PDA

View Full Version : House Rules to make FOC Troops more important



Bala Matt
11-11-2010, 11:05
I'm working on some simple house rules for my local gaming store and friends.

The goal is to emphasise the importance of Troops. Many armies now have a wealth of specialist troops and a willingness to have suicide units. We believe that Troops should be the bread and butter of an army, other choices are the gravy!

We want the rules to reflect that many battles are being fought in the context of a greater conflict. It easy to imagine a commander returning from victory to be questioned by his superiors about the cost in resources.

"You lost HOW MANY Valkyries!!! Guardsmen?, I can give you a new regiment a week. Chimeras?, I can repair almost all of them on-world. But I'm at the mercy of the Imperial Navy and those dammed Tech-Priests to replace all the toys and specialists that you keep throwing away!!!!"

Before I post up my proposed rules, I'd like to know if there have been any initiatives or attempts to do this already. I'd like to see what has been tried and see what did and did not work.

Our rules do not in anyway force a change in your FOC choices. However they encourage a stronger reliance on Troops. The rules are not designed to be used ALL the time. Some fights do need to be won, no matter the cost!

The rules have characterful use in linked missions.

So people, what has already been done?

Thanks,
Matt

PyroSikTh
11-11-2010, 11:31
Isn't this what Games Workshop tried to do with 5th Edition? Specifically making only Troops scoring? I don't see why there NEEDS to be more reliance and dependence on Troops. I don't know about anyone else, but one of the first things I make sure of in my lists is that I have plenty of Troops to score those Objectives, which ultimately win me my games.

dragonet111
11-11-2010, 12:12
I wish in 6ed every infantry units become scoring units, except some units like Death Company, ...... I play a lot of troops to hold objective but it is sometimes frustrating when in the last turn a terminator squad take an objective and it's finally for nothing because the super elite of your chapter is unable to hold it. I can clearly see a squad of stormtroopers being ordered to take a vital objective and hold it no matter what happened.

Bala Matt
11-11-2010, 12:16
Isn't this what Games Workshop tried to do with 5th Edition? Specifically making only Troops scoring? I don't see why there NEEDS to be more reliance and dependence on Troops. I don't know about anyone else, but one of the first things I make sure of in my lists is that I have plenty of Troops to score those Objectives, which ultimately win me my games.

Do you come up against the ultra-competitive lists much? They usually don't reflect a list that follows fluff or the "intentions" of the Codex writers.

As my post clearly states it's partly about the need for troops. Also I'm looking for something that makes a commander think twice about suicide units and heavy reliance on Elites, Fast Attack, Heavy Support and HQ.

ehlijen
11-11-2010, 12:18
Honestly, further emphasising on troops isn't really necessary at this stage. What would be helpful is quickly updating the older codices to make sure all races have great troops, something most factions since 5th ed enjoy but not all the previous ones do.

On the suicide unit thing: That's actually partly intended. One of the reaons 40k moved away from the victory point system, or so I'm told, is that people were so worried about units making their points back, they never actually decided to use those heroes heroically.

GW wants 40k to be cinematic. That means the big stuff should go in guns blazing and shoot for the stars. Having to worry too much about them surviving gets in the way of that.

Born Again
11-11-2010, 12:22
Do you come up against the ultra-competitive lists much? They usually don't reflect a list that follows fluff or the "intentions" of the Codex writers.

As my post clearly states it's partly about the need for troops. Also I'm looking for something that makes a commander think twice about suicide units and heavy reliance on Elites, Fast Attack, Heavy Support and HQ.

Are you playing objective based missions? It doesn't matter how many Elites and Heavy support he has, if he only has the two, minimum sized compulsory troops, just wipe them out and he can't win as he has nothing to hold objectives. This is the importance of Troops in the game.

LonelyPath
11-11-2010, 12:24
Isn't this what Games Workshop tried to do with 5th Edition? Specifically making only Troops scoring? I don't see why there NEEDS to be more reliance and dependence on Troops. I don't know about anyone else, but one of the first things I make sure of in my lists is that I have plenty of Troops to score those Objectives, which ultimately win me my games.

^This^

Nuff said.

Bala Matt
11-11-2010, 17:52
OK ..... Now that you have got that out of your system.....

Back to my original reason for posting this...

Does anyone know of rules that already exist (not including the rule book) that has rules as described in my original post etc?

kaulem
11-11-2010, 18:04
We tried a system where for every Troop You take, you can name one other unit that can "contest" objectives. No other unit can.

So, if you took, 1 HQ, 3 Elites & 2 Troops, then you get 2 scoring (Troops) and 2 of you 4 other FOC choices can contest.

Arthanor
11-11-2010, 18:16
I wasn't sure if I had missed something but.. some impressive lack of attention to the original intent of the post here.

I guess it might make even regular games more dramatic to have less elites, such that those that you do have are even more impressive, destroying grunts on the other side before squaring off with the ennemy's elites. That could make for a much more entertaining game than if everyone's elite, in which case everyone is just normal..

One thing I have tought of for campaigns is to have a supply type of ressource, on top of points. Basically you start with whatever force you have and, once casualties have to be replaced, you have to spend a certain amount of supply to get them. A system where 1pt = 1supply can be used but is fairly useless when it comes to changing the actual composition of armies. Something that reflects the rarity of units in the background is much more interesting. There's 100 veterans to 900 regular marines? Well veterans now cost 9 times the supply of regular marines. Only 40 suits of terminator armor? Add another x supply if those veterans are wearing terminator armor. This way, fielding vanguard/sternguard veterans in the cheaper power armor makes sense.

Or a simpler way of doing this is something like:
- HQ: 1pt = 5 supplies
- Troops: 1pt = 1 supply
- Elites: 1pt = 3 supplies
- Fast Attack: 1 pt = 2 supplies
- Heavy support: 1pt = 4 supplies
- Dedicated transports: 1pt = 2 supplies, unless it also belongs to a slot (ex.: Land Raiders follow HS costs)
which could be dependent on the army (ex.: IG take 3 supplies per pt in heavy support, but also in fast attacks, since they have more heavy tanks and less fast elements)

In either cases, nothing prevents you from fielding a lot of terminators in your 2000pts army. However, once you lost them, they're not coming back as fast as the orks boys you killed with them. This allows any army as the forces first dedicated to this theatre of war could be anything, however, it adds a whole dimension of attrition to the campaign where troops become the most likely reinforcements and where you don't want to risk all your elites every fight. Troops (who are usually the most common type of soldiers in the background) become much more common but, when you really need to win this fight, you can field the elites. And as the campaign goes on, supplies are tied to the ground you hold, spaceports, factories and hives giving lots and wastelands giving little. It can even be made race specific in production too, ex.: tyranids get lots from hives and jungles, very little from factories and deserts.

On the long run, most armies in the campaign should fight mostly with troops otherwise they won't be able to replenish their losses. At the same time, this can be coupled with experience for all units, which, instead of making them cost more points as they gain abilities (which really doesn't make experience much of a bonus), makes them cost more suppy to reinforce. This represents the difficulty to reinforce them as you have to find another veteran to go in that unit, you can't take a rookie or he'll slow them down.

For pick up games, you could them make games of 2000pts and X supply units, which would define the elite(in the wide sense)/troop ratio of the game. Obviously, supplies have to be higher than pts to field the HQ, but something like 2k pts, 2.5k supply would be troop heavy (125 pts for HQ, 1875 pts for troops, a really harsh restriction) whereas 2k pts, 10k supplies would be the current way where nothing is limited (enought supplies even for an army of HQs). You can then find the middle ground where your group feels comfortable.

TheShadowCow
11-11-2010, 19:12
Do you come up against the ultra-competitive lists much? They usually don't reflect a list that follows fluff or the "intentions" of the Codex writers.

As my post clearly states it's partly about the need for troops. Also I'm looking for something that makes a commander think twice about suicide units and heavy reliance on Elites, Fast Attack, Heavy Support and HQ.

People are always going to push the rules to their extremes. Short of "you may only include one other unit of HQ, Elites, FA or HS for each Troops unit", you're never going to stop some people from taking the minimum Troops and maxing out on other things. Even then, they might just do something like take minimum sized Scout squads and then go right back to the quad-Raider setup with the rest of their points.

Even the WHFB system of 25% minimum Core leaves 75% of "possible" non-Troops.

Post your ideas up by all means. Don't expect them to stop players who don't want to use lots of Troops to do so though.

Bala Matt
11-11-2010, 20:16
I hate that!
I typed a lengthy reply only to find my self logged out when I tried to post. Subsequently, I lost all my typing.

I'll post up my rules in a day or so. It'll be easier to understand what I'm trying to do. It has the same goal as post #10. I'm just going about it a different way.

H.LaFever
11-11-2010, 20:19
Ill give you stuff a shot, what the heck!

In our apoc games, normal troops dont take saves except for cover.
they are 'red shirts' we even call it the red shirt rule.
characters make all saves as normal.

troops cost half of printed values, round up.
tyranid gaunts cost one quarter of printed values.

heros cost same as characters
mighty heros cost +25%
uber heros cost +50%

so we have plenty of troops, and basically have an apoc herohammer game where mighty heros can kill whole squads and 40k is like their artwork. multitudes of troops, and mighty heros !

enygma7
11-11-2010, 21:10
I think the campaign supply idea is a good one. I'd go about it by assigning every unit a commonality (common, restricted, rare, very rare) representing the difficulty of replacing it.

Everyone gets a certain ammount of points to build their campaign list from which they select their forces. When you have a unit wiped out in game you can't use it again until you re-buy it. You can only spend a certain ammount of points on each catagory per game. These stack up, so to re-buy a very rare unit would require saving up over several games - so you might want to think twice before using your deathwing on an unimportant mission or using them as a suicide unit. You could allow players who suffer low casualties to expand their campaign lists with the points saved.

Example:
Guardsmen are common, veterans are rare, chimeras are restricted, valkyries are rare, vendettas are very rare. Common stuff is auto-replaced after the game, you can rebuy 400pts of restricted units per game, 200pts of rare and 100pts of very rare.

Play around with the numbers, but hope that gives you some ideas. Of course, this only works in context of a campaign.

Rlyehable
11-11-2010, 22:19
There are two ways to do this, as far as I can see.

1. Agree to alter objective missions such that you get a point for each turn you hold (i.e. by a scoring unit) an objective.
This has two effects: A) You need more scoring units to hold objectives longer. B) Swooping in at the last minute to contest an objective is a less viable tactic.

2. Agree to alter objective missions such that only the largest unit (by model count) within 3" of the objective can claim/contest an objective. This has the effect of making units larger (and usually units from the Troop section are ones of the largest size and/or cheapest cost).

3. Play a campaign of attrition. I suggest something like the following:
Between games armies are effected as follows:
I. Damaged Units:
a) Units below 50% strength are a Damaged Unit.
b) Vehicles that has more than one weapon destroyed, or has 1 weapon destroyed and is immobilized is a Damaged Unit.
c) Independent Characters and units of 1 with 50% or less of their wounds left are a Damaged Unit.
II. Destroyed Units:
a) Vehicles that have been destroyed may not be fielded for the remainder of the campaign.
b) Units that were destroyed or ran off the table with less than 50% strength may not be fielded for the remainder of the campaign.
c) Units that ran off the board with less than 50% strength are considered destroyed and may not be fielded for the remainder of the campaign.
III. Undamaged Units:
a) Units at 50% strength or above may be fielded at full strength in the next game.
b) Vehicles that are not Damaged or Destroyed may be in the next game.
IV. Troop Infantry:
a) Infantry units from the Troop selection that are a Damaged Unit are considered Undamaged for Reinforcements.
b) Infantry units from the Troop selection that are a Destroyed Unit are considered Damaged for Reinforcements.
IV. Reinforcements:
a) All Undamaged units may be fielded in the next game.
b) Units that were not destroyed, but could not be fielded in the previous game due to being Damaged may be fielded in the next game.
c) An army is given 200 points toward replacing destroyed units/vehicles. Only one unit/vehicle may be purchased between any two games. Only whole units may be purchased between games. Unspent points may be saved for later use in the campaign.

Tarax
12-11-2010, 08:32
2 house-rules I immediately thought of were:

1. Half your points has to be used on Troops choices

2. For every Elite, Fast or Heavy choice you should have a Troops choice

In both cases the max limit on Troops should be ignored.

But it all depends on the army. Because I feel that the issue is more to do with background, than with game-play. Some armies are based on the 'normal' trooper, like IG. Others are more specialzed forces, like Eldar. And if you look at SM, you always see units drawn from different companies (Terminators are from 1st and scouts are from 10th, according to Astartes). Orks should have options to dictate their organisation on the Clan they are from, which would dictate which units are Troops, Elite, etc.

impala
13-11-2010, 01:31
I would like to see Troops be more relevant, but any sort of campaign system would be pointless for me. I like the simple idea of victory points for every turn an objective is claimed. If you were to set up the d3+2 objectives AND the home base objectives, and then have each force roll for it's mission randomly from three in the rulebook. That way each force might have different objectives, and possibly need all those Troops to claim and hold objectives while the opponent is playing an Annihilation mission aginst them.

big squig
13-11-2010, 01:55
Well, my buds and I wrote our own 40k and the way we handle this is that you get 1HQ per 1000pts, any amount of troops, and any amount of elites, fast and heavy. All missions use objectives, no KP or VP. At the end of any turn, if a player has no troops left, they lose the game.

DEADMARSH
13-11-2010, 02:40
If you want to reward a player for taking troops, how about letting them add 1 to their die roll for first turn for every troops choice?

If you'd rather the troops unit itself become more valuable as your linked missions progress, you could let the troops unit who survives with at least 50% of their starting number buy a USR or award them a free unit wide wargear upgrade.

Or if you really wanted to make it interesting- give that surviving unit a mulligan. Once per game, the surviving unit from the previous game can elect to re-roll any unit-wide roll; shooting, assault, armor saves, whatever. The only stipulation is that you re-roll all the dice (keeping none of them from the original roll).

mughi3
13-11-2010, 04:59
I think i understand what the OP is going for, getting people to desire taking standard troops choices above others.

Fantasy had an old mechanic for this based around core/rare/special selections and now it is modified to a percentage system.

the problem for 40K is that most armies normal "troops" options are all pretty average. the real killing power is in the elites, fast and heavies.

Take for instance your bog standard tactical marine squad.
.1 long ranged gun for killing heavy vehicles and monsterous creatures
.1 medium to short range gun for the same purpose
.1 powerful CC weapon.....leaving the other 7 guys as basic light anti-infantry sloggers

the unit is not good at long ranged suppression fire, not good at taking out big things and also only average in dealing with hordes. because they are such generalists most players usually only take what they must in this catagory.

Sternguard or wolfguard and such represent the way we think of most marines being when it comes to versatilitiy however cantor only lets sterns count as scoring. if they were troops people would be buying them by the rhino full instead of tac marines.

GW has to balance making a core troops choice desirable performance wise with a reasonable points cost to find that sweet spot.


Make troops choice more effective and people will want to take more of them. but then it hurts the other "elite" options.

Mojaco
13-11-2010, 07:58
I don't see the point. There are plenty of troops in armies already. Haring most troops hierdoor variety, and I love variety. So no thanks, I don't need such a rule.

Tarax
13-11-2010, 09:48
I think i understand what the OP is going for, getting people to desire taking standard troops choices above others.
...
the problem for 40K is that most armies normal "troops" options are all pretty average. the real killing power is in the elites, fast and heavies.

Take for instance your bog standard tactical marine squad.
.1 long ranged gun for killing heavy vehicles and monsterous creatures
.1 medium to short range gun for the same purpose
.1 powerful CC weapon.....leaving the other 7 guys as basic light anti-infantry sloggers

the unit is not good at long ranged suppression fire, not good at taking out big things and also only average in dealing with hordes. because they are such generalists most players usually only take what they must in this catagory.

Sternguard or wolfguard and such represent the way we think of most marines being when it comes to versatilitiy however cantor only lets sterns count as scoring. if they were troops people would be buying them by the rhino full instead of tac marines.

Well, if both armies consist of more Troop choices then those same Troop choices become more viable. eg. What use is a Lascannon if your opponent has a lot of (infantry) Troop choices?
Most of the time you need those Elite, Fast and Heavy choices to deal with your opponents Elite, Fast and Heavy choices. Most notably Tanks.

Bala Matt
13-11-2010, 11:02
Hi people,

For anyone still interested, I still intend to post the rules quite soon. I've been very busy with my family.

Bunnahabhain
13-11-2010, 15:16
There is a very simple rules change, if you want to make troops even more important.

1 Take your rule book ,and a big marker pen
2 Obliterate the Annihilation mission.
3 ?????
4 Profit

You don't need to make it any more complex than that. You know you're going to need scoring troops units a plenty. Done.

AFnord
13-11-2010, 15:37
As it stand, in any form of competitive environment, you need to bring more than the minimum amount of troops. Far too often I've seen people who simply focus on elites, heavy supports (and more rarely fast attack) get beaten simply because the opponent used the "old" troop denial strategy (killing all troops). Yes, I have seen competitive armies, and most 1750point armies that I have seen have 4-5 units of troops.

There are some older codexes that lags behind, where their troops choices are not all that attractive, but I'm finding that with most semi-modern to modern books, troops are absolutely great. You will still have people who simply focus on the things that kills the most, but simply focusing on those usually does not work all that well. The most effective armies are simply the ones that focues on troops. The reasons to bring troops are there, both in the missons & codexes, but among inexperienced players you will still find people who don't see/understand this.

Deadnight
13-11-2010, 16:46
i like the idea, but the OP needs to be wary of "focusing on troops". As much as the idea makes sense, if troops are, by the use of a system, made to be so necessary, then the armies that have good troops choices (chaos, and power armour forces, in general) will have a huge advantage over those that require other FOC choices rather than troops to be effective. (seriously, the only way to play any kind of competitive tau is to maximise the elites, and heavy choices, and the same can be said for eldar) An army that can always call on plague marines will do an awful lot better than one whose mainstay is fire warriors.

Just be wary of it...

raymon
13-11-2010, 18:58
Personnally, I like an army that "looks" like an army. So troops as a mainstay is key for me. So these rules could be a lot of fun.

But there are two sides to the hobby and that's the painting. In my 12 years in to this hobby, I now own 8 fully painted armies. Half of them going well past 3000 points. I had my fair share of painting up a 100 orks and a 100 guardsmen. So now I like to give my army more diversity to paint, and not to spam units (altough I will convert the same units to make them truly unique from on another, or fit them out so that one is anti-infantry and the other anti-tank, so they "feel" different).

So when you go troop heavy, chances are you have to paint a lot of the same things. and that is not for everyone.

Charistoph
13-11-2010, 21:43
Remember how Gaunts of a certain point size or less used to be able to restart on the board in the next turn after being destroyed but otherwise count as a new unit, and how IG Conscripts with their SC can do the same? What if Troops were given this ability, but only the boots, not their Transports.

Also, what if they were allowed a +1 for Reserve Rolls to represent their ready availability?

shabbadoo
13-11-2010, 23:05
The goal is to emphasize the importance of Troops.

Always make taking & holding objectives the main focus of your scenarios, play with lots of objectives, and state that the objectives are held by the army with the most non-vehicle Troops units within 3" of the objective. There is no simple contesting of objectives at all, so those who employ wuss tactics will lose. So, don't be a wuss and go get those objectives. With such a set-up there is more of an urgency to wipe out enemy Troops units, as well as to get as many of your own Troops units within 3" of as many objectives as you can. The importance of Troops in army lists is thereby assured.