PDA

View Full Version : Making the game "more troop heavy" Limited heavy suuport?



Smokedog
03-10-2007, 17:35
Recently i have been playing quite a lot of games especially in tournments. Waht I have noticed is a tendancy for people to min there troops and then max out of heavy support/weapons etc.

Ok this is atournmetn envornment, and as one player does it, the trend continues in a domino effect.

I was wondering what effect limiting standard games to 2 Heavy support choices instead of 3 would affect the game. Would it affect certain armies too harshly?:confused:

Captain Micha
03-10-2007, 17:46
Ig would quickly lose any power that they still have.... it's fine as it is. but this is tournament we are talking about here.. which I think those shouldn't exist because 40k was never designed with that in mind. (otherwise there would actually be better rules)

If it's cheesed, you'll find it at a tournament.

Cherubael
03-10-2007, 17:47
It would hurt my own army a bit. I use SOB and rely on Penitent Engines and Exorcists for fire support. Losing a Heavy Slot would make life a bit difficult for me, although it wouldnt completely cripple my army.

Urban Knight
03-10-2007, 17:47
The problem is a lot of Armies have their competitive choices in one or two sections of the Force Organisation Chart with Troops generally not being as effective as other choices.

Hence in a tournament environment troups are usually minimised while other choices are maxed.

Limiting Heavy choices to 2 will hurt Eldar more and Say Space Marines as generally speaking the Eldar have a lot of good/competitive/broken choices in heavy and elite while the rest of the FOC is a bit weak. While Smurf Heavies are weak.

If you want more 'balanced' games you can either up the minimum number of troops to 3 or 4 or choose alternalte FOC from the special missions in the BB

Vaktathi
03-10-2007, 17:47
I think it would hurt certain armies alot more than others. something like Chaos can fulfill many of their HS functions with other units quite well, and this may not hurt many Chaos armies at all, however for other armies such as Guard, this would probably hurt more. Sure having to face 3 Falcons with 2 5man Pathfinders as troops may not exactly be fluffy or fun, or 2 5man las/plas squads with three devestator squads, but when you have a Guard army with 3 leman Russ tanks and 2 min sized troops squads, thats still 50 infantry probably coming in around 450-500pts for those two troops selections without any doctrines.

so yeah, this would have more of an impact on some armies than others.

marv335
03-10-2007, 17:51
Heavy support is already restricted by the force org chart
It doesn't need any more restricting

Smokedog
03-10-2007, 17:54
I actually play eldar, and didnt think it would effect eldar that much.....

My "pet hate" right now are min maxed tau armies.... too many tanks and crisis suits!!:D

Captain Micha
03-10-2007, 18:38
hey just because there is one army out there that doesn't fall like apart like wet paper to uber falcon eldar!:p

I think it would seriously gimp current Eldar (least how everyone else seems to play them...) Other than that it gimping Ig would give me probs with it.

I would have probs with it with Tau because that only encourages them to take even -more- broadsides over the tank... or sniper team...

I think the prob could be fixed by making the holofield not exist anymore

Cry of the Wind
03-10-2007, 18:47
Adding an extra limitation to standard games just because you saw some stuff at a tournament that you didn't like (mech Tau in this case I guess) isn't really solution to that problem. Doing something like that would have drastic effect on some armies and little on others, simply because the armies are expected to have access to 3 heavy support. Also since your problem was with a tournament army I can't see adding restrictions to friendly games having any effect on that play style.

If the mech Tau keep bothering you send 3 Falcons after them with Fire Dragons and Harlequins...no more Crisis suits or Hammerheads after that...

Tulun
03-10-2007, 18:49
Losing a Heavy slot wouldn't effect THAT badly mostly armies (even IG... hell, the recent best general around here had 2 Lisks, and a horde of infantry), but it wouldn't be enough.

To be honest, in tournaments, they do have ways of limiting power gamers... poor honour, comp, sportsmanship scores (they may get high generalship, but they can get screwed otherwise).

If your local friendly games (at the store?) are like that, just talk to them before hand, and ask them honestly what kind of game / list they have. Bring 2 lists. 1 'nicer' on comp, 1 more twinked. Than just have a game that way... because, at least your expectations will be set, and you might enjoy the game more.

People doing min on troops is, sadly, a simple fact of this game. They should probably have more required Troops in tournaments (beyond the FoC), but even if they did, a Tyranid player could fill 4 troop slots for as little as 120 points ;)

Captain Micha
03-10-2007, 18:55
surely you mean banshees with a far seer to reroll failed attempts to wound Cry? that > harlie... (especially in a serpent instead of falcon)

Keichi246
03-10-2007, 18:59
It would definitely hurt some armies far worse than others...
Pretty much any army that truly NEEDS shooting to work correctly.

The Tau have almost no heavy or special weapons in their Troops choices. To get any significant anti armor (or anti-heavy infantry) - they pretty much *have* to load up on Elites and Heavies to remain remotely competetive for tournies. With the fact that their weakness in Close combat means that they really NEED effective shooting phases to stay in the game...

IG are different but similar. Pretty much anything can beat down a IG trooper in close combat. While the IG can play withoout all three heavy support choices - it gets a lot tougher on them - simply because their weakness in HtH.

It's one of the reasons why army comp tourney rules were the subject of a love/hate relationship to many players. Some armies just find it easier to fill a comp chart.

"Oh - Mr Marine player, you have six 6-man las/plas fire support squads? Excellent - having filled all your troops choices gets you max comp points." (36 models- 600+ pts)

"Oh - Mr IG player. I see you only have two infantry platoons, and neither of them are maxed out. Too bad - I'll have to take away comp points for that." (50 models - 500+ points)

Cry of the Wind
03-10-2007, 19:16
surely you mean banshees with a far seer to reroll failed attempts to wound Cry? that > harlie... (especially in a serpent instead of falcon)

Meh, everybody talks about harlies being all nasty so I used them for the example. I personally have the triple falcon using 15 Howling Banshees with a farseer, with jetbikes and vypers to back them up.

Nostro
03-10-2007, 19:21
Or you could limit things that way: 1 troop choice unlocks a total of 2 other choices in the FOC.

2 troops = 4 total HQ/Elites/FA/HS
3 = 6 etc

It's just a quick thought, it may need refinement, eg not counting HQ in the "other" choices or having a rate of 1 to 3 instead of 1 to 2.

the1stpip
03-10-2007, 19:21
Most of my armies have only 2 HS, but I have a friend who has recently completed an AdMech army, that uses 2 FOC (cos the rules don't say you can't) and has 3 Exorcists and 3 basilisks.

Some people are not in the hobby for fun, but so they can get a feeling of smugness cos their OTT army can beat yours.

the1stpip
03-10-2007, 19:21
But I would say up the troops choice maybe to three. That then looks a little more rounded.

Kadrec
03-10-2007, 19:42
In the course of friendly games, it's easy to just chat with the people you're gaming with and see if they're willing to play a less-Heavies game, or do so consistently. My friends and I tend to play with few troops, and more Elites/Heavies, but on the occasion that someone wants to play with less heavies, nobody has a problem with eliminating them all together (even me, and I used to field 4 in my Iron Warriors legion).

As far as rulings go, something like using 1 troop selection to unlock 2 or 3 other selections seems a pretty good idea. Might even say something like:
HQ 1-2
Troops 2-6
Fast Attack 0-3
Elites/Heavies up to the number of Troops selected.

That would minimize the amount of heavy armor fielded on a given game, and make infantry much more influential than the 3xHS games.

Cry of the Wind
03-10-2007, 19:52
You have to remember though that not everybody has built an army around those kinds of restrictions and some armies need more points spent in the heavy or elite sections of their army lists to be either effective or more varied.

For example the Tau can do an army with lots of 6 man firewarrior teams and still use all their toys but unless you built the army around the idea of lots of firewarriors forcing a Tau player to have multiple large squads may not be very interesting. Also remember the Marine gun line army...there you'll see all 6 troops being used but still not a very fun army to play against.

I don't see how using 3 heavy support choices makes a player suddenly only play to crush their enemies with no regards to 'fun'.

bhusus
03-10-2007, 20:19
I personally set my 40k armies up in a similar fashion to the way Fantasy has it - obviously its not the same especially in the HQ department but its a good way of limiting oneself - I usually field 3-4 Troop choices, then build my list from that.

Maleficum
03-10-2007, 21:45
The problems with tournaments is that you on barren field, or simply put; with to little terrain. Also you play on time, so long movement phases can cost you the game (and is way to stressful to be considered "fun").

And even when playing on terrain-boards, somehow 'fields of molten lava' har become very popular, even sementing the 'indestructable skimmers' place in tournaments...

bhusus
03-10-2007, 22:44
Warseer really makes me glad I don't play in touneys whether its exaggerated or not. I'm glad I stick to my own group of friends because it allows for far more variation in army types. The way I usually set up my armies is by equating Troop to Core, FA and Heavy Support to Special and Elite to Rare - the only thing I vary is in the Lord/Hero area - HQ and any single models (i.e. Techmarines, Assassins, Tau Sniper Drones, Independent Commissars) - I put this in again as I didn't feel like I explained it properly before

Deadnight
03-10-2007, 22:52
Hell no. It screws me over royally with my 3 hammerheads.

Problem is, tau, eldar, IG, Sisters and so forth need their heavies.

Making the game "troops" focused benefits one army - Space Marines. For the simple reason they can do anything with their troops. I can't with my tau. For the same reason, 1 troops per each non troops, and 1 troops unlocks 2 other slots on the FOC simply benefits the same Marine armies and hurts everyone else.

As i say, "troops" in the FOC are not the same as troops. An IG general will as likely order the j.officer in charge of a heavy weapons platoon to move his troops forward. Just because something isnt in an abstact "troops" slot doesnt make them not troops. Take Tau. Fire Warriors are troops. Shas'la. Pathfinders are aslo Shas'la. As are Hammerhead crews. They're all troops in one form or another.

GodHead
03-10-2007, 23:01
I have a friend who has recently completed an AdMech army, that uses 2 FOC (cos the rules don't say you can't)
Wrong.


As your collection of miniatures grows, the urge to sue them all at once will become hard to resist. Above a total 2,500 points, the Force Organisation chart deliberately becomes a real limiting factor. The chart allows you to build the minimum sized force that can reasonably be expected to complete a mission. On a larger scale, an army will consist of many such detachments, each performing separate missions. If you want to play an especially large game then, as well as agreeing a points limit, you should also agree a maximum number of detachments. Each detachment will be a separate army, using its own Force Organisation chart.

Main Rulebook, page 78

It is up to you if you want to allow your opponent to use multiple Force Org's. It is plainly stated that it is supposed to be a limiting factor, so your opponent is cheating by taking multiples without your agreement up front.

MysteryGilgamesh
03-10-2007, 23:07
I wish they'd just make Troops more sensible.

Tau have 0 Troop options, and pure garbage Fast. But they've got a cluster **** of superb choices in Elite and Hvy. Some of their Elite or Hvy need to be shifted to another catagory.

Eldar have many good options all over the place.

SM's best tend to be in Troop. The basic Marine squad can be outfitted to do anything.

It varies from army to army.

Cry of the Wind
03-10-2007, 23:20
The problems with tournaments is that you on barren field, or simply put; with to little terrain. Also you play on time, so long movement phases can cost you the game (and is way to stressful to be considered "fun").

And even when playing on terrain-boards, somehow 'fields of molten lava' har become very popular, even sementing the 'indestructable skimmers' place in tournaments...


I feel sorry for you and everyone else that has to deal with this kind of tournament experience. I've played in tournaments across Canada and have only played a couple of games on boards that had little terrain. I've also only had time be a factor in one game (where both my opponent and I had Guard armies, and we still finished 6 turns with time to spare). For me I have much more fun in the tournament environment as I get to meet new players all the time and fight all sorts of different army types.

This discussion once again highlights the weak points in trying to assign 'comp' scores and attach arbitrary limits on army composition across the board, using the same restrictions on all armies. It also wouldn't stop the 'cheese' armies out there as it would simply change the meta game if any of these changes were made universal. Restrict one thing and you'll find a hundred armies that exploit the new restrictions.

Skyth
03-10-2007, 23:49
I'll repeat what others have said...Basing army comp on troops just screws over certain armies. Some armies' troops choices are vastly superior to other armys' troops choices.

Heck, even basing it on full-sized troops choices screws over certain armies as compared to others.

Brother Loki
04-10-2007, 00:46
I think a better solution would be to amend the FOC to require a minimum of 1 troop choice per 500 points, or part thereof. Therefore in a 500 point gasme you'd have at least one, in a 1000 point game, you'd have at least two, in a 1500 point game you'd have at least 3, in an 1850 or 2000 point game you'd have at least 4 and so on.

Skyth
04-10-2007, 01:06
Again, some armies have better troops choices than other armies. Basing stuff on troops choices flagrantly favors some armies over others.

Let's look at the options -

Marines - 1 6 man las/plas squad per 500 points -Great troops choice, no problem there. 23% required for troops, but you'd take several squads anyways.

Nids - 3 ripper bases or 8 Spinegaunts. Again, not a problem. Only 6-8% required for troops. Or just grab some stealers...Great squad there.

Necrons - 10 man necron warrior squad...Min 36% required in troops that are less efficient than the elite/fast choices in the army. Boring to play/play against.

Guard - Platoon runs in at ~250 points min. Armored fist runs in ~180. Average it and call it 215...So min 43% spent on troops, leaving not much for Anything else.

Vaktathi
04-10-2007, 01:26
I think a better solution would be to amend the FOC to require a minimum of 1 troop choice per 500 points, or part thereof. Therefore in a 500 point gasme you'd have at least one, in a 1000 point game, you'd have at least two, in a 1500 point game you'd have at least 3, in an 1850 or 2000 point game you'd have at least 4 and so on.

again, this doesnt work well with Guard, at 2000pts you are talking about probably at a bare minimum half your pts in troops, probably more, as opposed to a more well rounded 33-40%

Epicenter
04-10-2007, 01:53
I don't really think changing the FOC is the answer here, personally. If people are taking too many heavy choices, it's a design decision by GW to encourage playstyles like that. While I'd love to see a WHFB choices system implemented in 40k, it wouldn't be possible without radically reworking a lot of current army lists.

As others have stated, some army lists, by their nature aren't competitive as 100% troops, while others are very competitive. New Chaos Space Marines can make a pretty viable army with lots of troops. Others aren't very competitive at all - an extreme example, obviously, are Tau - you can max out on troops choices and you'll end up with a lot of points tied up troops that can't really hurt tanks.

As a rule, true MEQ armies have the hallmark of flexibility. They can use the crutches of BS4, S4, T4, and 3+ Sv and the presence of some sort of inherent anti-tank ability to run decently with high troops without as much thought to combined arms tactics - Marines, Chaos Marines, Necrons are all like this. Even SoBs (whom some people will tell you aren't really MEQs) can take meltaguns in their troops choices, allowing some flexibility in engagement. But even then, a pure footslogging MEQ army will get abused by mobile shooting, for instance.

Armies that aren't true MEQs tend to suffer a lot more as a lot of them have very one-dimensional troops choices that aren't flexible at all - some of them lack shooting power, anti-armor shooting, aren't very mobile, or are ridiculously fragile - usually a combination of all of those factors mark non-MEQ troops usually making them an extremely poor value for the points you're sinking into them. Only by supporting them with other choices do they become viable.

A footslogging Eldar army, even with its heavily slanted special rules are still little more than victims to the shooting of other races - they're designed to act in concert with each other. You stick them in their transports and suddenly they become about the equal of MEQs (just right or overpowered depending on if you're the Eldar player or not). While I think someone can argue that giving a fast, hard-hitting, but fragile army the most durable and tough transports in the game was and is a mistake that dumbs Eldar down and turns claims that Eldar are hard to play into a laughable lie has some merit, this won't be solved by only giving Eldar two Falcons. There's more elegant and frankly necessary solutions - like looking at the costs for things, adjusting (or outright nerfing) wargear, changing SMF rules should be more than enough to make Eldar players think again (instead of just claiming to be such master tacticians while being able to push their three Falcons willy-nilly into the center of an opponents battle line because it's so unlikely the Falcon will die).

To be honest, I think GW has heard these complaints, especially about MEQs - the new limits on what heavy weapons in C:CSM and the newer Marine lists are a step in the right direction, I think.

bhusus
04-10-2007, 02:39
I understand the Troop problem; my formula only works because I play SM and Nids, both of which have very good, highly customizable troop options. My brother plays Tau and basically plays an all elite army because of the same reasons mentioned here concerning the weakness of Tau Troop choices, especially if he's playing against either of my armies. He once tried to add more troops because some of the other guys were complaining and he got decimated by our necron player; considering that my regular troops and his elites get 3+ saves there is obviously a disparity.

Reinholt
04-10-2007, 03:12
I think, from a tournament perspective, there are several issues:

1 - Comp Scores matter quite a bit, so it's a shame we compute them like ******! Until all of the troop selections are relatively viable and balanced across all armies, and integrate well with competitive lists, comp scores are an issue. Conversely, they need to continue to penalize super cheesy play.

One of my biggest issues with comp scores is their lack of incrementality or combinatorial effects. For instance, is a lone falcon a problem? No. Is a lone squad of harlequins a problem? No. Putting them together, however is more of a problem. Especially if you do it three times! A seriously good comp system would be evaluating the combinations fielded within each list.

2) The tournament gaming environment is not Warhammer 40k. It's more like Warhamm 0, by which I mean, a decent part of the game is missing. The reasons for this are as follows:

- Usually too little terrain

- Not enough time to play full games with horde armies (I know a guy who once deliberately tanked several players at a tournament by bringing an all-foot Ork army and moving them slowly enough that most games didn't get out of the middle of turn 2; he did it to make a point about the ridiculousness of the current time limitations)

- Often, they use jacked up scenarios that arbitrarily favor certain armies without fully understanding the balance issues thereof.

Now, I'm all for playing for fun and trying new things, but maybe a tournament is the time to get things balanced and competitive across the board, not throw even more monkey wrenches into an already problematic system...

This, by the by, is why I very rarely play tournaments despite having done quite well in a few (I don't like winning because my opponent was screwed by the rules - that feels pretty hollow), but that's another story entirely.

All of this contributes to repeatedly having unbalanced armies fielded, a very large disparity in the value of "troops" and "heavy support" across armies, and a pretty strong inability to make blanket rules that work.

Perhaps a better idea would be to consider how to compute an accurate comp score on an army by army basis.

azimaith
04-10-2007, 04:46
Limiting heavy support more would be like delivering a well aimed kick into the testes of the already bruised tyranid swarm player. Why not just remove tyranid anti-tank cabality and call synapse a "the Hangmans noose rule" instead?

As said over and over again different armies use different slots more than others.

For my tyranids elite is pretty craptacular and fast attack is only mildly better (only because gargoyles are metal). If I didn't have my heavy supports for my zoanthropes and my carnifex I would pretty much just need to roll over the moment people decided to use transport tanks.

The idea of basing scores on FOC choices is silly and will remain so until all armies have the same play style.

The biggest factors that affect troop selection are:
Metagame.
Stupid Troop choices.
Stupid army design.

Metagame: If you fight constantly against mechanized eldar why would you want to max out on Firewarriors for your tau? They're just going to be bait.

Stupid Troop Choices:
Why would you take rippers for anything (other than being the cheapest troop squad you can manage) when they're incredibly slow, horribly punished by blast weapons of S6, and their upgrades cost you an arm and a leg to appy to a model with mediocre toughness and a near worthless save. Poorly designed.

Stupid Army Design: Why would you take Shoota boyz in an ork army when you could just as easily take sluggas? The army is designed to assault and its shooting capabilities are largely a function of heavy weapon massed firepower (IE big shootaz). They don't gel with the army function thus don't get taken.

Smokedog
04-10-2007, 09:06
Sometimes I just have an idea in my head - and I post it here, getting 20+ different points of view really helps find out quickly if something is viable or not.

It seems in this case limiting the heavy support choices would not work, becasue "heavy armour" can be taken by many armies in the form of transports. Therefore shifting the "issue" to that area.

I have read all the posts, and I will agree with Epicenter when he says that games are geared towards people taking heavy support choices, and this is because of games design pushing you in that direction.

Recently the codexes are getting balanced, and this will continue across all codexes, and finally when 5th ed is ready, maybe these issues will be addressed.

sebster
04-10-2007, 09:43
I really hate the idea of troops being crap you have to take. Changing the number or type of troops an army is required to take and people will still avoid troops as much as possible.

If you want more troops on the board, its better to tweak the rules a little to make troops more valuable options. Troops aren’t as deadly as heavy and elite options, but they’re cheaper and more numerous, all the better for holding objectives and delaying the enemy.

So play objective based games with no victory points and lots of terrain. Suddenly those cheap scoring units start to look like a game winning choice.

Brother Loki
04-10-2007, 09:45
I'm surprised everyone seems to think Tau firewarriors are poor. They certainly can take out tanks (except land raiders admittedly). Stick em in a devilfish and fish of fury the rear armour of pretty much any tank, and it's going to be disabled or destroyed. 24 pulse rifle shots (plus whatever's on the fish) equates to a lot of glancing hits.

Gorbad Ironclaw
04-10-2007, 09:54
Warseer really makes me glad I don't play in touneys whether its exaggerated or not. I'm


Hugely exaggerated, to the point of bearing little resemblance to any tournament I've been to.

I've never seen a 'barren field' used at a tournament, not for WFB and much less for 40k, I've never had a problem with game time, usually I finish well before time is up. I've never meet anyone that cheated or were a bad sport, although yes I know of a few cases, but it happens in clubs too.

At the 40k tournament I was at earlier this year, the only diblicate army I played with Nids, and that was two very different army designs, and neither of them was Godzilla.

It's a bit hazy, but as I remember it I don't think any of the armies had maxed out there heavy support either.

When you read it here, it sounds like tournaments are exclusivly populated by horrible WAAC cheats and bad sports, weilding the most twinked out armies and are just out to crush all before them, and in my experience that is nothing at all like it.

It's a fun social occasion where you get to see some mates, meet new people, drink some beer and push around toy soldiers :)

Maybe I just go to the wrong(or would that be right?) tournaments *shrug* If you can get a few mates to come along, you should have a look around and see if there is anything interesting near you tho, it's really quite good fun.

IJW
04-10-2007, 10:02
A footslogging Eldar army, even with its heavily slanted special rules are still little more than victims to the shooting of other races - they're designed to act in concert with each other.
My Pathfinder/Jetbike army has a different opinion... ;)

Epicenter
04-10-2007, 11:15
My Pathfinder/Jetbike army has a different opinion... ;)

Jetbikes aren't really infantry at all and certainly aren't footslogging. If you had an all Pathfinder army, I'd agree with you.

IJW
04-10-2007, 11:18
We're talking about Troops choices.

stubble rash
04-10-2007, 12:00
also painting 55 guardsmen to get the minimum troops HQ slots makes you less than enthusiastic about adding another platoon.
most people would rather paint up cool looking elite/FA/HS models then more rank and file troops

Cry of the Wind
04-10-2007, 12:56
When you read it here, it sounds like tournaments are exclusivly populated by horrible WAAC cheats and bad sports, weilding the most twinked out armies and are just out to crush all before them, and in my experience that is nothing at all like it.

It's a fun social occasion where you get to see some mates, meet new people, drink some beer and push around toy soldiers :)

I agree with this 100%!

I find that these kinds of discussions usually crop up when a player gets their butt handed to them by one of the 'big cheese' armies out there. The first instinct is that the other army is totally unfair and shouldn't be allowed for whatever reason (cheese/unfluff/whatever). I don't want to be too harsh on the OP, but I find this comes down to experience with the tournament style army. Sure it may seem like an unbeatable monster at first but you don't need to take one of those cookie-cutter lists out there to beat it.

Sure I'll admit that I own a triple Falcon army with a bunch of Banshees, and that army is tough for anyone to face. With me commanding it I've won more best general awards in tournaments with that list than the number of losses it has suffered through its entire life. I also have many other armies that I bust out to tournaments with and do very well with as well. Sure it’s not as easy to get into the top 3 with my Guard, but I've done it (and not just once through a fluke).

It's just a matter of finding a way to negate the other guy’ advantage (or in desperate situations simply to limit the damage he can do). I don't want to sound like some condescending WAAC jerk or anything like that, but when I am beaten by an army that I haven't fought before and was totally sidelined by, my first reaction isn't 'damn that army was to hard...it shouldn't be allowed' but rather 'ok, that hurt...now what can I change in my tactics or list to allow me to overcome it' (although after having my Slann sniped by cannons in the final round of several tournaments resulting in me going from top 3 to middle ground, I'll admit I've had moments of weakness...stupid cannons...too accurate...somebody should change their rules...:p).

All I'm trying to say is that the game works as well as it can with the rules it has currently. It's an unfortunate reality of the game right now that you will find some combos that when placed against a certain army or style of play will result in an almost auto win for one player or the other (I know there is more than one army out there that my Falcons can't lose to if I tried). Changing around composition through scoring or arbitrary restrictions won't do anything more than change what the cheesy list is.

Brother Loki
04-10-2007, 14:56
My experience of tournaments pretty much mirrors yours Gorbad. I've never played a bad sport, and the tournaments I've been to were very sociable.

I agree with Stubble on the Guard thing - in many ways they should be one of the most troop heavy armies, but it can be soul destroying to have to paint 3 or more platoons. My own cadians generally have only 2 25 man platoons, so I guess I'm being slightly hypocritical, but thats because I don't especially like painting.

Bunnahabhain
04-10-2007, 16:08
The problem with trying to make the Guard as troops heavy as they should be is twofold. It is possible at the moment, but it's not easy, or fun to use as it should be.

Firstly the whole painting, transporting , deploying, and sometimes even moving 150+ men bit. This is a pain, but unless you have very limited time, it's not a real problem.

The bigger problem is that, as the Guard cannot win in close combat (Ok, charge with your fire warriors and prove me wrong!), they have to outshoot the enemy. For the standard infantry , ie the troops choices, this means you need your heavy weapons, so you're not moving.

In a game that is won on being able to move to take objectives, and to engage the enemy on your terms, this doesn't help much. The units who can move and fire effectively- veterans, storm troopers, vehicles become very valuable.

Without a major reform of the rules, the only solution is cheaper guardsmen, to make it easier to pepperpot forwards,as you'd have more men doing it, or a doctrine to allow you to take two special weapons, not a special and a heavy, so allowing you to advance and fire .

Or having less MEQs about, so lasguns become much more useful.

TheSanityAssassin
04-10-2007, 17:19
I think most of it can be fixed by tourney organizers putting limitations on points rather than slots. Around here the tourneys I run REQUIRE a minimum 30% troops. Nothing makes me more annoyed than an Eldar list with 2 3 man bike squads for troops....120 pts spent out of an 1850 pt list. ArdBoyz looks even worse with 120 spent on Troops out of 2500....

With that core of troops in place the rest of the tourney lists tend to put themselves on line. Some people like to restrict points so that no single slot can have more spent in it than troops, but that's sometimes overkill, as certain armies have very little to take in Fast or Elites slots or even HQ to take up many points, and are generally just Troops and Heavies.

Killing the extra slot would also hurt people who do things in different ways. IE I ALWAYS use 3 heavy slots in my Eldar army, but they're generally like A fire prism, 2 war walkers and a vibro cannon...yes the slots are used, but they aren't taking up a gamebreaking amount of points...

Skyth
04-10-2007, 21:46
I think most of it can be fixed by tourney organizers putting limitations on points rather than slots. Around here the tourneys I run REQUIRE a minimum 30% troops.

Again...Troops are better for some armies than others...Marines have no problems with that 30% (5x6 man las/plas squads in 1850.)

Other problem is that unless you're playing nids, having alot of troops generally makes for a boring, static army.

SonofUltramar
04-10-2007, 23:34
Why not have the restriction on just Heavy Support and Elites, allow one of each per 500pts or part thereof in addition to 2+ Troop choices?

In 1000pts if you can only take 2 Heavies such as 2 Leman Russ, Falcons, Hammerheads etc. you'll still be spending at most 300pts on HS which is still a fair portion of the army and allows everyone to still have good support units without the support units outnumbering the "core army"?

To be honest i've seen plenty of IG armies that have no HS and still do very well but forcing restrictions on everyone would force everyone to play very similar infantry heavy armies which i'm not a great fan of as I like seeing peoples diffrent takes on things. Betweem my local store and club I almost never see the same lists which is one of the reasons I don't think the arguements about the internet creating cookie cutter armies are justified?

Personally I think the FOC works well but if you want to limit certain choices within a gaming group as part of a campaign or house rule then feel free but I think it could quite easily annoy/frustrate certain players?

kazkal
05-10-2007, 01:47
To be honest, in tournaments, they do have ways of limiting power gamers... poor honour, comp, sportsmanship scores (they may get high generalship, but they can get screwed otherwise).

Problem with this is ******s can give a player a low score even if they were a great person, with a balanced army ...


PS,I never liked painting skills as part of a tournament scoring -_-, If I wanted be judged on my painting skills i'd enter the painting competitions.

Ishtar
05-10-2007, 01:50
Why not just set an example and take lots of troops to your games? Or avoid pick-up games and just agree with your opponent to go troop-heavy in a game. 40k's pretty dang fun when there's lots of units running around rather than a few tanks and heroes.

Sekhmet
05-10-2007, 02:33
I hate the idea of comp and sportsmanship scores in tournaments.. people will rate you lower because you caught THEM cheating.. people will rate you lower because you massacred them.. etc etc.

I also hate the idea of making the game more troop heavy. When was the last time both sides brought the same number of troops and tanks to the same fight, in any modern war or battle? Yeah. It doesn't happen in 40k either, and it shouldn't.

Cry of the Wind
05-10-2007, 02:38
The easiest way to avoid comp problems as a player is to simply only play those people that you are comfortable with and have confidence that they will adhere to your standard of gaming. Remember that all games are 'opponents permission only' and that means if you don't like someone’s army....don't play them. If that means you avoid tournaments and the like, well I feel you'll be missing out on a great environment to meet new people and new gaming challenges, but that's your call.

I don’t really think there is anything else to add to this discussion though, I’ve run out of things to say and we seem to be repeating ourselves now…

MuttMan
05-10-2007, 02:40
I always find it rewarding when you discover what kind of HS/Elite/HQ's that actually support the troops rather then the other way around. Sometimes Iplay with min/max troops only because I max out the models in my havocs and chosen for example (given their many weapons they weild) and such but it still leaves me with at least 3 or 4 five or six man units with 1 plasma gun in each unit.

I've seen a small trend with GW and their new codexes. Cooler troops choices such as DA/BA with assault marines, more units means more rending marines you dont pay so much for. DA units that split up with a heavy weapon in one side, the sarge and meltagun in the other. Cheaper razorbacks and the like to actually want more troops. Especially the chaos codex with cult troops and the CSM that is quite possibly the best basic trooper in the game.

Besides I always fight with a theme to my army, and sometimes that theme is based around walkers or tank treads or terminator/oblit style gaming. Not saying themes make up for the lack of troops, but rather a reason behind the madness of small number of troops. (One army I max my troops out in is my 192 spinegaunt army, I love spinegaunts)