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.

I have yet another proposal that most of you will probably dislike. But this is something that I've thought about for a while now, and hey, why not?

Warhammer 40k is a horribly unbalanced game. Points costs are all over the place. And does anybody actually use troops?

As Peregrine once put it (I paraphrase): Why on earth should you use troops? The troops are just a less interesting version of one of the specialized selections. So why bother? You pay the minimum tax and then you put in the interesting (generally overpowered) things.

And nobody likes nerfs. Nerf the riptide? Most people say yes. Tau players cry no. Nerf the wraithknight? Most people say yes. Eldar players say no. Nerf grav? Most people say yes. Space marine players cry "no."

And really, that's not how 40k is going anyway. It's an arms race. 5th edition is gone. And the people who are still hanging in there are playing, whether you like it or not, Apocalypse. 500 points game? Too bad. You're still playing Apocalypse.

So feth it. I offer you a ridiculous idea, an idea so ridiculous it might actually make the game more balanced:

What if troops were valuable BECAUSE they were expendable? What if we took the fluff about the troops being the mainstay of an army seriously? What if you couldn't run out of them? What if it were practically impossible to table someone?

I propose the following.

The following rules apply only to the following:

1. The unit must be in the "troops" section of the army codex ("counts as troops" doesn't count).
2. The unit must have the "infantry" type.
3. These rules don't affect ICs.

Rule 1: So long as you have at least 1 unit of troops in ongoing reserves, you cannot lose the game simply because you have no models on the field.

Rule 2: When a unit of troops is removed from the field, place that unit, in its original composition when initially deployed, into ongoing reserves.

Rule 3: At the beginning of each player turn, each troops unit in ongoing reserves shall be placed within 12 inches of the player's table edge. Each of those units counts as having moved for that turn and may not move again in the movement phase. Any special rule which would allow that unit to be placed on the table outside of 12 inches from the player's table edge may not be used to do so. If the deep strike special rule is used, the unit shall instead be placed within 12 inches of the player's table edge. Do not roll the scatter die.

Rule 4: At any time, a player may remove a unit of troops from the game and place it in ongoing reserves, just so long as that unit is at 50% or less of its original number of component models. This does count, for all rules purposes, as that unit being destroyed by the opponent. If the unit was in close quarter combat when the unit was removed, it counts as being destroyed in close combat by the opponent.

Rule 5: Reanimation protocols, as well as all rules that allow you to place a unit in ongoing reserves upon being destroyed, shall be replaced by: "At the end of each turn, roll a die. On a 4+, any models removed from that unit's original composition shall be replaced into that unit, and any wounds suffered by the original models in that unit shall be removed (no, ICs don't count for this rule).."

Rule 6: Dedicated transports which are wrecked or removed from the game may be brought back into play by rules 2 and 3, but only when the unit of which it is the transported is brought back into play in this fashion. The unit of which it is the transport may be deployed in said transport.

Thoughts?

Something that has been pointed out many times is that this is not the subforum for compounding GW's mistakes. If you don't like how powerful the game is, then fix the brokenly powerful things. I'm sure you can find likeminded people to play with.

In addition, I think you're unfairly characterizing the SM, Tau, and Eldar players. There's at least one in this forum who advocates nerfing Eldar while playing them.

My proposal does "fix" the brokenly powerful things. It lets them be brokenly powerful...but also a finite, limited, irreplaceable resource.

All of a sudden, whether to take multiple flyrants or not would become a real question. Sure, you could take a flyrant and kill a unit every turn. But if those units are troops, I'm going to get them right back. And you're going to suck on objectives.

 Traditio wrote:

So feth it. I offer you a ridiculous idea, an idea so ridiculous it might actually make the game more balanced:

What if troops were valuable BECAUSE they were expendable? What if we took the fluff about the troops being the mainstay of an army seriously? What if you couldn't run out of them? What if it were practically impossible to table someone?

I propose the following.

The following rules apply only to the following:

1. The unit must be in the "troops" section of the army codex ("counts as troops" doesn't count).
2. The unit must have the "infantry" type.
3. These rules don't affect ICs.

Rule 1: So long as you have at least 1 unit of troops in ongoing reserves, you cannot lose the game simply because you have no models on the field.

Rule 2: When a unit of troops is removed from the field, place that unit, in its original composition when initially deployed, into ongoing reserves.

Rule 3: At the beginning of each player turn, each troops unit in ongoing reserves shall be placed within 12 inches of the player's deployment zone. Each of those units counts as having moved for that turn and may not move again in the movement phase.

Rule 4: At any time, a player may remove a unit of troops from the game and place it in ongoing reserves, just so long as that unit is at 50% or less of its original number of component models. This does count, for all rules purposes, as that unit being destroyed by the opponent. If the unit was in close quarter combat when the unit was removed, it counts as being destroyed in close combat by the opponent.

Rule 5: Reanimation protocols, as well as all rules that allow you to place a unit in ongoing reserves upon being destroyed, shall be replaced by: "At the end of each turn, roll a die. On a 4+, any models removed from that unit's original composition shall be replaced into that unit, and any wounds suffered by the original models in that unit shall be removed (no, ICs don't count for this rule).."

Rule 6: Dedicated transports which are wrecked or removed from the game may be brought back into play by rules 2 and 3, but only when the unit of which it is the transported is brought back into play in this fashion. The unit of which it is the transport may be deployed in said transport.

Thoughts?

There's a variant of chess, called monster chess. One side takes a straight set of pieces, the other side (the monster side) takes 4 pawns and a king. The thing is, the monster side gets to move pawns twice each turn. The goal is to get your pawns to the other side to become Queens.

Modifying the mechanics of a game can be very effective at creating an imbalance for lesser units. We see that with the Ynarri Strength from Death Rule, and with other Eldar units that have the ability to repeat a phase of a turn or otherwise ignore a restriction on movement. We see lesser variants of this effect with rules like It Will Not Die, Reanimation Protocols, and other rules that allow models to come back in the game / restore lost hull points.

Unlike chess, 40k has up to 7 turns and a spatial component. There is a lot of ground to cover before a unit can be effective. I have played house rules before that allow a player to bring troops back onto the board once their unit is destroyed. They rarely have an impact on the game.

What I have thought might be more effective is some sort of reinforcement / escalation system, where a squad can get models back during a game turn so long as it's not totally destroyed. Maybe instead of moving, a squad can choose to reinforce to return to full strength. A squad that is at full strength could choose to upgrade, which would confer some kind of benefit.

Have not tried this in an actual game, but could see how this would make troops a lot less of a drag on lists.

techsoldaten wrote:There's a variant of chess, called monster chess. One side takes a straight set of pieces, the other side (the monster side) takes 4 pawns and a king. The thing is, the monster side gets to move pawns twice each turn. The goal is to get your pawns to the other side to become Queens.

Modifying the mechanics of a game can be very effective at creating an imbalance for lesser units. We see that with the Ynarri Strength from Death Rule, and with other Eldar units that have the ability to repeat a phase of a turn or otherwise ignore a restriction on movement. We see lesser variants of this effect with rules like It Will Not Die, Reanimation Protocols, and other rules that allow models to come back in the game / restore lost hull points.

Unlike chess, 40k has up to 7 turns and a spatial component. There is a lot of ground to cover before a unit can be effective. I have played house rules before that allow a player to bring troops back onto the board once their unit is destroyed. They rarely have an impact on the game.

What I have thought might be more effective is some sort of reinforcement / escalation system, where a squad can get models back during a game turn so long as it's not totally destroyed. Maybe instead of moving, a squad can choose to reinforce to return to full strength. A squad that is at full strength could choose to upgrade, which would confer some kind of benefit.

Have not tried this in an actual game, but could see how this would make troops a lot less of a drag on lists.

That's why I proposed the 50% rule. Because without it, you're right: it likely wouldn't affect games. Oh, you have 1 guardsman left? I'll just leave it there, and you can't replace it until its gone.

Except, 50% rule. When the unit is so small as not to be worth keeping, you can just replace it.

What he's saying is that, let's say you have 5 Tacticals. 3 die turn 2, so you respawn them turn 3. They move off the edge, and make it to an objective (that's in your DZ) turn 4. Except that objective is already in your DZ-it's probably already held by something. And their firepower won't contribute much. They might do better than 2 Tacticals, but they're not doing much.

A bit too complex.

Also the returning troop approach has been used allready in a couple detachments and formations.

The thing is that troops are pretty slow and this will mostly be useful for shooty guyz and not choppy guyz.

Not saying that it's completely useless - on the contrary, it's a very useful rule - probably even op. Non-obsec stuff will never be able to really controle your deployment zone. You just msu and infinitely respawn on points. But at the same time it's also quite unbalanced as a broad rule across all units and factions. Skiitari would be even more op. Orks would still lag behind. IG would be ok. Daemons would be increadibly broken. In this regard - it's a very poorly thought through rule - like soulburst.

As for the experience with respawning reinforcements that we allready have:
- There's some sort of renegade detachment with respawning troops - quite mediocre cause they're pretty slow and weak. Ok for scoring and vs agressive mellee armies that like to run towards your deployment zone asap. Close to useless vs shooty mobile stuff.
- CSM LOTD formation of 4+ units of cultists and apostle. When cultists are destroyed they respawn on a 4+ and come on board using outflank. That's pretty good. Especially if you're running them as Alpha Legion cause they can start the game using infiltrate and the apostle can use a mindveil artifact to join other units. I think it's a good formation purely cause of outflank and the fact that cultists are not too overpriced and can have a flamer. No obsec though.
- Castellans. A very flexible imperial detachment. Can respawn troops and their dedicated vehicles on a 5+. Yep, you could get lucky and respawn a landraider on a 5+. Provided you take one in the first place. They still come from your table edge and it's not very reliable but imperial troops are usually shooters and it's nice to have a chance to respawn that rhino. Still considered not worth it over all the other overpowered crazy crap that imperials can take.

There are some others like respawning csm possesed (useless cause possessed) and Chenkov's conscripts (no longer in game).

So I get to recycle my Pink Horrors after they split off into Blue Horrors so that they can split into more Blue Horrors?

Sounds good to me.

koooaei wrote:The thing is that troops are pretty slow and this will mostly be useful for shooty guyz and not choppy guyz.

Trukk spam.

Think about that, Kooaei. Just imagine this for a moment.

Your opponent is running scat bikes and wraithknights.

And you have 54 boys, 6 nobs with power klaws and 6 trucks. And some other stuff.

You don't care how many of your boyz die. Because they're coming right back next turn. With a brand new trukk.

But every model on your opponent's side is irreplaceable.

Oh, your opponent managed to kill your nob? Well, if he killed 5 boys with him, GREAT! New unit for you next turn.

Are you imagining this, Kooaei?

Or perhaps your opponent decided to put a farseer in your DZ and cast eldritch storm.

That's nice. So, in your next turn...

Or...

How many utterly expendable nobs with power klaws would you need to take out a riptide that can't respawn?

You see where I'm going with this?

Not saying that it's completely useless - on the contrary, it's a very useful rule - probably even op. Non-obsec stuff will never be able to really controle your deployment zone. You just msu and infinitely respawn on points.

Exactly. It would shift the focus of the game away from tabling your opponent to controlling midfield objectives and having enough troops to hold the line every turn.

Just like a war game SHOULD be.

But at the same time it's also quite unbalanced as a broad rule across all units and factions. Skiitari would be even more op. Orks would still lag behind. IG would be ok. Daemons would be increadibly broken. In this regard - it's a very poorly thought through rule - like soulburst

Skitarri? I don't really see that. I think that orks and IG would be beastly though.

Can you imagine? How many heavy weapons or special weapons can you fit into a single IG troops slot, Kooaei?

What's exactly that's gona prevent the power balance from shifting to unkillable not too killy obsec tarpits? You're proposing things that would make the current op stuff not op anymore but assuming that people wouldn't just shift to new op stuff. You're talking about elf scatbike spam but in this rulesetting you're proposing, elfs would just switch to something like endless cabalites in raiders.

Balancing stuff is pretty hard to achieve especially with such broad rulechanges. Fixing specific problematic units and gear options is generally a more reliable way to achieve balance.

Love the idea...until I remember Scattbikes are troops.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Love the idea...until I remember Scattbikes are troops.

He did actually think of that. Infantry unit type only-Scatbikes are, well, bikes. (Jetbikes to be exact.)

This is a really, really bad idea.

Rule 1 essentially removes tabling your opponent as a win condition. Unless you play an army with literally zero troops units you will always have at least one unit on the table or one unit of troops in ongoing reserves. While we can argue the merits of losing the game because your on-table forces were destroyed, even though you have units about to arrive from reserve, tabling exists as a win condition for a reason and needs to stay.

The "infantry only" and "no 'counts as troops'" rules are a problem. Yes, it's a way of preventing scatter laser jetbikes from being even more broken than they already are, but the solution to that is to nerf that specific unit. There are fluffy and balanced armies that depend on using non-standard troops, and those armies shouldn't be nerfed into uselessness relative to the armies with standard (and therefore infinite) troops.

Magically teleporting anywhere in your deployment zone is a huge problem. Melee troops immediately enter combat no matter where the enemy unit is or how defensively you might want to play, and the only real counter is "never get within 12" of your opponent's deployment zone". Any objectives in your opponent's deployment zone become virtually impossible to hold, because no matter what you do an obsec scoring unit is going to teleport there next turn. And you have the complete absurdity of things like units teleporting directly to the top level of a ruin, much faster than they could get there by walking normally.

Fluff-wise it's complete nonsense. It makes sense for something like IG conscripts to respawn or a horde of cultists over and over again (and, in fact, those units have had respawn rules), but an endless horde of grey knight terminators? No thank you.

Finally, it still fails the "make troops interesting" test. A bad and boring unit that can be taken in vast quantities isn't really any more interesting, it's just better at winning games. A rough approximation of this rule is "reduce the point cost of troops units by 50%", while the problem with troops has nothing to do with their point efficiency. A tactical squad that costs half as much is still a boring version of a sternguard squad, and has none of the OMG COOL I WANT IT factor. So you'd succeed in making more of the game about who can exploit the respawn mechanic most effectively and generate more points worth of "free" units (hey, this sounds an awful lot like the complaint about formations!), and reinforce the idea that troops are the boring units you take because you want to win games and resent because they remove your ability to use the fun stuff.

Absolutely agreed with Peregrine.

To further compound his point threefold:
I I now get infinite drop pods? So I can just keep dropping Pods all over your objectives to deny them? Wonderful!

Formations don't have Battlefield roles. If I take a Formation, Troops, as I recall, cease to exist, and purely become different units. Your idea only works for Allied Detachments and CAD.

Why do standard Space Marine armies have finite Terminators and Veterans, yet Deathwatch and Grey Knights get infinite Terminators and Veterans? Why do Scions get infinite Scions, but frontline Guardsmen don't? Hell, Legion of the Damned get absolutely nothing reusable, and they're not even corporeal!
There's a major fluff disconnect here, and I don't like that.

Traditio wrote:How many heavy weapons or special weapons can you fit into a single IG troops slot, Kooaei?

In one Troops slot for guardsmen, I can get a Platoon Command Squad, up to five Infantry Squads, up to five Heavy Weapon Squads, and up to three Special Weapon Squads (and a unit of Conscripts, but they can't get anything beyond their lasgun).

I can get two special weapons and a heavy weapon/four special weapons per Platoon Command Squad, a special and heavy per infantry squad, and for every HWS, I can get 3 Heavy Weapons, and for every SWS, I can get three Special Weapons.

At maximum amount, I can get:
18 Special Weapons
20 Heavy Weapons

All from one Troops slot, and that's not even including lasguns or transports.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:I I now get infinite drop pods?

Yes.

So I can just keep dropping Pods all over your objectives to deny them? Wonderful!

No. See proposed rule 3.

"Rule 3: At the beginning of each player turn, each troops unit in ongoing reserves shall be placed within 12 inches of the player's deployment zone. Each of those units counts as having moved for that turn and may not move again in the movement phase. "

Formations don't have Battlefield roles. If I take a Formation, Troops, as I recall, cease to exist, and purely become different units. Your idea only works for Allied Detachments and CAD.

Reread caveat 1:

"1. The unit must be in the 'troops' section of the army codex ('counts as troops' doesn't count)."

Basically, whenever you see "troops" in the rules, mentally replace that with "The list of things that I see when I physically open up my codex and go to this page of the book." That, along with the other caveats.

Why do standard Space Marine armies have finite Terminators and Veterans, yet Deathwatch and Grey Knights get infinite Terminators and Veterans? Why do Scions get infinite Scions, but frontline Guardsmen don't? Hell, Legion of the Damned get absolutely nothing reusable, and they're not even corporeal!
There's a major fluff disconnect here, and I don't like that.

That's not a problem with the proposed rules. That's a problem with the current rules as is. To what extent does it make sense to say that a veteran or a terminator could be classified as a "troop"?

Even so, I don't think it would be game breaking. Because, again, see proposed rule 3.

I can get two special weapons and a heavy weapon/four special weapons per Platoon Command Squad, a special and heavy per infantry squad, and for every HWS, I can get 3 Heavy Weapons, and for every SWS, I can get three Special Weapons.

At maximum amount, I can get:
18 Special Weapons
20 Heavy Weapons

All from one Troops slot, and that's not even including lasguns or transports.

Plus the dedicated transports.

How about we cost things appropriately? Done.

Actually, Sgt_Smudge:

The drop pod point alone is a compelling argument in favor of my proposal.

It would make rhino/razorback vs. drop pod an actual tactical decision when writing an army list.

 Traditio wrote:
Actually, Sgt_Smudge:

The drop pod point alone is a compelling argument in favor of my proposal.

It would make rhino/razorback vs. drop pod an actual tactical decision when writing an army list.

It already is. I actually prefer the Rhino.

Awe, and here I thought the Traditio era had come to an end.

The idea is severely flawed; allowing flowing reserves for just Infantry/Troops is just going to move the game meta towards nothing but Troop lists, especially when you can't lose for being tabled.

An interesting mission type perhaps. Certainly not a central mechanic to the game.

Traditio wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:I I now get infinite drop pods?

Yes.

So I can just keep dropping Pods all over your objectives to deny them? Wonderful!

No. See proposed rule 3.

"Rule 3: At the beginning of each player turn, each troops unit in ongoing reserves shall be placed within 12 inches of the player's deployment zone. Each of those units counts as having moved for that turn and may not move again in the movement phase. "

But Drop Pods can't be "placed" as such. They need to deploy as per their own rules, because the Codex rules trump rulebook rules due to specificity. Drop Pods can go anywhere, due to their rule. Your "rulebook" rule doesn't supersede that.

Why do standard Space Marine armies have finite Terminators and Veterans, yet Deathwatch and Grey Knights get infinite Terminators and Veterans? Why do Scions get infinite Scions, but frontline Guardsmen don't? Hell, Legion of the Damned get absolutely nothing reusable, and they're not even corporeal!
There's a major fluff disconnect here, and I don't like that.

That's not a problem with the proposed rules. That's a problem with the current rules as is. To what extent does it make sense to say that a veteran or a terminator could be classified as a "troop"?

Well, let's see what you have to say about what makes a Troop a Troop.
"What if troops were valuable BECAUSE they were expendable? What if we took the fluff about the troops being the mainstay of an army seriously?" So, from this, we can infer that Troops are expendable, which is their value, and that they form the mainstay of an army.

Tell me, what about Grey Knight Terminators makes them more expandable than Terminators from the Mentor Legion? Why are Veterans from the Praetors of Orpheus more valuable than Deathwatch Veterans? Why are Scions from the Scion codex more expandable than Scions from the Astra Militarum Codex?
In fact, why are Eldar Guardians (every Eldar life is precious, according to fluff), Space Marines (some of the rarest and most elite warriors of mankind and Chaos) and FSE Crisis Suits (valued and vital pieces of tech, doubly so in a fringe empire) classed as expandable? Because they're simply classed as Troops, and are therefore expendable, breaking every bit of fluff we have on these three factions at least?

Just because something is classed as "Troops" doesn't mean it's expandable. That is your own flawed logic. Guardsmen are expandable. Necron Warriors, Tyranid Gaunts, Ork Boyz, etc etc - all expendable. But that's represented by their cheapness (which I admit could be taken further). Not all Troops are expandable, and expendability is not what makes a Troop a Troop. Nothing in the Grey Knight army is what I'd deem expandable.

Troops are Troops because they are the most common and basic units fielded by the army. For Deathwatch, their "Troops" are commonplace, but in any other Chapter, they'd be Elite. That doesn't detract from their Veterancy. They're still Veterans, still precious. It's just that the Deathwatch uses Veterans as their main line of combat - not necessarily being expendable.

Even so, I don't think it would be game breaking. Because, again, see proposed rule 3.

See Drop Pods.

I can get two special weapons and a heavy weapon/four special weapons per Platoon Command Squad, a special and heavy per infantry squad, and for every HWS, I can get 3 Heavy Weapons, and for every SWS, I can get three Special Weapons.

At maximum amount, I can get:
18 Special Weapons
20 Heavy Weapons

All from one Troops slot, and that's not even including lasguns or transports.

Plus the dedicated transports.

And this is where you demonstrate you have no actual care for balance.

And I did mention the transports. For the record.

Martel732 wrote:How about we cost things appropriately? Done.

This. Every time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Traditio wrote:
Actually, Sgt_Smudge:

The drop pod point alone is a compelling argument in favor of my proposal.

It would make rhino/razorback vs. drop pod an actual tactical decision when writing an army list.

Not when a Drop Pod can deploy anywhere it wants, due to Codex rules trumping Rulebook rules.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:But Drop Pods can't be "placed" as such. They need to deploy as per their own rules, because the Codex rules trump rulebook rules due to specificity. Drop Pods can go anywhere, due to their rule. Your "rulebook" rule doesn't supersede that.

See the edited version of proposed rule 3.

And this is where you demonstrate you have no actual care for balance.

If you don't think that it's OP without the respawn rule, why do you think it's OP with the respawn rule? And even with the respawn special rule, good luck taking out a wraithknight or a riptide.

 Traditio wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:But Drop Pods can't be "placed" as such. They need to deploy as per their own rules, because the Codex rules trump rulebook rules due to specificity. Drop Pods can go anywhere, due to their rule. Your "rulebook" rule doesn't supersede that.

See the edited version of proposed rule 3.

And now I can place a wall of Drop Pods and create a castle of Pods, without even needing to worry about scatter.

Such brilliant tactical play.

And this is where you demonstrate you have no actual care for balance.

If you don't think that it's OP without the respawn rule, why do you think it's OP with the respawn rule? And even with the respawn special rule, good luck taking out a wraithknight or a riptide.

I think free units are not okay. You are advocating free units, transports, upgrades, all for units which aren't even destroyed. At my whim, I can instantly replace a unit that's at 50%, renew casualties, combi-weapons, transports, and have them ready to go, all because of a misguided belief that just because it's called "Troops" there are unlimited supplies of them.

I can take out Wraithknights and Riptides without free units and respawns. Even better would be if Wraithknights and Riptides were costed fairer, as well as every other unit in the game being costed more appropriately, possibly with a better rules overhaul.

This doesn't fix anything without causing more problems.

 Traditio wrote:
If you don't think that it's OP without the respawn rule, why do you think it's OP with the respawn rule? And even with the respawn special rule, good luck taking out a wraithknight or a riptide.

Fighting unit imbalance with mechanical imbalance is like trying to swat a fly with a drinking straw. Not gonna work.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:And now I can place a wall of Drop Pods and create a castle of Pods, without even needing to worry about scatter.

Yes you could. I mean, I'm not entirely sure why you would want to.

But yes, that is a thing that you could do.

What's the problem?

think free units are not okay.

Why not?

Pretty much everyone would have access to them.

 Traditio wrote:
Why not?

Pretty much everyone would have access to them.

It'd basically be the same as giving everyone 100 point Wraitknights. You sure that still sounds like a fun idea?

 Traditio wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:And now I can place a wall of Drop Pods and create a castle of Pods, without even needing to worry about scatter.

Yes you could. I mean, I'm not entirely sure why you would want to.

But yes, that is a thing that you could do.

What's the problem?

Because now I can barricade my entire deployment and certain objectives with AV12 3HP immovable objects. I don't even have to leave my deployment zone. I only need to bunker down on objectives with free respawning drop pods.

Free units are not okay.

think free units are not okay.

Why not?

Pretty much everyone would have access to them.

Giving everyone Wraithknights wouldn't change that Wraithknights are OP.

Martel732 wrote:
How about we cost things appropriately? Done.

At this point, I don't think that's going to happen. And given the sheer variety of things in the game, rules mechanics, sheer scale differences, etc., I don't even think it's even realistic.

How are you going to balance a cultist against a wraithknight by points cost alone?

A tactical marine against an imperial knight?

And even if you could, the problem remains that basic troops simply don't have any real kind of role in this game at this point.

And GW certainly doesn't seem to be slowing down the arms race. Magnus exists now. Rowboat Girlyman is apparently entering into the normal 40k game. Eldar can spam D. Practically everyone and his mother have rerollable 2+ everything.

So my proposal is: Fine. Everything should be OP. Make. Everything. OP.

Make heavy supports, elites, fast attacks, etc. really good at their specialized roles. Make them amazing. Make them OP amazing.

And make troops practically unkillable.

At the end of the day, I do think that this would make troops-only armies more viable, but I don't think that it would make them a "must take" in the competitive meta. Even if tactical marines could respawn, the wraithknight would still be very mobile, very durable and will destroy practically whatever you point it at.

It would, of course, shift the way the game is played. Instead of tabling the opponent, the new focus would be on taking out elites, heavy supports, etc. relatively early in the game to cripple the opponent's specialized capabilities, and then control the mid-field objectives.

But then, everyone's supposed to be playing Maelstrom now, right? This is supposed to be an objectives game, right?

So let's play this like an objectives game.

When I see threads like that, I'm pretty sure they're intended as jokes… until I see people actually arguing about it, and end up remembering that GW already did this (the renegade detachment that allows troop to come back and outflank on a 2+).

Sgt_Smudge wrote:Because now I can barricade my entire deployment and certain objectives with AV12 3HP immovable objects. I don't even have to leave my deployment zone. I only need to bunker down on objectives with free respawning drop pods.

And?

Good luck taking mid-field objectives that way. And that won't stop me from sitting on my objectives.

Giving everyone Wraithknights wouldn't change that Wraithknights are OP.

Do you think that respawning infantry-troops would be OP? I mean, you can say "free troops are not OK," but I simply don't share your convictions.

 Traditio wrote:


How are you going to balance a cultist against a wraithknight by points cost alone?

A tactical marine against an imperial knight?

That's... not how balance works.

They're two completely different units with two completely different battlefield roles. 300 points of Marines shouldn't be able to kill 300 points of Wraithknight just as easily as the Wraithknight will kill them.

Because the Knight has stuff designed for killing Marines - that's it's speciality. If everything could counter everything, the game would be incredibly bland.