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.

So long ago there was a decade or 2 that 'Detachment' did not exist in the rules. Back then it was 25% min for troops and 50% max for HeavySupport/Characters.

That was easily abused. It should have been 50% min troops.

There is a lot of fuss over CP and spam lists and it seems really based on the use of Detachments.

There used to be rules that said if you wanted this character you needed to have this squad/unit. It would be easy to apply that to get the same results as most infantry based detachments. Actually would be quite simple.

The problems arise when someone wants to play an armored column or all flyer list or super heavy list or so on. But is that really a big deal for a Platoon or 2 sized game?

Should there be one set of rules for 40k (vehicle facing, fire arcs, etc) and another for Apocolypse games (much like we have in 8th currently)

thoughts?

Detachments are fine.

I remember when we just had the one Force Org Chart, and everyone either used it or ignored it.

Ah, sweet apathy, where have you gone?

The problem is that there are units, often troops, that are just no good. And there are units, often elites or flyers, that are *too* good.

Every unit should have some sort of use. Otherwise its just a tax to bring the unit you really want.

So far it feels like 8th's "wound anything" really helps with that. But it remains to be seen.

If the issue is "troops are too weak", the solution isn't "we need more detachments".

That's GW-thought. And GW-thought is wrongthink.

I would prefer a system where each player got 3 command points base, with an additional point for each troop unit in the army.

As things are now, 8th edition has me feeling like troops struggle for identity.

 Fafnir wrote:
I would prefer a system where each player got 3 command points base, with an additional point for each troop unit in the army.

As things are now, 8th edition has me feeling like troops struggle for identity.

In real wars armies are almost entirely troops, until one side has such an enormous resource advantage over the other that they don't have to field troops.

40k ignores resource limitations, and assumes that Baneblades are as plentiful as Guardsmen.

That's why troops have no identity.

 Fafnir wrote:
I would prefer a system where each player got 3 command points base, with an additional point for each troop unit in the army.

As things are now, 8th edition has me feeling like troops struggle for identity.

I gotta say I really like that idea

To be honest why some troops don't make it into play is that some armies have such a poor selection and others have tons to choose from that are adequate/great.

Detachments have always been fun for me to fill out. What the actual army on the board looks like really did not change that much from 2nd to 3rd. Same units same roles just a new way to fit them in.

 Selym wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
I would prefer a system where each player got 3 command points base, with an additional point for each troop unit in the army.

As things are now, 8th edition has me feeling like troops struggle for identity.

In real wars armies are almost entirely troops, until one side has such an enormous resource advantage over the other that they don't have to field troops.

40k ignores resource limitations, and assumes that Baneblades are as plentiful as Guardsmen.

That's why troops have no identity.

And it all comes from jervis being a pushover to the marketing team and the ethos of play wit ma toyz take precedent over a coherent game that doesn't involve super heavies at 500pts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 admironheart wrote:


Should there be one set of rules for 40k (vehicle facing, fire arcs, etc) and another for Apocolypse games (much like we have in 8th currently)

thoughts?

Yeah the removal of arcs, especially given the introduction of splitfire is baffling and ruins the nuance of various vehicles and their mountings. Apoc is made irrelevant by the core game essentially just being apoc, sadly. I do think separation between super heavies and gigantic fmc's and everything else would certainly help the game, at the very least index stuff to points like 30k does.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Selym wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
I would prefer a system where each player got 3 command points base, with an additional point for each troop unit in the army.

As things are now, 8th edition has me feeling like troops struggle for identity.

In real wars armies are almost entirely troops, until one side has such an enormous resource advantage over the other that they don't have to field troops.

40k ignores resource limitations, and assumes that Baneblades are as plentiful as Guardsmen.

That's why troops have no identity.

And it all comes from jervis being a pushover to the marketing team and the ethos of play wit ma toyz take precedent over a coherent game that doesn't involve super heavies at 500pts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 admironheart wrote:


Should there be one set of rules for 40k (vehicle facing, fire arcs, etc) and another for Apocolypse games (much like we have in 8th currently)

thoughts?

Yeah the removal of arcs, especially given the introduction of splitfire is baffling and ruins the nuance of various vehicles and their mountings. Apoc is made irrelevant by the core game essentially just being apoc, sadly. I do think separation between super heavies and gigantic fmc's and everything else would certainly help the game, at the very least index stuff to points like 30k does.

As someone who hasn't played 40k since 2nd, (so my memories are pretty foggy), I am really enjoying the approachability of 8th. My troops die in droves, but we can play a game in a reasonable amount of time. I'm glad I don't have to spend time arguing about individual weapon arcs, hull sides and such. Hell I'd rather not have to individually measure weapon distances to be honest. And getting rid of templates, fine by me! I've only played two games so far, but it was pretty easy to pick up and it played at a great pace.

I mean, we only played 500 points, and I still had 30 infantry on the table, and two vehicles. Scale that up and you're looking at WFB 8th edition numbers of toy soldiers, but having to move and measure them all individually! That doesn't sound like much fun to me. I'm going to dig out my movement trays for from WFB for my next game, and eventually pick up skirmish trays.

But I'm still a newb to 40k so I may see more problems as time goes by.

 argonak wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Selym wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
I would prefer a system where each player got 3 command points base, with an additional point for each troop unit in the army.

As things are now, 8th edition has me feeling like troops struggle for identity.

In real wars armies are almost entirely troops, until one side has such an enormous resource advantage over the other that they don't have to field troops.

40k ignores resource limitations, and assumes that Baneblades are as plentiful as Guardsmen.

That's why troops have no identity.

And it all comes from jervis being a pushover to the marketing team and the ethos of play wit ma toyz take precedent over a coherent game that doesn't involve super heavies at 500pts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 admironheart wrote:


Should there be one set of rules for 40k (vehicle facing, fire arcs, etc) and another for Apocolypse games (much like we have in 8th currently)

thoughts?

Yeah the removal of arcs, especially given the introduction of splitfire is baffling and ruins the nuance of various vehicles and their mountings. Apoc is made irrelevant by the core game essentially just being apoc, sadly. I do think separation between super heavies and gigantic fmc's and everything else would certainly help the game, at the very least index stuff to points like 30k does.

As someone who hasn't played 40k since 2nd, (so my memories are pretty foggy), I am really enjoying the approachability of 8th. My troops die in droves, but we can play a game in a reasonable amount of time. I'm glad I don't have to spend time arguing about individual weapon arcs, hull sides and such. Hell I'd rather not have to individually measure weapon distances to be honest. And getting rid of templates, fine by me! I've only played two games so far, but it was pretty easy to pick up and it played at a great pace.

I mean, we only played 500 points, and I still had 30 infantry on the table, and two vehicles. Scale that up and you're looking at WFB 8th edition numbers of toy soldiers, but having to move and measure them all individually! That doesn't sound like much fun to me. I'm going to dig out my movement trays for from WFB for my next game, and eventually pick up skirmish trays.

But I'm still a newb to 40k so I may see more problems as time goes by.

To contrast your opinion, what if I said "painting isn't very fun, so i just don't" I mean it's a valid opinion, no one can make me paint. In a game that I put great love and TIME into, sometimes taking hours to just setup a board and dutifully ensuring only to play with painted models/armies I really don't mind a game taking longer if the experience is more detailed and subjectively rewarding on account of that detail. This is the polar opposite of bear and pretzels casual fun, it's obsessive focus, time and effort, often with the same expectations of prospective opponents. It's fine to enjoy the simplicity but for a lot of us, the lack of depth is hard to ignore.




I think if GW limited detachments more and focused on the patrol-battalion-brigade side of things it'd be a good start. At the minimum 1 or 2 max under 1500 IMO. The other detachments should be taxed or unlocked by special characters. Right now the system is so silly, especially for mega factions like imperium that you can just make a collection of stuff and then see if it fits into detachment(s) might need like a cheap hq or other tax, but for the most part, it really limits very little with 3 detachments, especially at 2000.

Not sure if OP has played any 8th. Troops of all kinds are doing great this edition - just look for all the threads talking about how conscripts are probably too good.

Arachnofiend wrote:
Not sure if OP has played any 8th. Troops of all kinds are doing great this edition - just look for all the threads talking about how conscripts are probably too good.

A single under-costed troop choice that players facetiously point to with a gak eating grin and say "I love this edition's renewed focus on infantry, so refreshing" smiling through their teeth while the other side of their mouth refers to their beloved infantry as simply "bubble wrap" used ostensibly to take up space and to keep your tanks from getting into.. fist.. fights..

I'd see Apoc models relegated to Apoc before the end of detachments.
But I said the same thing about Formations so my opinion is out of step.

I would be okay with giving an even greater advantage to troop-based armies (currently you get a few more CP and that's it), if there were also more ways to make units troop choices.

Certain sub-factions should have different troop choices. Current Death Guard has plague marines as a troops for instance. Saim-Hann CWE could also have windriders as troops, provided it comes with some restrictions (all HQs have to be on jetbikes, some units become unavailable etc.).
And we could also have special characters unlock troop choices like they used to. Maybe with a limit, like: "if you take X as an HQ choice, you can take up to N units of Y as troops instead of elite/HS/whatever".

Just go back to 5th edition where only troops could score... problem solved.

secretForge wrote:
Just go back to 5th edition where only troops could score... problem solved.

That's a lot of what works well in 30k.

This is where Gw's we're a model not a games company comes through tough.

Gameplay/" realistically"(how I hate using that word in conjunction with 40k) you should encourage troops and basic infantry.

Practically they want people (not just little Timmy also his father Johny) to be able to use their cool new painted god looking centerpieces wothout needing a day for an apoc game.

They may have gone too far in this direction but everyrhing being able to hurt everything should help

Irl militaries are very careful not to have all their eggs in one basket since WWII. You just can't protect that basket sufficiently from bad luck.

 admironheart wrote:
To be honest why some troops don't make it into play is that some armies have such a poor selection and others have tons to choose from that are adequate/great.

The thing is though, you could say the exact same thing about HQs. However, whilst there are many detachments that allow you to field no troops, there are none that allow you to field no HQs (outside of the LoW and aircraft ones, obviously).

 Fafnir wrote:
I would prefer a system where each player got 3 command points base, with an additional point for each troop unit in the army.

I really like that idea.

 Fafnir wrote:
As things are now, 8th edition has me feeling like troops struggle for identity.

I think the issue is that they've been made completely optional. The whole point of troops is that they're supposed to be the core of the army.

 admironheart wrote:
So long ago there was a decade or 2 that 'Detachment' did not exist in the rules. Back then it was 25% min for troops and 50% max for HeavySupport/Characters.

That was easily abused. It should have been 50% min troops.

This could work if it would mean all non-character infantry would become a troop choice. Nobody wants to play 1000 points of Rangers/Guardians/Dire Avengers in a 2000 point game. However, if the troop choice would include Dark Reapers, Swooping Hawks, Striking Scorpions, Wraith Guards, and so on(basically all infantry that is non-character becomes a troop choice), it would make more sense.

Eldarsif wrote:

 admironheart wrote:
So long ago there was a decade or 2 that 'Detachment' did not exist in the rules. Back then it was 25% min for troops and 50% max for HeavySupport/Characters.

That was easily abused. It should have been 50% min troops.

This could work if it would mean all non-character infantry would become a troop choice. Nobody wants to play 1000 points of Rangers/Guardians/Dire Avengers in a 2000 point game. However, if the troop choice would include Dark Reapers, Swooping Hawks, Striking Scorpions, Wraith Guards, and so on(basically all infantry that is non-character becomes a troop choice), it would make more sense.

Actually, that would defeat the whole purpose - because once again the troops would just be ignored in favour of more 'flashy' units.

What if it was just 25% Troops?

I say no

Variety promotes experimentation

Also, the whole 'troops are useless' thing is hilarious to watch.

In all of the games i have played, troops have been the absolute bane of my existence. Mass number units hurt like a bee sting.

(Also. For people who think the conscrip + Commisar combo is great and all. I laugh in your face at the sheer lack of depth you posses.

I have found that if your willing to spare an extra 2 pts per model. you can go instead with 5 lots of infantry guardsmen, who do a heck of a lot more than the 50 blob conscripts.

Add a commisar and company commander to that line and watch your opponents cry tears. Believe me, I know)

I think the current detachments system is nearly there, but not quite. Would be nice to see some sort of incentive (bonus CPs maybe?) to actually fill out your detachments, rather than just take the bare minimum for the CPs. For example, why would I take an extra HQ/three HS slots in a Battalion when I can take them as a separate detachment and get +1CP?

 vipoid wrote:

Eldarsif wrote:

 admironheart wrote:
So long ago there was a decade or 2 that 'Detachment' did not exist in the rules. Back then it was 25% min for troops and 50% max for HeavySupport/Characters.

That was easily abused. It should have been 50% min troops.

This could work if it would mean all non-character infantry would become a troop choice. Nobody wants to play 1000 points of Rangers/Guardians/Dire Avengers in a 2000 point game. However, if the troop choice would include Dark Reapers, Swooping Hawks, Striking Scorpions, Wraith Guards, and so on(basically all infantry that is non-character becomes a troop choice), it would make more sense.

Actually, that would defeat the whole purpose - because once again the troops would just be ignored in favour of more 'flashy' units.

What if it was just 25% Troops?

Make it 30% basic squaddies, and it's a deal.

In every 1,000 points, you must have 300pts of Troops.
In every 1,500 points, you must have 450pts of Troops.
In every 2,000 points, you must have 600pts of Troops.
In every 2,500 points, you must have 750pts of Troops.
In every 3,000 points, you must have 900pts of Troops.

This is easy to achieve - A Tactical Marine squad can make over 200 points in a single skwad.

Anything like this has very different impacts on different factions. Some have good Troops and some have awful Troops. Some have Troops that are worth taking but not in large numbers. Sometimes this change doesn't have that big of an impact on lists that are still pretty weird.

I don't have an in-principle problem with this as long as many factions get their units' roles re-thought. Necrons need way more than just Warriors and Immortals as Troops, for example. Lots of Craftworld Eldar lists aren't going to care about this change, because while they're only bringing a few min-sized Guardian squads, all of those squads have expensive Wave Serpents, but others who want to bring lots of Aspect Warriors are screwed (or if the transports don't count then Craftworld Eldar really just have nothing worth spending lots of Troops points on). Tau can't put together very suit-heavy lists.

I mean, it's a little weird to say that it's a problem that a Tau army can field a force consisting mostly of elite battlesuits but not a problem that the Imperium can field a force consisting entirely of ultra-elite space marines.

I was referring to troops sans transport...

But yeah, factions need at least three troop options, and for the current ones to become valid choices. As right now, even implementing quotas, they are not.

 Selym wrote:
I remember when we just had the one Force Org Chart, and everyone either used it or ignored it.

Ah, sweet apathy, where have you gone?

4th and 5th edition, you mean? 8 years out of the nineteen that the Force Organisation Chart has been part of the game. Even then, I think Daemonhunters and Witch Hunters had their own, didn't they? And Space Wolves modified it, and other armies had rules that let other units count as Troops (which is exactly the same as saying "if so-and-so is in your army, use this FOC instead".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

Eldarsif wrote:

 admironheart wrote:
So long ago there was a decade or 2 that 'Detachment' did not exist in the rules. Back then it was 25% min for troops and 50% max for HeavySupport/Characters.

That was easily abused. It should have been 50% min troops.

This could work if it would mean all non-character infantry would become a troop choice. Nobody wants to play 1000 points of Rangers/Guardians/Dire Avengers in a 2000 point game. However, if the troop choice would include Dark Reapers, Swooping Hawks, Striking Scorpions, Wraith Guards, and so on(basically all infantry that is non-character becomes a troop choice), it would make more sense.

Actually, that would defeat the whole purpose - because once again the troops would just be ignored in favour of more 'flashy' units.

What if it was just 25% Troops?

Back when it was split by percentages, you only had Characters, Troops and Support. For Space Marines, the troops section included Terminators, Assault Marines and Devastators.

Characters is self-evident (but also included veteran sergeants and the like, and Exarchs were independent characters), Support was tanks, artillery, field guns and allies, Troops was everything else - including all the Aspect Warriors, as Eldarsif suggests.

I think that the detachments have been OK and from what I have seen troops have taken a step into the spotlight for 8th (especially compared to 7th). I do like the idea of giving a command point per troop choice, but I just know that it would be abused by people. Perhaps for each 10% of the armies total spent on troops you get an additional command point?

Dionysodorus wrote:
Anything like this has very different impacts on different factions. Some have good Troops and some have awful Troops. Some have Troops that are worth taking but not in large numbers. Sometimes this change doesn't have that big of an impact on lists that are still pretty weird.

I don't have an in-principle problem with this as long as many factions get their units' roles re-thought. Necrons need way more than just Warriors and Immortals as Troops, for example. Lots of Craftworld Eldar lists aren't going to care about this change, because while they're only bringing a few min-sized Guardian squads, all of those squads have expensive Wave Serpents, but others who want to bring lots of Aspect Warriors are screwed (or if the transports don't count then Craftworld Eldar really just have nothing worth spending lots of Troops points on). Tau can't put together very suit-heavy lists.

I mean, it's a little weird to say that it's a problem that a Tau army can field a force consisting mostly of elite battlesuits but not a problem that the Imperium can field a force consisting entirely of ultra-elite space marines.

Quoted for truth.
Also don't underestimate how this scales up towards bigger point levels.
I know a number of poeple who would be very unhappy (not in a WAAC) fashion if Gw invalidated their armies and lists like this.
It's possible but you would have to balance every faction around this kind of restriction.

I think formations were the way to go to force "balanced" lists but this failed due toii bad implementations.

Eldar are only fine if dedicated transports count as troops. They don't right now, they have their own slots. Imagine having to take that many guardians, DA and rangers. Doesn't fit the lore either Eldar don't count on numpbers to win, they rely on tech,tanks and specialists.