Switch Theme:

4th Edition Allies  [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
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Even carapace armor didn't improve your armor save because of the drawback. It improved the armor save because you paid 20 pts per unit!
But I am sacrificing something for the carapace armour: Common sense, because no one in their right mind ever took carapace armour, but that's an unrelated conversation...

Oooh, nah. 4+ saves in an environment where many Basic weapons were AP 5 is a really useful upgrade. Might have been too expensive, but it was a very cool option.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

I wrote my thoughts on Carapace armour out a thousand years ago.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/04/17 05:00:11


Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I wrote my thoughtsp on Carapace armour out a thousand years ago.

Well I respectfully disagree with your analysis. One of the primary reasons being that the reason Guard hugged cover was because of the prevalence of AP5. But with Armor 4+, that threat is mitigated. A 4+ opens the Guard up to maneuvering with more protection out of cover, so if you wanted to be more aggressive with your Infantry, a 4+ save helped quite a bit.

But was the price right? Dunno. Thematically it's super cool though.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

But cover is free. Why pay more to make up for a deficiency when you can pay half that to make something you're already using better?

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But cover is free. Why pay more to make up for a deficiency when you can pay half that to make something you're already using better?
Because you want the freedom to not rely on cover as much. It also helps in CC.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Spending points to buff your CC potential is throwing points at a weakness. Guardsmen are expendable. Better to bring more than make them expensive.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in gb
Junior Officer with Laspistol





The Shire(s)

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Haighus wrote:
Isn't this just an issue with internal balance? If sanctioned psykers, ogryn, priests, techpriests, heavy weapon platoons, and ratlings were all worth taking, then choosing which to give up would be more meaningful.
Partially. Again, giving up something you weren't going to take isn't really giving anything up, so it's a bad mechanic.

But, you are correct in saying that if the things you were "giving up" were actually worthwhile in the first place, then there might be some real choice in the decision rather than "Oh no... I can't bring a bad psyker with random powers? Oh well, I guess I'll just give my whole army Deep Strike for free..."

Fair. The buffs should all have points costs or meaningful drawbacks baked in though- it is weird that drop troops doesn't when the only meaningful drawback is not being able to take the mechanised doctrine. Compare to light infantry for 10pts per squad.

I think this is an internal balance issue again- close order drill, whilst making your troops vulnerable to blasts/templates if used, still gives you a free option. It should probably have a cost associated, even if a low one like 5pts per unit. Jungle fighters, meanwhile, had situational buffs with some significant drawbacks and should have been a free doctrine. Carapace armour, as mentioned, was overpriced in comparison to cameleoline. Warrior weapons should have been a free swap. Hardened fighters should have been cheaper and available to rough riders (you could never get fighty rough rider worlds apparently). Grenadiers would be a lot better and more thematic if the troops stormtroopers counted as guard infantry (for doctrine purposes) to show how they are intrinsically from the regiment and not attached. The access to doctrine effects would replace the loss of infiltrate and deep strike (and the latter could be bought back with drop troops). Why did independent commissars cost anything extra (and how did they work with conscripts)? Independent priests would have been a lot more useful IMO, to allow them to be attached to conscripts for a tarpit.

Some were definitely for narrative use, and I think that is fine. I have Steel Legion and Orks I am building for a campaign, and Xeno fighters: Orks is perfect thematically even if it is a bit naff. 5pts isn't a lot though. Again, should be available to rough riders.

The abhuman doctrines were a huge mess- you couldn't take any without spending an entire doctrine just to access the extra abhuman doctrines. Terrible idea, especially as some of the abhuman options were somewhat interesting otherwise. To be honest, I think the only Chapter Approved doctrine I've come across that looked worth considering was xeno cavalry for rough riders. They lost fleet, but gained a 4+ save and an extra S4 attack each. Bit better at counter assault. Swamp fighters had the same problems as jungle fighters.

Basically, I think the concept was fine, but the points costs needed adjusting and a bit more thought put into the effects of some of the weaker doctrines. The main cost was supposed to be points, not opportunity cost, but that was an additional minor drawback.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, some of the list-tailoring stuff is aimed at campaigns. One of the suggested ways to run a campaign is to select forces from a much larger roster before the battle to match your next mission and opponent. This allows the players to list tailor in a lore-friendly way.

Know it is a bunker assault? Take the unit with meltabombs or flamers. Attacker in a sentry mission? Actually use the snipers for once... On the defensive in a breakthrough mission? Pack in the heavy support. Etc.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2023/04/17 08:28:45


 ChargerIIC wrote:
If algae farm paste with a little bit of your grandfather in it isn't Grimdark I don't know what is.
 
   
Made in us
Ancient Venerable Black Templar Dreadnought





Where ever the Emperor needs his eyes

I suppose I can see some of the points, but I still dont see chosing to not take something as super bad wrong, because I still have to pay for the things I want and then pay more to put the abilities on them I want.

I'll concede on losing something I dont want, to gain extra HS or FA or Elite slots as bad.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/04/17 16:04:08


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

I am still not convinced.

Drop troops is a thematic build, and it doesn't even need drawbacks.

The fact that you can't take a Psyker or whatever is just another beat to build a narrative on (take Doctrine: Rare Troops: Psyker and now you are different than your other buddy's drop troops army!).

Emphasizing narrative, themed builds is good, and if the themes clash (like Mechanized and Drop Troops) then they should be mutually exclusive, obviously.

And again, I am speaking balance agnostic. No one is arguing that GW isn't gak at balance. Instead, I am arguing that it isn't [I]fundamentally wrong[/] to say "Armored Companies cannot take infantry without jumping through xyz hoops", even though the player who chooses Armored Company probably wasn't planning to play much or any infantry in the first place.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/04/17 15:57:00


 
   
Made in gb
Junior Officer with Laspistol





The Shire(s)

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I am still not convinced.

Drop troops is a thematic build, and it doesn't even need drawbacks.

The fact that you can't take a Psyker or whatever is just another beat to build a narrative on (take Doctrine: Rare Troops: Psyker and now you are different than your other buddy's drop troops army!).

Emphasizing narrative, themed builds is good, and if the themes clash (like Mechanized and Drop Troops) then they should be mutually exclusive, obviously.

The problem is that drop troops is a powerful doctrine with no associated points cost, for very little drawbacks. Its an issue with internal balance not concept though. Drop troops should probably cost 5-10pts per squad or something.

Losing out on sanctioned psykers would be more reasonable as a drawback if sanctioned psykers were usable. Even if you could simply pick the powers they might be worth taking.

 ChargerIIC wrote:
If algae farm paste with a little bit of your grandfather in it isn't Grimdark I don't know what is.
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

 Haighus wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I am still not convinced.

Drop troops is a thematic build, and it doesn't even need drawbacks.

The fact that you can't take a Psyker or whatever is just another beat to build a narrative on (take Doctrine: Rare Troops: Psyker and now you are different than your other buddy's drop troops army!).

Emphasizing narrative, themed builds is good, and if the themes clash (like Mechanized and Drop Troops) then they should be mutually exclusive, obviously.

The problem is that drop troops is a powerful doctrine with no associated points cost, for very little drawbacks. Its an issue with internal balance not concept though. Drop troops should probably cost 5-10pts per squad or something.

Losing out on sanctioned psykers would be more reasonable as a drawback if sanctioned psykers were usable. Even if you could simply pick the powers they might be worth taking.


So... Yes, the balance was off.

Is anything wrong in the abstract with the idea of an army being able to choose it's theme, and getting (balanced) bonuses for sticking to it, while being prevented from deviating from it if it wants to keep those bonuses?
   
Made in gb
Junior Officer with Laspistol





The Shire(s)

I don't think so, no. I've not argued that though.

I did reply before your edit above...

 ChargerIIC wrote:
If algae farm paste with a little bit of your grandfather in it isn't Grimdark I don't know what is.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Haighus wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I am still not convinced.

Drop troops is a thematic build, and it doesn't even need drawbacks.

The fact that you can't take a Psyker or whatever is just another beat to build a narrative on (take Doctrine: Rare Troops: Psyker and now you are different than your other buddy's drop troops army!).

Emphasizing narrative, themed builds is good, and if the themes clash (like Mechanized and Drop Troops) then they should be mutually exclusive, obviously.

The problem is that drop troops is a powerful doctrine with no associated points cost, for very little drawbacks. Its an issue with internal balance not concept though. Drop troops should probably cost 5-10pts per squad or something.

Losing out on sanctioned psykers would be more reasonable as a drawback if sanctioned psykers were usable. Even if you could simply pick the powers they might be worth taking.


So... Yes, the balance was off.

Is anything wrong in the abstract with the idea of an army being able to choose it's theme, and getting (balanced) bonuses for sticking to it, while being prevented from deviating from it if it wants to keep those bonuses?

Because people mostly try to stick with a theme to begin with. You didn't lose anything via not taking models you might not have had to begin with. My Marines shouldn't get bonuses because I'm not taking Eldar in my army.

That's why I brought up the Templar Vows in 9th as at least showing a downside of some kind. You actually give up something.
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Spending points to buff your CC potential is throwing points at a weakness. Guardsmen are expendable. Better to bring more than make them expensive.
I understand the idea, and you can totally build your army to that philosophy. But are we simply going to deny the option to someone who wants to use their Guardsmen in a different way than you do?

There's definitely a point where if you can field enough Guardsmen with armor that makes them tougher, the Guard can begin to overwhelm an opponent in a new way. You'd have to rethink how you played the army to use that properly, I'm sure, but it would open up opportunities that weren't there before. It's all just a matter of point cost and army-build context. Just having troops that couldn't be so easily countered with a Bolters and Flamers is a valuable thing. (and Cameleoline wouldn't help against things like Flamers, since they ignored cover)

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in gb
Junior Officer with Laspistol





The Shire(s)

EviscerationPlague wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Haighus wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I am still not convinced.

Drop troops is a thematic build, and it doesn't even need drawbacks.

The fact that you can't take a Psyker or whatever is just another beat to build a narrative on (take Doctrine: Rare Troops: Psyker and now you are different than your other buddy's drop troops army!).

Emphasizing narrative, themed builds is good, and if the themes clash (like Mechanized and Drop Troops) then they should be mutually exclusive, obviously.

The problem is that drop troops is a powerful doctrine with no associated points cost, for very little drawbacks. Its an issue with internal balance not concept though. Drop troops should probably cost 5-10pts per squad or something.

Losing out on sanctioned psykers would be more reasonable as a drawback if sanctioned psykers were usable. Even if you could simply pick the powers they might be worth taking.


So... Yes, the balance was off.

Is anything wrong in the abstract with the idea of an army being able to choose it's theme, and getting (balanced) bonuses for sticking to it, while being prevented from deviating from it if it wants to keep those bonuses?

Because people mostly try to stick with a theme to begin with. You didn't lose anything via not taking models you might not have had to begin with. My Marines shouldn't get bonuses because I'm not taking Eldar in my army.

That's why I brought up the Templar Vows in 9th as at least showing a downside of some kind. You actually give up something.

Most of the buffs in these systems cost points, which was the main cost. Inexplicably some didn't cost points that should, and some did that shouldn't. Occasionally they also came with nerfs (like jungle fighters losing access to lascannons and dropping to a 6+ save...). They just happened to come with restrictions in list choices to match the theme, which was a small additional cost.

 ChargerIIC wrote:
If algae farm paste with a little bit of your grandfather in it isn't Grimdark I don't know what is.
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: