PDA

View Full Version : How would you fix the Troop problem?



MALICIOUS LOGIC
23-01-2008, 08:00
A lot of people find it difficult to rationalize the “only Troops” count as scoring units in the leaked rumors for 5th edition. I myself see far too many holes in this idea.

But the change is likely because GW has always supported the idea that people should take more Troops in their armies. I’m sure it’s also a way to balance the game. Personally, I would rather see game mechanics that actually make sense. Trying to balance a game with bizarre game mechanics seems completely out of line when there are other methods that can balance the system and still make sense in a more realistic fashion.

One system would be to have the compulsory choices as they are now (1+ HQ, 2+ Troops). And to keep the current cap on all choices except Troops. Then you must have 1 Troops choice for every one Elite, Fast Attack, Heavy Support, or additional HQ. I’m not saying it’s perfect. But it’s an idea that makes sense. And it could be adjusted after some play testing.

So what ideas do you have? (And let’s please keep this on topic. The “I hate the GW proposed changes” have already been addressed on other threads). Thanks!

~Logic

azimaith
23-01-2008, 08:09
Some armies troops are better than others. I don't like it. Its just another chip off the ability to customize your army. There isn't a problem with a lack of troops in armies, theres a problem with the desirability of troops due to their abilities. In some cases, particularly necrons, more troops are reviled due to the sheer boredom it induces.

Letting non-vehicle units hold objectives is fine. Vehicle units tend to lead to last turn grabs.
An even better idea is just to make it so you gain points for the objective each game turn rather than who holds it on the last turn, or to scale points gained for objectives by against enemies contesting it.

big squig
23-01-2008, 08:11
Try playing Advance Wars or Battalion Wars. Those videogames do the same thing and it makes for some great games. Everyone has their role to support everyone else.

I'm tired of playing space marine players with two 5 man scout squads that just sit there while they take a ton of terms and preds and 2 heroes. It's gotten to the point that 2 troops are the tax for playing.

BrainFireBob
23-01-2008, 08:23
Actually, azimaith, I'd be in favor of Immortals being a 0-2 Troops choice with Warriors being a 2+, something like that. Flayed ones too. How to classify something like that is difficult, though.

thenurgler
23-01-2008, 08:29
I know that this is pretty radical, but maybe we should make the troops choices worth taking?
I can't think of any armies who can be successful without a lot of bodies in the troops section, except for Eldar, and even then pathfinders, jetbikes, and dire avengers are all great choices to be had.
But every other army needs boots on the table to be successful. In your example they have way too few models to be able to do anything so just fry the termies and be done with it. Basic marines are some of the best units in the game and they are doing a disservice to themselves by not taking them.

Also is this even a problem? I like the idea that we can have smaller elite armies (which are usually less competitive, except with Tyranids and Eldar) rather than lots of normal troops, which can also be fun. But variety is good and if someone wants to get a minimum of troops and load up on bikes, let them! That provides variety which is good for the game.
Even take the new ork codex, I can't think of a way to make it competitive at all without a substantial amount of boys. The price of a marine for a model with such a horribles save? You need other models to absorb fire so more elite models can do the killing.

If you want to fix troops, make troops better. But I don't think there is fixing to be had.

azimaith
23-01-2008, 08:34
Whats so wrong with themed lists though. My necrons are a wraith wing, they aren't bolt gun metal, they don't have a monolith or veil of darkness. I couldn't afford to add more warriors to it without it not being a wraithwing any more. Why cut out a sliver of unique game play from an army widely berated as being "boring to play against" when it won't even serve balance purposes.

The problem isn't mission objectives, its troop utility and unit balance. For people who only care about powerful armies troop utility would change what makes an army "good".

People who like themed armies just won't change.

And armies with crap troops will be irritated at being forced to take more to remain competitive.

alphastealer
23-01-2008, 08:43
When I first started playing I was told that in a 1500pt game I should have 700pts min of troops otherwise it would get too top heavy or have too few models on the table.

While I agree that troops are not the most desirable units to field I do agree that troops should make up the bulk of what you do field, hence my dislike for nidzilla and heavy mech tau and eldar.

I know we as the players are free to choose any combination..and as soon as you talk about limiting people, then there are a whole bunch of people who whine about it.

While I am not a big one on limits sometimes they can be useful to stop guys from abusing power combinations.

So my solution would be for every 2 troop choices you get one heavy choice.

azimaith
23-01-2008, 08:47
So what if your power units are all in your fast attack or elites? You only need one monolith and an assload of destroyers to make people start whining with necrons.

Unbalanced units are not evenly distributed over the game. Just make everyons troop choice their most versatile one with the most possible options to specialize them and I guarantee you'll see tons of troops.

Gorbad Ironclaw
23-01-2008, 08:52
I'm tired of playing space marine players with two 5 man scout squads that just sit there while they take a ton of terms and preds and 2 heroes. It's gotten to the point that 2 troops are the tax for playing.


But that's not a core rule problem. That's a problem with the codex in question then.

You don't need some strange rule like this to make troops worthwhile to bring. You just need a decently written Codex.

The new Ork army is a good example, you are going to see tons of troops in that list, simply because they are good. That's the solution to the problem if one really feel like troops are too rare (not that I've ever seen anyone use an army like the one above), not some strange rule like this.

If it actually goes into the finish ruleset, I think I'll have a chat with the friends I play with about just making it infantry is scoring, not only troops.

Mort
23-01-2008, 08:53
azimaiths right here:

By forcing every player to take more troops you would gain nothing: first of all, all the themed armies, even normal assault or support oriented armies would cease to exist.
Bsically this would mean fewer ways to play different armies, meaning more boring games.

And in terms of inter army balanace its way too unfair.

Example: while lets say a tyranid player has to buy six gaunts every time he wants a non troop unit every marine player has to buy 5 marines. ehich is just anufair, because the low cost armies would have as much elite and Hvy choices as now and all high cost armies would only be able to afford one or two.
I wont star about the guard,where you would have to buy a platoon every time youd like to field a tank.

Son of Morkai
23-01-2008, 09:08
I haven't been keeping up every little rumor for 5th ed, but aren't mission objectives supposed to change too? At least, that's one of the things stated in the rumor roundup. "The missions are different enough that Troops only counting as scoring isn't as big a deal as it would be today."

After 50 pages of people arguing about how much GW sucks based purely on some random person's fantasy idea of what 5th edition is going to be like, I stopped paying attention. Since I don't feel like hunting through the massive thread for the one or two posts that explain why this is a big problem (as opposed to just whining about it or saying it's wonderful), can anyone explain why the rumor roundup is wrong about it not being a big change and why having Troops as the only scoring units is something important?

AngryAngel
23-01-2008, 09:16
If your own troops bore you, honestly why do you play the army ? I play marines, and I love each and every tac squad. In fact, I usually don't run many of the "power" units because I take so many of them. As well I play Tau and I love my firewarriors. In fact I have to buy more. I have 4 units of them, with their transports.

Nothing is wrong with peoples troops choices. I have a friend who loves his gaunts, have one who loves his ork boys, and his necrons. Really once ya start loathing your troops, why play the army anymore ? Themed armies are fine, just take a couple troops and spend the rest of the time trying to kill someone elses troops off so they can't take objectives. Still things to do, but if your playing an army, you should enjoy the troops for it, not just the more special units that may lurk within.

Critias
23-01-2008, 09:17
I've always wondered why they felt a need to cap Troops at six squads, anyways. If they're supposed to be the bulk of an army (so much so that we're required to take two units of them), why restrict folks from taking more?

It seems to me that the whole "only Troops are scoring units" thing is a fix that isn't particularly needed. If folks would rather pour points into Heavies, Elites, and HQs, let them. Keeping the existing Force Org chart, and removing the limitation on Troops (which tend to be among an army's most cost-efficient choices anyways, making for great bulky scoring units) would be enough.

azimaith
23-01-2008, 09:21
As much as I'd love unlimited troops truth is that the more slots you get the easier the more resilient many troops get.

For example. My tyranid army has 60 spine gaunts, 3 squads of 20.

If I had unlimited troop choices (as my other ones are all filled) I could have 7 squads (with about 4 extra gaunts to spread out) of gaunts with 8 each.

Now suddenly those 60 gaunts are much tougher to kill because your shooting will be less efficient due to squad overkill. scoring 20 wounds on a squad with an armor penetrating weapon would wipe outa third of my gaunts if it were the 20 man variants, but with 8 man squads you merely kill a little more than a seventh of the gaunts.

Thats 8 gaunts dead vs 20. Huge difference.

Tensor
23-01-2008, 09:22
We tried this in the past.

The problem is that it exacerbates the min strength squad problem. If as a Marine player you are forced to take troop choices you are more likely to only ever field 5 man scout squads. This in tuerms of balanced army composition isnt much better than what we have now.

If only troops can hold objectives, you are forced not only to field more troops, but also to field troops likely to still on objectives at the end of the game.

eek107
23-01-2008, 09:22
You mean problem that doesn't exist yet? Think about it... it sounds very questionable as a mechanic. Infantry maybe (mistranslation or misheard? or made up ;) ) but I very much doubt they'd do something as radical as all that.

edit: As for a fix, I'd start taking more Troops. :)

Griffin
23-01-2008, 09:24
In all my armies I bulk out on troops - The guy that teached me to play wargames always said grunts win your wars. It's still right - with enough troops most armies don't pack enough firepower to remove all your models and you win by taking objectives. I have 60+ marines in my army, even the Infamous Harlies of doom stall out after a assault or 2 as they start taking return casualties.

AngryAngel
23-01-2008, 09:32
In all my armies I bulk out on troops - The guy that teached me to play wargames always said grunts win your wars. It's still right - with enough troops most armies don't pack enough firepower to remove all your models and you win by taking objectives. I have 60+ marines in my army, even the Infamous Harlies of doom stall out after a assault or 2 as they start taking return casualties.

Very true, the other slots are there merely for support. The troops should be the meat of the army.

Finnith
23-01-2008, 10:06
How exactly is there a troop problem. With just about all of the 'new' codexes troops have been taken into account, almost as if someone thought this through before hand;

Chaos: 5 types of marines, plus demons. 2 of these units Sons and Plague marines seem perfectly suited to holding objectives and best of all they can be large squads and ride in a rhino. Dont want cult troops the just take a 20 strong marine band with afew special weapons, a fist and an icon of some kind and watch people try to dislodge that.

Dark Angels: Terminators AND bikes can count as troops, plus combat squads. You can make a flixible force just out of troops and heavies.

Blood Angels: Assault marines as troops, that could be useful for claiming objectives with a fast unit.

Orks: Nobs, bikes or walkers can be counted as troops with different HQ types.

With the current trends in codexes having troops as the only scoring unit shouldnt limit you to 1 unit type. Heres afew ive just come up with as possible new ways of adding to each races existing troop list.

Necrons: Destroyer lord allows 1 unit of destroyers, fast or heavy to be counted as troops. Some kind of special pariah prototype character allows 1 unit of pariahs to be counted as troops.

Dark Eldar: Witch lord type allows a unit of witches to be counted as troops. Lord on skateboard type thing allows a unit on them to be counted as troops.

Space Marines: sticking your HQ in termy armor allows 1 unit of termys to be counted as troops. Sticking a HQ on a bike lets a unit of bikers be counted as troops. Jump pack HQ lets a unit of assult marines be taken as troops.

Eldar: Taking one of the aspect special characters allows 1 aspect unit of that type to be taken as troops.

Nids: not too sure on nids, possibly having a tyrant give you a unit of warriors as troops. They already have lots of troop options anyway.

IG: Tank commander lets you take a leman russ or demolisher as a troops option. Special character lets you take storm troopers as a troops unit. No restrictions on number of transported troops.

Demonhunters: similar to SM with termy armoured lord letting you take a unit of termys as troops. Special radical inq lets you take demon hosts or some new unit as troops.

Witch hunter: lord woman with jump pack lets you take jump packed troops as 1 troop slot.


There ive doubled the number of potential troop types for most armies with 5 mins of thought and previous examples taken from the new style codexes.

The goal posts havent been made smaller they have just been moved.

From the changes i could do a marine side of 2 characters, 3 dreads, 2 termy squad, a couple of tac squads in rhinos, afew speeders force which can be done with the current codex with minimal change to how the army actually works. I can fit in more of the units i like without having to take any disadvantages.

OR

1 HQ with a jump pack, 1 on a bike, 2 assault marine squads, 2 bikers and afew tactical marines for a fire base. Bunch of scoring units and highly themed towards fast assault and objective grabbing.

With this system, heavies support your troops from afar, fast attack disrupt your opponents movements and elites contest their ability to hold their own objectives clearing the way for troops to come in and take them. Sounds much more tactical than its the last turn so i swoop my bikers/speeders/tanks in and claim the win even though most of my units hid behind a bush.

bosstroll
23-01-2008, 10:31
My idea: Change *troops* to a special rule, which says: Troop units score double victory points when claiming objectives.
This will give people an incentive to take more troops, without destroying the ability to win games for themed armies.

Although i like Finnith's solution aswell.

Keadaen
23-01-2008, 10:49
They could just make the "ability" to hold objectives a special rule, that they could give out to specific units (such as veterans). but I like Finnith and bosstroll's ideas too.

Bunnahabhain
23-01-2008, 11:08
Solutions.

1:Infantry (inc jump infanty, jet pack infantry etc) only are scoring units. Removes the idocy of identical units being scoring or not depending on FOC slot.

or

2: List if units are scoring/non scoring in the back of the book, as was done with unit types.

Also, how about troops choices are 2+, with 0-1 per other slot on FOC filled. A full army, with 3 heavy, fast, elites, and 2 hq, can therefore take up to 11 troops units, but heavily themed ones with, say a powerful elite and HQ lead fast assualt force, will not fill enough supporting slots to have that many troops.

Gorbad Ironclaw
23-01-2008, 11:12
How exactly is there a troop problem.

There isn't a problem with troops. There is a problem with a silly rule like that tho.

It's an entirely arbitrary limit that A) doesn't make any kind of sense, B) effects the armies very differently and C) leads to confusion.

The new Orks is a prime example of that. In that you can have identical units in all respect, only some of them will count as scoring, and some of them wont (Nobs, Bikers and such). How does that make any kind of sense, or helps the game play?

Besides, forcing people to have tons of troops isn't going to produce fluffier armies, or more fun games. It's just a random restriction added for the hell of it.


As for the missions, as the ones in the playtest rules (apparently) are more like current Alpha missions in the way that VP is only used in the case of a tie in objectives/kill points, saying that the changes to missions makes this less important is obviously not true. In fact, scoring is more important than ever.


I'm just failing to see any benefit from making it troops only, but I can see a number of drawbacks.

Archangel_Ruined
23-01-2008, 12:51
Right, I don't want any abuse and I don't want to be labelled a crackpot, but what EXACTLY is changing that will stop themed armies? The force organisation chart remains the same, you can still field three fast attack etc. So, your themed army wont be so competitive in a purely objective based tournament situation, neither will the rest of the stupid tournament lists out there. Your army wont be any less fun to play with or against, and unless I'm missing something that is the point of playing your friends. The only thing I can see with these rules is the near unstoppable force that is the drop podding marine army, but that was hard as nails anyway. 5th Ed is not limiting your choices, it's making people who play purely for objectives acknowledge some home truths, ie. you cannot hold ground with much other than dug in infantry. This might be unfair on elite/fast attack choice infantry, but then their role is to storm positions, not to hold them, and heavy support is there to make things much smaller and widely spaced from a distance. People keep complaining, but will it make the game (pay close attention to that word, GAME) less fun? I don't think so, the people I enjoy playing with don't, it's about having a laugh, and if you win then all the better.

njfed
23-01-2008, 13:09
I will have to run the number later, but I have an idea that might work. how about half your points must be spent on troops? So in a 2000 point battle you would field 1000 points in troops and 1000 in anything else based on the FOC. I don't think this would hurt any army too much.

Xenobane
23-01-2008, 13:37
It's all very well people saying that troop choices should be more desirable to encourage people to take them - but surely the whole point is that, in fluff terms, armies should be composed largely of bog-standard troops. If you make basic troop types more effective, you're circumventing the problem, not solving it.

MaliGn
23-01-2008, 13:41
I will have to run the number later, but I have an idea that might work. how about half your points must be spent on troops? So in a 2000 point battle you would field 1000 points in troops and 1000 in anything else based on the FOC. I don't think this would hurt any army too much.

What like the second edition system where allocations of all things were done on percentage of total army points value?

jfrazell
23-01-2008, 13:50
Very true, the other slots are there merely for support. The troops should be the meat of the army.

Yea yea, I always see marine players saying that. Different armies have different strengths. Under the current codex guard squads aren't worth the cost of the carboard box to carry them. Tau also rely on new troop strength.

Further, it wacks the concept of the GW has been putting forth of "One codex to rule them all." Forget Biel Tan etc. Instead of mech eldar we'll see guardian / DA eldar.

Do you really want every game to be naught but necron warriors, firewarriors, and grunt guardsmen? Thats a great big yawner to me.

Is under manned troop levels an issue for anyone besides marines? Make the combat squad mandatory. Voila problem solved.

Chains and Glass
23-01-2008, 14:00
Ok..... heres some reasons the above ideas wouldnt work:

1) the "You must have 2 troops choices for every 'support' Choice" crowd.....

It's hard enough playing guard.... don't make me take 3 command squads (mounted in chimeras and theyre 165pts for a 5 man GUARD squad.... *cry*

2) the "you must have spent X amount of points on troop choices" This does the exact same thing.... you'r now going to see the same amount of Troop choices on the field.... it solves nothing (re: isn't a substitute for the 5th ED rule because it doesn't solve the "issue" that the rule was made to solve) except "watering" down the elitist armies... which is the effect of the new rule anyway.

3) the "lets remove the limit on troop numbers" does nothing except create a wider gap between horde style armies and elitist armies... i agree... its very cool but you take away the bonus (re: one of their racial advantages) guard get in their platoon formation by simply giving everyone the ability to have 30+ scoring units (and doesn't resolve the "issue" that the rule is trying to resolve...)

I think all infantry being able to hold stuff is a good idea because i think it's perfectly reasonable that heavy weapon teams and infiltrators should be able to hold objectives.... HW teams being a defensive styled unit in most circumstanced... thus being good at protecting >>(objectives)<< and infiltrators.... well enough said.... i mean it's the reason they exist.... to Infiltrate into a good position.... such as objectives.... the only difference between veterans and troops is that veterans are better (re: older?)... i don't see why they cant hold objectives.

However much i hate nidzilla armies.... after what happened to my dear lost and the damned i don't wanna see another army style made redundant after seeing so many talented painters and devoted collecters spending so much money on their personalised force....

PS BRING BACK LaTD!!!!

EVIL INC
23-01-2008, 14:05
I am looking at the gaurd inn particuler here...
The troops are not MEANT to be fast onj grabbers. That will put them in a role they are simply not intended for. For them, the obj grabbers are the elites because that is just how the army is designed. Besides, with the conscripts being only fodder to take shots, they arent masnt to last long enough ot grab them and the troop platoon is already designed to take up huge chunks of points from the army and the armored fist can only be taken if you have already taken an infantry platoon and then only one per platoon. I would say that the "troop" problem with them, is simply not an issue and adding that extra restriction would hurt them more then they are already hurting.

UncleCrazy
23-01-2008, 14:21
There is nothing in the rules that say "you have to take more" and with only needing one guy left at the end of the game is pretty easy. Your Elite unit goes and takes the objective then you troops come in to hold it, while you Elites move on. Is that not how real warfare is fought? Saving Private Ryan, Bridge too far? In RL Operation Market Garden.

kaptin_blacksquigg
23-01-2008, 14:26
Personally I really like the rule, especially when combined with some of the newer style codex. Orks, DA, Eldar and Chaos, all have a huge variety of troops available too them, at least 3 choices in each (some need HQ) with tonnes of options. So as more armies go this way, theming armies wont be a problem. (for now I can see how necron players would be pissed).

The big difference I can see this rule bringing, is that you have to protect your troops and make decisions if you go after the other guys hard hitting units (elite/HQ/heavy) or the units he needs to win the game (troops). I think it'll really make the game more tactical.

phedge
23-01-2008, 14:47
There are some really good quotes in this thread describing the 'problem' with Troops:

"... GW has always supported the idea that people should take more Troops in their armies..."

"... theres a problem with the desirability of troops due to their abilities."

"I know that this is pretty radical, but maybe we should make the troops choices worth taking?"

"If you want to fix troops, make troops better."

"While I agree that troops are not the most desirable units to field I do agree that troops should make up the bulk of what you do field..."

"You just need a decently written Codex."


In summary, it seems that people think that Troops units; are undesireable due to their (presumed) lack of abilities and therefore not worth taking, that people agree everyone should take more of them, and that they need to be made better through a rewritten and decent Codex.

How to fix the above 'problem' with Troops?

Make them the only scoring units! Voila! Problem solved.

Oh gee ... it looks like they are doing that ...

phedge
23-01-2008, 14:51
If your own troops bore you, honestly why do you play the army?

I love this, an excellent point.

Kriegschmidt
23-01-2008, 14:53
But the change is likely because GW has always supported the idea that people should take more Troops in their armies. I’m sure it’s also a way to balance the game. Personally, I would rather see game mechanics that actually make sense. Trying to balance a game with bizarre game mechanics seems completely out of line when there are other methods that can balance the system and still make sense in a more realistic fashion.

I have to say I think it's a great rule. It won't stop people taking unbalanced lists like Nidzilla or whatever but it will make it much harder for them to win by objective. This in itself forces a balance to the game, a "take this and sacrifice that" aspect which still affords you choice but makes it clear that you'll pay for your choice.


One system would be to have the compulsory choices as they are now (1+ HQ, 2+ Troops). And to keep the current cap on all choices except Troops. Then you must have 1 Troops choice for every one Elite, Fast Attack, Heavy Support, or additional HQ. I’m not saying it’s perfect. But it’s an idea that makes sense. And it could be adjusted after some play testing.

This is not feasible for all army lists. As an "as-pure-as-possible" Thousand Sons player, my basic troop choice costs an absolute bare minimum of 165 points and that's for a pretty ineffective unit build (sorceror+4 Rubrics+Doombolt). I would normally take 279pt troops units (9 men) and your system would stop me from taking much apart from troops.

Under the rumoured 5th Ed rules, I still won't have many troops but at least I'll be able to choose what other stuff to take to keep my troops alive ;)

Darth Rubi
23-01-2008, 15:21
ie. you cannot hold ground with much other than dug in infantry.

We're not playing world war 1 hammer here, since when did every 40k mission revolve around stubbornly holding fortified positions?

How about the following: I'm playing a game where an objective is in my deployment zone. my army surges forward to capture the other objectives, my devastator squad stays back to bombard the enemy. if the game ends and my dev squad is still sitting unmolested at the objective, in what way can they possibly NOT be holding the objective?

Even if we concede that elites "should" protect troops while they hold objectives, it makes zero sense to say that a non-troop couldn't hold an objective AT ALL. Even if there is no enemy for miles around. I can imagine the conversation: "Sir, we cleared the entire left flank of the battlefield of the enemy! All terminators and armour survived!".... "Great, so we won?"...."No, the troop unit got killed lol"

imperial_scholar
23-01-2008, 15:26
I think it's a dumb idea for troops only to be able to take OBJ's. A guy focus his fire on all your troops and in one turn you've lost the ability to win the game.

Whoever said double the capture points for the troops when holding objectives... now that is gold!

I play space wolves. The only reason why I limit my troops is because they are in-effective. Usually die just trying to get stuck in or the long charge across the board (because I don't rhino rush).

Past my codex gripes; I don't think any proposed change will really make people buy more troops. Unless they make the rule 'who ever has more troops left at the end of the game wins'. Which is a horrible idea.

Gorbad Ironclaw
23-01-2008, 15:54
How to fix the above 'problem' with Troops?

Make them the only scoring units! Voila! Problem solved.

Oh gee ... it looks like they are doing that ...



Just one problem with this line of 'logic'. It doesn't work. If there is a problem with troops, then the root of that is a badly written Codex. Some armies have excelent troops, some have medicore troops, and some have poor troops.

It's not like you can say as a blanket statement that troops are only take as a minimum and then everybody max out on everything else, because that simply isn't true.

The problem isn't with 'troops' as a general catagory. The problem is with some specific units in various army books, but not all of them are in the troops department.

This looks like an attempt at codex balancing because of failures in the codex writing process.
If it's there to 'fix the troop problem' (that I believe is largely a fiction), then that can only be because there are some badly done troop units. There isn't a rule against troop units being good or useful. Orks are an excelent example of that, but I don't see the new Chaos list lacking good troop units either etc.

And of couse, it also suffers from the flaw that obviously not every army is based around having a large troop section. Eldar's are obviously not based around a big troop section for instance.


As for why it's a problem for themed armies. It's simple really, if missions are changing to put an even greater emphasis on scoring units/troops (and they seem to be), then you are going to need to look to them if you want to be able to win games. Granted, it doesn't prevent you from making other armies, but it makes it significantly less fun to theme to something other than troops if it means you have a far lower chance of winning. That's why it's going to effect the abilty to theme armies. It straigh-jacket you into going down a specific route.

(And that's without going into the obvious consistance, logic and realism problems mentioned many times before)


And what is gained by this rule? I suppose if you see having more troop units on the table as a goal in itself there is a gain. I don't see why having more troops units is a gain in itself tho(especially when one lists troops is another lists elite/heavy/fast attack), but it seems that some feel it is.

==Me==
23-01-2008, 16:08
Armies should be based on Troops, not Terminators, Harlequins, and Crisis Suits. One of the biggest complaints and symptoms of powergaming is a minimized Troops section to let them take even more powerful Elites, Heavies, Fast Attack, and HQ. Overall, I like the idea, as crudely implemented as it was.

You can still use your themed armies, they just need to play differently than regular armies. A Swordwind army isn't going to win by last minute objective grabbing or munching through squad after squad, they need to remove the enemy from their objective and protect their few ground-holding Troop units. Specialist armies become more specialized, they exchange their number of objective holders for units much more suited to getting enemies off of and keeping them away from objectives. Plus, in the event of a draw you decide it with VPs, and those elite armies are quite good at racking up VPs.

The decision of whether to field a Troop heavy list now becomes more than "fluff gamer vs powergamer" as both become legitimate, competitive builds for an army. I like it.

DEADMARSH
23-01-2008, 16:12
I'm not normally a big fan of the statement I'm about to make, but in this case, I think it actually does apply-

They should copy how Fantasy handles it.

Get rid of the universal FOC and replace it with the Fantasy style one where you have access to different amounts of Elites and whatnot at higher point levels when you meet minimum (and maximum) requirements.

Also copy fantasy in that each Codex has slight differences in what they can field at the different levels. Armies with highly effective Troops units get less choices as you go up the ladder, armies with weaker Troops units get more. Seems like a lot of balance could be struck without having to rewrite a bunch of books and you could still do characterful armies like Deathwing and Speed Freeks and all that kind of thing.

Simple.

They can tailor it for the tourney crowd by making a break point right around 1750 or 2000 or whatever and it still gives each Codex some character and variety.

Kriegschmidt
23-01-2008, 16:18
This looks like an attempt at codex balancing because of failures in the codex writing process.
If it's there to 'fix the troop problem' (that I believe is largely a fiction), then that can only be because there are some badly done troop units. There isn't a rule against troop units being good or useful. Orks are an excelent example of that, but I don't see the new Chaos list lacking good troop units either etc.

Nope, it looks to me like codices have been written with 5th Ed in mind ;)

Additionally, if the rumours are true about all models (unfriendly and friendly) blocking LOS, then it'll be much easier to keep units alive than it is now. I.e. you can still theme your army and go lower on troops and then you have the fulfilling challenge of trying to keep them alive, maneouvre them into the right place.

jfrazell
23-01-2008, 16:25
Again all this does is:
1. Provide additional weight to the rolling juggernaut of sameness.
2. Give some armies an artificial advantage, and others a strong disadvantage.

phedge
23-01-2008, 16:41
And what is gained by this rule? I suppose if you see having more troop units on the table as a goal in itself there is a gain. I don't see why having more troops units is a gain in itself tho(especially when one lists troops is another lists elite/heavy/fast attack), but it seems that some feel it is.

I think there is quite a bit gained by this rule. Will we see more troops on the table? Perhaps, but perhaps not.
With the proposed rules, generally speaking, I would expect list-builds to take one of two forms.
The first maximizes infantry-killing power with the aim of moving one's own Troops onto objectives late in the game. The so-called 'power-gamer lists' of today - heavy on powerful characters and creatures, elite, and heavy support choices.
The second would be to maximize Troops with the aim of grabbing objectives and absorbing losses through superior numbers.

The rule change opens up a whole new dimension in tactics that doesn't exist in the game today. Players don't neccessarily have to change their existing lists or 'themed' lists or 'power' lists, they just have to build them with other tactics in mind rather than the "I kill your guys you kill my guys' style of today.

Just think about a simple example you might see today - A space marine army maxed out on specialist units with just the two minimum required Troop choices. In 4th edition rules these two small Troop choices are essentially throw-away units, they're not going to win the game for you, that is going to be done by your heavy hitters.
Now with the version 5 proposed rule change, these two units become gold! You have to protect them at all costs in order to claim the objective. One can still play this kind of army, but tactics MUST change.

I like this rule change. In my opinion it sounds like it will make the game more challenging and fun.

Firaxin
23-01-2008, 16:50
I agree with Deadmarsh. Although I think they should keep the HQ/elite/troops/fast attack/heavy classifications rather than sticking everything into core, special, rare, and heroes/lords.

ReveredChaplainDrake
23-01-2008, 17:08
I think we may be overlooking something here. Who says that an army must win by using Troops? Only Troops can capture objectives would seem to make Troops the most useful thing (which could be the future "defensive" playstyle; have so many Troops that you'll have something at the end), but Troops aren't very good at killing things, or at least not as good at it as specialists are. Armies with few troops and more elites are better equipped for troop-bashing, and thus win in a more offensive way. Think like how mages work in Warhammer Fantasy, for those familiar with the concept.

The two ways to own the magic phase are (1) complete dominance with as many powerdice as I can stomach (done with my Lizardmen), and (2) by assassinating all the opponents' mages so that the few that I have actually do matter (done with my Dark Elves).

I'd imagine that specialists in 5th ed 40k would work on a similar principle. In the case of Tyranids, I rush forward with my entire army and blast / rip the other guy to pieces as I normally would. (Mind you, I normally target troops because they usually don't have what it takes to kill a Flyrant in CC anyway.) Then, after most of the dust has settled, at the last minute I send up a squad of 6 unharmed Genestealers and any Gaunts I have left to rush an objective. And yes, I will have surviving Gaunts by the end. With how many Gaunts I usually run, the only times I ever lost all of them were against Necron Hot Wheels and 3rd ed Emperor's Children.

Grazzy
23-01-2008, 18:17
I don't like these changes. So many armies have different army compositions at the moment that elites, fast attack and heavy units are often what the army would field in a standard force.

Mott
23-01-2008, 18:31
Since the ork boys, who cost 6 points and can outfight or outshoot any other army, (for their points) Thats an army where you always see alot of troops.

Marines are just fine I think, even though boyz are a much better value these days.

Guard need a major point reduction, or major buff. Id prefer buff, since in the fiction guard are generally outnumbered by orks anyway.

Necrons seem a little steep for what they do, though if they were to be buffed, marines would need to be.

Dire avengers are just fine.

Tau firewarriors can outshoot anyone for a value price, fine as they are.

Nids are fine, cause they have so many options.


Changing a minium of troops will seriously screw peoples armies, if GW did this I'd be very, very pissed.

Rynar
23-01-2008, 19:05
I play Guard and space Marines/Wolves.

I would rather dislike anny changes for a number of reasons:

1* players with a minimum of troop choises (lets say 2x5 Marines) have manny other vunrable specialised units. "In fact overspecialize and you breed in weakness" [Maj. Kusenagi from Ghost in a shell]
2* Guard, nid, ork,... players would have to invest alot more money / time into buying/painting even more troops before they can get some nice other choises (guard : Infantry command platoon (80pts-ish) 2x infantry squads (140pts-ish) thats 220pts He has to spend for one troops slot, depriving him from points for a tank or storm troopers for ex. :cries:
3* it would make battles more static, most troop choises are shooty they providse a firebase for your elites and fast attack choises.
4* Lets say I claim in my last turn an objective with 8 Guardsmen (from a squad of 10) that's 4 bolter rouds and I lose the objective while 8 Marines are much harder to remove... It wouldn't be fair to draw a line like this.
Btw, I would find it more inposing to see anobjective claimed by a hive Tyrant then 8 gaunts :)
5* The rules are fine as they are. Yust don't mess with them :mad:

Sekhmet
23-01-2008, 19:13
While this seems like a problem, only 2 of the three missions require scoring units in the first place. And of those two missions, one isn't hard to pull off a draw on, even with 2 minimum troop choices.

It's really not that bad.


If your own troops bore you, honestly why do you play the army ? I play marines, and I love each and every tac squad. In fact, I usually don't run many of the "power" units because I take so many of them. As well I play Tau and I love my firewarriors. In fact I have to buy more. I have 4 units of them, with their transports.

Nothing is wrong with peoples troops choices. I have a friend who loves his gaunts, have one who loves his ork boys, and his necrons. Really once ya start loathing your troops, why play the army anymore ? Themed armies are fine, just take a couple troops and spend the rest of the time trying to kill someone elses troops off so they can't take objectives. Still things to do, but if your playing an army, you should enjoy the troops for it, not just the more special units that may lurk within.

I hate Necron Warriors. I like Wraith, Scarabs, Flayed Ones, Immortals, Pariahs, Lords, Tomb Spyders, Destroyers, Heavy Destroyers, and C'tan. But I hate Warriors.

AdmiralDick
23-01-2008, 20:08
i know a lot of you guys have seen the new rulebok, but sadly i haven't. could someone please breifly explain the differences in the way scenarios work in this new book in comparison to the old, so as to put the problem in context. because as far as i'm aware the idea was to change the way scenarios work so that it was as simple matter of who could hold objectives.


I know that this is pretty radical, but maybe we should make the troops choices worth taking?

although that sounds like a really logical and straight-forward answer its more problematic than it first seems. how do you make Troops choices that are as worth while as units in other FOC possitions?

the answer is you can't. they cannot be as valuble, specialist or flexible as any other kind of unit (althought that doesn't mean they should be unusable or valueless). in that sense you will never want to take Troops in favour of other types of unit, so it must be made to happen in otherways. one solution would be to shrink the FOC right down (so that you can't take more specialists than troops), but that would not be popular and would rather fly in the face of the nature of 40k. i'm not sure what the final solution should be, but it can't be a simple matter of 'make them as appealing as elites'.

ImpTyranid
23-01-2008, 20:19
I like the old 2nd ed system of army construction: x% of points must be spent for HQ, Elites, Troops, Hvy Etc.

As far as Nidzilla, it's about time the codex provided a way to actually field swarms of small scuttling beasts or huge lumbering juggernauts of death.

Bloodknight
23-01-2008, 20:28
The main problem with the 2nd edition system was that it allowed too much in the HQ and Support section (50% each) with only a minimum of 25% troops (although SMs used a lot more than that because Terminators were Troops).

AdmiralDick
23-01-2008, 20:36
The main problem with the 2nd edition system was that it allowed too much in the HQ and Support section (50% each) with only a minimum of 25% troops (although SMs used a lot more than that because Terminators were Troops).

well, it is still possible to take only 2 Troops choices and 11 others, so its not worlds apart. i think one of the major reasons we could not go back is the dreaded calculation!! whether we agree or not GW do not seem keen on a world where we have to work out percentages.

lanrak
23-01-2008, 20:54
Hi all.
Why not just use the same system as WH.
Characters, Core, Special and Rare , per X amount of points?

This is one of the simplest and effective methods of 'ballancing forces'...IMO.

Why not use somthing that WILL work well in 40k, from WH?

TTFN
Lanrak.

AdmiralDick
23-01-2008, 23:12
Why not just use the same system as WH.
Characters, Core, Special and Rare , per X amount of points?

This is one of the simplest and effective methods of 'ballancing forces'...IMO.

it is an ingenious system that certainly benefits Fantasy more than the FOC benefits 40K, sadly a straight-forward exhange would not work so well. the chief reason for this is because 40K relies much more heavily on specialist units than WH does.

most Fantasy armies have quite a high number of Core units types when compared with Troops in equivelant 40K armies. and in Fantasy there is a much smaller number of specialist and super-powerful units, this has a direct consiquence on how specialist units need to be subdivided (how do you stop a player taking too many Giants and Ratling Cannons in the same army? who cares you can only take when you can only take one of both. the same principle can't be applied to Oblitorators and Raptors).

i'm not saying they couldn't employ such a system in 40K, just that it would require a drastic rethink of how the game works on a fundamental level.

Captain Micha
23-01-2008, 23:21
Letting non-vehicle units hold objectives is fine. Vehicle units tend to lead to last turn grabs.
An even better idea is just to make it so you gain points for the objective each game turn rather than who holds it on the last turn, or to scale points gained for objectives by against enemies contesting it.

Azimaith I like that idea. There are several ways gw could have done this, but instead they opt to wipe out thematic lists. Then again, it could very well be because Gw plays a very different game than the rest of us. (remember how **** poor their abilities are in those battle reports) They do not even understand some of the fundamentals of their own game perhaps? Or maybe they are so delusional as to think everyone's troops are equally capable.

All I have to say, my group is probably house ruling some things to stay from 4th edition. scoring units being one of those things.

We poor Necron players are getting especially treated hard, you are making more troops mandatory, and yet we can't take any significant anti vehicle units? Gauss is not going to cut it in 5th. and heavy destroyers suck. sorry fact of life. (3 strong unit? hello? and now they are not scoring? wtf!)

They want us to have variety in our lists by the choices we make in the lists themselves and yet they are cutting everyone off at the knees by saying "only troops are scoring"

KeeganKatastrofee
23-01-2008, 23:31
[QUOTE=alphastealer;2287199]

While I agree that troops are not the most desirable units to field I do agree that troops should make up the bulk of what you do field, hence my dislike for nidzilla and heavy mech tau and eldar.

[QUOTE]

yeah
my 'nid army is going to be mostly endless swarm
with a few large units, but mostly just lots and lots of troops
and, because of the great endless swarm rule and apocolypse, i can get 120 troops for about 130 bucks
=D

505
24-01-2008, 00:40
well I don't have a problem with my IG army as I run all infantry (3 elite units and a lot of troops :D )

Captain Micha
24-01-2008, 00:41
I hope you spread your guys out on a really long line then. *s* otherwise half your guys won't be doing any shooting.

MALICIOUS LOGIC
24-01-2008, 00:58
I’m speaking from a realism perspective. The issue is not that troops are weak. Nor is the issue that only two missions will utilize the Troops as a scoring mechanic.

The issue it that it makes no sense for only Troops to be scoring units IMHO. For example: There is virtually no difference between a Blood Angle jump troop and an Ultramarine jump troop. Yet one is scoring only because of an arbitrary placement on the FOC. How about a Tactical Squad vs. a Devastator Squad? The only difference is a couple weapons. They are still elite strike units in an elite strike force (as a whole). To make matters worse, you can equip them all the same. You could have 10 marines with Bolters. They can be designated as a Tactical Squad or as a Devastator Squad. The fact that one is a scoring unit and the other isn’t would be very arbitrary in this situation. There are plenty of other very direct situations where one unit is scoring under the new system, yet another unit that is essentially the exact same, is not scoring. Fundamentally, I see no reason for only certain infantry choices to be able to hold an objective just based on where they are on the FOC..

Honestly, I was trying to stay away from a discussion on why this is a silly game mechanic. I was wondering what other game mechanics people could come up with that would balance the game in terms of scoring units in a more realistic sense. If you like the fact that only Troops are scoring, then feel free to voice your opinion. But if you have an intelligent alternative to how you would make scoring units in the new edition, then please share them. Thanks!

~Logic

Captain Micha
24-01-2008, 01:18
have everything but vehicles and mcs be counted as scoring units maybe?

greenmtvince
24-01-2008, 01:22
I’m speaking from a realism perspective. The issue is not that troops are weak. Nor is the issue that only two missions will utilize the Troops as a scoring mechanic.

The issue it that it makes no sense for only Troops to be scoring units IMHO. For example: There is virtually no difference between a Blood Angle jump troop and an Ultramarine jump troop. Yet one is scoring only because of an arbitrary placement on the FOC. How about a Tactical Squad vs. a Devastator Squad? The only difference is a couple weapons. They are still elite strike units in an elite strike force (as a whole). To make matters worse, you can equip them all the same. You could have 10 marines with Bolters. They can be designated as a Tactical Squad or as a Devastator Squad. The fact that one is a scoring unit and the other isn’t would be very arbitrary in this situation. There are plenty of other very direct situations where one unit is scoring under the new system, yet another unit that is essentially the exact same, is not scoring. Fundamentally, I see no reason for only certain infantry choices to be able to hold an objective just based on where they are on the FOC..

Honestly, I was trying to stay away from a discussion on why this is a silly game mechanic. I was wondering what other game mechanics people could come up with that would balance the game in terms of scoring units in a more realistic sense. If you like the fact that only Troops are scoring, then feel free to voice your opinion. But if you have an intelligent alternative to how you would make scoring units in the new edition, then please share them. Thanks!

~Logic

Quoted for truth.


And also on the subject of perceptions of Troops, I have no intention of fielding the 36 Fire Warriors and 3 Devilfish to make 40% Troops in a Mech Tau Army nor the 60 Fire Warriros for a static Tau list. I'm into Tau for Battlesuits, markerlights, and the light skimmers. If I want hordes of troops backed up by solid tanks and transports, I've got Elysians and Valhallans.

EmperorEternalXIX
24-01-2008, 01:23
Also is this even a problem? I like the idea that we can have smaller elite armies (which are usually less competitive, except with Tyranids and Eldar) rather than lots of normal troops, which can also be fun. But variety is good and if someone wants to get a minimum of troops and load up on bikes, let them! That provides variety which is good for the game.
Even take the new ork codex, I can't think of a way to make it competitive at all without a substantial amount of boys. The price of a marine for a model with such a horribles save? You need other models to absorb fire so more elite models can do the killing.

If you want to fix troops, make troops better. But I don't think there is fixing to be had.

I'm in full agreement here. I really don't think it's going to be a problem.

Xenobane
24-01-2008, 02:06
I’m speaking from a realism perspective. The issue is not that troops are weak. Nor is the issue that only two missions will utilize the Troops as a scoring mechanic.

The issue it that it makes no sense for only Troops to be scoring units IMHO. For example: There is virtually no difference between a Blood Angle jump troop and an Ultramarine jump troop. Yet one is scoring only because of an arbitrary placement on the FOC. How about a Tactical Squad vs. a Devastator Squad? The only difference is a couple weapons. They are still elite strike units in an elite strike force (as a whole). To make matters worse, you can equip them all the same. You could have 10 marines with Bolters. They can be designated as a Tactical Squad or as a Devastator Squad. The fact that one is a scoring unit and the other isn’t would be very arbitrary in this situation. There are plenty of other very direct situations where one unit is scoring under the new system, yet another unit that is essentially the exact same, is not scoring. Fundamentally, I see no reason for only certain infantry choices to be able to hold an objective just based on where they are on the FOC..

Honestly, I was trying to stay away from a discussion on why this is a silly game mechanic. I was wondering what other game mechanics people could come up with that would balance the game in terms of scoring units in a more realistic sense. If you like the fact that only Troops are scoring, then feel free to voice your opinion. But if you have an intelligent alternative to how you would make scoring units in the new edition, then please share them. Thanks!

~Logic

Ok I'm going to play devil's advolcate for a moment here and offer a possible defence of GW (perhaps because I'm already trying to make the best of this odd future rule).

There _is_, in a way, a difference between a BA jump troop and an Ultramarine one - in the context of how they fit in with their respective armies. One is a common troop, the other more of a specialist. Likewise, though the actual difference between a tac squad and a devastator one might be small (or nil) we could try to rationalise it by saying that they have been drilled for different goals (generally, and specifically with the mission ahead). So the elites' and heavy's job is to facilitate the movement of the "troops" to wherever they're supposed to be. If those troops have died then the mission hasn't been successful.

intellectawe
24-01-2008, 02:32
I don't know what the issue is :) :)

I play Dark Eldar, and I used to play Tyranids and Necrons.

I never played for mission objectives. I just tried to kill my opponent's whole army, which is easier than one might think with these listed armies.

Death is my objective. Even in tourneys. It works for me :)

But then again... in these armies, I also take TONS of troops anyway... so I guess my post makes no sense then right?

Ignore me.

Captain Micha
24-01-2008, 02:33
thing is, Necrons fall apart without their fasts or heavies. (you -can- get by without elites... if you know what you are doing) as it is, those are things we do not get enough of (due to the squad sizes for warriors being oh I don't know 10, and that they are near 20 points a model to start with...)

Dyrnwyn
24-01-2008, 02:46
I'm just seeing some really odd situations cropping up from the "only troops are scoring" rule. For instance, Wazzdakka Gutsmek allows Bikes to be taken as Troops in an Ork army. I could take 9 slots worth of bikes if I wanted, but under the new rules, 6 would be scoring, and 3 would not, even though they'd be identical in every aspect.

Personally, I'd like the idea that Troops get double VP's for objectives, and I'd like to see holding objectives for multiple turns before the end of the game mean something.

AngryAngel
24-01-2008, 03:04
I love this, an excellent point.

Thank you appreciate the support.




While this seems like a problem, only 2 of the three missions require scoring units in the first place. And of those two missions, one isn't hard to pull off a draw on, even with 2 minimum troop choices.

It's really not that bad.



I hate Necron Warriors. I like Wraith, Scarabs, Flayed Ones, Immortals, Pariahs, Lords, Tomb Spyders, Destroyers, Heavy Destroyers, and C'tan. But I hate Warriors.


I stand by what I said. Sure necron warriors are boreing, I find the whole army boreing its why I don't play them. They are souless machines that plod forward in massed waves of sameness. How exciting should they be exactly ?

Captain Micha
24-01-2008, 03:06
they should be terrifying. and they are not soul less. and if you make your Necron list correctly they can be terrifying if you know what you are doing.

Gensuke626
24-01-2008, 03:07
i know a lot of you guys have seen the new rulebok, but sadly i haven't. could someone please breifly explain the differences in the way scenarios work in this new book in comparison to the old, so as to put the problem in context. because as far as i'm aware the idea was to change the way scenarios work so that it was as simple matter of who could hold objectives.


9 different scenarios (technically)

All Missions use the Reserves, Deepstrike and Random Game Length special rules. Infiltrators and Scouts are no longer Scenario rules and are always allowed.

3 Mission Objectives
Recon - D3+2 Objective Markers. Players roll off to see who deploys first marker. Objectives may not be in impassable terrain or within 12" of a table edge or another Objective

Take and Hold - 2 Objective Markers. Each player deploys an objective marker in their own deployment zone. Marker may not be in impassable terrain or within 24" of the enemy's marker.

Total Annihilation - Completely destroying or breaking enemy units earns kill points. Elites, Fast Attack, and Heavy Support yeild 2 points each. HQ yeilds 3 points each. Troops are 1 point each. Dedicated Transports are worth the same as the unit they are selected with.

You control an Objective marker if you have a scoring unit within 3" and there are no enemy scoring units within 3". Player who controls the most objectives or earned the most Kill Points wins. In the event of a draw, victory goes to a player if he scored 10% of the game's points values more VPs than his opponent. (ie, in a 1500 point game that ends in a draw, a player wins if he scored 150 more vps than his opponent) Otherwise the game is a draw.

3 Deployment types
Spearhead - Table Quarters. Players roll off, winner deploys his force in 1 quarter, more than 12" from the center. His opponent does the same in the opposite table quarter

Pitched Battle - Long Table Edges. Players roll off, winner deploys his force on one half of the table, more than 12" from the center line. His opponent does the same in the opposite side.

Dawn of War - Long Table Edges. Players roll off, winner deploys up to 1 HQ and 2 Troop choices in one of the 2 halves, more than 12" away from the enemy. His opponent does the same. HQ and troops that can Infilitrate may be deployed as infiltrators, as long as the player has no more than 2 Troops and 1 HQ choice deployed at the end of deployment. All other units are in reserve. First turn is under the Night Fighting special Rules.

Warpcrafter
24-01-2008, 03:30
My idea: Change *troops* to a special rule, which says: Troop units score double victory points when claiming objectives.
This will give people an incentive to take more troops, without destroying the ability to win games for themed armies.

Although i like Finnith's solution aswell.

That seems like a perfect fix. Let's hope GW is paying attention.:evilgrin:

AdmiralDick
24-01-2008, 18:15
Thanks Gensuke626.

it certainly sounds a lot more appealing to me than the previous style of scenario. not that they were bad, but they require too much preperation to be useful in all but the most forward planned of games. these sound a lot more like you can make your regular pick-up games a lot more varied, than whoever out-right slaughters the enemy wins.

although it doesn't answer why troops are the only scoring unit. there was some suggestion that they were going to be even more radically different than they are.

Lord Solar Plexus
24-01-2008, 18:56
As stated elsewhere, I have no clue what drove them to the invention of such a crude rule. Troops are great - in the right armies, in the right setting. An elite stormtrooper contingent sent to wrestle an objective ou of the enemy's hands is absolutely fluffy but suddenly disadvantaged. The same goes for armies that are elite in general.


What like the second edition system where allocations of all things were done on percentage of total army points value?

Although that said 25 % troops minimum and never achieved the goal it pretended to achieve.


There are some really good quotes in this thread describing the 'problem' with Troops:...
In summary, it seems that people think that Troops units; are undesireable due to their (presumed) lack of abilities and therefore not worth taking,

I didn't check every quote but it seems you pulled some things out of context. SM troops can be good, Chaos troops are good, Ork troops are brilliant. IG troops or Eldar otoh are at neither good at offensive nor defensive. Guardians are made to guard a heavy or a valuable unit while Guardsmen guard well, a heavy. Or a special. While static. And you need to take a ton of them anyways. This role they can't fulfill anymore. To add insult to injury, Now they even need to move, and with all probability towards an enemy who's just gotten a lot faster and a lot deadlier in CC...

Secondly, your conclusion isn't sound. If it is true that troops are undesirable due to their capacities, then why not up these capacities - they are the core problem - instead of forcing me to take another bunch of undesired models, all under the premise of making the game more fun?

505
24-01-2008, 19:25
other then giving troops a bonus on capturing objective (a nice comprimise) the only other thing is making it infantry with X amount of unit streangth.

as I stated my guard don't have a huge issue. I will have to tweak with deployment (maby long congo lines of squads :D

a b c d
a b c d
a b c d
a b c d

I cant see through my other squads but I should be able to shoot through my squad right?

Gensuke626
24-01-2008, 20:44
Thanks Gensuke626.

it certainly sounds a lot more appealing to me than the previous style of scenario. not that they were bad, but they require too much preperation to be useful in all but the most forward planned of games. these sound a lot more like you can make your regular pick-up games a lot more varied, than whoever out-right slaughters the enemy wins.

although it doesn't answer why troops are the only scoring unit. there was some suggestion that they were going to be even more radically different than they are.

The take and hold objective is pretty different compared to what we're used to...I mean, a Guard player can actually win that particular mission fairly easily. All he has to do is kill all the troops around the enemy objective and he wins. It actually favors going second because going second allows you to hold back alittle then on the last turn nuke the objective on the far table side with little to no fear of retaliation.

carlisimo
24-01-2008, 21:36
If true, I would think of it as a reasonable rule.

It's said about modern warfare that tanks can dominate the battlefield, aircraft can be most devastating of all, but only troops can hold ground. Just look at Iraq... no problem blowing stuff up, including the Iraqi armed forces, but it takes number to actually control territory.

MALICIOUS LOGIC
24-01-2008, 22:04
If true, I would think of it as a reasonable rule.

It's said about modern warfare that tanks can dominate the battlefield, aircraft can be most devastating of all, but only troops can hold ground. Just look at Iraq... no problem blowing stuff up, including the Iraqi armed forces, but it takes number to actually control territory.

But in this sense of the word “troops” is referring to what 40k terms as “infantry”. Also, in the real world, Special Forces can secure objectives. In 40k that would be most Elite, Fast Attack, and even Heavy Support.

“Sir, we’ve cleared the area and secured the objective”.

“Wait… We’re highly trained to do this type of thing so the military has designated us as “elite”. I guess we can’t secure the objective…”

~Logic

MALICIOUS LOGIC
24-01-2008, 22:33
What are the main alternatives so far?

Option 1:
All infantry and Jump Infantry are scoring units.

Option 2:
All non-vehicle units are scoring.
Compulsory choices: 1 HQ , 2 Troops
No limitations on Troops
Elite: 0-3
Fast Attack: 0-3
Heavy Support: 0-3
Calculate the total number of support choices (Elite, Fast Attack, Heavy Support). Players must take 1 additional Troops choice for every 2 support choices. 1 additional Troops choice for the first 2 support choices, 1 additional Troops choice for the next 2, and so on.

Option 3:
Use a percentage system similar to 2nd edition.
All non-vehicle units are scoring.
Compulsory choices: 1 HQ , 2 Troops
HQ: up to 25% of total points
Troops: up to 75% of total points
Elites: 0% to 25%
Fast Attack: 0% to 25%
Heavy Support: 0% to 25%

Option 4:
Spend points to make a unit “scoring”. Scoring becomes a skill, ability, or upgrade. All Troop units automatically have the “scoring” ability. All other pure infantry models may purchase the scoring ability for 1 point per model. Jump Infantry can purchase the ability for 2 points per model. Dedicated transports do not count as part of the unit or as scoring units in regards to this ability.



Any others?

~Logic

Darkane
24-01-2008, 22:42
Option 4:
Spend points to make a unit “scoring”. Scoring becomes a skill, ability, or upgrade. All Troop units automatically have the “scoring” ability. All other pure infantry models may purchase the scoring ability for 1 point per model. Jump Infantry can purchase the ability for 2 points per model. Dedicated transports do not count as part of the unit or as scoring units in regards to this ability.

This is kinda what I was thinking would be a good idea if only troops were made to be scoring units. But rather than being something a player could purchase for a unit it would simply be a rule tacked on to units that are obviously the sort to be tasked with taking objectives. So that certain elites, infiltrators and deep strikers woud still be capable of performing strike attacks on vital objectives.

Captain Micha
24-01-2008, 22:47
Malicious Logic you forgot to include Mcs as non scorings *L*

Option 2 is my favorite.

Bunnahabhain
24-01-2008, 23:49
Option 2, with the proviso that total number of troops choices may not outnumber all the others, to prevent min-maxing from those armies that have troops that work best as a large number of small units

Biomass Denial
25-01-2008, 00:22
Option 2 : Nidzilla 6, 30 point units of rippers, 6 fexes, 2 Hive tyrants..

Captain Micha
25-01-2008, 00:29
thing is under my version of option two they only have the rippers as scoring units. and given that apparently the game is not won on vp anymore, the nidzilla player using that list would be at best be hoping for a draw.

If vehicles do not get to be scoring, Mcs shouldn't either.

Gensuke626
25-01-2008, 00:33
thing is under my version of option two they only have the rippers as scoring units. and given that apparently the game is not won on vp anymore, the nidzilla player using that list would be at best be hoping for a draw.

If vehicles do not get to be scoring, Mcs shouldn't either.

I can see Biomass's tactics working...

I mean...6 fexes and 2 tyrants coming at you might scare you enough to ignore the Rippers...

Captain Micha
25-01-2008, 00:35
why? they can't do what really matters. and that's take objectives. they might work for the first few games of 5th but after that, I don't see the nidzilla player winning at all.

Biomass Denial
25-01-2008, 00:36
Or they can nearly Garuntee a draw and Due to slaughtering the enemy get a win off VP's

Edit: And also they dont actually have a scoring unit because the rippers dont count the alternative is 40 point units of spine gaunts. Plus all they would have to do is get a fex or two on each objective and its goint to have to be a pretty tuff unit hitting them to evict them, sure it wont mean anything scoring wise but you aint killing it quickly either and in the mean time the tyrants move around killing enemy troops. Also with the proposed changes benifitting template weapons the new elite fex of choice will be Barbed strangler, Scything talons for 113. This also if pinning gets a buff as rumoured will still be a really nasty list.

Captain Micha
25-01-2008, 00:38
you don't win with vps, you win by objectives. and not even asscan 6 man marines are good enough at killing to take out all the enemy's scoring units.

Biomass Denial
25-01-2008, 00:51
Yeah but if its a draw which could be acheivable with the list you do go to victory points. And anyway the asscannon list have very little hope now with nerfed rending and weaker land speeders.

Captain Micha
25-01-2008, 01:13
well due to the gimped vehicle shooting rules, landspeeders suck but so do most vehicles now, but the thing is, a str 6 ap4 heavy 4 gun is a very good gun even without any form or rending. Everyone seems to forget that for some reason or another. It's not like it's rapid fire or something retarded like that.

Biomass Denial
25-01-2008, 01:34
Yeah good point its still nasty against any form of hoard army its just not totally uber now. Which is the problem for the people with large amounts on models they dont want anymore.

Anyway thats getting far too off topic.

Another soloution is just make the required amount of troops 2 choices and at least two or even three hundred points per whole 1000 or something like that. Its not completly gimping any one army too much but it prevents the 60 points on troops things you see in nidzilla now. Also this is relatively unchanged from now except that the two mandatory choice actually have to mean something.

Captain Micha
25-01-2008, 01:39
I like that rule, especially since I follow it already with all of my armies. the idea of having so small of troops is almost counter intuitive at best. But then I've never played asscan 6 man plas spam, or nidzilla.

Sheena Easton
25-01-2008, 01:42
I've always wondered why they felt a need to cap Troops at six squads, anyways. If they're supposed to be the bulk of an army (so much so that we're required to take two units of them), why restrict folks from taking more?

It seems to me that the whole "only Troops are scoring units" thing is a fix that isn't particularly needed. If folks would rather pour points into Heavies, Elites, and HQs, let them. Keeping the existing Force Org chart, and removing the limitation on Troops (which tend to be among an army's most cost-efficient choices anyways, making for great bulky scoring units) would be enough.

I kind of agree. I'd like the option to take more Troops without having to do a second FOC, especially in larger games.

I don't see why they can't make the FOC similar to the Fantasy Core / Special / Rare system

So for 750pts - 1,000 pts
1 HQ
0-2 Elites
2+ Troops
0-2 FA
0-2 HS

for each additional 500pts, add +0-1 Elites, FA, HS, +1Troops
for each additional 1,000 pts or part add +0-1 HQ

so for 1,500 pts
1-2 HQ
0-3 Elites
3+ Troops
0-3 Fast Attack
0-3 Heavy Support

for 2,000 points
1-2 HQ
0-4 Elites
4+ Troops
0-4 Fast Attack
0-4 Heavy Support

Perhaps?

Takitron
25-01-2008, 01:43
people forget that you can still win by beating the other person to a man. if they dont have any more scoring units and you tactically saved some, then you win. how is this different from how we play it now? Oh, I know, now we can load up on tons of bigbugs and have upwards of 8 or 9 scoring units so it would be impossible to deny scoring! YEAH, THAT WORKS GREAT!

I for one would like to welcome our new Troop loving overlords.

/remember kids, troops win battles

Sheena Easton
25-01-2008, 01:44
My idea: Change *troops* to a special rule, which says: Troop units score double victory points when claiming objectives.
This will give people an incentive to take more troops, without destroying the ability to win games for themed armies.

Although i like Finnith's solution aswell.

I like these.

Sekhmet
25-01-2008, 01:47
I kind of agree. I'd like the option to take more Troops without having to do a second FOC, especially in larger games.

I don't see why they can't make the FOC similar to the Fantasy Core / Special / Rare system

So for 750pts - 1,000 pts
1 HQ
0-2 Elites
2+ Troops
0-2 FA
0-2 HS

for each additional 500pts, add +0-1 Elites, FA, HS, +1Troops
for each additional 1,000 pts or part add +0-1 HQ

so for 1,500 pts
1-2 HQ
0-3 Elites
3+ Troops
0-3 Fast Attack
0-3 Heavy Support

for 2,000 points
1-2 HQ
0-4 Elites
4+ Troops
0-4 Fast Attack
0-4 Heavy Support

Perhaps?

So as a Necron Player, you're forced to use at the very least, 36% of your points on Necron Warriors?

Space Marines can just take 5 man squads with lascannons. Nids, WH and DH can get away with 50 pt or less troops. But Necrons have to spend 180 pts for the minimum sized troop squad with no upgrades.

No I don't like your idea.

I would like it if we got a new Necron Codex with Warriors in squads of 5-20, or with other troop choices. But as it is, no.

Buggus
25-01-2008, 03:42
The last RTT that I went to had no 2nd place. It was changed into army comp, so there where a lot of list with a strong amount of core. I myself ran six tactical squads, though I won the RTT P. Thinking I would of at least got 2nd place and the 45 $ prise.

shakespear
25-01-2008, 04:10
This is just another nail in the coffin of min/maxing

jfrazell
25-01-2008, 14:35
No its not. It just changes the optimum min/max.

Bartman
25-01-2008, 16:05
When I first started playing I was told that in a 1500pt game I should have 700pts min of troops otherwise it would get too top heavy or have too few models on the table.

While I agree that troops are not the most desirable units to field I do agree that troops should make up the bulk of what you do field, hence my dislike for nidzilla and heavy mech tau and eldar.

I know we as the players are free to choose any combination..and as soon as you talk about limiting people, then there are a whole bunch of people who whine about it.

While I am not a big one on limits sometimes they can be useful to stop guys from abusing power combinations.

So my solution would be for every 2 troop choices you get one heavy choice.

With imperial guards now way
than you need 100 man for 2 russes
for al the other army oke but not for imperial guards

incarna
25-01-2008, 16:32
I always felt that the RTT 40% minimum point requirement for troops for army composition was excellent and I always try to build my armies using that rule to this day.

One argument that I hear people make is that troops are not as usefull/versatile/powerfull as selections from other slots. I tend to disagree, but my opinion is irrelevant. If someone wants to build a shooty army, it’s likely they’ll look to heavy support first to build their army on. If someone wants to build a close combat army, its likely elites and HQ will be the units of choice.

I remember the old Eldar codex where you could buy 2 5-man guardian squads for 80 points each and then deck the rest of your army out into some complete nonsense (and I’m an elder player… that old crap was nonsense).

The THEORY behind troops, in my opinion is that MOST soldiers in an army consist of individuals trained in the basics of war compared to elites who are more experiences and specialized (the vets who’ve been through the rough stuff) and fast attack and heavy support who are limited by the available supply of well trained specialists and equipment (Chapter’s don’t have forge world’s of Land Raider’s sitting around… but they DO have lots and lots of power armor).

I believe that limiting a persons army composition is not the right direction. Perhaps creating a synergy between troops and other slots is a possibility.

For instance; for every squad of troops you take at 100% strength you may upgrade units from another slot for free (get a free aspiring champion, exarch, etc.). The logic behind this is, since your army consists of a larger body of individuals, the likelihood that one of those individuals will be highly experienced is increased.

Or

For every squad of troops you take at 100% you may purchase any vehicle upgrade costing less than X points for free. The logic behind this is, since your army consists of a larger body of individuals, there is greater manpower for maintenance and supply before battle.

These are just ideas and they may not be sufficient to motivate people to build their armies on troops. Perhaps it’s as simple as; the player who has the most points in troops surviving at the end of the game gets 100 victory points.