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.

Breng77 wrote:

 Imateria wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:
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?

I realy like this idea.

I would agree, I think perhaps there should be increasing CP for filling out detachments.

I detest this idea. All it would do is encourage MSU to an absolutely obnoxious degree.

Breng77 wrote:

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.

I like the idea of core choices unlocking other options but limiting choices at the same time, sounds interesting.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

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.

I like the idea of core choices unlocking other options but limiting choices at the same time, sounds interesting.

Again, all it does is encourage MSU.

The moment you force choice the game becomes about who can spend the least on compulsory choices, and the most on what they actually want.

A much better way to deal with it, IMO, is to make troops choices not suck.

I'd mainly go with the troops choices I prefer modelling and painting. Was looking at the Blood Angels I have from back in the day and I can field a pretty well rounded Battalion. Maxed out Elites choices but they're usually my favourite units in any army just for the modelling. 2 x 5 Man Tac Squads and a 10 man one to fulfil Troops requirements and a couple Fast Attack and Heavy Support slots each. Haven't done points maths yet but it's 112 Power. Could probably drop an Elite choice without much effort to get it under 100.

My thinking of what constitutes an army is quite antiquated though, as I've said before, I remember when it was 50% squads and your characters and vehicles had to share the rest. And this was all before Flyers or Lords Of War were even a thing.

As well as thinking of the fluff, I also think of the real world financial cost of my army. I've certainly got a lot more disposable income as a working adult than I did as a teen in this hobby, but I do try to balance my lists with what rules look good vs what models I'll have to buy. I also prefer working with plastic a lot more than any other material for a number of reasons. Coming back to the hobby my Space Marines are looking a lot more appealing in that respect since there's very little I can't get in plastic and most of the boxes have a lot of extras I can use elsewhere if I want to mix and match. Sadly for my dreams of running a load of Eldar Aspect Warriors, that's still not the case, which is partly why I'm doing my customised Exodites.

I'll definitely b picking up a box of sniper Scouts at some point for character harassment and just general fun building and painting them.

I can't argue with the suggestion that some troops choices are a bit poor compared to others though, or that it'd be nice to see some more units being able to be taken as Troops depending on your style of play. Chaos Marines already get the basics of this with the 4 cult armies, so I'd hope this idea gets expanded in future rules for more distinct groups within the larger factions.

 Arandmoor wrote:


A much better way to deal with it, IMO, is to make troops choices not suck.

You can do both. Then it becomes a trade off the player makes at the list building stage. The 5th ed army building rules were pretty good as far as I'm concerned (could have used a few more HQ choices that unlock certain other choices as troops), but troops in general still needed a buff/change to make them a little more interesting and relevant. The current rules for 8th already make tacticals better because the split special/heavy loadout sucked in 5th but is perfectly usable in 8th.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Arandmoor wrote:


A much better way to deal with it, IMO, is to make troops choices not suck.

You can do both. Then it becomes a trade off the player makes at the list building stage. The 5th ed army building rules were pretty good as far as I'm concerned (could have used a few more HQ choices that unlock certain other choices as troops), but troops in general still needed a buff/change to make them a little more interesting and relevant. The current rules for 8th already make tacticals better because the split special/heavy loadout sucked in 5th but is perfectly usable in 8th.

Both?

Doing both still doesn't address the problems introduced by compulsory picks. It doesn't change the fact that all you'll get with a "you must take Unit A to unlock access to Units B, C, and D" system is people minimizing the number of Unit A they have to take when they don't want to take them.