Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It seems lately that troop percentages are getting smaller and smaller.  I personally try to keep my points on troops around 30-40% of my total list.  I have noticed lately that some lists only include 100-200pts total of troops in a 1500-1750 game.  Seems kind of funny to see a MC list with two min 6stealer squads  under 200pts  and the rest MC's as a example.  Looks like a trend is starting along these same lines with quite a number of lists. Or is it just me.

It's just you.

People have been making the exact same comment for at least 15 years now.

Some lists have lots of troops, some don't. It varies based on what armies and strategies are in vogue in a given month.

It's not a trend, just something that comes and goes.

GW says comp? whats comp? lets not worry about what armies should realistically look like, field your best lets see the juice flow. Plus some armies have shiat for troops and all the rest of their stuff is much much better.

On the other end of the spectrum, there are those who play massive swarm armies, being equally just as bad to play against, if not worse.

I really would not worry about percentages anymore. The days of RTT's 40% min of total list spent on troops is over. If its legal to field, its legal to play.
Everything else is a subjective view of cheese and beard.

Competitivly, if you cant hack what put on the table in front of you, then you need to rething what you put in your army, or what tactics you use as well.

In the friendly environment, its pretty simple to get together and discusss what is kosher and what is not.

Yeah, it really varies from army to army. I generally use four of my troops choices in the force org chart. My Imperial Guard buddy never fields more than two.

It varies by the army, really. I only use two troops choices max with my IG, but I'm sinking a good chunk of points in with them. In my Daemonhunters army, I may more may not put a lot of points into troops...it depends a lot on whether I'm taking inducted guard or not.

In my night lords, I've never used more than 2 troops. But I also sink 700-900 points into fast attack, since Night Lords are a fast attack army.

B

My guard army fields two troop choices. Combined, they come out to 1050 points.

My Lysanderwing has 2 which come out to ~200.

Both are extremes in terms of points put into troops.

Both are competetive.

Therefore, troop % does not correlate to successfulness of a list. Hell, look at podders! That list could run almost exclusively on troops!

Q.E.D.

cheers

my smallest has been around 500/1500 which I considered small

Hey all,

Theres no comparing armies in this case. In my Word Bearers Daemonbomb lists I field at least 6 troops choices in 1500 points at +/- 750 points, and it pays. When you have bloodletters and Daemonettes as troops it's no penalty to take troops, besides, a lot of Daemons makes the bomb more effective. I'm also starting Godzilla however and they at the moment have 100 points in troops at 1500 and 300 at 1700.

It depends on the list, when I where to do Eldar for expample, I would take only the two minimal Bike squads with spearlock and take Falcons for my points. In Dark Eldar it pays to have a lot of mounted Dark Eldar in raiders. In Tau theres really only the Suits and the Fishy tanks. Each army differs. Necron have a great way of forcing you to take troops and still be good; other armies do not.

Take what you will, but at least bring a well thought trough list.

Cilithan out... 

Posted By Centurian99 on 02/09/2007 6:46 PM
In my night lords, I've never used more than 2 troops. But I also sink 700-900 points into fast attack, since Night Lords are a fast attack army.

This isn't totally related to the topic, but do you really think that Night Lords are a Fast Attack army? I would've thought that with Stealth Adept, and especially in CityFight, Night Lords would make an excellent shooty army. +1 to Cover Saves ain't that much use on fast-moving HTH units. On shooty units on the other hand...

I mean, yeah, they can get a 4th FA slot, but that doesn't make them an FA army.

BYE

As far as % of points in Troops goes, I don't think it matters - the type of army your fielding dictates the % spent, and I don't think any restrictions or requirements should ever be put in place. I usually only take two troops choices in my Guard army, but they often come to more points than my typical 6 troops choice chaos armies. My 'Nids can take 6 troops and cost less points than a couple of troops choices in my Marine army.

Plus, any sort of restriction that forces you to spend a % of your points on troops can also be bad for an army. Think of Tau. Think if you had to spend, say, 50% of your points on troops. 6 12-man Firewarrior units is 720 points. That's 38.9% of an 1850 list, so you'd have to spend more on Transports and other things that you may not want. Even buying 3 Devilfish only just gets you to 51%.

The % of any type of choice should be dictated by the army you are taking, not an arbitarily added limitations or requirements.

If I'm taking a Terminator heavy Marine army, loaded to the gills with Termy Command and regular Termy squads, then why should I have to spend a certain % of my points on troops first on top of my already-compulsory 2 choices?

BYE

Percentages haven't been an issue where I play for years now. IIRC, this stemmed from older RTT's in early 3rd edition that included 40% minimums for Troop selections or you took a hit on army comp.

Personally, I'm glad these kinds of things are gone. Let people build the army that is fun for them. I haven't had a lot of experiences where people hated playing against certain armies, rather the individual they did not like playing against.

Heck, I'm running a Lost and the Damned list that (at 1850) has 70% troops.   It's a swarm army, but I don't consider it to be "more fair and balanced" than an Eldar army with 20% troops.

Posted By Lemartes on 02/09/2007 2:36 PM
It seems lately that troop percentages are getting smaller and smaller.  I personally try to keep my points on troops around 30-40% of my total list.  I have noticed lately that some lists only include 100-200pts total of troops in a 1500-1750 game.  Seems kind of funny to see a MC list with two min 6stealer squads  under 200pts  and the rest MC's as a example.  Looks like a trend is starting along these same lines with quite a number of lists. Or is it just me.

it doesn't matter how much of thier army is troops as long as they meet the mimimum requirments.

you make up your list to play the way you want it to and other people write up thier lists thier way. thats the joy of diversity in 40K.

I'd say the issue is a little more sophisticated than the old 40% minimum standard, or the currently fashionable "it doesn't matter" stance.

Troops are, in theory, the backbone of most armies. The bulk. Specialized formations certainly exist which concentrate their resources elsewhere, but I find that these designs lose their novelty and interest when they become more common than lists which actually use Troops in quantity. The "two minimum squads of bikes and max Falcons" list we see all over the net right now is a prime example. It looks lame, and it completely neglects the units which are supposed to be the Eldar army's mainstays. Is an all-24" moving army a cool concept, into which jetbikes as your Troops and multiple Falcons could fit? Sure. But it's certainly not the only way to play the army, and if it's the only list you ever see at a tournament, it just becomes tiresome.

IMO most armies both look better and play more enjoyably when they have lots of Troops, supplemented by other elements from the Force Org chart. In practice, I design tournament and general play lists to have 4-6 Troops selections; percentages vary, but I'm not taking all minimum squad sizes. I occasionally do something different as a change of pace, but that's the intent; it's a change of pace. Note that I still build armies with the intent to win games and have a competitive chance against the tough lists. I'm usually in contention to win any given tournament I enter. I'm also not going to whine if I get matched up against 3 Falcons or 9 Oblits. But neither am I particularly impressed with the person who chooses to field either.

Making a "fair and balanced" army will always be a subjective process. Different players and groups have different standards. Varying factors in local play environments, from different representation of various armies and levels of player skill, right down to scenarios and terrain, will affect the balance of how well different lists work. But just because standards vary or current tournament scoring doesn't include comp doesn't mean that the whole concept of making a "fair and balanced" army needs to go out the window. There is no one set mathematical formula to making one. But IME starting with a bunch of Troops is still about the most universal way to make clear to your opponents that you care what your army looks and "feels" like, not just how many games it wins.

Because of the diversity of armies the old standby of lots of troops just doesn't work in some lists. I would gladly take 40% or 4-6 troop selections from Marines, but I wouldn't want that in Tau, Necrons or Guard. All troop selections are not the same and can not be judged equally. Just adjust the victory conditions of the battle if you want more 'bodies'. Instead of VP's make it an objective where the most models within 6" of the objective wins. More tournament missions change to things like that and the lists will change accordingly.

I guess I should have clarified it seems that the latest codices are making it more and more favorable to take less troop options. (Nid, Tau, and Eldar). It's a given that a Meq force is going to take more troop options. after all it's hard to beat a 3+ save. Lately all I see are Tau and Eldar airforces with as little troops as possible. Then thiers the O'shovah list along with MC lists. I am not complaining just pointing out how strange it seems that thier are no troops in armies that I am starting to see more of.

I just finished writing up my 1000 pt guard list where I had 609 pts. of troops... I love fielding troops, and with my weak little guardsmen, the more I field the better. I always steer clear from Stormtroopers and they like mainly due to $$$, but also overall effectiveness in game.

I field some Stormtroopers because I love the models. Of course I have a big solid core of infantry. They IG army has enough bodies that you can indulge in luxuries and fun units like Stormtroopers and Comissars if you want.

Posted By H.B.M.C. on 02/10/2007 6:16 AM

Posted By Centurian99 on 02/09/2007 6:46 PM
In my night lords, I've never used more than 2 troops. But I also sink 700-900 points into fast attack, since Night Lords are a fast attack army.

This isn't totally related to the topic, but do you really think that Night Lords are a Fast Attack army? I would've thought that with Stealth Adept, and especially in CityFight, Night Lords would make an excellent shooty army. +1 to Cover Saves ain't that much use on fast-moving HTH units. On shooty units on the other hand...

I mean, yeah, they can get a 4th FA slot, but that doesn't make them an FA army.

BYE

 

Of course I do.  extra fast attack, multiple raptors, and the only daemons they can take are furies.  What's not fast about that?

Seriously, though, there's nothing preventing you from playing them as a stand and shoot firepower army.  I've also considered doing a combination of the two...taking 4 squads of furies to serve as my counter-assault for lots and lots of stealthed shootiness.

In my unfinished Night Lords Tactica, (one of these days...) I realized that there are really four things that set the Night Lords apart from any other CSM Legion.

1. Nightvision...woo hoo.  Hold me back, I'm so excited. 
2. Stealth Adept
3. Multiple Raptors
4. 4 Fast Attack

Since nightvision is pretty much a non-issue, I like to focus on the other three.  Nothing, however, says you have to do so. 

My only problem with stealth adept is that it makes you extremely static, and a canny opponent can thus predict exactly how you're going to deploy and play.  Not my style. 

Some troops are far better than others. I have no problem fielding over 50% troops with marines or chaos.

Eldar on the other hand, I my current 1850 list is running at about 30%, and I still feel like it would be more effective to spend some of those points elsewhere.

My Templars list consists of two Troops choices. Granted, each are large squads (15-man squad with attached Master of Sanctity and 3 Cenobyte Servitors and a 20-man squad), and total up to 520 pts, excluding the Chaplain and servitors, but this still only accounts for slightly more than 20% of my overall list. I've tried to gear the remaining infantry units to seem like regular Crusader squads with slight differences (duh), like my 8-man Furious Charge Swrod Brethren Squad, along with my 10-man Command Squad with my attached Marshal.

My Guard List consists of 3 Troops choices. One of the three is a 368 point Infantry Platoon, while the remaining two slots are taken up by 100 point 8-man Storm Trooper squads as Grenadiers. These 570-odd points account for just less than 50% of my overall composition, while the remaining points are invested in specialized troops, like my Deep Striking Meltagun squads, or my Autocannon support squad, and even the PHQ and CHQ that represent multi-role fire support.

In short, the Troops selections in an army are not necessarily the core of an army, although one would think that they should be if they're going to be slotted as such. Consider the fact that the FOC allows for up to a 1:2 ratio between Elite and Standard units, whereas in most real armies that ratio could be anywhere from 1:10 to 1:50. This is another example of a rejected reality substituted with a representational force.

CK