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.

In a recently released video they droped a fairly big hint on the next Big FAQ stating that troops are gonna be retaking the meta (or at least become far more important).

Being that these guys are based in the UK they might have gotten to talk to a GW games designer and gotten some insider information, or it could all just be hearsay.


Do you think we are going back to the days of only troops can score objectives? This would actually be a unintended buff to flyer armies, as they were doing good without objective grabbers.

Well... guess I should really finish my other 3 eldar flyers!

I'm not sure that actually solves anything. One of the problems with how GW designs armies is that they can't decide whether Troops should be equally prominent in all of them, so you get some armies that can actually function really well taking almost nothing but Troops (GSC and DW spring to mind) while others take Troops more as a tax to fill out Battalions. I'd rather they balanced out the role of Troops properly in each Codex before doing something like this - if that is in fact what's going to happen.

This sort of change doesn't magically make Tacticals or basic CSM better, for example. Those units are still bad and giving them a buff that isn't related to actually improving their basic efficiency isn't some magic bullet that will suddenly make them useable.

They are possibly addressing the change that has been getting "teased" since 2019ish. Make troops the only thing that can hold objectives. Bam - troops just became relevant, and meta gets a shakeup.

I agree

 Eihnlazer wrote:
In a recently released video they droped a fairly big hint on the next Big FAQ stating that troops are gonna be retaking the meta (or at least become far more important).

Being that these guys are based in the UK they might have gotten to talk to a GW games designer and gotten some insider information, or it could all just be hearsay.


Do you think we are going back to the days of only troops can score objectives? This would actually be a unintended buff to flyer armies, as they were doing good without objective grabbers.

Seeing as 80+ troops in the norm right now, why they think troops are not a must take now and changing rules for them to be more popular is kinda unsettling... are they that out of touch?


To add, you will always have some armies with lack of Troops, unless 8th says (You have to have a Battalion) we will always have that, but most top armies/lists are taking massive amounts of troops, for cheap CP and bubble wrap. You need troops for CP.

I'm not sure that will fix things, soup needs to be reigned in so there's a valid reason to take a mono-faction as opposed to taking a unit from here, a unit from this other faction, and a unit from this third faction all in different detachments. Fix that (along with one those detachments feeding CP to the other two) and that will be a better fix.

Cheap troops already dominate the meta, not sure how this is actually a fix.

80+? What army using 80? Chaos or Orks? I can't see any soup lists bringing 8 full squads of IG, or SMs. It has to be cultists and Boys. In which case, what meta are you looking at?

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Seeing as 80+ troops in the norm right now, why they think troops are not a must take now and changing rules for them to be more popular is kinda unsettling... are they that out of touch?


To add, you will always have some armies with lack of Troops, unless 8th says (You have to have a Battalion) we will always have that, but most top armies/lists are taking massive amounts of troops, for cheap CP and bubble wrap. You need troops for CP.

The equation changes considerably when those disposable models suddenly become not disposable.

I would even go a step further, only troops from your warlords detachment should score objectives, and only that detachment should give stratagems.

KILL THAT SOUP WITH FIRE

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
80+? What army using 80? Chaos or Orks? I can't see any soup lists bringing 8 full squads of IG, or SMs. It has to be cultists and Boys. In which case, what meta are you looking at?

IG, GSC, Nids, Orks, Chaos, CSM, SoB, so.. basically everyone but Marines, Aeldari, Admech, and some Necrons

Marines will never have many troops, its the nature of 8th and their points (unless they seriously go down in points) Aeldari can, but its better to have units like Shining Spears, Flyers, Ravagers, even if Troops are more important (I dont see how unless ONLY troops can hold, then you'll just see 6 units of Rangers as Alaitoc, compare to Store Guardians and 1 guardian blog, and 3 kabals, same points, same numbers, just different purpose).

We might see different troops, but you still see many blobs now.

Edit: NOT SAYING its bad, im saying they are important now, and large amounts of players takes large amounts of them already.

stormcraft wrote:
I would even go a step further, only troops from your warlords detachment should score objectives, and only that detachment should give stratagems.

KILL THAT SOUP WITH FIRE

Do you mean Detachment or faction/army? Your suggestion would hurt mono-Codex lists as well.

Sure, you should of course be able to bring 3 Detachments full of scoring Troops, if they are from the same Army, so "All Troops with the same Army Keyword as your Warlord" should be the Rule.

Generally all Allies should be handled the same as GSC handels AM: No Traits, No stratagems, No CP from Allies

So Imperial Knights just couldn't function standalone?

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
80+? What army using 80? Chaos or Orks? I can't see any soup lists bringing 8 full squads of IG, or SMs. It has to be cultists and Boys. In which case, what meta are you looking at?

IG, GSC, Nids, Orks, Chaos, CSM, SoB, so.. basically everyone but Marines, Aeldari, Admech, and some Necrons

Marines will never have many troops, its the nature of 8th and their points (unless they seriously go down in points) Aeldari can, but its better to have units like Shining Spears, Flyers, Ravagers, even if Troops are more important (I dont see how unless ONLY troops can hold, then you'll just see 6 units of Rangers as Alaitoc, compare to Store Guardians and 1 guardian blog, and 3 kabals, same points, same numbers, just different purpose).

We might see different troops, but you still see many blobs now.

I forgot about nids and GSC/nids. That being said, I still think it's exaggerating to say IG armies bring 80 models of IS. I've only seen two plays in the last 2 years bring Scripts, and those were playing old pre-nerf rules.

stormcraft wrote:
I would even go a step further, only troops from your warlords detachment should score objectives, and only that detachment should give stratagems.

KILL THAT SOUP WITH FIRE

This will add to soup even more, everyone will take IG, CWE, DG as their Warlord and load up on good troops then add damage, anything that counters infantry.


Imagine 30 Alaitoc Rangers in Wave Serpents and Dark Reapers to back them up. Cool want to shoot them? Well they are -1/+2 save and the 1st unit you shoot at you need 6's to hit, also can make them have invuls or -2 to hit, while the Ynnari Dark reapers will shoot twice killing your troops.

I’m the opposite end. I play, and love, soup. Have since beginning of 6th edition with battle brothers. If they kill soup, they know they kill a player base that buys a huge line of models. Chaos..(marines/daemons), tyranids (nids, cults) imperium as a whole, and Aeldari as a whole. GW would be massively stupid to kill that. If you like a mono factionc play it. If you’re bringing fluff to competetive, you’re bringing a knife to a gun fight. My suggestion if you feel that you aren’t having fun is talk with your opponent on what kind of game you wanna play. Fun and fluffy or competetive. I love playing both ways, and if someone told me please bring a fluffy army, you’d see my Ulthwé en masse guardian squads running up the field, while Eldrad and some warlocks pump their heads to try and shoot better and survive. You ask me to bring competetive and you’re gonna see ynnari, dark reapers, etc. just because something isn’t fun for you doesn’t mean it isn’t for others, so don’t wish something dead that someone else might actually be finding joy in. This game has a million ways to play.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
80+? What army using 80? Chaos or Orks? I can't see any soup lists bringing 8 full squads of IG, or SMs. It has to be cultists and Boys. In which case, what meta are you looking at?

IG, GSC, Nids, Orks, Chaos, CSM, SoB, so.. basically everyone but Marines, Aeldari, Admech, and some Necrons

Marines will never have many troops, its the nature of 8th and their points (unless they seriously go down in points) Aeldari can, but its better to have units like Shining Spears, Flyers, Ravagers, even if Troops are more important (I dont see how unless ONLY troops can hold, then you'll just see 6 units of Rangers as Alaitoc, compare to Store Guardians and 1 guardian blog, and 3 kabals, same points, same numbers, just different purpose).

We might see different troops, but you still see many blobs now.

I forgot about nids and GSC/nids. That being said, I still think it's exaggerating to say IG armies bring 80 models of IS. I've only seen two plays in the last 2 years bring Scripts, and those were playing old pre-nerf rules.

Top LVO IG list did..... https://i.imgur.com/MYp9xkt.png + Knight

Another IG had 60 + large Conscript squad, and more had some as well, a couple players took 40+ wyches as well as 20 guardians and Storm Guardians

Edit: Link

They (announcers and video reviewers, as well as several websites) also made a point of saying how radical and innovative that list was. As in, not the standard meta. The loyal 32 is the norm, not the 80+. For IG

Yeah, Troops being the most impactful models in the game would be a big change..like...in 7th edition?

Certainly not since 8th lol. any army that doesn't take at least 1/3 its points value in troops and units supporting those troops tends to be in trouble these days.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
I’m the opposite end. I play, and love, soup. Have since beginning of 6th edition with battle brothers. If they kill soup, they know they kill a player base that buys a huge line of models. Chaos..(marines/daemons), tyranids (nids, cults) imperium as a whole, and Aeldari as a whole. GW would be massively stupid to kill that. If you like a mono factionc play it. If you’re bringing fluff to competetive, you’re bringing a knife to a gun fight. My suggestion if you feel that you aren’t having fun is talk with your opponent on what kind of game you wanna play. Fun and fluffy or competetive. I love playing both ways, and if someone told me please bring a fluffy army, you’d see my Ulthwé en masse guardian squads running up the field, while Eldrad and some warlocks pump their heads to try and shoot better and survive. You ask me to bring competetive and you’re gonna see ynnari, dark reapers, etc. just because something isn’t fun for you doesn’t mean it isn’t for others, so don’t wish something dead that someone else might actually be finding joy in. This game has a million ways to play.

I would say the biggest issue with soup right now is that is has zero downsides, GW arn't going to remove it regardless of how many posters complain, but they could atleast take some attempt at balancing all the bonuses with a downside.

I hope this isn't going to be another GW of old style fix, if troops become mandatory well everyones playing one of 3 factions, Guard, GSC or Orks. No other codex will be worth trying to make a functional list out of. This smacks of the no-one takes Choas marine's, cultists must be too good, lets make Cultists 5ppm, guess what people still take cultists just less because 1 marines isn't worth 2.5 cultist in 8th edition, this is just going to render a number of codex's effectively unplayable if true.

It could be something as simple as a small rewards system for taking more troops. Maybe not even anything to significant.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
They (announcers and video reviewers, as well as several websites) also made a point of saying how radical and innovative that list was. As in, not the standard meta. The loyal 32 is the norm, not the 80+. For IG

But its not... every tournament go look, you always see many payers with 60-100 troops, this isnt outside of normal, its just he did well enough to take top. How many times you see lots of Poxwalkers? hmm what about the 20 guardian blobs with 15 man wych units, 2x8 Storm guardians?, When Aeldari soup is taking 60+ on average thats crazy. Then what about GSC, Orks, etc.. they always took a lot.

The point is, every since beta rules troops have been very popular. Saying they are going to be more popular is odd.


Now saying they will be used differently and "SM" will be using them more often outside of Gants, Neophyts, Guardsmen, Cultist, Pox, and Sob, now that will be a welcome change.

More diverse selection is always better, im not saying that its not welcome. Just that they are popular already, and would like the game to make other units better instead of adding more rules, if the problem troops go up 1pt and the ones no one takes goes down 1pt we might see a shift anyways.

Nobody is talking about killing soup, it just should not be rewarded to take the best units from 3 books instead of one, especially because some armys cant soup.

And to link soups and competitive play is BS, competitive play can happen in whatever Ruleset GW set as standard. If you severely nerf souping to the point that mono-list are stronger, all competitive players will tend to play mono.

Dont set yourself on a pedal because you pick the strongest options from 3 books instead of one.


PS: Of course armys who dont have a troop choice should get some kind of exception the keep them functional.

I actually really enjoy being able to finally field the force I've wanted for years, it fit the lore, and has no troops, until I hit a certain points level, which is just fine.

Troops can be nice, but for some armies, like Necrons, they can be a massive tax. There are lists I run that have all 60 of my Warriors, and lists with none at all. The no Warrior lists are far more fun to play. Being able to hold objectives with Scarabs, like in the lore, is what I've been wanting since 3rd ed.

I doubt we'll see something as inane as "only troops can score objectives". Troops are absolutely being used in the game right now. Generally, most lists that aren't skew-lists are running 6 units of Troops in order to gain Command Points through Battalions. That's a minimum of 30 bodies, sometimes 60 bodies. The quantity of units of Troops is, I feel, exactly where it should be in the game.

HOWEVER, what we aren't seeing are different kids of troops. What do you see? Scouts, Cultists, Guardsmen, Rippers. Thank the Orks that both their troops are cheap, so you do actually often see both Grots and Ork Boyz. Drukhari's weird way of breaking down also means that you see variety in their troops. But yeah, Guardsmen everywhere, even in Xenos armies (looking at you GSC). Maybe there's a change coming that could offer more distinctive levels of troops. Over at Proposed Rules we have a neat discussion going about using either Leadership or Power Level to differentiate troops more; that the Troop with the highest Ld/Power Level is able to hold objectives over Troops with a lower Ld/Power Level. This would make Tacticals, Chaos Space Marines, etc. more useful over the lower tier Troop units, without invalidating the lower tier Troop units. Infantry squads, Rippers, and Grots would all still be great for holding objectives for cheap, and being able to steal objectives from non-Troops, but Tactical Marines or Chaos Space Marines or the like could steal objectives from these units (and the Ultramarine/Black Legion +1Ld buff would actually really matter, as these Chapters/Legions could grab objectives even from their brethren).

Just something to think about.

 Yarium wrote:
This would make Tacticals, Chaos Space Marines, etc. more useful over the lower tier Troop units, without invalidating the lower tier Troop units. Infantry squads, Rippers, and Grots would all still be great for holding objectives for cheap, and being able to steal objectives from non-Troops, but Tactical Marines or Chaos Space Marines or the like could steal objectives from these units (and the Ultramarine/Black Legion +1Ld buff would actually really matter, as these Chapters/Legions could grab objectives even from their brethren).

Just something to think about.

That is a great idea. A Squad of (Chaos) Marines should absolutely hold an Objective over 10 Cultists or Grots.

 Yarium wrote:
I doubt we'll see something as inane as "only troops can score objectives". Troops are absolutely being used in the game right now. Generally, most lists that aren't skew-lists are running 6 units of Troops in order to gain Command Points through Battalions. That's a minimum of 30 bodies, sometimes 60 bodies. The quantity of units of Troops is, I feel, exactly where it should be in the game.

HOWEVER, what we aren't seeing are different kids of troops. What do you see? Scouts, Cultists, Guardsmen, Rippers. Thank the Orks that both their troops are cheap, so you do actually often see both Grots and Ork Boyz. Drukhari's weird way of breaking down also means that you see variety in their troops. But yeah, Guardsmen everywhere, even in Xenos armies (looking at you GSC). Maybe there's a change coming that could offer more distinctive levels of troops. Over at Proposed Rules we have a neat discussion going about using either Leadership or Power Level to differentiate troops more; that the Troop with the highest Ld/Power Level is able to hold objectives over Troops with a lower Ld/Power Level. This would make Tacticals, Chaos Space Marines, etc. more useful over the lower tier Troop units, without invalidating the lower tier Troop units. Infantry squads, Rippers, and Grots would all still be great for holding objectives for cheap, and being able to steal objectives from non-Troops, but Tactical Marines or Chaos Space Marines or the like could steal objectives from these units (and the Ultramarine/Black Legion +1Ld buff would actually really matter, as these Chapters/Legions could grab objectives even from their brethren).

Just something to think about.

Right! If problem troops goes up 1pt and units like SM goes down 1pt you might see a shift without changing any rules, 8th needs some rules tweaks for sure, but IMO troops are fine, we already gain good bonuses for taking them, work with the system we have, fix the really bad things and balance it before change core rules to much. Right now its clear its a points imbalance. Why are marines 13pts and Ig is 4pts? +2 save and +1 S/T isnt worth 9pts more when you add the core rules of IG into it vs SM. Its simple math.

Your idea will help a problem that really isnt there, people will still not take Scouts of IG sadly. It is a nice idea tho, i like it, but i dont think it will fix anything.

stormcraft wrote:
Nobody is talking about killing soup, it just should not be rewarded to take the best units from 3 books instead of one, especially because some armys cant soup.

And to link soups and competitive play is BS, competitive play can happen in whatever Ruleset GW set as standard. If you severely nerf souping to the point that mono-list are stronger, all competitive players will tend to play mono.

Dont set yourself on a pedal because you pick the strongest options from 3 books instead of one.


PS: Of course armys who dont have a troop choice should get some kind of exception the keep them functional.

Actually people talk all the time about killing soup. Also saying soup is competetive isn’t BS, it’s factual. The more units you have, the more combinations and strategies become available, the more artistic you can become with an army list, which means the more competetive one can be. It has been this way since 6th edition, either get with the times or play an older edition. GW is 100% not going to make it go anywhere, it’s a big cash cow, it’s why the imperium is one big pot of stuff that can just be munched together into one. They love their models selling, and they are a business first. Sorry man, the truth is the truth
I also never put myself on a “pedal”

You dont understand what im trying to say.

Of course at the moment soup is the most competitive option for most armys, but that doesnt mean you can only play competetive 40k in a souping world.

IF GW changes to rules tomorrow that mono codex Armys get +20CP you bet all hardcore competetive players will swear on playing mono codex armys.

So yea, yit may be more "artistic" to make the hardest combination from 3 books and the range of combinations is bigger and more complex, but that also makes balancing a lot harder for GW and screws those armys that cant soup.

Should you be able to bring your Knights with some Fluffy Guard Ground Support and some Assasins? Sure of course, but you shouldnt get Traits, Stratagems and CP from alle 3 Books to build increasingly unbalanced Combinations.

Its the same as the 7th Edition Deathstar clusterfeth again, just on a bigger scale.