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.

I was thinking...

With this change, non-troops units have a massive disadvantage. There's no need to restrict non-troops units as any player that takes them more than is needed is shooting themselves in the forehead. (Sigh... bye-bye themed armies...)

GW could simplify the game a lot here. No need to worry about Force Organization - they could just copy the Apocalypse army selection rules (e.g. no FoC, only a certain points limit). There's really no need to worry about someone fielding 20 Obliterators or 10 Predators since doing so really wouldn't be a competitive move anyway. Their opponent would just focus on killing their troops units and automatically win the game.

Think of all the times you've been at the FLGS and seen 8 year olds play by just dumping random models on the table. Many players can't understand the force selection and slots system. This change would allow GW to simplify the game further to appeal to those players.

"Second, the notion of including older Codices magnifies the problem, because they were designed under a totally different play concept (stand & shoot for VPs vs maneuver Scoring Troops to Objective)."

Orks is finally coming out next week after 10 years. It's likely we'll be waiting at least that long for Witchhunters, Imperial Guard, Dark Eldar, Black Templars, etc. to be released. Since some of those older Codexes may be with us well into late-5th or early-mid 6th edition, I think it's fair to include them in the analysis.

Of course I think this rumour is bogus anyway, so we'll see.

Their opponent would just focus on killing their troops units and automatically win the game.

Well, sorta... If you can build a sufficiently ridiculous list (say, nothing but Dakkafexes), then hide a couple troops in the back, and bring them out after you've wiped the table by turn 4... There's still a reason for an FOC.

Asmodai wrote:With this change, non-troops units have a massive disadvantage. There's no need to restrict non-troops units as any player that takes them more than is needed is shooting themselves in the forehead.

GW could simplify the game a lot here. No need to worry about Force Organization

I can almost agree here, aside from the fact that balance will never be perfect. There will always be a "best" non-Troops option. So FOC is still useful to limit imbalances and to keep armies well-themed around an imaginary OOB.

For example, it would be silly to see an army consisting of nothing but Dire Avengers in Holo-Falcons led by Phoenix Lords. It would be better to see an army built around Dire Avengers in Wave Serpents led by a Phoenix Lord and supported by a couple Falcons.

And besides, if regular 40k became Apocalypse, then Apocalypse wouldn't be special.

It's certainly not true to say that non-troops will become useless. No-one says now that ICs and Transports are useless because they can't hold objectives in 4th edition.

It's probably a different story when ICs, transports, fast attack, heavy support, and elite troops can't hold objectives.

Greetings from a Lurker,

I am a novice at 40k, but have been playing wargames for a very long time, having played miniatures with Gary Gygax when he wrote historial rules, (WWII- Tractics), before he invented/popularized D+D.

The recent trend in wargame rules has been to make turn sequences more interactive. Examples of this would be use of card systems as in Memoire 44/Battle Cry by Days of Wonder, or the Picquet system by Bob Jones.

40k is extremely primitive in this regard with its simple I Go, You Go system. This creates the classic problem for equal point value armies of whichever force moves into range first either shoots first and kills half the enemy, or lacks move and fire weapons and hence is shot at first.

Now I doubt that any of the 40k authors will ever read this post, or would risk a major change in the rule system. But, I would suggest that the game would be much more interesting from a tactical viewpoint if they adopted an order chit system.

Order chits 1. Charge (allows move and subsequent assault). 2. Move greater than half, 3. move less than half, 4. Fire 5. move greater than half and fire 6. move less than half and fire 7. Rally.

Units receive order chits at the beginning of the turn. Players alternately reveal one units orders at a time. Units which are rallying must reveal their rally order as the first action. Units which take casualties or damage must reveal their order at the next opportunity.

This sort of order system adds a significant planning element and engages both players attention throughout the turn. I think it makes smaller games particularly more interesting.

Just an opinion.


-

after playing some games where you move ,shoot, assault ,etc . One unit at a time it makes each round long but there is no first turn i go and blow up half your army up and your guys can't FIGHT back.
think I'm going to test this with 40k I'll post how it goes .

the problem with this idea they never do it

Our group implemented some extremely straightforward alternate turn sequence mechanics for late in the 2nd edition and it overcame the first turn (and overwatch) dynamic prevalent then. I think now though, the use of concealment as a scenario rule essentially helps to even this out a great deal in the current ruleset.

If I understand correctly Brimstone has already admitted he might've got this rumour wrong. It might as well be that everything except ICs, vehicles and swarms can hold objectives. We'll see.

Unnecessary & deleted.

I think Therion refers to this: http://warseer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2233156&postcount=4

I take it as more his usual disclaimer that nothing is guaranteed to be right. But I can see your interpretation also. On that basis, all the min-troopers can go away and be happy again. Perhaps ;P

You may also like to consider this later post from the same thread: http://warseer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2234187&postcount=75

Brimstone wrote:Anything taken as a troops choice under the FOC is a scoring unit

Therion wrote:If I understand correctly Brimstone has already admitted he might've got this rumour wrong. It might as well be that everything except ICs, vehicles and swarms can hold objectives. We'll see.

Is this new news or referring to the snipped posted here, because he assured that it's just troop choices and not infantry models.

And even if it's true: All I hear here is crying. What the hell? Who says you can't win with less scoring units that your opponent?
Elite, fast or Heavy units often have the advantage of superior firepower, armor or speed. Under the new rules they can't hold objectives. Ever thought of balancing your units selection out? If you field nothing but necron warriors or space marines, dedicated anti-MeQ troops will reap a load of them...happy scoring then, maybe you should have bought a unit to counter that!

The rule surely keeps players away from fielding only the minimum of troops and powering up on elites. Since when is that bad? All the Falcon armies now are unscoring and have unscoring load. So my Ork mob for a fraction of the cost is sitting on an objective and there isn't much you can do about it. Sure kill me, but you won't get any bonus points for scoring. I feel that this rule could prevent lists like the immortal necron spam or similar lists which is a good thing, imo. And besides, tell me which of the newer codecies have sub-par troops selection?
Eldar, Tyranids, Space Marines or Chaos? Maybe Tau? Come on! A unit with 30" rapid fire S5 AP5 weapons for 10 points is bad? Not in my book...

Greets
Schepp himself

What Schepp said...

Schepp himself wrote:

Therion wrote:If I understand correctly Brimstone has already admitted he might've got this rumour wrong. It might as well be that everything except ICs, vehicles and swarms can hold objectives. We'll see.

And even if it's true: All I hear here is crying. What the hell? Who says you can't win with less scoring units that your opponent?

Of course you can, but you're at a serious disadvantage.

Elite, fast or Heavy units often have the advantage of superior firepower, armor or speed. Under the new rules they can't hold objectives. Ever thought of balancing your units selection out? If you field nothing but necron warriors or space marines, dedicated anti-MeQ troops will reap a load of them...happy scoring then, maybe you should have bought a unit to counter that!

That's not the issue. The issue is that troops get such a massive advantage relative to their points cost that it effectively breaks the game.

For example, it's currently a reasonably tough choice between Lascannon Heavy Weapons Squads and Infantry Platoons in an Imperial Guard army. Both have advantages (numbers, more firepower) and disadvantages (wasted shots, low numbers). With this rule the Infantry Platoon, already more popular, becomes far and away the best choice and the other options are just wasted space.

A Land Raider is 250 points, which is roughly the same as a 10-man Las/Plas Squad with a Veteran Sergeant, Powerfist and Rhino. It's currently a toss-up with the edge going to the troops choice. When you factor in that the Land Raider can't score then there's no longer any question. The Tactical Squad is far and away the better selection. The Land Raider goes to sit on the shelf till 6th edition.

Part of the reason people play 40K is for all the cool background. If you start closing all that off in competitive games so people just play with rifle platoons, they might as well play Flames of War.

The rule surely keeps players away from fielding only the minimum of troops and powering up on elites. Since when is that bad?

I like themed armies. The Iyaden Ghost Warrior army, a covert Tau Strike Team with Pathfinders and Stealth Suits, the Tanith 1st with lots of Veteran Squads, a cyborg Necron army full of Pariahs and Flayed Ones, etc.

There's lots of times when it's a lot more fun to play against an interesting variant than just another 60 Necron Warriors.

With all respect, this is same old, same old. Rumoured changes are discussed and people decide that their favourite style of play, whether it be winning tournaments or playing their 'themed army', is lost forever.

Actually, you can still line up whatever army you like from your codex, but as is the case at present, there will some combinations that seem better or worse to you.

Hey, here's a shocker: your mileage may vary. Play the army you like to play. If you want to win, play the army you think will win.

If a person likes an army for it's theme over it's perceived chances of winning, then they still have the same themed army available to them to use. If they only like that themed army while they think it can win, then may I suggest that the theme is perhaps not as much their priority? I don't think as many people fall into the latter category, the themers are stubborn enough to enjoy themselves regardless

As for unit choices within and without the Troops FOC, I see it as accepted wisdom on here all the time that some units are no brainers and others are not. What's the difference under your comparisons? I'd like all choices to be equally useful, but since that depends on my perception, you're never to going to please everyone, are you?

For example, it's currently a reasonably tough choice between Lascannon Heavy Weapons Squads and Infantry Platoons in an Imperial Guard army. Both have advantages (numbers, more firepower) and disadvantages (wasted shots, low numbers). With this rule the Infantry Platoon, already more popular, becomes far and away the best choice and the other options are just wasted space.

Ok, point taken.

A Land Raider is 250 points, which is roughly the same as a 10-man Las/Plas Squad with a Veteran Sergeant, Powerfist and Rhino. It's currently a toss-up with the edge going to the troops choice. When you factor in that the Land Raider can't score then there's no longer any question. The Tactical Squad is far and away the better selection. The Land Raider goes to sit on the shelf till 6th edition.

Untrue. You don't know if the revisited damage chart and possible firesplitting will greatly enhance the land raider. Also it seems that AT firepower gets more expensive in the newer codecies (Chaos, DA,BT, Orks...)

I like themed armies. The Iyaden Ghost Warrior army, a covert Tau Strike Team with Pathfinders and Stealth Suits, the Tanith 1st with lots of Veteran Squads, a cyborg Necron army full of Pariahs and Flayed Ones, etc.

Well, discussing about competitive play and then giving these armies as examples seems strange. Sure, I hate it when themed armies loose all of their hope to compete, but there are and still will be ways to play with these armies even with the possible rule change, especially when necron and guards are getting redone in the future.

Greets
Schepp himself

Schepp himself wrote:
Well, discussing about competitive play and then giving these armies as examples seems strange. Sure, I hate it when themed armies loose all of their hope to compete, but there are and still will be ways to play with these armies even with the possible rule change, especially when necron and guards are getting redone in the future.

Fair enough. I think 'semi-competitive' would be more accurate. I don't expect anyone to win a GT with the above mentioned Tau covert strike force, but they shouldn't be crippled either. The game can never be perfectly balanced, but I think it's a good thing when unusual builds can still give a spirited game.

A lot still depends on the uncertainties. If there's three objectives and each objective gives a bonus of VPs equal to the 10% of the points value (e.g. 150 each in a 1500 game) then Troops get a boost, but it's not decisive by itself. If there's two objectives and holding both = win and each having one or none = tie, then this rule's impact really starts to break the force organization system.

I think we'll stay with VP's in the core rules. Are there any/many tournaments out there that don't use VPs? Honest question.

JohnHwangDD wrote:And besides, if regular 40k became Apocalypse, then Apocalypse wouldn't be special.

No, then they'd both be special. And by "special" I mean "slowed".

To give this argument a different perspective, imagine that the rumour said that only vehicles with the Tank attribute would be allowed to hold objectives, or only Elite troops, or only Fast Attack, or even only HQ units. Then think how that might affect your favourite army or hated foe and see if it is fair and reasonable.

GW's thinking seems to be, "Players aren't using enough Troops. Force them to use more." This does not remove any imbalances that may exist between lists. It only penalises lists in which the troop choices are sub-par. Now I know that many players consider all troop choices to be sub-par, but in reality some troops are more sub-par than others.

No, then they'd both be special. And by "special" I mean "slowed".

Well put All this talk about a state of total imbalance and poorly thought out rules being okay because it's all 'special and fun' can't be described as anything else than slowed.

Therion wrote:Well put All this talk about a state of total imbalance and poorly thought out rules being okay because it's all 'special and fun' can't be described as anything else than slowed.

So how would you describe criticism of proposed rules based on rumours, taken without consideration of other rumours, let alone based on any kind of playtesting?

For the record, I think the core of an army should be in its troops, and at present this isn't happening because most troops choices are poor value compared to other codex elements. This can be improved by making troops choices better options, like the new Ork codex, or by aking troops more valuable by encouraging them to function as actual troops function in battle is a good thing.

I'm agree that allowing only troops to hold objectives is a sloppy way of trying to make that happen. But given the rumour is nowhere near confirmed, and I haven't seen it work in an actual game, I'll hold off on my criticism.

Kilkrazy wrote:GW's thinking seems to be, "Players aren't using enough Troops. Force them to use more."

They're correct, you know...

It is common knowledge that Troops were the worst part of the list (ordinary non-Elite, slow non-Fast, mediocre non-Heavy), and players tended to play more specialists than generalists. Worse, they converted Troops into mini-Heavies. This distorts the game from the designer's intent.

GW tried to "encourage" Troops by making them 2-6 vs 0-3, and they've stuck with this for 2 full editions. For whatever reason, it's not really working. So, as the ultimate arbiters of the game, don't they have the right to determine whether games should revolve primarily around Troops, as opposed to everything else?

This does not remove any imbalances that may exist between lists.

Totally agreed.

It only penalises lists in which the troop choices are sub-par.

Not really. It only refocuses the weighting of where those imbalances might lie. It's not like lists were (or will be) perfectly balanced anyways.

And it's not like lists were relatively penalized based on having different amounts of broken HQ / Elite / Fast / Heavy stuff before.

But now there is proportionally greater focus upon Troops, and this is actually good from a balancing perspective. The designers only need to really focus on balancing Troop choices against each other within and between Codices, as opposed to trying to balance everything against everything in every combination.

Asmodai wrote:The issue is that troops get such a massive advantage relative to their points cost that it effectively breaks the game.

A Land Raider is 250 points, which is roughly the same as a 10-man Las/Plas Squad with a Veteran Sergeant, Powerfist and Rhino. It's currently a toss-up with the edge going to the troops choice.

I'm not sure I like your examples, as all of them seem to revolve around older Codices (IG, SM, Necrons). It would be better if you used CSM / Orks, as they're the latest Codices, and can be presumed to have whatever 5th Edition influences might be necessary already baked into them.

The conventional wisdom is that Land Raider suck, especially at 250 pts. For the same points, you can take 2x 6-man Las/Plas teams which are far more efficient. There is no discussion necessary.

OTOH, if you convert your example to CSM, the balance is different. 10 CSM have B&BP&CCW, and make good use of their Rhino. OTOH, their Land Raider is only 220 pts. And they don't have the option of taking Razorbacks. At 200 pts, the Chaos Land Raider is almost playable today. If the Top Armor = Rear Armor rule goes into effect as rumored, that Chaos Land Raider might well be worth 220 pts after all. So assuming that all the rumors hold, then the Land Raider is probably OK if you've already got 4 or 5 Mechanized Troops picks and need a heavy Assault Transport to spearhead the 5th or 6th Troops pick. But as we're back to an overall list / army list view, the atomic comparision is mooted.

Tribune wrote:I think we'll stay with VP's in the core rules. Are there any/many tournaments out there that don't use VPs?

Isn't this a chicken & egg thing? If the basic game in 40k is based on VPs, and that's what most players are comfortable / familiar playing, won't that be the default scoring mechanism?

OTOH, if the default game becomes Scoring Units and Objectives, with a removal of the whole VP table, then can't one expect the Tournaments to follow suit?

I can see 5th Edition doing away with VPs entirely in favor of simply counting Scoring Units. The whole full points / half points for up to half / less than half business is much more complicated than counting and tracking a handful of units for each player. Plus there's question of whether the "half points" should be rounded, and the inevitable question from new players how the half strength thing counts for VPs. OTOH, everybody can count their Troops. With GW refocusing on casual gamers, why wouldn't they make it easier to determine winners and losers?

sebster wrote:
So how would you describe criticism of proposed rules based on rumours, taken without consideration of other rumours, let alone based on any kind of playtesting?

Please not the "now now, there's no need for discussion on a forum set up exactly for that" argument. This is News and Rumours on Dakka Dakka. This is where grown men use overly harsh language about silly rumours about silly miniatures, causing sensitive people and people who hate thinking and discussion to take them too seriously. Adding to the discourse, positive or negative, is what this place is all about, telling people otherwise defeats the purpose. It's alright though, as you posted some of your opinion anyway. To do likewise, I think just trying to inflate the worth of Troops units like this is incredibly silly.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
It is common knowledge that Troops were the worst part of the list (ordinary non-Elite, slow non-Fast, mediocre non-Heavy), and players tended to play more specialists than generalists. Worse, they converted Troops into mini-Heavies. This distorts the game from the designer's intent.

Oh dear, designer's intent again. While it may seem perfectly rational to assume this is what they've always wanted, I'd much prefer them to take the game back to basics instead of every update just bandaging silly rules and restrictions upon what is essentially the existing 3rd ed. template and codex system. Simply put, I'm tired of buying a perfectly legal army one year and then finding that some designer didn't want that to happen at all, or underestimated the usage or popularity of a certain unit/weapon. Writing a rules system shouldn't be about denying strategy or telling people what you didn't want them to do, it should be about making a system wherein people will play the way you intended because the mechanics assist in that vision. Gamers aren't being catered to any more, they're being denied, and that's why people are getting miffed here.

Turtle wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
It is common knowledge that Troops were the worst part of the list (ordinary non-Elite, slow non-Fast, mediocre non-Heavy), and players tended to play more specialists than generalists. Worse, they converted Troops into mini-Heavies. This distorts the game from the designer's intent.

Oh dear, designer's intent again. While it may seem perfectly rational to assume this is what they've always wanted,

The way the FOC is constructed (2-6 for Troops, 0-3 for non-Troops), I think it would be *irrational* to assume that the designers intended for players to fill their Heavies & Elites but leave their Troops mostly empty.

If the rumors are true, it is actually possible to design a themed army that is actually impossible to win with (Your only troops being swarms or vehicles).

>>>>Kilkrazy wrote:
>>>>GW's thinking seems to be, "Players aren't using >>>>enough Troops. Force them to use more."

>>They're correct, you know...

>>It is common knowledge that Troops were the worst >>part of the list (ordinary non-Elite, slow non-Fast, >>mediocre non-Heavy), and players tended to play >>more specialists than generalists. Worse, they >>converted Troops into mini-Heavies. This distorts the >>game from the designer's intent.

This bit is right: "GW's thinking seems to be, "Players aren't using enough Troops."

This bit is wrong "Force them to use more."

The way to get players to use more Troops is to make Troops interesting and worthwhile to use.

40K is supposed to be a game of huge explosions and stuff. If everyone wanted to slog around in the mud with a rifle company they could play Flames of War or Command Decision.

>>Worse, they converted Troops into mini-Heavies. This >>distorts the game from the designer's intent.

The reason being that SMs in particular are too hard to kill with ordinary infantry weapons so players load up on plasma, this secondarily reduces the value of vehicles when the environment is full of anti-tank weapons.

Kilkrazy wrote:

The way to get players to use more Troops is to make Troops interesting and worthwhile to use.

well making them the only objective grabbers would certainly fulfill the worthwhile part.

40K is supposed to be a game of huge explosions and stuff. If everyone wanted to slog around in the mud with a rifle company they could play Flames of War or Command Decision

Is it? - When I see imagery of 40k I see massed ranks of guardsmen, huge hordes of orks and nids, marines adavancing with bolters. I always see the a sort of dirty futuristic WW1, with infantry(or 'troops') bearing the brunt . That is what I expect the game to be trying to respresent. Yes I see the Titans and armor companies, but that is at a higher scale and probably best done via epic. Apoc sort of tries to meld the 2 together.