effectively a purely psycological difference.
OR you make the troop worth considering to begin with. Taxes wouldn't have made people from taking 5th Grey Hunters because you wanted Grey Hunters to begin with.
I think Troop units are already often worth taking. But making them more attractive can be dealt with on a case by case basis.
Much harder now that GWs going with the inane free-wargear route though.
Insectum7 wrote: The issue when it comes to the jack-of-all-trades role for troops is that the primary Space Marine veteran-tiers are also jacks-of-all-trades, just in better or more concentrated form. Sternguard are Tacticals+, and Terminators are still rocking improved shooting and improved CC. So I don't think "role" has to be part of the focus for troops.
Instead I would look at cost and availability. The old FOC did a great job of this. You just couldn't have more than 3 Elite units, so you had to be spare with them. But people don't like limits, and they want to take their themed lists. So I would focus on cost, and just start applying taxes on non-troops as you take more of them, which I feel works better than making Troops cheaper the more you take of them, though I think it's effectively a purely psycological difference.
OR you make the troop worth considering to begin with. Taxes wouldn't have made people from taking 5th Grey Hunters because you wanted Grey Hunters to begin with.
Perhaps part of the issue is that so many Elite/FA/HS units can be summed up as 'Troops but better'.
e.g.
Devastators are Tactical Marines that can take more heavy weapons.
Raptors are CSMsthat can fly.
Dominions are Sisters of Battle that can take more special weapons.
Given that 40k tends to heavily reward specialisation, there's rarely any reason to stick with a pile of bolters or similarly weak weapons when you could instead have extra plasmaguns, lascannons etc., and/or extra mobility options or the like.
I think there needs to be more of a trade-off when it comes to taking specialists over troops - especially as the availability constraints have basically been thrown out of the window entirely.
alextroy wrote: A negative could be a little as not getting a significant rule that the comparable Troops unit has.
If the job of a Tactical Squad is to hold ground against a threat, it needs a rule that improves their ability to do that. But Devastators job is to destroy the enemy. They don't get the rule that makes them better at holding ground. Right now, that rule is the lackluster Objective Secured. It needs to be more.
If Tactical Marines were always allowed to either Hold Steady or Set to Defend when charged, that is something more substantial that would make Devastators worst at holding ground than Tactical Marines.
Elite units like Sternguard wouldn't get the rule. Their job is to take ground, which is already represented by their improved stats and weapons.
Ideally, such rules would be carefully designed to make each army play according to their background. Infantry Squads hold ground, but mostly by not dying as easily as they should. Those shovels are not on their backpacks for combat, they are there to dig holes to hide their vulnerable bodies! Nobody knows how important taking cover is than IS. Special rule is Infantry Squads that don't move or that are in Cover get a +1 AS (above and beyond that granted by the Cover).
I get where you're coming from. However, I don't think this is the best way to go about it - especially as you start looking to troops outside of Space Marines. Put simply, I think troops really need rules that let them compete on the offensive front, as that's where they really tend to fall apart, compared to specialists.
(I know that suppression mechanics have been suggested, and I can get behind that, but for now I'm focussing on the mechanics 40k has currently.)
This relates, too, to the fact that small-arms in 40k have grown steadily more worthless. They weren't amazing in past editions (as you'd expect, really), but massed fire from bolters or the like was still effective against most infantry. Now, though, there are so many units with multiple wounds, good saves, FNP, bonuses to cover saves etc. that small-arms fire might as well be a light show in most cases.
This appears to have led more and more to the idea that troops should basically just exist as blobs of meat, whose only role is to sit on objectives and hope to still have some flesh left after the enemy guns have finished firing. Or to sit in front of other, more valuable units and be blended by enemy melee units in their place.
Karol wrote: But yeah having a multi wound troop option, with super efficient range and melee options and build in defence mechanic , on top of other options being undercosted is awesome. Like the pre omen harlequin troops or when eldar scatter bikers were a thing, or when DE could take wrecks with MW spaming liquifires.
There was never a point where Wracks could inflict Mortal Wounds with their liquifiers.
Also, I fail to see how either Wracks or Harlequins could be considered "multi wound troops", given that they have 1 wound apiece.
I mean what is an older player suppose to tell a new marine player who says, he likes the land raider models and he only picked marines, because the tank exists? Wait for next edition, play w30k, learn to love painting and paint LR, but never play with them? Those aren't that good options to pick from.
I'll congratulate him on his good taste in models and encourage him to play around with lists involving the thing until he finds a combo that he's happy with.
I'll never tell someone to wait or not to play something.
Spoletta wrote: I'm in the field of "I like troops and I like competitive games". IMO the best way to appease both sides is to introduce a "Kill non-troops" secondary. This represents the fact that each loss inflicted on your army weights more than losing rank and file troops.
Not sure anyone who matters reads these forums - but this is a genuinely good idea I've not previously read that could be easily implemented and might produce interesting results. Might need careful balancing so it wasn't a take in most circumstances - but I think it would be worth exploring.
Not so sure what to say on Vipoid's point above. Yes, an awful lot of elites/FA/HS are just "troops but better". But I'm not sure how else the game could work.
I mean what makes these units interesting is that they do more than the basic unit.
As said, the issue has always been "is it worth it?" - its very difficult to have a system where you want a mix. Rather than "troops are undercosted, spam them" or "Troops are meh/overcosted, take as few as you can get away with". We had periods in 8th where certain books had the troops be (for the points) better than their Elites/FA/HS and get obsec as well.
vipoid wrote: Perhaps part of the issue is that so many Elite/FA/HS units can be summed up as 'Troops but better'.
e.g.
Devastators are Tactical Marines that can take more heavy weapons.
Raptors are CSMsthat can fly.
Dominions are Sisters of Battle that can take more special weapons.
Given that 40k tends to heavily reward specialisation, there's rarely any reason to stick with a pile of bolters or similarly weak weapons when you could instead have extra plasmaguns, lascannons etc., and/or extra mobility options or the like.
I think there needs to be more of a trade-off when it comes to taking specialists over troops - especially as the availability constraints have basically been thrown out of the window entirely.
It's not an issue, it's solved by points. Whether Tactical Marines are specialists or generalists, their points have to be low enough relative to other units in the faction that you want to take them but not so low that they're the only thing you take in your list. There is one easy way to widen the balanced points range between undercosted enough that you take as few as possible (usually 0) and overcosted enough that you spam them (8 points maybe) and that's with Troops-only Stratagems, you might also be able to widen the range with Troops-only once per battle round targeted abilities or mission things like Troops only once per battle round actions. But it's not necessary either, Tacticals have topped events and were just about on par with Intercessors in the not do distant past, it's not an insurmountable obstacle. Constantly changing their rules will certainly make it harder.
Insectum7 wrote: I think Troop units are already often worth taking. But making them more attractive can be dealt with on a case by case basis.
Much harder now that GWs going with the inane free-wargear route though.
that feels like a "get you by" band aid solution to the basic issue, which in this case is codex creep meaning that the marines are underpowered compared to later releases. it appears that GW has a policy to not change the actual datasheets of a unit outside of a codex release, as I cant actually think of an example of them doing this, though am sure someone will come correct me on that if i am wrong.
Ergo, whatever it is you do to boost marines, its got to be something that doesn't change the physical stats of the units or their weapons. points cost, which were moved off the unit datasheets to a seperate index for more or less this reason, are the obvious choice, and so they made units cheaper by a mix of reducing costs and granting wargear for free.
Im sure when 10th rolls out, the new codex space marines will have costs for wargear agian.
GW have removed and added CORE from datasheets, that's just a keyword though.
Why would you assume removing points isn't a one-way street to PL town? Astra Militarum still get free wargear even though they got a new codex. There is no excuse for it, the only explanation is laziness and ineptitude.
vict0988 wrote: GW have removed and added CORE from datasheets, that's just a keyword though.
Why would you assume removing points isn't a one-way street to PL town? Astra Militarum still get free wargear even though they got a new codex. There is no excuse for it, the only explanation is laziness and ineptitude.
Meh they could have written:
"Imperial guard infantry squad, 9 models, 7 lasguns, 1 plasma gun, 1 lascannon, a power sword/fist in the sergeant and vox caster. Enjoy having a fixed loadout since the other guns were never used" yes it's lazy but don't forget that there have been multiple page discourses on the fact that missile launchers and grenade launchers essentially needn't exist atm. Catachans are dead in the eater because who wants flamers on guard bodies etc etc.
I've said it before and will again, sometimes a generic "heavy weapon" or "special weapon" that can be modelled however you like might be better for some units.
What was wrong with only troops scoring? That to me seemed the easiest best way to approach it.
Maybe they shouldn't have the raw power or statlines of specialists or the points efficiency or the weapon and gear access. But if troops are the only entry that can score then none of that matters, because they have a very unique value.
Players that don't wanna run troops still don't have to. But now its an actual disadvantage.
What I mean is maybe only troops should score the primary.
And there could be limited scoring outside of the primary, say for kills, but not nearly as easy as now. This would still allow a non troops army interaction with scoring if they can reduce enemy scoring and net some limited scores themselves.
But scoring would be a primary path to victory for troops centric armies where non troops it would be more a means to prevent a loss.
Insectum7 wrote: The issue when it comes to the jack-of-all-trades role for troops is that the primary Space Marine veteran-tiers are also jacks-of-all-trades, just in better or more concentrated form. Sternguard are Tacticals+, and Terminators are still rocking improved shooting and improved CC. So I don't think "role" has to be part of the focus for troops.
Instead I would look at cost and availability. The old FOC did a great job of this. You just couldn't have more than 3 Elite units, so you had to be spare with them. But people don't like limits, and they want to take their themed lists. So I would focus on cost, and just start applying taxes on non-troops as you take more of them, which I feel works better than making Troops cheaper the more you take of them, though I think it's effectively a purely psycological difference.
OR you make the troop worth considering to begin with. Taxes wouldn't have made people from taking 5th Grey Hunters because you wanted Grey Hunters to begin with.
Perhaps part of the issue is that so many Elite/FA/HS units can be summed up as 'Troops but better'.
e.g.
Devastators are Tactical Marines that can take more heavy weapons.
Raptors are CSMsthat can fly.
Dominions are Sisters of Battle that can take more special weapons.
Given that 40k tends to heavily reward specialisation, there's rarely any reason to stick with a pile of bolters or similarly weak weapons when you could instead have extra plasmaguns, lascannons etc., and/or extra mobility options or the like.
I think there needs to be more of a trade-off when it comes to taking specialists over troops - especially as the availability constraints have basically been thrown out of the window entirely.
And some of those are easily fixed. For example, most people would argue that CSMs should have Chainswords standard. Now you're trading off Bolter shots (as middling as they are) for a Jump Pack and FEAR MECHANICS.
Some units are literally just there because they're cheap for the faction to field in the lore.
dominuschao wrote: What was wrong with only troops scoring? That to me seemed the easiest best way to approach it.
Players that don't wanna run troops will have to.
Maybe they shouldn't have the raw power or statlines of specialists...
The Troops battlefield role isn't determined by whether the unit is specialists, it's determined by what units are relatively common within the faction. Is a deep-striking unit armed with power weapons not a specialist unit? Is a unit armed with lasguns and flakk armour specialists?
What I mean is maybe only troops should score the primary.
You're mistaken if you think you can win without the primary.
Karol wrote: That is a good thing for factions that had very good troops or at least troops that are extremly cheap. Marine troops tend to be, both inefficient and over priced, so marine players tend to take minimum, because if they take more of them, their lists just don't work, when faced with much point efficient and deadly lists.
No that doesn't work with Marines because their "specialists" are much more versatile. Would you rather have 1 Lascannon, or 5 Power fists +1T/5++ and +1W? 1-2 Krak Grenades or 5 Powerfists,etc.? 5 Rapidfie 1 bolter-ishes or 5 nearly a bolter pistols, 5 MC Power Swords, and 5 Stormshields?
But yeah having a multi wound troop option, with super efficient range and melee options and build in defence mechanic , on top of other options being undercosted is awesome. Like the pre omen harlequin troops or when eldar scatter bikers were a thing, or when DE could take wrecks with MW spaming liquifires. With troops like that one sometimes could ask, why you need elite in the list at all.
Because the goal is to make Elites supplement not replace your Troops(usually- DW/RW/etc lists aside). The Troops should be able to do it, but slower - and potentially not quite fast enough.
In extrem cases we get the nurgle+tzeench lists of prior edition, where killing a tzeench demon, ment it splits in to two demons and at the same time, spawns a pox walker. Ton of armies couldn't even mechanicaly kill the army through the entire game. Or when IH and Salamanders had their PA books, when intercessors were not only good, but also ablative wounds for character dreandoughts.
Troops need to be GOOD at everything, Elites/FA/HS need to be GREAT at something without displacing Troops (except when they're supposed to (DW/RW/Wild Riders, etc)
vict0988 wrote: GW have removed and added CORE from datasheets, that's just a keyword though.
Why would you assume removing points isn't a one-way street to PL town? Astra Militarum still get free wargear even though they got a new codex. There is no excuse for it, the only explanation is laziness and ineptitude.
Meh they could have written:
"Imperial guard infantry squad, 9 models, 7 lasguns, 1 plasma gun, 1 lascannon, a power sword/fist in the sergeant and vox caster. Enjoy having a fixed loadout since the other guns were never used" yes it's lazy but don't forget that there have been multiple page discourses on the fact that missile launchers and grenade launchers essentially needn't exist atm. Catachans are dead in the eater because who wants flamers on guard bodies etc etc.
I've said it before and will again, sometimes a generic "heavy weapon" or "special weapon" that can be modelled however you like might be better for some units.
For This Edition. Each edition has their own "flavor of the month" when it comes to elements (Flamer/Plasma/Melta/Grav)- and it appears to frequently coincide with new releases. Hellblasters released when Plasma was FOTM. People spammed Plasma, and said something so GW had cover to buff Melta which became FOTM as, coincidentally, Eradicators released.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dominuschao wrote: What was wrong with only troops scoring? That to me seemed the easiest best way to approach it.
Maybe they shouldn't have the raw power or statlines of specialists or the points efficiency or the weapon and gear access. But if troops are the only entry that can score then none of that matters, because they have a very unique value.
Except some armies have troops that are not TROOPS. Now, I'm all for the shenanigans they used to do such as "When your Det is all Deathwing, Deathwing are Troops not Elites.". Except when you merge it with SM Troops Sticky Cap and Ravenwing Bikes are Troops turning the game into Teleport Motocross 40K.
Players that don't wanna run troops still don't have to. But now its an actual disadvantage.
And still nobody can explain to me why a Terminator Squad that spent hundreds of years securing objectives as a Tactical Marine has suddenly forgotten how. Or an even bigger trip and fall - the Veteran Intercessors. They're sooo good at being Troops units, they're now... not Troops units and can't secure objectives? Neither Fluff nor Rules (aside from arbitrary ones that rely heavily on "Because I said so.") can explain that.
What I mean is maybe only troops should score the primary.
And there could be limited scoring outside of the primary, say for kills, but not nearly as easy as now. This would still allow a non troops army interaction with scoring if they can reduce enemy scoring and net some limited scores themselves.
But scoring would be a primary path to victory for troops centric armies where non troops it would be more a means to prevent a loss.
And it fails because it's still an exterior/artificial/regulatory issue. What I mean is- it wasn't my idea, it doesn't really fit, and its taking away my options not giving me more. None of the three are popular with players, and it has all three. I'll say it again, as long as Troops are considered a tax, players will still bristle at being forced into them. Whether it's a tax for CP in the Loyal 32, or a tax to open E/FA/HS slots, or a tax to score. As long as "we" have to take them to get something else we want, instead of because we think they're good in their own right, they will be a tax.
I mean what is an older player suppose to tell a new marine player who says, he likes the land raider models and he only picked marines, because the tank exists? Wait for next edition, play w30k, learn to love painting and paint LR, but never play with them? Those aren't that good options to pick from.
I'll congratulate him on his good taste in models and encourage him to play around with lists involving the thing until he finds a combo that he's happy with.
I'll never tell someone to wait or not to play something.
I'd tell him they're in for a rough stretch, the Land Raider has improved immensely from where it was two years ago, and things in 40K are cyclical meaning they will eventually be Top Dog again, but probably not soon. I would suggest using them as tanks not as transports, and using more than one. I'd ask if they'd heard of Sgt Chronus. I'd suggest there are three data sheets providing a potential of 9 Land Raider models - but more likely in 2,000 points you're looking at 6 with 6 ~100 point squads in them to hop out and sticky cap, Chronus, and maybe another HQ and they might find some success doing that. Especially if they've FAQ'ed Assault Vehicle onto LandRaiders. Alternately a couple-Few Land Raiders, Predators, Speeders, and Whirlwinds might make for a decent Spear of Macragge style list that will have difficulty scoring but might be skew enough to kill first, score second.
Dai wrote: I think people tend to forget there are a lot of crap players out there. If someone came at me with an all "bad unit" list id likely still lose
Insectum7 wrote: The issue when it comes to the jack-of-all-trades role for troops is that the primary Space Marine veteran-tiers are also jacks-of-all-trades, just in better or more concentrated form. Sternguard are Tacticals+, and Terminators are still rocking improved shooting and improved CC. So I don't think "role" has to be part of the focus for troops.
Instead I would look at cost and availability. The old FOC did a great job of this. You just couldn't have more than 3 Elite units, so you had to be spare with them. But people don't like limits, and they want to take their themed lists. So I would focus on cost, and just start applying taxes on non-troops as you take more of them, which I feel works better than making Troops cheaper the more you take of them, though I think it's effectively a purely psycological difference.
The main problem with a jack of all trades is that 40k has always rewarded specialists far more than generalists.
That's a problem with the user. I've got 25 years of experience winning games with generalist Tacticals.
floating in an increasingly filthy bucket of water. Dump the whole thing out and consider it a lesson in what not to do with a game.
