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.

 Stormonu wrote:
Heh, how about starting all armies with only troop slots and 9 CP. Each slot you convert into a non-troop slot costs 1 CP. Non-troops are non-objective scoring.

Combine with Strategms. 1 CP to give a non-troop unit the ability to score objectives. Maybe for 2 CP you can call in an artillery strike. For a CP, you can Deep Strike, or perhaps give them Scout or other special rules (or GW can sell them as a deck of cards you can choose from in a "hand", especially if some could be played midgame to represent battlefield conditions, luck, strategy or somesuch). Maybe even use them summoning (say, fixing each CP to be worth about 20 points of units/upgrades) Certain armies/chapters/factions might have their own special Strategms.

This would make army building relatively flexible, but these upgrades still have a cost associated with them. Essentially CPs would be a currency you put aside for army customization/luck mitigation.

I really like this idea.

I guess most players have not been here for 20+ years. I would like to expand the word or 'troop' in this discussion as I origninally intended. Troops were Terminators, All aspects, etc. Heavy Support was tanks and walkers and artillery. Of course Characters were your HQ choices.

There were not elites and fast attack. There were 3 big problems. small bikes counted as support/heavy and could block shots to that leman russ line. That was dumb
I mentioned the 2nd already....players took some units to meet 25% and then maxed out on characters and heavy weapons/tanks. Again it was about shooting or hacking with big pieces and the small average model was just cannon fodder...not how real battles play out.
The last was the troops taken were usually what we now know as elites/fast attack.

So if there were built in restrictions like....you have to field one of these to get 2 or 3 of those then you would need to fill out requirments WHICH WAS THE WHOLE PURPOSE of 3rd edition Detachments. My most used combo was that I must field 1 aspect squad to take 1 Exarch. 1 for 1.

So the above base cp currency idea is great. Perhaps for every troop choice or so you take you gain more cp and if you want to field a vanguard or spearhead, etc then those detachments cost cp not add. Same with Lords of War or Flyer wings...

With that idea in mind then Terminator armies, and tank column armies etc would need adjusted to be fair for the CP tax they have. It would be a consolation to that balanced list that has to face those 4 Lords of War.

Yeah, I still remember when the 50% "Troops" was made up of any squad of guys. The characters and vehicles were what you had to limit. My army building still basically reverts to that kinda layout.

 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.

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?

Your argument inherently fails because it's based off of a faulty premise.

Which is that the "ideal list" is predominantly infantry with cavalry and vehicles/monsters sprinkled in.

This isn't true. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a list that's nothing but tanks, or giant suits or flyers. Variety is the spice of life and the encouragement of making a list with whatever theme you want is one of the crowning achievement of the past few editions.

Detachments are fine; they add variety to the gameplay, letting you take different styles of the same army, like a terminator detachment or all-jump pack detachment or a vehicle section. It's unit balance that needs fixing.

 admironheart wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
Heh, how about starting all armies with only troop slots and 9 CP. Each slot you convert into a non-troop slot costs 1 CP. Non-troops are non-objective scoring.

Combine with Strategms. 1 CP to give a non-troop unit the ability to score objectives. Maybe for 2 CP you can call in an artillery strike. For a CP, you can Deep Strike, or perhaps give them Scout or other special rules (or GW can sell them as a deck of cards you can choose from in a "hand", especially if some could be played midgame to represent battlefield conditions, luck, strategy or somesuch). Maybe even use them summoning (say, fixing each CP to be worth about 20 points of units/upgrades) Certain armies/chapters/factions might have their own special Strategms.

This would make army building relatively flexible, but these upgrades still have a cost associated with them. Essentially CPs would be a currency you put aside for army customization/luck mitigation.

I really like this idea.

I guess most players have not been here for 20+ years. I would like to expand the word or 'troop' in this discussion as I origninally intended. Troops were Terminators, All aspects, etc. Heavy Support was tanks and walkers and artillery. Of course Characters were your HQ choices.

There were not elites and fast attack. There were 3 big problems. small bikes counted as support/heavy and could block shots to that leman russ line. That was dumb
I mentioned the 2nd already....players took some units to meet 25% and then maxed out on characters and heavy weapons/tanks. Again it was about shooting or hacking with big pieces and the small average model was just cannon fodder...not how real battles play out.
The last was the troops taken were usually what we now know as elites/fast attack.

So if there were built in restrictions like....you have to field one of these to get 2 or 3 of those then you would need to fill out requirments WHICH WAS THE WHOLE PURPOSE of 3rd edition Detachments. My most used combo was that I must field 1 aspect squad to take 1 Exarch. 1 for 1.

So the above base cp currency idea is great. Perhaps for every troop choice or so you take you gain more cp and if you want to field a vanguard or spearhead, etc then those detachments cost cp not add. Same with Lords of War or Flyer wings...

With that idea in mind then Terminator armies, and tank column armies etc would need adjusted to be fair for the CP tax they have. It would be a consolation to that balanced list that has to face those 4 Lords of War.

So, why should Terminators, who are small specialist units deployed in penny-packets not have an additional penalty to field when my tank units, who are deployed in greater mass than Terminators ever are, do come with a penalty? My tanks are more basic than some of your infantry units are.

Also, consider the fact that, by unit count, I can end up with twice as many units on the board as the Space Marines, and even if half of those units are tanks, I still have more heavy support options taken than he has troops in his entire army.

If we do it by percentage of unit cost, it's the same sort of affair. My infantry is literally 3 points a model. If I fill half my army by cost with troops, I'll have so many models I won't be able to fit them on the board.




Here's the thing. I think troops should have incentives to have more of them than tanks have an incentive to have less of them. A clause such as objectives only being secured by troops would make having a large number of troop units almost essential to winning.




Also, counting down is certainly worse for armies like mine than counting up is for armies like Space Marines. There's a law of diminishing returns on command points, so each one lost is worth more than each one gained.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
Heh, how about starting all armies with only troop slots and 9 CP. Each slot you convert into a non-troop slot costs 1 CP. Non-troops are non-objective scoring.

Combine with Strategms. 1 CP to give a non-troop unit the ability to score objectives. Maybe for 2 CP you can call in an artillery strike. For a CP, you can Deep Strike, or perhaps give them Scout or other special rules (or GW can sell them as a deck of cards you can choose from in a "hand", especially if some could be played midgame to represent battlefield conditions, luck, strategy or somesuch). Maybe even use them summoning (say, fixing each CP to be worth about 20 points of units/upgrades) Certain armies/chapters/factions might have their own special Strategms.

This would make army building relatively flexible, but these upgrades still have a cost associated with them. Essentially CPs would be a currency you put aside for army customization/luck mitigation.

That would be terrible.

My army easily fields 5-8 armored vehicles, and an amount of infantry that makes people annoyed at the amount of time I spend setting it up.

If it counts down from a fixed number, wherever the number is set, it shifts the balance of power as it were much more drastically than the current system does, I think.

Am I missing something here? I don't have my books with me, but those armies I associate with taking tanks and such (like IG), could take one "Heavy" choice of say, 3 Leman Russes, which under this would cost 1 CP. And dedicated transports wouldn't cost CPs. That'd still give you a lot to work with.

Also, this was for a "Patrol" sized detatchment. Something like Brigade or Regiment would start with double or even triple CPs (but for fairness, you'd probably want both sides to start with the same skeleton). If you filled out all the slots in a Patrol like we normally see, you'd have 2 Heavy, 2 Elite, 2 Fast Attack and 3 CP's for Strategms/Rerolls. In your case, you might do 6 Heavy and forego the other slots partially or completely and still have 3 CP's. Heck, you could go all in and have 9 Heavy slots, and no CPs - maybe an armored column with a Tank Commander at the lead?

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Here's the thing. I think troops should have incentives to have more of them than tanks have an incentive to have less of them. A clause such as objectives only being secured by troops would make having a large number of troop units almost essential to winning.

We tried that for like three editions, objective secured, it didn't really work as intended.

The real issue with army composition stems from the objective system in general being garbage. Simply put the eternal war missions are ass and need to die in a fire. Only scoring points at the END of the game directly reduces the value of troops because it's too difficult to keep them alive until the end of the game, especially if you're MSU. First blood is also cancer for the same reason.

Objectives need to be gained cumulatively at the end of each turn, like maelstrom, and scoring needs to be determined by # of models on it, like now, so that a single tank or monstrous creature can't swipe it out from under the nose a 50-man blob.

 Stormonu wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
Heh, how about starting all armies with only troop slots and 9 CP. Each slot you convert into a non-troop slot costs 1 CP. Non-troops are non-objective scoring.

Combine with Strategms. 1 CP to give a non-troop unit the ability to score objectives. Maybe for 2 CP you can call in an artillery strike. For a CP, you can Deep Strike, or perhaps give them Scout or other special rules (or GW can sell them as a deck of cards you can choose from in a "hand", especially if some could be played midgame to represent battlefield conditions, luck, strategy or somesuch). Maybe even use them summoning (say, fixing each CP to be worth about 20 points of units/upgrades) Certain armies/chapters/factions might have their own special Strategms.

This would make army building relatively flexible, but these upgrades still have a cost associated with them. Essentially CPs would be a currency you put aside for army customization/luck mitigation.

That would be terrible.

My army easily fields 5-8 armored vehicles, and an amount of infantry that makes people annoyed at the amount of time I spend setting it up.

If it counts down from a fixed number, wherever the number is set, it shifts the balance of power as it were much more drastically than the current system does, I think.

Am I missing something here? I don't have my books with me, but those armies I associate with taking tanks and such (like IG), could take one "Heavy" choice of say, 3 Leman Russes, which under this would cost 1 CP. And dedicated transports wouldn't cost CPs. That'd still give you a lot to work with.

Also, this was for a "Patrol" sized detatchment. Something like Brigade or Regiment would start with double or even triple CPs (but for fairness, you'd probably want both sides to start with the same skeleton). If you filled out all the slots in a Patrol like we normally see, you'd have 2 Heavy, 2 Elite, 2 Fast Attack and 3 CP's for Strategms/Rerolls. In your case, you might do 6 Heavy and forego the other slots partially or completely and still have 3 CP's. Heck, you could go all in and have 9 Heavy slots, and no CPs - maybe an armored column with a Tank Commander at the lead?

Forcing people to take troops by enforcing penalties on them having fun is stupid, asinine bullgak.(And if you know anything about gamification, starting at high CP and losing CP as you take slots is ALWAYS going to be seen as a penalty even if you don't intend it to be.) That's the kind of idea that Kirby era GW would have. Congratulation, you're all Kirby era game designers.

You want people to take more troops? Make troops MORE appealing, not other things LESS and certainly don't do BOTH. Wanna see more troops? 'Every army gets an additional 20% of the total points limit they can spend on troops."

Or just like, play the game.

Detachments are one of my favourite aspects of 8th. I don't think anyone should be forced to play with more troops than they want to. You get so much more CPs for troop heavy detachments they have all the incentive you need built into them.

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

I'm sold.

 Crablezworth wrote:

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..

Just the most extreme example. I play Thousand Sons and Rubrics are great this edition.

everyone complaining about having to take good troops choices in detachments...why not use an army where you like their troops choices?

The DE army I'm building doesn't have Kabalites as the sexiest thing in their roster, but they're far from my last choice to bulk out the numbers. My Blood Angels Tactical Squads might not be my favourite unit, but they can hold their own, I suppose.

I am an overly fluffy player though, so see troops as the bare bones of my army. Maybe sometimes I'll have a lot more specialist units in my armies, and tailor them to the situations I want them for, but 10-20 basic dudes with guns isn't usually gonna hurt any list.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

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

I'm sold.

I'm not.

Because all the specialist armies that had alternative Troops... Ravenwing, Deathwing, Iyanden, Alpha Legion Chosen, Black Legion Terminator and Chosen forces, Armoured Companies and so on basically get told at this point they can't play the game anymore.

40k has never really been about mass spamming Troops in any edition - this is why these variant army lists existed - some people prefer smaller elite armies, some people prefer monsters, some people prefer tank companies. Next you'll want us all to start using movement trays and to get rank bonuses....

 DarkStarSabre wrote:
40k has never really been about mass spamming Troops in any edition

That depends on the army in question. Most non-Marine forces have had at least one edition where it was quite useful to spam a troops choice. But it's certainly true that GW has never crafted Tacticals in a way that made competitive players want to spam them (though I certainly remember scout-sniper spam in previous editions being one of several SM tactics that became popular). The problem lies mostly with tacticals in this regard, though I'm not saying all the other troops choices are great this edition.

 DarkStarSabre wrote:
Because all the specialist armies that had alternative Troops... Ravenwing, Deathwing, Iyanden, Alpha Legion Chosen, Black Legion Terminator and Chosen forces, Armoured Companies and so on basically get told at this point they can't play the game anymore.

Key point: "alternative troops". After implementing the "only troops score" rule you also return the "X unit can be taken as troops" rules where appropriate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
The real issue with army composition stems from the objective system in general being garbage. Simply put the eternal war missions are ass and need to die in a fire. Only scoring points at the END of the game directly reduces the value of troops because it's too difficult to keep them alive until the end of the game, especially if you're MSU.

Strongly disagree. Scoring objectives at the end of the game increases the value of troops because you have to play the long game and keep your troops alive until the end, you can't just zerg rush MSU units onto everything and get a decisive lead in 1-2 turns. If you aren't keeping your troops alive long enough to score objectives at the end of the game then stop doing things like taking two 5-man tactical squads to fill the FOC minimum and bring enough troops that you have some still alive at the end of the game.

Just a random thought.

What about if you lose victory points depending on the amount of troops you lose at the end of the game. If you lose 50% of your troops you loose XXpts. If you lose 100% of your troops; if you win you lose (pyrhic victory). Troops are the army; the rest are just support. If you lose your troops what are they supporting.

Tygre wrote:
Just a random thought.

What about if you lose victory points depending on the amount of troops you lose at the end of the game. If you lose 50% of your troops you loose XXpts. If you lose 100% of your troops; if you win you lose (pyrhic victory). Troops are the army; the rest are just support. If you lose your troops what are they supporting.

That makes no sense fluff-wise. Troops fluff-wise are often expendable units that are stuck garrisoning objectives because they are the least valuable units in the army, while the more valuable elites and tanks and such are taken away to fight elsewhere once the battle is over. A pyrrhic victory would be one where your troops survive and claim objectives, but your HQ and elites are wiped out, not one in which your most valuable units survive but the cannon fodder dies.

Tygre wrote:
Just a random thought.

What about if you lose victory points depending on the amount of troops you lose at the end of the game. If you lose 50% of your troops you loose XXpts. If you lose 100% of your troops; if you win you lose (pyrhic victory). Troops are the army; the rest are just support. If you lose your troops what are they supporting.

That would be the single most evil thing anyone could think of.

Just think about this for a second.

You would incentivize list tailored SPECIFICALLY to destroy troop role units. And these list would try and find the most 'bang for your buck' troops to play as a permanent rearguard.

The amount of people who would ignore big things because if they destroy their opponents troops they still win would be INSANE.

I would probably see a list where you would have fields of LOW's just pushing up while troops in the back sit there and twiddle their thumbs

Troops may be more expendable in the fluff, but if all that is left of you IG company is your captain, a cross attached basilisk; and a cross attached Leman Russ Squadron; it is not really an IG company anymore. Or a Space Marine example if you are left with just a few vehicles, a terminator squad, and a assault squad; you have lost the 2nd company.

If you are worried your troops are going to be easily anihilated; use cover and bring more. And it works both ways. Kill his troops.

Auto lose maybe a bit harsh. Draw if you win? or maybe just ignore that part.

I did mention it was just a random thought, as we were discussing how to make troops more important.

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

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

I'm sold.

I'm not.

Because all the specialist armies that had alternative Troops... Ravenwing, Deathwing, Iyanden, Alpha Legion Chosen, Black Legion Terminator and Chosen forces, Armoured Companies and so on basically get told at this point they can't play the game anymore.

40k has never really been about mass spamming Troops in any edition - this is why these variant army lists existed - some people prefer smaller elite armies, some people prefer monsters, some people prefer tank companies. Next you'll want us all to start using movement trays and to get rank bonuses....

GW has tried to convince us that 40k has never been about being a game at all, 40k was just an excuse to get your models out of their display case, throw dice and have a laugh.
What 40k is about is selling models and seven editions of constant harassment from people who buy the models about game balance has convinced them that maybe 40k buyers are gamers rather than just modellers/painters.

I play Deathwatch and Space Wolves, I'm quite happy to and quite capable of playing elite forces - when you're not investing in units that can score you're throwing all your eggs in the boardwipe basket and if you're consistently capable of that then kudos to you.
Ravenwing, Deathwing and Terminators are quite capable of being part of a bigger force, all they need is a capable general.
If you're spamming them because they're your strongest unit my sympathy is about the same as it is for the Eldar players crying about the death of the spammed Wraithknight or Tau players sobbing about the death of the Riptide Wing.
Your tears make the best part of that serenade.

For those of you who have moved on to the spammed "Intangible Ghostkeel" props on your adaptability.

 argonak wrote:
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.

Been thinking alot about balance lately. I don't think it will ever work. Secondly why should it exist?

War has never been fair. The germans never asked the french if they though it was a well matched conflict.

What should be against the rules is Mathhammer min maxing and power gaming.

Stupidly over the top win win win at all costs players ruin this game. Trying to balance 40 k ruins the game. Making it simplified for children ruins the game. This game has always been about long strategy like civ. This is what makes it fun. If you want a quick game go play pokemon or snakes and ladders.
.

I rather win a game against a more powerful force using tactics then show up and. Go pew pew roll dice for effect.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

Ravenwing, Deathwing and Terminators are quite capable of being part of a bigger force, all they need is a capable general.
If you're spamming them because they're your strongest unit my sympathy is about the same as it is for the Eldar players crying about the death of the spammed Wraithknight or Tau players sobbing about the death of the Riptide Wing.
Your tears make the best part of that serenade.

See, now I know you're straight up talking out of your rear end.

You'd realise that Deathwing and Ravenwing armies hark back to 2nd edition. Armoured company harks back to 3rd edition. Nidzilla to 4th.

And the fact you seem to think they were being spammed 'because they were the strongest'.

Holy feth...

On what planet have Terminators ever been considered the greatest thing ever? They've always been overpriced, horrendously weak to small arms fire and hordes and in general not that much to look at.

Armoured Companies were largely Leman Russ based - the Leman Russ has been a joke the past 4 editions as far as tanks go. Again, overpriced, too fragile for what it does and with a horrendous kit layout.

Chaos Chosen? Never good. Overpriced and even worse in 6th/7th than they were in 3.5 and 4th/5th when they could at least Infiltrate.

Tyranid Carnifexes - hahahahahahahahahahaah. Oh god, you kill me here. They were great in 4th. Then they became horrendously overpriced steaming piles of gak in the editions where Riptides, Wraithlords and Wraithknights existed. TMCs were awful. Truly awful across the board for 3 editions. The Flyrant was the ONLY good reliable TMC - everything else was either too conditional or so overpointed it was unfeasible. Tervigons, while 'good' in the 5th edition Codex generally posed as much risk as reward due to nuking all the gaunts they just spawned when they popped.

And you play Space Wolves. Pot, stop trying to call things you perceive as kettles black. Thunderwolves are the least of your sins and they are many. Wulfen are the most recent and were amonst the greatest of your Sins due to being a horrendously overbloated pile of USRs and Wargear that cost less and was twice as efficient as any of their counterparts - go compare 7th ed Wulfen to Death Company and tell me how those point values were remotely fair or balanced.

But worst of all, you seem to have tried to take the 'fluffy and narrative' high ground and ignored the fact that those specialist armies were all generally weak fluff armies. You don't get to pat yourself on the back for ignoring that. And you certainly don't get to pat yourself on the back for telling BA Death Company armies, Ravenwing armies, Deathwing armies and so on that they have to take a mandatory unit that doesn't fit their army's fluff or theme tax or just auto-lose by default and then pat yourself on the back because you play two armies that have been considered to have very solid troops choices for the past 4 bloody editions.

I quite like the detachment rule as is, because it allows for varied army list construction without going too excessive. I think the only major problem is super-heavy/titan level units being used at too small point levels.

It would be easy to limit the Lord of War slot to 2000pt games + but that still leaves in Baneblade variants and others.

craggy wrote:
everyone complaining about having to take good troops choices in detachments...why not use an army where you like their troops choices?

The DE army I'm building doesn't have Kabalites as the sexiest thing in their roster, but they're far from my last choice to bulk out the numbers. My Blood Angels Tactical Squads might not be my favourite unit, but they can hold their own, I suppose.

I am an overly fluffy player though, so see troops as the bare bones of my army. Maybe sometimes I'll have a lot more specialist units in my armies, and tailor them to the situations I want them for, but 10-20 basic dudes with guns isn't usually gonna hurt any list.

What do you mean by like? If you mean like the way they look, sure I'm fine with that. If you mean find them effective, then all you are saying is "why doesn't everybody just play the armies with the best troops." at which point why bother having different factions.

The overall points is that not all troops are created equal so requiring a certain percentage of points be spend on troops hurts certain armies. Similarly requiring a certain number of troops selections hurts others (or is fairly pointless).

The largest issues with the game are:
1.) GW has allowed for skew lists like all super heavies to be a thing.
2.)GW has continually made "troops" crap for the most part and most armies have few choices.


I think if you wanted to solve this you would need to have the system operate like some other games where for each "Core" choice you take you are allowed to take a choice from another slot, then define the "Core" Choices by army. So elite armies like GK might have access to very powerful core choices, that are expensive, while something like Guard has access to Cheap core choices, that allow for ease of unlocking their better support slots. You could even define the core by subfaction, so Ravenwing can take Bikes as core choices, but is limited to Speeders and such as support. This wouldn't be perfect (far from it), but would encourage more balanced list design compared to now.

None of this stops YOU, personally, from taking as many troops as you want.

All of the above pushing for more Troops need to realize that not everyone wants to play the army you want. Unless GW alters what a Troop really is, none of those ideas work. If regular bike sqds (not Black Knights) were Troops in a Ravenwing list, OK...might work. If Wraithguard were Troops in an Iyanden list, again, OK. GW have instead decided that instead of creating lists where these units are Troops (they have done that in the past), how about just build detachments that allow players to take these units as the core of their force.....done!

Detachments work just fine.

 bullyboy wrote:
All of the above pushing for more Troops need to realize that not everyone wants to play the army you want. Unless GW alters what a Troop really is, none of those ideas work. If regular bike sqds (not Black Knights) were Troops in a Ravenwing list, OK...might work. If Wraithguard were Troops in an Iyanden list, again, OK. GW have instead decided that instead of creating lists where these units are Troops (they have done that in the past), how about just build detachments that allow players to take these units as the core of their force.....done!

Detachments work just fine.

I largely agree, there in 8th skew lists are a little less of an issue. For my suggestion "Core" not troops, would need to be defined by army, similar to how GW in this edition has done for Thousand Sons and Deathguard, with Rubric Marines and Plague Marines being troops for those factions.

Detachments certainly need some thought, no offense to Jy2 but both armies in this are fantastic examples of meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/731756.page

 Crablezworth wrote:
Detachments certainly need some thought, no offense to Jy2 but both armies in this are fantastic examples of meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/731756.page

Yes because Knight armies were SO broken in 6th and 7th, and Dreadnought armies weren't ever supposed to be a thing.

[MOD EDIT - Rule #1 - Alpharius]

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

Ravenwing, Deathwing and Terminators are quite capable of being part of a bigger force, all they need is a capable general.
If you're spamming them because they're your strongest unit my sympathy is about the same as it is for the Eldar players crying about the death of the spammed Wraithknight or Tau players sobbing about the death of the Riptide Wing.
Your tears make the best part of that serenade.

See, now I know you're straight up talking out of your rear end.

You'd realise that Deathwing and Ravenwing armies hark back to 2nd edition. Armoured company harks back to 3rd edition. Nidzilla to 4th.

And the fact you seem to think they were being spammed 'because they were the strongest'.

Holy feth...

On what planet have Terminators ever been considered the greatest thing ever? They've always been overpriced, horrendously weak to small arms fire and hordes and in general not that much to look at.

Armoured Companies were largely Leman Russ based - the Leman Russ has been a joke the past 4 editions as far as tanks go. Again, overpriced, too fragile for what it does and with a horrendous kit layout.

Chaos Chosen? Never good. Overpriced and even worse in 6th/7th than they were in 3.5 and 4th/5th when they could at least Infiltrate.

Tyranid Carnifexes - hahahahahahahahahahaah. Oh god, you kill me here. They were great in 4th. Then they became horrendously overpriced steaming piles of gak in the editions where Riptides, Wraithlords and Wraithknights existed. TMCs were awful. Truly awful across the board for 3 editions. The Flyrant was the ONLY good reliable TMC - everything else was either too conditional or so overpointed it was unfeasible. Tervigons, while 'good' in the 5th edition Codex generally posed as much risk as reward due to nuking all the gaunts they just spawned when they popped.

And you play Space Wolves. Pot, stop trying to call things you perceive as kettles black. Thunderwolves are the least of your sins and they are many. Wulfen are the most recent and were amonst the greatest of your Sins due to being a horrendously overbloated pile of USRs and Wargear that cost less and was twice as efficient as any of their counterparts - go compare 7th ed Wulfen to Death Company and tell me how those point values were remotely fair or balanced.

But worst of all, you seem to have tried to take the 'fluffy and narrative' high ground and ignored the fact that those specialist armies were all generally weak fluff armies. You don't get to pat yourself on the back for ignoring that. And you certainly don't get to pat yourself on the back for telling BA Death Company armies, Ravenwing armies, Deathwing armies and so on that they have to take a mandatory unit that doesn't fit their army's fluff or theme tax or just auto-lose by default and then pat yourself on the back because you play two armies that have been considered to have very solid troops choices for the past 4 bloody editions.

Very solid my troops for the last four editions butt. For somebody who wants to talk about the past you seem to have the more recent past missing, in 7th, you remember, the last edition, Deathwatch and Space Wolves troops were damn near irrelevant because neither could take all Bike or all Jump units as troops choices no matter who you took as a HQ and both melted under any sustained fire, they were no better than Gaunts or Grotts.

You know it's funny. I don't recall any Wulfen lists seeing huge success in 7th - they had about a month of good fortune around February last year while people didn't know that charging on the first turn was a thing and that was about it. Didn't see much success for any pure Space Wolves lists in 7th for that matter - I recall Allies being the competitive deal. Invisible Wolves, Barkstar, Fur-tide, all required help from another faction, same with the Ravenwing or Deathwing borrowing some allied psykers for Invisibility and going to town.

If you were spamming Carnifexes either because you're a lose at all costs fluff buffer, lose at all costs for the sake of nostalgia or believe them to be your best unit you require therapy well beyond my qualifications and pay grade and still don't get my sympathy.

8th for all its problems and haters has proved that when more armies possess troops that are actually competitive options the game has a lower buy in and more people buy into it. Now that nobody has access to a troop choice as far above the competition as Scattbikes were in 7th making troops the mainstay of the game almost sounds like a move encouraging new players.