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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/12 17:39:53
Subject: Changing how armies are fielded - Altering detachments and formations
|
 |
Shas'la with Pulse Carbine
|
First a list of caveats that I think would generally improve the game and add balance.
Caveat 1 - Troops can never move more than 6" in the movement phase. That being said any troop units that move more than 6" are moved to fast attack.
Caveat 2 - All armies must have an HQ Choice - meaning Harlequins move their 3 IC elites to HQ slot, Admech gets combined into 1 dex and TPD becomes HQ along with what ever else makes sense.
Caveat 3 - Remove Unbound entirely along with CAD and detachments as they are now.
Caveat 4 - Remove Alliance system - everyone is considered allies of convenience
Caveat 5 - You cannot play a game solely using an army consisting of formations - you must always have a force list.
Caveat 6 - All units/models game wide would need a point reduction/increase that takes into account lethality, survivability, movement, special abilities and versatility
Caveat 7 - All units, game wide, always have specific USR's applied to them, that are based on what classification of unit they are. Any special rules that add flavour can be purchased at additional cost.
Example
- All troops have Night Vision, Move through cover and scout
- All elites have Relentless, Outflank, Acute Senses, FNP
- Fast have Hit and Run, Fleet, Outflank, Acute Senses, Jink
- Heavy have Slow & Purposeful, Split fire, Night Vision, Monster Hunter, Tank Hunter
Now, how about this for how army lists are made. Points are still in effect here. Squadrons are also still available.
Force List - The new CAD
Your army must consist of 1 HQ and 1 troop choice. Can optionally take 1 Fast attack, 1 elite and 1 heavy support. LOW locked until later.
You may add up to 8 additional troop choices. The following table indicates how many units from each category can be taken based on how many troop units are in the list. T = Troops, F = Fast, E = Elite, H = Heavy, Q = HQ, L = LOW, FORM = Formation (number of formations allowed to take)
T-F-E-H-Q-L-FORM
1-1-1-1-1-0-1
2-2-1-1-2-0-1
3-2-2-1-2-0-2
4-3-2-2-3-0-2
5-3-3-3-3-1-3
6-4-3-3-3-1-3
7-4-4-4-4-1-3
8-5-5-4-4-1-4
9-5-5-5-4-2-4
Eldar list would now require at least 1 hq, 4 guardian/DA/ranger squads to take 3 scatterbike squads as they are now Fast attack choices.
Tau lists could cheese out on this because a Farsight enclaves list could take individual naked Crisis suits for really cheap to meet the troop requirements.
However, this could lead to more balance in-game as everyone is forced to take troop options and not min troops max/heavy hitters.
Detachment bonuses could work under this system where certain detachment bonuses are applied if a force list in configured a certain way.
Formations are only allowed as per the list above and do not need to adhere Force List rules.
Giving standard USR's to various unit classes think also serves to buff some bad units as well as forces some super units to get more expensive because they have to pay extra if they want special abilities.
Let me know what you think?
|
9000
8000
Knights / Assassins 800 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/12 18:00:09
Subject: Changing how armies are fielded - Altering detachments and formations
|
 |
Norn Queen
|
This is ridiculously complicated.
There are easier ways to fix the FoC and formations.
|
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/12 21:27:28
Subject: Changing how armies are fielded - Altering detachments and formations
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
That's pretty complicated. Let's break this down and see if I understand everything properly.
Caveat 1: This seems weirdly specific. Obviously this debuffs eldar jetbikes, but I struggle to think of any other troops to whom this would apply unless we're counting dedicated transports taken by troop units (in which case, why limit their movement?) What's the point of this one? How would it interact with marine bikers with a biker captain? Is this basically a way of banning bike armies? Sort of seems like this is a separate conversation unto itself.
Caveat 2: Eh... As a harlequin player, I'm not a fan of heavily restricting how many shadow seers and death jesters I can have just so they can become HQs. At least not in the system you're proposing. Harlequins need more access to their Elites; not less.
Caveats 3-6: Neat. I"m listening.
Caveat 7: So are you saying that all units of a given force org slot have those rules automatically or that they all have the option to purchase those USRs?
If the former, I don't like it because not all USRs make sense for units that happen to occupy those slots. Tau pathfinders probably shouldn't be getting hit & run, for instance. Terminators shouldn't really be outflanking considering that's a rule that usually indicates having either enough stealth or speed to attack from a new vector. I'll ignore the imbalances in power increase this causes because you'd presumably be altering the cost of various units to reflect them having these new rules. I just don't see why you would want to force all units in a given force org to have USRs that don't necessarily fit them. What's the point? Why not just give those rules to units that deserve them?
If you're saying that these should be rules that are universally purchasable for units based on their force org slot, I'm still not a fan of it. It just makes it harder to balance a unit around the possibility that it has access to outflank or monster hunter or what have you. Tank hunter being available to a wraith lord? No big deal. To a unit of lootas? Much bigger deal. You could price upgrades differently for each unit, but that's a lot of work to try and balance an option that many units don't really need.
What were you going for with this one? I'm not sure I see the point.
Force Lists: I think I see what you're going for here. The idea is to force players to bring more troops and for the troops in the game to no longer include certain problematic units like jetbikes, right? I can see why you'd go for that, but I'm not sure I really like this for a couple reasons:
A.) Some armies simply have better troops than others. Being forced to field lots of scouts and tac marines against your opponent's fire warriors, crisis suits, etc. might not be much fun.
B.) It's actually not as fluffy as you might think. If I want to represent a Death Wing or an Iybraesil strikeforce, I should be fielding lots of terminators or howling banshees. The normal troop options don't really represent those forces' fluff very well, and your system requires they bring a ton of troops if they want to bring very many of the relevant unit at all. If I want to bring a dark eldar surgical strikeforce tasked with bringing down enemy armor, I'm going to feel a bit silly bringing tons of warrior squads with 1 blaster apiece instead of having a higher proportion of trueborn, scourges, etc. Trying to run an Iyanden army (lots of wraith lords and wraith guard/wraith blades) with this setup would be very difficult.
C.) You seem to feel that FA are either more common or less good than Elites based on the rate at which you unlock FA slots versus Elite slots. Warp spiders are both more powerful than banshees and rarer than them as well if I"m running the aforementioned Iybraesil force.
D.) In many books, troops just aren't very well designed. Tac marines aren't much fun and aren't very interesting as they are now. Chaos marines are worse. Tyranids frequently take anti-air spores just so they can basically avoid taking their troops at all. Your system kind of forces people to play with units that they often view as a "tax" in the current system. I'm all for improving troops in general, but that's a different conversation entirely.
OVERALL:
This seems like a messy, roundabout way of getting whatever result it is you want. What specifically are you going for here? How would you address the aforementioned issues of many troops not being balanced against one another, many troops not being "fun" to use, and many perfectly fluffy armies not being well-represented by a bunch of troops rather than a higher proportion of FA or Elites or what have you?
|
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/13 02:01:14
Subject: Changing how armies are fielded - Altering detachments and formations
|
 |
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter
|
1: ...No? This is a bit of a sledgehammer to be using as 'I don't want Bikes in Troops', you may want to elaborate.
2: AdMech maybe, but there's a lot more elaboration/consolidation that needs to be done. If you want to change Harlequins you'd be better off adding a Great Harlequin unit than moving the current Elites choices into HQ; restricting the Shadowseers that heavily would make them brutally difficult to play as a standalone book.
3: Depends on what you're replacing it with.
4: Fine. Cool. Give me back my Daemonhunters Codex and we'll talk. (More generally you've got to overhaul rather a lot of books that don't work as standalone books if you want to dump Allies. Militarum Tempestus, the Inquisition, Assassins, Grey Knights...Also Imperial Knights would have to be deleted entirely)
5: Again. Depends on your answer to #3.
6: If you've got the spare time let's see some numbers.
7: ...No? Or possibly ...why? You'd remove specialization within different FOC selections to do...what, exactly?
Your 'new FOC' is a needlessly complicated approach and would reward armies that can min/max with incredibly cheap Troops. If you look at Rites of War in 30k you'll find restrictions like "must take more Infantry units than units with other types", it sounds like that's pretty much what you're aiming for and it takes one sentence instead of this table.
So implementation is generally overcomplicated and would take vast amounts of work to turn into something playable. Could you try to explain your goals? A more complete understanding of what you're trying to accomplish would help us make more constructive suggestions.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/13 02:26:05
Subject: Changing how armies are fielded - Altering detachments and formations
|
 |
Terminator with Assault Cannon
|
I agree with everyone else that this FOC is unduly complicated.
I have a counter-proposal which I think basically does the same thing, but is much simpler:
Any army must have at least 2 troop selections and 1 HQ. These 2 troop selections and 1 HQ unlock 1 of each other FOC slot, except LoWs. For each additional 2 troop selections, 1 additional of each other FOC slot is unlocked, including HQs, except LoWs.
For each 6 troop selections, 1 LoW slot is unlocked.
See how much easier that is?
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/13 02:29:00
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/13 02:30:29
Subject: Changing how armies are fielded - Altering detachments and formations
|
 |
Norn Queen
|
Or as Anomander mentioned, just use the 30k system. It's functional and already exists.
|
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/13 02:32:23
Subject: Changing how armies are fielded - Altering detachments and formations
|
 |
Terminator with Assault Cannon
|
I would also add the following rules:
1. No more than 2 HQs and 3 of each of the other FOC slots may be taken per 6 troop selections.
2. Once you hit the "magic number," i.e., 6 troops, you must start all over again. 2 troops and 1 HQ.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/13 02:32:47
Subject: Re:Changing how armies are fielded - Altering detachments and formations
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
Here's a better proposal than Traditio's:
You start with one mandatory LoW slot, and may add any number of LoW. For each LoW unit taken you unlock one each of HQ, fast attack, elite, and heavy support. For each complete set of HQ/fast/elite/heavy taken you unlock one troops slot.
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/13 02:35:37
Subject: Changing how armies are fielded - Altering detachments and formations
|
 |
Terminator with Assault Cannon
|
Peregrine:
My proposal is essentially just a more restrictive version of a CAD, which is, I think, what the OP was basically going for.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/13 02:43:31
Subject: Re:Changing how armies are fielded - Altering detachments and formations
|
 |
Terrifying Rhinox Rider
|
Peregrine wrote:Here's a better proposal than Traditio's:
You start with one mandatory LoW slot, and may add any number of LoW. For each LoW unit taken you unlock one each of HQ, fast attack, elite, and heavy support. For each complete set of HQ/fast/elite/heavy taken you unlock one troops slot.
I am replying to indicate that I like this post.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/13 02:54:55
Subject: Changing how armies are fielded - Altering detachments and formations
|
 |
Norn Queen
|
Traditio wrote:Peregrine: My proposal is essentially just a more restrictive version of a CAD, which is, I think, what the OP was basically going for. Except it's not. First, why don't you take whatever codex you have sitting next to you and then add up all the points of bare bones units you would need at minimum to unlock a single LoW. Then, take into consideration what kind of spam you could generate with that many of every slot. Then, take into account how that could be abused by other armies. Then, take into account that things like... Imotek the Stormlord is a LoW option for Necrons. Is he so powerful that you need that big of a tax to take him? Once again, there is a failure to see what those changes actually do. 30k does it simply. LoWs can only be taken in games of 2k or higher and only at a maximum of 25% of your total army value. I.E. 500 points in a 2k army.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/13 02:57:43
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/13 02:57:14
Subject: Changing how armies are fielded - Altering detachments and formations
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
Traditio wrote:My proposal is essentially just a more restrictive version of a CAD, which is, I think, what the OP was basically going for.
So is mine. The only difference is which slots in the CAD we choose to restrict. You choose to make it almost impossible to take LoW and easy to spam troops, I choose to make it almost impossible to take troops and easy to take LoW.
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/13 02:59:55
Subject: Changing how armies are fielded - Altering detachments and formations
|
 |
Terminator with Assault Cannon
|
Lance845 wrote:Except it's not.
Do you know what a CAD is?
Do you know what can and cannot be fit into a CAD?
First, why don't you take whatever codex you have sitting next to you and then add up all the points of bare bones units you would need at minimum to unlock a single LoW.
7. 1 bare bones chaplain and 6 bare bones scouts units. That comes out to 420 points.
In my view, that's not nearly restrictive enough, but my sole intent was to give a much more simplified version of the OP's idea.
Then, take into consideration what kind of spam you could generate with that many of every slot.
An amount equal to or lesser than the CAD.
Do the math. If you fill up all of the slots, you end up with:
6 troops, 2 HQs, 3 fast attack, 3 heavy support, 3 elite and 1 LoW.
In other words: a complete CAD.
Then, take into account that things like... Imotek the Stormlord is a LoW option for Necrons. Is he so powerful that you need that big of a tax to take him?
Bring an HQ and 6 squads of warriors, and you're all set to use Imotek.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/13 03:00:53
Subject: Changing how armies are fielded - Altering detachments and formations
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Traditio wrote:I agree with everyone else that this FOC is unduly complicated.
I have a counter-proposal which I think basically does the same thing, but is much simpler:
Any army must have at least 2 troop selections and 1 HQ. These 2 troop selections and 1 HQ unlock 1 of each other FOC slot, except LoWs. For each additional 2 troop selections, 1 additional of each other FOC slot is unlocked, including HQs, except LoWs.
For each 6 troop selections, 1 LoW slot is unlocked.
See how much easier that is? 
This is definitely a simpler version of the OP's suggestion. However, I'm personally not a fan of this for several of the reasons I wasn't a fan of the OP's opening proposal. Specifically:
1. Many books just don't have very fun/interesting troops.
2. Some armies have troops that simply outdo other armies; troops. Necron warriors versus gaunts or genestealers, for instance.
3. Many very flavorful armies that are reasonable in terms of power level and perfectly appropriate in terms of fluff aren't well represented by this proposal. Example: Deathwing Terminators aren't winning a lot of tournaments, have cool fluff, and are very hard to build a fluffy army around when you have to take two troops for every squad of terminators you want.
I get that troops are meant to be the majority of a given army's forces and that having too many heavy hitters out there is a problem in the current meta. However, being forced to take arguably less interesting, less useful units before I'm allowed to bring the cool (and often fluffy for my faction) stuff is the way to go. The core tax on Fantasy was actually one of the main reasons I never got into fantasy.
|
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/13 03:08:01
Subject: Changing how armies are fielded - Altering detachments and formations
|
 |
Terminator with Assault Cannon
|
Wyldhunt wrote:1. Many books just don't have very fun/interesting troops.
I don't even know what this means. You could mean different things by this. You could mean:
"But many books have non- OP troops, and the other slots have far better options. If I use Eldar, that means I have to take a bunch of dire avengers to take a single wraithknight."
If that's what you mean, then that's not an objection to the proposal. The intent of the proposal, I assume, is to prevent spamming the most OP thing in your codex. So you would just be saying: "BUT I WANT TO SPAM THE MOST OP THING IN THE CODEX!!!!"
Or, you might mean:
"But some books have troops that have uninteresting lore, models, etc." In other words, you think that the tactical marine models are just silly looking.
At that point, I'll ask: then why did you even buy that codex?
2. Some armies have troops that simply outdo other armies; troops. Necron warriors versus gaunts or genestealers, for instance.
That's a codex balance issue. I don't think it really has anything to do with how the FOC should be constructed.
3. Many very flavorful armies that are reasonable in terms of power level and perfectly appropriate in terms of fluff aren't well represented by this proposal. Example: Deathwing Terminators aren't winning a lot of tournaments, have cool fluff, and are very hard to build a fluffy army around when you have to take two troops for every squad of terminators you want.
You couldn't do that prior to 6th edition anyway. I simply don't see this as a legitimate complaint.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/13 03:10:17
Subject: Changing how armies are fielded - Altering detachments and formations
|
 |
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter
|
Lance845 wrote:Or as Anomander mentioned, just use the 30k system. It's functional and already exists.
Elaborating on this: In 30k you get exactly one Detachment (any extra are permission-use). Your Detachment may be a normal CAD-esque one (with an optional Allied detachment), an armoured/ LoW detachment, or a fortification-heavy detachment.
Your HQ choice may then enable a special rule called a Rite of War. This rule comes with advantages and limitations; these include (but are not limited to): alternate Dedicated Transport options, compulsory Dedicated Transports, permitting specific units to be used in a different slot, giving USRs to some or all units, giving the enemy extra VP for killing specific targets, and requiring the majority of your units to have a certain type (majority of the army must be Infantry, for instance).
This system forces trade-offs/consequences for min/maxxing, keeps your army more flexible than formations allow, uses shorter/simpler/more consistent rules than formations do, and is simpler to work out what you're allowed to take since you're using the same detachment type every time. It'd require accompanying overhauls to be translated to 40k wholesale, but it's the best/most elegant solution I've found to formation bloat.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/13 03:13:57
Subject: Changing how armies are fielded - Altering detachments and formations
|
 |
Terminator with Assault Cannon
|
AnomanderRake:
Even simpler, more elegant solution:
Everyone uses a CAD + restrictions.
See how simple/elegant that is?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/13 03:19:17
Subject: Changing how armies are fielded - Altering detachments and formations
|
 |
Norn Queen
|
Traditio wrote:AnomanderRake:
Even simpler, more elegant solution:
Everyone uses a CAD + restrictions.
See how simple/elegant that is?
That is what the 30k system is. A CaD with restrictions. Simple restrictions. Rites of War are simple modifiers for how you fill out the single CaD for fluff and flavor.
|
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/13 03:23:50
Subject: Changing how armies are fielded - Altering detachments and formations
|
 |
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter
|
Traditio wrote:Wyldhunt wrote:1. Many books just don't have very fun/interesting troops.
I don't even know what this means. You could mean different things by this. You could mean:
"But many books have non- OP troops, and the other slots have far better options. If I use Eldar, that means I have to take a bunch of dire avengers to take a single wraithknight."
If that's what you mean, then that's not an objection to the proposal. The intent of the proposal, I assume, is to prevent spamming the most OP thing in your codex. So you would just be saying: "BUT I WANT TO SPAM THE MOST OP THING IN THE CODEX!!!!"
Or, you might mean:
"But some books have troops that have uninteresting lore, models, etc." In other words, you think that the tactical marine models are just silly looking.
At that point, I'll ask: then why did you even buy that codex?
A more charitable/politer reading could be "my Codex's internal balance is skewed to the point that my Troops are a tax". Or possibly "my Codex's Troops aren't particularly fun to play with."
2. Some armies have troops that simply outdo other armies; troops. Necron warriors versus gaunts or genestealers, for instance.
That's a codex balance issue. I don't think it really has anything to do with how the FOC should be constructed.
Any proposal that changes how detachments/formations work is going to require serious overhauls to a lot of units. That can be taken as a given.
3. Many very flavorful armies that are reasonable in terms of power level and perfectly appropriate in terms of fluff aren't well represented by this proposal. Example: Deathwing Terminators aren't winning a lot of tournaments, have cool fluff, and are very hard to build a fluffy army around when you have to take two troops for every squad of terminators you want.
You couldn't do that prior to 6th edition anyway. I simply don't see this as a legitimate complaint.
Armies that use units not traditionally considered Troops as Troops have been a fixture of 40k since I started playing, at least. Space Marine/Ravenwing Bikes, Blood Angel Assault Marines, Eldar Jetbikes, Deathwing Terminators, and Cult CSM were all available as Troops in 4th/5th (some in 3rd as well), probably more I don't remember off the top of my head. Automatically Appended Next Post: Traditio wrote:AnomanderRake:
Even simpler, more elegant solution:
Everyone uses a CAD + restrictions.
See how simple/elegant that is?
That's exactly what the Age of Darkness approach is. Everyone gets a CAD. Your Warlord may enable certain benefits/restrictions.
I elaborated a little further to describe what "certain benefits/restrictions" might be.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/13 03:25:29
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/13 03:45:17
Subject: Changing how armies are fielded - Altering detachments and formations
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Traditio wrote:Wyldhunt wrote:1. Many books just don't have very fun/interesting troops.
I don't even know what this means. You could mean different things by this. You could mean:
"But many books have non- OP troops, and the other slots have far better options. If I use Eldar, that means I have to take a bunch of dire avengers to take a single wraithknight."
If that's what you mean, then that's not an objection to the proposal. The intent of the proposal, I assume, is to prevent spamming the most OP thing in your codex. So you would just be saying: "BUT I WANT TO SPAM THE MOST OP THING IN THE CODEX!!!!"
Or, you might mean:
"But some books have troops that have uninteresting lore, models, etc." In other words, you think that the tactical marine models are just silly looking.
At that point, I'll ask: then why did you even buy that codex?
2. Some armies have troops that simply outdo other armies; troops. Necron warriors versus gaunts or genestealers, for instance.
That's a codex balance issue. I don't think it really has anything to do with how the FOC should be constructed.
3. Many very flavorful armies that are reasonable in terms of power level and perfectly appropriate in terms of fluff aren't well represented by this proposal. Example: Deathwing Terminators aren't winning a lot of tournaments, have cool fluff, and are very hard to build a fluffy army around when you have to take two troops for every squad of terminators you want.
You couldn't do that prior to 6th edition anyway. I simply don't see this as a legitimate complaint.
1. The problem with a given troop depends a bit on the codex involved. I actually feel that (ignoring the OPness of windriders), the troop options of many books are either bad enough at a variety of jobs to make their options underwhelming or simply not tactically interesting enough to be worthwhile. Or else they simply don't have enough options to *not* be a boring tax on points and wallets in the number you'd have to field them. Some examples:
* My dark eldar warriors can take a blaster, but that lone blaster means that at least 3 other guys in his squad (kabalites can take AT weapons) will be sitting around doing nothing if the blaster guy wants to shoot at a tank. So in your system, I either spam naked kabalites to avoid role confusion in units or else accept that a growing percentage of my army will suffer from this problem as the number of kabalite squads increase.
*Necron troops don't really have any options, so you're just tossing the same units into your list over and over again. You'd have to field 40 warriors to take two units of flayed ones (an iconic unit of certain factions) in your system.
*Gaunts: same as necrons.
Basically, troops are assumed to be the sort of boring mandatory guys in a given army. It seems like many troop units are allowed to be less good/less interesting than specialist counterparts because they're not meant to be the cool interesting option that draws you to the army and gets work done. So in armies where this is the case, you're basically forcing someone to spam even more tac marines and scouts when what they really want to run is assault marines (or whatever).
As for "why did you grab that army if you don't like the troops?", the answer may very well be, "Because I liked the other things and can stomach taking a couple units of troops so long as I can then focus on the more interesting options."
2. You have a valid point here, but here are some counterpoints:
A. ) While it's true that this is largely an issue of balance between codices, the current system at least allows books that have crummy troops to try and work around them. Scatbikes are troops in the current official rules, and so are ork boyz. In your system, the ork player is forced to take a ton of boyz before he can unlock more useful and powerful options, but the eldar player is getting some of his best units right out of the gate. For a less severe imbalance, consider necron troop options compared to orks. The warriors/immortals probably win out point for point against a range of enemy units (though not necessarily against one another). So again, the ork player would be being forced to take lots of troops that, point-for-point, are less efficient than the necron player. So rather than allowing a player with less-efficient troops to work around them, you force him to play up his disadvantage.
B.) Some codices are built with the assumption that non-troops are what a player will focus on. Tyranids lean on their flyrants right now, but even ignoring the flyrants, it would be awfully difficult to build, for instance, a lictor + mawloc list with your system because you'd have to field 4 squads of gribblies just to take a single lictor and mawloc. Chaos marines would be unable to field many forge fiends, daemon princes, etc. because they'd have to spam lots of cultists or chaos marines to cover their bases. Orks would have a hard time fielding lootas or tank busta fire support units because they'd be forced spamming so many boys.
3. I could kind of sort of do it in 5th edition. For example, in a 5th edition list, I would have to take 2 troops and an HQ, but I could then take 3 units of banshees, a fluffy HQ like Jain Zar (in addition to the farseer that would be helping those banshees with Doom), and maybe some wraith lords (former banshee exarchs) or simply some ranged dakka (to off-set the weaknesses of my flavorful banshees) without having to take more troops. So in 5th edition, I'd need 2 troops to take my 3 banshee squads along with 3 FA and 3 HS to back them up. In your system, I'd need 6 troops just to take the banshees and not have any support for them beyond my HQs.
|
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/13 04:19:54
Subject: Changing how armies are fielded - Altering detachments and formations
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
Traditio wrote:"But some books have troops that have uninteresting lore, models, etc." In other words, you think that the tactical marine models are just silly looking.
At that point, I'll ask: then why did you even buy that codex?
Because there are a great many things in every marine codex that do not involve taking six squads of tactical marines.
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/13 18:18:23
Subject: Re:Changing how armies are fielded - Altering detachments and formations
|
 |
Shas'la with Pulse Carbine
|
Wow thanks for all the replies. Good, constructive criticism from most of you!
Any way the point was to explore what would happen if the game enforced troop taxes to unlock special units as well as to add some caveats to make the game more balanced.
Tradio's streamlined solution of "
Any army must have at least 2 troop selections and 1 HQ. These 2 troop selections and 1 HQ unlock 1 of each other FOC slot, except LoWs. For each additional 2 troop selections, 1 additional of each other FOC slot is unlocked, including HQs, except LoWs.
For each 6 troop selections, 1 LoW slot is unlocked. " was basically what I was getting to.
The conclusion I've come to...
The game can't actually be balanced. Why? Because you're never balancing Apples to Apples. Every game is a fruit salad.
|
9000
8000
Knights / Assassins 800 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/13 18:56:16
Subject: Changing how armies are fielded - Altering detachments and formations
|
 |
Norn Queen
|
It CAN be balanced. But the FoC is not the catch all answer to it.
Formations and detachments drive the game farther and farther from any chance of balance. 30ks system is the best groundwork solution to building armies, especially with the restrictions to LoW and HQs that allow access to Rites of War.
But from there you have to start balancing the actual game, which has a very lopsided core mechanics that favors shooting over melee and odd ball unit types that just don't function as effectively as others or have no real place.
Once THAT is fixed codex balance needs to be established.
7th is just too big of a mess to fix with anything so simple as a alternate FoC selection method.
|
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/13 20:12:15
Subject: Re:Changing how armies are fielded - Altering detachments and formations
|
 |
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter
|
Naaris wrote:...The conclusion I've come to...
The game can't actually be balanced. Why? Because you're never balancing Apples to Apples. Every game is a fruit salad.
...This is a bit of a leap. If the only games that could be balanced were perfectly symmetrical ones the world would be a really boring place. We'd have no Warmachine, no RTSes, no sports...
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/13 21:14:36
Subject: Changing how armies are fielded - Altering detachments and formations
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
To be fair, I think there might be something to the idea of looking at different ways of putting armies together. I think most people would agree that at least some of the formations/detachments out there are problematic because they allow too easy of access to powerful units (triptide wing and aspect host) or give already powerful units even more bonuses (triptide wing and aspect host again) or because their bonuses are just really annoyingly good in the first place (decurion and gladius).
So let's just pretend for a moment that we've thrown out all the problematic formations and detachments and left ourselves with a CAD and some fun, non-game-breaking formations and detachments that can be sprinkled into the game. How would everyone feel about army construction if there was basically just a ban list of some of the more notoriously annoying formations and detachments? You could still use Real Space Raiders or Demi Companies or what have you, but gladiuses and aspect hosts would be gone. How would 40k look at that point?
EDIT: To me, that would mean that you'd get rid of some of the more problematic options on the detachment/formation level without forcing people to spam troops or forcing them to stick to a CAD. Not perfect, but it retains most of the flexibility of 7th edition while also tossing out the most egregious offenders. It wouldn't fix problems on the unit-level (scatbikes would still be really good) or on the macro level (shooting would still normally have an edge over melee), but I feel it eliminates a lot of big problems with current army building. Also, lower all Battle Brothers alliances to Allies of Convenience and you eliminate a lot of unintended deathstars from the equation.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/13 21:16:57
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/13 21:36:51
Subject: Changing how armies are fielded - Altering detachments and formations
|
 |
Norn Queen
|
Wyldhunt wrote:To be fair, I think there might be something to the idea of looking at different ways of putting armies together. I think most people would agree that at least some of the formations/detachments out there are problematic because they allow too easy of access to powerful units (triptide wing and aspect host) or give already powerful units even more bonuses (triptide wing and aspect host again) or because their bonuses are just really annoyingly good in the first place (decurion and gladius).
So let's just pretend for a moment that we've thrown out all the problematic formations and detachments and left ourselves with a CAD and some fun, non-game-breaking formations and detachments that can be sprinkled into the game. How would everyone feel about army construction if there was basically just a ban list of some of the more notoriously annoying formations and detachments? You could still use Real Space Raiders or Demi Companies or what have you, but gladiuses and aspect hosts would be gone. How would 40k look at that point?
EDIT: To me, that would mean that you'd get rid of some of the more problematic options on the detachment/formation level without forcing people to spam troops or forcing them to stick to a CAD. Not perfect, but it retains most of the flexibility of 7th edition while also tossing out the most egregious offenders. It wouldn't fix problems on the unit-level (scatbikes would still be really good) or on the macro level (shooting would still normally have an edge over melee), but I feel it eliminates a lot of big problems with current army building. Also, lower all Battle Brothers alliances to Allies of Convenience and you eliminate a lot of unintended deathstars from the equation.
Again, 30ks system handles this.
First and foremost all formations and "decurions" are destructive. The moment units are given upgrades and special rules for free you are wrecking the balance of the base codex pricing units. Cut them all out.
Rites of war allow you more options for how you take units. New dedicated transport options, allowing them to be taken in different foc slots. Assault marines being fast attack and troop options for an example.
This comes with restrictions (everything must be jump, arrive via deepstrike, or be in a flying transport). It allows for the base foc to be flexible and different armys to have different options that open up new tactics and fit the fluff. You dont gain anything you dont pay for. Nothing restricts you to monobuilds. All row are optional. Its the most simple and best method i have seen.
|
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/13 22:05:23
Subject: Changing how armies are fielded - Altering detachments and formations
|
 |
Not as Good as a Minion
|
Lance845 wrote:First and foremost all formations and "decurions" are destructive. The moment units are given upgrades and special rules for free you are wrecking the balance of the base codex pricing units. Cut them all out.
I disagree. The issue is not with their organization, those are actually quite fluffy and interesting. Where the problems lie are in the parts under Command Benefits and Special Rules.
If these Command Benefits and Special Rules for Formations and Choice Detachments were either removed OR reduced to being CAD-level of use, the cries of OP would no longer exist.
|
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/13 22:13:44
Subject: Changing how armies are fielded - Altering detachments and formations
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Charistoph wrote: Lance845 wrote:First and foremost all formations and "decurions" are destructive. The moment units are given upgrades and special rules for free you are wrecking the balance of the base codex pricing units. Cut them all out.
I disagree. The issue is not with their organization, those are actually quite fluffy and interesting. Where the problems lie are in the parts under Command Benefits and Special Rules.
If these Command Benefits and Special Rules for Formations and Choice Detachments were either removed OR reduced to being CAD-level of use, the cries of OP would no longer exist.
That's true in some cases, but not all cases. The eldar decurion, for instance, provides a command benefit that lets units automatically run 6". That's not really a problem. The fact that this decurion allows you to take multiple wraithknights in a highly cost-effective fashion (you can skip taking multiple CADs) is something of a problem. Similarly, the aspect host lets you spam warp spiders. That the aspect host also makes those warp spiders BS5 is part of the problem, but being able to field 60 spiders without taking a CAD is something of an issue. The triptide wing's benefits are annoyingly good, but part of the problem with that formation is that it lets you take lots of riptides without taking a CAD or anything. So you can just ally in some triptides with your multiple wraith knights without either detachment having to take a CAD anywhere along the way.
@Lance845: I'm not terribly familiar with 30k. Based upon your description of its army composition, however, I'd be very interested in trying out something similar for 40k.
|
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/13 23:05:25
Subject: Changing how armies are fielded - Altering detachments and formations
|
 |
Terminator with Assault Cannon
|
Wyldhunt wrote:1. The problem with a given troop depends a bit on the codex involved. I actually feel that (ignoring the OPness of windriders)
I assume that we're going with the OP recommendation that bikes MUST be fast attacks and CANNOT be troop selections under any circumstances.
the troop options of many books are either bad enough at a variety of jobs to make their options underwhelming or simply not tactically interesting enough to be worthwhile. Or else they simply don't have enough options to *not* be a boring tax on points and wallets in the number you'd have to field them.
There are two possible ways of reading this:
1. "Troops aren't the most points efficient and tactically optimal thing that I could be using. I want the most points efficient and tactically optimal stuff that I could be using." IoW: "I LIKE SPAMMING OP CHEESE! DON'T STOP ME FROM SPAMMING OP CHEESE!"
At which point, of course you're going to disagree with the suggestion. That's what the suggestion is aimed at ruling out. Clearly, taking 2 HQs, 4 squads of fire warriors, 6 riptides and 2 storm surges is more points efficient than taking 1 hq, 6 squads of fire warriors, 3 riptides and 1 storm surge. And I'm sorry, but at that point, I don't feel bad about the fact that your army becomes less "optimal," "points efficient" or "tactically interesting."
2. "Troops aren't useful at all, so making me take troops would just be a tax regardless of which codex I'm using."
Yes: BECAUSE NOBODY USES THEM! If everyone has to field more troops, all of a sudden, basic troops skyrocket in terms of in-game utility. Your 60 termagaunts might just want to have a few words with my 30 tactical marines. And termagaunts aren't "bad." You get 7 termagaunts to 2 of my tactical marines with bolters. For a 4 ppm troop choice, they're about as good as they should be. Compare them to cultists.
My dark eldar warriors can take a blaster, but that lone blaster means that at least 3 other guys in his squad (kabalites can take AT weapons) will be sitting around doing nothing if the blaster guy wants to shoot at a tank.
Are blasters not a good anti-infantry weapon? Do no dark eldar players stuff kabalites with a single lone blaster into 6 or so pirate ships?
If anything, dark eldar players would be least effected by this change. The most competitive dark eldar build involves spamming troops.
*Necron troops don't really have any options, so you're just tossing the same units into your list over and over again. You'd have to field 40 warriors to take two units of flayed ones (an iconic unit of certain factions) in your system.
I simply don't see this as problematic. If I have 30 tactical marines in rhinos, then your 60 warriors are going to be busy little bees once dice start rolling.
And actually. Aren't necrons already in the same boat as dark eldar? I'm pretty sure that stuffing tons of troops into floating open-topped transports is a thing.
At any rate, I think that you're vastly over-estimating just how big of an impact this change would have. Let's say you want to spam 3 of something, in your army. So you need those 6 troops. Have you done the math for how much this would actually cost?
6 squads of termagaunts is 240 points.
Oh, you want that third flyrant? Oh no. Those 8 squads of termagaunts just sky-rocketed to 320 points.
6 squads of cultists is 240 points.
6 squads of scouts is 330 points.
6 squads of chaos space marines is 390 points.
6 squads of dire avengers is 390 points.
6 squads of boys is 360 points.
6 squads of fire warriors is 270 points.
And for necrons, let's go cheap. You aren't bringing those 10 man warrior squads. you're bringing those 5 man immortals squads.
510 points.
I could go on, but I think you get the point.
Sure, those troops get more expensive once you start tacking on upgrades. But even then, I already run 6 squads of tacticals. How much do they cost with the 15 ppm heavy weapons I tack on each? 510 points. Do you want to assume that they're all in rhinos? Ok. Assuming no upgrades, that brings it up to a whopping total of 720 points.
So far as I am aware, 1850 is the most common points limit, at least in my meta. Even if you run space marines, ran tacticals and decked out your tactical with special or heavy weapons and rhinos, and you throw in a chaplain (810 so far), that gives you over 1000 points to take what you want.
And that's assuming you actually spend points on your troops. The alternative is you could bring 6 bare bones scout squads and a librarian (amounting to 395 points), and you have over 1400 points to do whatever you want.
Fact is, I agree that the FOC change proposal wouldn't make the game perfectly balanced. It wouldn't even come close. It would only remove the very worst offenders in the game. I mean, seriously contemplate this:
12 dire avengers squads - 780 points
2 wraithknights = 590 points
1370 total.
That gives you almost 400 points for 2 HQs and some scatter bikes.
Seriously. The only people who would be significantly impacted by this are the people who run the very worst forms of cheddar.
This wouldn't balance things. Not by a long shot. It would only remove the most extreme bull gak from the game.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/10/13 23:20:41
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/13 23:29:51
Subject: Re:Changing how armies are fielded - Altering detachments and formations
|
 |
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle
|
6 Squads of Cultists is 300 points-you're saddled with a mandatory champion.
And hey-what if I don't own 60 flipping Cultists models, and have no desire to own that many?
|
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! |
|
 |
 |
|