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.

 alextroy wrote:
A negative could be a little as not getting a significant rule that the comparable Troops unit has.

If the job of a Tactical Squad is to hold ground against a threat, it needs a rule that improves their ability to do that. But Devastators job is to destroy the enemy. They don't get the rule that makes them better at holding ground. Right now, that rule is the lackluster Objective Secured. It needs to be more.

If Tactical Marines were always allowed to either Hold Steady or Set to Defend when charged, that is something more substantial that would make Devastators worst at holding ground than Tactical Marines.

Elite units like Sternguard wouldn't get the rule. Their job is to take ground, which is already represented by their improved stats and weapons. Their role is to do everything Tactical Squads do, just with better weapons and better stats.

Except that's not true, and you've already said so yourself.

Sternguard Veterans, which are Tacticals with better Bolters and better stats

They were even started as Veteran Space Marine Squads in Codex Ultramarine, while Vanguard Veterans started as Veteran Space Marine Assault Squads for Blood Angels. They were invented as a way of further expanding on the First Company vs Deathwing which did not get a Power Armor'ed variant, and because the fluff of the entire UM First Company dying to a man while holding the polar ground in the Battle for Macragge. We also have stories of Blood Angel Devastators holding the wall of the Arx Angelicum against hordes of Nids. More recently we have one of my favorite pet peeves, the Veteran Intercessor squad.

Ideally, such rules would be carefully designed to make each army play according to their background. Infantry Squads hold ground, but mostly by not dying as easily as they should. Those shovels are not on their backpacks for combat, they are there to dig holes to hide their vulnerable bodies! Nobody knows how important taking cover is than IS. Special rule is Infantry Squads that don't move or that are in Cover get a +1 AS (above and beyond that granted by the Cover).

I get the feeling you're trying to DOW2 the squads here - Tacticals are the Warriors, Devastators are the Wizards, Scouts are the Rogues, Assaults are the Berserkers. And that's fine as far as it goes, but that's more about their focus than making Troops more viable. Troops (collectively) should be a jack of all/most trades. There should be few if any things you can't do with your Troops that you can with a non-troop, and those things should be part of or decided by your (sub)Faction's flavor. As made up examples: Drukhari as raiders could be more interested in speed and surprise than anti-tank warfare. Their troops (and army in general) may be weak (but not impotent) against tanks. I've heard tell that Mortarion didn't believe Infantry should be carrying around heavy weapons. His infantry (inlcuding the troops) might be weak at long range.

The issue when it comes to the jack-of-all-trades role for troops is that the primary Space Marine veteran-tiers are also jacks-of-all-trades, just in better or more concentrated form. Sternguard are Tacticals+, and Terminators are still rocking improved shooting and improved CC. So I don't think "role" has to be part of the focus for troops.

Instead I would look at cost and availability. The old FOC did a great job of this. You just couldn't have more than 3 Elite units, so you had to be spare with them. But people don't like limits, and they want to take their themed lists. So I would focus on cost, and just start applying taxes on non-troops as you take more of them, which I feel works better than making Troops cheaper the more you take of them, though I think it's effectively a purely psycological difference.

I dont think it is that difficult a thing, i merely have an amateur interest in game design but it seems to me the main barrier as alluded too is that a lot of people want armies with many troops, WD armies if you will. Whereas many others want no limits, no tax, warhammer libertarianism. And it is not a matter of casual/narrative/comp. Plus of course GW dont want anyone feeling limited in which models to purchase. Much harder to compromise between these two mindsets, i think they do try, swaying back and forth between editions but its rarely a satisfying answer.

Dai wrote:
And it is not a matter of casual/narrative/comp.

Sometimes it is. The whole reason I picked up DA in addition to my UM was to make the Biker/Terminator double-wing army they put out in 5th? 6th? It was fluffy AND different than my UM.

Ideally the game would have suppression mechanics or reactions that are easier to do with Troops, or with troops being harder to suppress than others, or easier to activate or what not.
With what we got you either have to give them stratagem support which is... not bad as a concept but we've seen two editions of GW not really knowing how to handle stratagems and they're all over the place.
So the other way is working with objectives.
Sticky objectives is one thing.
Could also be an idea that troops can claim objectives at the end of their movement phase while other slots can only claim objectives at the start of your command phase. (Meaning non-troops have to survive the opponent's turn to claim objectives). I know this doesn't really align with how some of the current missions are written but I'm expecting these to change with 10th anyway

 Insectum7 wrote:
The issue when it comes to the jack-of-all-trades role for troops is that the primary Space Marine veteran-tiers are also jacks-of-all-trades, just in better or more concentrated form. Sternguard are Tacticals+, and Terminators are still rocking improved shooting and improved CC. So I don't think "role" has to be part of the focus for troops.

Instead I would look at cost and availability. The old FOC did a great job of this. You just couldn't have more than 3 Elite units, so you had to be spare with them. But people don't like limits, and they want to take their themed lists. So I would focus on cost, and just start applying taxes on non-troops as you take more of them, which I feel works better than making Troops cheaper the more you take of them, though I think it's effectively a purely psycological difference.

The main problem with a jack of all trades is that 40k has always rewarded specialists far more than generalists


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dai wrote:
I dont think it is that difficult a thing, i merely have an amateur interest in game design but it seems to me the main barrier as alluded too is that a lot of people want armies with many troops, WD armies if you will. Whereas many others want no limits, no tax, warhammer libertarianism. And it is not a matter of casual/narrative/comp. Plus of course GW dont want anyone feeling limited in which models to purchase. Much harder to compromise between these two mindsets, i think they do try, swaying back and forth between editions but its rarely a satisfying answer.

Feelings probably vary depending on how diverse and good your troop roster is.

For my eldar, I don't want to be married to troops, eldar troops suck. For my custodes, it's not as big a deal, custodes troops are solid.

Breton wrote:

Dai wrote:
And it is not a matter of casual/narrative/comp.

Sometimes it is. The whole reason I picked up DA in addition to my UM was to make the Biker/Terminator double-wing army they put out in 5th? 6th? It was fluffy AND different than my UM.

I think what Dai was meaning that the two army-building camps he described (want people to use troops vs. no limits) aren't cleanly split between the casual/narrative/competitive playing camps, if that makes sense.

stratigo wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
The issue when it comes to the jack-of-all-trades role for troops is that the primary Space Marine veteran-tiers are also jacks-of-all-trades, just in better or more concentrated form. Sternguard are Tacticals+, and Terminators are still rocking improved shooting and improved CC. So I don't think "role" has to be part of the focus for troops.

Instead I would look at cost and availability. The old FOC did a great job of this. You just couldn't have more than 3 Elite units, so you had to be spare with them. But people don't like limits, and they want to take their themed lists. So I would focus on cost, and just start applying taxes on non-troops as you take more of them, which I feel works better than making Troops cheaper the more you take of them, though I think it's effectively a purely psycological difference.

The main problem with a jack of all trades is that 40k has always rewarded specialists far more than generalists.

That's a problem with the user. I've got 25 years of experience winning games with generalist Tacticals.

Depends on your local meta. Tournament lists tend to shy away from them. The most popular use they ever had were when people spammed LasPlas MSU, during Iron Hands reign or when they had to take them for free transports.

8th and 9th edition have been quite generous to generalist troops, since split fire went the way of the dodo.

Many times the top competitive choices were generalists in these 2 editions (say hello to deathspitter/bonesword warriors).

I'm in the field of "I like troops and I like competitive games". IMO the best way to appease both sides is to introduce a "Kill non-troops" secondary. This represents the fact that each loss inflicted on your army weights more than losing rank and file troops.

That is a good thing for factions that had very good troops or at least troops that are extremly cheap. Marine troops tend to be, both inefficient and over priced, so marine players tend to take minimum, because if they take more of them, their lists just don't work, when faced with much point efficient and deadly lists.

But yeah having a multi wound troop option, with super efficient range and melee options and build in defence mechanic , on top of other options being undercosted is awesome. Like the pre omen harlequin troops or when eldar scatter bikers were a thing, or when DE could take wrecks with MW spaming liquifires. With troops like that one sometimes could ask, why you need elite in the list at all.

In extrem cases we get the nurgle+tzeench lists of prior edition, where killing a tzeench demon, ment it splits in to two demons and at the same time, spawns a pox walker. Ton of armies couldn't even mechanicaly kill the army through the entire game. Or when IH and Salamanders had their PA books, when intercessors were not only good, but also ablative wounds for character dreandoughts.

 Insectum7 wrote:
The issue when it comes to the jack-of-all-trades role for troops is that the primary Space Marine veteran-tiers are also jacks-of-all-trades, just in better or more concentrated form. Sternguard are Tacticals+, and Terminators are still rocking improved shooting and improved CC. So I don't think "role" has to be part of the focus for troops.

Instead I would look at cost and availability. The old FOC did a great job of this. You just couldn't have more than 3 Elite units, so you had to be spare with them. But people don't like limits, and they want to take their themed lists. So I would focus on cost, and just start applying taxes on non-troops as you take more of them, which I feel works better than making Troops cheaper the more you take of them, though I think it's effectively a purely psycological difference.

OR you make the troop worth considering to begin with. Taxes wouldn't have made people from taking 5th Grey Hunters because you wanted Grey Hunters to begin with.

But then we enter the circular argument of, if GW made the game, armies, models, rules, etc good, then people would have problems with them, as there would be no bad options, no feels bad builds or even entire factions. IMO if an organisation can't do something for 3-4 decades, then one has to assume that the things which are considered out of ordinary. Are not that, they are actualy the norm. And it doesn't even matter, if the group of people do it on purpose or not. In the end what matters is that the end effect is the way it is.

And it doesn't take a genius to find those really bad options. I am sure everyone could just find a plathora of units or unit options, that may not exist, if game play is the focus, but super impactful, in a bad way, if someone picked the faction, army exactly for those options.

I mean what is an older player suppose to tell a new marine player who says, he likes the land raider models and he only picked marines, because the tank exists? Wait for next edition, play w30k, learn to love painting and paint LR, but never play with them? Those aren't that good options to pick from.

Karol wrote:
But then we enter the circular argument of, if GW made the game, armies, models, rules, etc good, then people would have problems with them, as there would be no bad options, no feels bad builds or even entire factions. IMO if an organisation can't do something for 3-4 decades, then one has to assume that the things which are considered out of ordinary. Are not that, they are actualy the norm. And it doesn't even matter, if the group of people do it on purpose or not. In the end what matters is that the end effect is the way it is.

And it doesn't take a genius to find those really bad options. I am sure everyone could just find a plathora of units or unit options, that may not exist, if game play is the focus, but super impactful, in a bad way, if someone picked the faction, army exactly for those options.

I mean what is an older player suppose to tell a new marine player who says, he likes the land raider models and he only picked marines, because the tank exists? Wait for next edition, play w30k, learn to love painting and paint LR, but never play with them? Those aren't that good options to pick from.

Well GW "rules writers" are garbage so

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
The issue when it comes to the jack-of-all-trades role for troops is that the primary Space Marine veteran-tiers are also jacks-of-all-trades, just in better or more concentrated form. Sternguard are Tacticals+, and Terminators are still rocking improved shooting and improved CC. So I don't think "role" has to be part of the focus for troops.

Instead I would look at cost and availability. The old FOC did a great job of this. You just couldn't have more than 3 Elite units, so you had to be spare with them. But people don't like limits, and they want to take their themed lists. So I would focus on cost, and just start applying taxes on non-troops as you take more of them, which I feel works better than making Troops cheaper the more you take of them, though I think it's effectively a purely psycological difference.

OR you make the troop worth considering to begin with. Taxes wouldn't have made people from taking 5th Grey Hunters because you wanted Grey Hunters to begin with.

I think Troop units are already often worth taking. But making them more attractive can be dealt with on a case by case basis.

Much harder now that GWs going with the inane free-wargear route though.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
The issue when it comes to the jack-of-all-trades role for troops is that the primary Space Marine veteran-tiers are also jacks-of-all-trades, just in better or more concentrated form. Sternguard are Tacticals+, and Terminators are still rocking improved shooting and improved CC. So I don't think "role" has to be part of the focus for troops.

Instead I would look at cost and availability. The old FOC did a great job of this. You just couldn't have more than 3 Elite units, so you had to be spare with them. But people don't like limits, and they want to take their themed lists. So I would focus on cost, and just start applying taxes on non-troops as you take more of them, which I feel works better than making Troops cheaper the more you take of them, though I think it's effectively a purely psycological difference.

OR you make the troop worth considering to begin with. Taxes wouldn't have made people from taking 5th Grey Hunters because you wanted Grey Hunters to begin with.

Perhaps part of the issue is that so many Elite/FA/HS units can be summed up as 'Troops but better'.

e.g.

Devastators are Tactical Marines that can take more heavy weapons.

Raptors are CSMs that can fly.

Dominions are Sisters of Battle that can take more special weapons.

Given that 40k tends to heavily reward specialisation, there's rarely any reason to stick with a pile of bolters or similarly weak weapons when you could instead have extra plasmaguns, lascannons etc., and/or extra mobility options or the like.

I think there needs to be more of a trade-off when it comes to taking specialists over troops - especially as the availability constraints have basically been thrown out of the window entirely.

 alextroy wrote:
A negative could be a little as not getting a significant rule that the comparable Troops unit has.

If the job of a Tactical Squad is to hold ground against a threat, it needs a rule that improves their ability to do that. But Devastators job is to destroy the enemy. They don't get the rule that makes them better at holding ground. Right now, that rule is the lackluster Objective Secured. It needs to be more.

If Tactical Marines were always allowed to either Hold Steady or Set to Defend when charged, that is something more substantial that would make Devastators worst at holding ground than Tactical Marines.

Elite units like Sternguard wouldn't get the rule. Their job is to take ground, which is already represented by their improved stats and weapons.

Ideally, such rules would be carefully designed to make each army play according to their background. Infantry Squads hold ground, but mostly by not dying as easily as they should. Those shovels are not on their backpacks for combat, they are there to dig holes to hide their vulnerable bodies! Nobody knows how important taking cover is than IS. Special rule is Infantry Squads that don't move or that are in Cover get a +1 AS (above and beyond that granted by the Cover).

I get where you're coming from. However, I don't think this is the best way to go about it - especially as you start looking to troops outside of Space Marines. Put simply, I think troops really need rules that let them compete on the offensive front, as that's where they really tend to fall apart, compared to specialists.

(I know that suppression mechanics have been suggested, and I can get behind that, but for now I'm focussing on the mechanics 40k has currently.)

This relates, too, to the fact that small-arms in 40k have grown steadily more worthless. They weren't amazing in past editions (as you'd expect, really), but massed fire from bolters or the like was still effective against most infantry. Now, though, there are so many units with multiple wounds, good saves, FNP, bonuses to cover saves etc. that small-arms fire might as well be a light show in most cases.

This appears to have led more and more to the idea that troops should basically just exist as blobs of meat, whose only role is to sit on objectives and hope to still have some flesh left after the enemy guns have finished firing. Or to sit in front of other, more valuable units and be blended by enemy melee units in their place.

Karol wrote:
But yeah having a multi wound troop option, with super efficient range and melee options and build in defence mechanic , on top of other options being undercosted is awesome. Like the pre omen harlequin troops or when eldar scatter bikers were a thing, or when DE could take wrecks with MW spaming liquifires.

There was never a point where Wracks could inflict Mortal Wounds with their liquifiers.

Also, I fail to see how either Wracks or Harlequins could be considered "multi wound troops", given that they have 1 wound apiece.

Karol wrote:

I mean what is an older player suppose to tell a new marine player who says, he likes the land raider models and he only picked marines, because the tank exists? Wait for next edition, play w30k, learn to love painting and paint LR, but never play with them? Those aren't that good options to pick from.

I'll congratulate him on his good taste in models and encourage him to play around with lists involving the thing until he finds a combo that he's happy with.
I'll never tell someone to wait or not to play something.

Spoletta wrote:
I'm in the field of "I like troops and I like competitive games". IMO the best way to appease both sides is to introduce a "Kill non-troops" secondary. This represents the fact that each loss inflicted on your army weights more than losing rank and file troops.

Not sure anyone who matters reads these forums - but this is a genuinely good idea I've not previously read that could be easily implemented and might produce interesting results. Might need careful balancing so it wasn't a take in most circumstances - but I think it would be worth exploring.

Not so sure what to say on Vipoid's point above. Yes, an awful lot of elites/FA/HS are just "troops but better". But I'm not sure how else the game could work.
I mean what makes these units interesting is that they do more than the basic unit.

As said, the issue has always been "is it worth it?" - its very difficult to have a system where you want a mix. Rather than "troops are undercosted, spam them" or "Troops are meh/overcosted, take as few as you can get away with". We had periods in 8th where certain books had the troops be (for the points) better than their Elites/FA/HS and get obsec as well.

 vipoid wrote:
Perhaps part of the issue is that so many Elite/FA/HS units can be summed up as 'Troops but better'.

e.g.

Devastators are Tactical Marines that can take more heavy weapons.

Raptors are CSMs that can fly.

Dominions are Sisters of Battle that can take more special weapons.

Given that 40k tends to heavily reward specialisation, there's rarely any reason to stick with a pile of bolters or similarly weak weapons when you could instead have extra plasmaguns, lascannons etc., and/or extra mobility options or the like.

I think there needs to be more of a trade-off when it comes to taking specialists over troops - especially as the availability constraints have basically been thrown out of the window entirely.

It's not an issue, it's solved by points. Whether Tactical Marines are specialists or generalists, their points have to be low enough relative to other units in the faction that you want to take them but not so low that they're the only thing you take in your list. There is one easy way to widen the balanced points range between undercosted enough that you take as few as possible (usually 0) and overcosted enough that you spam them (8 points maybe) and that's with Troops-only Stratagems, you might also be able to widen the range with Troops-only once per battle round targeted abilities or mission things like Troops only once per battle round actions. But it's not necessary either, Tacticals have topped events and were just about on par with Intercessors in the not do distant past, it's not an insurmountable obstacle. Constantly changing their rules will certainly make it harder.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I think Troop units are already often worth taking. But making them more attractive can be dealt with on a case by case basis.

Much harder now that GWs going with the inane free-wargear route though.

that feels like a "get you by" band aid solution to the basic issue, which in this case is codex creep meaning that the marines are underpowered compared to later releases. it appears that GW has a policy to not change the actual datasheets of a unit outside of a codex release, as I cant actually think of an example of them doing this, though am sure someone will come correct me on that if i am wrong.

Ergo, whatever it is you do to boost marines, its got to be something that doesn't change the physical stats of the units or their weapons. points cost, which were moved off the unit datasheets to a seperate index for more or less this reason, are the obvious choice, and so they made units cheaper by a mix of reducing costs and granting wargear for free.

Im sure when 10th rolls out, the new codex space marines will have costs for wargear agian.

GW have removed and added CORE from datasheets, that's just a keyword though.

Why would you assume removing points isn't a one-way street to PL town? Astra Militarum still get free wargear even though they got a new codex. There is no excuse for it, the only explanation is laziness and ineptitude.

 vict0988 wrote:
GW have removed and added CORE from datasheets, that's just a keyword though.

Why would you assume removing points isn't a one-way street to PL town? Astra Militarum still get free wargear even though they got a new codex. There is no excuse for it, the only explanation is laziness and ineptitude.

Meh they could have written:

"Imperial guard infantry squad, 9 models, 7 lasguns, 1 plasma gun, 1 lascannon, a power sword/fist in the sergeant and vox caster. Enjoy having a fixed loadout since the other guns were never used" yes it's lazy but don't forget that there have been multiple page discourses on the fact that missile launchers and grenade launchers essentially needn't exist atm. Catachans are dead in the eater because who wants flamers on guard bodies etc etc.

I've said it before and will again, sometimes a generic "heavy weapon" or "special weapon" that can be modelled however you like might be better for some units.

What was wrong with only troops scoring? That to me seemed the easiest best way to approach it.

Maybe they shouldn't have the raw power or statlines of specialists or the points efficiency or the weapon and gear access. But if troops are the only entry that can score then none of that matters, because they have a very unique value.

Players that don't wanna run troops still don't have to. But now its an actual disadvantage.

What I mean is maybe only troops should score the primary.

And there could be limited scoring outside of the primary, say for kills, but not nearly as easy as now. This would still allow a non troops army interaction with scoring if they can reduce enemy scoring and net some limited scores themselves.
But scoring would be a primary path to victory for troops centric armies where non troops it would be more a means to prevent a loss.

 vipoid wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
The issue when it comes to the jack-of-all-trades role for troops is that the primary Space Marine veteran-tiers are also jacks-of-all-trades, just in better or more concentrated form. Sternguard are Tacticals+, and Terminators are still rocking improved shooting and improved CC. So I don't think "role" has to be part of the focus for troops.

Instead I would look at cost and availability. The old FOC did a great job of this. You just couldn't have more than 3 Elite units, so you had to be spare with them. But people don't like limits, and they want to take their themed lists. So I would focus on cost, and just start applying taxes on non-troops as you take more of them, which I feel works better than making Troops cheaper the more you take of them, though I think it's effectively a purely psycological difference.

OR you make the troop worth considering to begin with. Taxes wouldn't have made people from taking 5th Grey Hunters because you wanted Grey Hunters to begin with.

Perhaps part of the issue is that so many Elite/FA/HS units can be summed up as 'Troops but better'.

e.g.

Devastators are Tactical Marines that can take more heavy weapons.

Raptors are CSMs that can fly.

Dominions are Sisters of Battle that can take more special weapons.

Given that 40k tends to heavily reward specialisation, there's rarely any reason to stick with a pile of bolters or similarly weak weapons when you could instead have extra plasmaguns, lascannons etc., and/or extra mobility options or the like.

I think there needs to be more of a trade-off when it comes to taking specialists over troops - especially as the availability constraints have basically been thrown out of the window entirely.

And some of those are easily fixed. For example, most people would argue that CSMs should have Chainswords standard. Now you're trading off Bolter shots (as middling as they are) for a Jump Pack and FEAR MECHANICS.

OBVIOUSLY not perfect but you get the point.

Some units are literally just there because they're cheap for the faction to field in the lore.

dominuschao wrote:
What was wrong with only troops scoring? That to me seemed the easiest best way to approach it.

Players that don't wanna run troops will have to.

Maybe they shouldn't have the raw power or statlines of specialists...

The Troops battlefield role isn't determined by whether the unit is specialists, it's determined by what units are relatively common within the faction. Is a deep-striking unit armed with power weapons not a specialist unit? Is a unit armed with lasguns and flakk armour specialists?

What I mean is maybe only troops should score the primary.

You're mistaken if you think you can win without the primary.

Karol wrote:
That is a good thing for factions that had very good troops or at least troops that are extremly cheap. Marine troops tend to be, both inefficient and over priced, so marine players tend to take minimum, because if they take more of them, their lists just don't work, when faced with much point efficient and deadly lists.

No that doesn't work with Marines because their "specialists" are much more versatile. Would you rather have 1 Lascannon, or 5 Power fists +1T/5++ and +1W? 1-2 Krak Grenades or 5 Powerfists,etc.? 5 Rapidfie 1 bolter-ishes or 5 nearly a bolter pistols, 5 MC Power Swords, and 5 Stormshields?

But yeah having a multi wound troop option, with super efficient range and melee options and build in defence mechanic , on top of other options being undercosted is awesome. Like the pre omen harlequin troops or when eldar scatter bikers were a thing, or when DE could take wrecks with MW spaming liquifires. With troops like that one sometimes could ask, why you need elite in the list at all.

Because the goal is to make Elites supplement not replace your Troops(usually- DW/RW/etc lists aside). The Troops should be able to do it, but slower - and potentially not quite fast enough.

In extrem cases we get the nurgle+tzeench lists of prior edition, where killing a tzeench demon, ment it splits in to two demons and at the same time, spawns a pox walker. Ton of armies couldn't even mechanicaly kill the army through the entire game. Or when IH and Salamanders had their PA books, when intercessors were not only good, but also ablative wounds for character dreandoughts.

Troops need to be GOOD at everything, Elites/FA/HS need to be GREAT at something without displacing Troops (except when they're supposed to (DW/RW/Wild Riders, etc)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
GW have removed and added CORE from datasheets, that's just a keyword though.

Why would you assume removing points isn't a one-way street to PL town? Astra Militarum still get free wargear even though they got a new codex. There is no excuse for it, the only explanation is laziness and ineptitude.

Meh they could have written:

"Imperial guard infantry squad, 9 models, 7 lasguns, 1 plasma gun, 1 lascannon, a power sword/fist in the sergeant and vox caster. Enjoy having a fixed loadout since the other guns were never used" yes it's lazy but don't forget that there have been multiple page discourses on the fact that missile launchers and grenade launchers essentially needn't exist atm. Catachans are dead in the eater because who wants flamers on guard bodies etc etc.

I've said it before and will again, sometimes a generic "heavy weapon" or "special weapon" that can be modelled however you like might be better for some units.

For This Edition. Each edition has their own "flavor of the month" when it comes to elements (Flamer/Plasma/Melta/Grav)- and it appears to frequently coincide with new releases. Hellblasters released when Plasma was FOTM. People spammed Plasma, and said something so GW had cover to buff Melta which became FOTM as, coincidentally, Eradicators released.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dominuschao wrote:
What was wrong with only troops scoring? That to me seemed the easiest best way to approach it.

Maybe they shouldn't have the raw power or statlines of specialists or the points efficiency or the weapon and gear access. But if troops are the only entry that can score then none of that matters, because they have a very unique value.

Except some armies have troops that are not TROOPS. Now, I'm all for the shenanigans they used to do such as "When your Det is all Deathwing, Deathwing are Troops not Elites.". Except when you merge it with SM Troops Sticky Cap and Ravenwing Bikes are Troops turning the game into Teleport Motocross 40K.

Players that don't wanna run troops still don't have to. But now its an actual disadvantage.

And still nobody can explain to me why a Terminator Squad that spent hundreds of years securing objectives as a Tactical Marine has suddenly forgotten how. Or an even bigger trip and fall - the Veteran Intercessors. They're sooo good at being Troops units, they're now... not Troops units and can't secure objectives? Neither Fluff nor Rules (aside from arbitrary ones that rely heavily on "Because I said so.") can explain that.

What I mean is maybe only troops should score the primary.

And there could be limited scoring outside of the primary, say for kills, but not nearly as easy as now. This would still allow a non troops army interaction with scoring if they can reduce enemy scoring and net some limited scores themselves.
But scoring would be a primary path to victory for troops centric armies where non troops it would be more a means to prevent a loss.

And it fails because it's still an exterior/artificial/regulatory issue. What I mean is- it wasn't my idea, it doesn't really fit, and its taking away my options not giving me more. None of the three are popular with players, and it has all three. I'll say it again, as long as Troops are considered a tax, players will still bristle at being forced into them. Whether it's a tax for CP in the Loyal 32, or a tax to open E/FA/HS slots, or a tax to score. As long as "we" have to take them to get something else we want, instead of because we think they're good in their own right, they will be a tax.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:

Karol wrote:

I mean what is an older player suppose to tell a new marine player who says, he likes the land raider models and he only picked marines, because the tank exists? Wait for next edition, play w30k, learn to love painting and paint LR, but never play with them? Those aren't that good options to pick from.

I'll congratulate him on his good taste in models and encourage him to play around with lists involving the thing until he finds a combo that he's happy with.
I'll never tell someone to wait or not to play something.

I'd tell him they're in for a rough stretch, the Land Raider has improved immensely from where it was two years ago, and things in 40K are cyclical meaning they will eventually be Top Dog again, but probably not soon. I would suggest using them as tanks not as transports, and using more than one. I'd ask if they'd heard of Sgt Chronus. I'd suggest there are three data sheets providing a potential of 9 Land Raider models - but more likely in 2,000 points you're looking at 6 with 6 ~100 point squads in them to hop out and sticky cap, Chronus, and maybe another HQ and they might find some success doing that. Especially if they've FAQ'ed Assault Vehicle onto LandRaiders. Alternately a couple-Few Land Raiders, Predators, Speeders, and Whirlwinds might make for a decent Spear of Macragge style list that will have difficulty scoring but might be skew enough to kill first, score second.

I think people tend to forget there are a lot of crap players out there. If someone came at me with an all "bad unit" list id likely still lose

Dai wrote:
I think people tend to forget there are a lot of crap players out there. If someone came at me with an all "bad unit" list id likely still lose

A crap player wtih a crap list is doubly dipped.

 Insectum7 wrote:

stratigo wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
The issue when it comes to the jack-of-all-trades role for troops is that the primary Space Marine veteran-tiers are also jacks-of-all-trades, just in better or more concentrated form. Sternguard are Tacticals+, and Terminators are still rocking improved shooting and improved CC. So I don't think "role" has to be part of the focus for troops.

Instead I would look at cost and availability. The old FOC did a great job of this. You just couldn't have more than 3 Elite units, so you had to be spare with them. But people don't like limits, and they want to take their themed lists. So I would focus on cost, and just start applying taxes on non-troops as you take more of them, which I feel works better than making Troops cheaper the more you take of them, though I think it's effectively a purely psycological difference.

The main problem with a jack of all trades is that 40k has always rewarded specialists far more than generalists.

That's a problem with the user. I've got 25 years of experience winning games with generalist Tacticals.

I'm sure you do mate, I'm sure you do