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.

I liked percentage minimums for standard force orgs. These can be changed for dfferent scenarios and so on which is interesting. I also figure that GW can use the categories alongside the percentage points requirements to make missions play well. So, right now, SoB seems to have one troop choice and this might be OK, as SoB should not be a force with the resources of a Marines or an Imp Guard, rather should be part of a dedicated soup Inquisition or Imperial array imho but this is beside the point. For SoB, for example, one thing that is possible is that SoB can take 50% of that 25% in other Imperial units, e.g. stormtoopers, guardsmen, yada. For other forces, some might be able to take 50% of that 25% in units from other categories. So, a heavy support centered force might be able to take 50% of troop 25% requirement in heavy support, in addition tot he 25% max in hvy support already permitted, etc... Anyways, I like the use of such limitations.

ccs wrote:

dewd11 wrote:
% troop requirement is already kind of in the game, in the sense that patrol and battalion detachments both require troops and are the only ones that refund the first CP. Not sure a flat "25% of all points must be troops" would help.

Yes, but assuming I'm fine with the CP cost (I am), pI'm not required to run such a detachment.

Agreed, and that most troops are overcosted when compared to specialist units for any given battlefield need.

Most armies dont use Troops for killing enemy troops, becasue most Troops lack the firepower/melee. Specialists are better for killing most infantry. Troops aren't good at killing tanks, but specialist units are. Same for HtH. So if we want something dead, then we take specialists that are actually good for doing that role. (You don't want to be the Pea Shooter in a Tank battle)

I think ObSec is one of the things that makes Troops worthwhile. So a potential fix is to make specialists *slightly* more expensive, where there's at least a trade-off/discussion. Make it like the Eradicators/Attack Bike discussion. Then there's at least a discussion.

Another potential fix is for GW to throw away their mentality of 1 special and/or heavy weapon in a squad (shooting or melee) (ya, I know...). GW took their squad requirements from the British squad formation in WWII (or something like that) which really doesn't have a place in the far future. If a Troop could have 2 heavy weapons in a squad of 5, that changes the discussion of devastators vs. Tacs. If devs were ~1-2ppm above tacs, tacs take 2 heavy weapons, devs get 4, ya, you can still get the 4 Hvy weapons in 1 squad, but you'll pay more for it.

Percentages are trash. Period.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
To me? The key is ensuring that a decent chunk of infantry is a desirable thing within the framework of rules and missions.

Just to re-iterate, this sentiment is entirely my point. There are a multitude of ways in which GW has forced us to take troops, with the result being that the 'role' of Troops becomes 'to take up 25% of the army' or 'to fill battalions', but this isn't a 'role' like for FA (fast!) or Heavy Support (...heavy support).

I look at Goonhammer's recent write-up of playing Tyranids with Synaptic Link and my heart skipped a beat when I saw the suggested list:
https://www.goonhammer.com/playing-tyranids-synaptic-link-leviathan-octarius/

It's packed with troop choices, and such a variety of them too!

Like other people in this thread, my spirit ascends when I see a Thousand Sons army full of Rubric Marines, or a Necron army lathered in Warriors. Even in the heady days of Chaos 3.5ed, with all the cheese available, I would always begin list building of my four god-armies with 4x god number units of the cult troops.

GW is working out a role for Troops finally with Ob Sec, but it doesn't seem enough. As people have noted, people take Troops in lists like the Tyranid one because they're the best units; not because they're Troops, because GW still doesn't know what 'Troops' are in a way that is comprehensible across armies.

Returning to another metaphor raised: Yes a banana split ain't a banana split without cream and sauce; but it also ain't a banana split without the banana! And, as you get older, a mouthfull of cream ceases starts to turn the stomach, and your mind starts to focus on the simple, pleasant benefits of the banana, whom you become wise enough to recognise as always being the star of the show.

 TonyH122 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
To me? The key is ensuring that a decent chunk of infantry is a desirable thing within the framework of rules and missions.

Just to re-iterate, this sentiment is entirely my point. There are a multitude of ways in which GW has forced us to take troops, with the result being that the 'role' of Troops becomes 'to take up 25% of the army' or 'to fill battalions', but this isn't a 'role' like for FA (fast!) or Heavy Support (...heavy support).

I look at Goonhammer's recent write-up of playing Tyranids with Synaptic Link and my heart skipped a beat when I saw the suggested list:
https://www.goonhammer.com/playing-tyranids-synaptic-link-leviathan-octarius/

It's packed with troop choices, and such a variety of them too!

Like other people in this thread, my spirit ascends when I see a Thousand Sons army full of Rubric Marines, or a Necron army lathered in Warriors. Even in the heady days of Chaos 3.5ed, with all the cheese available, I would always begin list building of my four god-armies with 4x god number units of the cult troops.

GW is working out a role for Troops finally with Ob Sec, but it doesn't seem enough. As people have noted, people take Troops in lists like the Tyranid one because they're the best units; not because they're Troops, because GW still doesn't know what 'Troops' are in a way that is comprehensible across armies.

Returning to another metaphor raised: Yes a banana split ain't a banana split without cream and sauce; but it also ain't a banana split without the banana! And, as you get older, a mouthfull of cream ceases starts to turn the stomach, and your mind starts to focus on the simple, pleasant benefits of the banana, whom you become wise enough to recognise as always being the star of the show.

Take a look at Orkz in 8th right up until the new Ghaz/boyz lists made their appearance. Ork players were taking either Triple battalions or a Brigade and a battalion, thats 9 troop choices minimum, but they were doing so with MSU Grot units instead of boyz, so it worked out to 270pts of Grots. Yeah it was 9 units, but it was 30pts for each one and they were functionally useless except to eat bullets for lootas or other key units.

Take a look at Orkz in 9th. I think i'm one of the few ork players in tournaments that is taking boyz, and I'm only taking 3 MSU boyz squads and only because I can make them Trukk Boyz. So i'm taking a grand total of...yup 270pts of "Troops" most Ork players are taking 0 and just taking the hit in CP. Orkz just don't seem to give a damn about ObSec and its kind of repeated through a lot of armies. Who cares about obsec when you can just kill your opponents units near an objective

brainpsyk wrote:

ccs wrote:

dewd11 wrote:
% troop requirement is already kind of in the game, in the sense that patrol and battalion detachments both require troops and are the only ones that refund the first CP. Not sure a flat "25% of all points must be troops" would help.

Yes, but assuming I'm fine with the CP cost (I am), pI'm not required to run such a detachment.

Agreed, and that most troops are overcosted when compared to specialist units for any given battlefield need.

Maybe/maybe not. I'll leave the debate about wether they're overcosted to you & others. You'll all post your math (often of questionable qualities) & it'll have nothing to do with why I & many others do/do not use troops here in 8th/9th.
I often play Necrons. I'm quite satisfied with my Warriors & Immortals. They work just fine. But I don't always use them. (probably in about 1/3 of my Matched games & in the opening weeks of our Crusades when I HAVE to field a Patrol Detachment)
Why? Because:
A) I own a lot of different Necron units & rotate what I use since I rarely play games large enough to put it all on the table at the same time. So I'll do troop heavy lists, fast detachments, heavy detachments, elite detachments, 100% Destroyer keyword lists, Canoptics, etc. Sure, I could put some warriors/immortals in one of my heavy/fast/elite etc detachments. But honestly? I'll have run out of points before I'm up to pondering including an out-of-theme unit of warriors.
B) I've been playing my Warriors & Immortals for 21-23 (24?) years. So I'm going to take plenty of advantage of the current detachment system that allows me to play other flavors of Necron lists while it lasts. It doesn't matter what the math says is optimal.

Likewise I'll do the same when building other factions.
I know that I'm not alone in building armies like this.

brainpsyk wrote:
Most armies dont use Troops for killing enemy troops, becasue most Troops lack the firepower/melee.

Lol.
Did you bring enough of whatever your smoking to share with the class?

brainpsyk wrote:
Specialists are better for killing most infantry. Troops aren't good at killing tanks, but specialist units are. Same for HtH. So if we want something dead, then we take specialists that are actually good for doing that role.

This is true. Specialists generally are better vs whatever they're specialized against. That's the point of having them.

ccs wrote:

brainpsyk wrote:
Most armies dont use Troops for killing enemy troops, becasue most Troops lack the firepower/melee.

Lol.
Did you bring enough of whatever your smoking to share with the class?

It was just a poor way of saying Troops are generalists, and are generally (not always) used for holding points and screening, rather than being the primary unit for killing your opponent.

example: DE Warriors vs Incubi (wyches are an exception), Intercessors & Tac marines vs. Aggressors & VanVets, IG infantry vs. Bullgryns/tanks. etc.

Tyranid Hormagaunts, Warriors, and Termagants are only bought with the intention of causing killing.

The only Nid troop I have ever bought in a list without the intention of killing is ripper swarms which I used to fill space in my back field to block out deep strikers.

In 7th ed, I used to bring 2 units of hormagaunts and versus my nephews Space Wolves they were solely responsible for killing his Santa Sled every single game we played. They would crush his HQ under weight of numbers EVERY time.

This discussion leads me back to a fundamental problem with GW's Match Play points assignments. They've broken down the points per model in a way that encourages min-maxing and discourages the use of thematic units.

Troops: No, thank you. I'll use the more focused units.
Upgraded Weapons Squads: Only when I can spam the heck out of the weapon efficiently.
Large Squads: Not when I can buy two squads with two leaders for the same points.

It's almost enough to make you nostalgic for 3rd Edition. Remember when upgraded unit leaders costed points and special/heavy weapons were cheaper in Troops squads than they were in specialist squads?

Pulling some of those old ideas into the current game would help give Troops a place in the game.

Then they went and classified a 'horde' as being anything 6 models and above, further encouraging small units, especially in troops.

Once upon a time GW had simple rules like '25% of your army must be Troops' and 'no more than 50% of your army can be any one slot'. Then we had a force organization chart that capped at three for each of the specialists and mandated two Troops. Now we have free-form do-whatever-you-want list composition and somehow people are surprised at tournament-winning lists that just spam specialists.

I'd support hard percentages for Matched Play just to limit skew and force armies to conform to a general structure of what a competitive 40K force looks like. Then I'd also like GW to make a game where Troops are actually valuable.

They did it with Fantasy- blocks of rank-and-file were great for rank bonuses, flanking the enemy, and plugging gaps / covering flanks, making them a force multiplier for more directly combat-oriented units. But Troops in 40K either fight well enough to be specialists in their own right, they're cheap enough that you can spam them to occupy the board and do little else, or they're not worth taking.

Maybe that's a side effect of a game system so shallow that the only ways units can contribute are by either directly killing the enemy or standing on objectives and not being killed. But we've already beaten that horse enough.

 catbarf wrote:
Once upon a time GW had simple rules like '25% of your army must be Troops' and 'no more than 50% of your army can be any one slot'. Then we had a force organization chart that capped at three for each of the specialists and mandated two Troops. Now we have free-form do-whatever-you-want list composition and somehow people are surprised at tournament-winning lists that just spam specialists.

I'd support hard percentages for Matched Play just to limit skew and force armies to conform to a general structure of what a competitive 40K force looks like. Then I'd also like GW to make a game where Troops are actually valuable.

They did it with Fantasy- blocks of rank-and-file were great for rank bonuses, flanking the enemy, and plugging gaps / covering flanks, making them a force multiplier for more directly combat-oriented units. But Troops in 40K either fight well enough to be specialists in their own right, they're cheap enough that you can spam them to occupy the board and do little else, or they're not worth taking.

Maybe that's a side effect of a game system so shallow that the only ways units can contribute are by either directly killing the enemy or standing on objectives and not being killed. But we've already beaten that horse enough.

Except you left out that every army had (well almost every army) 2-5 options to make another non-troop unit a troop. So while some marines had Tacs as troops others had Bikes, some had Terminators, etc.... Heck there were 6 Ork bike armies, and 3 Tanks as troops in IG.

Which in the end you could make lists that looks like an Outrider, Spearhead, or Vanguard detachment that we have now, the percent/limitations really didn't matter.

Troops work in factions where they add something nothing else does.

For me Tyranids are the best example.

Troops are the swarms, even more elite Warriors are pretty cheap.

Everything else are monsters, specialized units or ultra elite units, so you end up with many Tyranids using troops because they offer something you cannot find in other parts of the codex, but if you want to play nidzilla or thematic lists, you can.

Marines, on the other half... are just marines. Troops are just more boring marines. They do the same stuff than elite units but worse.

In Tau you have something similar to Tyranids. Nearly all your infantry are your troops. If you want bodies you need troops. Of course in practice the codex is always badly designed and people spam elite suits.

But theres also the "cool" factor. I'm the kind of guy that plays with 60 fire warriors and 50 kroots because I love me some troops. But most people likes the special stuff. Thats what draws them towards something. And as designers is very easy to catter to that crow. People that wants to use a ton of troops are the very, very small minority.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Except you left out that every army had (well almost every army) 2-5 options to make another non-troop unit a troop. So while some marines had Tacs as troops others had Bikes, some had Terminators, etc.... Heck there were 6 Ork bike armies, and 3 Tanks as troops in IG.

Which in the end you could make lists that looks like an Outrider, Spearhead, or Vanguard detachment that we have now, the percent/limitations really didn't matter.

The difference being that those usually came with their own caveats that limited force composition; or just the FOC itself.

If you were Guard you only got tanks as Troops if you were Armored Company, and that came with a whole laundry list of restrictions and special rules intended to benefit your opponent. If you played Deathwing and took Terminators as Troops, you had to have Belial in your army, and you weren't backing them up with 3 Vindicators and 3 Whirlwinds. If you took Speed Freeks you couldn't support them with a battery of Mek Gunz. It's when GW didn't impose these sorts of caveats- or did so in a half-assed way, like Iron Warriors getting a bonus HS slot at the cost of FA slots they wouldn't use- then there was potential for abuse.

More importantly, these were specific exceptions curated by GW. I couldn't decide Carnifexes would be Troops and build an army of nothing but them just because I wanted to. Even in the editions where Carnifex-spam was officially sanctioned, I was limited to six, of which three had to come in under a low points total to count as Elites. And then I still needed Troops. Now? I can take a Spearhead of nothing but Carnifexes. 19 of them to be specific.

The argument that it's currently no less restrictive than it used to be only works if you ignore all the restrictions that used to exist, so, not really.

There were no such restrictions in 2nd ed. "Troops" just meant "infantry" more or less. You could take all Terminators with no penalty other than that they were expensive and a well armed opponent could blast them off the table. I forget if Bikes were troops, but they might have been.

 Galas wrote:
Troops work in factions where they add something nothing else does.

For me Tyranids are the best example.

Troops are the swarms, even more elite Warriors are pretty cheap.

Everything else are monsters, specialized units or ultra elite units, so you end up with many Tyranids using troops because they offer something you cannot find in other parts of the codex, but if you want to play nidzilla or thematic lists, you can.

Marines, on the other half... are just marines. Troops are just more boring marines. They do the same stuff than elite units but worse.

In Tau you have something similar to Tyranids. Nearly all your infantry are your troops. If you want bodies you need troops. Of course in practice the codex is always badly designed and people spam elite suits.

But theres also the "cool" factor. I'm the kind of guy that plays with 60 fire warriors and 50 kroots because I love me some troops. But most people likes the special stuff. Thats what draws them towards something. And as designers is very easy to catter to that crow. People that wants to use a ton of troops are the very, very small minority.

Agree with all this. And I think this kind of goes back to the point of troops being "good" when they fill a niche. Termagaunt troops can be taken in hordes while their non-troops can't. Marines struggle with it because other units do tac and intercessors' jobs better. Assault intercessors might edge out most of the marine melee units right now, but if vanguard were better, you'd probably see people leaving assault intercessors on the shelves in favor of vanguards.

I think marine infiltrators are a decent example of what marine troops should probably look like. Their infiltration rule is pretty rare/unusual in the codex making them good at hopping on objectives turn 1 in a way that most units aren't (unless they're expensive). They have their special rule to block deepstrikers or build some healing into the squad to add to longevity. Roll the haywire mine guys into their datasheet as a wargear option, and they'd be able to sap objectives too. They don't have to out-kill other units in the book because they're offering support and scoring abilities that help the rest of the army.

 Lance845 wrote:
Tyranid Hormagaunts, Warriors, and Termagants are only bought with the intention of causing killing.

The only Nid troop I have ever bought in a list without the intention of killing is ripper swarms which I used to fill space in my back field to block out deep strikers.

Great example of good Troops units.

While Tac marines & Intercessors are too expensive just to sit there, aren't killy enough for the offensive role, and too expensive to screen. So you take 2-3 min squads (since it's one of the the cheapest units marines can buy), 1 to hold backfield objectives and 2 to push up early to grab the mid-field objectives so your opponent (hopefully) commits more than the 100 points of stuff to kill them so the marines can trade up.

I agree with @Galas & @Insectum7 - Troops have to fill a role (niche or not) so they become a viable choice rather than a tax. If they can't fill an offensive role (like hormagaunts), or a durability role (like DG), then they have to be inexpensive to fill a screening role (like IG).

Unfortunately there are few special things to do aside killing in 40K. The action mechanic would actually be where troops could shine, since they're usually not as much about killing stuff so it's okay when they trade their attacks for some victory points. So maybe you could go as far as saying objective based actions can only be taken by troops.
You could also toss some stratagems on them with a discount or for free, like Overwatch for example.
Or you could let troops provide cover for other units behind them.

Wyldhunt wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Troops work in factions where they add something nothing else does.

For me Tyranids are the best example.

Troops are the swarms, even more elite Warriors are pretty cheap.

Everything else are monsters, specialized units or ultra elite units, so you end up with many Tyranids using troops because they offer something you cannot find in other parts of the codex, but if you want to play nidzilla or thematic lists, you can.

Marines, on the other half... are just marines. Troops are just more boring marines. They do the same stuff than elite units but worse.

In Tau you have something similar to Tyranids. Nearly all your infantry are your troops. If you want bodies you need troops. Of course in practice the codex is always badly designed and people spam elite suits.

But theres also the "cool" factor. I'm the kind of guy that plays with 60 fire warriors and 50 kroots because I love me some troops. But most people likes the special stuff. Thats what draws them towards something. And as designers is very easy to catter to that crow. People that wants to use a ton of troops are the very, very small minority.

Agree with all this. And I think this kind of goes back to the point of troops being "good" when they fill a niche. Termagaunt troops can be taken in hordes while their non-troops can't. Marines struggle with it because other units do tac and intercessors' jobs better. Assault intercessors might edge out most of the marine melee units right now, but if vanguard were better, you'd probably see people leaving assault intercessors on the shelves in favor of vanguards.

I think marine infiltrators are a decent example of what marine troops should probably look like. Their infiltration rule is pretty rare/unusual in the codex making them good at hopping on objectives turn 1 in a way that most units aren't (unless they're expensive). They have their special rule to block deepstrikers or build some healing into the squad to add to longevity. Roll the haywire mine guys into their datasheet as a wargear option, and they'd be able to sap objectives too. They don't have to out-kill other units in the book because they're offering support and scoring abilities that help the rest of the army.

This is more of an issue with the complete glut of units that SM have. At this point there are so many units and so little design space that they step on each others toes and so which ever one does the job better is the one people take. To fix it you need to pair down the number of units so that they can be focused into filling niches that other units do not and excel at them in ways other units in the dex don't.

You know, like squating the old marines so that the Primaris line just does it's specialized jobs.

 Lance845 wrote:
You don't make things desirable by forcing people to take undesirable things.

You need to make them desirable.

This is essentially correct. Just mandating a minimum amount of troops is just implementing a handicap tax in the current environment. The problem is that troops aren't worth taking; the symptom of that is people don't take troops. Treating the symptom doesn't treat the cause.

Look at a game like SW: Legion. Yes, it has a minimum 3 trooper units for the standard battle size that you have to take, but it's not at all unusual to see lists taking 4-6 instead, despite not having to, because the game system makes it worth doing so. But that's because Legion is a deep and narrow ruleset, not a wide and shallow one like 40k. Wide and shallow rulesets tend to struggle to make basic troopers worth taking because there is so little there there for a basic trooper. All the interesting bits of 40k are in the special rules, so why take the stuff that has the least special rules?

Until you fix the base game rules to make basic units more interesting and rewarding to play, anything you do to force people to take troops is often just forcing people to take lame stuff for the sake of forcing them to take lame stuff.

brainpsyk wrote:

I agree with @Galas & @Insectum7 - Troops have to fill a role (niche or not) so they become a viable choice rather than a tax. If they can't fill an offensive role (like hormagaunts), or a durability role (like DG), then they have to be inexpensive to fill a screening role (like IG).

Well, I think it's valid to have troops fill roles other than offense and durability. Sticking to the tyranid example, warriors can provide a large area of relatively cheap synapse, giving those hormagaunts immunity to morale and (per that new supplement) pass buffs along from HQs. Now warriors happen to have decent offensive and defensive builds too, but my point is that it's not all just offense and defense. See my previous post about infiltrators helping with scoring and zoning.

You could even maybe count troops with sniper rifles (rare as they are these days) in more of debuff category than a direct offense category. Their overall offense tends to not be very high, but they can stick that offense on enemy support characters to remove the foe's buffs.

Why not approach this from another angle.
Why not take a look at troops units (and not made troops ) that were picked regularly and over minimum requirement.

For me the Goldstandard was Renegade Militia platoons in that regard, in editions which were very LOW on troops.
It was the backbone of a intended even in its more elite representation, as a horde.

-It was facilitated by design to make it enticing to field more than msu, playing in the numbers aspect expected of the faction. This was achieved by bulk buying upgrades which were fixed in price regardless if you fielded 10-20 (30) modells per unit.

-Highly customizable. Even without upgrades provided by the Leader of the army the unit was highly customizable. It could fullfill needs of your lists basically always and at a good price.

-Interaction with the Leader. Basically it allowed to be molded by your choice of style of list to fit that list narratively and in battlefield role.

Percentages should be a thing again, period. Whether it's like a min percent in Troops or something like LoW being restricted to 25% of total or something, those are good for the game IMHO.

What they really should have done is adapted the Rites of War from 30k where if you had a way to, say, make X Troops, it came at a cost.

Wayniac wrote:
Percentages should be a thing again, period.

Agree. But not min percentages, max percentages.

Do you want a themed spead freaks army? Good, just don't spam fast attacks. Take as many as max percentages allow but add trukk boyz, trukk specialists, wagons and planes to the lot. Theme is intact, spam is avoided. Win win for everyone.

Min percentages however are wrong since armies have trash units in some specific slots, troops for example, and others have good ones or even very good ones. Limiting the best units is one thing (that's where the concept of max percentages kicks in), forcing to bring the worst ones is a different matter though, something I can't possibly contemplate as good.

Wayniac wrote:
Percentages should be a thing again, period. Whether it's like a min percent in Troops or something like LoW being restricted to 25% of total or something, those are good for the game IMHO.

Why tho? 99% of lord of wars suck and aren't optimal. Bringing them in most cases just means you're bringing a weaker list than if you stayed in-faction. Why is it that there is still hate towards them in the current edition lol?

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Percentages should be a thing again, period. Whether it's like a min percent in Troops or something like LoW being restricted to 25% of total or something, those are good for the game IMHO.

Why tho? 99% of lord of wars suck and aren't optimal. Bringing them in most cases just means you're bringing a weaker list than if you stayed in-faction. Why is it that there is still hate towards them in the current edition lol?

Because Big Model Bad, of course. Also New Models Bad. If it's newer/bigger than a Land Raider? Doesn't fit in the game.

Having finally played with my "new" super heavy...ie my old Morkanaut that is now a LoW this edition because...reasons....

Yeah, no. That things is a steaming pile of garbage. You could give it a 33% price cut and it would still be questionable.

While I agree with the spirit of this rule, I'm not a fan of adding further restrictions. As others have said, let's make troops more attractive to take, rather than a required %.

The simple way IMO, is to limit objective secured to troops only, but that horse has long since bolted.

You could also add a bunch of non-VP related actions that only troops can do.

IMO actions are such an underused concept right now...

I feel you could do a lot to make troops more desirable with a update to the terrain rules.

If occupying a terrain structure was valuable, and the best removal was other infantry.
You could use object secured for troops focused on defence, and other infantry without more focus on other things as well as removing troops. But unable to hold objectives why doing that task, even if more efficient for it.