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.

The title of this post is weird, but I'm trying to talk about a lot of things all at once. I wanted to start a discussion about faction identity, force organization and allies as they relate to each other. Note that the ultimate goal of this discussion is to inform the design of a different game, using 40k factions as a test bed for the crunch.

So, I started a ground-up rewrite of 40k again and decided that the thing I was designing was really an entirely different game. The details are really foggy currently and not in a state that I want to present to other people yet. I have shelved some ideas but I still think that porting 40k to my own game system will give me a test bed of sorts to sort my crunch, so I'm going through a couple factions at a time and making some higher-order decisions for how army lists and the like should be formatted and there are a lot of things I am a little foggy on.

For starters, Space Marines have a lot going on this edition with all the new cool Primaris units, plus the usual nonsense where Blood Angels, Dark Angels and wolves have their own codexes for some reason. I think the 30k rules are better for representing a lot of different kinds chapters that use many similar models. This wouldn't be hard to implement in 40k and it might be interesting to design some chapter-specific units and gear for the mainline SM factions too.

Chaos factions have a lot going on too and making that make sense is going to be more work. Daemons and CSM are the same faction in practice, so they could get folded together. And as long as SM are getting streamlined, the 30k treatment for CSM/Daemons/Traitor Guard would be good for them, I think. Chaos Space Marines has a problem where it means to represent too much. So a more robust chapter tactics- type system could be used to represent literal chaos legions, recent chapters that have been turned, non-chaos traitors etc.

I also think AdMech and IK need to be folded into the same faction. Same with Genestealer cults and Tyranids, maybe but I'm less confident on that one.

I Also think combining GK/Deathwatch/ Inquisition/ Assassins/ sisters of battle and sisters of silence into an "Imperial Agents" list would make it easier to handle.

Then, allies can be handled on a unit-to-unit basis where the units themselves have tags or some system that dictates who can take them as allies and who can't. I have some beef with the 8th ed detachment rules. not having allies at all and everyone being forced into the same force organization chart was lame, but the current rules where you just kinda do whatever you want is also weird and lame to me. having force org charts at all makes it feel like you are punishing units just for being the way they are.

A more honest approach would just be not having a force org chart and coming out and saying you can do whatever you want. This would be horrendously unbalanced in 40k for a number of reasons but as long as we are making up our own game we can balance the units that would be badly spammed individually. This is getting out of the scope of the discussion I want to have, but generally speaking, this would have to do with a wide and complex point restructuring where 4-point guardsmen are the baseline and tactical space marines are like 18 points or something. Based on that dynamic (and assuming this game creates an environment where regular boltguns are good enough on their own), we can say things like, "well, in a vacuum, terminators are twice as survivable as tac marines, so that must mean they are worth 36 points."

In general, instead of making things be worth fewer and fewer points and truncating the lower end of the spectrum, the upper end can be stretched out a lot, giving us more gradation to work with. One effect of this is that this would dramatically reduce the model count of games, making a knights-only armies cost a million points, among other things. I don't necessarily think this is a downside but if this isn't considered when point-balancing armies, it can become one. Ideally, a balance could be struck where, for instance, a terminator-only army could be built and be effective but the natural downside of having a low model count army is relevant enough that a more balanced army is a reasonable alternative. Units that represent the "core" of an army would be good enough by virtue of being points-efficient and unspecialized.

So, I'd like to have an open-ended discussion about faction identity, force organization and things that could be done to point-cost more powerful units out of being spammed without making them unnecessarily expensive.

I'll keep an eye on this thread. I will say this-it's currently EXTREMELY vague. So there's not much I can say besides that.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I'll keep an eye on this thread. I will say this-it's currently EXTREMELY vague. So there's not much I can say besides that.

Initially, I was going to make this post about specifically faction identity but then I started writing about force organization and point balance and the scope of the post got away from me. Is there anything specific that you want me to elaborate on? I could into more details if you want but my specific ideas are really disorganized right now, which is why I wanted to discuss higher order design stuff. I wanted organizational advice before I committed more time to porting army lists I don't have any emotional investment in.

Why not just combine all the soups if that's the case?

 Powerfisting wrote:
The title of this post is weird, but I'm trying to talk about a lot of things all at once. I wanted to start a discussion about faction identity, force organization and allies as they relate to each other. Note that the ultimate goal of this discussion is to inform the design of a different game, using 40k factions as a test bed for the crunch.

So, I started a ground-up rewrite of 40k again and decided that the thing I was designing was really an entirely different game. The details are really foggy currently and not in a state that I want to present to other people yet. I have shelved some ideas but I still think that porting 40k to my own game system will give me a test bed of sorts to sort my crunch, so I'm going through a couple factions at a time and making some higher-order decisions for how army lists and the like should be formatted and there are a lot of things I am a little foggy on.

For starters, Space Marines have a lot going on this edition with all the new cool Primaris units, plus the usual nonsense where Blood Angels, Dark Angels and wolves have their own codexes for some reason. I think the 30k rules are better for representing a lot of different kinds chapters that use many similar models. This wouldn't be hard to implement in 40k and it might be interesting to design some chapter-specific units and gear for the mainline SM factions too.

Chaos factions have a lot going on too and making that make sense is going to be more work. Daemons and CSM are the same faction in practice, so they could get folded together. And as long as SM are getting streamlined, the 30k treatment for CSM/Daemons/Traitor Guard would be good for them, I think. Chaos Space Marines has a problem where it means to represent too much. So a more robust chapter tactics- type system could be used to represent literal chaos legions, recent chapters that have been turned, non-chaos traitors etc.

I think the 30k method is really good in theory if you keep some restrictions in mind that prevent some of the more egregious bloat of the reality.

Every army could benefit from some of 30ks design choices.

1) Generic HQs that can specialize ala the Preator.
2) Rites of War. It's less about showing off specific sub factions (though it can) and more about showing off unique battle tactics. Tyranids could have "Skyblight Swarm" Requiring Flying Hive Tyrant or Tyranid Prime with Wings and allowing Gargoyles to be taken as troops as well as their traditional fast attack. What these should NEVER do is grant bonus rules for free. Changing slots in the FA, allowing for new transport options for units that don't normally have them, restricting some choices are all good because they offer no point benefits you don't already pay for in points. The moment you reach further it's a BIG problem.
3) The restricted FOCs. 1 Big one. 1 Allied one. 1 LoW for every 1k points of non LoW units.

I also think AdMech and IK need to be folded into the same faction. Same with Genestealer cults and Tyranids, maybe but I'm less confident on that one.

I think there should be a faction called "Agents of the Imperium" that includes knights, assassins, legion of the damned, and a few other faction generic units that can be taken as part of any other imperium list as long as those units are taken as part of the non-main detachment. Agents of Chaos and other such factions can be created as needed. Genestealer Cults and Nids should NOT be combined. They are each distinct enough to be separate with enough units individually to warrant their own armies.

I Also think combining GK/Deathwatch/ Inquisition/ Assassins/ sisters of battle and sisters of silence into an "Imperial Agents" list would make it easier to handle.

I think GK/DW/Inquisition/Sisters of Battle/and SoS should be a single Inquisition faction.

Then, allies can be handled on a unit-to-unit basis where the units themselves have tags or some system that dictates who can take them as allies and who can't. I have some beef with the 8th ed detachment rules. not having allies at all and everyone being forced into the same force organization chart was lame, but the current rules where you just kinda do whatever you want is also weird and lame to me. having force org charts at all makes it feel like you are punishing units just for being the way they are.

A more honest approach would just be not having a force org chart and coming out and saying you can do whatever you want. This would be horrendously unbalanced in 40k for a number of reasons but as long as we are making up our own game we can balance the units that would be badly spammed individually. This is getting out of the scope of the discussion I want to have, but generally speaking, this would have to do with a wide and complex point restructuring where 4-point guardsmen are the baseline and tactical space marines are like 18 points or something. Based on that dynamic (and assuming this game creates an environment where regular boltguns are good enough on their own), we can say things like, "well, in a vacuum, terminators are twice as survivable as tac marines, so that must mean they are worth 36 points."

In general, instead of making things be worth fewer and fewer points and truncating the lower end of the spectrum, the upper end can be stretched out a lot, giving us more gradation to work with. One effect of this is that this would dramatically reduce the model count of games, making a knights-only armies cost a million points, among other things. I don't necessarily think this is a downside but if this isn't considered when point-balancing armies, it can become one. Ideally, a balance could be struck where, for instance, a terminator-only army could be built and be effective but the natural downside of having a low model count army is relevant enough that a more balanced army is a reasonable alternative. Units that represent the "core" of an army would be good enough by virtue of being points-efficient and unspecialized.

So, I'd like to have an open-ended discussion about faction identity, force organization and things that could be done to point-cost more powerful units out of being spammed without making them unnecessarily expensive.

I disagree with your assessment of point costs. For starters, survivability is worthless if they don't have agency on the field. The most survivable thing in the world is worthless if it can't kill anything. The killiest glass canon has great value for it's kilability. GW over values survivability. Don't make the same mistake. Secondly, a restricted FoC makes for interesting design space. As I bought up with RoW you can do neat things with them. If everything is just open then anyone can just take tons of marine bikers. But White Scars should really be the ones with the RoW that allows for that to give them their unique flavor. Finally, there is no such thing as costing a unit out of being spammed with linear point costs. Look at 7th ed flyrants. They were one of the only good units nids had so the most competitive lists involved bringing as many of them as possible. If they got so expensive that they were not worth their points people would stop taking them all together. To prevent spam you either need 1) incentives to bring varied units (distinct roles and uses with a need to diversify to deal with many threats) or 2) a non linear point costs such as an escalating one. Each copy unit after the first becomes more expensive then the last. Thus you COULD bring 3 units of x, but it's not cost effective to do so.

 Lance845 wrote:


I think the 30k method is really good in theory if you keep some restrictions in mind that prevent some of the more egregious bloat of the reality.

Every army could benefit from some of 30ks design choices.

1) Generic HQs that can specialize ala the Preator.
2) Rites of War. It's less about showing off specific sub factions (though it can) and more about showing off unique battle tactics. Tyranids could have "Skyblight Swarm" Requiring Flying Hive Tyrant or Tyranid Prime with Wings and allowing Gargoyles to be taken as troops as well as their traditional fast attack. What these should NEVER do is grant bonus rules for free. Changing slots in the FA, allowing for new transport options for units that don't normally have them, restricting some choices are all good because they offer no point benefits you don't already pay for in points. The moment you reach further it's a BIG problem.
3) The restricted FOCs. 1 Big one. 1 Allied one. 1 LoW for every 1k points of non LoW units.

That's conceptually really cool with lots of potential for flavor. The tricky part is keeping the fluffy list from also being too good. 7th edition scatter bike armies were arguably perfectly fluffy (why wouldn't Saim-Hann, the craftworld where everyone bikes to work, load up on powerful long-ranged weapons in the centuries they spend between battles and then unload on the enemy from a distance with tons of lasers mounted on their bikes?) RoW for Saim-Hann should probably allow bikes as "troops," but what do you do when said bikes also happen to be the most points efficient offense in the codex?

To prevent spam you either need 1) incentives to bring varied units (distinct roles and uses with a need to diversify to deal with many threats) or 2) a non linear point costs such as an escalating one. Each copy unit after the first becomes more expensive then the last. Thus you COULD bring 3 units of x, but it's not cost effective to do so.

Excellent points. To play devil's advocate...

a.) Spam isn't inherently a bad thing though. If I showed up with an army consisting of nothing but dire avengers or incubi (i.e. not a terribly potent force), you'd probably go, "Cool theme army, bro." If my army was nothing than those aforementioned scatbikes (assuming they were scary good again), you'd have a problem. If my army was nothing but super durable wave serpents, I'd basically invalidate your small arms fire thus causing a problem.

b.) You can arguably create incentives for unit diversity not just through types of killing power but by rewarding a variety of non-offensive roles being filled. So my rangers might not be as killy as my scat bikes, but maybe they're a lot harder to shift off of an objective. Those hive tyrants might be the best unit in the 'nid 'dex, but they'll need some rippers grabbing objectives or some lictors silencing the backline guns to win the game.

c.) So I guess what I'm saying is that eschewing a force org chart entirely seems like it should work. The trick is making sure every unit in the codex has a role that it can accomplish points-effectively. It's already kind of arbitrary that a riptide is an elite instead of a heavy support or that shadow spectres are elites instead of fast attacks or that grey knight terminators are troops while other terminators are elites. If a white scars army with its very fluffy bike spam is considered a valid army (which in your system would receive the benefits of a RoW), then why wouldn't a dreadnaught spam army reflecting someone's dreadnaught-heavy chapter also be valid? RoW are cool, but they're also sort of a short list of "valid" sub factions.

a) I am not opposed to spamming units per se. The OP is and wanted to find a way to do it by increasing the base cost of the units that get spamed. I was only pointing out that you cannot do that.It doesn't work. And then presented 2 methods in which you could prevent spam if that was your goal.

b) Its hard to justify anything but kill power having much value when any other side benefit is mission dependent. Killing is always needed. Sitting on an objective is only sometimes needed.

c) See my response to a.

 Powerfisting wrote:
The details are really foggy currently and not in a state that I want to present to other people yet. I have shelved some ideas but I still think that porting 40k to my own game system will give me a test bed of sorts to sort my crunch, so I'm going through a couple factions at a time and making some higher-order decisions for how army lists and the like should be formatted and there are a lot of things I am a little foggy on.

I think you kinda have the cart in front of the horse, so to speak. You can't really plan up army building before you have a solid idea how the armies themselves will look like. Say, if you are thinking about unit rebalancing too then you can throw any preconcept like the Loyal 32 or X Spam straight out of the window because those things might become unviable regardless of army building options.

So I would advise you to first think about the armies. Work out what units you want to include, what roles those units should fulfill and what their place should be in a typical game, and group the various units across the factions as per their roles. Then you will see each component clearly and can think about how to organize them into a real army.

 Lance845 wrote:
a) I am not opposed to spamming units per se. The OP is and wanted to find a way to do it by increasing the base cost of the units that get spamed. I was only pointing out that you cannot do that.It doesn't work. And then presented 2 methods in which you could prevent spam if that was your goal.

b) Its hard to justify anything but kill power having much value when any other side benefit is mission dependent. Killing is always needed. Sitting on an objective is only sometimes needed.

c) See my response to a.

Fair.

I'm a bit of 8th fanboy so keep that in mind, 8th is everything I dreamed about, I was designing an 8th edition rulebook when the rulebook came out and it was basically everything me and the group had been working on. I don't like how cover and chapter tactics work this edition and there are obviously some balance issues, but having written a dozen codices I can tell you that you will make balance mistakes as well and without a dedicated testing group your game will be less balanced than what GW is putting out, although not being answerable to a marketing department does make balancing easier in some ways.

I don't see what's wrong with the Dark Angels or Blood Angels Codices. That's the easiest way to do an army with so many unique units IMO, the SM faction is already huge and both Dark and Blood Angels have a number of child chapters they need to represent as well. Daemons and CSM are not the same faction, some CSM warbands and legions use lots of Daemonic allies, others none. You also have to consider the size of the books. I agree Grey Knights and Adeptus Custodes should have been part of larger armies, although not necessarily the same one. I don't feel like the Indexes represented my army or the armies of my opponents in-depth enough, which if I understand, is essentially what you are advocating for reverting to, I think this is a bad idea.

How can the Praetor specialize any further than a modern 40k Warlord? From what I read about him he rolls two Warlord traits and discards the worst, you just select one now, making it easier to specialize with your WL, whether you need him to stay alive and provide buffs, go out and kill stuff, or provide buffs or CP for your forces, you pick what fits the role you need your WL to do. Certain factions also get access to additional WL traits for other characters through Stratagems, I love these Stratagems and I wish all factions had them, because it would allow for more customization, but we also get that option with taking Relics. Rites of War are basically Specialist Detachments, we just don't have a lot of them yet, Chapter Tactics also does provide some of that, although I'd argue in a bad way (because it's free). Themed lists are fine, but I think the rule of 3 is amazing and I was playing with rule of 2 before they officially implemented rule of 3 and then I settled. I also think that it's great we can have a few different themes going on, so you can have 2-3 "rites of war" if you will, instead of just fielding one thing. It becomes part of the Ultramarines Second Company supported by part of the Ultramarines first company instead of trying to fit an entire company into a 2k game like GW did in 7th, something I think was a mistake. A Tactical Marine Specialist Detachment would be wonderful I think, but that's not really relevant to this topic.

I don't want to see 6 units of Incubi on the table, OP or UP. I think varied lists are much more fun, I don't like seeing 5 Rhinos and 8 Squads of Berzerkers and 2 copies of the same two Characters, I want to see a Kytan or a Defiler in there, maybe some Bloodcrushers. Or to use your example, put in three different HQs, some Raiders and Wave Serpents and you've got a nice army with some variety, anything less than 7 Datasheets is too little IMO. Aura abilities that only affect a small number of units or affect them disproportionately make people spam units. Guilliman promotes spamming low-S units because he makes up for it by allowing units within 6" to re-roll all failed wound rolls, while rules that allow you to re-roll 1s affect everyone the same, everyone gets 17% more damage, while Guilliman improves damage 17-83% depending on what you need to roll to wound. I think the best place to tackle the issues of people fielding more than three copies of a unit is to have missions that benefit people having varied lists and army composition rules that makes it impossible or inefficient to field hyper skew lists, I think the Brigade which forces you to really spread out and take a lot of different things is amazing at doing this, facing an AM Brigade is much more fun than facing 6 Leman Russes, 4 Commanders and 6 Infantry Squads. I would prefer if Battalions required an Elites, Fast Attack and Heavy Support choice, especially because they grant so much CP currently.

I field lists with 6 and 7 Datasheets all the time myself, I feel like I get away with it more elegantly because I play Necrons and they better than most with a more monotone army, but it's not something I enjoy overmuch playing against. Now that I'm thinking about it I might actually change up one of my 6 Datasheet lists to an 8 Datasheet list, it was kind of a lazy creation to try and spam a unit and see what happened, but it is kind of monotone.

Stratagems also support varied lists, the Necron Stratagem Extermination Protocols can make a unit of Destroyers scary good at shooting, the key here is A SINGLE unit of Destroyers, so you find a single unit of Destroyers in a decent chunk of lists, but two units is rare and 3 units even rarer than that. Finding a balance between Stratagems that promote taking a single unit and the unit not being horrible on themselves you allow people to take 0, 1 or 3 depending on what they feel like, even if you could, I doubt anyone would take 6 units of Destroyers because so much of their power lies in that one Stratagem. You see the same thing with Tyranids or CSM and their shoot twice Stratagems promoting taking at least one unit that benefits from these OP Stratagems or Knights and Rotate Ion Shields, their Relics and WL traits, which is why many people brought a Castellan as their only Knight, if you rotate on your Crusader, you cannot rotate on your Castellan and vice versa and if you wanted 2 Relics and 2 WL traits you'd pay 6 CP instead of 2 CP if you just took one of each.

I think the problem of Knight spam is a problem of pts and CP rewards for their Detachments rather than overall rules design, otherwise, we'd see Necron, Tyranids and Tau Titanic units as much as we see Knights. How much freedom do you want? How willing are you to accept that games may be decided before they have begun? How much impact do you want the skill levels of players to affect the game, how about luck? I don't want Warhammer to be chess, everyone has the same starting pieces, the only luck involved is who goes first, the rest is all skill. But I don't want it to be rock, paper, scissors either, where what "unit" you pick determines the outcome of the match 100%, where the only skill is in knowing which choice is more popular in general and by your opponent in particular and where luck determines what your opponent picks. Nailing exactly where you want to be on these three axies will help you determine what kind of game to make. Do you want complex mechanics like wound allocation, taking captives. Do you want AI mechanics to make player skill less important? Pile in and consolidation moves being in any direction as long as you end closer, or direction toward the closest possible point you model can land and you have to do so with every model every time the unit fights. Your unit cannot shoot something behind an enemy unit unless it passes a morale test.

CP should be generated from kills and from holding objectives. Infantry units must have special bonuses for holding objectives so you have to dislodge them with your own infantry units. Every class of unit has to have a purpose. Armies should have a REASON for taking a bit of everything and having balance.
Here’s some brainstorming I did. Imagine how this would change the game and force army lists to change and be more inclusive of true combined arms. People would start bringing troops. Heavy infantry. Light vehicles. Tanks. Air defenses. Etc. it wouldn’t be spam lists because each unit would serve a specific purpose and you couldn’t just spam one thing and win

Keywords

Light Infantry - guardians, guardsman. T3 units (saves on D6)
-2 to hit while in cover
-1 to hit from Light vehicle weapons
-2 to hit from heavy weapons

Heavy infantry - T4 and T5 (space marine power armor)
+1 to hit from anti personnel weapons
+1 to save from anti personnel weapons
-1 to hit while in cover
-1 to hit from heavy weapons

Light vehicles / Open topped T6
+1 to hit from anti personnel weapons
+1 to save from anti personnel weapons
-1 to hit from Heavy weapons

Weapon classes
Anti personnel- Bolters. Shuriken. S3/4
Special weapons - flamers. Melta. Plasma rifle
Anti light vehicle / Heavy infantry - scatter lasers. Heavy bolter S5/6
Heavy (anti tank) - lascannon. Missile launcher. Multi Melta. S7/8/9


Artillery/Indirect fire - these weapons are designed to pummel buildings and destroy troop formations. They ignore cover saves for infantry. (Whirl winds, night spinner, earth shaker artillery)

Air defenses - Air defense units may choose to not shoot during their turn and go into overwatch. Any enemy air craft entering their firing range during the opponents movement phase may then be fired upon on that opponents turn

warpedpig wrote:
CP should be generated from kills and from holding objectives. Infantry units must have special bonuses for holding objectives so you have to dislodge them with your own infantry units. Every class of unit has to have a purpose. Armies should have a REASON for taking a bit of everything and having balance.
Here’s some brainstorming I did. Imagine how this would change the game and force army lists to change and be more inclusive of true combined arms. People would start bringing troops. Heavy infantry. Light vehicles. Tanks. Air defenses. Etc. it wouldn’t be spam lists because each unit would serve a specific purpose and you couldn’t just spam one thing and win

Keywords

Light Infantry - guardians, guardsman. T3 units (saves on D6)
-2 to hit while in cover
-1 to hit from Light vehicle weapons
-2 to hit from heavy weapons

Heavy infantry - T4 and T5 (space marine power armor)
+1 to hit from anti personnel weapons
+1 to save from anti personnel weapons
-1 to hit while in cover
-1 to hit from heavy weapons

Light vehicles / Open topped T6
+1 to hit from anti personnel weapons
+1 to save from anti personnel weapons
-1 to hit from Heavy weapons

Weapon classes
Anti personnel- Bolters. Shuriken. S3/4
Special weapons - flamers. Melta. Plasma rifle
Anti light vehicle / Heavy infantry - scatter lasers. Heavy bolter S5/6
Heavy (anti tank) - lascannon. Missile launcher. Multi Melta. S7/8/9


Artillery/Indirect fire - these weapons are designed to pummel buildings and destroy troop formations. They ignore cover saves for infantry. (Whirl winds, night spinner, earth shaker artillery)

Air defenses - Air defense units may choose to not shoot during their turn and go into overwatch. Any enemy air craft entering their firing range during the opponents movement phase may then be fired upon on that opponents turn

Conceptually cool, but my gut reaction is that this would make certain units/armies basically non-interactive with each other. Fire warriors and guardsmen in a vacuum would only hit each other with 1 in every 6 shots. Heavy weapons would be completely unable to to touch them. It's a similar problem to the one we had with flyers and imperial knights last edition (and to a lesser degree this edition); you create a set of options that are functionally immune to many of the other options in the game.

I would worry that, rather than encouraging diverse list design, this might just result in a weird sort of list building rock paper scissors. If I can field nothing but light infantry, for instance, and field enough anti-vehicle and anti-infantry guns to clear out the majority of your most threatening light infantry killers, then I can render the majority of my army basically immune to the remainder of yours.

I'm also not a big fan of generating CP based on kills and objectives. Currently, an army like Death Guard can generally bully me off of the objectives for the first few turns of the game. My drukhari and harlequins are notoriously bad about giving up kill points (I don't play bike stars). Normally, my approach to something like Death Guard would be to keep my distance in the early game, try to clear the space or kill the key units I need to kill, and then start asserting more board control in the late game as they're whittled down. I worry that giving those DG extra CP for having stronger early game board presence and for killing my squishy army's squishy units would allow them to snowball.

this Is just a rough idea now but basically infantry and assault troops like space marines and what not would be able to easily engage each other. There wouldn’t be negative modifiers for them in urban combat situations. Hey can shoot or frag each other. And artillery or tanks equipped with flame throwers or other anti infantry weapons would still be effective against “in cover” infantry. It would be extremely effective. It wouldn’t be completely Rock Paper Scissors. But you would definitely want to use the right unit for the right job. And if you ever went too heavy in any area you would be exposed. Like if you had a bunch of flame tanks. Well now the enemy tank killing tanks will wipe you off the map and you can’t hurt them back. Light infantry can kill heavy infantry it’s just a bit harder. And heavy infantry won’t die so easily to light infantry anymore but they are more easy to kill with medium or heavy weapons than light infantry are.