Reinforcements/Infinite Troops

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.

**Peregrine**

Dakka Wolf wrote:
Which makes them not footsloggers.

Crisis suits have the Infantry unit type.

**Dakka Wolf**

Mixed squads mean they only get the footsloggers back or they move at footslogger pace or they conga-line into combat.

It's always the Nids who fall behind for some reason...

**Peregrine**

koooaei wrote:
Now i can't agree with this. People have different understanding of what's interesting. For example, for me it's more interesting to have regular dudes with a couple special weapons than dudes with all the special weapons. It's much more realistic - special weapons are special for a reason. They're way more costly to produce, maintain, transport. May be more unwieldy to use and don't fit as wide a variety of roles as standard weapons do.

Furthermore, it fits the 'against all odds feeling' much better. I'd prefer special stuff to be really special - means more rare and expensive.

Obviously this is something that's subjective and different people have different opinions, I'm talking about the average for the community as a whole. A big part of the perception that troops are a "tax" unit is that GW keeps making units that are "your troops, +1" in other FOC slots and giving them awesome rules/models/etc to make you want to buy them. Some people might want a horde of the basic stuff, but those people generally aren't the ones who see troops as a tax.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dakka Wolf wrote:
at first glance Necrons would profit big but their natural toughness would actually work against them - rather than getting slaughtered wholesale and re-spawning the next turn like Guard they'd be shambling about in beaten squads that are too small to do real damage but not completely eliminated so not re-spawning.

The proposed rule allows you to voluntarily destroy your unit to place a respawn back in reserve. So yeah, that 10-man unit of GK terminators, elite warriors whose lives and equipment are worth more than an entire chapter of space marines (which is worth many entire regiments of guardsmen)? Well, they're out of position, suicide the unit so you can bring in a new one next turn on that objective in your deployment zone. No problem at all treating the Imperium's most valuable assets as disposable conscripts!

**koooaei**

Troops are a tax cause special powerful units are severely underpriced pointwise. For shame.

**kambien**

koooaei wrote:

What about mixed squads of firewarriors and drones? FW are infantry - drones are jetpack infantry. They're all in one squad.

I would assume the drones are a no go because they are not just plain infantry , but on the other hand the drones are actual wargear for the firewarriors

**Sgt_Smudge**

Dakka Wolf wrote:
koooaei wrote:
Crysis suits are troops in farsight enclave.

Still not footsloggers.
Read the first page - I missed the part where he specified footsloggers as well. I was wondering if he'd lost his marbles letting Eldar have re-spawning Scattbikes.

Nope. They're Infantry. There's no two ways about it, they're as much of an Infantry unit as Tactical Marines or Grey Knights are.

Dakka Wolf wrote:Mixed squads mean they only get the footsloggers back or they move at footslogger pace or they conga-line into combat.

It's always the Nids who fall behind for some reason...

But that isn't reflected in the rules for that. Drones are squad upgrades, just like a dedicated transport (which also lacks the Infantry rule), so should come back just like a DT.

**Charistoph**

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Nope. They're Infantry. There's no two ways about it, they're as much of an Infantry unit as Tactical Marines or Grey Knights are.

Until they try to step in to a Devilfish. Aside from the Capacity limitations they come with regarding Bulky models, being Jet Pack Infantry would preclude them from Embarking.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
But that isn't reflected in the rules for that. Drones are squad upgrades, just like a dedicated transport (which also lacks the Infantry rule), so should come back just like a DT.

Drones are no more squad upgrades than Neophytes are in Crusader Squads. They are models which are added to the unit, and are taken in to consideration for that more than an IC is. Dedicated Transports are a unit which are added to the detachment list and remain a separate unit. Indeed, they are noted as "additional squad members in all regards". Drones are not a separate unit added to the Detachment list.

If it wasn't for the fact that Drones are noted for being allowed to Embark in to Devlifish by the Devilfish's own Capacity rules, having a single Drone would prevent any unit from embarking on a Devilfish.

**Grey Templar**

Traditio wrote:

The following rules apply only to the following:

1. The unit must be in the "troops" section of the army codex ("counts as troops" doesn't count).
2. The unit must have the "infantry" type.
3. These rules don't affect ICs.

Rule 1: So long as you have at least 1 unit of troops in ongoing reserves, you cannot lose the game simply because you have no models on the field.

Rule 2: When a unit of troops is removed from the field, place that unit, in its original composition when initially deployed, into ongoing reserves.

Rule 3: At the beginning of each player turn, each troops unit in ongoing reserves shall be placed within 12 inches of the player's table edge. Each of those units counts as having moved for that turn and may not move again in the movement phase. Any special rule which would allow that unit to be placed on the table outside of 12 inches from the player's table edge may not be used to do so. If the deep strike special rule is used, the unit shall instead be placed within 12 inches of the player's table edge. Do not roll the scatter die.

Rule 4: At any time, a player may remove a unit of troops from the game and place it in ongoing reserves, just so long as that unit is at 50% or less of its original number of component models. This does count, for all rules purposes, as that unit being destroyed by the opponent. If the unit was in close quarter combat when the unit was removed, it counts as being destroyed in close combat by the opponent.

Rule 5: Reanimation protocols, as well as all rules that allow you to place a unit in ongoing reserves upon being destroyed, shall be replaced by: "At the end of each turn, roll a die. On a 4+, any models removed from that unit's original composition shall be replaced into that unit, and any wounds suffered by the original models in that unit shall be removed (no, ICs don't count for this rule).."

Rule 6: Dedicated transports which are wrecked or removed from the game may be brought back into play by rules 2 and 3, but only when the unit of which it is the transported is brought back into play in this fashion. The unit of which it is the transport may be deployed in said transport.

Why thank you for unlimited Terminator squads.

I'll just keep bringing these guys back each turn.

10 Grey Knight Terminators(2 psycannons, 2 hammers, 5 halberds): 400 points

**Sgt_Smudge**

Charistoph wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Nope. They're Infantry. There's no two ways about it, they're as much of an Infantry unit as Tactical Marines or Grey Knights are.

Until they try to step in to a Devilfish. Aside from the Capacity limitations they come with regarding Bulky models, being Jet Pack Infantry would preclude them from Embarking.

Terminators can't enter Rhinos. They're infantry and Troops. Are Grey Knights now exempt from this rule now? Can only GK Strike Squads respawn?

You can't say that Crisis Suits are not Infantry. It says so in their rules.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
But that isn't reflected in the rules for that. Drones are squad upgrades, just like a dedicated transport (which also lacks the Infantry rule), so should come back just like a DT.

Drones are no more squad upgrades than Neophytes are in Crusader Squads. They are models which are added to the unit, and are taken in to consideration for that more than an IC is. Dedicated Transports are a unit which are added to the detachment list and remain a separate unit. Indeed, they are noted as "additional squad members in all regards". Drones are not a separate unit added to the Detachment list.

If it wasn't for the fact that Drones are noted for being allowed to Embark in to Devlifish by the Devilfish's own Capacity rules, having a single Drone would prevent any unit from embarking on a Devilfish.

Yes, but in no way do the rules address mixed units. If they do prevent drones respawning, then the rule countermands itself by disallowing certain upgrades. If not, then it countermands itself by allowing a non-Infantry unit. What about a Devilfish makes it okay to respawn, but not the drone in the unit?

**Charistoph**

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Terminators can't enter Rhinos. They're infantry and Troops. Are Grey Knights now exempt from this rule now? Can only GK Strike Squads respawn?

You can't say that Crisis Suits are not Infantry. It says so in their rules.

I can say they are not Infantry for the purposes of Embarking on a Transport, because it says so in the Capacity rules.

Terminators cannot Embark on Rhinos because they are Bulky, same reason Broadside Suits cannot Embark on Devilfish.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Yes, but in no way do the rules address mixed units. If they do prevent drones respawning, then the rule countermands itself by disallowing certain upgrades. If not, then it countermands itself by allowing a non-Infantry unit. What about a Devilfish makes it okay to respawn, but not the drone in the unit?

Not necessarily. Jet Pack Infantry should be included until they are specifically noted as not, such as the Transport Capacity rules. That is why I referenced that as being an exception. To note, Traditio did not make such a notation.

**Grey Templar**

They are still infantry for the purpose of embarking on a transport. Its just that Rhinos have an explicit rule that Bulky models cannot embark. That doesn't make Terminators any less infantry. Their statline quite explicitly says Infantry.

**Sgt_Smudge**

Charistoph wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Terminators can't enter Rhinos. They're infantry and Troops. Are Grey Knights now exempt from this rule now? Can only GK Strike Squads respawn?

You can't say that Crisis Suits are not Infantry. It says so in their rules.

I can say they are not Infantry for the purposes of Embarking on a Transport, because it says so in the Capacity rules.

Whether or not they can embark on a transport, they are still classed as Infantry as per Traditio's rules. As it stands, Crisis Suits are as much Infantry for this as are Tactical Squads.

Terminators cannot Embark on Rhinos because they are Bulky, same reason Broadside Suits cannot Embark on Devilfish.

That doesn't make Terminators any less Infantry than Crisis Suits.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Yes, but in no way do the rules address mixed units. If they do prevent drones respawning, then the rule countermands itself by disallowing certain upgrades. If not, then it countermands itself by allowing a non-Infantry unit. What about a Devilfish makes it okay to respawn, but not the drone in the unit?

Not necessarily. Jet Pack Infantry should be included until they are specifically noted as not, such as the Transport Capacity rules. That is why I referenced that as being an exception. To note, Traditio did not make such a notation.

So until it's clarified, we really can't say anything.

**Charistoph**

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Charistoph wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Terminators can't enter Rhinos. They're infantry and Troops. Are Grey Knights now exempt from this rule now? Can only GK Strike Squads respawn?

You can't say that Crisis Suits are not Infantry. It says so in their rules.

I can say they are not Infantry for the purposes of Embarking on a Transport, because it says so in the Capacity rules.
Whether or not they can embark on a transport, they are still classed as Infantry as per Traditio's rules. As it stands, Crisis Suits are as much Infantry for this as are Tactical Squads.

That part wasn't in argument, I was merely pointing out that there are times that Jet Pack//Jump Infantry are not considered sufficiently "Infantry" is all.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Terminators cannot Embark on Rhinos because they are Bulky, same reason Broadside Suits cannot Embark on Devilfish.
That doesn't make Terminators any less Infantry than Crisis Suits.

You brought up Terminators, not me. The Rhino restrictions against Terminators have nothing to do with Unit Type, but on USRs they carry.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Yes, but in no way do the rules address mixed units. If they do prevent drones respawning, then the rule countermands itself by disallowing certain upgrades. If not, then it countermands itself by allowing a non-Infantry unit. What about a Devilfish makes it okay to respawn, but not the drone in the unit?

Not necessarily. Jet Pack Infantry should be included until they are specifically noted as not, such as the Transport Capacity rules. That is why I referenced that as being an exception. To note, Traditio did not make such a notation.
So until it's clarified, we really can't say anything.

We can say something, if only to check to see if they are under the same restrictions as noted for Embarking Transports. But until then, you are correct, we have to assume they are sufficiently Infantry to fall under this classification, so long as they are actually Troops ("counting as" does not work)

**General Annoyance**

Charistoph wrote:
That part wasn't in argument, I was merely pointing out that there are times that Jet Pack//Jump Infantry are not considered sufficiently "Infantry" is all.

They are still Infantry whether they can embark in a transport or not. Anything with the prefix "Infantry" is Infantry, whether they are Jet Pack Infantry, Jump Pack Infantry, or Bulky Jet Pack Infantry.

**Charistoph**

General Annoyance wrote:
Charistoph wrote:
That part wasn't in argument, I was merely pointing out that there are times that Jet Pack//Jump Infantry are not considered sufficiently "Infantry" is all.

They are still Infantry whether they can embark in a transport or not. Anything with the prefix "Infantry" is Infantry, whether they are Jet Pack Infantry, Jump Pack Infantry, or Bulky Jet Pack Infantry.

Infantry being the suffix, not the prefix. But if they are still Infantry, why are they singled out by Transport Capacity rules?

Or in other words, they are sufficiently not Infantry to be singled out as such.

**Peregrine**

Charistoph wrote:
Infantry being the suffix, not the prefix.

Not in 7th. Perhaps you should review how the rules have changed?

**Sgt_Smudge**

Charistoph wrote:
General Annoyance wrote:
Charistoph wrote:
That part wasn't in argument, I was merely pointing out that there are times that Jet Pack//Jump Infantry are not considered sufficiently "Infantry" is all.

They are still Infantry whether they can embark in a transport or not. Anything with the prefix "Infantry" is Infantry, whether they are Jet Pack Infantry, Jump Pack Infantry, or Bulky Jet Pack Infantry.

Infantry being the suffix, not the prefix. But if they are still Infantry, why are they singled out by Transport Capacity rules?

Or in other words, they are sufficiently not Infantry to be singled out as such.

Yet they are still defined by Infantry. Regardless of anything else, you can't deny that they are, essentially, Infantry.

**General Annoyance**

Charistoph wrote:
Infantry being the suffix, not the prefix. But if they are still Infantry, why are they singled out by Transport Capacity rules?

Or in other words, they are sufficiently not Infantry to be singled out as such.

Suffix, prefix - same difference here. They are still classed as Infantry - Infantry are not classed by whether they can embark in a transport or not.

**Peregrine**

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Regardless of anything else, you can't deny that they are, essentially, Infantry.

There's no "essentially" about it, they have the Infantry unit type. They're Infantry (Jet Pack), Infantry with the Bulky USR, etc. This is not 6th edition anymore, where those units had their own unit types. In 7th they've been consolidated into the Infantry type.

**Sgt_Smudge**

Peregrine wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Regardless of anything else, you can't deny that they are, essentially, Infantry.

There's no "essentially" about it, they have the Infantry unit type. They're Infantry (Jet Pack), Infantry with the Bulky USR, etc. This is not 6th edition anymore, where those units had their own unit types. In 7th they've been consolidated into the Infantry type.

Yes, absolutely agreed.

**Traditio**

Ok:

I've looked at your comments, and the comments, especially of Vitali Advenil, I found really compelling.

What if we added the following to the caveats:

"Caveat 4: For all rules and intents and purposes, 'infantry' shall not include anything of the "bulky" or higher size class.
Caveat 5: For all rules and intents and purposes, 'infantry' shall not include anything with a 2+ armor save in its codex stat line."

And then what if we changed rule 3 to read:

"Rule 3: At the beginning of each player turn, each troops unit in ongoing reserves shall be placed within 12 inches of the player's table edge. Each of those units counts as having moved for that turn. Nonetheless, they may move, shoot and assault as normal. Any special rule which would allow that unit to be placed on the table outside of 12 inches from the player's table edge may not be used to do so. If the deep strike special rule is used, the unit shall instead be placed within 12 inches of the player's table edge. Do not roll the scatter die."

This would still be a slight nerf to shooty armies (for all salvo and heavy weapons purposes), while at the same time giving things like Ork Trukk spam a real shot.

Not to mention that we get rid of the terminator, etc. nonsense.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, with these proposals, how would you guys feel about reintroducing consolidations into close combat and assaults from stationary transports?

**Sgt_Smudge**

It still doesn't solve the idea of Space Marines and other MEQ being essentially cannon fodder, which they are not.

**General Annoyance**

You're still allowing for Troop choices to respawn for free. That's going to create a whole world of problems, even if we tweaked it to say certain types couldn't be spammed to kingdom come.

As for assault consolidation, I think units should be able to do it, but it would probably make the game worse as well in its current state, so also no.

**Lance845**

If your proposed rule needs 5 foot notes/ clarifications / amendments then its a bad rule.

Game rules should be concise, direct, and require as few exceptions as possible. Especially if it's a core rule/mechanic. This proposition is a mess.

**Traditio**

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
It still doesn't solve the idea of Space Marines and other MEQ being essentially cannon fodder, which they are not.

The current state of the game seems to disagree with you.

Because tactical marines and other MEQs are already currently cannon fodder.

**General Annoyance**

Traditio wrote:
The current state of the game seems to disagree with you.

Because tactical marines and other MEQs are already currently cannon fodder.

Again, fighting something that shouldn't be the case with something that shouldn't exist either. This can't be a fix - it's swapping out one problem for a whole load of new problems

**Peregrine**

Lance845 wrote:
If your proposed rule needs 5 foot notes/ clarifications / amendments then its a bad rule.

This. The rule is a mess. Admit defeat and move on.

**Traditio**

General Annoyance wrote:What you are proposing is a focus on Troop choices that will likely result in nothing but Troop choice lists. Having respawning units is a massive advantage; my Leman Russ battalion could mash your Tactical Squads into the dirt, but with your rules that makes no difference to you - you still get to replace them next turn, and you can't lose the game for being wiped off the board. Chances are I'll lose that game despite having a list that will most likely counter everything you have to offer.

Warhammer 40k, especially with Maelstrom, is an objectives based game. Why should you expect to do well in a game with a list that doesn't focus on holding objectives?

But then your opponent can do the same back to you, most likely. Either way, the Knight, and any other similar Heavy Support choice, have become nothing more than leaf blowers to push things away from objectives temporarily for you to claim them. Chances are games with this ruleset will become an absolute grind as almost nothing dies except for your support units. And once those are dead, the game's going to grind even worse.

What's the phrases that are always used when some new, OP nonsense comes out? Oh yeah: "Adapt." "Change how you play the game."

You're exactly right about what would happen. Instead of writing lists that basically make it so that you HAVE to table your opponent or lose, your support slots would actually have to function as support slots. Yes, that IK would and should be amazing at clearing objectives. But ultimately useless if you don't have troops to secure said objective.

And you'd also have to be careful about how you use that IK, where you place it, etc. Because if you're careless, you just might lose said IK.

As the game should be. Because, again, 40k is objectives based.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Though, to be clear, I really didn't expect anyone actually to like this proposal. Because most people, it seems, actually don't like playing an objectives based game, even though 40k is, in fact, an objectives based game.

These rules would mean that death stars become much less useful.

These rules would mean that tank spam becomes much less useful.

These rules would mean that OP, game-breaking units...become much less so.

It would mean that you actually might lose the game, no matter how durable or killy your special snowflake units are...if you don't have a healthy supply of base troops.

And heavens forbid that from happening.

**General Annoyance**

Traditio wrote:
Warhammer 40k, especially with Maelstrom, is an objectives based game. Why should you expect to do well in a game with a list that doesn't focus on holding objectives?

The primary objective in a game of 40k is not always to hold predetermined points. A lot of games will have a tertiary objective of wiping out your opponent's forces though.

What's the phrases that are always used when some new, OP nonsense comes out? Oh yeah: "Adapt." "Change how you play the game."

You're exactly right about what would happen. Instead of writing lists that basically make it so that you HAVE to table your opponent or lose, your support slots would actually have to function as support slots. Yes, that IK would and should be amazing at clearing objectives. But ultimately useless if you don't have troops to secure said objective.

As the game should be. Because, again, 40k is objectives based.

There's nothing wrong with making a high power force, because theoretically that should make your army woefully unprepared to hold objectives in a game that has them. However, balance issues make it easy to table your opponent; you can't penalise this by making it impossible to be tabled if you take Troop choices (which any CAD has to take anyway). Making the game a complete meat grinder for both players should not be a standard method of playing 40k.

Traditio wrote:

Though, to be clear, I really didn't expect anyone actually to like this proposal. Because most people, it seems, actually don't like playing an objectives based game, even though 40k is, in fact, an objectives based game.

These rules would mean that death stars become much less useful.

These rules would mean that tank spam becomes much less useful.

These rules would mean that OP, game-breaking units...become much less so.

It would mean that you actually might lose the game, no matter how durable or killy your special snowflake units are...if you don't have a healthy supply of base troops.

And heavens forbid that from happening.

IOW - "people won't like this because everyone is a WAAC TFG".

A good motto to play and design all games by - play to win, but not at the cost of the fun. 40k can't enforce this motto even if it tried due to massive imbalance and mechanical breakages. What you are proposing is another woe to add to the woe pile.

**Traditio**

General Annoyance wrote:There's nothing wrong with making a high power force, because theoretically that should make your army woefully unprepared to hold objectives in a game that has them. However, balance issues make it easy to table your opponent; you can't penalise this by making it impossible to be tabled if you take Troop choices (which any CAD has to take anyway). Making the game a complete meat grinder for both players should not be a standard method of playing 40k.

Really, at this point, all you are saying is: "But I like being able to win by tabling my opponent and not actually having to score objectives, even though that's what all of the Maelstrom missions are focused on doing."

Agree to disagree on this one.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, for those of you who dislike my idea, I wish to point out that what I am proposing is already a mainstay of FPS video games.

This isn't a new idea.

What I am proposing is essentially that we turn 40k into something more like CoD, minus the team deathmatch mode of playing.