Switch Theme:

Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 VladimirHerzog wrote:
I would just remove the FOC completely.

The game already requires you to have a warlord, so i guess the requirements would be 1 Character.
The game rewards you for bringing obsec (typically troops) so you would bring some anyway.

The FoC has never felt like something good from a pure game perspective. Why would White scars be penalized (less CP) by bringing a fluffy all bikers list? Why add rules to guard to allow them to bring extra HS?

Removing it gives more freedom when listbuilding. And if you really want to match the fluff, you're free to do so if you want.


Eh. I am not sure obsec is enough of a lure and I don't think you'll ever have a rule that makes that category always attractive. You definitely need to force troops.

   
Made in ca
Charing Cold One Knight





 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Right now the FOC is purposeless because you can just take whatever you want anyway. The "structure" we have with the different FOCs is just a facade.

A specific FOC would return that structure to the game. Remove the "But I want lots of Heavy Support!" FOC or the "But I just want more Elites!" FOC.

People complained once that Iron Warriors got a 4th HS slot. Seems quaint in comparison to what we've got these days.


The old FOC was meaningless. A lot of GW codex had built-in tools to side-step the FOC so the army would actually remain flavorful and not only 3xscouts for troop tax and then fill with useful stuff. The old FOC was and is just lazy rulewriting through and through that gives people the illusion of structure. It's a facade; a mirage.

The death of the old FOC was perhaps the best thing to come with 8th as it meant people could actually play their respective flavors without having to buy unwanted models for their armies.
   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader





 Daedalus81 wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
I would just remove the FOC completely.

The game already requires you to have a warlord, so i guess the requirements would be 1 Character.
The game rewards you for bringing obsec (typically troops) so you would bring some anyway.

The FoC has never felt like something good from a pure game perspective. Why would White scars be penalized (less CP) by bringing a fluffy all bikers list? Why add rules to guard to allow them to bring extra HS?

Removing it gives more freedom when listbuilding. And if you really want to match the fluff, you're free to do so if you want.


Eh. I am not sure obsec is enough of a lure and I don't think you'll ever have a rule that makes that category always attractive. You definitely need to force troops.


I think "forcing people to take bad units" is a very good mechanic. At most, incentivize but if the units aren't appealing enough to take you shouldn't force them.
Troops should just be good enough that obsec is a lure.
   
Made in ca
Charing Cold One Knight





Eh. I am not sure obsec is enough of a lure and I don't think you'll ever have a rule that makes that category always attractive. You definitely need to force troops.


With the way GW has managed to write rules in the past decades this is just an easy way of getting people out of the hobby. There are way too many garbage troops in the game that GW has never managed to make appealing that forcing them onto people is more likely to spoil the mood for players.
   
Made in ca
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus






 H.B.M.C. wrote:
White Scars are a Codex Chapter. Why is bringing all bikes "fluffy" for them?


I'm bad at space marines, my knowledge of them is basically "Biker marines go fast"

Swap my comment and use Ravenwing/Deathwing instead


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Daedalus81 wrote:

Eh. I am not sure obsec is enough of a lure and I don't think you'll ever have a rule that makes that category always attractive. You definitely need to force troops.


Why do we need another layer to force troops tho? Actually why do we *need* to force them at all?

If the troops are good, people are gonna play them. I'd rather play models that are fun/good than play cultists or CSM for example

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/05 15:21:43


Admech Lucius
Drukhari
Craftworld Yme-Loc
Thousand sons
Tzeentch Demons
Slaanesh Demons
Night Lords
Imperial knights

 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut



Bamberg / Erlangen

I don't think troops should be forced.

I would rather have them not as powerful as specialists, while at the same time being more useful because they score more points for doing objective actions or something.

So you have a proper decision to make wether you like to be better at the mission, or having it easier to prevent the enemy from doing the same.

The current implementation is not going far enough while still having a soft forcing of troops.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/05 15:26:15


Imperial Guard Space Marines
 
   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader





 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Eh. I am not sure obsec is enough of a lure and I don't think you'll ever have a rule that makes that category always attractive. You definitely need to force troops.


Why do we need another layer to force troops tho? Actually why do we *need* to force them at all?

If the troops are good, people are gonna play them. I'd rather play models that are fun/good than play cultists or CSM for example

And likewise, I'm going to play cultists and CSM pretty much no matter what, so they could at least be good.
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Right now the FOC is purposeless because you can just take whatever you want anyway. The "structure" we have with the different FOCs is just a facade.

A specific FOC would return that structure to the game. Remove the "But I want lots of Heavy Support!" FOC or the "But I just want more Elites!" FOC.

People complained once that Iron Warriors got a 4th HS slot. Seems quaint in comparison to what we've got these days.


Iron Warriors filled their heavy slots with multiple units of "kyborgs" (don't know the English name of the unit) and basilisks.
Those were pretty good back in the day as my NL ALWAYS brought one unit of kyborgs to the table.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




The issue with troops is internal balance. Its hard to draw a line between "spam troops because they are further up the curve than spending the equivalent points on elite units" (many Codexes in 8th and Ad Mech today) and "never take troops, or take exactly the minimum for CP efficiency, because the points go further on elite units".

You could I guess insist all 2k points armies have at least 3 units of troops, and these were all balanced to a lower point on the curve than elite units. So they'd all be comparatively "bad", and show off the superiority of other stuff. But this just means everyone would include precisely 3 such units. And factions which have a powerful troop choice (see say Ad Mech or DE today versus Marines, Sisters, Orks) would have an obvious advantage.
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





What's the beef with soup?

In 2nd and 3rd 40K had an ally system that allowed to include a small amount of specific troops from certain other codices to be included in your force. No one was screaming bloody murder back then like they do now when the word "ally" is dropped in forums.
   
Made in us
Tunneling Trygon




Mexico

I do remember screaming bloody murder at Taudar in 6th.
   
Made in ca
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus






 Strg Alt wrote:
What's the beef with soup?

In 2nd and 3rd 40K had an ally system that allowed to include a small amount of specific troops from certain other codices to be included in your force. No one was screaming bloody murder back then like they do now when the word "ally" is dropped in forums.


No idea, and i personally really dislike how extreme GW has gone with 9th to discourage soup (deathguard losing their fething contagions if they ally nurgle demons, WTF)

Admech Lucius
Drukhari
Craftworld Yme-Loc
Thousand sons
Tzeentch Demons
Slaanesh Demons
Night Lords
Imperial knights

 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut



Bamberg / Erlangen

 Strg Alt wrote:
What's the beef with soup?

In 2nd and 3rd 40K had an ally system that allowed to include a small amount of specific troops from certain other codices to be included in your force. No one was screaming bloody murder back then like they do now when the word "ally" is dropped in forums.

Can't speak for 2nd, but in 3rd...
- the amount of units was severly limited.
- the combinable factions were severly limited.
- taking Marines as allys prevented you from taking any Grey Knights at all in your Demonhunter army.
- it all made some fluff sense.

Imperial Guard Space Marines
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





a_typical_hero wrote:
I don't think troops should be forced.

I would rather have them not as powerful as specialists, while at the same time being more useful because they score more points for doing objective actions or something.

So you have a proper decision to make wether you like to be better at the mission, or having it easier to prevent the enemy from doing the same.

The current implementation is not going far enough while still having a soft forcing of troops.


I guess you could limit actions to obsec and drive that home more.

   
Made in ca
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus






 Daedalus81 wrote:
a_typical_hero wrote:
I don't think troops should be forced.

I would rather have them not as powerful as specialists, while at the same time being more useful because they score more points for doing objective actions or something.

So you have a proper decision to make wether you like to be better at the mission, or having it easier to prevent the enemy from doing the same.

The current implementation is not going far enough while still having a soft forcing of troops.


I guess you could limit actions to obsec and drive that home more.


honestly i think a solution to 40k's lethality problem would be to add actions outside of secondaries.

Obsec too isnt something that's really needed, it comes back to forcing players to play with underwhelming units. And now that more and more non-troops get obsec, that job isnt even truly fulfilled.

Admech Lucius
Drukhari
Craftworld Yme-Loc
Thousand sons
Tzeentch Demons
Slaanesh Demons
Night Lords
Imperial knights

 
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought




The dark hollows of Kentucky

 Daedalus81 wrote:
a_typical_hero wrote:
I don't think troops should be forced.

I would rather have them not as powerful as specialists, while at the same time being more useful because they score more points for doing objective actions or something.

So you have a proper decision to make wether you like to be better at the mission, or having it easier to prevent the enemy from doing the same.

The current implementation is not going far enough while still having a soft forcing of troops.


I guess you could limit actions to obsec and drive that home more.

Or just, I don't know, make troops good? Admech and Dark Eldar take plenty of troops. Loyalists don't complain about Intercessors. You Thousand Sons folks seem to like Rubrics quite a bit since the new codex dropped. Why? Because they're all GOOD. Basic troops shouldn't feel like a "tax", they should be fundamentally good for their price. You shouldn't have to be forced to take them, you should want to. Without silly bonus rules like obsec.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






I feel like a compelling design challenge for GW would be to take this approach:

What would we have to do to make the game engaging, deep, and fun to play if armies ONLY used Troop units. This would require that (a) armies have interesting / fun / diverse troop unit design to begin with and (b) that the core rules of the game has enough depth and nuance and gameplay opportunity that playing with "just troops" creates a worthwhile experience.

If they can achieve that, THEN they could start layering on specialist units with the requirement that X amount of troops be required at a minimum.

FWIW - I'm coming from the perspective that most armies should have a lot of troops, as the backbone and spirit of their army, period.

Want a better 40K?
Check out ProHammer: Classic - An Awesomely Unified Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition 40K... for retro 40k feels!
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

WHFB encouraged you to take troops because they could deny enemy rank bonuses, help achieve outnumbering bonuses, and fill gaps in your line to prevent you from being flanked and outnumbered yourself.

Infinity encourages you to take troops because they improve your activation economy, and can still kill a specialist if positioned appropriately thanks to the reaction system.

Lord of the Rings encourages you to take troops because they can support more expensive troops in fights (particularly if they have spears or pikes), keep your expensive troops from getting ganged up on, and help pad out your model count to avoid army-level morale issues.

In 40K, everything is measured by its ability to hold objectives or kill the enemy, so troops often end up being either point-for-point more killy than the specialists and displace them, or objectively worse and not worth taking. When they are cost-effective at holding objectives, we see 200+ model lists that just sit on objectives forever and can't be killed fast enough, and it makes for boring play.

There's a deeper issue here than just making troops good versus making troops required. Troops don't do anything differently from elite units, and that's a problem for design. There has to be value in having bodies on the field that don't necessarily fight well or take hits well in order for non-specialists to have a distinct role.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/05 17:08:46


   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Or just, I don't know, make troops good? Admech and Dark Eldar take plenty of troops. Loyalists don't complain about Intercessors. You Thousand Sons folks seem to like Rubrics quite a bit since the new codex dropped. Why? Because they're all GOOD. Basic troops shouldn't feel like a "tax", they should be fundamentally good for their price. You shouldn't have to be forced to take them, you should want to. Without silly bonus rules like obsec.


I think the only "not good" troops out of new books is Orks - putting aside the real chaffy chaffersons. But those become a problem, because every inch you add gets more quickly amplified by any force multipliers. They were definitely a problem in 8th.

   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





 H.B.M.C. wrote:
PenitentJake wrote:
I think what you mean is "were basically three phases"
Ok... and? Like, obviously this is past tense. Armoured Company doesn't exist anymore. This isn't news.

Do you get a quick out of replying to me with what basically amounts to "Nuh-uh!", 'cause you do it a lot?



Sorry if you feel targeted- not my intention.

I guess I didn't understand your series of posts RE: the old FOC. You seem to be proposing bringing it back because it is better than detachments.

Yet the armoured company skew from 3/4 existed with that old FOC, and now no longer exists? So I'm confused.

Some examples may be from 3/4, but if they are used in argument about bringing back the old FOC, regardless of what the examples are, you're now talking about 9th.

Maybe my lack of clarity is over when you're talking about 3rd/4rth and when you're talking about 9th and how those two arguments relate to each other?

Just out of curiousity, quote you quote me on these other occasions where I've replied to you with a "nuh-uh?"

It is an oft lamented observation that I tend to be a bit... Loquacious; I suspect that if you feel like I've ever just said "nuh-uh" to anything, it's probably because you're reducing the argument I'm making. Still, emotions are what they are, and sometimes I suppose I might "snap back," so as always, I'm prepared to stand corrected. But your posts don't stand out to me as being consistently problematic- I've agreed with a lot of things you've said before, and you generally seem to have a decent sense of humour.

It surprises me to hear that you think I'm targeting you. On this particular issue, I suppose it may feel that way, because I genuinely believe that detachments, combined with ally and game size rules are very powerful storytelling tools that you just can't get with a standard FOC. And even with the provision for bespoke FOC's, I think there is still the potential that the types of stories we've played through in 8th and 9th would not have been possible.

Believe me when I tell you, it's not just you though, and it's not just to say gotcha or Nuh-uh. I'd say the same things to anyone who suggested replacing detachments with a standardized FOC and the occasional bespoke FOC for armies that are known to have non-standard organizational blocks of units. I am very proud to be a person who really only plays games that fit into a larger narrative, and because my experiences have been positive and fulfilling, I do try to share this approach as a potential solution to the discontent that I read in this forum. My motivation for doing so genuinely is because I think other people could be as happy with the game as I am if they tried this approach.

You expressed dissatisfaction with the detachment system: I explained how I use detachments as storytelling tools that provide the basis for relationships between units because I thought it might give you some ideas about using detachments in ways you may not have previously considered, and that might improve your level of happiness or contentment with the current system.

Here's another one: when Primaris get introduced to an Old Marine chapter for the first time, keeping them in separate detachments tells the story of initial distrust. Having the Primaris units gradually accepted into the Oldmarine detachment tells the story of growing trust. The recent Torchbearer fleet rules from WD make this even cooler.

Very sorry if any of this felt like personal attack. It was never my intention.
   
Made in es
[DCM]
Secret Inquisitorial Eldar Xenexecutor






your mind

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 jeff white wrote:
And as for amateur, this is the way things were. You wanna be insulting, be that way. Doesn’t change facts. Just shows ignorance. Won’t ruin my day. Does make me wonder why I bother engaging with people of a certain caliber but whatevs. You do you.
I think what Catbarf was trying to get across is that simply changing points is often an inelegant and perhaps something of a 'brute force' method to game balance that does not always work the way you want it.
Spoiler:

The phrase I always use in this situation is: Points are not the great leveller. That is to say, you can't always rely on changing the points as your one-stop-shop to fixing problems in the game.

This is especially true when it comes to rarity within the fluff. Forget Guardians for a moment, and look at something on a smaller scale. Way back in the day Guard paid 6 points for Plasma Guns. Every infantry squad had one. GW decided that Plasma Guns should be rare, so jacked their cost to 10 points each. Did this change the amount of Plasma Guns in Guard armies? Did it make them "more rare", as their points were supposed to indicate? Of course not. Guard players just took less of other things to ensure they had enough points to maintain their supply of Plasma Guns. If they wanted to make Plasma Guns rare, they should have made Plasma Guns rare!!!. Change them to 0-2 per Platoon, rather than just upping their cost.

So to go back to your Guardians example. Making Guardians more expensive wouldn't make them more rare. It would just make them more expensive. If someone wants to bring a large amount of Guardians, they'll just keep doing that, and make compromises/sacrifices elsewhere to ensure that.

 Galas wrote:
With the changes to army construction of 9th, they fixed all problem with skew/spam lists.
Really?

People have just exchanged soup-ing different armies to soup-ing small detachments from different Forge Worlds/Cabals/etc..

Life... uhh... found a way, as it were, and the method has changed even though the results haven't.

 catbarf wrote:
If you wanted to reinforce Eldar as a dying race with lots of elites, maybe you'd limit their Troops choices to 4 (rather than 6) but give them an extra Elites slot. That would open up a more elite-focused army composition and disallow a horde of Guardians, without having to muck with individual unit balance.
That's precisely what I would want.

Everyone would always have the standard FOC available to them (slightly expanded and more scalable to game size), but each faction would have their own unique FOC (maybe more, if appropriate). An Eldar one that emphasises Elites is a great example of something that could exist. I picture a Tyranid one that branches outwards like a web as Synapse creatures are taken (kinda like how 2nd Ed Space Marine did it). A Word Bearer 'Summoning Circle' one that emphasises taking multiple Daemon units alongside CSMs (and none of this "You took a Daemon, so your troops forgot your core rules!" nonsense purity bonuses). That Iyanden one I mentioned with a heavy emphasis on Wraith constructs. And so on.

Make the fluff and army composition work hand-in hand rather than at odds with it, as it so often is now.


Absolutely. Maybe some combination of what GW is doing, changing points re chapter approved type updates, and this with faction specific force orgs makes a whole lot of sense. Such an approach would represent the differing characters of the different factions while remaining transparent to people who are not so familiar with those factions.

One thing that I remember is when wave serpents were all the rage, super killy indestructible and people were playing a ton of them all at once. At the time, I remember thinking:

Why doesn't GW write something up in WD about how serpents have been overused by Eldar strategists who relied on them so heavily that they have become rare, with most of them damaged in battle, and this rarity is now represented by an increase in points cost? With so many serpents damaged in battle, they should cost more in available resources to get these units to the battlefield, because they need repaired, retooled, injured crew need replaced, spirit stones replaced, and so on. And, this resource cost could easily be represented by an increase in points spent in assembling the force, representing the use of available resources to simply get these units on the table.

This would be a narrative based background reinforcing mechanism to moderate unit abuse with players taking advantage of loose game mechanics as written into the basic rules system. Since that time, GW has been changing points costs, and to some degree I suppose to similar effect, but the explanation beyond the "meta" is lacking. Anyways, point being that this seems one way that points could be used in a grand narrative style to moderate army composition and "balance" factions when players exploit loopholes to "spam" certain units in order to win at all costs (including the costs of a half dozen tanks and so on).


This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/05 17:34:09


   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord






 Sim-Life wrote:
 Blackie wrote:


Instead of "fixing" the FOC, change the troops' role. Or make it a mandatory heavy tax, like a mandatory 30% of the points budget that must be invested in troops. .


WHFB did this and I got the impression people generally disliked it? I liked it so I dunno. But I think WHFBs way of setting up armies into Core, Special, Rare would probably work better for 40k at this point give the amount of models in a codex and how randomly GW assigns roles to things. IIRC correctly it was 25% Core minimum, 50% Special maximum and 25% maximum Rare. On top of that in 7th I think you had a unit restriction as well, like Warp Lightning Cannons were 0-1 per 1000pts IIRC? It's hazy, but in any case I think 40k could probably stand to do something like this.

Though knowning GW if they DID introduce a WHFB system they'd plonk it lazily on top of the FoC/Detachment system somehow.


You've got your editions mixed up there. 5th ed WHFB (and prior editions) had the percentages. 6th onwards had the lords/heroes/core/special/rare.

The difference was, it's like what HBMC suggested a few pages back- it scaled. Up to 1999pts you could only have 1 rare, 2 special (IIRC) and no lords. 2000-2999 a single lord became available and more special and rare, but the core requirements also upped in turn.



A GW fan walks into a bar, buys the same drink as yesterday but pays more.

""Unite" is a human word, ... join me or die."

If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them. 
   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader





 Grimtuff wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
 Blackie wrote:


Instead of "fixing" the FOC, change the troops' role. Or make it a mandatory heavy tax, like a mandatory 30% of the points budget that must be invested in troops. .


WHFB did this and I got the impression people generally disliked it? I liked it so I dunno. But I think WHFBs way of setting up armies into Core, Special, Rare would probably work better for 40k at this point give the amount of models in a codex and how randomly GW assigns roles to things. IIRC correctly it was 25% Core minimum, 50% Special maximum and 25% maximum Rare. On top of that in 7th I think you had a unit restriction as well, like Warp Lightning Cannons were 0-1 per 1000pts IIRC? It's hazy, but in any case I think 40k could probably stand to do something like this.

Though knowning GW if they DID introduce a WHFB system they'd plonk it lazily on top of the FoC/Detachment system somehow.


You've got your editions mixed up there. 5th ed WHFB (and prior editions) had the percentages. 6th onwards had the lords/heroes/core/special/rare.

The difference was, it's like what HBMC suggested a few pages back- it scaled. Up to 1999pts you could only have 1 rare, 2 special (IIRC) and no lords. 2000-2999 a single lord became available and more special and rare, but the core requirements also upped in turn.


8th also had the percentages.
   
Made in es
[DCM]
Secret Inquisitorial Eldar Xenexecutor






your mind

 Strg Alt wrote:
What's the beef with soup?

In 2nd and 3rd 40K had an ally system that allowed to include a small amount of specific troops from certain other codices to be included in your force. No one was screaming bloody murder back then like they do now when the word "ally" is dropped in forums.


You know, I remember that my eldar could include harlies as these were eldar. I remember that orks might be found alongside chaos marines or bloodaxes with imperial guard, even! But I remember these sorts of "allies" only as anecdotes, from descriptions in the old ork books and so on. I have to say that I never actually saw anything like that on a tabletop. Orks were orks, though one buddy had ogryns which might have been part of his ork army sometimes. marines were marines... I don't remember anyone ever including imp guard in a marine army, unless we were lined up with two armies and two players on each side of an 8x4 foot table. But, in such instances, those we treated as separate armies. Anyways, it has been a long time, and I was relatively new to the scene, so I might not remember well and I certainly didn;t know everything about the game, but I have to say here that IF there were anything like "allies" in 2nd, these were such a small part of the game that I have no memory of the possbility. Frankly, I liked things better that way. I mean, why not return to that way of doing things. If one wanted to use two different factions, produce two separate forces employing dedicated (faction specific, per HBMC) FOCs within the total points limit agreed upon by both player/sides. No marines riding tau transports, no tau deployed closer to a marine hq than a tau hq, something like that i.e. with limitations. Simple.

   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 Strg Alt wrote:
What's the beef with soup?

In 2nd and 3rd 40K had an ally system that allowed to include a small amount of specific troops from certain other codices to be included in your force. No one was screaming bloody murder back then like they do now when the word "ally" is dropped in forums.


From a balance perspective the Loyal 32 in 8th were so powerful they became effectively mandatory for playing Imperium lists, even when people didn't really want to buy Guardsmen, so they got annoyed at feeling like they were being upsold Guardsmen they didn't want.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord






Rihgu wrote:
 Grimtuff wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
 Blackie wrote:


Instead of "fixing" the FOC, change the troops' role. Or make it a mandatory heavy tax, like a mandatory 30% of the points budget that must be invested in troops. .


WHFB did this and I got the impression people generally disliked it? I liked it so I dunno. But I think WHFBs way of setting up armies into Core, Special, Rare would probably work better for 40k at this point give the amount of models in a codex and how randomly GW assigns roles to things. IIRC correctly it was 25% Core minimum, 50% Special maximum and 25% maximum Rare. On top of that in 7th I think you had a unit restriction as well, like Warp Lightning Cannons were 0-1 per 1000pts IIRC? It's hazy, but in any case I think 40k could probably stand to do something like this.

Though knowning GW if they DID introduce a WHFB system they'd plonk it lazily on top of the FoC/Detachment system somehow.


You've got your editions mixed up there. 5th ed WHFB (and prior editions) had the percentages. 6th onwards had the lords/heroes/core/special/rare.

The difference was, it's like what HBMC suggested a few pages back- it scaled. Up to 1999pts you could only have 1 rare, 2 special (IIRC) and no lords. 2000-2999 a single lord became available and more special and rare, but the core requirements also upped in turn.


8th also had the percentages.


It did? Well, I'm the proverbial man in orthopaedic shoes...

Still doesn't dismiss my point though.



A GW fan walks into a bar, buys the same drink as yesterday but pays more.

""Unite" is a human word, ... join me or die."

If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them. 
   
Made in ca
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus






 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Strg Alt wrote:
What's the beef with soup?

In 2nd and 3rd 40K had an ally system that allowed to include a small amount of specific troops from certain other codices to be included in your force. No one was screaming bloody murder back then like they do now when the word "ally" is dropped in forums.


From a balance perspective the Loyal 32 in 8th were so powerful they became effectively mandatory for playing Imperium lists, even when people didn't really want to buy Guardsmen, so they got annoyed at feeling like they were being upsold Guardsmen they didn't want.


So nerf that specific combination, don't just go in with a sledgehammer and destroy soup *almost* completely.

Admech Lucius
Drukhari
Craftworld Yme-Loc
Thousand sons
Tzeentch Demons
Slaanesh Demons
Night Lords
Imperial knights

 
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

Soup IS Alive and kicking in 9th. But is now a táctical option to use when It is worth it. Not and automatic choice for competitive play.

And if you dont care that much about competitive , you can play good lists with soup.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
No idea, and i personally really dislike how extreme GW has gone with 9th to discourage soup (deathguard losing their fething contagions if they ally nurgle demons, WTF)
This is an example of GW's extreme overbalancing.

They fix problems by swinging the pendulum so hard that it ends up being the complete opposite level of bad.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 VladimirHerzog wrote:

From a balance perspective the Loyal 32 in 8th were so powerful they became effectively mandatory for playing Imperium lists, even when people didn't really want to buy Guardsmen, so they got annoyed at feeling like they were being upsold Guardsmen they didn't want.


So nerf that specific combination, don't just go in with a sledgehammer and destroy soup *almost* completely.

The Loyal 32 was "mandatory" because it gave you cheap CP; not because the 30 guardsmen and 2 HQs were all that powerful. Currently, the Loyal 32 problem is solved because adding them to your army would take away CP rather than granting it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:

No idea, and i personally really dislike how extreme GW has gone with 9th to discourage soup (deathguard losing their fething contagions if they ally nurgle demons, WTF)

Nurgle daemons and Death Guard really should be able to hang out, but I sort of get where GW is coming from. Imagine teaming up sisters and ad mech if you didn't lose your gimmick mechanics. You'd have to track miracle dice, sacred rites, canticles, whatever those skitarii bonuses are called, and the weird mechanicus warlord trait "modes" all at once.

I'm okay with armies only having access to one gimmick mechanic to keep things simple, Nurgle daemons probably shouldn't take away plague auras, and drukhari coven units should probably be viable without PFP.

EDIT: Regarding troops:
I've been saying for a long time now that troops should NOT be mandatory and SHOULD be desirable on their own merits. What is and isn't a "troop" and how cost-effective those units are ocmpared to other options within their faction is just too arbitrary to pretend that being a "troop" means anything. Mandatory troops just don't work well from a mechanical OR narrative angle.

Troops that aren't cheap, durable, or killy enough to be desirable should be made desirable by making them support units for the rest of your army; the sort of unit that you want to spread out across your forces. So maybe some troops have the ability to intercept (shoot at) enemy units when they arrive from reserves or the ability to charge an enemy unit before it can pull off its own charge (thus keeping your more expensive units from getting charged). Maybe you introduce a crossfire mechanic, and having troops spread around the table naturally makes it easier to catch the enemy in a crossfire. Maybe you make certain strats cheap or free when used by certain troops representing the idea that your army is most accustomed to having troops pull off that maneuver.

So my dire avengers don't have to be as good at killing infantry as my non-troops, but they should be a unit that I want to buddy up with other units. Tactical marines don't have to match aggressors for raw fire power, but maybe they could auspex scan for 0CP.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/10/06 01:07:14


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: