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.

Troops shouldn't be a tax- they should be necessary and useful additions to every army- GW simply fails to give them inherent value by making troop/infantry-centric design choices.

Battlefield roles do matter- or at least should matter. Units that are especially powerful or have abilities that could be troublesome in greater numbers need restrictions on how many can be fielded. At the very least, for the old force org swaps, there should be units whose access is more restricted or outright lost to balance things like taking more than 3 units of WG.

 Blndmage wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

Detachments exists to be filled, not hit the minimums and make another.

I missed this rule.

Glad I wasn't the only one.
I'll be honest I start any competitive list with usually minimum strength battalion then a second detachment of main force.
With sometimes a third detachment if I need a different faction or subfaction specific detachment.

And that's where things get broken.
Why do you think they show the rest of the limitations of the various detachments, to 0-X stuff?
It's to show how they want the detachments filled out, even if it's from a fluff standpoint, that's really where the game is from.
Not everyone plays competitively, actually the minority of players do.
This thread isn't just about the comparative mindset, but the game in general.
Stop looking at from an optimization standpoint, and look at it from the narrative side.
I totally, and 100% get what your saying, but not everyone has the ability to do that.

No, the extra slots are so people have some flexibility in building. It's for when you can't afford another detachment to fit what you want so you still have slots to put things in. Especially in smaller games where the cost of the extra HQ for another detachment can leave you with too few points. Competitive or not people still want to be able to play their dudes how they want. By your logic of slots existing to be filled and that it's how GW intends the game to work then to take a heavy support in a battalion you'd be forced to take two elites, a fast attack and a flyer. The extra slots are there so that when someone "fills" a detachment but doesn't have enough points to take a second one they still have a few excess slots to take an extra unit or two without being forced to take an auxillary support detachment.

If detachments were intended to be filled before you added another there'd either be a rule stating that, less slots per detachments, a limit of the number of detachments you can take or some combination of the three.

 Imateria wrote:
The problem with the premise of this thread is that a lot of troops are actually really good. Kabalites, Guardsmen, Guardians, Ork Boyz, Genestealers and Fire Warriors are all excellent choices and they're not the only ones. The idea of troops being an unwanted tax is rather outdated this edition and proven false by the performance of many of these units on the table.

See, I feel like whether or not troops are meant to be "worse" than other options is just kind of inconsistent. There are certainly lots of solid troops out there (which I mentioned in the original post), but there are also things like tactical marines. A single unit of guardian defenders delivered via webway is pretty solid, but I'm rarely inspired to take multiple guardian units. Dire Avengers are a well-balanced unit, but they're also too underwhelming for me to field them in lieu of a different unit with either greater offense or a more significant purpose.

I feel that this is basically an artefact from the days when troops were allowed to be less good because they were mandatory so you had to buy and use them anyway. Heck, many elites (true born, celestians, arguably stern guard) were/are basically just basic troops but made more efficient through their wargear options or special rules.

I'm glad that many troops feel like more desirable choices these days, but then why are troop-heavy armies (batallions) rewarded for taking them with extra CP? Either (some) troops are designed to be less efficient than non-troops and thus warrant rewarding with bonus CP, or troops are designed to be efficient choices in their own rights and thus do not warrant bonus XP. If tactical marines are (hypothetically) just as worth their points as Raven Wing or Death Wing units, then why is a vanguard/outrider of death/raven wing units worth 4 fewer CP than a batallion of tactical marines?

Troops will generally be seen as less good compared to other slots because many armies take the stats of the basic troops and crank one (or more) of their attributes up (ranging from movement to attacks to toughness or saves) which usually results in them being more attractive on paper, leading to the game needing a solution built in for ensuring people don't just load up on the troops+1 options. This is part of the reason troop units could hold objectives over non-troops: to ensure that they had more utility in a list than the bare minimum.

Troops would be worse if you blurred the lines and just told people to ignore what role the unit fills and just take whatever in an army (oh hi, Unbound from 6th edition and how you were banned from tournaments for breaking the game).

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Troops will generally be seen as less good compared to other slots because many armies take the stats of the basic troops and crank one (or more) of their attributes up (ranging from movement to attacks to toughness or saves) which usually results in them being more attractive on paper, leading to the game needing a solution built in for ensuring people don't just load up on the troops+1 options. This is part of the reason troop units could hold objectives over non-troops: to ensure that they had more utility in a list than the bare minimum.

Troops would be worse if you blurred the lines and just told people to ignore what role the unit fills and just take whatever in an army (oh hi, Unbound from 6th edition and how you were banned from tournaments for breaking the game).

I"m not really arguing for getting rid of battle roles in a vacuum. I"m saying that we should design troops as being as good an option as other units rather than being other units - 1. Obsec is another way in which they try to make up for troops being the undesirable baseline against which more desirable units are measured (I"m painting with broad strokes here) along with making batallions better at generating CP. The problem with the former is that not all units actually benefit all that much from obsec. If my rangers are standing on the same objective as an enemy unit, they are not long for this world.

That said, I think something like obsec is probably roughly the right idea. If things like tactical marines had some sort of utility not directly tied to their killing power, then they could remain less points efficient than other units while still offering value to an army.

You can't make troops as good as every other unit when every other unit is basically troops + X.

Objective secured was the old use of troops, now it's giving you access to more CP than less standard armies that'd let you just spam the really good stuff.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
You can't make troops as good as every other unit when every other unit is basically troops + X.

I disagree. You can make them as good as other units by giving them some sort of trick or advantage that doesn't directly raise their combat ability. Let sternguard or centurions or whatever be more killy and/or more durable than tactical marines, but give tactical marines a reason for showing up. Obsec sort of tries to do this by letting troops grab objectives out from under the enemy, but it isn't a good fit for all units. Making a unit cheap enough to serve as a screening unit gives them a purpose without making them more lethal. You could let some troops grant deepstrike to others or re-deepstrike mid battle so that they can join turn 2 deepstrikers or any number of other things that make them useful without stepping on the toes of more lethal/durable units.

Objective secured was the old use of troops, now it's giving you access to more CP than less standard armies that'd let you just spam the really good stuff.

My point is that there shouldn't be "really good stuff." Things should be good choices for their points when fielded alongside the right complimentary options. Designing troops as being other stuff -1 encourages designers to not do this.

And to turn things around, an army shouldn't be punished for not fielding troops (white scar bike armies for instance) if/once troops are assumed to be as worth their points as non-troop options.

If you give troops a rule that only benefits you if you take troops (like Obj Secure) then you punish armies who don't take troops. And if you just let people shuffle units around easily to become troops you defeat the purpose of giving the bonus.

It's a "damned if they do, damned if they don't" sort of issue.

Wyldhunt wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
You can't make troops as good as every other unit when every other unit is basically troops + X.

I disagree. You can make them as good as other units by giving them some sort of trick or advantage that doesn't directly raise their combat ability. Let sternguard or centurions or whatever be more killy and/or more durable than tactical marines, but give tactical marines a reason for showing up. Obsec sort of tries to do this by letting troops grab objectives out from under the enemy, but it isn't a good fit for all units. Making a unit cheap enough to serve as a screening unit gives them a purpose without making them more lethal. You could let some troops grant deepstrike to others or re-deepstrike mid battle so that they can join turn 2 deepstrikers or any number of other things that make them useful without stepping on the toes of more lethal/durable units.

Objective secured was the old use of troops, now it's giving you access to more CP than less standard armies that'd let you just spam the really good stuff.

My point is that there shouldn't be "really good stuff." Things should be good choices for their points when fielded alongside the right complimentary options. Designing troops as being other stuff -1 encourages designers to not do this.

And to turn things around, an army shouldn't be punished for not fielding troops (white scar bike armies for instance) if/once troops are assumed to be as worth their points as non-troop options.

Making a unit cheap enough to be a screen makes them both more lethal and more durable. Decreasing the points gives more shots and more wounds per point. To make them a screen without making them more lethal you'd need to decrease their firepower at the same time.

I honestly think CP should have worked the opposite to how it does. Treat it like Requisition POints, not Command Points. I.E. you start with a certain number (say based on the size of the game) and you SPEND them to get those non-normal detachments. Representing your resources being used to get more tanks or more fast attack to reinforce your normal company.

Overall though I agree, I think there should have been ways to make things troops, but not take a detachment of only elites or whatnot. It sounded great on paper but did not work that way in the game. Remember when GW said that command points would be a bonus for playing an army fluffy or to a theme?

This all boils down to the main problem with the game at the minute. What ever rules they make competitive gamers will try to abuse them or side step them to gain an advantage that has nothing to do fluff wise. The game all works well if don’t try and abuse it. CPs, detachments. All of it. The roles matter all the units are worth taking. It’s a fun game.

Wayniac wrote:
I honestly think CP should have worked the opposite to how it does. Treat it like Requisition POints, not Command Points. I.E. you start with a certain number (say based on the size of the game) and you SPEND them to get those non-normal detachments. Representing your resources being used to get more tanks or more fast attack to reinforce your normal company.

Overall though I agree, I think there should have been ways to make things troops, but not take a detachment of only elites or whatnot. It sounded great on paper but did not work that way in the game. Remember when GW said that command points would be a bonus for playing an army fluffy or to a theme?

I wildly disagree on this point.

I think it could be handled better in some books, but things like the Tank Commander and Leman Russes in a Spearhead Detachment(the all Heavy Support one) getting a benefit that normally is reserved for Troops was well handled.

Honestly, I'd see it as: a minimum Battalion, is 3 CP, a full one (not including Flyers or Transports), with all slots filled would be 5. Similar for the others, you get more points for having a full formation, not just min/maxing with the least you can get away with to get the CPs.

 Kcalehc wrote:
Honestly, I'd see it as: a minimum Battalion, is 3 CP, a full one (not including Flyers or Transports), with all slots filled would be 5. Similar for the others, you get more points for having a full formation, not just min/maxing with the least you can get away with to get the CPs.

Yeah, no one is going to take an extra hq, 3 troops, 6 elites, 3 fast attack and 3 heavy support to get 2 CP. They'd ditch the 6 elites, 3 fast attack and 3 heavy support for a fourth HQ and an extra CP if that was the case. That's ignoring the fact that brigades exist. No one is going to take 3 extra elites to lose 7 CP when they could just say it's a battalion.

I don't necessary disagree with the idea of full detachments giving more CP than ones with the bare minimum. But it'd need every detachment reworked with less slots or a full detachment would have to give a massive amount of extra CP to be worth taking.

 Kcalehc wrote:
Honestly, I'd see it as: a minimum Battalion, is 3 CP, a full one (not including Flyers or Transports), with all slots filled would be 5. Similar for the others, you get more points for having a full formation, not just min/maxing with the least you can get away with to get the CPs.

There's no more Formations. People whined enough that it's an AoS only thing now.

Detachments are a different beast altogether.

 Kcalehc wrote:
Honestly, I'd see it as: a minimum Battalion, is 3 CP, a full one (not including Flyers or Transports), with all slots filled would be 5. Similar for the others, you get more points for having a full formation, not just min/maxing with the least you can get away with to get the CPs.

It's well nigh impossible for some armies to fill a battalion with 2000 points. I believe that someone had a thread that had the minimum points needed to do so and most of those options were just pathetic. Why don't you try to fill out a competitive full Custodes battalion? Let's see how many points it takes. I'd be suprised if the number was less than 2000.

I know that you can't fill a GK battalion for 2000 points and there's no way that it would be competitive in any event.

IronBrand wrote:

I don't necessary disagree with the idea of full detachments giving more CP than ones with the bare minimum. But it'd need every detachment reworked with less slots or a full detachment would have to give a massive amount of extra CP to be worth taking.

There's way, way too many additional slots to expect players to fill them. Heavy Support alone often comes in at half a list if you max it out. It's mostly just an easy way to ensure players can take 2-4 additional slots of whatever they want after paying the base requirements. It's wiggle room, even if practically speaking most players won't max anything out.

If GW expected players to fill out detachments, they'd have to be written out as something like taking 1 additional HQ and up to 3 additionally selections from the remaining battlefield roles. That just makes a weird hard limit to something that probably doesn't need it though, so its just easier to give players a buffer across each role to work with so they can add in a splash of Fast Attack or Elite or whatever in whatever combination they need.

Honestly, a lot of the specialist detachments aren't super practical even if the CP they give wasn't so low. I think they could easily be 1 HQ + 2 of the role. 3 of a kind in the more specialized areas is quite most of the time. Being able to splash one or two in a Battalion is pretty important.

Personally I would prefer that CP was tied to how many points each side is playing with rather than army comp. It would even what each side has to play with and would discourage the nonsense of CP battery powered by chaff infantry.

 LunarSol wrote:

IronBrand wrote:

I don't necessary disagree with the idea of full detachments giving more CP than ones with the bare minimum. But it'd need every detachment reworked with less slots or a full detachment would have to give a massive amount of extra CP to be worth taking.

There's way, way too many additional slots to expect players to fill them. Heavy Support alone often comes in at half a list if you max it out. It's mostly just an easy way to ensure players can take 2-4 additional slots of whatever they want after paying the base requirements. It's wiggle room, even if practically speaking most players won't max anything out.

If GW expected players to fill out detachments, they'd have to be written out as something like taking 1 additional HQ and up to 3 additionally selections from the remaining battlefield roles. That just makes a weird hard limit to something that probably doesn't need it though, so its just easier to give players a buffer across each role to work with so they can add in a splash of Fast Attack or Elite or whatever in whatever combination they need.

Honestly, a lot of the specialist detachments aren't super practical even if the CP they give wasn't so low. I think they could easily be 1 HQ + 2 of the role. 3 of a kind in the more specialized areas is quite most of the time. Being able to splash one or two in a Battalion is pretty important.

That's why I said if they wanted to implement a system where full detachments gave more CP that they'd need to lower the number of slots. I don't expect them to do it and don't want them to either. It'd just complicate things unnecessarily while not really adding much to the game. You cut out the part of my post where I outright said no one would ever fill the detachment for a couple extra CP. Kcalehc was the one advocating the change, not me.

IronBrand wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

IronBrand wrote:

I don't necessary disagree with the idea of full detachments giving more CP than ones with the bare minimum. But it'd need every detachment reworked with less slots or a full detachment would have to give a massive amount of extra CP to be worth taking.

There's way, way too many additional slots to expect players to fill them. Heavy Support alone often comes in at half a list if you max it out. It's mostly just an easy way to ensure players can take 2-4 additional slots of whatever they want after paying the base requirements. It's wiggle room, even if practically speaking most players won't max anything out.

If GW expected players to fill out detachments, they'd have to be written out as something like taking 1 additional HQ and up to 3 additionally selections from the remaining battlefield roles. That just makes a weird hard limit to something that probably doesn't need it though, so its just easier to give players a buffer across each role to work with so they can add in a splash of Fast Attack or Elite or whatever in whatever combination they need.

Honestly, a lot of the specialist detachments aren't super practical even if the CP they give wasn't so low. I think they could easily be 1 HQ + 2 of the role. 3 of a kind in the more specialized areas is quite most of the time. Being able to splash one or two in a Battalion is pretty important.

That's why I said if they wanted to implement a system where full detachments gave more CP that they'd need to lower the number of slots. I don't expect them to do it and don't want them to either. It'd just complicate things unnecessarily while not really adding much to the game. You cut out the part of my post where I outright said no one would ever fill the detachment for a couple extra CP. Kcalehc was the one advocating the change, not me.

Didn't mean to come across as anything other than agreeing with your point. Mostly just looking to expand on it.

IronBrand wrote:
Making a unit cheap enough to be a screen makes them both more lethal and more durable. Decreasing the points gives more shots and more wounds per point. To make them a screen without making them more lethal you'd need to decrease their firepower at the same time.

No, it does not. A Guardsman Infantry Squad can be 5 points or 50 points at its base and its lethality and durability would remain the same. What changes is its efficiency and desirability.

Lethality is how much damage a unit can do. This is usually addressed by either more guns or better guns.

Durability is how well it can absorb Damage. This is addressed by Toughness, Wounds, and/or Saves.

Efficiency is how much of that lethality and durability I can get for the points.

Desirability is a combination of efficiency and effectiveness. A unit can be slightly less efficient if it is simply the most lethal unit available.

Wayniac wrote:I honestly think CP should have worked the opposite to how it does. Treat it like Requisition POints, not Command Points. I.E. you start with a certain number (say based on the size of the game) and you SPEND them to get those non-normal detachments. Representing your resources being used to get more tanks or more fast attack to reinforce your normal company.

That would be an interesting way to set up a tournament, but I don't think it would affect how Troops are taken. You gain Requisition Points for Patrol, Battalion, and Brigade Detachments, but lose them for the others. This can require a person to take a Battalion before they take an Air Wing or Super-Heavy. Left over RPs can be additional CPs.

--------------------------------------------------

For making Troops desirable, you need to address the simple factors of efficiency. Many Troop units are not as efficient as other Troops, but they are also not as efficient as other units in their army. Guard Troop units tend to be because they are so dang cheap that they can be spammed with almost no consideration. To make other Troops more efficient, they usually need to be the biggest unit on the table for that army.

That is one reason why Guard Conscripts were so desirable. Points per model they were crazy efficient and it could take a lot of dedicated firepower to wipe out a unit that cost almost nothing. That is also one of the reasons why Tactical Squads are usually less efficient. They are just as durable as any other PA Infantry Marine unit, but lack their available lethality. Chaos Marines and Crusader Squads can increase their durability, but lethality is only marginally increased, and the cost is usually better served with another unit which can maximize their lethality, i.e. Devastators/Havoks.

In terms of concepts, Troops should either spammable (Guard Infantry Squads) or capable of being made much larger then the other Infantry squads of the army (Gaunts/Crusader Squads). Durability by numbers on the cheap (for the army in question) should be their watchword as they are the ones to be the most plentiful and screening the more lethal units.

I do agree that Troops regaining the Objective Secured would increase their attractiveness as well, but that is somewhat artificial. Keep in mind that tournaments can set their own rules and can provide that basic rule to their scenario sets. Encourage your locals to give it a try and see what happens.

 LunarSol wrote:

Spoiler:

IronBrand wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

IronBrand wrote:

I don't necessary disagree with the idea of full detachments giving more CP than ones with the bare minimum. But it'd need every detachment reworked with less slots or a full detachment would have to give a massive amount of extra CP to be worth taking.

There's way, way too many additional slots to expect players to fill them. Heavy Support alone often comes in at half a list if you max it out. It's mostly just an easy way to ensure players can take 2-4 additional slots of whatever they want after paying the base requirements. It's wiggle room, even if practically speaking most players won't max anything out.

If GW expected players to fill out detachments, they'd have to be written out as something like taking 1 additional HQ and up to 3 additionally selections from the remaining battlefield roles. That just makes a weird hard limit to something that probably doesn't need it though, so its just easier to give players a buffer across each role to work with so they can add in a splash of Fast Attack or Elite or whatever in whatever combination they need.

Honestly, a lot of the specialist detachments aren't super practical even if the CP they give wasn't so low. I think they could easily be 1 HQ + 2 of the role. 3 of a kind in the more specialized areas is quite most of the time. Being able to splash one or two in a Battalion is pretty important.

That's why I said if they wanted to implement a system where full detachments gave more CP that they'd need to lower the number of slots. I don't expect them to do it and don't want them to either. It'd just complicate things unnecessarily while not really adding much to the game. You cut out the part of my post where I outright said no one would ever fill the detachment for a couple extra CP. Kcalehc was the one advocating the change, not me.

Didn't mean to come across as anything other than agreeing with your point. Mostly just looking to expand on it.

Fair enough, it can be easy to misconstrue comments when conversations happen in text form. I thought it was intended as a rebuttal even though we were taking the same stance.