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.

What makes a single standard guardsmen able to contest while a elite shock trooper squad like the kazerkin not? Why do boys have to sit on the objective because the Lootas there don't count even though they are laying down a volley of fire in all directions? How come I can drop a squad of Celestines onto the opponents ruin, kill all the occupants, claim victory over it's walls, then not count as controlling it? The 'Only Troops can hold locations' rule not only screws with people's army lists, but makes no tactical, historical, or game play fluency scents. Please for the love of Kain give me one reason why this change with 5th edition was a good thing. It angers me as the rightful winner of the round looses because a full fire dragon team is not allowed to contest the objective they own. Bring Back the Old Contesting Rules!

It's an artificial limitation put in place to encourage people to include more Troops options in their armies.

Bear in mind though that while only Troops can hold objectives, any unit can contest them.

Meanwhile, this isn't really a rules question. As your poll seems to be asking whether it's better to use the current system or change to something else, I'm moving this to the Proposed Rules section.

insaniak wrote:
Meanwhile, this isn't really a rules question. As your poll seems to be asking whether it's better to use the current system or change to something else, I'm moving this to the Proposed Rules section.

...eh ya but nobody takes stuff in the proposed rules section seriously I thought lol. I say if they want to increase the troops choices used, then make the troops choices better. Then we'd use them this just screwed with a lot of the basic tactics of the game. The older codex's were NOT made with this in mind and pose some very bias stances with certain races. Infantry based guard armies are now benefited greatly because of how damn many troops they have, and mechanized armies are completely boned. Bye Bye all-tank guard regiments. And the orks now have small squads of grots lying around just to sit on stuff while another unit does all the work.

New way, it keeps more troops in amries and I feel it keps down the OP-ness.Plus there is nothing aying elites can't help contest.

If troops are as bad as you say, I don't understand the problem with leaving them on the objectives. And if you can clear out an objective, how hard is it to move a troops choice on top of it while the killier parts of your army continue the fight?

If you don't like it, play kill points.

kaun666 wrote:The 'Only Troops can hold locations' rule not only screws with people's army lists, but makes no tactical, historical, or game play fluency scents.

The whole point is to change people's lists, armies are supposed to have troops in because those are supposed to be the basic building blocks for the army. It was because GW was fed up of people turning up with three Falcons, 3 squads of Harliquins and a total of 10 guardians. Or the even better Iron Warriors army featuring two squads of 5 chaos marines holding scorcards and 7 heavy support choices (3 lie and pretend to be elites).
And it works, which means that you're wrong because it does make game play sense. You spelt 'sense' wrong by the way.

Essentially you have to adapt... like Darwin once said; Evolve or Die.

It angers me as the rightful winner of the round looses....

Nonsense, if he lost he wasn't the rightful winner was he?

well if you dont want troops holding objectives..... Place Crimson Fist.... there Sternguard can hold Objectives.... talk about trying too take a objective now..... special Ammo, and there all Veterns.....

ZacktheChaosChild wrote:New way, it keeps more troops in amries and I feel it keps down the OP-ness.Plus there is nothing aying elites can't help contest.

You have Plague Marines for troops. Of course you like the "only troops can score" rules.

From a fluff/realism standpoint, you re correct OP, this doesn't make any sense. You're also correct that several older armies don't have good troops for sitting on rear objectives (Orks, 'Nids). You're wrong that the rule doesn't have a gameplay purpose. As others have pointed out, it encourages more basic troopers and less min/max. Course, this does leave some armies, like those with incredibly nice basic troops (*cough*plague marines *cough*), with an advantage. Course, someone will always have an advantage.

EDIT- I voted "Old Way" as I play Tyranids, and Tyranids have no durable, long range troop options.

Armor takes objectives, Infantry holds objectives. In 40K terms, your elite guys grab the ground and then move on to the next killing. Your troops move up to defend it. Plus, it does make the game more fun to play with lots of troop choices and models on the board.

yea, if troops weren't required i'd just skip tactical marines altogether in my marines lists, and just take 2 squads of scouts and then load up on elites.

many gamers are probably of a similar opinion. but because only troops score, it forces everyone to adapt. its actually one of the better 5th edition mechanics IMO. It makes good fluff sense, elite units wouldn't waste time consolidating on objectives, and heavies shouldn't be moving up to take them. troops are the grunts of the army, who actually fortify and hold objectives.

In the case of SM, CSM, Eldar, Dark Eldar, DH, and WH, the entire army is made of elites. In the case of Tyranids, the troops are mindless organisms bred to eat lead for the next tier of bugs (excepting genestealers...who are the elites who grab the ground and move on to the next killing). In the case of orks, they go into a killing frenzy; I doubt any of them would be willing to stop killing. Not saying that the move to troops only is unjustified, just sayin' that the idea that its to promote the idea of elites and line holders doesn't work for the GRIMDARK of the forty-first millennium.

well, with nids, the hive would be best served if the larger organisms move onward to continue the fight, and the smaller organisms watch the objective until rippers can come by to eat it.

with orks, if the warboss smashed a few of the boyz, I bet they'd be willing to sit on an objective for their leader.. especially if they are shoota boyz and can blast dakka into the enemy from a hill or something. hell, even if they are out of range, they'd still get a kick out of the noise their guns make firing.

you can justify most anything in 40k.

Would you trust Lootas with something you wanted to have? I wouldn't.


Seriously though, until Games Workshop decides to actually redo their codices with their rulesets, I'm going to have to be in favor of only troops scoring. The alternative is two thirds of the game's armies ignoring their troop choices, while they park scoring Land Raiders on every objective. At least with the way it currently is, you actually care about your troop choices.

And fluffwise, what the feth is an "objective" and why do you automatically succeed at everything if you have a guy near it at a specific time? They don't have to wipe out their enemy once they have their "objective"? They don't have to have some ability to transport it to a safe location? They can't do anything with their objective until the clock strikes twelve, and then it suddenly becomes more important than being outnumbered 10 to 1? I mean, they're already pretty abstract.

meh, each race should have individual objectives.

marines should have the objective of killing enemy leaders/elites
nids should have the objective of killing enemy troops
necrons and orks should have a killpoint style objective


things like that. but whatever, it would be pretty hard to balance. Though, it could be cool that each game turn, you get a point for holding an objective. whoever has more points at the end of the game wins. that way if you hold all objectives for all except the last turn, you still win.

Horst wrote:well, with nids, the hive would be best served if the larger organisms move onward to continue the fight, and the smaller organisms watch the objective until rippers can come by to eat it.

The Hive Mind would best be served with eradicating the enemy opposition. AFAIK there is no fluff example of Tyranids capturing an objective. Furthermore, having shooty warriors/shooty 'fexen/shooty Tyrants stay back and shoot while 'stealers/gaunts get into firing range makes more sense.

Horst wrote:with orks, if the warboss smashed a few of the boyz, I bet they'd be willing to sit on an objective for their leader.. especially if they are shoota boyz and can blast dakka into the enemy from a hill or something. hell, even if they are out of range, they'd still get a kick out of the noise their guns make firing.

But why couldn't lootas perform the same role?

Horst wrote:you can justify most anything in 40k.

Y'know, this comment seems fairly odd when viewed next to your comments in the comp thread.

I like the new way as it lead to changes in playstyle, continuing to play with all the same variables gets old, and minor changes like this can renew gameplay fun.

Horst wrote:
Though, it could be cool that each game turn, you get a point for holding an objective. whoever has more points at the end of the game wins. that way if you hold all objectives for all except the last turn, you still win.

This reminds me of the way epic 2nd edition worked a bit, where by objectives were worth victory points (which were tallied at the end of each full turn) and the game would end when a player at reached a certain VP threshold so the combination of objectives being worth points to each player (if the had them at the end of that round) plus beating up the enemy would end the battle as they had "won" the field through a combination of casualties and seizing ground.

I really need to sit down and try and make a 40k mission that works like this.

Jack

lol, as I typed it, I realized it sounded hypocritical. Then, I thought to myself, meh, who cares, nobody will notice. DAMN YOU RUSTY!!

Because it adds worth to troops and makes the game far more strategic

I voted for the new way it helps not only change list but also tactics. No more of elite and tank only armies you actually have to think about what type of troops you are going to take and how they work.

kaun666 wrote: I say if they want to increase the troops choices used, then make the troops choices better. Then we'd use them

If they made Troop choices better, then they wouldn't be Troops choices, would they, they'd be more like Elites, right?

I like the new way.

RustyKnight wrote:

Horst wrote:well, with nids, the hive would be best served if the larger organisms move onward to continue the fight, and the smaller organisms watch the objective until rippers can come by to eat it.

The Hive Mind would best be served with eradicating the enemy opposition. AFAIK there is no fluff example of Tyranids capturing an objective. Furthermore, having shooty warriors/shooty 'fexen/shooty Tyrants stay back and shoot while 'stealers/gaunts get into firing range makes more sense.

Horst wrote:with orks, if the warboss smashed a few of the boyz, I bet they'd be willing to sit on an objective for their leader.. especially if they are shoota boyz and can blast dakka into the enemy from a hill or something. hell, even if they are out of range, they'd still get a kick out of the noise their guns make firing.

But why couldn't lootas perform the same role?

I think we might be looking at objectives too literally. I consider the objectives to be a key piece of ground on the battlefield whose retention provides a valuable advantage either strategically or tactically. Think "If the bugs take the high ground, we're screwed" not "my gaunts would love to build a home there"

The rule from GW makes sense in making you take more troops as has been said before.

You will notice that the BRB says that "Troops whose unit type is infantry can hold objectives" or somthing like that. it does prevent orks from having deffdreds that are scoring

During a campaign I was in we had a rule that any unit whose Unit Type was infantry or Jump infantry could hold objectives. so Fire dragons, lootas, devestators, assault marines, battle suits and the like could hold objectives.

This actually worked quite well. More realistic.

This naturally nerfed the jetbike eldar armies we had show up, but they deserve to lose sometimes(I did that deliberatly )
flying circuses are way OP

Yes Jack Mojo---making changes in the game keeps it fun and flexible!!! The tournament scene is stale as it is, In My Humble Opinion. You don't have to use all these rules(or any) when playing for fun, but shaking up the tournament scene is only good!!!

Well, since no-one seems to have described a good fluff reason well for this rule, I'll give it a chance.

Your troops are supposed to represent the bulk of the army behind the ones fighting, the more expendable, cheaper units you would leave somewhere to watch it or fill up the line.

Your other options, like HQ, head to the rear or forward the guns once the battle is over. Elites and Fast Attack go back into reserve and Heavy Support either follows or moves to where else it is needed.

So while these other options are able to push an enemy off an objective, they won't hang around long. Remember, 40k just represents the few times in a war where the outcome is not 95% already decided. You don't attack an enemy with ""just enough" to win, you try to completely overpower them to minimize your casualties, it's a basic instinct in humans. Its why a group the same size as yours will look bigger, you instinctively want to have more before you might attack them.

That's also why we have turns, or at least it should. You won't continue to commit your forces unless you think you will eventually win, and if you have enough to infinitely commit to, you will win, and that's not of the 5% of battles not already decided. So after while where it no longer seems feasible to continue fighting, you would call your forces back. Either because one side or the other is soon to get reinforced, the commanders have had enough, there are other objectives to try and commit what troops are left to, or any number of other reasons.

WH40k isn't perfect, obviously, but players are even worse with their choice of lists that either have no fluff to them or are just plain trying to exploit the rules that exist. So you have to take everything with a grain of salt, and if you are going to apply your extreme to be able to complain about something, just think of the many other extremes that could exist to push right back. Then consider things on a grander scale, that might help explain why somethings are the way they are, and others not.

Because the Games Workshop marketing department thought they could make more of a profit changing the rules so we all had to buy more troops models and make them more money.

Expect this to change again in 6th edition to all infantry are scoring after we bought all those troops to make us buy more elites and heavies and go back to 2 troops choices armies of 4th edition.

Personally, I think it's good to have more troop choices around, it's far more fun than swarms of elite troops. Although it does give some armies an advantage (*cough* plague marines *cough*), those armies might be worse at other things, so it balances out sort of. Besides, if everyone was equal in all respects there would be no point in seperate armies except for visual appeal and fluff appeal. That just my two cents though.

RustyKnight wrote:

Horst wrote:well, with nids, the hive would be best served if the larger organisms move onward to continue the fight, and the smaller organisms watch the objective until rippers can come by to eat it.

The Hive Mind would best be served with eradicating the enemy opposition. AFAIK there is no fluff example of Tyranids capturing an objective. Furthermore, having shooty warriors/shooty 'fexen/shooty Tyrants stay back and shoot while 'stealers/gaunts get into firing range makes more sense.

How about tyranids trying to capture a particular sample of a gene strain, or something like that? I dunno, something along those lines.

MacAttack wrote:

RustyKnight wrote:

Horst wrote:well, with nids, the hive would be best served if the larger organisms move onward to continue the fight, and the smaller organisms watch the objective until rippers can come by to eat it.

The Hive Mind would best be served with eradicating the enemy opposition. AFAIK there is no fluff example of Tyranids capturing an objective. Furthermore, having shooty warriors/shooty 'fexen/shooty Tyrants stay back and shoot while 'stealers/gaunts get into firing range makes more sense.

How about tyranids trying to capture a particular sample of a gene strain, or something like that? I dunno, something along those lines.

A better question would be what is the alternative? Besides, even Tyranids must, even accidentally, recognize strong points from time to time, which is where most objectives should be placed for best fluff reasons. It is as much of a responsibility to players to create fluff reasons for things as it is for GW to provide the ability to make fluff reasons for things. Though I would say this is mostly a short coming of players than of the rules.

Don't play to win, play to have fun! If you want to play to win, I'm sure you'll enjoy Halo or Solitaire with Omnipotent Player special rules.

This is one of the biggest reasons I don't play 40k any more...(The biggest being the CGM running rampant where I live). It makes no sense that the units you send to go in and grab things (Assault troops like Terminators and Jump packers) can't actually hold onto things. It makes more sense for the troops to engage the enemy and the elite units to go and grab the objective.

Combined with the same thing being in multiple slots...Grey Knights can claim an objective unless they teleported in during the battle instead of right before. Terminators in a Deathwing army...Same exact unit can score or not for no in-universe reason.

Troops-only scoring is hamfisted and gamey feeling, all based on a holier-than-thou attitude of people 'not playing right'. Making troops better would have been perferable if we're supposed to be playing with more troops (And this does not neccessarily mean they would be elite...Better could simply mean cheaper).

I could accept that only models with a WS could claim an objective...Goes back to the whole 'armor takes ground, infantry holds it' idea.

Personally, I don't find playing with large number of troops neccessarily being more fun. Often, it is less fun for me.

skyth wrote:This is one of the biggest reasons I don't play 40k any more...(The biggest being the CGM running rampant where I live). It makes no sense that the units you send to go in and grab things (Assault troops like Terminators and Jump packers) can't actually hold onto things. It makes more sense for the troops to engage the enemy and the elite units to go and grab the objective.
Combined with the same thing being in multiple slots...Grey Knights can claim an objective unless they teleported in during the battle instead of right before. Terminators in a Deathwing army...Same exact unit can score or not for no in-universe reason.
Troops-only scoring is hamfisted and gamey feeling, all based on a holier-than-thou attitude of people 'not playing right'. Making troops better would have been perferable if we're supposed to be playing with more troops (And this does not neccessarily mean they would be elite...Better could simply mean cheaper).
I could accept that only models with a WS could claim an objective...Goes back to the whole 'armor takes ground, infantry holds it' idea.
Personally, I don't find playing with large number of troops neccessarily being more fun. Often, it is less fun for me.

Well, as I stated before, there are plenty of realistic reasons. You are also one of the ones who dang near wet themselves about just near everything that changed in the new edition. And if you don't play, you can't really have much input as you're not out on the field playing anymore, now are you? I call Grognard.

Troops need to be the only force capable of holding objectives.
Its simple: sure the super powerful HQ, ELITES, AND HEAVY SUPPORT choices can blow enemies apart, but you need troops to occupy the ground you acquired.
If any unit could capture:
A. many troops choices would be stupid and useless
B. Cheap players could just deepstrike units and capture at the last minute.