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.

 Insectum7 wrote:
It's all Tyranid Warriors, then 2 Primes and 2 Neurothropes, in it's purest form.

I take it this is an army for smaller games?

(Still sounds like a blast, though.)

 Insectum7 wrote:

That's a pretty radical notion. I'm not sure I can get on board with the idea of removing the importance of squad "expansion and contraction". Despite the benefits of using d3-d6s for blasts, I very much miss the extra importance given to unit formation that came with using actual templates.

My reasoning is that this sort of thing really doesn't work for a game the size of 40k. It was fine (more or less ) back when 40k was just a skirmish game with maybe a couple of dozen models on either side. But when you've got whole companies of IG, it just makes no sense to still require the position of every single man to be of vital importance. Even less so when you've also got Imperial Knights and such deleting whole units with a glance.

Now, I don't mind blasts being brought back and model positioning mattering (though TLoS can still go die in a fire), but for that to happen the game first needs to scale back in both size and scope.

Put simply, 40k needs to decide whether it wants to be a skirmish game (in which case, blasts are fine but the number of models should really be scaled back, and fliers, super-heavies, primarchs etc. all need to bugger off back into Apocalypse) or else if it wants to just be Apocalypse (in which case units should be much more abstracted and the exact position of most of their models should be utterly irrelevant).

 vipoid wrote:
Put simply, 40k needs to decide whether it wants to be a skirmish game (in which case, blasts are fine but the number of models should really be scaled back, and fliers, super-heavies, primarchs etc. all need to bugger off back into Apocalypse) or else if it wants to just be Apocalypse (in which case units should be much more abstracted and the exact position of most of their models should be utterly irrelevant).

At the model scale they're at they really can't keep inflating onboard model counts any higher, especially if they're going to start caring about how much space it takes to play a standard game of 40k. Given that 40k is a model first system you probably don't want to drop it to 10mm scale to keep increasing the scope. Thus it has to stay a skirmish game where positioning matters.

 vipoid wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
It's all Tyranid Warriors, then 2 Primes and 2 Neurothropes, in it's purest form.

I take it this is an army for smaller games?

(Still sounds like a blast, though.)

No sir, about 1700 points of Tyranid Warriors in a 2k army. And all of them the original 20 year old plastics. I can field more than that, too, the problem is I have to spend some points on HQs. Hehe.

 vipoid wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

That's a pretty radical notion. I'm not sure I can get on board with the idea of removing the importance of squad "expansion and contraction". Despite the benefits of using d3-d6s for blasts, I very much miss the extra importance given to unit formation that came with using actual templates.

My reasoning is that this sort of thing really doesn't work for a game the size of 40k. It was fine (more or less ) back when 40k was just a skirmish game with maybe a couple of dozen models on either side. But when you've got whole companies of IG, it just makes no sense to still require the position of every single man to be of vital importance. Even less so when you've also got Imperial Knights and such deleting whole units with a glance.

Now, I don't mind blasts being brought back and model positioning mattering (though TLoS can still go die in a fire), but for that to happen the game first needs to scale back in both size and scope.

Put simply, 40k needs to decide whether it wants to be a skirmish game (in which case, blasts are fine but the number of models should really be scaled back, and fliers, super-heavies, primarchs etc. all need to bugger off back into Apocalypse) or else if it wants to just be Apocalypse (in which case units should be much more abstracted and the exact position of most of their models should be utterly irrelevant).

I think "large skirmish" is about where 40k should be aiming at, and I think it's close. I don't have a problem with Knights and Superheavies being a part of it, I just think the rules for them should be more detailed, and the potential interactions with infantry should be more fleshed out. Things like being able to attack specific parts of the vehicle, and the use of multiple grenades in combat.

 vipoid wrote:

Put simply, 40k needs to decide whether it wants to be a skirmish game (in which case, blasts are fine but the number of models should really be scaled back, and fliers, super-heavies, primarchs etc. all need to bugger off back into Apocalypse) or else if it wants to just be Apocalypse (in which case units should be much more abstracted and the exact position of most of their models should be utterly irrelevant).

I pretty much agree with that. I've been playing a lot of Incursion sized games lately. They play reasonably fast, footslogging slightly squishy units isn't a death sentence, and I could see layering on just a bit more complexity at that scale without it becoming a slog. Common AA proposals also tend to be less problematic at that game size as the difference in unit count tends to be less dramatic and there tend to be fewer super killy shooty units floating around. So embracing smaller game sizes could do a lot of good.

And conversely, fliers, knights, and primarchs have never really felt balanced at any point to me. They're generally either so good that they become auto takes and the meta contorts around them, or else they're so easy to counter that you never see them. Flyers are maybe finally balanced enough at the moment, but they achieved that by making them curiously susceptible to small arms fire and encouraging players to fly them in doughnuts around the table. So yeah, I'd be alright with just barring those units from smaller/"normal" games to avoid the headache of trying to balance them there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

That's fair. Now how would you bring back blast templates without punishing hordes for not spreading out exactly 2" to mitigate template effectiveness? Because I don't want to wait for my opponents to measure exactly 2" between all their dudes, and I also don't want to feel like I'm punishing them for not wasting my time by doing so.

Just make doing that a drawback. I often ally blasts in with my Daemons to make the enemy spread out, which gives their units huge frontages that can easily be assaulted by 4 or 5 Daemon units that are now safe from shooting unless they fail a morale check or wipe them out to a man.

Please, please spread your troops out to give my assaulting units more frontage...

(That sort of thing is called tactics and makes positioning important, unlike the current iteration of blast.)

I feel like that's more of a lose/lose than a desirable feature though. If your opponent wants you to spread out, you're punished for fielding a horde regardless of whether or not you spread out. If the enemy army doesn't get you, the blasts will. If your opponent doesn't care whether or not you spread out, then you're punished for not taking the time to agonize over 2" spacing.

Also, consider that playing a melee horde generally involves trying to squeeze a bunch of models into engagement range. So you've crossed the table, made the charge, finally brought your melee unit to bear. On your opponent's following turn, you'll be all clumped up and ready to blast. Maybe (but not certainly) you're able to use your consolidation move to spread out again before your opponent's turn. In which case, it's time to slow the game down and work out the ideal 2" spacing again. Because every time you don't, you're basically killing off a few of your own models by being lazy with your spacing.

Wyldhunt wrote:
And conversely, fliers, knights, and primarchs have never really felt balanced at any point to me. They're generally either so good that they become auto takes and the meta contorts around them, or else they're so easy to counter that you never see them. Flyers are maybe finally balanced enough at the moment, but they achieved that by making them curiously susceptible to small arms fire and encouraging players to fly them in doughnuts around the table. So yeah, I'd be alright with just barring those units from smaller/"normal" games to avoid the headache of trying to balance them there.

I don't know. There's something to be said for Linebreaker/holdout scenarios. It's fine-tuning them so they can work in either level that's the big issue. The new FOC system helps with that a little bit, but I'm not sure it is enough.

Make them actually good at whatever it is they're supposed to do. That's it.

Look at all the good troops in the game. Intercessors. Nurglings. Daemonettes. Battle Sisters. Troupes. All are at least pointed efficiently for whatever function they are meant to serve, while also not standing out as being very specialized or skewing to any particular role by the standards of the army.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
Make them actually good at whatever it is they're supposed to do. That's it.

Look at all the good troops in the game. Intercessors. Nurglings. Daemonettes. Battle Sisters. Troupes. All are at least pointed efficiently for whatever function they are meant to serve, while also not standing out as being very specialized or skewing to any particular role by the standards of the army.

What are troops "supposed to do?" GW has no clue.

I do think the way Apoc handles squads is pretty good ...

Blastaar wrote:

What are troops "supposed to do?" GW has no clue.

No, it would appear that you have no clue because you think that each role is "supposed to do" what thing by definition.

The role of a nurgling is very different from the role of an intercessor which is very different from the role of a troupe. All are at minimum good troops, all have different roles, none of them stepping on the toes of anything in their respective army's more specialized roles for the most part.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
No, it would appear that you have no clue because you think that each role is "supposed to do" what thing by definition.

The role of a nurgling is very different from the role of an intercessor which is very different from the role of a troupe. All are at minimum good troops, all have different roles, none of them stepping on the toes of anything in their respective army's more specialized roles for the most part.

If we take away objective secured and stop trying to shoehorn in a role for ma legacy FOC slot, what do intercessors do that other marine units don't?

Void__Dragon wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

What are troops "supposed to do?" GW has no clue.

No, it would appear that you have no clue because you think that each role is "supposed to do" what thing by definition.

The role of a nurgling is very different from the role of an intercessor which is very different from the role of a troupe. All are at minimum good troops, all have different roles, none of them stepping on the toes of anything in their respective army's more specialized roles for the most part.

Lose the snotty attitude, and read your own post again:

Void__Dragon wrote:Make them actually good at whatever it is they're supposed to do. That's it.

Look at all the good troops in the game. Intercessors. Nurglings. Daemonettes. Battle Sisters. Troupes. All are at least pointed efficiently for whatever function they are meant to serve, while also not standing out as being very specialized or skewing to any particular role by the standards of the army.

What do you think troops are supposed to do? Having given such a simple answer, you must have some idea.

What is GW's vision for troops? (Hint: they don't have one) Troops can't "do what they're supposed to do" if no-one knows or can agree on what that is.

 Charistoph wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
And conversely, fliers, knights, and primarchs have never really felt balanced at any point to me. They're generally either so good that they become auto takes and the meta contorts around them, or else they're so easy to counter that you never see them. Flyers are maybe finally balanced enough at the moment, but they achieved that by making them curiously susceptible to small arms fire and encouraging players to fly them in doughnuts around the table. So yeah, I'd be alright with just barring those units from smaller/"normal" games to avoid the headache of trying to balance them there.

I don't know. There's something to be said for Linebreaker/holdout scenarios. It's fine-tuning them so they can work in either level that's the big issue. The new FOC system helps with that a little bit, but I'm not sure it is enough.

Such scenarios sound like fun, but perhaps it would be best to treat them as special narrative missions rather than a feature of playing certain armies in conventional games. I don't particularly want to feel like I'm forced to "hold out" by virtue of facing a random opponent who happens to be running a knight house. I'd love to go into a "hold out" mission with my eyes open, an appropriate list, and perhaps some mission-specific rules to make it engaging rather than risking it being a really one-sided fight.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Canadian 5th wrote:
If we take away objective secured and stop trying to shoehorn in a role for ma legacy FOC slot, what do intercessors do that other marine units don't?

This. Troops should be designed as though they aren't troops. Otherwise, they risk ending up as just being boring or inefficient because, "Well, players will have to take some of them anyway, so it's okay if troops are bad."

Void__Dragon wrote:Make them actually good at whatever it is they're supposed to do. That's it.

Look at all the good troops in the game. Intercessors. Nurglings. Daemonettes. Battle Sisters. Troupes. All are at least pointed efficiently for whatever function they are meant to serve, while also not standing out as being very specialized or skewing to any particular role by the standards of the army.

I feel like there are currently plenty of troops that are pretty "specialized." Hormagaunts run forward and stab things in melee. They have no guns, and they don't have loadouts to make them effective against heavy targets. They have a very narrow group of targets they want to engage with. Ork boyz similarly have a pretty well-defined job. Cultists could probably go in this slot. Daemonettes too. You mention nurglings, and I'd argue that they are very specialized as "units that infiltrate onto objectives and are annoying to remove." There are plenty of other examples, I'm sure.

I agree that troops should be designed to be good at at least one job, but I don't feel that all troops should be assumed to be generalists just because tactical marines are. I harp on this point because, if an army has a troop whose job is X and an elite whose job is X, it's very tempting to just make the elite a more points efficient version of the troops, and that's not cool.

If you feel that troops should be incentivised you should probably be playing 9e necrons.

The warriors are heavily incentivised. They get so many perks you almost have to hate them.

First they get a built in buff to their RP rolls in that they reroll 1's.

They are the only unit that the necron troop carrier can transport.

Most RP buffs affect them much more than they affect other units. (Like getting 1d3 back instead of 1.)

They just got a very powerful, tho short ranged, standard weapon.

Wyldhunt wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
And conversely, fliers, knights, and primarchs have never really felt balanced at any point to me. They're generally either so good that they become auto takes and the meta contorts around them, or else they're so easy to counter that you never see them. Flyers are maybe finally balanced enough at the moment, but they achieved that by making them curiously susceptible to small arms fire and encouraging players to fly them in doughnuts around the table. So yeah, I'd be alright with just barring those units from smaller/"normal" games to avoid the headache of trying to balance them there.

I don't know. There's something to be said for Linebreaker/holdout scenarios. It's fine-tuning them so they can work in either level that's the big issue. The new FOC system helps with that a little bit, but I'm not sure it is enough.

Such scenarios sound like fun, but perhaps it would be best to treat them as special narrative missions rather than a feature of playing certain armies in conventional games. I don't particularly want to feel like I'm forced to "hold out" by virtue of facing a random opponent who happens to be running a knight house. I'd love to go into a "hold out" mission with my eyes open, an appropriate list, and perhaps some mission-specific rules to make it engaging rather than risking it being a really one-sided fight

It depends on what you mean by "conventional". For a random mission against a random person at your LGS? Yeah. I could see them left out of that list. As it is, the "conventional" scenarios that came with the last couple editions didn't always see as much use outside the random meetup with all the tournament groups creating their own.

But as a "Narrative Mission" available for pre-arranged games or just someone with that small collection for a quick game, I think that is something provided for in the main list of scenarios, making it "conventional" from another perspective. After all, GW had a whole book of missions like that back in 5th, including the aforementioned Linebreaker.

Wyldhunt wrote:I agree that troops should be designed to be good at at least one job, but I don't feel that all troops should be assumed to be generalists just because tactical marines are. I harp on this point because, if an army has a troop whose job is X and an elite whose job is X, it's very tempting to just make the elite a more points efficient version of the troops, and that's not cool.

Agreed. Which is why I proposed that such units be objective oriented and/or "lane" oriented. That may require some FOC restructuring, or at least, Special Rule restructuring to see this outcome. That's kind of a sad thing since this concept should have been in the cards from the beginning, especially when Objective Secured for Troops was a thing.

 Matt Swain wrote:
If you feel that troops should be incentivised you should probably be playing 9e necrons.

The warriors are heavily incentivised. They get so many perks you almost have to hate them.

First they get a built in buff to their RP rolls in that they reroll 1's.

They are the only unit that the necron troop carrier can transport.

Most RP buffs affect them much more than they affect other units. (Like getting 1d3 back instead of 1.)

They just got a very powerful, tho short ranged, standard weapon.

After watching the latest TTT SM V necron bat rep the warriors do come out as really mean troop choice!
Feels like the rules for them really reflect the metal zombie tide.

Maybe if the rest of codexes get similar boosts to their troops the problem will solve itself.
As things stand taking troops is a huge tax for a lot of if not most armies