Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
- No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
- Times and dates in your local timezone.
- Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
- Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
- Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/05/10 15:29:16
Subject: SM Troops tax (in Battalions)
|
 |
Sure Space Wolves Land Raider Pilot
Somerdale, NJ, USA
|
Self-proclaimed fluff-bunny here; specifically talking about SM list composition. Not sure if I'm in the correct forum.
I'm a little disgusted. I see a lot of army lists where the only troops a SM player has are 3 min-model Scout Squads, while the rest of the points are spent on uber stuff, allies or what-not. I understand if someone was running a 10th company list and had a bunch of Scout Squads, Scout Bikers and Storm Speeders with some other chapter elements used too but I'm not seeing that very often.
Is there any merit or thoughts on curtailing lists like this? It just seems like a gross, waac list building tactic.
Personally I'd like either some kind of 10th company detachment rules or maybe make Scout Squads 1 per Tactical Squad or maybe even 1 per 2 Tactical Squads.
Thoughts / comments?
EDIT: to clarify - pertaining to Battalion detachments
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/10 17:05:02
"The only problem with your genepool is that there wasn't a lifeguard on duty to prevent you from swimming."
"You either die a Morty, or you live long enough to see yourself become a Rick."
- 8k /// - 5k /// - 5k /// - 6k /// - 6k /// - 4k /// - 4k /// Cust - 3k |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/05/10 15:34:31
Subject: SM Troops tax
|
 |
Savage Khorne Berserker Biker
|
Lord Clinto wrote:Self-proclaimed fluff-bunny here; specifically talking about SM list composition. Not sure if I'm in the correct forum.
I'm a little disgusted. I see a lot of army lists where the only troops a SM player has are 3 min-model Scout Squads, while the rest of the points are spent on uber stuff, allies or what-not. I understand if someone was running a 10th company list and had a bunch of Scout Squads, Scout Bikers and Storm Speeders with some other chapter elements used too but I'm not seeing that very often.
Is there any merit or thoughts on curtailing lists like this? It just seems like a gross, waac list building tactic.
Personally I'd like either some kind of 10th company detachment rules or maybe make Scout Squads 1 per Tactical Squad or maybe even 1 per 2 Tactical Squads.
Thoughts / comments?
I'm with you. I like open play, but I think if you're going to have some sort of force organisation rules, those rules should 'obey the fluff', although as far as is necessary to prevent really bizarre armies. I say this, not because I don't think it's possible for bizarre armies to exist - there's always the odd occasion when a mission calls for only terminators and Roboute Guilliman and a basilisk (or whatever is powerful right now) to be unleashed, but I can see how it would get tiring to keep playing space marines and never see any tactical squads.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/05/10 15:43:42
Subject: Re:SM Troops tax
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
It's a competitive game with a winner and a loser, so folks are going to want to do what helps them win. What you're pointing out is hardly any "WAAC" that might involve spamming some grossly under-costed unit, sticking to some obvious typo or "They clearly didn't mean to do that but that's what the RAW" says shenanigans.
Independent of other factors just running a few scouts is well within both the RAI and the sort of power-level band that constitutes a fair list of a casual friendly game. It's just looking at the basic troops choices, realizing none of them are terribly spectacular and taking the least among of the least-bad option.
What you raise here feels far like a "Narrative Play" idea and even then rather specific one. Your average tabletop match represents a much smaller part of a larger chaotic conflict. It's hardly odd that list would have scattered elements from various parts of Chapter or join Imperial force. Honestly a list perfectly codex-compliant force is probably more the exception than the rule at the scale and in the context a tabletop match is taking place.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/05/10 15:44:32
Subject: SM Troops tax
|
 |
Inspiring SDF-1 Bridge Officer
|
I agree with the OP, I think any SM army should be composed of Tac marines, with a sprinkling of special troops. Unfortunately, GW didn’t build the game to foster that sort of build, and most tournament folks have taken to mind that Tacs suck (I don’t agree, I think they’re the second strongest troop choice, with Necron warrior just slgihtly better, due to RP) in favor of snowflake elite units such as Vangaurd/Sterngaurd Vets, Bikes or Cents.
Unfortunatlely, I don’t think the issue can be fixed without a huge pushback from at least the tournament community.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/10 15:45:54
It never ends well |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/05/10 15:48:10
Subject: Re:SM Troops tax
|
 |
Huge Bone Giant
|
That's the competitive end of the spectrum for you, people that put greater emphasis on performance than background. There's no easy "fix" for this. GW would have to write a default organization plan for every codex, require that the core of the army is made up of the actual core of the army, and to make it work write the game's rules in such a manner that basic infantry is good and desirable - worthy of being the core of the army.
That's not going to happen. Lack of competence, managerial interference, economic interest in pushing large kits - GW isn't going to be able to make a game where fluffy and powerful choices are one and the same.
|
Nehekhara lives! Sort of!
Why is the rum always gone? |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/05/10 15:56:59
Subject: SM Troops tax
|
 |
Locked in the Tower of Amareo
|
Make tac marines and intercessors viable and then we'll talk. If i could never use a marine troop again i wouldn't. The fluff means nothing on the tabletop.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/10 15:59:37
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/05/10 16:02:50
Subject: Re:SM Troops tax
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Geifer wrote:That's the competitive end of the spectrum for you, people that put greater emphasis on performance than background. There's no easy "fix" for this. GW would have to write a default organization plan for every codex, require that the core of the army is made up of the actual core of the army, and to make it work write the game's rules in such a manner that basic infantry is good and desirable - worthy of being the core of the army.
That's not going to happen. Lack of competence, managerial interference, economic interest in pushing large kits - GW isn't going to be able to make a game where fluffy and powerful choices are one and the same.
This isn't true. Well you're right that fixes aren't "Easy" simply because no problem is ever easy to fix in a large game with this many moving parts. However I disagree that only way to encourage more core troops choices would be to force the issue with mandatory picks, and I also disagree that core troops not being great comes out a desire to push big kits and general incompetence.
There are armies where the core troops range from pretty darn good to excellent. Cultists, Guardsmen and Fire Warriors are all very solid for the points just to name a few. You can make strong lists with lots of any of those models. You put 40 Fire Warriors down on the table and they won't disappoint you.
Just because Space Marines in general lack for troops good options and Tactical Marines in particular aren't efficient enough to feel really good even well below the tournament level of competitive doesn't indicate some larger goal to downplay troops.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/05/10 16:11:38
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/05/10 16:03:28
Subject: SM Troops tax
|
 |
Locked in the Tower of Amareo
|
Stormonu wrote:I agree with the OP, I think any SM army should be composed of Tac marines, with a sprinkling of special troops. Unfortunately, GW didn’t build the game to foster that sort of build, and most tournament folks have taken to mind that Tacs suck (I don’t agree, I think they’re the second strongest troop choice, with Necron warrior just slgihtly better, due to RP) in favor of snowflake elite units such as Vangaurd/Sterngaurd Vets, Bikes or Cents.
Unfortunatlely, I don’t think the issue can be fixed without a huge pushback from at least the tournament community.
After the last three codices, tac marines are one of the worst troops in the game.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/05/10 16:09:59
Subject: Re:SM Troops tax
|
 |
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter
|
Geifer wrote:That's the competitive end of the spectrum for you, people that put greater emphasis on performance than background. There's no easy "fix" for this. GW would have to write a default organization plan for every codex, require that the core of the army is made up of the actual core of the army, and to make it work write the game's rules in such a manner that basic infantry is good and desirable - worthy of being the core of the army.
That's not going to happen. Lack of competence, managerial interference, economic interest in pushing large kits - GW isn't going to be able to make a game where fluffy and powerful choices are one and the same.
I mean, I'd also rather play with Predators and Vindicators than Tactical guys too.
I also don't like having units that serve no useful purpose except that they're mandatory.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/10 16:11:39
Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/05/10 16:11:46
Subject: Re:SM Troops tax
|
 |
Ancient Venerable Black Templar Dreadnought
|
I heard many times the phrase "boys before toys" so it is a thought.
Wars are fought with the "rank and file" typically.
Unfortunately, the rules do not force the "troop tax" as you may envision or any rules that may make them more desirable.
Bolt Action would give an extra leadership point for a full squad and a free squad for the Russians.
Easy to do, about 3rd edition through to 5th required the 1 HQ and 2 Troop minimums.
There would be zero "pushback" from the tournament community because they field what wins: if the troops are not effective on paper, they are not used.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/10 16:14:22
A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/05/10 16:13:16
Subject: SM Troops tax
|
 |
Locked in the Tower of Amareo
|
Two troops could always have been ten scouts. Force orgs can't fix this, only point costs and unit efficacy.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/10 16:14:01
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/05/10 16:15:40
Subject: SM Troops tax
|
 |
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot
On moon miranda.
|
Lord Clinto wrote:Self-proclaimed fluff-bunny here; specifically talking about SM list composition. Not sure if I'm in the correct forum.
I'm a little disgusted. I see a lot of army lists where the only troops a SM player has are 3 min-model Scout Squads, while the rest of the points are spent on uber stuff, allies or what-not. I understand if someone was running a 10th company list and had a bunch of Scout Squads, Scout Bikers and Storm Speeders with some other chapter elements used too but I'm not seeing that very often.
Is there any merit or thoughts on curtailing lists like this? It just seems like a gross, waac list building tactic.
Personally I'd like either some kind of 10th company detachment rules or maybe make Scout Squads 1 per Tactical Squad or maybe even 1 per 2 Tactical Squads.
Thoughts / comments?
This has been an issue in some form or fashion stretching all the way back to the beginning of 3E.
Some editions have tried to fix this by making only infantry Troops scoring, others have tried to get tournements to enforce 40% troop rules and other such comp restrictions, 7E tried to fix this for SM's by giving them hundreds of points of free vehicles, etc.
There are a myriad array of reasons why this issue exists, there's no one perfect solution. Ultimately tac squads need assistance actually being generalists, the game needs to control its scale more to some degree, infantry need to be able to do things non-infantry cannot, etc ad nauseum.
SM's also arent the only army this occurs with, Tyranids are another common example.
|
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/05/10 16:16:54
Subject: SM Troops tax
|
 |
Locked in the Tower of Amareo
|
Nids at least can get away with 40 pt taxes i believe.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/05/10 16:18:22
Subject: SM Troops tax
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
They could change the Force Org and make Tac squads 1-6 instead of 0-6. Like Fire Warriors.
But if they do that then I want the option to take 2 Assault Weapons in Tac squads
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/05/10 16:20:05
Subject: SM Troops tax
|
 |
Ancient Venerable Black Templar Dreadnought
|
Martel732 wrote:Two troops could always have been ten scouts. Force orgs can't fix this, only point costs and unit efficacy.
Or in this case, scouts are more "cost effective".
I did allude to the idea that troops need to bring something to the table the elite troops cannot, typically that was a cost-break due to them being the core part of the army, sometimes that is greater flexibility vs elite troop specialization.
Well, we keep seeing FAQ tweaks happening, that change could happen but I feel I am being a bit optimistic.
|
A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/05/10 16:21:50
Subject: SM Troops tax
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
It's currently Scouts, but there have been times in both 8th and 7th where Tacs were the troops in the top lists.
I'd like it to be tacs more frequently too. But rebalancing to make that compelling is hard without ruining other things.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/05/10 16:24:30
Subject: Re:SM Troops tax
|
 |
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan
|
Taking exclusively Scouts as Troops is WAAC? Good to know that following the rules is now equivalent to fudging movement, using loaded dice and using mislabled rulers.
It's kinda rude to lump people who follow the rules in with people who do not. Or do you not understand what "win at all costs" means?
|
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/05/10 16:27:51
Subject: SM Troops tax
|
 |
Locked in the Tower of Amareo
|
Talizvar wrote:Martel732 wrote:Two troops could always have been ten scouts. Force orgs can't fix this, only point costs and unit efficacy.
Or in this case, scouts are more "cost effective".
I did allude to the idea that troops need to bring something to the table the elite troops cannot, typically that was a cost-break due to them being the core part of the army, sometimes that is greater flexibility vs elite troop specialization.
Well, we keep seeing FAQ tweaks happening, that change could happen but I feel I am being a bit optimistic.
Make tacs 10 or 11 points and i'll use them. It's still a lot of points to do nothing, i'll take it.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/05/10 16:32:36
Subject: SM Troops tax
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Vaktathi wrote: Lord Clinto wrote:Self-proclaimed fluff-bunny here; specifically talking about SM list composition. Not sure if I'm in the correct forum.
I'm a little disgusted. I see a lot of army lists where the only troops a SM player has are 3 min-model Scout Squads, while the rest of the points are spent on uber stuff, allies or what-not. I understand if someone was running a 10th company list and had a bunch of Scout Squads, Scout Bikers and Storm Speeders with some other chapter elements used too but I'm not seeing that very often.
Is there any merit or thoughts on curtailing lists like this? It just seems like a gross, waac list building tactic.
Personally I'd like either some kind of 10th company detachment rules or maybe make Scout Squads 1 per Tactical Squad or maybe even 1 per 2 Tactical Squads.
Thoughts / comments?
This has been an issue in some form or fashion stretching all the way back to the beginning of 3E.
Some editions have tried to fix this by making only infantry Troops scoring, others have tried to get tournements to enforce 40% troop rules and other such comp restrictions, 7E tried to fix this for SM's by giving them hundreds of points of free vehicles, etc.
There are a myriad array of reasons why this issue exists, there's no one perfect solution. Ultimately tac squads need assistance actually being generalists, the game needs to control its scale more to some degree, infantry need to be able to do things non-infantry cannot, etc ad nauseum.
SM's also arent the only army this occurs with, Tyranids are another common example.
If the problem was a broader engine-level issue like the game's scale or infantry needing special infantry only rules, I'd expect troops being bad to be closer to universal. I think what's going on here is much closer to a tuning issue. The numbers are off more than anything. GW seems to overvalue toughness and saves on infantry models, particularly single wound infantry models. Given how many Space Marine factions there are, you've got a lot of players looking down at T4, 3+ troops that just aren't valued correctly. They also seem to overvalue basic melee attacks a bit.
Tactical Marines really feel like they're 10pt models to me, maybe even 9 if you want to push them. If you wanted to keep marines from feeling horde-y and keep per model points cost in the teens, you'd probably have to start fiddling with their rules more drastically. However that's probably more of a "Purposed Rules" discussion than anything.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/10 16:33:05
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/05/10 16:33:32
Subject: SM Troops tax
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Vaktathi wrote: Lord Clinto wrote:Self-proclaimed fluff-bunny here; specifically talking about SM list composition. Not sure if I'm in the correct forum. I'm a little disgusted. I see a lot of army lists where the only troops a SM player has are 3 min-model Scout Squads, while the rest of the points are spent on uber stuff, allies or what-not. I understand if someone was running a 10th company list and had a bunch of Scout Squads, Scout Bikers and Storm Speeders with some other chapter elements used too but I'm not seeing that very often. Is there any merit or thoughts on curtailing lists like this? It just seems like a gross, waac list building tactic. Personally I'd like either some kind of 10th company detachment rules or maybe make Scout Squads 1 per Tactical Squad or maybe even 1 per 2 Tactical Squads. Thoughts / comments?
This has been an issue in some form or fashion stretching all the way back to the beginning of 3E. Some editions have tried to fix this by making only infantry Troops scoring, others have tried to get tournements to enforce 40% troop rules and other such comp restrictions, 7E tried to fix this for SM's by giving them hundreds of points of free vehicles, etc. There are a myriad array of reasons why this issue exists, there's no one perfect solution. Ultimately tac squads need assistance actually being generalists, the game needs to control its scale more to some degree, infantry need to be able to do things non-infantry cannot, etc ad nauseum. SM's also arent the only army this occurs with, Tyranids are another common example. You serious? Tyranids are probably the codex with the best troops in the game! Troop tax does not exist for nids, because you actually want to take troops IN DROVES, since they are easily the best part of you army! Hormagants, termagants, warriors, rippers and genestealers are the basis of every nid list, bar some nidzilla builds. You easily see nids lists with more than 600 points in troops in a single detachment. In an ideal game, that should be true for every codex. Troops should not be tax, a list without an healthy amount of troops should be worse than one which has it. IG an nids work really well with troops, because both those codici have a clear style of play, and the troops are designed to allow it (screening/swarming). SM troops will never be good or desiderable, because the SM codex lacks a defined style. They could easily become the elite army with powerful HQ buffs, but it will not happen until basic intercessors and tactical marines receive increased bonuses from HQs.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/10 16:36:54
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/05/10 16:33:47
Subject: SM Troops tax
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
One man's fluff is another man's WAAC.
Take, for example, the Raptors Chapter. Basically, a thousand MARSOC dudes with genetic enhancements and powered armour. According to their very well established fluff they operate large contingents of scouts to infiltrate and disrupt enemy command and control assets, before launching an overwhelming surgical strike.
4 Scout Squads. Dreads in drop pods. Termies/Aggressors. Stormtalons and/or Stormravens. Sternguard. Vanguard Vets.
There's a perfectly fluffy army.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/05/10 16:37:00
Subject: SM Troops tax
|
 |
Locked in the Tower of Amareo
|
Nid troops are pure garbage compared to guardsmen.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/05/10 16:37:01
Subject: SM Troops tax
|
 |
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel
|
Martel732 wrote:Make tac marines and intercessors viable and then we'll talk. If i could never use a marine troop again i wouldn't. The fluff means nothing on the tabletop.
I mean there is no reason you need to do so now...that said you are right about the answer to this issue. It is make tacticals more competitive with scouts. They should probably have the same cost as you essentially trade durability for deployment options. OR keep tacticals at 13-14 points and give them the primaris statline. I think at 14 points 2 wounds and 2 attacks each with a 3+ save would make them a very solid option. Automatically Appended Next Post: Spoletta wrote: Vaktathi wrote: Lord Clinto wrote:Self-proclaimed fluff-bunny here; specifically talking about SM list composition. Not sure if I'm in the correct forum.
I'm a little disgusted. I see a lot of army lists where the only troops a SM player has are 3 min-model Scout Squads, while the rest of the points are spent on uber stuff, allies or what-not. I understand if someone was running a 10th company list and had a bunch of Scout Squads, Scout Bikers and Storm Speeders with some other chapter elements used too but I'm not seeing that very often.
Is there any merit or thoughts on curtailing lists like this? It just seems like a gross, waac list building tactic.
Personally I'd like either some kind of 10th company detachment rules or maybe make Scout Squads 1 per Tactical Squad or maybe even 1 per 2 Tactical Squads.
Thoughts / comments?
This has been an issue in some form or fashion stretching all the way back to the beginning of 3E.
Some editions have tried to fix this by making only infantry Troops scoring, others have tried to get tournements to enforce 40% troop rules and other such comp restrictions, 7E tried to fix this for SM's by giving them hundreds of points of free vehicles, etc.
There are a myriad array of reasons why this issue exists, there's no one perfect solution. Ultimately tac squads need assistance actually being generalists, the game needs to control its scale more to some degree, infantry need to be able to do things non-infantry cannot, etc ad nauseum.
SM's also arent the only army this occurs with, Tyranids are another common example.
You serious? Tyranids are probably the codex with the best troops in the game!
Troop tax does not exist for nids, because you actually want to take troops IN DROVES, since they are easily the best part of you army! Hormagants, termagants, warriors, rippers and genestealers are the basis of every nid list, bar some nidzilla builds. You easily see nids lists with more than 600 points in troops in a single detachment.
In an ideal game, that should be true for every codex. Troops should not be tax, a list without an healthy amount of troops should be worse than one which has it.
IG an nids work really well with troops, because both those codici have a clear style of play, and the troops are designed to allow it (screening/swarming).
SM troops will never be good or desiderable, because the SM codex lacks a defined style. They could easily become the elite army with powerful HQ buffs, but it will not happen until basic intercessors and tactical marines receive increased bonuses from HQs.
ummm...except for most top Nid builds? Warriors seem to be the only thing on that list that sees much play, otherwise they are a tax to bring hive guard, flyrants, biovores etc.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/10 16:39:11
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/05/10 16:41:01
Subject: SM Troops tax
|
 |
Battle-tested Knight Castellan Pilot
|
Sorry dude, but while you see it as WAAC and ruining the game, I see it as maximising the efficiency of the worst aspect of a marine list.
We play completely different games using the same models and rules, and while there is nothing wrong with wanting the game you play to be more fluffy, I would absolutely hate it if my marines got nerfed by being forced to take underperforming, overpriced troops just to fulfill some other persons idea of the way the game is played.
I play uber competitively, and I can guarantee my marine lists follow no semblance of fluff at all (Gman, tiggy, Levi dread, 1 intercessor sarge, rapier quad launcher and twin fire raptors is my current lis  ). I understand its not everyones cup of tea, but I don't bring these lists to games with casuals because its no fun for anyone.
You like the game one way, which is fine, enjoy it the way you do.
But its not fair on me to have someone elses view of the game imposed on me and my boys in blue just because they dont like the way i play.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/10 16:42:24
12,000
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/05/10 16:46:27
Subject: SM Troops tax
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
Trust me, I get it. The dark angels I painted with more focus on detail were a full Demi-Company
2 Rhinos and a Razorback.
3 Tactical Squads with a special & heavy weapon each. They all have 10, but lots of times I run the Master with a 5 man to fit in the Razorback with him. I just say they're his honor guard.
1 Dev Squad with full complement of 5 tactical style with Dev markings. They have to learn somewhere.
1 Assault (I'm short 2 marines for a full 10 due to making 2 extra captain loadouts for fun.)
Chapter Master & Interrogator Chaplain.
I haven't had much of a chance to run them since 8th dropped, but even in 7th it was kind of a case of, "Yeah, I love my fluffy army, but I wonder how hard they'll get rofl stomped this time.)
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/05/10 16:47:50
Subject: SM Troops tax
|
 |
Locked in the Tower of Amareo
|
Play drukari or ig. It will be over fast.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/05/10 16:49:20
Subject: SM Troops tax
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
delete me
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/10 16:49:51
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/05/10 16:50:38
Subject: Re:SM Troops tax
|
 |
Huge Bone Giant
|
Chongara wrote: Geifer wrote:That's the competitive end of the spectrum for you, people that put greater emphasis on performance than background. There's no easy "fix" for this. GW would have to write a default organization plan for every codex, require that the core of the army is made up of the actual core of the army, and to make it work write the game's rules in such a manner that basic infantry is good and desirable - worthy of being the core of the army.
That's not going to happen. Lack of competence, managerial interference, economic interest in pushing large kits - GW isn't going to be able to make a game where fluffy and powerful choices are one and the same.
This isn't true. Well you're right that fixes aren't "Easy" simply because no problem is ever easy to fix in a large game with this many moving parts. However I disagree that only way to encourage more core troops choices would be to force the issue with mandatory picks, and I also disagree that core troops not being great comes out a desire to push big kits and general incompetence.
There are armies where the core troops range from pretty darn good to excellent. Cultists, Guardsmen and Fire Warriors are all very solid for the points just to name a few. You can make strong lists with lots of any of those models. You put 40 Fire Warriors down on the table and they won't disappoint you.
Just because Space Marines in general lack for troops good options and Tactical Marines in particular aren't efficient enough to feel really good even well below the tournament level of competitive doesn't indicate some larger goal to downplay troops.
That's the thing though, isn't it? The game hasn't been balanced (to whatever degree GW managed to establish balance) around a Guardsman's statline for as long as I play. The baseline has always been Marines. Citing that GW managed to make cheap trash troops better than Marines and also made guys with better guns better than Marines speaks ill of the game as a whole. It's out of whack.
GW is also not encouraging fluffy picks for such units. OK, Fire Warriors have no options, really, but Guard? Who buys Guardsmen to put one special and one heavy weapon in an Infantry Squad. You buy them to die and shoot a little better because an officer yells at them. Buying expensive gear (except maybe a flamer because even Guardsmen can hit with that, plus overwatch is something they will want to consider).
That's what I mean. If GW succeeds, it's not because of a grand plan to systematically make the game both balanced and fluffy. It's just a happy coincidence if it happens.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: Geifer wrote:That's the competitive end of the spectrum for you, people that put greater emphasis on performance than background. There's no easy "fix" for this. GW would have to write a default organization plan for every codex, require that the core of the army is made up of the actual core of the army, and to make it work write the game's rules in such a manner that basic infantry is good and desirable - worthy of being the core of the army.
That's not going to happen. Lack of competence, managerial interference, economic interest in pushing large kits - GW isn't going to be able to make a game where fluffy and powerful choices are one and the same.
I mean, I'd also rather play with Predators and Vindicators than Tactical guys too.
I also don't like having units that serve no useful purpose except that they're mandatory.
Terminators and Dreadnoughts galore for me, please. I got to use ever more as the editions passed by. But I don't think that my personal desires are good for the game. In the short run it's great to use so many of your favorite models, but in the long run it leads do imbalance and damages the game.
Usefulness is why I said GW needs to make troops desirable. Bolt Action, while not directly comparable to 40k, does a great job of this. Average Joes are possibly the most useful unit in the game, and quite powerful. Everything else is just more specialized, but also restricted so that you avoid overspecialization and spam problems. And it's the better game for it. I wish 40k was a lot closer to that game.
|
Nehekhara lives! Sort of!
Why is the rum always gone? |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/05/10 16:51:39
Subject: SM Troops tax
|
 |
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker
Somewhere over the rainbow, way up high
|
Tbh, I think if you made drop pods viable (still come in turn 1, half the current price), you might start seeing more tacs. Maybe make it so a 10 man squad can take 2 special weapons, or 1 special/1 heavy, and ignore the first point of AP, and i think you'd have a decent unit to drop in them again.
I've used my tacs in a few game sthis edition, they've never...over-performed, but they get by. In small 5 man squads.
|
Bedouin Dynasty: 10000 pts
The Silver Lances: 4000 pts
The Custodes Winter Watch 4000 pts
MajorStoffer wrote:
...
Sternguard though, those guys are all about kicking ass. They'd chew bubble gum as well, but bubble gum is heretical. Only tau chew gum. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/05/10 16:53:34
Subject: SM Troops tax
|
 |
Locked in the Tower of Amareo
|
Troops are desirable for armies with well costed troops. I see double battalion drukhari all the time. Fielding double battalion with ba is insanity. Because ba troops are trash.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/10 16:54:37
|
|
 |
 |
|