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.

Dai wrote:
So no simping then and you were being a tad ridic all round?

From experience you've greater odds of winning the lottery whilst simultaneously having a plane land on your head as you're struck by lightning than getting that admittance.

 Blndmage wrote:
We're struggling with Custodes, as the high ppm is forcing us to use minimum sized squads. You can't actually use things.

Combining the AoO detachment with the Rule of 2 can really mess up list building.

So just play some MSU? Usually MSU is a good strategy anyway, and 3x MSU troops is only 405 points. That leaves plenty of points free for an expensive unit or two, I really don't see what the problem is.

(And remember that rule of 2/3 does not apply to troops so you can always fill detachment slots with them.)

 oni wrote:
What do I think of the AoO detachment?

I think it further showcases that the 'rules writers' are not truly interested in balancing the game. Their focus is solely on placating whining tournament players.

Whine: Tournament players whined that there were too many starting Command Points, that this allowed alpha strikes, etc.
Change: GW's 'rules writers' lowered the starting Command Points to 6.

Whine: Tournament players whined that they do not have enough starting Command Points. That they are being punished by having to spend resources on pointless detachments.
Change: GW's 'rules writers' create the AoO detachment.

Whine : Tournament players will whine that the new AoO detachment allows for skew-lists. That there needs to be more resource related checks & balances.
Change: TBD

Also, the AoO detachment makes 2000 point Strike Force armies the only playable game size. Would be 1000 point Incursion armies are horribly punished by the AoO detachment. Since tournament play is only ever 2000 points, this largely went unnoticed.

Asking tournament players how to make the game more balanced and following their suggestions is the best GW can do without having any game designers that know what they're doing. When the designers can't determine that it's a bigger problem that every Necron character's ability is boring and unthematic instead of mono-Dynasty lists needing a reward or that Bullgryn are used more in the meta than Ogryn or that players will use the two flamer Stratagems printed in the same supplement together in a combo, it's hopeless that they'll improve game balance on their own. The AoO simplifies list building, something that casuals have been asking for. You don't have to play in tournaments to be faced with alpha strike armies, alpha strikes are actually a bigger problem if you don't have enough terrain, while that is a problem at some tournaments, it's not as big a problem at the really big ones where the tournament players they listen to play at. Skew lists have always been allowed by having vehicles in Elites, Fast Attack and Heavy Support and sometimes even in the HQ and Troops slot, all AoO Detachments do is not reward lists based around Troops, but you could do a Troops skew list previously as well. The only downside to AoO is not being able to take 9 Elites/HS/FA and GW choosing not to put in a 3CP reward for picking Troops as the base of the Detachment and banning 3 ingredient soup.

Dai wrote:
So no simping then and you were being a tad ridic all round?

He IS simping. He's blaming the community for playing game as it was written.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dai wrote:
So no simping then and you were being a tad ridic all round?

He IS simping. He's blaming the community for playing game as it was written.

And you're simping for tournament players. Just stop before you look any more of a mug.

Edit: for clarity I mean that top 1% top table scene crew who GW lean on.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dai wrote:
So no simping then and you were being a tad ridic all round?

He IS simping. He's blaming the community for playing game as it was written.

Again, read what was actually written by oni, rather than what you're projecting.

The community plays the game as written at the time, and a subset of the community (tournament players, in this case) complain about aspects of that play.

The observation is that the 40k rules team seem to think that such complaints require action, rather than the designers saying that this is how the game is meant to be.

The problem is with a perceived lack of spine with the design team, not with the community. At no point is oni simping for the design team, for crying out loud.

The closest you might say he comes to having a problem with the community is that these tournament types have some form of route to feed these complaints through, which the casual/garagehammer players don't - and even that's more of an issue with GW that the bleeding edge tournament types.

How you're reading a 180 on that is... inconceivable.

I'll simp for the tournament players - they don't care about this. They are happy to operate in whatever environment GW make.

"Its all alpha strikes cos of too many CP" was a casual complaint.
"It sucks that now I can't take 2-3 characters with warlord traits and relics to make them cool" - was a casual complaint.
"There's skewed lists... or people can take a bit of everything (...?)" - is again, going to be a casual complaint.

I was initially very wary AoO was going to be super loose and combined with super-loose ally rules, this would be a "free for all, screw balance, just have fun cos the editions over" season. It doesn't immediately look like that's the case - although I admit its mega early days, and some monsters may make themselves known.

I think there are fundamental issues with "Troops" that GW have never really managed to resolve through the editions. Unfortunately I don't see there being an answer. Tournament players don't care - if troops are good (lots of 8th edition codexes), take them, if troops are bad, give them a miss as far as you are able. It tends to be more fluffy players, who have a fixed idea that an X army should have a lot of unit Y that feel bad about it.

Tyel wrote:
I'll simp for the tournament players - they don't care about this. They are happy to operate in whatever environment GW make.

"Its all alpha strikes cos of too many CP" was a casual complaint.
"It sucks that now I can't take 2-3 characters with warlord traits and relics to make them cool" - was a casual complaint.
"There's skewed lists... or people can take a bit of everything (...?)" - is again, going to be a casual complaint.

I was initially very wary AoO was going to be super loose and combined with super-loose ally rules, this would be a "free for all, screw balance, just have fun cos the editions over" season. It doesn't immediately look like that's the case - although I admit its mega early days, and some monsters may make themselves known.

I think there are fundamental issues with "Troops" that GW have never really managed to resolve through the editions. Unfortunately I don't see there being an answer. Tournament players don't care - if troops are good (lots of 8th edition codexes), take them, if troops are bad, give them a miss as far as you are able. It tends to be more fluffy players, who have a fixed idea that an X army should have a lot of unit Y that feel bad about it.

I think the issue is that a vocal minority from the professional scene will have an opinion or make a comment, which the wider playerbase then parrot and reverb to make it a generalised statement.

There was a lot of focus on alpha striking and first turn advantage, which was largely filtered down from those same top players and talked about in popular forums/sites/podcasts etc.

The relics and traits thing isn't just a casual complaint, tournament topping level players were shocked and not overly happy with the inability to do this for daemons in their recent book. Before that they were always promoting lists and builds with multiple extras and blowing early CP. Again this echoes into being a general comment/concern.

Skewed lists are more of a problem for casual lists ad they're generally boom or bust, it came out of the talk about how you build a list to kill marines then you go from there, or you counter meta with a skew to sneak out a lucky matching streak.

I agree troops are an issue, I'm wondering if fixed formation cores might be an idea for the future? You can build a imperial fists with 1 of 3 core mandatory builds (could be a captain/Lieutenant, 2 units of tacticals/intercessors/heavy intercessors and a predator/gladiator for exmaple) which then unlock the core "faction bonus" according to that detachment and you then bolt on from there. It is still a "tax" and people will optimise around it, but it means that there's an assured nessus that lists will have a fluff component and those troops will be there irrespective of relative usefulness.

At the moment I like the idea of modifying the ObSec rule to include 'sticky objectives' for the Troops battlefield role units only (so no 'sticky objectives for non-Troops units that somehow gain ObSec). I believe that if all Troops with ObSec. had 'sticky objectives' it would be a strong incentive to have several Troops units in an army.

This might reduce the current advantage SM's have, but it also might not.

 alextroy wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

 oni wrote:
Also, the AoO detachment makes 2000 point Strike Force armies the only playable game size. Would be 1000 point Incursion armies are horribly punished by the AoO detachment. Since tournament play is only ever 2000 points, this largely went unnoticed.

In what way does the AoO detachment punish Incursion armies? Unless you are playing a single Patrol, AoO has the same or lessor requirements than any other detachment configuration.

We're struggling with Custodes, as the high ppm is forcing us to use minimum sized squads. You can't actually use things.

Combining the AoO detachment with the Rule of 2 can really mess up list building.

That is the one wrinkle with the AoO detachment. If your army was a Patrol, you have to mix it up to get into the AoO detachment with a third of something (Troops, Elites, Fast Attack, or Heavy Support).

Meh, I get that the Patrol Game size must use the Patrol Det is one directional, meaning you can use a patrol Det in larger games usually by the time you get to that point you're ready to move into a different Det or adding that third Troop unit anyway. I'm sure there are a few Incursion level Combat Patrols who don't have a third troop, but I'd also guess they're pretty rare and revolve around some sort of super-unit that just barely fits Shenanigans.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I'll simp for the tournament players - they don't care about this. They are happy to operate in whatever environment GW make.

"Its all alpha strikes cos of too many CP" was a casual complaint.
"It sucks that now I can't take 2-3 characters with warlord traits and relics to make them cool" - was a casual complaint.
"There's skewed lists... or people can take a bit of everything (...?)" - is again, going to be a casual complaint.

I was initially very wary AoO was going to be super loose and combined with super-loose ally rules, this would be a "free for all, screw balance, just have fun cos the editions over" season. It doesn't immediately look like that's the case - although I admit its mega early days, and some monsters may make themselves known.

I think there are fundamental issues with "Troops" that GW have never really managed to resolve through the editions. Unfortunately I don't see there being an answer. Tournament players don't care - if troops are good (lots of 8th edition codexes), take them, if troops are bad, give them a miss as far as you are able. It tends to be more fluffy players, who have a fixed idea that an X army should have a lot of unit Y that feel bad about it.

I think the issue is that a vocal minority from the professional scene will have an opinion or make a comment, which the wider playerbase then parrot and reverb to make it a generalised statement.

There was a lot of focus on alpha striking and first turn advantage, which was largely filtered down from those same top players and talked about in popular forums/sites/podcasts etc.

The relics and traits thing isn't just a casual complaint, tournament topping level players were shocked and not overly happy with the inability to do this for daemons in their recent book. Before that they were always promoting lists and builds with multiple extras and blowing early CP. Again this echoes into being a general comment/concern.

Skewed lists are more of a problem for casual lists ad they're generally boom or bust, it came out of the talk about how you build a list to kill marines then you go from there, or you counter meta with a skew to sneak out a lucky matching streak.

I agree troops are an issue, I'm wondering if fixed formation cores might be an idea for the future? You can build a imperial fists with 1 of 3 core mandatory builds (could be a captain/Lieutenant, 2 units of tacticals/intercessors/heavy intercessors and a predator/gladiator for exmaple) which then unlock the core "faction bonus" according to that detachment and you then bolt on from there. It is still a "tax" and people will optimise around it, but it means that there's an assured nessus that lists will have a fluff component and those troops will be there irrespective of relative usefulness.

The solution to troops is both foundationally simple, and logistically complex. In the first place you need more of them. When the only choice is "boyz" or "Tactical Squads" (for the first born-only people) the ability to theme, or personalize is next to nil. In the second place, they need to be worthwhile to take on their own, not as a "tax" or a throw away "unlocker". They need to be some of the most versatile and efficient units in your list. Troops should get there, where ever there is cheaper, elites/FA/HS should get there faster.

Yeah, troops need a fundamental fix. Some armies like GSC have their troops choices as the heavy lifters of their codex. Other books don't have good troops choices at all, or even any options for troops.

A few possible solutions;
1. Make troops useful. Sticky objectives could easily be a trademark of ObSec troops choices, not just a Marine only feature.

2. Give people actual variety. Using Orks as an example, we have Grots, Boys and Boys but spiky. None of them have any real options to speak of, other than heavy weapons you're never going to take, or the decision for a Power Klaw or dual Choppas on the Nob. Give us more unit options (even making shoota boys a separate datasheet with a bespoke rule or two would be a start), and give them weapon options that are relevant for what they want to achieve. Let Boys take Big Choppas over Big Shootas, Snagga Boys take Squighounds, etc.

When you have an army that exemplifies the "troops tax" mindset, of course you're going to take the absolute cheapest option because otherwise you have a significant portion of your list not contributing anything of worth to the overall game.

Give troops a role in the game other than detachment fillers, and give them the options that allow them to be interesting, and suddenly people won't feel like their units are a burden.

Dudeface wrote:
I agree troops are an issue, I'm wondering if fixed formation cores might be an idea for the future? You can build a imperial fists with 1 of 3 core mandatory builds (could be a captain/Lieutenant, 2 units of tacticals/intercessors/heavy intercessors and a predator/gladiator for exmaple) which then unlock the core "faction bonus" according to that detachment and you then bolt on from there. It is still a "tax" and people will optimise around it, but it means that there's an assured nessus that lists will have a fluff component and those troops will be there irrespective of relative usefulness.

"Formations done right" is always an interesting idea - but I have no faith in GW doing it in a sensible way. They don't have the discipline. We saw that most recently with almost every 2022 codex.

 Afrodactyl wrote:
Yeah, troops need a fundamental fix. Some armies like GSC have their troops choices as the heavy lifters of their codex. Other books don't have good troops choices at all, or even any options for troops.

A few possible solutions;
1. Make troops useful. Sticky objectives could easily be a trademark of ObSec troops choices, not just a Marine only feature.

2. Give people actual variety. Using Orks as an example, we have Grots, Boys and Boys but spiky. None of them have any real options to speak of, other than heavy weapons you're never going to take, or the decision for a Power Klaw or dual Choppas on the Nob. Give us more unit options (even making shoota boys a separate datasheet with a bespoke rule or two would be a start), and give them weapon options that are relevant for what they want to achieve. Let Boys take Big Choppas over Big Shootas, Snagga Boys take Squighounds, etc.

When you have an army that exemplifies the "troops tax" mindset, of course you're going to take the absolute cheapest option because otherwise you have a significant portion of your list not contributing anything of worth to the overall game.

Give troops a role in the game other than detachment fillers, and give them the options that allow them to be interesting, and suddenly people won't feel like their units are a burden.

How does variety make Troops better? Do you mean for different types of lists to all have a viable Troops choice instead of only the lists that have synergy with the the one type of Troops the faction has access to?

I think it's perfectly possible to pay a more expensive Troops tax to get more out of your Troops investment. Let's say that Ork Boys are overcosted at 10 pts/model, Gretchin are 8 pts/model and Beastyboys are 15 pts/model in a world of 3 mandatory Troops. You're going to take the Ork Boys most likely because the extra 60 pts to upgrade your 30 Gretchin to 30 Boys is worth it. You also might pay an extra 3 points to get klaws on the Nobs because at 1 pt a klaw would be a steal even if the unit is still overall overcosted at 101 pts.

I think most of the problem with unviable Troops is due to high pts-costs, but making them too cheap is also a danger because GW doesn't want to see tides of models on tables and Troops are unaffected by Ro3. Adding Ro3 and making Troops undercosted would be an option if GW aren't interested in seeing 60 Tactical Marines anyway. OP Stratagems is an option, but I think AdMech took it too far.

Dudeface wrote:
I agree troops are an issue, I'm wondering if fixed formation cores might be an idea for the future? You can build a imperial fists with 1 of 3 core mandatory builds (could be a captain/Lieutenant, 2 units of tacticals/intercessors/heavy intercessors and a predator/gladiator for exmaple) which then unlock the core "faction bonus" according to that detachment and you then bolt on from there. It is still a "tax" and people will optimise around it, but it means that there's an assured nessus that lists will have a fluff component and those troops will be there irrespective of relative usefulness.

Awarding/saving CP seems easier to balance. Is giving Space Marines an extra AP on some of their weapons too much when Necrons only get to do actions and still shoot? That's hard to know. But Space Marines getting 5 CP or saving 5 CP while Necrons save 11 CP is pretty clearly off.

 vict0988 wrote:

Awarding/saving CP seems easier to balance. Is giving Space Marines an extra AP on some of their weapons too much when Necrons only get to do actions and still shoot? That's hard to know. But Space Marines getting 5 CP or saving 5 CP while Necrons save 11 CP is pretty clearly off.

So would you advocate faction rules go away instead? using CP as a mechanism to reward thematic builds etc. which in turn doubles down stratagem play.

Dudeface wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Awarding/saving CP seems easier to balance. Is giving Space Marines an extra AP on some of their weapons too much when Necrons only get to do actions and still shoot? That's hard to know. But Space Marines getting 5 CP or saving 5 CP while Necrons save 11 CP is pretty clearly off.

So would you advocate faction rules go away instead? using CP as a mechanism to reward thematic builds etc. which in turn doubles down stratagem play.

Yes. Have you tried AoS? It doesn't do Stratagems perfectly either, but I think 40k has the worst possible implementation of Stratagems, I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Do you want to go back to something like 7th with no Stratagems but still keep 0 pts Combat Doctrines but locked behind a Detachment wall instead of a purity wall? I understand that that implementation was terrible as well, so I'm not trying to make you sound stupid if you think it's right. My pet theory is that Stratagems should only be used to represent sub-faction differences because it's not scaleable so it'll shift the focus of your list without overly incentivizing spammy builds or disincentivizing units that don't synergize.

 vict0988 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Awarding/saving CP seems easier to balance. Is giving Space Marines an extra AP on some of their weapons too much when Necrons only get to do actions and still shoot? That's hard to know. But Space Marines getting 5 CP or saving 5 CP while Necrons save 11 CP is pretty clearly off.

So would you advocate faction rules go away instead? using CP as a mechanism to reward thematic builds etc. which in turn doubles down stratagem play.

Yes. Have you tried AoS? It doesn't do Stratagems perfectly either, but I think 40k has the worst possible implementation of Stratagems, I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Do you want to go back to something like 7th with no Stratagems but still keep 0 pts Combat Doctrines but locked behind a Detachment wall instead of a purity wall? I understand that that implementation was terrible as well, so I'm not trying to make you sound stupid if you think it's right. My pet theory is that Stratagems should only be used to represent sub-faction differences because it's not scaleable so it'll shift the focus of your list without overly incentivizing spammy builds or disincentivizing units that don't synergize.

I'd rather stratagems end up like AoS where they're a limited range of generic strats everyone can use with a very limited pool. I'm happy with free faction traits, they've been around a long while and whilst they're not all made equal always, they add a base flavour to the forces they otherwise lack. I understand what your intent is with stratagems there though, but I'd rather reduce the mental load than increase it.

 vict0988 wrote:

 Afrodactyl wrote:
Yeah, troops need a fundamental fix. Some armies like GSC have their troops choices as the heavy lifters of their codex. Other books don't have good troops choices at all, or even any options for troops.

A few possible solutions;
1. Make troops useful. Sticky objectives could easily be a trademark of ObSec troops choices, not just a Marine only feature.

2. Give people actual variety. Using Orks as an example, we have Grots, Boys and Boys but spiky. None of them have any real options to speak of, other than heavy weapons you're never going to take, or the decision for a Power Klaw or dual Choppas on the Nob. Give us more unit options (even making shoota boys a separate datasheet with a bespoke rule or two would be a start), and give them weapon options that are relevant for what they want to achieve. Let Boys take Big Choppas over Big Shootas, Snagga Boys take Squighounds, etc.

When you have an army that exemplifies the "troops tax" mindset, of course you're going to take the absolute cheapest option because otherwise you have a significant portion of your list not contributing anything of worth to the overall game.

Give troops a role in the game other than detachment fillers, and give them the options that allow them to be interesting, and suddenly people won't feel like their units are a burden.

How does variety make Troops better? Do you mean for different types of lists to all have a viable Troops choice instead of only the lists that have synergy with the the one type of Troops the faction has access to?

I think what he means is give them more utility, and in the case of some factions make them either better (I.e. Eldar Storm Guardians), or cheaper. Things like GSC Neophytes or SM Tacticals are good (relatively speaking) is because of their utility. They're cheap, but you can do a lot with them. Essentially the idea is they either need to give the troops choices more utility, or make more that are more specific but better at that job. Hence the suggestion of Splitting Choppa and Shoota boyz.

Well screw me actually getting to use the individual Chaos gods Warpstorm table

 vict0988 wrote:
I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater

With stratagems there is no baby, only some lumps of floating in an increasingly filthy bucket of water. Dump the whole thing out and consider it a lesson in what not to do with a game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Afrodactyl wrote:
2. Give people actual variety.

No. The whole point of troops is that they're supposed to be basic and emphasizing "variety" is how 9th became such a mess. Give everything a Bespoke™ weapon and a Bespoke™ rule and a Bespoke™ stratagem and some more Bespoke™ buffs to stack and now you're spending 30 minutes adding up modifiers and rolling dice to delete whatever you point the unit at and you need to cover the entire table in LOS blocking terrain to make the game last more than one turn. Troops need to go back to being basic units with a basic stat line, the basic weapons of their faction (with all of the stupid buffs removed), and no special rules. And we need to go back to troops being at least 50% of your army. The game plays a lot better when the core is basic bolter marines vs. basic orks, not Primaris™ Supermarines™ with Primaris™ Bolt™ PrimarisRifles™ and 15 different Bespoke™ special rules to shoot twice at BS 2+ with full re-rolls and extra hits on 6s and AP -4 and D3 and ignoring FNP and ignoring things that ignore rules that ignore rules that ignore rules that ignore rules that ignore invulnerable saves. Or maybe add an extra "ignore" in there, I lost count after the latest exchange of "I IGNORE UR SAVE" and "NO U DONT I IGNORE THAT RULE".

As for how to make people pay the tax? Go back to the rule that only troops can ever score objectives. Non-troops can deny control, but if you don't have troops on that objective you get nothing. And remove secondary objectives, no more of this nonsense where you pick the easiest 15 VP for your army to achieve and decide that's going to be your objective. Fight for primary objective control with troops or lose 100-0.

Variety is indeed not the issue of troops, but rather flexibility and working as intended for factions and their subfactions.

Which is why mono-equipment primaris will always remain on a fundamental level for a troop choice inferior to a tactical marine unit. A good desigend troop unit is one which can satisfy the core identity of a faction and has the flexibility to do it's job with a degree of specialisation available to it. A gold standard for this was R&H which tied it's subfaction identity to it's troops and available manipulation of an already very felxibly designed troop choice. A bad exemple for this is literally all primaris troop choices.

GW also needs to take a look at transports for mechanised forces and subfactions (cue ork boys and trucks) AND NOT create a Boy +1 which snaggas are. (nvm that they are ugly).

When I say variety I mean to give people basic options for various roles. Orks have three options, but one is objectively worse than the other two, so it is only ever taken in one specific scenario; trukk boys suicide unit.

Then you have Grots for doing actions, and Snagga Boys for maybe hurting something or contesting the midfield. Neither of these units have customisation options outside of the Thump Gun, and Lord know why you would ever take that because its terrible and doesn't work with the units identity.

So realistically we have two troops choices, which are either something to fill out a kill rig with, or objective campers because they die to a fart on the wind. Vanilla Space Marines on the other hand have six choices. They all fulfill slightly different roles, and have options they can take to differentiate the units from one another; sergeant weapons, special weapons, etc.

I agree that troops choices should be basic and be the core of the army, but when you're forced to choice between bland trash unit #1 or bland trash unit #2 it feels bad and makes you resent having to take them because they're a burden more than anything else.

I'm not asking for loads of different units that all have super special rules, I want troops to have a purpose in the list, and give the player the options and variety to fulfill that purpose and support your list rather than just suck and take up space. I'd be happy with Orks having "Boys" and "Grots" as their only troops choices as long as they functioned well and you were actually able to somewhat specialise the units with points cost upgrades/sidegrades (Slugga Boys, Shoota Boys, 'Ard Boys, Snagga Boys, Stikkbombas, whatever).

Tactical Marines are a good example of this. They can MSU or go around in groups of ten. They can be built to an extent to support a gun line, or a mechanised force, or an assault heavy list, etc. They get weapon options that make them better at doing whatever role you want them to do without stepping on the toes of your special troop+1 units too much, and they can take and hold objectives.

At no point should a mandatory unit feel like a bad pick, or even be a detriment to the overall list. Give us a reason to take troops rather than just saying "because you must", give them a purpose and a role to fulfill.

We had a lengthy discussion about the value of Troops in our group. Some argued that a great part of their value was that they were essentially disposable. However the consensus was that they needed a little boost, so we came up with the following:

For a 5% increase to a Troops unit cost it may choose any two of the following abilities and use one during a game ~

Close Order Drills - if a unit is entirely in base contact with itself, each model adds an additional close combat or ranged attack (this does not apply to special or heavy weapons)

Battle Focus - any roll of 1 to wound may be re-rolled

Stim Packs - once per game the unit receives Feel No Pain (4+)

Ensconced - a deployed unit may improve its cover save by 1 until it moves

Advance - before the game starts a unit may make a free normal move before any normal movement commences

Tactical Dash - once per game a unit may add 2D3" to any move that doesn't initiate contact with the enemy

The idea was to give Troops a little optional boost for a cost in relation to the unit's power, but keep it relatively basic. Other options are certainly possible. Since we roll up scenarios ahead of time, players have an easier time deciding if an upgrade is worth using.

How long do Stim Packs last? A Phase, Turn, or Round? (Assuming not all game, since that'd be bonkers.)

Just a phase.

The problem with Troops is that GW has largely built the units of the other Battlefield Roles as Troops+. First Born Space Marines are a perfect example of this problem:

Troops are Tactical Squads.
Elites has Sternguard Veterans, which are Tacticals with better Bolters and better stats.
Fast Attack has Assault Marines, which are Tacticals but faster.
Heavy Support has Devestator Squads, which are Tacticals with more Heavy Weapons.

Outside of Objective Secured, there is nothing the makes Tacticals better at their job than a properly outfitted unit from a different Battlefield Role. There needs to be a minus to the other units and a plus to the Troops to make them worth taking. It need not be the same thing from unit to unit, nor army to army, but it needs to be there.

 alextroy wrote:
The problem with Troops is that GW has largely built the units of the other Battlefield Roles as Troops+. First Born Space Marines are a perfect example of this problem:

Troops are Tactical Squads.
Elites has Sternguard Veterans, which are Tacticals with better Bolters and better stats.
Fast Attack has Assault Marines, which are Tacticals but faster.
Heavy Support has Devestator Squads, which are Tacticals with more Heavy Weapons.

Outside of Objective Secured, there is nothing the makes Tacticals better at their job than a properly outfitted unit from a different Battlefield Role. There needs to be a minus to the other units and a plus to the Troops to make them worth taking. It need not be the same thing from unit to unit, nor army to army, but it needs to be there.

You can draw that comparison with most armies. Remember when Gargoyles were FA instead of Troops? Raveners vs Warriors? Warriors vs Scourges? Guardians vs Pick-An-Aspect? Warriors vs Destroyers? I don't believe we should be giving a negative to any of the specialist units so much as giving a boost to the Troops units. I'd like to see a universal decrease to lethality, and a targeted increase to Troops. I'd like to see ObSec be keyword based, and I'd like to see the units/keywords that shouldn't get ObSec get a keyword that also plays a role - I called it Objective Denial. In an X" bubble around Objective Denied, your opponent does not get ObSec. Making a vehicle count as 5 models does not in and of itself make enough difference. Making 5 Obsec Marines jumping out of a Razorback swing the objective because the Razorback removes Obsec from the 10 Gretchin makes a much stronger case for the Razorback. For some factions - Custodes lacking many transport tanks leaps to mind - this would break down but as a general fix it's not a bad start. ObSec on troops is a bandaid. And a dirty useless one at that. Troops need to be valuable enough on their own. As long as players look at them as a "tax" instead of a unit they care about, we're going to have this problem.

A negative could be a little as not getting a significant rule that the comparable Troops unit has.

If the job of a Tactical Squad is to hold ground against a threat, it needs a rule that improves their ability to do that. But Devastators job is to destroy the enemy. They don't get the rule that makes them better at holding ground. Right now, that rule is the lackluster Objective Secured. It needs to be more.

If Tactical Marines were always allowed to either Hold Steady or Set to Defend when charged, that is something more substantial that would make Devastators worst at holding ground than Tactical Marines.

Elite units like Sternguard wouldn't get the rule. Their job is to take ground, which is already represented by their improved stats and weapons.

Ideally, such rules would be carefully designed to make each army play according to their background. Infantry Squads hold ground, but mostly by not dying as easily as they should. Those shovels are not on their backpacks for combat, they are there to dig holes to hide their vulnerable bodies! Nobody knows how important taking cover is than IS. Special rule is Infantry Squads that don't move or that are in Cover get a +1 AS (above and beyond that granted by the Cover).

 alextroy wrote:
A negative could be a little as not getting a significant rule that the comparable Troops unit has.

If the job of a Tactical Squad is to hold ground against a threat, it needs a rule that improves their ability to do that.

To be fair, the new sticky objectives that Loyalist Scum get seems like a way to do that.

 alextroy wrote:
The problem with Troops is that GW has largely built the units of the other Battlefield Roles as Troops+. First Born Space Marines are a perfect example of this problem:

Troops are Tactical Squads.
Elites has Sternguard Veterans, which are Tacticals with better Bolters and better stats.
Fast Attack has Assault Marines, which are Tacticals but faster.
Heavy Support has Devestator Squads, which are Tacticals with more Heavy Weapons.

Outside of Objective Secured, there is nothing the makes Tacticals better at their job than a properly outfitted unit from a different Battlefield Role. There needs to be a minus to the other units and a plus to the Troops to make them worth taking. It need not be the same thing from unit to unit, nor army to army, but it needs to be there.

So I actually don’t think that’s too bad from a initial design, and more how GW have warped it.
Back when I started, I always thought of terminators being rather close to a tactical squad.
Less models, but tougher, with shooting comparable.
And with the desire for terminators as troops from players, I think they could have been used just like that.
But assault marines, give up shooting for a faster profile, and more attacks in close range.
Choice for players to do similar roles, and different access to weapons.
Give terminators access to chain swards as default and I think would be really cool.
It’s more how GW has built the game from there that’s the issue, marines are supposed to be elite, in a army where they have elites, in a game with so much imperium elite units.
They have stepped on the toes of there own space marines, and it has filter out to other army’s from a design.

It’s one reason I am quite positive for these little changes now, hoping they will at least be looking at how to reign in some of those out of control design issues that previous design has dumb on them.

 alextroy wrote:
A negative could be a little as not getting a significant rule that the comparable Troops unit has.

If the job of a Tactical Squad is to hold ground against a threat, it needs a rule that improves their ability to do that. But Devastators job is to destroy the enemy. They don't get the rule that makes them better at holding ground. Right now, that rule is the lackluster Objective Secured. It needs to be more.

If Tactical Marines were always allowed to either Hold Steady or Set to Defend when charged, that is something more substantial that would make Devastators worst at holding ground than Tactical Marines.

Elite units like Sternguard wouldn't get the rule. Their job is to take ground, which is already represented by their improved stats and weapons.

Ideally, such rules would be carefully designed to make each army play according to their background. Infantry Squads hold ground, but mostly by not dying as easily as they should. Those shovels are not on their backpacks for combat, they are there to dig holes to hide their vulnerable bodies! Nobody knows how important taking cover is than IS. Special rule is Infantry Squads that don't move or that are in Cover get a +1 AS (above and beyond that granted by the Cover).

Wacky concept: TACs get a 6+++, that can be buffed into a 4+++ by an Apothecary, and a special rule that makes them harder to break from morale (let's call it "Obstinate") when on an objective. And give them an option to be at least mildly effective at holding an objective from a melee opponent and slightly better at shooting if they're just "standing still". If their job is "holding objectives", then make them good at it.

Totally not just stealing this idea from a rules set written by component rules writers.