Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I think Skew versus Theme is a false dichotomy and not really what this is about.

You are a player. You have options. Should you be forced to take specific options in certain amounts or should you be able to use your options to build what you want to develope your own strategies?

I am not opposed to restrictions, though I think positive reinforcement is better. But in the end I think players being able to develop more of their own strategies instead of being forced into specific ones by the mechanics is better than not.

The issue is really , everyone wants the specials. No one one wants the basics.

What faction do you play? Troops are the faction. The HQ, support and elites etc... help the troops do their job.

Whats a banana split with no banana and no ice cream? Hotfudge and sprinkles, isnt a banana split.

 ImperialArmy wrote:
The issue is really , everyone wants the specials. No one one wants the basics.

What faction do you play? Troops are the faction. The HQ, support and elites etc... help the troops do their job.

Whats a banana split with no banana and no ice cream? Hotfudge and sprinkles, isnt a banana split.

This is a good view, imho, as is Lance's above. But it's natural for the players to gravitate towards the specials, so...

... are we leaning the opposite way from before now? Troops should be MANDATORY (or so strongly encouraged that players who take too-large numbers of other things suffer drawbacks)?

EDIT:
It's worth noting this dichotomy exists in other games as well (RE: "specialists" vs "regulars"). Historicon just ended, and I swear there wasn't a CoC or Big CoC game that didn't include paratroopers. They didn't have high winrates or anything, but paratroopers are "cool" and thusly were far more common in the games than they were in real life.

 ImperialArmy wrote:
The issue is really , everyone wants the specials. No one one wants the basics.

What faction do you play? Troops are the faction. The HQ, support and elites etc... help the troops do their job.

Whats a banana split with no banana and no ice cream? Hotfudge and sprinkles, isnt a banana split.

"I play Imperial Guard Armoured Company/Veteran Company - they have no troops."

Whether or not you'd consider "Imperial Guard Armoured Company" a valid "faction" can be up for debate.

I personally don't think any iteration of 40k/Warhammer Fantasy/AoS list building has been super great, because even when they force you to take units "out of theme", you can still go pretty nuts with non-core/non-basic/troops/whatever you want to call them units. AoS especially, unlocking conditional battleline based on generals or subfaction.

I'm not finding a uh, good way to word this, but I think part of the problem is that there are "bad" themes, both in game mechanics and fluff senses. Partially due to the limited scope of combats that 40k can portray.

just remove the force org altogether, we have the rule of 3 to prevent spam, let players bring what they want, slap "Obsec" as an ability on the datasheet of whatever you want.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Oh, I don't deny they can bring troops; that it isn't off theme or whatever. The question is should they be forced to.

They are not forced to now, they just pay extra CP not to.

If my opponent wants to play a weird list and we discuss it cool.

The list building guidelines are there for matched play.

I have problems with silly lists personally.
Either discuss with the people you play with or deal with matched play enforced rules. It is pretty simple.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
just remove the force org altogether, we have the rule of 3 to prevent spam, let players bring what they want, slap "Obsec" as an ability on the datasheet of whatever you want.

I don't disagree with this at heart. I think we'd want an availability per data sheet instead of a blanket rule of 3, and if I were calling all of the shots I'd add some kind of extra "value/cost" to certain models/wargear and limit how much of that you can bring. Basically, I'd use Infinity's list building system.

Taking a reaper chaincannon over a heavy bolter on a Havoc squad might cost you some amount of points but also 1 towards your "super deadly thing allotment". A multi-melta (on a different unit, I guess) might cost 2, or 3.

The issue is multifold, but there are a few main issues that are pretty hard to deal with.

First of all, many armies have multiple units that serve the same role. Which means that for that role, there will always be a best unit, leaving the rest in the dust. The classic example can be found in the Space Marines list where you always had the competition between tactical marines and scouts. Both basically serves the same roles which meant that there always was an optimal choice between them. And the more units armies get, the worse this issue becomes because, well, you will have more units for the same role leaving all the others behind and looking bad.

Secondly, GW games are notoriously bad at giving more generalist units a space. Because of a combination of manoeuvrability, ranges, line of sight, and control, there are few advantages a generalist unit has over a specialist one. That means that the more generalist units often lose out because you're better off just using specialists. I mean, why take a missile launcher over a lascannon. The latter is much better at its main task, while the missile launcher is stuck in the middle.

In every edition, there have been a few dominant weapons/units per army, and that's unlikely to change because the rosters are just so huge. Multiple units competing for the same role will always leave one dominant and that dominant unit will often be a specialist one.

Rihgu wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
just remove the force org altogether, we have the rule of 3 to prevent spam, let players bring what they want, slap "Obsec" as an ability on the datasheet of whatever you want.

I don't disagree with this at heart. I think we'd want an availability per data sheet instead of a blanket rule of 3, and if I were calling all of the shots I'd add some kind of extra "value/cost" to certain models/wargear and limit how much of that you can bring. Basically, I'd use Infinity's list building system.

Taking a reaper chaincannon over a heavy bolter on a Havoc squad might cost you some amount of points but also 1 towards your "super deadly thing allotment". A multi-melta (on a different unit, I guess) might cost 2, or 3.

yeah, same. I didnt wanna bring Infinity into it because i know some posters here automatically think its a gak argument because the one game of infinity they tried 3 editions ago gave them a bad impression. While we're at it, add a silhouette stat to make LoS cleaner

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Rihgu wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
just remove the force org altogether, we have the rule of 3 to prevent spam, let players bring what they want, slap "Obsec" as an ability on the datasheet of whatever you want.

I don't disagree with this at heart. I think we'd want an availability per data sheet instead of a blanket rule of 3, and if I were calling all of the shots I'd add some kind of extra "value/cost" to certain models/wargear and limit how much of that you can bring. Basically, I'd use Infinity's list building system.

Taking a reaper chaincannon over a heavy bolter on a Havoc squad might cost you some amount of points but also 1 towards your "super deadly thing allotment". A multi-melta (on a different unit, I guess) might cost 2, or 3.

yeah, same. I didnt wanna bring Infinity into it because i know some posters here automatically think its a gak argument because the one game of infinity they tried 3 editions ago gave them a bad impression. While we're at it, add a silhouette stat to make LoS cleaner

To be clear, I am the exact poster you just described, but in this specific respect I like Infinity

 vict0988 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Oh, I don't deny they can bring troops; that it isn't off theme or whatever. The question is should they be forced to.

They are not forced to now, they just pay extra CP not to.

So they're forced to, considering how CP straight up power up your army (or gives them any flavor whatsoever like CSM)

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

If not, where do you draw skew vs not skew?

Oh thats easy. Did you lose to it? If Yes, then scream "SKEW!" and hope GW F s the other guy over.

 vict0988 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Oh, I don't deny they can bring troops; that it isn't off theme or whatever. The question is should they be forced to.

They are not forced to now, they just pay extra CP not to.

Ah, good catch, the one post where I forgot to add (*or strongly encourage) to the end.

So, add that to the end.

As mentioned, the problem is that the game isn't balanced. Some factions have really good troops, some have really good heavy support or really good fast attack etc. When you artificially limit them to what they can take you are creating an environment of the haves and have nots. We already have this to a degree but it is at least somewhat limited by allowing us to take whatever battlefield role we want.

Orkz at the moment are a have not faction in regards to troops. Grots are 5ppm and are objectively worse in every single way fathomable and by a large margin mind you, to a guardsmen. Boyz are good (ish), but are objectively worse than most other factions because we are arguably the only faction that really gives a damn about leadership. LD 7 in a mob of 30 means you kill 6 and I have a 83% chance to fail morale, lose a model, and then lose 4 more to attrition. You killed 6, morale killed 5. I just lost 45pts to a mechanic that a lot of other armies can safely ignore entirely.

So if you force me to take 500pts of Troops into a battle I am hamstrung from the start with being forced to take 500pts of sub par units that serve little purpose except to exist.

I like the idea of troops being more relevant, but the main problem is that until they are balanced all you are doing is creating a rule that actively hurts a lot of factions.

ccs wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

If not, where do you draw skew vs not skew?

Oh thats easy. Did you lose to it? If Yes, then scream "SKEW!" and hope GW F s the other guy over.

the most consistent definition of skew yet!

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Oh, I don't deny they can bring troops; that it isn't off theme or whatever. The question is should they be forced to.

They are not forced to now, they just pay extra CP not to.

Ah, good catch, the one post where I forgot to add (*or strongly encourage) to the end.

So, add that to the end.

I didn't mean to be pedantic, I do think you should be strongly encouraged not to skew which is why I like the current system. I think a list with no Troops should be an option, but it should be the odd one out, not the average list. I think you might be overstating the benefit of 3CP or perhaps you're just looking at it from a competitive point of view. In 8th I've used lists with 4CP against lists with 9CP and occasionally in competitive games. The difference between 9 vs 12 (14 vs 17 T5) is relatively tiny compared to that. I paid 4CP to bring 3 Transcendent C'tan in 3 games in 9th, I wasn't forced to do anything and I don't mind if it is inefficient to spam Transcendent C'tan.

A skew list is one that deprives the enemy of relevant targets for their attacks. A list consisting entirely of vehicles or cheap infantry deprives the opponent of targets for anti-infantry and anti-vehicle weapons respectively. A single cheap vehicle or 3 cheap non-vehicle units that hide inside terrain or vehicles probably doesn't change the list from being skewed, it's a sliding scale. Having different vehicles or infantry with different weaknesses, like Monoliths and Ghost Arks or Flayed Ones and Skorpekh Destroyers makes a list less skewed even if it is 100% vehicles or 100% infantry. You could try to put a fine point on the dividing line between skew and non-skew, but then you'd need a whole bunch of exceptions for monsters with character protection inside infantry lists and such.

I think it could work if you just sort of made it so troops are the only guys who can control points, changed up what counts as troops, like bring back stuff like kommandos are troops in blood axes, and decrease the costs on transports back to like they used to be. I know that troops used to be great for hordes, but then especially for orks a lot of their base stat lines were decreased alongside access to buffs.

*shrug* that's a battle I'm not willing to fight. I think the current system is adequate in most respects, but the thread is about Imaginehammer, not about 9th. You're dead on about the benefit of CPs - some armies it's critical (CSM), other armies it's meh (R&H).

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
I think it could work if you just sort of made it so troops are the only guys who can control points, changed up what counts as troops, like bring back stuff like kommandos are troops in blood axes, and decrease the costs on transports back to like they used to be. I know that troops used to be great for hordes, but then especially for orks a lot of their base stat lines were decreased alongside access to buffs.

If only there were some sort of word that we could use to describe the importance of something to a battle plan.

Something like "key" or "core". Argh! Curses! It's a shame there is no such word!

Core just doesn’t work for some armies. Like, actually every ork unit would be core.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
Core just doesn’t work for some armies. Like, actually every ork unit would be core.

Core as it stands now, sure. It's shotgunned all over the place.

If it were to be the "Battleline" equivalent? Different story.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
Core just doesn’t work for some armies. Like, actually every ork unit would be core.

Core as it stands now, sure. It's shotgunned all over the place.

If it were to be the "Battleline" equivalent? Different story.

Aren't we just redefining "Troops" at that point?

I think we should call them "Battle-Line Core Archetype Troops Units" just to make things more complicated - er, I mean because there needs to be a standard language for this stuff!

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
Core just doesn’t work for some armies. Like, actually every ork unit would be core.

Core as it stands now, sure. It's shotgunned all over the place.

If it were to be the "Battleline" equivalent? Different story.

Aren't we just redefining "Troops" at that point?

I think we should call them "Battle-Line Core Archetype Troops Units" just to make things more complicated - er, I mean because there needs to be a standard language for this stuff!

No, because "Troops" would be literally anything that isn't a Monster, Vehicle/Artillery, or Leader.

Battleline is a caveat added to anything. There's usually a few Troop units with Battleline right off the bat, but subfactions+generals add the options for more.
Ol' One Eye leading a Core Battalion of Carnifexes? Oh boy! You've made them Battleline now.
Tank Commander as your army's General? Good on ya! Leman Russes are now Battleline.

Am I the only one who thinks the first step towards encouraging people to take more troops is taking the Objective Secured rules and throwing them into a furnace?

At best it's a weak clutch, at worst it does absolutely nothing except eat up a mountain of design space. Plus it's just a half-arsed version of the 5th edition rules, except changed to completely defeat the whole purpose of the rule it emulates.

Though, honestly, troops are yet another unit that suffers from 9th's design philosophies of 'kill' and 'kill moar!'. Having mechanics like suppressing fire or flanking could help troops be useful without needing to be the most killy.

 Kanluwen wrote:

There's 5 "roles", per the new Core Battalion setup's notations:
Commanders are Leaders.
Sub-Commanders are Leaders with Wounds characteristics of less than 10.

Aside, this about sums up why I can't stand AoS.

Want to be a leader? You have to be the size and girth of a three-story building (or at least be riding a mount with those proportions).

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
Core just doesn’t work for some armies. Like, actually every ork unit would be core.

Core as it stands now, sure. It's shotgunned all over the place.

If it were to be the "Battleline" equivalent? Different story.

Aren't we just redefining "Troops" at that point?

I think we should call them "Battle-Line Core Archetype Troops Units" just to make things more complicated - er, I mean because there needs to be a standard language for this stuff!

No, because "Troops" would be literally anything that isn't a Monster, Vehicle/Artillery, or Leader.

Battleline is a caveat added to anything. There's usually a few Troop units with Battleline right off the bat, but subfactions+generals add the options for more.
Ol' One Eye leading a Core Battalion of Carnifexes? Oh boy! You've made them Battleline now.
Tank Commander as your army's General? Good on ya! Leman Russes are now Battleline.

Yeah, so Carnifexes and Russes become "troops but with another name".

Again, just remove the detachment system, does it truly balance the game anyway? just start at 12cp if you're monofaction, then pay x CP for each additionnal faction you add. That way we actually get more freedom to build whatever we want, and its not like the game is balanced with the detachment system anyway.

That was part of army selection in 2nd Edition.

If memory serves…..

Up To 25% on characters.

Minimum of 25% on Troops

Memory fades on the rest. The only 2nd Ed Codex I currently have is Imperial Guard, and they diverged some.

And…it really didn’t solve anything. People just min-maxed all the same. Because as others have said, restrictions don’t necessarily help. They don’t stop Powerful Combos. They just change what a Powerful Combo looks like.

That’s sadly a universal truth, no matter who is introducing the restriction. Any system is open to being broken or abused. I use both terms, as one can field an overly powerful list without having set out to create one.

To me? The key is ensuring that a decent chunk of infantry is a desirable thing within the framework of rules and missions.

 vipoid wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

There's 5 "roles", per the new Core Battalion setup's notations:
Commanders are Leaders.
Sub-Commanders are Leaders with Wounds characteristics of less than 10.

Aside, this about sums up why I can't stand AoS.

Want to be a leader? You have to be the size and girth of a three-story building (or at least be riding a mount with those proportions).

It's literally right there. Both are "Leaders".

% troop requirement is already kind of in the game, in the sense that patrol and battalion detachments both require troops and are the only ones that refund the first CP. Not sure a flat "25% of all points must be troops" would help.

dewd11 wrote:
% troop requirement is already kind of in the game, in the sense that patrol and battalion detachments both require troops and are the only ones that refund the first CP. Not sure a flat "25% of all points must be troops" would help.

Yes, but assuming I'm fine with the CP cost (I am), pI'm not required to run such a detachment.