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.

Not Online!!! wrote:
a digging in mechanic would be interesting...

If troops can dig in why not other infantry units such as Devastators? It makes as much sense that a heavy weapons unit would dig in as it does for troops to dig in at an objective.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
a digging in mechanic would be interesting...

If troops can dig in why not other infantry units such as Devastators? It makes as much sense that a heavy weapons unit would dig in as it does for troops to dig in at an objective.

Because it defeats the objective. Of course, it makes sense from a fluff perspective. But it probably puts us back in a place where people take three MSU cultist units so they can spend their points on havocs. I'd much rather see army compositions with lots of CSM units

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
a digging in mechanic would be interesting...

If troops can dig in why not other infantry units such as Devastators? It makes as much sense that a heavy weapons unit would dig in as it does for troops to dig in at an objective.

difference between shock troops like marines that also happen to have the armor to pull their duty off and the puny little guardsmen/ cultist/ guardian praying to whatever entity to survive...
should also probably be terrain dependant... digging in the midst of a highway isn't going to happen in a timely enough manner.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Snake Tortoise wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
a digging in mechanic would be interesting...

If troops can dig in why not other infantry units such as Devastators? It makes as much sense that a heavy weapons unit would dig in as it does for troops to dig in at an objective.

Because it defeats the objective. Of course, it makes sense from a fluff perspective. But it probably puts us back in a place where people take three MSU cultist units so they can spend their points on havocs. I'd much rather see army compositions with lots of CSM units

as if you'd see cultists in their state ATM...
and secondly what's wrong with that, neither GW nor players should dictate how you run your army via a ruleset and internal balance, else you end up preciscly with 1-3 valid playstyles for a faction and you better start hoping that it is your style that works with that.

 Snake Tortoise wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
a digging in mechanic would be interesting...

If troops can dig in why not other infantry units such as Devastators? It makes as much sense that a heavy weapons unit would dig in as it does for troops to dig in at an objective.

Because it defeats the objective. Of course, it makes sense from a fluff perspective. But it probably puts us back in a place where people take three MSU cultist units so they can spend their points on havocs. I'd much rather see army compositions with lots of CSM units

The game needs a level of verisimilitude otherwise it may as well go to a fully abstract set of rules with no connection to reality. Hence if one infantry unit can dig in, another similar unit must be able to do the same.

The real solution is to give all units something they could do but that they probably don't want to take an action to do. An example might be taking a 'useless' action to allow another unit to do something that turn. You could do it with any unit but it would be best to do it with a unit that gives up little to do it in the first place.

a <troop> keyword that can then be tied to nifty strats seems like a decent idea and one suited to GW's current design paradyme

Take <actions> and be able to act normally comes to my mind.

Doubles down on troops being better at scoring (read: succeeding at the mission), while other units are better at killing.

You can do all kinds of things with this. Say troops count in light cover while around a mission objective, to show that they are fortifying the position.

Digging in: Unit can not move / shoot for a turn, add +1 to their SV so long it remains stationary. / alternatively gain light / heavy cover?

Probably best to reimplement a cover save? light / heavy cover 5/ 4+
Also, in order to make it for heavy infantry enticing to also use cover it could ignore 1 pip of AP?
Blast and flame weapons aswell as grenades could ignore cover saves aswell.

Simple, effective, lowering lethalty quite a bit.

I remember suggesting exactly such a "dig in" mechanic as an option for infantry...going all the way back to at least 5E? Maybe in 4E? GW never seems to want to offer alternative unit actions other than move/shoot/charge however

 Vaktathi wrote:
I remember suggesting exactly such a "dig in" mechanic as an option for infantry...going all the way back to at least 5E? Maybe in 4E? GW never seems to want to offer alternative unit actions other than move/shoot/charge however

Honestly, alot of such mechanics would be amazing.

Assuming further GW would've implemented a general usefull cover system and the weapons to counter that we would've had alot less issues with lethality..

yukishiro1 wrote:
Ideally, troops should just be the most efficient choice points-wise. You should want to take them because they're just all-around good. Non-troops can then be something you take because you need the specific thing they can do, but that are less efficient overall and therefore not something you take unless you really want that specific thing.

Unfortunately, GW doesn't like that approach for some reason, I guess because they'd rather sell you more expensive specialist models. So instead they are stuck taxing you into taking them in one way or another, whether through the mission or through a detachment system.

I love my troops, as I said earlier, but really I can't understand this hard on many people has about troops, or maybe is that you just dislike specialists and more interesting and "rare" stuff? 40k fluff allows for all kind of armies in the scale we see on the table. Having 50 terminators on a single battle is perfectly justificable, just like having a full armored imperial guard company, etc...

Right now, the army building structure is very good. Troop heavy armies have more CP, specialized ones have less without the extremes in 8th with ravenwing and deathwing armies with 4CP and troop heavy ones with 20CP. And before 9th price hikes, most troops in the game were quite capable on their own terms with some exceptions. Right now, less so. But this talk about making units being basically everything about the game and the specialist being basically ignorable is like going to a Icecream shop and asking for 50% flavours to be replaced by vanilla because it was the foundation and is tradition that it should be the more popular and sold. And, again, I say this as a guy with 70 firewarriors and 50 kroots.

We are playing Scifi and Fantasy guys. People wants to see, to buy, AND to use the special stuff, the knights riding lizards, the giant robots, the laser shooting tanks and mechas, the ogres and the trolls and the mutated birdmen. And theres also a place for the normal joes but if you really really don't like the special stuff or believe their place in the game should be marginal probably scifi and fantasy is not the genre you would be more comfortable with. And this doesnt mean I don't believe theres more place to add tactical depth and uses for troops in 40k. I believe it is really it, and better morale , supression rules, combat rules for supporting etc... I would very much like them.

except troop heavy armies DON'T have more CPs.

If I take 6 10 man intercessor squads and you take a 3 5 woman SOB squads, we're both (presumably) building battalions and have the same number of CPs, despite my having twice as many squads as you, and likely a much greater percentage of points. I mean not a big deal, but I don't consider "3 bare bones squads" partiuclarly troop heavy

I'm telling you guys, the way to fix this problem (like most of the problems in 40k) is to rewite the game from the ground up and actually give it some depth.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I'm telling you guys, the way to fix this problem (like most of the problems in 40k) is to rewite the game from the ground up and actually give it some depth.

aye, maybee even bring in USR's this time propperly.And combat modifiers (surperssion, morale, shock, etc.)

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I'm telling you guys, the way to fix this problem (like most of the problems in 40k) is to rewite the game from the ground up and actually give it some depth.

aye, maybee even bring in USR's this time propperly.And combat modifiers (surperssion, morale, shock, etc.)

Indeed. The combat modifiers thing would absolutely help the utility of troops - having cheap bodies capable of suppression is immensely useful. Especially if there's a rule saying you have to be able to hurt the target to suppress it - then, taking troops choices with a mix of capabilities (e.g. tactical squad with lascannon & flamer) could contribute to suppressing multiple unit types (e.g. a unit in cover with the flamer, a regular unit with bolters, and a tank with the lascannon). This effect would allow for the specialists to maneuver against the target, or for said tactical marines to advance against the target, or even just to enhance survivability by degrading the enemy assets...

and that's literally just considering suppression.

40k desperately needs more mechanics for shooting than just "kill stuff".

Most of the bullets fired in combat are to suppress the enemy and allow for either a support element (artillery, airstrike) to take them out or to create a situation which allows for a flanking manoeuvre (the 4 Fs: Find, Fix, Flank, Finish).

Adding a suppression mechanic also allows for more room in designing rules for weapons as you can make certain weapons better at suppression. Perfect example is the Heavy Bolter/Assault Cannon/Autocannon issue, where your design space in pure killing power is so limited that one of these three will almost always infringe on the intended use of at least one of the others. Like the buff for heavy bolters make them a superior choice to the Autocannon for a such a huge number of targets that you've effectively invalidated that option as a real choice.

If instead of them making the Heavy Bolter deadlier they made it more efficient at suppression, then it would have a niche separate from raw killing power.

Make troops jack of all trades, masters of none? Make specialized units only able to fill the role they specialize for?

To take an example that everyone is familiar with :

Make tac marines a shooty+melee unit with 2 basic attack in cc (and remove angels of death pls)
Make Agressors a purely shooty unit with 1 basic attack in cc
Make Assault marins a purely melee unit with 3 attacks in melee.

So troops would be allowed to be "alright" at multiple roles but specialized units would excel in these roles.

Dandelion wrote:
Just to throw my two cents in. I believe a decent way to incentivize troops (i.e. mainly light infantry) would be to make them hard to shift while in cover. In other words they are super durable per point while hunkered down or just while weaving through terrain. This could allow them to better contest objectives or hold flanks without getting instantly nuked. It also doesn’t require a lot of killyness.

The frustrating thing for me is that the old cover system did exactly this: it made light infantry in cover significantly more difficult to kill, while heavy infantry only needed it to protect against heavy weapons.

Now it's reversed. Heavy infantry get more benefit from cover than light infantry; in some matchups (eg Cultists vs Intercessors) there's no point in taking cover since you never get a save either way.

 catbarf wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
Just to throw my two cents in. I believe a decent way to incentivize troops (i.e. mainly light infantry) would be to make them hard to shift while in cover. In other words they are super durable per point while hunkered down or just while weaving through terrain. This could allow them to better contest objectives or hold flanks without getting instantly nuked. It also doesn’t require a lot of killyness.

The frustrating thing for me is that the old cover system did exactly this: it made light infantry in cover significantly more difficult to kill, while heavy infantry only needed it to protect against heavy weapons.

Now it's reversed. Heavy infantry get more benefit from cover than light infantry; in some matchups (eg Cultists vs Intercessors) there's no point in taking cover since you never get a save either way.

Which amuses me to no end, the mighty shock trooper hugging their corners instead of the rabble and common footsoliders.
Then again it was allways said the true balls of adamantium you find on the guard

 catbarf wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
Just to throw my two cents in. I believe a decent way to incentivize troops (i.e. mainly light infantry) would be to make them hard to shift while in cover. In other words they are super durable per point while hunkered down or just while weaving through terrain. This could allow them to better contest objectives or hold flanks without getting instantly nuked. It also doesn’t require a lot of killyness.

The frustrating thing for me is that the old cover system did exactly this: it made light infantry in cover significantly more difficult to kill, while heavy infantry only needed it to protect against heavy weapons.

Now it's reversed. Heavy infantry get more benefit from cover than light infantry; in some matchups (eg Cultists vs Intercessors) there's no point in taking cover since you never get a save either way.

Exactly, this is why the new cover rules are terrible.

The worst part is that not only do the current cover rules screw over most troops (Space Marines the exceptions because of course they are) and other light-infantry, they also make most basic guns utter crap against units in cover. So the basic troops of most non-SM armies get hit twice in that the cover rules give them less protection in general, whilst also giving other units more protection from their basic weapons.

BrianDavion wrote:except troop heavy armies DON'T have more CPs.

True. A discount on CPs based on the number of Troops you took could be useful, say, for every 2-3 Troop units you take, the CP cost is reduced by 1 instead of making them required.

catbarf wrote:The frustrating thing for me is that the old cover system did exactly this: it made light infantry in cover significantly more difficult to kill, while heavy infantry only needed it to protect against heavy weapons.

Now it's reversed. Heavy infantry get more benefit from cover than light infantry; in some matchups (eg Cultists vs Intercessors) there's no point in taking cover since you never get a save either way.

Indeed. Now if it had a cap, say, couldn't improve past a 3+ Armor Save, that could still work. Tau would only need light cover while units like Guardians and Guardsmen would seek heavy cover, and Marines not in Scout armor would go free willy.

From there:

Not Online!!! wrote:Digging in: Unit can not move / shoot for a turn, add +1 to their SV so long it remains stationary. / alternatively gain light / heavy cover?

Or one of two options: If the unit has not moved for this turn, it improves its cover by one stage (none to light to heavy); OR it improves its rate of fire or Attacks by 1 (kind of like old-school Counter-Attack). Only provided to Troop units.

Of course this would only be a Stratagem in a starved economy.

Troops are bad because the system is bad. Even if troops could be fixed in the current edition, something else would get broken by that fix.40k needs a full rewrite to stop going in circles.

Giving troops bonuses won't work. Why can't my DR dig-in, too? Why does a guardsman get extra benefit from cover, but not the the heavy weapon team behind the wall? This is the 9th edition of GW's "glue a special rule onto it" problem-solving.

More restrictive army building. Whether by requiring troops for every X non-troop units, or the percentages from fantasy. A game can't be balanced, or tactical, if players can bring most, or all of there toys in one list.

A suppression system that even marines are subject to. Something like increasing the chance to fail an activation check, and penalties.

Firing arcs. I know a lot of people like to call this "fiddly" or "too complicated," but requiring targets to be within the firer's front arc, and imposing an evasion penalty, stripping cover etc., when attacked from behind adds tactical depth and allows troops to contribute more without just making their weapons better or tacking on a special rule. Troops should be the primary fighters, with the specialists supporting them, not the other way around. Also makes maneuver a thing.

Alternating activations. Create different actions unit can take on their turn, like suppressive fire. Give stuff like vipers, stormboyz, etc. a Hit-and-run USR that lets them double move right over a unit while making attacks. There are so many possibilities outside of GW's narrow "move, shoot, charge" turn concept.

The core detachment refunding CP + obsec + battle actions being best performed by troops who give up less to perform them is already more than enough incentive to take troops.

I really don't think this is a problem.

Caveat: I don't play tournaments, or care about meta, nor do I play regularly with anyone who does. That's probably why I see far fewer problems with the game than the average Dakkanaught.

PenitentJake wrote:
Caveat: I don't play tournaments, or care about meta, nor do I play regularly with anyone who does. That's probably why I see far fewer problems with the game than the average Dakkanaught.

It also means you have a fundamentally less complete assessment of the game than those who do.

Hecaton wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
Caveat: I don't play tournaments, or care about meta, nor do I play regularly with anyone who does. That's probably why I see far fewer problems with the game than the average Dakkanaught.

It also means you have a fundamentally less complete assessment of the game than those who do.

I suppose that's fair. Playing tournaments and random strangers in stores would broaden my perspective.

But conversely, I would not agree that someone who ONLY plays tournaments and random strangers in stores has any broader a perspective than someone who is a hardcore garage hammer Crusade player. Not implying that you don't play Crusade regularly with close friends and family- you might do both. Knowing any one way to play well is not better than knowing any other one way to play well.

The one with the most complete understanding of the game is obviously the one who has experienced the greatest number of ways of playing. The uber gamer is the one who can say they regularly play Open, Narrative, and Matched against both friends at home and strangers in stores or tournaments, who can also say they've done so against every army with every army in all six variants. To go further, which admittedly isn't relevant to the current game, the ultimate expert would also play Kill Team and Apocalypse, as well as BSF, Titanicus, and Aeronautica and Necromunda; they would also have to be able to say they've played every edition of the game and read every Black Library book.

And I wouldn't be surprised to find there was at least one GW Yoda who could say they'd done all that. It certainly isn't me; I'll be the first to admit it. But there likely aren't many. And seeing how much there is to know, and how few of any of us actually know even a fraction of it might give us all cause to think about how righteous and certain we can feel about our own opinions in the heat of the moment.

Blastaar wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

Okay. Now show me a Deathwing-themed army that doesn't have non-Deathwing in it.

I said "typical." Want to know how we make sure we can field our DW and/or RW without the greenies? HQs- like it was pre-8th. Tie the detachment structure to its commander.

Increase/decrease the allowed number of units from one of the four categories, only allow units with a certain keyword, or disallow them, give certain units rules that make them troops if X....

Sure, but then you're in a "lottery" scenario where you're hoping GW decided to include an option like that for your specific faction. They'd probably remember to give a rule like that to Deathwing, but would they do the same for Iybraesil? (A canon craftworld that rarely gets a mention and is known for fielding lots of howling banshees.) And what about little Timmy who liked the idea of fielding a hive fleet with a big emphasis on, let's say, pyrovores. Are pyrovores troops broken? Probably not. Is there a canon hive fleet known for fielding a bunch of them? Not that I'm aware of. I don't see the need to deny Timmy his pyrovores when I have my banshees and DW. But how do you make every single unit a valid troop choice? I guess you could have some sort of generic army building option that allows you to make any unit in the game a troop, but then why are we bothering to distinguish between troops and non-troops at that point?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Blastaar wrote:

Giving troops bonuses won't work. Why can't my DR dig-in, too? Why does a guardsman get extra benefit from cover, but not the the heavy weapon team behind the wall? This is the 9th edition of GW's "glue a special rule onto it" problem-solving.

I wouldn't give all troops bonuses like that as a blanket improvement, but I do think there's some potential there. If we can accept that only assault intercessors can swing their swords twice as many times with a strat and only guardians can use a celestial shield, then I don't think it's that unreasonable to have other strats available that happen to benefit troops. Training specifically to dig in on a key objective sounds like something a squad of tactical marines or guardsmen might spend a lot of time drilling for while their dedicated heavy weapon/devastator teams might have training that emphasizes not standing directly on the contested ground. Maybe my eldar rangers get a baked in rule that lets them get a -1 to hit if they don't move while camped on an objective. Maybe my dire avengers gain a stratagem that lets them charge an enemy unit at the start of my opponent's charge phase to keep them off my vulnerable fire dragons. I could see potential there.

More restrictive army building. Whether by requiring troops for every X non-troop units, or the percentages from fantasy. A game can't be balanced, or tactical, if players can bring most, or all of there toys in one list.

I mean, you should reasonably be able to field X points worth of your toys though, right? If ditching a troop tax made your list autowin, people wouldn't be bothering with batallions these days. If a troop is equally as points efficient as a non-troop, then why does it matter that you're fielding some "troops" alongside your "heavy support" and "elite" options?

A suppression system that even marines are subject to. Something like increasing the chance to fail an activation check, and penalties.

Agreed. This would be nice.

Firing arcs. I know a lot of people like to call this "fiddly" or "too complicated," but requiring targets to be within the firer's front arc, and imposing an evasion penalty, stripping cover etc., when attacked from behind adds tactical depth and allows troops to contribute more without just making their weapons better or tacking on a special rule. Troops should be the primary fighters, with the specialists supporting them, not the other way around. Also makes maneuver a thing.

While I see the appeal of having firing arcs, I'm definitely in the camp that says they tend to be "fiddly" in a game where your squad can be spread out and facing every direction at once. Maybe if you put a rectangular marker flush against the base of a designated squad leader or something? And then draw a line along the rectangle's closest side and say that everything on one side of the line is in "front" of the squad and everything on the other side of the line is "flanking"?

Alternating activations. Create different actions unit can take on their turn, like suppressive fire. Give stuff like vipers, stormboyz, etc. a Hit-and-run USR that lets them double move right over a unit while making attacks. There are so many possibilities outside of GW's narrow "move, shoot, charge" turn concept.

Agreed here. A lot of those actions are already sort of kind of represented by stratagems. Personaly, I like the idea of replacing many stratagems with "orders" that can get handed out by characters . So your autarch on a bike has a list of orders available, and one of them is to move-shoot-move with that squad of vypers.

Blastaar wrote:Troops are bad because the system is bad. Even if troops could be fixed in the current edition, something else would get broken by that fix.40k needs a full rewrite to stop going in circles.

Partially true. The system is bad, but just because Troops get better does not always mean everyone else gets worse. If something in a balance is in negative and then you add to it, it doesn't make what you are balancing against gets reduced at the same time. The scale is just not lifting it as low.

Blastaar wrote:Giving troops bonuses won't work. Why can't my DR dig-in, too? Why does a guardsman get extra benefit from cover, but not the the heavy weapon team behind the wall? This is the 9th edition of GW's "glue a special rule onto it" problem-solving.

I assume by "DR", you mean Dark Reapers? Troops are meant to hold the objectives, while Heavy units deploy heavy firepower. In regards to the Aeldari, Guardians aren't really on a war Path and so using their other skills to compensate.

I'm not sure anyone suggested that a Heavy Weapon Team wouldn't benefit from cover like an Infantry Squad, it is more that the Infantry is putting themselves in harm's way to secure the objective points build up their cover to support themselves while the longer-ranged Heavy Weapons Teams are setting themselves up outside of those target zones.

And as Wyldhunt said, this could be easily a Stratagem or something specific to certain Troop units.

Blastaar wrote:A suppression system that even marines are subject to. Something like increasing the chance to fail an activation check, and penalties.

Sure, but I guarantee the Troops will be most affected by something like this. They have been in Editions past.

Blastaar wrote:Firing arcs. I know a lot of people like to call this "fiddly" or "too complicated," but requiring targets to be within the firer's front arc, and imposing an evasion penalty, stripping cover etc., when attacked from behind adds tactical depth and allows troops to contribute more without just making their weapons better or tacking on a special rule. Troops should be the primary fighters, with the specialists supporting them, not the other way around. Also makes maneuver a thing.

Complexity is a relative thing. I like Battletech, but how it works out how well you can do something is complex. I don't think it is too complex, but someone who has cut their teeth on 40K 8th Edition may find it be so. And yes, Battletech has firing arcs based on the hexagon bases they use.

And there is a point to firing arcs, especially for Heavy Weapons. However, those same firing arcs have caused arguments on the table for many years on Vehicles alone. Adding them back in for Infantry to a point where arc markers are needed/desired like in Warmachine may be a breaking point for many players who are glad to be done with those fights.

Blastaar wrote:Alternating activations. Create different actions unit can take on their turn, like suppressive fire. Give stuff like vipers, stormboyz, etc. a Hit-and-run USR that lets them double move right over a unit while making attacks. There are so many possibilities outside of GW's narrow "move, shoot, charge" turn concept.

All of those have been present at one point or another in 40K. Keep in mind that the "Move, Shoot, Charge" turn concept just covers the basics of actions and those things like suppressive fire and hit-and-run would be incorporated in to Moving, Shooting, or Charging on one level or another just like they have been in the past.

Problem isn't complexity, is avoiding a controversy which was the main issue with blasts/templates and AV facings.

 Blackie wrote:
Problem isn't complexity, is avoiding a controversy which was the main issue with blasts/templates and AV facings.

yeah the problem with AV facings was the vehicles weren't nesscarily designed with them in mind. You had some awkward hull shapes and gun placements.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Problem isn't complexity, is avoiding a controversy which was the main issue with blasts/templates and AV facings.

yeah the problem with AV facings was the vehicles weren't nesscarily designed with them in mind. You had some awkward hull shapes and gun placements.

you also had vehicles that clearly were vehicles and didn't count...
GW could've also added in ala additional lore the propper facings of vehicles aswell as technical schematics?.. that would've also lowered some issues.

Troops are a necessary evil in the game.
This doesn't reflect the circumstance that troops should be a overwhelming part of an army.
Playing mostly with troops seems boring and so the larger emphasis on elites, FA and heavies is an outcome of this.