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.

Oh, come on!

Greets
Schepp himself

Which in comparison, IG vs IG is more like what is today. Against marines, IG uses masses of firepower and tanks to accomplish the same goals. 160pts gives you 25 guys and three scoring units, which is about what a 10 man Space marine squad costs. I really don't see the problem with that match up. In a protracted in the open firefight the IG will lose out over time, but using cover you can mitigate it enough to make it a rather even fight. That is where the rules help support the fluff. The IG need to use cover and tactics, while the marines can walk across the battlefield protected from basic fire.

40k is based on small armies, and 1500pts - 1850 is pretty much the standard.

And without knowing the missions, how do you know those two armies couldn't win?

Turtle wrote:Honestly I've never understood the fixation of 'troops are good and must be taken even though they are bad'. Did some guy with a hardon for weaksauce army lists send out a memo that I missed?

[Also...]

...Please not the "now now, there's no need for discussion on a forum set up exactly for that" argument. This is News and Rumours on Dakka Dakka. This is where grown men use overly harsh language about silly rumours about silly miniatures, causing sensitive people and people who hate thinking and discussion to take them too seriously.

Asmodai wrote: When the Navy SEALs go on a sensitive mission, there's no requirement that they also have to bring 100 National Guardsmen with them. The CIA didn't bring the entire NYPD with them when they tried to assassinate Castro.

Turtle, Asmodai, ROFLMAO. May I sig?

I would rather sig something like,

I didn't play 40k to play 2-3 guys a side, or send pills and some weapons covertly across the waters to try and kill a single guy. Doesn't sound like much fun for 40k.

I would really suggest Infinity if you want to play specialists.

Of course Savnock.

I think 40K at the core is flexible enough to model skirmishes. It occupies a middle ground between Infinity and Epic. One of the nice things about that scale is that it should be able to do the range from small to large scale.

A standard Force Organization chart ranges from 11 to 500 models at the extreme ends. The rules should work well to represent all of that. They'll never be perfect, but I think it would be a shame for GW to just toss their hands up in the air and say 40K can't represent smaller scale actions than Apocalypse.

Toreador wrote:I would rather sig something like,

I didn't play 40k to play 2-3 guys a side, or send pills and some weapons covertly across the waters to try and kill a single guy. Doesn't sound like much fun for 40k.

I would really suggest Infinity if you want to play specialists.

Oh please, you're telling me there's no precedent set for Tau to use their more advanced weapons and armour to try and take down their opponents rather than wasting two score of their squishy, short, mildly competent communist citizens? Or that there's no reason for Eldar to send out their combat specialists as opposed to candlestick makers in armour? It's easy to be narrow minded about what an army in game might be doing or fighting for if you refuse to be imaginative about a game, all because you want to force other people to play the game you think it should be played.

To think about it though, I had enough discussions about marine squad sizes and codex discipline in the past to know that people who believe armies should look/play a certain way will justify telling other people how to game in any way they like. What did GW do in time after those discussions? Enforce combat squads in DA and BA. Shows how much I know, and how much people care about being able to make their own decisions when it comes to playing their army.

Quote me all you want, Savnock, though I'd prefer it if people stopped trying to tell me how my army fights and plays instead.

skyth wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

skyth wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
As it is, armies are still playable as-is. Nobody needs to buy more models or change anything.

Under these rumors, it is entirely possible to have an army that is completely incapable of winning regardless of dice rolls or opponent actions.

Prove it. Show me a current-style army that cannot win under these rumors.

You can just point a link to an army list on Dakka if it saves you time.

Dread mob, using only 2 dreads as troops.

Nid list where the only troops are rippers.

I think you're engaging in pure theoryhammer here.

Who *actually* plays these lists? Hands up, please!

But if this really is the total impact, meh, screw 'em, I say! The cheesemongers finally get what they deserve.

Wehrkind wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
That's the point, you know. But if you look at regular armies, the average platoon of rifleman isn't particularly good at any one thing, either.

No, riflemen are quite good at engaging an enemy at a respectable range with a weapon that is highly capable of disabling all of their non-mechanized opponents. Compare that to a guardsmen with a lasgun. Not only is his weapon ineffective against most of the armor he will ever shoot at since 4+ or better has a 50% or better chance to be stopped, even if it goes through the armor, it has only a 50/50 chance at best of wounding anything tougher than a grot, much less the multitudes of orks, necrons, marines, etc. that have a T4 or better. That's just about as useful as giving all riflemen .22 long plinking rifles today.

Wait? Riflemen always hit and wound a vital spot for an automatic kill?

You should tell the DoD/MoD. We're wasting tons of money on field medics, armored ambulances, medevac, and so forth. Same with this recent fetish for helmets and body armor! My tax dollars at waste, indeed!

The US has the most expensive military in the world. We don't give every 2 guys a .50, BAR, Mortar, TOW. Hell, we only recently got around to the idea of mechanizing our infantry in Rhinos (Strykers), because we couldn't afford M2 Bradleys, and HMMVs weren't tough enough.
...
That is because most militaries fight with and against ordinary men, and against ordinary men, a rifle is more than adequate. So the real problem with 40k is that there are too many SM. With more Orks and a new Guard, we'll see more light stuff, making Lasguns useful again.

Uhm... yes? That was my point, that armies have less than the best on everyone because the best is too expensive for the added benefit. However, a squad automatic weapon does not convey the same advantage over an M16 that a heavy bolter does over a bolter, much less over a lasgun.

That's arguable and already addressed.

If the US started habitually fighting armies with armor that stopped M16 fire over 75% of the time, you would see a new weapon being issued right quick.

But we don't. Besides, if our tanks had big blast weapons that automatically killed those guys over 83% of the time, and our specialists had Lascannons / MLs & Plasma / Melta, I'd say we'd be OK.

And if the Codex revamp goes properly, we'll see more Orks, meaning less SM.

The "standard" game of 40k was 1500 pts back when 3rd Edition came out and is now 1850 pts in the US. With the push towards mechnization, I'd expect 2000 pts to be the new standard. So if your (low) infantry ratio holds, we're talking 60 SM. Tho in a Scoring Troops / Objectives environment with Combat Squads and reduced points for Transprots, 2000 pts of SM would likely have around 80 SM.

But really, you should be using Guard as the example. That would be 100 models at 2000 pts, and Orks would be 100-150 models.

Which is also my point, that 40k is a skirmish game with larger armies and vehicles shoehorned in over the years. (Creepy how you do that "restate your point as my own but opposing" thing.)

40k was a skirmish game back in RT, I'll agree. But it had increased to a Platoon game in 2E. But since 3E, it's more of a Company-sized game. So using 1000 pts was an artificially low size purely for rhetoric. If you're going to pick a size for your examples, you cannot pick less than 1500 pts and be credible.

It should be obvious that 40k was not meant to be played at huge levels,

If you tried to play 2000 pts worth of stuff using RT rules, it's not possible. But under current rules, it's doable. And with 5th Edition streamlining, I'd expect it to be even easier.

otherwise we wouldn't have to spend time wondering why a scale tank can only lob a shell as far as highschool kids can kick field goals.

Oh, good lord, are you still thinking that 40k is a model scale game? -sigh- Once again, 40k model scale (30mm) isn't ground scale (less than 5mm). Otherwise, the game is even stupider with tanks that can barely outrange a man armed with bow & arrow.

With special rules 40k can do quite well for small games. 40k in 40 minutes was great, but needed a lot of house rules. I would really like to see a very Kill Team/ 40k in 40 rules set ala Apocalypse. Something with more squad level detail like suppression,overwatch,and modifiers.

Almost any game tells you what kind of army you can run, and what units you can take. It's not just us saying it. It's pretty much gaming as a whole. What they try to do is make it so that what is on the tabletop is representative of the fluff or army. It would be interesting to see a game where you could by what you wanted, and only the cost associated limited what you could take, but I have yet to see that work. My army of Space Marine captains will take you on!!

You can play how you want, and this won't change it. The problem may be in how you win the games may change considerably.

They did pull back the candlestick makers. Now Dire Avengers are to the fore.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
But if this really is the total impact, meh, screw 'em, I say! The cheesemongers finally get what they deserve.

And more of the BS of 'I have the only right way to play' that's ruining the game.

And the Dread Mob is in the fluff, and the end of days list (Which was featured in White Dwarf...Had only Rippers for troops) is in the fluff.

But regardless, no list should be completely unable to win, regardless of anything else.

And again, without the full rules, how do you know they cannot win? The only rumour we have heard so far is that missions are changing, and troops are the only scoring units. How it all fits together we don't know. We don't have any context at the moment.

Just the way the rumors are looking, as I said. I did post earlier that it's possible that scoring status isn't the win or lose thing it can be now.

But it's typical GW to screw things up like that.

JohnHwangDD wrote:The way the FOC is constructed (2-6 for Troops, 0-3 for non-Troops), I think it would be *irrational* to assume that the designers intended for players to fill their Heavies & Elites but leave their Troops mostly empty.

And here I was thinking the FOC was constructed that way because the designers intended for players to take 2-6 choices from the Troops section and 0-3 from each of the non-Troops sections. But I guess it's *irrational* to assume that the designers intended for players to do what their rules say to do.

JohnHwangDD wrote:If GW wanted to go about things in an even more directly ham-fisted way, they could easily change the FOC to actually force players to field more Troops:
1 HQ
0-1 Elite
5-8 Troops
0-2 Fast
0-2 Heavy
Would that have been better, or would there be even more crying?

Or they could just as easily change the FOC to:

1-2 HQ
0-3 Elite
2+ Troops
0-3 Fast Attack
0-3 Heavy Support
The combined total of HQ + Elite + Fast Attack + Heavy Support choices may not exceed the number of Troops choices.

That would have been better.

But I'll admit this is a very tough problem. If only there were some other way to make Troops more attractive relative to other choices... hmmm... If only it were possible to assign each model a value proportional to its effectiveness - a total measure of the model's power in-game, a Power In-game Total if you will (or PoInT value for short). If the designers assigned non-Troops choices higher PoInT values than Troops then a player would be able to take more Troops choices than non-Troops choices for a given PoInT allotment. It's too bad there's no chance of such a system ever being implemented... The only other viable solution I can think of is to give Troops rending. All of them. But I guess the rumored solution is pretty good too.

Hey, I have a fun idea for a game! It's called "Tactical Squad". Each player gets a 2-6 full-sized SM Tactical Squads. They shoot at each other with bolters and don't kill anything. THE END.

Abadabadoobaddon wrote:If only there were some other way to make Troops more attractive relative to other choices... hmmm... If only it were possible to assign each model a value proportional to its effectiveness - a total measure of the model's power in-game, a Power In-game Total if you will (or PoInT value for short). If the designers assigned non-Troops choices higher PoInT values than Troops then a player would be able to take more Troops choices than non-Troops choices for a given PoInT allotment. It's too bad there's no chance of such a system ever being implemented... I guess the only other viable solution I can think of is to give all rapid fire weapons rending. But the rumored solution is pretty good too.

If it weren't so long, I'd sig it. Come to think of it, I still might (butchered of course).

It is hopelessly naive to assume that any form of 40k could survive a simplistic points assignment process.

The problem with points is that it isn't fixed or linear. For any true force multiplier, effectiveness increases exponentially as quantities increase.

For example, in isolation, as the only armored vehicle in an IG army, a single Leman Russ Demolisher might only be worth only 80 pts. After all, the enemy can concentrate their entire anti-tank firepower on that single model. But the second might be worth double (160), and the third double again (320). And within a heavy-armor company, perhaps even higher.

And then, once the army reaches a certain saturation at a certain total points level, the values level off due to dimishing returns. Perhaps, after a half-dozen Russes, the values actually decrease again.

So assigning points properly becomes a real problem if one intends to use fixed values without a bound on quantities available. Playtesting and balancing is a nightmare, because the combinations are completely unbounded and you have to test all kinds of extreme corner cases.

This is why the FOC is structured the way that it is - the designers can know that there are a maximum number of items that can be concentrated of a given type. Similarly with troops, there's a minimum and a maximum.

But hey, if think you can do points better in a wide-open environment without making the balance issues even worse, more power to you.

skyth wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
But if this really is the total impact, meh, screw 'em, I say! The cheesemongers finally get what they deserve.

And more of the BS of 'I have the only right way to play' that's ruining the game.

And the Dread Mob is in the fluff, and the end of days list (Which was featured in White Dwarf...Had only Rippers for troops) is in the fluff.

But regardless, no list should be completely unable to win, regardless of anything else.

Speaking of BS...

Oh yeah, what current / recent Codex has Dreads as Troops without any other Troops? And what, exactly, is the rule? There's a lot of Fluff that isn't Codex rules.

I think we can be certain that Rippers won't count towards mandatory Troops in the next (5th Ed) Tyranid Codex.

Definitely, WD lists don't count for Squat, unless you're thinking that we should be playing Movie Marines.

Try to do better, please.

Every time a new codex or edition rolls around, or even worse, the rumours of them roll around, the loudest reaction invariable splits into two equally obnoxious camps:

1) "Every model I've bought is now invalidated and GW sucks and I hate them so much"

2) "This is the change that will eliminate powergaming and restore balance to the universe. It also cures cancer."

Of course I'm putting very silly words in people's mouths, but let's take a rational look at changes. First, GW is not exactly shy about why it releases rules in the first place. From that, it's safe to assume that every rule change is fueled by at least two concerns: making better rules and selling more models. From that, any person that does not want to buy more models or armies is going to lament many major changes because it effects, if not the usability of the army, it's effectiveness. Many posters tend to minimize, mock, or otherwise diminish the validity of that sentiment.

On the other hand, change is vital and good for the game, the hobby, and the industry in general. If editions and codices never changed, we'd still be playing Rhino Rush, or god forbid, 2nd Edition Herohammer. While it's awful that the perfectly honed army of yesterday is the clunky, unweildy mess of today; stuff happens.

My point is not that this discussion is bad or shouldn't occur. My point is rather that entrenching your position as being impregnable and holy quickly makes you look less like a devoted hobbyist and more like a zealot.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

skyth wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
But if this really is the total impact, meh, screw 'em, I say! The cheesemongers finally get what they deserve.

And more of the BS of 'I have the only right way to play' that's ruining the game.

And the Dread Mob is in the fluff, and the end of days list (Which was featured in White Dwarf...Had only Rippers for troops) is in the fluff.

But regardless, no list should be completely unable to win, regardless of anything else.

Speaking of BS...

Oh yeah, what current / recent Codex has Dreads as Troops without any other Troops? And what, exactly, is the rule? There's a lot of Fluff that isn't Codex rules.

New Ork Codex allows Dreads as troops.

I think we can be certain that Rippers won't count towards mandatory Troops in the next (5th Ed) Tyranid Codex.

Irrelevant. They are currently troops and can count towards mandatory troops, thus it will be possible to create an army that has no way of taking objectives (And possibly no way of winning a game depending on how the missions play out)

Definitely, WD lists don't count for Squat, unless you're thinking that we should be playing Movie Marines.

Try to do better, please.

I provided two perfectly good examples of armies that can't take any objectives under the rumors. From official codexes.

Turtle wrote:Obviously you missed me trying to make light of the situation with my language, the internet is a harsh mistress so I'm sorry you missed that.

Ah, fair enough, my fault. It is easy to lose meaning when reading and the internet has so much crazy as it is it can be too easy to take whimsical comments seriously. My bad.

However, I'd like to disagree with you there as that speculation on armies and list composition is exactly what pertains to us as consumers in this game. We know the game will change, we know the codices probably won't, or at least not soon, so how is it not prudent to talk about how this will affect our unit selection or game experience? Whether or not you believe it's worthwhile isn't exactly anything people need to worry about, it's perfectly valid on-topic discussion.

I guess I didn’t explain myself very well, then. I have no problem with speculation on successful army composition, such as the discussion of rumours about new codices, or conversation after the release but before any playtesting was done. That’s really useful stuff, at least I've certainly found it useful as a player and consumer of new models. But what we’re talking about here isn’t a rumour that daemons will be generic, or that trucks will be more survivable. What we’re talking about here is a single rumour, a hell of a lot of assumptions and an extreme conclusion.

To make any comment on the new optimum army lists, you need to assume the exact wording of the new rule (and exactly what does and doesn’t count as troops), the new mission structure, new tournament composition criteria, the new meta-game, and the make-up of any upcoming codex revisions. It’s way past the point of being useful, and into the realms of making stuff up.

Honestly I've never understood the fixation of 'troops are good and must be taken even though they are bad'. Did some guy with a hardon for weaksauce army lists send out a memo that I missed? Simply put, when people want to spend their time and dollars on a perfectly legal army list, it seems trite to expect them to hamper their lists to personal expectations. What exactly would be the problem with no troops choices at all? Would it not still be possible to have a full, fun game? Playing devil's advocate here, but you need to understand that asserting that all armies should have a surfeit of troop choices is just as arbitrary an assertion, if not moreso, than saying that it doesn't matter.

Part of the fun of 40k is in playing a game that in some way represents a possible battle from the fictional universe. Armies with 2 minimum squads of scouts backed by masses of armour and terminators can only be explained by some extremely stretched background. Armies of 6 rippers backed by 6 carnifex and 2 tyrants simply can’t be explained in a sensible way.

This is a problem that FOC and composition scoring have tried and failed to fix. The problem is that stretching back to 2nd ed, units in 40k have been defined almost entirely by there ability to kill and resist being killed, and anything else has been an unusual and minor exception. This is because unique abilities, such as being able to hold ground haven’t been considered. As a result, the most powerful army lists have been based around maximizing your killing potential while allowing yourself only one possible vulnerability (such maxxing out on armour, or on MEQ or GEQ). The core of 40K’s min/max problem lies in a lack of diverse abilities between the different unit types.

Looking a game like FoW, troops have a unique place in being able to absorb immense punishment while sitting on an objective, and are the most practical unit for assaulting enemy dug in on an objective. But they don’t have the mobility and firepower of tanks, or the ranged striking power and suppression of artillery. Each option has a distinct role, and as a result the most successful lists contain all possible options.

But in 40K a tank needs to sit there and try to kill as much stuff as possible before exploding, and if its somehow still alive at the end of the game then it can march up to an objective. Skimmers are the same, albeit with slightly less firepower for the points cost, but a much greater chance of surviving to the end, and more mobility to reach an objective. Neither is fundamentally different to a las/plas squad.

The whole 40k metagame revolves around your ability to kill the targets you’re likely to face. There is little or no consideration given to combined arms forces being used to support each other in an assault. Making troops the only objective takers gives them a unique ability, to make up for their lower damage potential. But it’s likely their lesser potency won’t make up for what is a particularly powerful ability.

Remember though, I’m only arguing in favour of the general concept, the rumoured execution strikes me as arbitrary (why can’t elite infantry or jump infantry hold objectives… silly really). It could also be better solved with less extreme rules; giving infantry the ability to deploy first, up the field on objectives, coupled with more sensible rules for shooting and assaulting troops in cover, would go a long way to making general troops a better choice, without such an extreme and potentially unbalancing rule as the rumoured change.

And I should clarify that I have no problem boosting troops, but this is the most hamfisted, silly way to do things I can imagine. Hurrah broad sweeping rules changes. Why is this a bad thing? Because it negatively affects a lot of armies that are otherwise perfectly viable, and screws with people's abilities to make the armies they'd like to with their money and time. I object simply to having the rules changed to negatively impact certain armies/units as opposed to the game allowing viability for a wide range of armies.

It’s a changing game and that means that if you try and stay on the cutting edge of tournament standard armies, be prepared to keep spending money. If you’re just happy to sit back a level or two and build themed armies that don’t have to be all conquering, then you have to accept a moderate chance that your army will fluctuate in power with each revision, and a slight chance your army may be made illegal without a healthy amount of ‘counts as’. The only really safe players are people who want to collect a little or a lot of everything.

If you aren't comfortable with the idea of changing your army over time, this might not be the best game for you.

skyth wrote:New Ork Codex allows Dreads as troops.

Why can't Dreads taken as troops hold objectives?

sebster wrote:

skyth wrote:New Ork Codex allows Dreads as troops.

Why can't Dreads taken as troops hold objectives?

Rumor says non-vehicles. Dreads are Vehicles.

skyth wrote:Rumor says non-vehicles. Dreads are Vehicles.

Rumour has also said any unit taken as a troop. It's really, really speculative right now.

skyth wrote:I provided two perfectly good examples of armies that can't take any objectives under the rumors. From official codexes.

OK, then I sincerely hope that those players enjoy their Codices for the remainder of 4th Edition.

Hope everybody gets their wishes when the codex comes out, better still if those hopes are crushed. Leave the hobby now and save the heartache.

I for one cant wait for the new codex. The game just keeps getting better and better (well apart from losing Rhino rush) and people just get madder and madder

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Wait? Riflemen always hit and wound a vital spot for an automatic kill?

You should tell the DoD/MoD. We're wasting tons of money on field medics, armored ambulances, medevac, and so forth. Same with this recent fetish for helmets and body armor! My tax dollars at waste, indeed!

*sigh* Do you really think you need to kill someone to take them out as a casualty? M16's are a lot better at wounding than actually killing, but the wounds they cause put people down and out of the fight. So no, all those lovely things are still needed. But in general, if you hit someone with a bullet from an M16, you have a better than 25% chance to drop them if they are wearing common body armor. IG shooting at IG wearing carapace armor has a 50% chance to wound, and 50% chance to have it stopped by armor. That would never fly in the real world. Worse still, shooting marines, orks, anything T4, the target has a 66% chance of not caring that you shot them.

So, no, riflemen don't always hit and remove enemies as a threat. They do however have a much better chance than 25% to remove them if they do hit, and if they don't, they won't be a relevant part of any force.

If the US started habitually fighting armies with armor that stopped M16 fire over 75% of the time, you would see a new weapon being issued right quick.

But we don't. Besides, if our tanks had big blast weapons that automatically killed those guys over 83% of the time, and our specialists had Lascannons / MLs & Plasma / Melta, I'd say we'd be OK.

And if the Codex revamp goes properly, we'll see more Orks, meaning less SM.

I still don't think we have a good explanation of what this Troops thing is actually solving for. Is people fielding too many E, HS and FA choices really a fundamental problem in the game? It's not as if all E, HS and FA choices were made equal. Probably more than half the E choices in the game are overpriced. If the problem is players loading up on *particular* E, HS and FA choices at the expense of T choices in their codex, then that's a problem that should be solved in CODICES, not by main rules changes.

If the rule ends up being about *Infantry,* fine, I understand. They're trying to eliminate the single buggy speeding off, ducking behind some trees and holding a board quarter. I get that. Troops only...that's just compounding mistakes.

If they want to add balance, my first suggestion would be to add a scalable, or perhaps three-tiered org chart. They could institute one for up to 999 pts, another for 1000-1999 points, and a third from 2000-2999 pts. That system takes you right up to Apoc, and eliminates the problem with say, players fielding 3 HS choices in a 750 point game. That kind of thing is an actual issue.

Well said, Gorgon.

"If they want to add balance, my first suggestion would be to add a scalable, or perhaps three-tiered org chart. They could institute one for up to 999 pts, another for 1000-1999 points, and a third from 2000-2999 pts. That system takes you right up to Apoc, and eliminates the problem with say, players fielding 3 HS choices in a 750 point game. That kind of thing is an actual issue."

Warhammer Fantasy uses such a system with admirable results.

Asmodai wrote:"If they want to add balance, my first suggestion would be to add a scalable, or perhaps three-tiered org chart. They could institute one for up to 999 pts, another for 1000-1999 points, and a third from 2000-2999 pts. That system takes you right up to Apoc, and eliminates the problem with say, players fielding 3 HS choices in a 750 point game. That kind of thing is an actual issue."

Warhammer Fantasy uses such a system with admirable results.

Heavy Gear Blitz uses a similar system (to WHFB) but based around every squad-type int he army lsit getting an entry. Seems to work pretty well in practice, and allows for things like most formations get 'broader' and more 'inclusive' as they grow: for example, an Armor Regiment might get access to specialized Gear squads at high point values, while Light and Heavy tank squads go from unlimited to required.

I rather like how Infinity uses the SWC slot as a way to
balance special forces with infantry.