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.

One of the games issues is that it is far easier to table an opponent who uses minimum troops and mostly other troop types vs. one who uses a lot. VPs should really be skewed - both for troops seizing objectives and killing non-troop units to make up for the fact that troop units are usually easier to wipe out.

 Galef wrote:
Looking over this thread, a few things stand out to me:

Keeping all units scoring as now is a good thing.
Troops scoring additional points, rather than restricting Elite/FA/HS also seems to be a favorable approach.

So how about this: Let's add a Secondary objective to all Missions (like Slay the WL, Linebreaker, etc) so that 1 VP is gained anytime a Troop unit removes the last Wound or HP from any enemy unit from Elite, Fast or Heavy?
That way if you take more Troops, you can get more points, yet if you bring less/no Troops, you can still win on objectives and/or tabling?

No this would be bad, then armies like BA, harlequins and DE would be punished alot, EH MUST take Fast and Heavy, they basically cant play with 1 CAD so they need 2, that means they need 4 FA and 2 heavies, then with BA and DE best units in FA/Elite/Heavy they will have 9-10 of those units many times.

The point is you cant make troops better by other other units worst, giving VP for other units being killed would hurt than game more than help it.

Giving ObjSec to all "troops" would be fine sense all other units "can" score, troops would still win vs Elites/HQ/Fast/Heavy, this would be the easiest and least nerfing way.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Galef wrote:
Looking over this thread, a few things stand out to me:

Keeping all units scoring as now is a good thing.
Troops scoring additional points, rather than restricting Elite/FA/HS also seems to be a favorable approach.

So how about this: Let's add a Secondary objective to all Missions (like Slay the WL, Linebreaker, etc) so that 1 VP is gained anytime a Troop unit removes the last Wound or HP from any enemy unit from Elite, Fast or Heavy?
That way if you take more Troops, you can get more points, yet if you bring less/no Troops, you can still win on objectives and/or tabling?

No this would be bad, then armies like BA, harlequins and DE would be punished alot, EH MUST take Fast and Heavy, they basically cant play with 1 CAD so they need 2, that means they need 4 FA and 2 heavies, then with BA and DE best units in FA/Elite/Heavy they will have 9-10 of those units many times.

The point is you cant make troops better by other other units worst, giving VP for other units being killed would hurt than game more than help it.

Giving ObjSec to all "troops" would be fine sense all other units "can" score, troops would still win vs Elites/HQ/Fast/Heavy, this would be the easiest and least nerfing way.

You both are still talking about the same things, really. Finding ways to improve Troops for Objectives will disimprove other Roles for the same purposes.

Objective Secured exclusive to Troops allows them to take Objectives away from Elites, Fast Attack, Heavy Support, and Lords of War. Is that too different than allowing Troops to double score an objective? And Mission Objectives allow for the same thing, in a way.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Galef wrote:
Looking over this thread, a few things stand out to me:

Keeping all units scoring as now is a good thing.
Troops scoring additional points, rather than restricting Elite/FA/HS also seems to be a favorable approach.

So how about this: Let's add a Secondary objective to all Missions (like Slay the WL, Linebreaker, etc) so that 1 VP is gained anytime a Troop unit removes the last Wound or HP from any enemy unit from Elite, Fast or Heavy?
That way if you take more Troops, you can get more points, yet if you bring less/no Troops, you can still win on objectives and/or tabling?

No this would be bad, then armies like BA, harlequins and DE would be punished alot, EH MUST take Fast and Heavy, they basically cant play with 1 CAD so they need 2, that means they need 4 FA and 2 heavies, then with BA and DE best units in FA/Elite/Heavy they will have 9-10 of those units many times.

The point is you cant make troops better by other other units worst, giving VP for other units being killed would hurt than game more than help it.

Giving ObjSec to all "troops" would be fine sense all other units "can" score, troops would still win vs Elites/HQ/Fast/Heavy, this would be the easiest and least nerfing way.

You both are still talking about the same things, really. Finding ways to improve Troops for Objectives will disimprove other Roles for the same purposes.

Objective Secured exclusive to Troops allows them to take Objectives away from Elites, Fast Attack, Heavy Support, and Lords of War. Is that too different than allowing Troops to double score an objective? And Mission Objectives allow for the same thing, in a way.

No i dont think troops need to be better honestly, I was just stating if you were to improve them this would be the best way IMO.

I feel that formations, Allies and the 12 Missions has greatly improve the game from the days of 4th when I started, Man 4th-5th was so much more boring than now, I couldnt think of going back to those simple easy and (even more so) spam game types.

To be "Core" units replaced troops and I love it, it gives more armies more fluff and even a better direction of army style, troops are a thing f the Past, its the dawn of the "Core"!

Can we talk about the elephant in the room guys?

The reason the 40k force organization is such a complete and total failure from a function and narrative point of view.
Is the idea of classing units by function not rarity .

I can not think of any other war game that classes units just by function?Maybe there is a good reason for that?

I have tried out the F,O,W type and Epic SM type force building methods with 40k units.
Both allow for much more diversity and balance in force organisation.

The other factor in this sorry mess of the 40k game is the near complete lack of tactical depth in the game play.

The depth and diversity the 40k background promises needs a suitable tactical depth in the game play to support it.

Other wise its just picking the most cost effective units , an bemoaning the restrictions the FoC enforces, or the sales department shenanigans (detachments etc) that allow your opponents to ignore them.

Lanrak wrote:
I can not think of any other war game that classes units by function?Maybe there is a good reason for that?

Firestorm Planetfall and Heavy Gear come to mind. I believe Dropzone Commander also organizes more by Role and connections than by rarity. And those are just the ones I can think of off hand.

That doesn't include those games which do class their units by function, but it has no solid limits on army construction like Infinity, X-Wing, or Battletech. There may be internal limits on the units themselves, but that's not part of the FOC structure itself, really.

Most of the spaceship games also don't consider "rarity" as much as "size", which is a class of role.

In the modern militaries, the organizations are set up according the roles being required by their force organization, so why wouldn't a future army follow the same? The 40K roles could be better defined, but that's another discussion.

And this discussion isn't about space occupation of pink pachyderms, but that of providing a use for the current system's classification.

If the F,O,C worked properly in 40k, players would not see troops as a tax to pay to get the good units.
And you would not have to put artificial limits in the game play to force players to take troops.

One bad idea to correct another bad idea, that causes different problems is not a solution.

The fact other games use 'unobtrusive limits' does not mean they only use unit function to derive their basic F.O.C like 40k does.

The diversity of the forces found in 40k needs a much less restrictive force organisation method than only function based F.O.C.


TTFN

Then be more clear in your statements rather than just going off complaining about pachyderm apartments. Be aware of the topic and address it properly.

Nevertheless, the CAD is actually more suited to their rarity than Roles. Troops are the most common of an army, and that's why they are the "tax" and most available in a CAD. Elites, fast movers and heavy units are all provided at a lower available rate. This is how advanced militaries work. Certain units are taken in lower numbers because of the specialization and cost of including them, while units that are cheaper or lower in specialization are taken in higher numbers.

Forcing that paradigm by the FOC is actually perfectly natural as you, the player, do not have to work in training those units up to the higher standards or pay the money to give them the better gear. No matter which way you look at it, every game has artificial limitations and encouragements to take certain types of units. Sometimes its in points, sometimes its in availability, and sometimes it is both.

And yes, there are games that do use unit function to derive their organization. It may not be as specific as 40K, but most of them are on different scales and far newer. Look up the Firestorm Planetfall system if you think I am lying.

Should Troops be better? That's what this thread is about, not the Role System over all. Part of the problem is that in every army, the most plentiful tend to be the weakest, and so this is about improving their performance to be desirable.

I think the biggest problem with limiting changes to Troops is that penalises people who play lists that have few Troops but aren't overpowered.

I like to play a Deathwing list for example, and while it can hit very hard sometimes, most of the time it's very hard work to win with it because I consider myself lucky when I'm only outnumbered 2 to 1. I have to have a pretty inventive bag of tricks to keep my opponents guessing, especially since I only regularly play a handful of people, so they usually have some idea what surprises I can field.


Really I think the main problem is that Troop choices are often just so boring; they rarely have unique abilities or anything to justify taking them over something specialist, even with Objective Secured. And on that point Objective Secured is a poor fix really, as it makes no sense that a single guardsmen should be enough to deny an objective to a 10 strong Terminator squad; it's very binary.

So the best solution really is for codex writers to put a bit more effort into the Troop choices, so that there are genuinely compelling reasons to take them. The humble Space Marine Tactical squad is one of the worst examples IMO, as many of the special and heavy choices are pointless, as putting anything too heavy on them only means you deny yourself a round of anti-infantry shooting to use it. If they're so tactical then Split Fire would make a lot of sense; let me engage multiple targets to a reasonable standard and that might make me more inclined to take them over two specialist alternatives.

Another major problem right now is of course the dominance of bikes; most are just too cheap, and too readily available in non-specialised lists, to the point of silliness.


So eh… yeah, I think the problem (like most problems in the game) are a result of bad codex design. Not that I consider my fan-made Sororitas codex a perfect example, but in it I spent a lot of time thinking what the role of Battle Sister squads should be, and eventually settled on giving them the ability to gain faith by holding objectives; this makes them a very strong choice for the role, as their large maximum squad size, power armour and potential for two bonus faith power uses make them very difficult to shift.

@Charistoph.
I have had a quick look at Planetfall Firestorm force selection method.
They appear to identify actual unit types like infantry artillery tanks etc.Which is sensible and common to all war games that have this type of range of units.
(Eg not just a skirmish game using the same type of unit.)

And then assign a core force made up of variable units ,to define the 'core theme' of a particular force.force.
And then have optional units that may be attached, to this core force.

This type of force selection has been about for ages.

Maybe I am not being clear enough.(Again. )

'Unit type' is things like infantry ,armoured vehicle, aircraft etc.As these are obviously different types of unit that are physically different and act differently in the games.

This is not what I mean by unit function.

In most war game with enough tactical depth,(eg most but 40k.)Players are allowed to explore all the tactical functions the units may have in game.

For example A.P.Cs can be use to transport infantry, screen amoured advances, and harass enemy position by using speed to out flank a slow moving enemy.
War bikes can be used as scouts /recon , shock assault, or simply as a method of area denial.(The fear of being out flanked by fast moving enemy units.)

Artificially classing the unit as 'Transport' or 'Fast Attack', is restrictive and too limiting.

Artificial classification to restrict units use by calling them'Troops' 'Elite',' Fast Attack' and 'Heavy support' is the use of (false/implied) unit function.To define and restrict force composition.

Has this made my position clearer?

Lanrak wrote:
@Charistoph.
I have had a quick look at Planetfall Firestorm force selection method.
They appear to identify actual unit types like infantry artillery tanks etc.Which is sensible and common to all war games that have this type of range of units.
(Eg not just a skirmish game using the same type of unit.)

And then assign a core force made up of variable units ,to define the 'core theme' of a particular force.force.
And then have optional units that may be attached, to this core force.

This type of force selection has been about for ages.

Maybe I am not being clear enough.(Again. )

'Unit type' is things like infantry ,armoured vehicle, aircraft etc.As these are obviously different types of unit that are physically different and act differently in the games.

This is not what I mean by unit function.

In most war game with enough tactical depth,(eg most but 40k.)Players are allowed to explore all the tactical functions the units may have in game.

For example A.P.Cs can be use to transport infantry, screen amoured advances, and harass enemy position by using speed to out flank a slow moving enemy.
War bikes can be used as scouts /recon , shock assault, or simply as a method of area denial.(The fear of being out flanked by fast moving enemy units.)

Artificially classing the unit as 'Transport' or 'Fast Attack', is restrictive and too limiting.

Artificial classification to restrict units use by calling them'Troops' 'Elite',' Fast Attack' and 'Heavy support' is the use of (false/implied) unit function.To define and restrict force composition.

Has this made my position clearer?

Then, no, you haven't looked at how they have designed how you build your army in Planetfall.

Planetfall army construction uses a Helix system which revolves around a Core, to which you add extensions. These extensions are: Field Support, Heavy Armor, Air, Assault, Recon, and Leviathan. Units assigned to a Helix entry are based on their Role in the game. Some armies have options to further refine these Roles, such as the difference between Air Ground Attack and Air Interception, and they plan on expanding each of the Helixes so that each one has variety. This is much like how 40K uses Heavy Support to carry Main Battle Tanks or Artillery.

And you should review each of the Orbats. You find 40K restrictive? Some of these Helixes have only the smallest amount of options while others have none at all, literally you take everything in the Helix or you don't take the Helix at all.

Putting such designations on units makes sense because that is how modern military units operate. Units are taken because of the Role they play in the army, and those Roles determine why they are taken. Such designations are artificial because they are made by humans and fit the needs humans designate.

So, you are merely blinding yourself with your emotions as to how this actually works, both in comparing this game to others and in reality.