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.

 Traditio wrote:

And once again, this whole thing comes down to: "BUT I WANT TO FIELD THE MOST OP STUFF IN MY CODEX! I DON'T WANT TO TAKE THE NON-OP STUFF!"

Sorry. But I don't sympathize with you.

It's not about OP. It's about playing varied, fun lists that fit the game (i.e. have at least some fluff to them). Nids should be capable of going horde, or nid zilla, or a subterranean assault, or a skybourne swarm. Having options to adjust a few units in one direction or another to fill different slots opens that up. Forcing people to take crap tons of gaunt/gants for every 1 slot whatever doesn't fit the fluff, isn't any more or less balanced, and doesn't open up any real options for customizable builds.

In fact, for nids, it means there is even MORE reason to take 15 point mucoloid spore units to get rid of your crap troop tax.

I would much rather a RoW that made gargoyles and shrikes able to be taken as troops and required my HQ to be a flying hive tyrant along with a restriction that every unit in my list either be jump, flying, or deployed in a tyrannocyte drop pod.

I could take my standard gaunts and gants if they come in pods. I could also fill my troops with the new options available to me that are normally restricted to fast attack. Many options are still on the table if I bring drop pods for them all but my most efficient use now is harpys, hive crones, gargs and shrikes.

It's fluffy. It's neat. It doesn't break the game, give me free stuff, or truly restrict me from building whatever list I want.

There is no Monobuild like formations create. No free upgrades or rules. No requirement for me to use a RoW to begin with. Just toolbox options to adjust the way you build.

 Traditio wrote:
That's not even an option. Unless you go unbound, there is no CAD or formation compliant way of only running assault marines.

Err, what? Did you forget the context here? You replied to someone saying "I'm ok with taking a couple tactical/scout squads in my jump pack heavy army" with "you just want to take only the overpowered stuff".

Anything that isn't a Tactical Marine is obviously OP.

 Traditio wrote:

Peregrine wrote:Never thought I'd see the day when someone who wants to take lots of assault marines is accused of "only wanting to field the most OP stuff in their codex"...

That's not even an option. Unless you go unbound, there is no CAD or formation compliant way of only running assault marines.

In 30k there is a way to take assault marines as troops that promotes (but doesn't restrict) bringing complementary units to support them.

And Blood Angels have a Detachment that gives them 6 FA choices with only 1 mandatory Troop.

Space Marines also have the Bladewing Assault Brotherhood, with is 2-4 Assault Marines, 1-3 Vanguard and 1 Jump Pack Captain.


Both are viable way to make an army full of Assault Marines that would break under your 'perfect' system.

Peregrine wrote:Err, what? Did you forget the context here? You replied to someone saying "I'm ok with taking a couple tactical/scout squads in my jump pack heavy army" with "you just want to take only the overpowered stuff".

Whoops.

That moment when you wish you had the Men In Black flashy thing to make people on the internet forget that dumb thing you said.

Ok.

Let's try this again:

Sheerly in terms of theme, I don't think that there's a substantive difference between 2 units of tacticals and 6 units of tacticals in a jump-pack themed army. There's a quantitative difference, but not a qualitative one. Qualitatively, they're both out of place.

But even then, there are CAD compliant ways of doing something that basically fits this theme even under my suggestion.

6 crusader squads with boltpistols and chain swords.
3 assault squads
3 vanguard veteran squads

But the more fundamental question:

Does a higher mandatory troop requirement make the game more balanced?

I think that the answer is obvious.

You're right, the answer is obvious.

No it doesn't make the game more balanced. If anything, it increases the imbalance in favour of Necrons, FE Tau, Space Marines, summon-spam Daemons and (biggest of all) Eldar.

Literally the 5 armies that DON'T need buffs.

It is obvious. No. As has been discussed, different codexs have different caliber of troop selections. Some books benefit and others crumple.

Aw damn-guys, I've been convinced. I'm sorry.

I just can't believe people can field an ENTIRE ARMY of Deathwing! I mean, come on-how overpowered is that? Melee Terminators-Melee Terminators!-as a whole army? Utterly preposterous!

 Traditio wrote:
There's a quantitative difference, but not a qualitative one. Qualitatively, they're both out of place.

But that quantitative difference is a huge thing. A few points on a couple of 5-man scout squads doesn't really take much away from the theme of the army, and maybe can even be justified as the forward spotters calling in the jump infantry. Having to take six units of troops instead of two makes a huge difference in how the army feels. Those troops are now a core element of the army and much harder to justify fluff-wise. FFS, they now out-number the assault marines!

Peregrine wrote:But that qualitative difference is a huge thing.

Again, it's quantitative, not qualitative.

A few points on a couple of 5-man scout squads doesn't really take much away from the theme of the army, and maybe can even be justified as the forward spotters calling in the jump infantry. Having to take six units of troops instead of two makes a huge difference in how the army feels. Those troops are now a core element of the army and much harder to justify fluff-wise. FFS, they now out-number the assault marines!

1. I simply disagree with this. Having only 10 scouts in an entire army full of assault marines is just as theme breaking, and much more immersion breaking, than having 30. Why on earth are there only these 2 squads of odd men out?

It's much easier to justify "fluff wise" (not that I care all that much about these things) the fact that there's 30 scouts rather than 10. "You see Billy, this here is a task force from the 10th company." As opposed to: "And these 10 scouts just so happened to be passing by..."

2. It's also not true that the scouts have to outnumber the assault marines. They could be identical in number. 6 - 5 man squads vs. 3 - 10 man squads. You can also have up to 30 vanguard veterans. Both the assault squads and the vanguard veterans can squad up.

3. Yes. Troops are supposed to be a core element of the army. That's why they're troops.

4. I want to go back to 1, however. At the end of the day, being forced to take anything as a requirement is "theme-breaking." Whether it's 1 or 100, you presumably don't want that element there. If I want an army of only wraithknights, then those wraithguard and spiritseer are "theme breaking." If I want an army of only tactical marines, then the captain I have to take is "theme breaking."

But at the end of the day, either there are or are not minimum requirements for the sake of game balance. And if there's going to be minimum requirements, then they should be at least enough to...you know...actually make a difference.

An 80 point tax and 20 squishy bodies on the field (in the case of the termagaunts) aren't going to matter. 240 points and 60 squishy bodies matter a little bit more.

 Traditio wrote:
Again, it's quantitative, not qualitative.

Yes, that was a typo. Edited.

1. I simply disagree with this. Having only 10 scouts in an entire army full of assault marines is just as theme breaking, and much more immersion breaking, than having 30. Why on earth are there only these 2 squads of odd men out?

This is answered in the fluff by things like how the Raven Guard use small scout squads to identify targets before calling in the assault force, in the form of drop pods or jump infantry. They're passive observers that are present and will probably contribute some sniper shots, but they aren't a major part of the attack.

2. It's also not true that the scouts have to outnumber the assault marines. They could be identical in number. 6 - 5 man squads vs. 3 - 10 man squads. You can also have up to 30 vanguard veterans. Both the assault squads and the vanguard veterans can squad up.

Ok, yes, if you go with maximum squads of assault marines and minimum squads of troops you can get them to parity. This is still a problem. A themed assault marine army should have significantly more assault marines than any other infantry type.

3. Yes. Troops are supposed to be a core element of the army. That's why they're troops.

This argument fails because there are lots of very fluffy army concepts that do not use the standard troops units from their codex as a core element. Those things should be part of the game, especially if you're talking about fluff-driven casual/narrative games instead of hardcore tournaments.

4. I want to go back to 1, however. At the end of the day, being forced to take anything as a requirement is "theme-breaking." Whether it's 1 or 100, you presumably don't want that element there. If I want an army of only wraithknights, then those wraithguard and spiritseer are "theme breaking." If I want an army of only tactical marines, then the captain I have to take is "theme breaking."

You're right, this is a problem. It's unfortunate that GW has moved away from "{unit} counts as troops" FOC modifiers in favor of formations and forced a choice between theme-breaking mandatory units or allowing the stupidity of formations.

 Traditio wrote:

That's complete bunk. There's nothing about the white scars identity that you HAVE to run only bikes. The White Scars are a codex adherent chapter who place greater tactical significance on speed and mobility. You could represent this in an all bike army. But you don't have to. Khan's special ability also applies to rhinos and razorbacks.

That's the thing though. In your system, I can't run an all bike army because I would have to take at least a few tacs.

As for the fluff of token scout squads in an assault marine army, remember that the FW Raven Guard special character made assault marines troops but required you to take a mandatory scout squad. So this army concept is indisputably encouraged by GW.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
There's a quantitative difference, but not a qualitative one. Qualitatively, they're both out of place.

But that qualitative difference is a huge thing. A few points on a couple of 5-man scout squads doesn't really take much away from the theme of the army, and maybe can even be justified as the forward spotters calling in the jump infantry. Having to take six units of troops instead of two makes a huge difference in how the army feels. Those troops are now a core element of the army and much harder to justify fluff-wise. FFS, they now out-number the assault marines!

This is exactly how I feel, Peregrine. Taking a couple troop units can represent those two squads the marines sent out to go, "Yep. We found the enemy. We'll send you the coordinates and prepare to lend supporting fire while our fellow scouts slowly make their way towards us to help out after the battle." Or it could simply be that my army likes having some scout/tac support, but still heavily favors guys with jump packs.

In my eyes, an army's story is told by the units and wargear you take. If you're playing raven guard, you probably represent this by taking jump packers and scouts. If you're playing Iyanden, you try to have a lot of wraith units and not a ton of non-wraith units. If you're playing Night Lords, you try to fit in a lot of raptors. Having a bunch of tac marines standing around in larger quantities than the assault marines doesn't say, "We favor assault marines over tac marines," it says, "We have a lot of both tac and assault marines, so we're not proportionally that fond of assault marines really." It weakens the flavor of the army by watering it down with units that, while not inappropriate, aren't really supportive of that theme either.

"Look! I made a blueberry muffin!"
"Are those pecans in there?"
"Yeah. I have to take at least as many pecans as I do blueberries. That's how you make a blueberry muffin."




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
As for the fluff of token scout squads in an assault marine army, remember that the FW Raven Guard special character made assault marines troops but required you to take a mandatory scout squad. So this army concept is indisputably encouraged by GW.

I demand you tell me the name of this character immediately.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
Again, it's quantitative, not qualitative.

Yes, that was a typo. Edited.

1. I simply disagree with this. Having only 10 scouts in an entire army full of assault marines is just as theme breaking, and much more immersion breaking, than having 30. Why on earth are there only these 2 squads of odd men out?

This is answered in the fluff by things like how the Raven Guard use small scout squads to identify targets before calling in the assault force, in the form of drop pods or jump infantry. They're passive observers that are present and will probably contribute some sniper shots, but they aren't a major part of the attack.

2. It's also not true that the scouts have to outnumber the assault marines. They could be identical in number. 6 - 5 man squads vs. 3 - 10 man squads. You can also have up to 30 vanguard veterans. Both the assault squads and the vanguard veterans can squad up.

Ok, yes, if you go with maximum squads of assault marines and minimum squads of troops you can get them to parity. This is still a problem. A themed assault marine army should have significantly more assault marines than any other infantry type.

3. Yes. Troops are supposed to be a core element of the army. That's why they're troops.

This argument fails because there are lots of very fluffy army concepts that do not use the standard troops units from their codex as a core element. Those things should be part of the game, especially if you're talking about fluff-driven casual/narrative games instead of hardcore tournaments.

4. I want to go back to 1, however. At the end of the day, being forced to take anything as a requirement is "theme-breaking." Whether it's 1 or 100, you presumably don't want that element there. If I want an army of only wraithknights, then those wraithguard and spiritseer are "theme breaking." If I want an army of only tactical marines, then the captain I have to take is "theme breaking."

You're right, this is a problem. It's unfortunate that GW has moved away from "{unit} counts as troops" FOC modifiers in favor of formations and forced a choice between theme-breaking mandatory units or allowing the stupidity of formations.

I was going to respond to Traditio's post, but you seem to have written my exact response for me. Well done, Peregrine.

Wyldhunt wrote:
I demand you tell me the name of this character immediately.

Shadow Captain Korvydae, from IA8. Unfortunately the book hasn't been updated in a long time (5th edition IIRC?) so his rules aren't entirely compatible without some common-sense errata and you may have trouble convincing people to let you use him.

 Traditio wrote:


An 80 point tax and 20 squishy bodies on the field (in the case of the termagaunts) aren't going to matter. 240 points and 60 squishy bodies matter a little bit more.

Except it's not. It's 90 points and 6 mucolid spores. Does it matter now?

 Lance845 wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

Peregrine wrote:Never thought I'd see the day when someone who wants to take lots of assault marines is accused of "only wanting to field the most OP stuff in their codex"...

That's not even an option. Unless you go unbound, there is no CAD or formation compliant way of only running assault marines.

In 30k there is a way to take assault marines as troops that promotes (but doesn't restrict) bringing complementary units to support them.

In 30k Assault Marines are Troops all the time, it's Bikes as Troops that require restrictive Rites of War (Terminators/Veterans as Troops isn't that restrictive, it just hands out bonus VP to the enemy for killing them all).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
I demand you tell me the name of this character immediately.

Shadow Captain Korvydae, from IA8. Unfortunately the book hasn't been updated in a long time (5th edition IIRC?) so his rules aren't entirely compatible without some common-sense errata and you may have trouble convincing people to let you use him.

He hasn't been overwritten yet, and the only common-sense errata you need is adding "Chapter Tactics: Raven Guard" to his special rules.

I think how Detachments currently work is fine, apart from a few problems.

Codex Detachments allow you to play an army fluffy and gives you extra rules for doing so. I dig this and think that it shouldn't go anywhere. Just needs some on a per-army basis balancing.

Combined Arms is mostly fine, but could use with some spit-polish and updating. Make it function like Codex Detachments, but instead of taking Formations you take one to two groupings of Command (1 HQ, 0-1 Elites), any number of Core (2 Troops, 0-1 Fast Attack, 0-1 Heavy Support) and up to one Auxiliary (Fortification, Lord of War or Allies).

I find the biggest problem with the current Detachments available is Unbound. It just isn't worth taking right now, but I feel there are simple solutions to fix that by adding in a few special rules.
* The Unbound: Any units from any Codexs or Supplements may be used in an Unbound Detachment. Allies which would normally be Desperate Allies or Come the Apocalypse are Allies of Convenience instead, while armies which are normally Allies of Convenience are Battle Brothers instead.
* Strange Tactics: If this is your Primary Detachment, you may re-roll failed attempts to Seize the Initiative.

Doesn't give ObSec or warlord re-rolls, but will allow players to create some interesting armies that are not possible using Codex Detachments or Combined Arms Detachments.

I'm not sure we really need to formalize or buff unbound armies. I'm under the impression that the whole point of Unbound is to be able to say, "Hey, I'd really like to run this weird army that isn't well-represented by a detachment/formation. Would you be interested in facing my strange list?"

Unbound is another way of saying, "Let's break away from the normal rules and do something gimmicky today." It's not really meant to be the sort of thing you see in "serious" games or at tournaments and so forth.

I agree with Wyldhunt. Unbounds entire purpose is to say "And if you don't like the rules then ask your opponent if it's ok that you don't use them."

There is zero reason to formalize ignoring the rules besides saying it's your welcome to it with permission.

 Lance845 wrote:
I agree with Wyldhunt. Unbounds entire purpose is to say "And if you don't like the rules then ask your opponent if it's ok that you don't use them."

There is zero reason to formalize ignoring the rules besides saying it's your welcome to it with permission.

Except Unbound is properly formalized already. Unless you are defining "formalized" as "having special rules with it".

I mean what was suggested above, which is adding special rules to it.

Traditio wrote:

And hey-what if I don't own 60 flipping Cultists models, and have no desire to own that many?

Then invest in some chaos space marines or cult troops.

It's not that complicated.

Oh, I see- "hey, Traditio, we're rewriting the Space Marine codex so you HAVE to have a Knight and full Imperial Guard company supporting the Space Marines, because fluff/reasons?
What's that? You don''t own a Knight and a company's worth of Imperial Guard?
Invest in some - it's not that complicated."

See why that's a bad idea?

pm713 wrote:This sounds more like you want to kill as much creativity as you can rather than fix anything.

Yes - but I'm sure that's the point.

Traditio wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
And my 450 points of CSM as compared to your 420 of Tacs? I paid more points... For worse models.

1. You don't have to take CSM. You could take cultists (but you don't like the models, apparently). Or you could have all kinds of fluffy fun and take cult troops (But that would cost more points).

Why should "I don't like Cultists or Cult Troops" be a bad answer? Fluffy is determinate on your army's fluff, such as if I was playing some renegade Space Marines, or Black Legion, or Night Lords. They are unaligned, and are no known for massive squads of Cultists. Why should I be forced to take cult units or Cultists?

2. It's not really a fair comparison. 60 of those points are for the mandatory veteran status on the sergeants.

And will that Veteran status be used? Probably not. Although if you were forced to add Veteran status on all your sergeants (which rarely comes into play), I bet you wouldn't like it.

And I wish to emphasize:

I never said that this would fix all of the imbalances in the game. The CSM book is just all around bad. It's full of unappropriately priced units (why the feth does a cultist sergeant cost as much as a space marine?), lack of synergy built into the units (CSM can take a heavy and a special weapons, but can't squad off) and expensive mandatory upgrades (veteran status for all of the sergeants).

Those things need to be fixed separately. That doesn't change the fact that, purely from a gameplay standpoint, you HAVE a 300 point option. And guess what? Cultists hit tactical marines on 4s and wounds on 5s.

And again, if this troop requirement were enforced, game balance would be a whole lot better off.

I beg to differ. If the units were more balanced, game balance would be better. Not the unfluffy creation you propose.

Traditio wrote:

Peregrine wrote:Never thought I'd see the day when someone who wants to take lots of assault marines is accused of "only wanting to field the most OP stuff in their codex"...

That's not even an option. Unless you go unbound, there is no CAD or formation compliant way of only running assault marines.

Which is why people are advocating for a different creation method.

The 30k method is probably the best. It allows for unique and fluffy builds (ranging from bikes, to jump packs, to pure vehicles, to infantry), and still retains a solid core.
Formations are not an issue to me - their bonuses are.
Bikes as Troops has existed since at least 5th. Blood Angels had Assault Marine troops at the same time.
Again, I don't think anyone has actually replied to the comments on the Deathwing Terminators not being able to work. Or Legion of the Damned, to that level.

What about DW Terminators not working? As troops?

I mean, IMO i wish we just went back to spicific HQs made some units troops, made things so much easier.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
What about DW Terminators not working? As troops?

As in playing a fluffy Deathwing army (which would only consist of Deathwing Terminators).

There's no reason a Deathwing army hunting down suspected Fallen would be accompanied by anything other than Ravenwing, and considering the Deathwing are described as deploying alone on more than one occasion, they should be able to.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
What about DW Terminators not working? As troops?

As in playing a fluffy Deathwing army (which would only consist of Deathwing Terminators).

There's no reason a Deathwing army hunting down suspected Fallen would be accompanied by anything other than Ravenwing, and considering the Deathwing are described as deploying alone on more than one occasion, they should be able to.

Oh totally agree but the only way to play pure Deathwing is unbound and can't even take land raiders for them unless unbound or cad whic is so dumb.

I actually run RW DW for pure fluff :3

 Backspacehacker wrote:
What about DW Terminators not working? As troops?

I mean, IMO i wish we just went back to spicific HQs made some units troops, made things so much easier.

Things were a little confusing when they were transitioning between "all X units in an army" to "all X units in a Primary Detachment" to "all X units in a Detachment".

Personally, I prefer using Formations for this since that allows them to be appropriately "cut off" from the rest of the army. As someone stated, Deathwing are more likely to be operating as their own group, even with Ravenwing there. The biggest current problem is their Special Rules which make them no-brainers. If you really want to make them more balanced, remove or minimize Formation's Special Rules and make them Unique outside of specific circumstances (certain low grade Choices in Choice Detachments or Apocalypse, for example).