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.

 vipoid wrote:


I think the issue is that they've been made completely optional. The whole point of troops is that they're supposed to be the core of the army.

Devil's advocate time - in favour of some of those non-Troop detachments.

There have been a number of armies in the past who had non-conventional troops in some form or another - Dark Angels, Blood Angels had Assault Marines as troops for a while, Alpha Legion CSM could field Chosen as troops...it goes on. You also had odd variant lists - armoured companies, Ork Speed Freak lists, Bike Boy lists....

And then when a new codex comes along suddenly that army is illegal. And the 'mandatory' troops feel like a smack in the face to those players who enjoyed that theme or approach.

8th's varied detachments have actually done a very good job of addressing this. Hells, if I still had them I could go back and play my 5th edition Blood Angels again - before Assault Marines poofing back to Fast Attack made my army illegal - thanks to the Outrider detachment. Armoured company lists can play with the Spearhead detachment. Alpha Legion Chosen lists can benefit from Vanguard. Deathwing benefit from Vanguard.

Suddenly they've produced a detachment system that retroactively caters to the armies that had the odd troops choices or selections - Eldar Ghost Warriors for example - now you can field Vanguard for multiple Wraithguard, some Wraithlords, a Supreme Command detachment for the Warlocks and you can be happy.

It actually lets older armies come back out to play.

 Selym wrote:
Make it 30% basic squaddies, and it's a deal.

In every 1,000 points, you must have 300pts of Troops.
In every 1,500 points, you must have 450pts of Troops.
In every 2,000 points, you must have 600pts of Troops.
In every 2,500 points, you must have 750pts of Troops.
In every 3,000 points, you must have 900pts of Troops.

This is easy to achieve - A Tactical Marine squad can make over 200 points in a single skwad.

The one thing I'll say n regard to this is that I'm wondering whether transports should really factor into this.

For example, a squad of DE Warriors is about half the cost of their transport. So in a 2000pt game, if you have to spend 600pts on Warriors, you'd then have to spend a further ~1200pts to actually put them in transports. Might be a tad excessive.

Dionysodorus wrote:
I don't have an in-principle problem with this as long as many factions get their units' roles re-thought. Necrons need way more than just Warriors and Immortals as Troops, for example.

I actually think that Necrons are fine with the troops they have. Warriors and Immortals are both solid and I'd have no objections to them making up 25-30% of my list. Hell, I'd even be willing to go higher than that.

My only issue is how stupidly expensive the models for immortals are.

That said, what changes would you propose for Necrons? Are there any units you'd want to move to Troops (Scarabs maybe?)? Or would you like a whole new troop unit for them?


Also, serious question, which armies do you guys think would suffer most from being forced to field more troops?

We are currently trying out the following:

-dedicated transport remains unchanged
-Troop choices are unlimited. (something I really miss in any 40k edition)
- You have one HQ you have to fill.
- You have up to one choice each of fast assault, heavy support and elite as base.

-For each Troop choice you take, you can pick ONE other choice from HQ or elites or assault or support.
Alternatively:
- For two Troop choices you take , you can pick a flyer or lord of war.

You cannot have a troop choice count for both.

The system is not tied to the number of points you play but can get quite troop centric over 3000 points.

Command points are a flat 1 per 250 points.

Albeit the one CP per troop was discussed as well but discarded as some armies have it easier to fill every need on the battlefield with troops than others.

I think unlimited troops is a good idea.

 vipoid wrote:

I actually think that Necrons are fine with the troops they have. Warriors and Immortals are both solid and I'd have no objections to them making up 25-30% of my list. Hell, I'd even be willing to go higher than that.

My only issue is how stupidly expensive the models for immortals are.

That said, what changes would you propose for Necrons? Are there any units you'd want to move to Troops (Scarabs maybe?)? Or would you like a whole new troop unit for them?

I think that mostly the problem with Necrons is that their armies become really boring and same-y. Yeah, Warriors and Immortals are pretty good, but they're both slow footsloggers that shoot small arms at about 24". So, suppose you have to spend 600 points on Troops at 2k. What are you doing? You're probably bringing 2 big squads of Warriors and a squad of Immortals (note that you can't actually bring just 2 big squads of Immortals and a squad of Warriors -- that doesn't hit 600 -- though you could bring MSU immortals). That means you pretty much have to bring a Ghost Ark. If you already have such a big infantry blob including Immortals it's kind of stupid not to bring an Overlord and a Cryptek. With so many gauss or tesla weapons already it's really hard to justify the non-Troops choices which pack similar guns, and you definitely need anti-tank which your Troops don't really provide at all. So you're then probably spending another 600 points on either Heavy Destroyers or Doomsday Arks. And that's approaching 1600 points or so where your main options were whether to bring a named Overlord and Cryptek and whether to use Heavy Destroyers or DDAs.

I think if you're doing this you absolutely would need to offer anti-tank options at Troops.

Dionysodorus wrote:

I think that mostly the problem with Necrons is that their armies become really boring and same-y. Yeah, Warriors and Immortals are pretty good, but they're both slow footsloggers that shoot small arms at about 24". So, suppose you have to spend 600 points on Troops at 2k. What are you doing? You're probably bringing 2 big squads of Warriors and a squad of Immortals (note that you can't actually bring just 2 big squads of Immortals and a squad of Warriors -- that doesn't hit 600 -- though you could bring MSU immortals). That means you pretty much have to bring a Ghost Ark. If you already have such a big infantry blob including Immortals it's kind of stupid not to bring an Overlord and a Cryptek.

That's a fair point, although I'd argue that part of the problem is having buffs that either only work on Warriors or else are only cost-effective on Warriors. e.g. Crypteks need large squads to really shine, and Ghost Arks can only transport and heal Warriors.

Dionysodorus wrote:
So you're then probably spending another 600 points on either Heavy Destroyers or Doomsday Arks. And that's approaching 1600 points or so where your main options were whether to bring a named Overlord and Cryptek and whether to use Heavy Destroyers or DDAs.

I think if you're doing this you absolutely would need to offer anti-tank options at Troops.

Yeah, I do get what you're saying. What would you suggest in terms of anti-tank options for troops?

Even 25% of 2000 points would mean that I would need 50 Guardians.

To be honest I am getting the vibe that people want Warhammer 40.000 to become nearly rank and file like Warhammer Fantasy with huge contingents of the same troops over and over again just slowly marching across the plains.

I just don't see the appeal. I have played basic Footdar(Guardians en masse) it just gets boring. Playing a lot of Guardians became super boring after the Shuriken Catapult nerf. Boosting their statline is not going to make them more fun, and adding more special abilities to make them interesting means we could have just as well just stuck to allowing lots of Elites and Fast attack units.

Also, why is it so important that all armies play like the Horde armies? If you want to play a lot of troops, fine, go play your army if it allows you to do that. Why should everyone else have to do that?

If this is an indirect cry of foul regarding mass Stormraven/Insert OP unit lists I do believe that time would be better spent asking for a nerf on those unit so people don't spam it instead of having the game restructured into Warhammer Fantasy.

My Ravenwing bikers aren't Troops and neither are my Eldar wraith constructs, but both of these are the core of a strongly themed, and fluffy army (Ravenwing and Iyanden). I already pay a tax in reduced Command Points (by having to use the Outrider or Vanguard detachments) so don't need any other system to tax me or force be to spend x amount of points in Rangers or Scouts just to please someone else's idea of what the game should be.

Troops are pretty excellent in this edition - Though some armies troops are horrifically bad - like Eldar and Space Marines.

Fix the bad troops and you wont have any problem with detachments. Though I do believe certain detachments like the air wing and super-heavy (except for imperial knights) detachments shouldn't exist.

Eldar are and were a hot mess of internal codex imbalance and always have been. In 5th-6th, their Troops were either Jetbikes or Dire Avengers in Wave Serpents. In 7th, it became "Jetbikes only, Final Destination." This is a twofold issue: Scatbikes were gamebreakingly good, and every other Eldar Troop choice only existed to unlock Wave Serpents. With the option to take them as Fast Attack, or grant them BS 5 via the Aspect Host, the "unlocking" purpose didn't matter anymore.

Come 8th, Guardian Jetbikes are now Fast Attack. Sadly, this leaves the foot Guardians out to dry. While fine-tuning the actual internal balance is an issue, some spitball thoughts (for 7e) include:

-Guardian Jetbikes get 4+ armor instead of 3+. Jetbike Scatter Lasers are Range 12. (Turns them into a more glass-cannon Warp Spider admittedly).
-Dire Avengers get 3+ armor.
-Warlocks get 2 Wounds, and 2 attacks.
-Guardians are 8 points, Storm Guardians are 7.
-The Aspect Host is reworked: 3 units of Aspect Warriors. Each unit must take an Exarch, and you cannot take the same Aspect type multiple times. While an Exarch is alive, all other Exarchs in that formation have access to that Exarch's special skill. It would be powerful, but by definition would be an anti-spam formation.

...actually, that's the real issue with 8e, and certain 7e ones. They either promoted spam or didn't encourage mixed units. For every Pinion Demi-Company or Ynnead's Net, you had a Riptide Wing.

The problem with any arbitrary restrictions on any slot is that slots (including troops) are not at all balanced between armies. At say 25% (500 points at 2k) some armies will happily field more points than this and still do well. Others will struggle to make a competitive list that requires 500 points of junk units. Daemons seem a prime candidate for an example of troops as junk, 500 points is basically requiring them to field ~56 troop models, that are mediocre, where as say Orks will be more than happy to bring 90 ork boyz to every game. I think this kind of thinking leads to a lot of armies being very much the same, unless a lot of options are added to what are considered Troops.

I think a decent fix in this edition might be something like "troop models count as 2 models for the purpose of scoring objectives".

Or if the concern is Infantry being prioritized, you could say objectives are held based on the number of infantry models within 3".

But emphasizing troops based on quotas is just bad unless a lot changes.

As for detachments, my only complaint is that there isn't a 1HQ + troops detachment that gives CP. Battalion requires 2 HQ, and Patrol gives no CP.

I would have liked to see either a detachment similar to the Vanguard/Spearhead/Outrider but for troops and giving 2 CP, or simply a Combined arms detachment which would give 2 CP.

 Nazrak wrote:
I think the current detachments system is nearly there, but not quite. Would be nice to see some sort of incentive (bonus CPs maybe?) to actually fill out your detachments, rather than just take the bare minimum for the CPs. For example, why would I take an extra HQ/three HS slots in a Battalion when I can take them as a separate detachment and get +1CP?

I realy like this idea. In fact I'd go so far as to say that it's the only idea in this thread worth considering, everything else is a trash heap idea of forcing all armies to take X amount of troops and will result in every army playing the same way, despite the fact that it would completely gut quite a few armies (With the 30% troops suggestion my Dark Eldar would become functionally useless thanks to having to spend roughly another 50% on transports. If I don't take the transports, the army is useless, but if I take them I have enough points for maybe a Ravager and HQ.) as not every faction is remotely designed to play the same way.

 Imateria wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:
I think the current detachments system is nearly there, but not quite. Would be nice to see some sort of incentive (bonus CPs maybe?) to actually fill out your detachments, rather than just take the bare minimum for the CPs. For example, why would I take an extra HQ/three HS slots in a Battalion when I can take them as a separate detachment and get +1CP?

I realy like this idea.

I would agree, I think perhaps there should be increasing CP for filling out detachments.

Breng77 wrote:

 Imateria wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:
I think the current detachments system is nearly there, but not quite. Would be nice to see some sort of incentive (bonus CPs maybe?) to actually fill out your detachments, rather than just take the bare minimum for the CPs. For example, why would I take an extra HQ/three HS slots in a Battalion when I can take them as a separate detachment and get +1CP?

I realy like this idea.

I would agree, I think perhaps there should be increasing CP for filling out detachments.

Again, though, I think this will hit some armies a lot harder than others.

For example, a chap on dakkadakka recently looked into the minimum cost for a Brigade for each army. Most were somewhere in the region of 500-600pts. The Necron one was 1400+pts.

While making list-building a bit more cumbersome, I actually like Detachments in 8th Ed.

 vipoid wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Imateria wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:
I think the current detachments system is nearly there, but not quite. Would be nice to see some sort of incentive (bonus CPs maybe?) to actually fill out your detachments, rather than just take the bare minimum for the CPs. For example, why would I take an extra HQ/three HS slots in a Battalion when I can take them as a separate detachment and get +1CP?

I realy like this idea.

I would agree, I think perhaps there should be increasing CP for filling out detachments.

Again, though, I think this will hit some armies a lot harder than others.

For example, a chap on dakkadakka recently looked into the minimum cost for a Brigade for each army. Most were somewhere in the region of 500-600pts. The Necron one was 1400+pts.

Most armies are never going to bother with a Brigade. Maybe the Patrol should give +1CP as well and from there work out how many extra CP each detachment should give for filling it out, with the number and variety of the current detachments it would be easy then to pick one that suits the army you're playing.

 vipoid wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Imateria wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:
I think the current detachments system is nearly there, but not quite. Would be nice to see some sort of incentive (bonus CPs maybe?) to actually fill out your detachments, rather than just take the bare minimum for the CPs. For example, why would I take an extra HQ/three HS slots in a Battalion when I can take them as a separate detachment and get +1CP?

I realy like this idea.

I would agree, I think perhaps there should be increasing CP for filling out detachments.

Again, though, I think this will hit some armies a lot harder than others.

For example, a chap on dakkadakka recently looked into the minimum cost for a Brigade for each army. Most were somewhere in the region of 500-600pts. The Necron one was 1400+pts.

Yes, but if Necrons could take a Vanguard for +1, then get another +1 for taking the 2 FA slots, another +1 for taking the 2 Heavy Slots, +1for 2 flyers and another +1 for taking 3 troops, for a total of +6 CP, then if they take a second HQ on top of everything else they get + 6 CP For a total of 9 CP. To get 9 CP currently they would need to take 2 Battalion detachments.

Now sure some armies will have an easier time filling out detachments than other, but in general you would end up with more varied armies being rewarded

Breng77 wrote:

Yes, but if Necrons could take a Vanguard for +1, then get another +1 for taking the 2 FA slots, another +1 for taking the 2 Heavy Slots, +1for 2 flyers and another +1 for taking 3 troops, for a total of +6 CP, then if they take a second HQ on top of everything else they get + 6 CP For a total of 9 CP. To get 9 CP currently they would need to take 2 Battalion detachments.

Sorry, I really don't understand what you're saying here.

Breng77 wrote:
Now sure some armies will have an easier time filling out detachments than other, but in general you would end up with more varied armies being rewarded

I don't see how, honestly. It seems like a punishment for armies that can't just spam cheap units to fill up excess slots.

EDIT:

 Imateria wrote:

Most armies are never going to bother with a Brigade. Maybe the Patrol should give +1CP as well and from there work out how many extra CP each detachment should give for filling it out, with the number and variety of the current detachments it would be easy then to pick one that suits the army you're playing.

I appreciate that, but I think you missed my point. I was using it as an indicator of how much more Necrons are likely to have to pay to fill up a detachment, compared to other armies.

 vipoid wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

Yes, but if Necrons could take a Vanguard for +1, then get another +1 for taking the 2 FA slots, another +1 for taking the 2 Heavy Slots, +1for 2 flyers and another +1 for taking 3 troops, for a total of +6 CP, then if they take a second HQ on top of everything else they get + 6 CP For a total of 9 CP. To get 9 CP currently they would need to take 2 Battalion detachments.

Sorry, I really don't understand what you're saying here.

Breng77 wrote:
Now sure some armies will have an easier time filling out detachments than other, but in general you would end up with more varied armies being rewarded

I don't see how, honestly. It seems like a punishment for armies that can't just spam cheap units to fill up excess slots.

EDIT:

 Imateria wrote:

Most armies are never going to bother with a Brigade. Maybe the Patrol should give +1CP as well and from there work out how many extra CP each detachment should give for filling it out, with the number and variety of the current detachments it would be easy then to pick one that suits the army you're playing.

I appreciate that, but I think you missed my point. I was using it as an indicator of how much more Necrons are likely to have to pay to fill up a detachment, compared to other armies.

A vanguard detachment is
1-2 HQ
0-3 Troops
3-6 elites
0-2 FA
0-2 Heavy
0-2 Flyers

What I'm saying is that for filling out each slot (except elites) you gain +1 CP, and that necrons would be more likely to be able to make an effective army and have CP in this method, rather than needing to spam HQs and Troops to get the same benefit.

Sure some armies could spam super cheap units to fill out a this detachment, but they can already do that by taking things like the brigade, or battalion, while still getting a ton of stuff that is useful. Expensive armies on the other hand have a harder time doing this, so being able to take say 2 FA for +1 CP would be of use to those armies.

Now I am not saying my method is the way to do it, It might be +1 for the detachment, then an additional +2 if you fill it out. Also to some extent CP have diminishing returns, there is IMO a bigger difference between having 5 CP and 9 CP, than there is between having 9 CP and 13 CP

Oh, I get you now. Cheers for elaborating.

It is also of note that spamming CP by itself doesn't win games, they are a bonus to good armies, so being able to have a super cheap brigade (presume it is imperium spamming acoltyes, and other cheap options) doesn't mean that army can win.

I said it in some other thread with a similar premise iirc but i miss objective secured

it made sense that only troops would be focused in capturing a thing.

but why bother doing that when you could just shoot the enemy off the table with the most elite hs or fa slots.

i still think the troop slot needs a little something something but not sure since they cant be as good as the other slots.

 Desubot wrote:
I said it in some other thread with a similar premise iirc but i miss objective secured

it made sense that only troops would be focused in capturing a thing.

but why bother doing that when you could just shoot the enemy off the table with the most elite hs or fa slots.

i still think the troop slot needs a little something something but not sure since they cant be as good as the other slots.

At this point I'd almost say battlefield role should just go away and points should be used for balance, given the current detachments there is really very little that prevents you from fielding just about anything. All you need to do is pay the HQ tax. Then you could give units abilities like OS that would make them good a holding objectives.

Looking at what I have, and what I plan on getting for armies I currently collect, in liking the Detachments in 8th quite a lot. Granted, some of that was down to seeing the options for taking small, focused detachments for the extra CP, but for some of the army special rules where everything in a Detachment needs to be from the same faction it still makes allies useful.

The confusion over the wording of "Ynnari army" for example might not be a huge deal, but I'd still probably find it easier to take a Ynnari detachment and then separate detachments for the other Aeldari dudes. As Codex specific detachments come out (purely speculation but I'd be surprised if they don't) it may become even more important.

Mostly though, I just like them because it gives me relative freedom to rock out with whatever models I feel like. They might suck (or maybe that's their commander?) but at least they'll be legal.

I usually run around 6-7 command points at 2k. YOU DON'T NEED MORE THAN THIS. Armies that are spamming cheap units also don't benefit command points much. So it's totally pointless to spam cheap units to get command points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Desubot wrote:
I said it in some other thread with a similar premise iirc but i miss objective secured

it made sense that only troops would be focused in capturing a thing.

but why bother doing that when you could just shoot the enemy off the table with the most elite hs or fa slots.

i still think the troop slot needs a little something something but not sure since they cant be as good as the other slots.

Point reduction is all they need IMO.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I usually run around 6-7 command points at 2k. YOU DON'T NEED MORE THAN THIS. Armies that are spamming cheap units also don't benefit command points much. So it's totally pointless to spam cheap units to get command points.

Yup, that is why I said it is a diminishing return. It is obviously a benefit to have more command points, but after a certain point based on the limitations on using them, after a certain point sacrificing things to get them is no longer worth the investment.

I mean you could re-roll ~35 times per game if you had the command points, but the chance that you will have super important rolls once per phase for 7 turns is low. Similarly you could auto-pass morale for 14 Cp, but chances are you won't need to. I think 6-7 is enough, 9 or 10 is nice, more than that and you end up using them just because you have them and not because they are truly needed.

I like the Detachment system in 8th edition. It allows for almost the same level of flexibility in army construction as 7th edition, but without the Formation Benefits that everyone complained about as being of extremely variable power.

With the way 8th Edition's core rules work, Command Points are helpful but not so good as to warrant spamming to get the maximum possible. More army flexibility gives a greater variety of competitive builds for an army, which in my opinion is a good thing.

I think having objectives only secured by troop choices would instantly drive the game back to having armies be mostly basic riflemen.

I like the different detachments with their different CP rewards, though.

Heh, how about starting all armies with only troop slots and 9 CP. Each slot you convert into a non-troop slot costs 1 CP. Non-troops are non-objective scoring.

Combine with Strategms. 1 CP to give a non-troop unit the ability to score objectives. Maybe for 2 CP you can call in an artillery strike. For a CP, you can Deep Strike, or perhaps give them Scout or other special rules (or GW can sell them as a deck of cards you can choose from in a "hand", especially if some could be played midgame to represent battlefield conditions, luck, strategy or somesuch). Maybe even use them summoning (say, fixing each CP to be worth about 20 points of units/upgrades) Certain armies/chapters/factions might have their own special Strategms.

This would make army building relatively flexible, but these upgrades still have a cost associated with them. Essentially CPs would be a currency you put aside for army customization/luck mitigation.

 Stormonu wrote:
Heh, how about starting all armies with only troop slots and 9 CP. Each slot you convert into a non-troop slot costs 1 CP. Non-troops are non-objective scoring.

Combine with Strategms. 1 CP to give a non-troop unit the ability to score objectives. Maybe for 2 CP you can call in an artillery strike. For a CP, you can Deep Strike, or perhaps give them Scout or other special rules (or GW can sell them as a deck of cards you can choose from in a "hand", especially if some could be played midgame to represent battlefield conditions, luck, strategy or somesuch). Maybe even use them summoning (say, fixing each CP to be worth about 20 points of units/upgrades) Certain armies/chapters/factions might have their own special Strategms.

This would make army building relatively flexible, but these upgrades still have a cost associated with them. Essentially CPs would be a currency you put aside for army customization/luck mitigation.

That would be terrible.

My army easily fields 5-8 armored vehicles, and an amount of infantry that makes people annoyed at the amount of time I spend setting it up.

If it counts down from a fixed number, wherever the number is set, it shifts the balance of power as it were much more drastically than the current system does, I think.