Switch Theme:

How should troops be incentivised?  [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
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

BrianDavion wrote:
 Vaktathi wrote:
Well, one issue is that the whole idea of "troops" is no longer what it once was.

Troops used to mean squads of typical W1 line infantry. Granted, GW's game design paradigm usually just meant these were just less optimized and less well armed versions of more specialized units found in other FoC slots (and in many instances that still hold's true), but that's a different issue

Over time however, FoC swaps, subfaction lists, army differentiation, scope bloat, etc has made this rather nebulous, and we've had armies with Tank troops and Troops on Bikes and T5 W3 2+sv Troops and some armies with no Troops at all (e.g. Knights). The scale of the game just lost focus of what it really wanted to be.

With no clear vision of what "Troops" are, it's hard to say how they should be incentivized.


the game has had fairly tough troops for as long as I've been playing, when did Tyranid warriors become troops? because they've got 3 wounds. just for example
Sure, but they were very rare exceptions for the first few editions of the game (and to be fair, Tyranid Warriors often were so bad it didn't matter because nobody was going to take them anyway ) , and as the game has aged this has changed substantially.

IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.

New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.  
   
Made in ca
Commander of the Mysterious 2nd Legion





 Vaktathi wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
 Vaktathi wrote:
Well, one issue is that the whole idea of "troops" is no longer what it once was.

Troops used to mean squads of typical W1 line infantry. Granted, GW's game design paradigm usually just meant these were just less optimized and less well armed versions of more specialized units found in other FoC slots (and in many instances that still hold's true), but that's a different issue

Over time however, FoC swaps, subfaction lists, army differentiation, scope bloat, etc has made this rather nebulous, and we've had armies with Tank troops and Troops on Bikes and T5 W3 2+sv Troops and some armies with no Troops at all (e.g. Knights). The scale of the game just lost focus of what it really wanted to be.

With no clear vision of what "Troops" are, it's hard to say how they should be incentivized.


the game has had fairly tough troops for as long as I've been playing, when did Tyranid warriors become troops? because they've got 3 wounds. just for example
Sure, but they were very rare exceptions for the first few editions of the game (and to be fair, Tyranid Warriors often were so bad it didn't matter because nobody was going to take them anyway ) , and as the game has aged this has changed substantially.



sure, granted in 8th edition each weapon did 1 wound to a model only, so a W3 tyranid warrior, needed to be hit thrice with most weapons, except ones capable of instant death.

Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

 creeping-deth87 wrote:
Just go back to only troops scoring. Problem solved. It'll never happen though, the genie is out of the bottle.


Yeah I agree. Let them score primaries and some of the secondaries. Maybe downgrade some specialists into troops to have more options: in 3rd edition burnaboyz and tankbustas were troops for example.

Demanding GOOD troops is also wrong, it only incentivizes power creep. Lethality should be toned down, not up and I'd really love less powerful units to be common on the table. In fact I wouldn't upgrade bad troops to be good, I'd tone down the good ones to be bad, encouraging everyone to heavily rely on troops somehow.

1500-1800 points vanished in just 3 turns is bad game design.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/18 07:45:37


 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut



Bamberg / Erlangen

 Blackie wrote:
 creeping-deth87 wrote:
Just go back to only troops scoring. Problem solved. It'll never happen though, the genie is out of the bottle.


Yeah I agree. Let them score primaries and some of the secondaries. Maybe downgrade some specialists into troops to have more options: in 3rd edition burnaboyz and tankbustas were troops for example.

Demanding GOOD troops is also wrong, it only incentivizes power creep. Lethality should be toned down, not up and I'd really love less powerful units to be common on the table. In fact I wouldn't upgrade bad troops to be good, I'd tone down the good ones to be bad, encouraging everyone to heavily rely on troops somehow.

1500-1800 points vanished in just 3 turns is bad game design.

Strongly disagree with the bolded part. Why should everybody have troops that suck? You spent your money, time to paint and points on troops for them to be... a liability in the game that does not feel good or fun to play with?
Good troops does not necessarily mean more lethal troops. We have a plethora of options with stratagems, wargear, special rules, mission objectives and opened up profile values to take advantage of. Giving everyone the ability to wipe out a squad of Marines per round is not the only way to go.

   
Made in us
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard





 Vaktathi wrote:
Well, one issue is that the whole idea of "troops" is no longer what it once was.

Troops used to mean squads of typical W1 line infantry. Granted, GW's game design paradigm usually just meant these were just less optimized and less well armed versions of more specialized units found in other FoC slots (and in many instances that still hold's true), but that's a different issue

Over time however, FoC swaps, subfaction lists, army differentiation, scope bloat, etc has made this rather nebulous, and we've had armies with Tank troops and Troops on Bikes and T5 W3 2+sv Troops and some armies with no Troops at all (e.g. Knights). The scale of the game just lost focus of what it really wanted to be.

With no clear vision of what "Troops" are, it's hard to say how they should be incentivized.


Well I don't know about Tank Troops, or the All Knight Long lists, I think that goes a bit extreme, but bike lists, or Mechanized Infantry with Scoring tanks isn't that far out of line for the game and provides some very needed variety. I mean if I said the meaning of Troops are "the iconic units of individual dudes the army is knowns for" then Bikes and such start making sense as troops. The guard tank company should be able to play some games doing Infantry mounted in a chimera, and get some boosts for the fewer infantry/extras they're going to get by pairing each infantry with a Chimera. Same with White Scars and Rhino + Bikes. Of course both of those would be able to use normal FOC's, they just might not be "incentivized" right now to play "fluffy". You start getting into First Company orDW/Ravenwing, and WildRiders and then you need to start playing FOC games with Bikes, Terminators, and such.

I'm planning on painting some bone white Heavy Intercessors, if they can get Inner Circle and Deathwing great, if not I'm still tired of waiting to play that army again in anything close to the way it's supposed to play. But I shouldn't have to.

Custodes Bikes and all Infantry are ObSec. they can easily extend that to DW/RW/WildRiders and so on. They can extend the Sisters of Silence Det Rules to these guys for the Troop Slot in the appropriate Vanguard/Outrider etc.

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in us
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

There's any number of ways to justify anything being "troops", and I'm not really arguing for or against anything in particular being designated as such, more noting how the fundamental concept of "Troops" is rather nebulous, one army's Troops are another army's mega-elites or Heavy Support (or in the case of IG, have Heavy Support tank units that can get Troop ObSec abilites), some armies don't have Troops at all, some armies have Troops of almost literally every unit type and role one could imagine while other armies may literally only have one Troop (or a couple minor variations on fundamentally the same thing).

When "Troops" can be almost literally anything, trying to holistically answer a question about how to incentivize taking Troops units, or even understanding why they may need to be so incentivized, becomes very difficult.


IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.

New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.  
   
Made in it
Perfect Shot Dark Angels Predator Pilot





Sesto San Giovanni, Italy

I for one am against providing ObSec to stuff like Deathwing and Ravening (I have both, just to clarify).

They can already have it by Warlord Traits, Characters and Relics. I think it's the best way to include fluffy armies and it enforces more appropriate character and Relics selection.

I also don't feel like troops are so badly managed right now.. 9this really difficult to assess, almost none is playing due to covid and the new missions really enforces board control and ObSec... I feel like it is a specific issue of some armies, more related to internal balance than to general mechanics.

That said, I always support more Kroot. I almost start collecting them, and if they became a usable faction as in the WD index I will definetly pick them up as my next armies.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/18 10:32:59


I can't condone a place where abusers and abused are threated the same: it's destined to doom, so there is no reason to participate in it. 
   
Made in gb
Leader of the Sept







Troops shouldn't be incentivised. They are the lowest common denominator forces that make up the bulk of an army. They are the tools that a general needs to understand how to use, rather than just being able to take all the shinies for every single engagement. They shouldn't be I incentivised, but each faction should have troops that can be made to be roughly equivalent in terms of effectiveness.

Please excuse any spelling errors. I use a tablet frequently and software keyboards are a pain!

Terranwing - w3;d1;l1
51st Dunedinw2;d0;l0
Cadre Coronal Afterglow w1;d0;l0 
   
Made in us
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard





 Vaktathi wrote:

When "Troops" can be almost literally anything, trying to holistically answer a question about how to incentivize taking Troops units, or even understanding why they may need to be so incentivized, becomes very difficult.


I don't know about that. I mean start with the idea that what they look like doesn't matter. Whether you get 5 nickels, or 1 quarter to put down it's still 25 cents. That 25 Cents has to do several things - whether it's make a phone call at a payphone, or combine with another to buy a soda, or just hold your place in line for the next open pool table. The way to incentivize troops is to make them able to do all those things they're supposed to In addition to being points efficient, they need to be job efficient. They need all the job options. And it should probably be in such a way that they get those jobs cheaper, but with less depth for lack of a better word.

If I use a current army with a fictional/hypothetical "Lets pretend" approach can we all agree it's just a "let's pretend" and we don't need to get bogged down in how that's not how things are? Lets say it's Tau. You've got a bunch of Firewarriors, and you've got a drone, or a turret, or a turret drone. All well and good. The Firewarriors can go after the infantry, the turret drone can go after the tanks, and they can upgrader some other firewarrior with a shoulder mounted whositwhatsit that goes after light vehicles and heavy infantry. Now you can get a unit with 3 Whositwhatsits as a specialist elite unit. or you can take three firewarrior troop units. 3 Firewarrior troop units will probably be more expensive than 3x3 whositwhatsits elites. That makes sense But 3x3 Whositwhatsit elites, and 3x3 Turret Drone Heavies might start costing about the same as those three Firewarrior squads. The benefit of the Whositwhatsit elites is they're all three together in one spot, not necessarily that you can spam more of them for cheaper.

I'm sure there are units out there where this specific hypothetical would break down, but we don't have to use the same cookie cutter shape for everything. There are multiple roads to the same destination, they'd just take a different one. And the actual ratio of Firewarrior points to Whositwhatsit Elites has to be massaged and tuned. It could be that the Firewarrior Troop Unit gets Whositwhatsits for free, while the elite unit has to pay for them.

Apply that to Marines, the Tac Squad may get a free Sgt Power Weapon, special and Heavy in a 10 man unit, while the Vanguard Vets and Devastators have to pay for theirs. Going back to Tau, their ShaSergeant could/would also need/want some sort of free upgrade for a similar "job" to hidden fists. Perhaps a wargear item that improves overwatch, replicates the Grav Pulse or Eliminator Sgt Carbine thing to keep them out of melee - either because they proactively run away, or reduce charge distance etc. They did something similar to this with the Demi Companies way back when. You got free transports if you filled the chart.

1) Make sure troop units can do all jobs for a reasonable price. This could mean Troop Type A can do these two jobs, and Troop Unit B can do those two jobs and between the two of the not-mutually exclusive troop units all three jobs can be done. There's a niche for Grots there.
2) Some troop units would/do need a rework to get job options. Its OK to mix and match. Shooty Termaguants might get a melee Anti-tank biomorph/rule.
3) Taking the specialist units for those jobs should be a choice, and should supplement not replace troops.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Cybtroll wrote:
I think it's the best way to include fluffy armies


Ravenwing + Deathwing with zero greenwing IS fluffy. Green Wing shows up and does a job, the company command sees something, the Ravenwing investigate. Green wing gets sent to the store for milk and bread while mom and dad go back to... I mean the Ravenwing and Deathwing capture the fallen or otherwise secure the secret. Fluffwise when there's an Inner Circle Agenda item, Greenwing are suddenly required back at HQ for an equipment maintenance cycle.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/18 10:49:30


My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

a_typical_hero wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
 creeping-deth87 wrote:
Just go back to only troops scoring. Problem solved. It'll never happen though, the genie is out of the bottle.


Yeah I agree. Let them score primaries and some of the secondaries. Maybe downgrade some specialists into troops to have more options: in 3rd edition burnaboyz and tankbustas were troops for example.

Demanding GOOD troops is also wrong, it only incentivizes power creep. Lethality should be toned down, not up and I'd really love less powerful units to be common on the table. In fact I wouldn't upgrade bad troops to be good, I'd tone down the good ones to be bad, encouraging everyone to heavily rely on troops somehow.

1500-1800 points vanished in just 3 turns is bad game design.

Strongly disagree with the bolded part. Why should everybody have troops that suck? You spent your money, time to paint and points on troops for them to be... a liability in the game that does not feel good or fun to play with?
Good troops does not necessarily mean more lethal troops. We have a plethora of options with stratagems, wargear, special rules, mission objectives and opened up profile values to take advantage of. Giving everyone the ability to wipe out a squad of Marines per round is not the only way to go.


Suck is a big word, I don't want units that actually suck as well. But troops are supposed to be pretty mediocre compared to specialists, and in some cases they really aren't. I kinda like you bad is an ork boy compared to a meganob in melee or compared to a tankbusta in shooting but I strongly dislike how good is an intercessor/heavy intercessor compared to any other primaris/gravis dude respectively.

 
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

Breton wrote:
 Vaktathi wrote:

When "Troops" can be almost literally anything, trying to holistically answer a question about how to incentivize taking Troops units, or even understanding why they may need to be so incentivized, becomes very difficult.


I don't know about that. I mean start with the idea that what they look like doesn't matter. Whether you get 5 nickels, or 1 quarter to put down it's still 25 cents. That 25 Cents has to do several things - whether it's make a phone call at a payphone, or combine with another to buy a soda, or just hold your place in line for the next open pool table. The way to incentivize troops is to make them able to do all those things they're supposed to In addition to being points efficient, they need to be job efficient. They need all the job options. And it should probably be in such a way that they get those jobs cheaper, but with less depth for lack of a better word.


I think Vaktathi's point is what do troops represent? What is the point of having a "troops" category at this point when it can basically encompass anything from elites to fast attack units to heavy support units (including literal tanks).

 blood reaper wrote:
I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.



 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"

 Argive wrote:
GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"


Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.


 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in us
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard





 vipoid wrote:
Breton wrote:
 Vaktathi wrote:

When "Troops" can be almost literally anything, trying to holistically answer a question about how to incentivize taking Troops units, or even understanding why they may need to be so incentivized, becomes very difficult.


I don't know about that. I mean start with the idea that what they look like doesn't matter. Whether you get 5 nickels, or 1 quarter to put down it's still 25 cents. That 25 Cents has to do several things - whether it's make a phone call at a payphone, or combine with another to buy a soda, or just hold your place in line for the next open pool table. The way to incentivize troops is to make them able to do all those things they're supposed to In addition to being points efficient, they need to be job efficient. They need all the job options. And it should probably be in such a way that they get those jobs cheaper, but with less depth for lack of a better word.


I think Vaktathi's point is what do troops represent? What is the point of having a "troops" category at this point when it can basically encompass anything from elites to fast attack units to heavy support units (including literal tanks).


No matter what the army flavor is, it's going to have that basic/common/core (not CORE)/iconic unit(s). Those are the troops. I really liked how they did it in 5E (or whichever one it was) Dark Angels for the Ravenwing. They took the 10 Tactical Squad Marines, and they put them on bikes and speeders in such a way that those bikes and speeders got the ObSec but not all bikes and speeders. Because that was their troops unit. At the most basic level it doesn't matter if that's 5 nickels, a quarter, or a nickel riding around on two dimes like they're wheels. At a certain point that's some "6 of this, half a dozen of that" trade offs that get you cosmetic variety. If done right. Which will never happen, but they could get closer than they are now.

The nickel and dimes might get to more places faster, but the 5 nickels gets to stand on more places at the same time.

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

As a non native speaker, I can't understand what you are saying breton.

Are you trying to say that basically troops should be able to access and do everything? So you basically want troops to don't need anything more?

I mean, I love troops, but I still believe you should use your tools to win, not just spamming troopers that can do everything and cheaper.

 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 es
Wicked Wych With a Whip





IMO, troops should be really good at doing the mission (in 9th, scoring primaries by mantaining the objective) and fight other troops equally. If we gift ObSec to efficient Elite infantry... theres no point on having troops.

In my Codex, Wracks are a great example. They are not killy, but they are efficient at taking points and have the tools to mantain them (good survivability, stratagems that help, HQs that can buff them...).

The Bloody Sails
 
   
Made in us
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard





 Galas wrote:
As a non native speaker, I can't understand what you are saying breton.

Are you trying to say that basically troops should be able to access and do everything? So you basically want troops to don't need anything more?

I mean, I love troops, but I still believe you should use your tools to win, not just spamming troopers that can do everything and cheaper.


I'm saying Troops (as a whole) should be able to do everything. They should be able to kill light infantry, heavy infantry/light vehicles, and heavy vehicles. Not every Troop unit needs to - i.e. Tacticals might do infantry and heavy vehicles while Intercessors do Infantry and light Vehicles, but you should be able to mix and match troops to do it all. The Specialist units should do it better, but they should do it in supplement to, not instead of troops.

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in us
Strangely Beautiful Daemonette of Slaanesh





Denver, CO

 Castozor wrote:
 bullyboy wrote:
No, if your thing is infantry, good for you, but don't force organization based on your preferences and idea what an army should look like.
If I want to play a Ravenwing bike army, I'm already penalized in the CP system, don't need to pile it on more.

Just make sure that troop choices are actually good, simple as.


In an ideal world White Scars/Ravenwing would get rules to let them take said bikers as troops and still be fluffy. GW seems to think CORE is a way to get more fluff-friendly forces on the field, might as well go all the way.


No. Biker/Termie armies are specialist armies already. They should not get a Core, ObSec or any other ability that makes Troops a necessary component of an army. Core should be restricted to Troops and then HQ unit have abilities similar to what Guard get for their infantry.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
This line of reasoning broke 7th edition in Fantasy. The books should be as equal as possible, even a theoretical "Codex: Squirrels with Crustacean allies" should have a fair chance to beat "Codex: God".

 Redbeard wrote:

- Cost? FW models cost more? Because Thudd guns are more expensive than Wraithknights and Riptides. Nope, not a good argument. This is an expensive game. We play it knowing that, and also knowing that, realistically, it's cheaper than hookers and blow.
 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

 purplkrush wrote:


No. Biker/Termie armies are specialist armies already. They should not get a Core, ObSec or any other ability that makes Troops a necessary component of an army. Core should be restricted to Troops and then HQ unit have abilities similar to what Guard get for their infantry.


Exactly. Do you want a specialist/elite oriented army? Good, it's perfectly legal to play one. But since there are obvious advantages in heavily relying on the better units it also has to come with some disadvantages, especially now that CPs aren't an issue for those kind of armies anymore.

 
   
Made in us
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard





 Blackie wrote:
 purplkrush wrote:


No. Biker/Termie armies are specialist armies already. They should not get a Core, ObSec or any other ability that makes Troops a necessary component of an army. Core should be restricted to Troops and then HQ unit have abilities similar to what Guard get for their infantry.


Exactly. Do you want a specialist/elite oriented army? Good, it's perfectly legal to play one. But since there are obvious advantages in heavily relying on the better units it also has to come with some disadvantages, especially now that CPs aren't an issue for those kind of armies anymore.


They already do that with Custodes. All Custodes Infantry and Bikes are ObSec. Because they have an even smaller model count. These Biker and Terminator etc armies will be in similar shape and should get a similar break. Now they should only get it when they're ALL Bikes, ALL Terminators or ALL Bikes AND Terminators - plus whatever adjustments to Primaris are needed i.e. Gravis Caps etc.

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





Breton wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
 purplkrush wrote:


No. Biker/Termie armies are specialist armies already. They should not get a Core, ObSec or any other ability that makes Troops a necessary component of an army. Core should be restricted to Troops and then HQ unit have abilities similar to what Guard get for their infantry.


Exactly. Do you want a specialist/elite oriented army? Good, it's perfectly legal to play one. But since there are obvious advantages in heavily relying on the better units it also has to come with some disadvantages, especially now that CPs aren't an issue for those kind of armies anymore.


They already do that with Custodes. All Custodes Infantry and Bikes are ObSec. Because they have an even smaller model count. These Biker and Terminator etc armies will be in similar shape and should get a similar break. Now they should only get it when they're ALL Bikes, ALL Terminators or ALL Bikes AND Terminators - plus whatever adjustments to Primaris are needed i.e. Gravis Caps etc.


Disagree, whilest custodes can't bypass their limitations and by consequence would be so massively disadvantaged that they might aswell couldn't play objective based modes, SM can and therefore should not ever be egligable for such a rule period.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.  
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

Breton wrote:
I'm saying Troops (as a whole) should be able to do everything. They should be able to kill light infantry, heavy infantry/light vehicles, and heavy vehicles. Not every Troop unit needs to - i.e. Tacticals might do infantry and heavy vehicles while Intercessors do Infantry and light Vehicles, but you should be able to mix and match troops to do it all. The Specialist units should do it better, but they should do it in supplement to, not instead of troops.


I'm still not seeing how troops differ from other units under this definition.

 blood reaper wrote:
I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.



 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"

 Argive wrote:
GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"


Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.


 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in us
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard





 vipoid wrote:
Breton wrote:
I'm saying Troops (as a whole) should be able to do everything. They should be able to kill light infantry, heavy infantry/light vehicles, and heavy vehicles. Not every Troop unit needs to - i.e. Tacticals might do infantry and heavy vehicles while Intercessors do Infantry and light Vehicles, but you should be able to mix and match troops to do it all. The Specialist units should do it better, but they should do it in supplement to, not instead of troops.


I'm still not seeing how troops differ from other units under this definition.


In some cases they don't and shouldn't. In some cases they specialize enough they don't. Take Flayed Ones. They ginsu light infantry, but don't do much to tanks, Eradicators melt tanks, but don't do much to light infantry. Likewise Hive Guard. Venomthropes don't ginsu much of anything but they buff a whole lot.

In some cases they should. I will forever point and laugh at GW for flubbing Veteran Intercessors.

Edit to Add: Going the other way, only the Tyranid Warriors have Anti-tank, which means somewhat going Big Bugs. If you're going swarm bugs your troops can't really touch tanks. They need a biomorph/rule to swap that out so a swarm of little bugs have a troop counter to the bigger/tougher models from the troop slot.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/18 15:48:09


My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




 purplkrush wrote:


No. Biker/Termie armies are specialist armies already. They should not get a Core, ObSec or any other ability that makes Troops a necessary component of an army. Core should be restricted to Troops and then HQ unit have abilities similar to what Guard get for their infantry.


Every dude in my faction gets a suit of termintor armour when they finish mind wiping him and implanting memory. And as HQs goes the only ones that don't have a termintor armour, is Crow and the tech marine.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

Breton wrote:
 vipoid wrote:
Breton wrote:
I'm saying Troops (as a whole) should be able to do everything. They should be able to kill light infantry, heavy infantry/light vehicles, and heavy vehicles. Not every Troop unit needs to - i.e. Tacticals might do infantry and heavy vehicles while Intercessors do Infantry and light Vehicles, but you should be able to mix and match troops to do it all. The Specialist units should do it better, but they should do it in supplement to, not instead of troops.


I'm still not seeing how troops differ from other units under this definition.


In some cases they don't and shouldn't. In some cases they specialize enough they don't. Take Flayed Ones. They ginsu light infantry, but don't do much to tanks, Eradicators melt tanks, but don't do much to light infantry. Likewise Hive Guard. Venomthropes don't ginsu much of anything but they buff a whole lot.

In some cases they should. I will forever point and laugh at GW for flubbing Veteran Intercessors.

Edit to Add: Going the other way, only the Tyranid Warriors have Anti-tank, which means somewhat going Big Bugs. If you're going swarm bugs your troops can't really touch tanks. They need a biomorph/rule to swap that out so a swarm of little bugs have a troop counter to the bigger/tougher models from the troop slot.


Okay, let me rephrase - does "Troops" still represent any sort of meaningful distinction?

Or is it just a holdover at this point which could really do with being ditched for a term that has more meaning relative to the current state of armies and the FoC?

 blood reaper wrote:
I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.



 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"

 Argive wrote:
GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"


Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.


 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




Well it is something GW makes you buy 3 boxs of or you can't play their games in an efficient matter. Lately I have been thinking that non of rules changes GW makes, have anything to do with wanting to make a better or worse game, and everything with making people buy more models.

If GW ditched the TROOPS in their rules, we would get some other type of mechanic that would make everyone buy at least 3 boxs of some sort of tactical class unit.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in gb
Walking Dead Wraithlord






Breton wrote:
 Galas wrote:
As a non native speaker, I can't understand what you are saying breton.

Are you trying to say that basically troops should be able to access and do everything? So you basically want troops to don't need anything more?

I mean, I love troops, but I still believe you should use your tools to win, not just spamming troopers that can do everything and cheaper.


I'm saying Troops (as a whole) should be able to do everything. They should be able to kill light infantry, heavy infantry/light vehicles, and heavy vehicles. Not every Troop unit needs to - i.e. Tacticals might do infantry and heavy vehicles while Intercessors do Infantry and light Vehicles, but you should be able to mix and match troops to do it all. The Specialist units should do it better, but they should do it in supplement to, not instead of troops.


The problem is certain troops(intercessors) already do that while nobody else does.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/772746.page#10378083 - My progress/failblog painting blog thingy

Eldar- 4436 pts


AngryAngel80 wrote:
I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "


 Eonfuzz wrote:


I would much rather everyone have a half ass than no ass.


"A warrior does not seek fame and honour. They come to him as he humbly follows his path"  
   
Made in ie
Regular Dakkanaut





 Snake Tortoise wrote:
For years the force org chart required a minimum of two troop choices. They got no special buffs, they were just mandatory. IIRC, in one edition only troops could hold objectives. Then formations came in and it was possible to build armies without any troops, but you gained more CP by using detachments with troops in them. Troops also had objective secured. Now you lose fewer CP's by taking detachments with troops. So GW wants us to use troops, and to me it makes sense that an army should contain a big proportion of basic infantry and not be mostly specialists and vehicles. It seems fluffier, in most cases.

Should troops be incentivised further? I've often thought it would be good to see them be deliberately more cost efficient than other units so they're no longer seen as a tax but something good to have in your army. The downside is it might result in a horde meta, slowing down play and clogging up tables. What about, instead, getting cheaper access to stratagems, or more strategems unique to troops that are deliberately overpowered?

It's never sat well with me that troop units are often just chaff on the table but we're penalised for not having them, often resulting in minimum sized units of the cheapest troops available. Would it be good for the game/hobby to encourage more basic line infantry, and if so, how should that be achieved?


Is this not a bit of a canard? With the exception of Eldar Guardians I'm seeing more troops than ever in army lists.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Denegaar wrote:
IMO, troops should be really good at doing the mission (in 9th, scoring primaries by mantaining the objective) and fight other troops equally. If we gift ObSec to efficient Elite infantry... theres no point on having troops.


I actually disagree. When a mission that requires some sort of expertise is required, you bring in specialists to do them. "Troops" should be the best at fighting (point for point, with points being a rough approximation of the effort that the faction in-universe has to put into them to field them, relative to other soldiers).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/18 18:53:46


 
   
Made in us
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard





 Argive wrote:
Breton wrote:
 Galas wrote:
As a non native speaker, I can't understand what you are saying breton.

Are you trying to say that basically troops should be able to access and do everything? So you basically want troops to don't need anything more?

I mean, I love troops, but I still believe you should use your tools to win, not just spamming troopers that can do everything and cheaper.


I'm saying Troops (as a whole) should be able to do everything. They should be able to kill light infantry, heavy infantry/light vehicles, and heavy vehicles. Not every Troop unit needs to - i.e. Tacticals might do infantry and heavy vehicles while Intercessors do Infantry and light Vehicles, but you should be able to mix and match troops to do it all. The Specialist units should do it better, but they should do it in supplement to, not instead of troops.


The problem is certain troops(intercessors) already do that while nobody else does.


Tacticals do it, Intercessors, not really. And I've been pointing to several troops units that needed an extra thing to be able to do it yeah?

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka







The first question that should be posed is "Should troops be incentivised?", before you move on to "How should troops be incentivised?"

Let's not rush into Ian Malcolm's observation on Jurassic Park too quickly, folks.

2021-4 Plog - Here we go again... - my fifth attempt at a Dakka PLOG

My Pile of Potential - updates ongoing...

Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.


 Kanluwen wrote:
This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.

Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...

tneva82 wrote:
You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something... 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Dysartes wrote:
The first question that should be posed is "Should troops be incentivised?", before you move on to "How should troops be incentivised?"

Let's not rush into Ian Malcolm's observation on Jurassic Park too quickly, folks.


They should, because right now people are forced to take them, and for some factions it's just a tax, and for others it's useful. So that's not good.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: