Switch Theme:

How should troops be incentivised?  [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 gb
Crazed Spirit of the Defiler




Newcastle

For years the force org chart required a minimum of two troop choices. They got no special buffs, they were just mandatory. IIRC, in one edition only troops could hold objectives. Then formations came in and it was possible to build armies without any troops, but you gained more CP by using detachments with troops in them. Troops also had objective secured. Now you lose fewer CP's by taking detachments with troops. So GW wants us to use troops, and to me it makes sense that an army should contain a big proportion of basic infantry and not be mostly specialists and vehicles. It seems fluffier, in most cases.

Should troops be incentivised further? I've often thought it would be good to see them be deliberately more cost efficient than other units so they're no longer seen as a tax but something good to have in your army. The downside is it might result in a horde meta, slowing down play and clogging up tables. What about, instead, getting cheaper access to stratagems, or more strategems unique to troops that are deliberately overpowered?

It's never sat well with me that troop units are often just chaff on the table but we're penalised for not having them, often resulting in minimum sized units of the cheapest troops available. Would it be good for the game/hobby to encourage more basic line infantry, and if so, how should that be achieved?

Hydra Dominatus 
   
Made in ca
Infiltrating Broodlord





Toronto, Ontario

Just go back to only troops scoring. Problem solved. It'll never happen though, the genie is out of the bottle.
   
Made in de
Regular Dakkanaut




 creeping-deth87 wrote:
Just go back to only troops scoring. Problem solved. It'll never happen though, the genie is out of the bottle.

I would rather see troops becoming more interesting to have them on the field. Even if only they could score, it would not be fun to have them around. Make them usable in their respective field (shooty, CC or both), give them an interesting use / ability / gear.
   
Made in us
Rampaging Reaver Titan Princeps




 creeping-deth87 wrote:
Just go back to only troops scoring. Problem solved. It'll never happen though, the genie is out of the bottle.

That'd be really terrible at this point, one GW happily recognizes, since they're adding more ways to manipulate Objective Secured or grant it to more units.

Consider that marines are rocking all of the following: T5 3W troops and T4 2W troops that infiltrate and a deep strike transport (which can have assault troops, multi-shot assault weapon troops, etc, etc). 'Only troops score' would be absolutely obscene in the current reality.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/10/16 22:32:28


Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




You have to make them actually flexible and offensively worth taking. Look at Scions, Battle Sisters, Intecessors, and (at least to me with Raiders) Kabalites. None of the entries are perfect, obviously. However they're in the end Troops that hold objectives and contribute killing power to the rest of the army.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in ca
Legendary Master of the Chapter





Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You have to make them actually flexible and offensively worth taking. Look at Scions, Battle Sisters, Intecessors, and (at least to me with Raiders) Kabalites. None of the entries are perfect, obviously. However they're in the end Troops that hold objectives and contribute killing power to the rest of the army.


^

This. the armies with GOOD troops are taking them. because they can contribute. it's more the armies whose troops are "pretty much useless" where this is an issue.

I suppose the big question here is what armies aren't taking troops? and why?

Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

Do you want to make troops more popular? Make them actually good. Ork boyz, new necron warriors, intercessors, when troops are good people uses them. Just like that.

I'm a troop guy. I love my troopers and to customize each single one. I love the simplicity of troops, doing their job without extremely complicated or special rules, just by pure stats and bodies. So I always use a ton of them.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/16 23:28:54


 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

a_typical_hero wrote:
 creeping-deth87 wrote:
Just go back to only troops scoring. Problem solved. It'll never happen though, the genie is out of the bottle.

I would rather see troops becoming more interesting to have them on the field. Even if only they could score, it would not be fun to have them around. Make them usable in their respective field (shooty, CC or both), give them an interesting use / ability / gear.

The whole point of basic troops is that they are basic. They don't need special rules, just competitive pricing.


 
   
Made in us
Ancient Chaos Terminator




The dark hollows of Kentucky

BrianDavion wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You have to make them actually flexible and offensively worth taking. Look at Scions, Battle Sisters, Intecessors, and (at least to me with Raiders) Kabalites. None of the entries are perfect, obviously. However they're in the end Troops that hold objectives and contribute killing power to the rest of the army.


^

This. the armies with GOOD troops are taking them. because they can contribute. it's more the armies whose troops are "pretty much useless" where this is an issue.

I suppose the big question here is what armies aren't taking troops? and why?

Agreed as well. If you want players to take more troops then they need to actually feel like they're contributing to the army. The reason it's called a "troops tax" is because that's how many factions troops feel like. They're something you take because you have to. That's why you see players taking the absolute minimum they have to, or the cheapest option (cultists instead of csm), or both. Troops like those that Slayer mentioned don't feel like a tax because they actually contribute something besides filling FOC slots and dieing.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/16 23:44:18


 
   
Made in gb
Chalice-Wielding Sanguinary High Priest





Stevenage, UK

I feel like the introduction of the Core mechanic could be a good way to achieve this (along with fixing Troops units that are, frankly, a bit rubbish). However, that's only going to be the case if the Core keyword isn't given out willy-nilly like it has been in the Marine Codex.

"Hard pressed on my right. My centre is yielding. Impossible to manoeuvre. Situation excellent. I am attacking." - General Ferdinand Foch  
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 Gadzilla666 wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You have to make them actually flexible and offensively worth taking. Look at Scions, Battle Sisters, Intecessors, and (at least to me with Raiders) Kabalites. None of the entries are perfect, obviously. However they're in the end Troops that hold objectives and contribute killing power to the rest of the army.


^

This. the armies with GOOD troops are taking them. because they can contribute. it's more the armies whose troops are "pretty much useless" where this is an issue.

I suppose the big question here is what armies aren't taking troops? and why?

Agreed as well. If you want players to take more troops then they need to actually feel like they're contributing to the army. The reason it's called a "troops tax" is because that's how many factions troops feel like. They're something you take because you have to. That's why you see players taking the absolute minimum they have to, or the cheapest option (cultists instead of csm), or both. Troops like those that Slayer mentioned don't feel like a tax because they actually contribute something besides filling FOC slots and dieing.

The troops are either good at contributing or an extreme meat shield basically. In order to be a meat shield though you need to be cheap.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in gb
Executing Exarch






The problem is not all troops are created equal. There is a world of difference between a T5 3W 3+ troop with a 40" gun a T3 1W troop with a 24" gun... One is worth 3/4x better than the other.. so... Watcha gunna do..

I would like to see a shift from "Troop" to "infantry" being able to ob sec/scrore VP. Every faction has some "infantry" that's good. But not every faction has "troops" that are good. (most don't..)

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/772746.page#10378083 - My progress/failblog painting blog thingy

Eldar- 4436 pts


AngryAngel80 wrote:
I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Argive wrote:
The problem is not all troops are created equal. There is a world of difference between a T5 3W 3+ troop with a 40" gun a T3 1W troop with a 24" gun... One is worth 3/4x better than the other.. so... Watcha gunna do..

I would like to see a shift from "Troop" to "infantry" being able to ob sec/scrore VP. Every faction has some "infantry" that's good. But not every faction has "troops" that are good. (most don't..)


I kind of like the idea of an objective being held by points value.

Who cares if a single grot is left on an objective when theirs a fething Leman Russ there as well. I'd argue that the objective is NOT secured

If at first you don't succeed then Sky Diving isn't for you. 
   
Made in us
Preacher of the Emperor




Tacoma, WA, USA

The only key to making troops useful without being too good is to carefully leverage their abilities and points. Objective Secured give them a strong ability, as long as they are not useless beyond that. The new points value system gives GW an option to slightly leverage the points value of troops, even if they haven't used it yet. A slight points decrease on upgrades to troops compared to speciality units can increase their abilities without displacing the other options.

For example, if special/heavy weapons on Space Marine troops were just a hair cheaper than on units like Assault Marines or Devastators, it makes those units more compelling beyond the 3x5 no upgrade version of the unit.
   
Made in us
Chaos Space Marine dedicated to Slaanesh






Force org or a % composition.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 Fluid_Fox wrote:
Force org or a % composition.

Which is once again only incentivizing troops if they're good to begin with.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in nl
Virulent Space Marine dedicated to Nurgle





I'd like something like the old WHFB system were x% of your force needed to be troops of some kind, a smaller percentage could be specialists and an even smaller percentage could be (lore wise) rare units. But as noted above that would only be fair if we give everyone actual worthwhile troops to field. Or give those with fluffwise lesser troops proportionally better special/rare units but to be honest I don't trust GW to handle that well.
   
Made in ca
Legendary Master of the Chapter





Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You have to make them actually flexible and offensively worth taking. Look at Scions, Battle Sisters, Intecessors, and (at least to me with Raiders) Kabalites. None of the entries are perfect, obviously. However they're in the end Troops that hold objectives and contribute killing power to the rest of the army.


^

This. the armies with GOOD troops are taking them. because they can contribute. it's more the armies whose troops are "pretty much useless" where this is an issue.

I suppose the big question here is what armies aren't taking troops? and why?

Agreed as well. If you want players to take more troops then they need to actually feel like they're contributing to the army. The reason it's called a "troops tax" is because that's how many factions troops feel like. They're something you take because you have to. That's why you see players taking the absolute minimum they have to, or the cheapest option (cultists instead of csm), or both. Troops like those that Slayer mentioned don't feel like a tax because they actually contribute something besides filling FOC slots and dieing.

The troops are either good at contributing or an extreme meat shield basically. In order to be a meat shield though you need to be cheap.


I expect the handfull of elite armies with a meatshield troops option will be given ample incentive to not do so. I'd be VERY suprised, if cultists, for example had <core>

Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in us
Terrifying Rhinox Rider




Argive wrote:
I would like to see a shift from "Troop" to "infantry.” Every faction has some "infantry" that's good. (most don't..)


Yup

1. Infantry, not troops. Biker troops, wartrakk and armiger troops eg have always had a different popularity than infantry troops.

2. Infantry should true overwatch. Every shooting phase the infantry from both players gets to charge or shoot. They’re still crappy infantry weapons, mostly, they’re not demolisher cannons. Casualties can get removed at the end of the phase.



insaniak wrote:
a_typical_hero wrote:
[
I would rather see troops becoming more interesting to have them on the field. Even if only they could score, it would not be fun to have them around. Make them usable in their respective field (shooty, CC or both), give them an interesting use / ability / gear.

The whole point of basic troops is that they are basic. They don't need special rules, just competitive pricing.


Yes, something basic right in the main rules of the game. Troops are there to be bodies, boots on the ground. They block the opponent’s movement. They don’t get rerolls or deep strikes that are different in every army. They have the same thing as elite infantry just fewer rules, the same thing as fast attack just less speed. They come in rifle guy, or pistol guy.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:However they're in the end Troops that hold objectives and contribute killing power to the rest of the army.


Yeah
   
Made in us
Ancient Chaos Terminator




The dark hollows of Kentucky

BrianDavion wrote:
Spoiler:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You have to make them actually flexible and offensively worth taking. Look at Scions, Battle Sisters, Intecessors, and (at least to me with Raiders) Kabalites. None of the entries are perfect, obviously. However they're in the end Troops that hold objectives and contribute killing power to the rest of the army.


^

This. the armies with GOOD troops are taking them. because they can contribute. it's more the armies whose troops are "pretty much useless" where this is an issue.

I suppose the big question here is what armies aren't taking troops? and why?

Agreed as well. If you want players to take more troops then they need to actually feel like they're contributing to the army. The reason it's called a "troops tax" is because that's how many factions troops feel like. They're something you take because you have to. That's why you see players taking the absolute minimum they have to, or the cheapest option (cultists instead of csm), or both. Troops like those that Slayer mentioned don't feel like a tax because they actually contribute something besides filling FOC slots and dieing.

The troops are either good at contributing or an extreme meat shield basically. In order to be a meat shield though you need to be cheap.


I expect the handfull of elite armies with a meatshield troops option will be given ample incentive to not do so. I'd be VERY suprised, if cultists, for example had <core>

I doubt cultists will be <core> as well. But that doesn't really fix the problem. Even with the additional wound csm will still lag behind loyalists and all their special rules. Csm need another troops option to represent the true veterans of the long war. The mono-god legions have their cult troops, give the Undivided Legions Chosen as a troops choice. And yeah, I know I'm a broken record on that.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





The whole point of basic troops is that they are basic. They don't need special rules, just competitive pricing.



I think there is room for both. The cheap guardsman or cultist is just there to plop on a point at the beginning of the game. Things like nurglings add a some extra tactical options to the game. Just because they are troops doesn't mean they have to be bland.
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon





No, if your thing is infantry, good for you, but don't force organization based on your preferences and idea what an army should look like.
If I want to play a Ravenwing bike army, I'm already penalized in the CP system, don't need to pile it on more.

Just make sure that troop choices are actually good, simple as.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Indiana

Troops are incentivized via the force org chart and objective secured. They should just make it so troops are solid for their points rather than try to force more troops beyond what has already been listed above.

People who stopped buying GW but wont stop bitching about it are the vegans of warhammer

My Deathwatch army project thread  
   
Made in nl
Virulent Space Marine dedicated to Nurgle





 bullyboy wrote:
No, if your thing is infantry, good for you, but don't force organization based on your preferences and idea what an army should look like.
If I want to play a Ravenwing bike army, I'm already penalized in the CP system, don't need to pile it on more.

Just make sure that troop choices are actually good, simple as.


In an ideal world White Scars/Ravenwing would get rules to let them take said bikers as troops and still be fluffy. GW seems to think CORE is a way to get more fluff-friendly forces on the field, might as well go all the way.
   
Made in us
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran





 Castozor wrote:
 bullyboy wrote:
No, if your thing is infantry, good for you, but don't force organization based on your preferences and idea what an army should look like.
If I want to play a Ravenwing bike army, I'm already penalized in the CP system, don't need to pile it on more.

Just make sure that troop choices are actually good, simple as.


In an ideal world White Scars/Ravenwing would get rules to let them take said bikers as troops and still be fluffy. GW seems to think CORE is a way to get more fluff-friendly forces on the field, might as well go all the way.


And Deathwing, and Wild Riders. Theoretically White Scars are fluffy with Rhino Rush and bikers and get their ObSec from infantry in the "Rhinos" whatever those Rhinos are.

Personally I think a few things need to happen.

ObSec should be all infantry. This coivers Elite Infantry who have somehow forgottedn how to secure an objective by becoming an elite version of... the objective securing infantry. Terminators, Elite Intercessors, various Orks, etc.

Some subfactions should get Ob Sec bikes.

Controlling an objective should be Type First, Points Second. i.e. Infantry control an objective over a Monster/tank, over an aircraft (which never should unless it's got and is using a hover mode) etc.and when two of the same type contest, it goes to points value of the unit(s) not model count.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/17 04:25:41


My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in fr
Longtime Dakkanaut






Give infantry units in terrain, especially building and wrecked buildings, a special save vs non blast or assault weapons. It can be hard to pick infantry out of hard cover without weapons that are area effect or very fast firing.

Maybe infantry in buildings get a fnp save vs non blast or rapid fire weapons.

This would not stack with an existing fnp save, and make things like grenades and frag missiles, flamers, etc, far batter at getting infantry out of hard cover that normal fire would be.

I'm thinking of Blaine's line in predator, where he couldn't get that one enemy in cover.

"Sumb---h is dug in like an al uh bam uh tick!"

His little buddy launches a grenade and asked him "Got time to duck?" and blows the "tick" to bits, cover not withstanding.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/17 04:59:54


I've never watched a whole episode of Firefly. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Or each model has a value for capturing objectives rather than sheer models. An Autarch bravely holding an objective from 4 or so Gaunts should be a lot more valuable than the Gaunts themselves. However FOC says no.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran





Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Or each model has a value for capturing objectives rather than sheer models. An Autarch bravely holding an objective from 4 or so Gaunts should be a lot more valuable than the Gaunts themselves. However FOC says no.


If you had said Exarch I might agree with you. To use an extreme example, I'd say a grot should secure over Guilliman/Morty/Magnus. They're too busy running an entire planet to pay attention to one objective and a little ole grot. I realize that contradicts the Infantry/Monster thing I've been saying, but I forgot to say I'd exclude HQ's. The reason tanks shouldn't be as good at securing is the same reason HQ's shouldn't. They're pulled in other directions too often to sit around and stand guard.

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in us
Kovnik





washington state USA

Well since i still play 5th editon i still use the old FOC. the best way to improve the desire to bring basic troopers is to make them worth taking.

30K fixed this for marines giving you great basic troop options (without getting into legion specific units)
.bolter squads-cheep and large 20 man anti-infantry bolter squads
.fire support squads-10 man tac squads all equipped with a (same) special weapon
.assault squads-up to 20 jump marines
.drop pod & rhinos-not taken as dedicated transports become stand alone troop choices

I also thing OBSEC was a great rule-everything could score objectives but troops choices could take it away from any non troop units.


A fine example of one of the best troop units i love is cataphron breachers for the mechanicus. they are a bit spendy on points for guard level shooting but they carry a good gun, a good close combat weapon and are pretty resiliant. in fact i have 6 X6 man squads of them in my epic army (would have done 9s but i didn't have large enough bases in my sockpile).

 
   
Made in ca
Legendary Master of the Chapter





 Castozor wrote:
 bullyboy wrote:
No, if your thing is infantry, good for you, but don't force organization based on your preferences and idea what an army should look like.
If I want to play a Ravenwing bike army, I'm already penalized in the CP system, don't need to pile it on more.

Just make sure that troop choices are actually good, simple as.


In an ideal world White Scars/Ravenwing would get rules to let them take said bikers as troops and still be fluffy. GW seems to think CORE is a way to get more fluff-friendly forces on the field, might as well go all the way.


nah Bikes as troops wth Obsec honestly don't make any sense. I mean.. can you picture a dude on a bike digging in and holding an objective?

Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: