What do you think makes a troop choice good?

[jaxom]

I'm making a new topic because I don't want to sidetrack the Match Play Balance thread in NA&R. One thing that as bubbled up is how it doesn't fix the core problem that some armies have better troops than others, i.e. that the internal balance (or purpose?) of troops to other units in some codexes is better than others.

 

So, what do you think a makes troop choice good or internally balanced or whatever?

[Karhedron]

Part of the problem is that GW does not have a clear idea of what they want Troops to be and do. Conceptually they are the basic line infantry of an army but this only arose in 3rd Edition. Prior to that, all armies needed to be composed of at least 25% infantry squads but those squads included heavy weapons specialists and melee units which can today be found in Elite, Heavy and Fast Attack roles as well as Troops. GW decided that some infantry were more equal than others.

 

GW have at least 3 different roles for Troops.

1. Holding Objectives and (to a lesser degree) completing actions (Objective Secured and bonuses to certain actions)
2. Fulfilling the mandatory requirements of a detachment (Troop tax)
3. Actually killing the enemy. Whatever your Objectives, they are easier to accomplish if the enemy is dead

Troop units that are perceived as "good" tend to fulfil at least some of the above requirements in a points-efficient manner. For example, Imperial Guardsmen are not particularly good at actually fighting but are very cheap meaning that they can fulfil roles 1 and 2 for very few points. This leaves the rest the army free to concentrate on killing the enemy.

 

Custodes on the other hand cost almost as much per model as a squad of Guardsmen but each one is very tough and a very effective fighter. This means that they can do a lot of damage to the enemy while still being decent at claiming Objectives. Their only downside is affording enough of them to actually contest enough Objectives whilst retaining sufficient killing power to take on heavier targets like tanks.

 

These factors are not static and depend a lot on what else is happening in the meta. At the start of 8th edition, Intercessors were regarded as pretty good Troop squads as they had twice as many Wounds as normal Space Marines making them very tough for their points. But over the last 5 years, the game has become a lot more deadly with far more weapons dealing 2 or more Damage and many more basic weapons getting at least AP-1 to help degrade their armour saves. Space Marine toughness has not kept up with this increase in lethality meaning their basic Troops have become steadily less effective and durable despite retaining the same rules (more or less). The most common Troop choices now for Marines have some additional abilities to help them such as Infiltrators and Incursors.

 

So the short answer is that there is no single magic stat or even rule of thumb that makes a Troop unit good or not. The issue is whether you can bring enough Troops (either in quantity or quality) that your opponent will struggle to kill them all, thus allowing you to control more Objectives than your opponent. Secondly they have to do this while allowing enough points in the rest of your army to effectively threaten the enemy. It is a balance and one that can be affected by how lethal enemy armies are. 

[MARK0SIAN]

I’d say the primary job of troops is to hold ground so they need to be:

 

1) Tough, durable or numerous enough to not be trivially removed from objectives.

 

2) Be cost effective in terms of points so that those abilities can be provided in the right number. As the points costs go up, the troops should also be more versatile and able to contribute to the battle in other ways.

 

Codexes where they combine those two have good troops but I think what’s holding back a lot of troops options is that in so many codexes there’s units that just do everything they would do but better. Basically troops don’t really have a dedicated job that they excel at in that codex.

 

Objective secured is an attempt to address this but I’ve honestly never had objective secured matter in a way that would’ve actually affected the overall outcome of the game. The only times where an objective has been fiercely contested for any duration in my games has been between two hard hitting and durable elite units. Troops tend to just get killed off them by anything more elite.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Flexibility.

price(points/PL)

 

a troops choice that’s only good for one thing, not a good option.

 

a troops choice that costs a lot relative to the army itself, is likewise not a good option.

[chapter master 454]

Its a question of what you want them to do.

 

In my opinion, the one slot that lacks any distinct identity is the troops slot other than "tax" and "fodder" units. Fast Attack units are by their nature, fast and attack...makes sense. Some are less sensical than others (did you know: the R'Varna battlesuit in Tau Empire, a Forge World unit, is a Fast Attack choice despite moving something like 8" and mounts two heavy weapons?) but overall, Fast Attack is where you will find mobility in an army. Heavy Support is where we keep big guns, almost like the Heavy weapons and Supporting units are kept here...funny that. This slot comprises commonly of armour and higher rate weapons, typically a polar opposite to Fast Attack in that while it lacks mobility it makes up for in fire power (which fast attack tends to lack). Elites are a bit of a wild card division however you can bet your bottom dollar that most armies have some of their most unique and powerful units within these choices and can often been seen as "exemplars" of the faction I suppose, but to an extreme. Effectively, the Elites are the Curve Breaker of most armies where units often will have amped stats beyond their pay-rate. Headquarters (or HQs are we call them as standard...anyone think that is weird?) are the leaders of the faction and we see that fairly well across all armies. HQs will often be what people are building around or the unit that helps them build into it.

 

Troops however...just don't do anything. They are by all accounts...the "vanilla" of the codex. These guys get to hold objectives only because they tend to be the cheapest unit to bring for the job. It is important to hold objectives but having anything more than one is normally overkill for such tasks as you normally only have 1 home objective to hold and the rest are ether no-mans land or enemy zone, both of which troops don't last in very long.

Sure, some factions really like their troops because they are actual workhorses but often that is because they come in well above the weight class they belong to. Death Guard plague marines punch well above their weight class for their points imo, same with Rubrics. Orks naturally like their troops because they are built to do what they like to do: Krump things good in melee and en mass and Quantity has a Quality all its own.

 

Then we look at likely the most sore thumb example of it: the Tactical Squad. The swiss army knife unit that CAN do it all but never really does it well. Commonly more seen as MSU special weapon squads more than actual full 10 mans, this unit I would say is the text-book "tax troop" unit that people only bring when forced, and even then they brought scouts more than these guys (goes to show, we instead of taking the fully trained battle brothers, we opt for the interns!).

Sure, in theory its nice but what do they actually bring? One heavy weapon is unlikely to do anything...similarly the same with a special weapon...their big hitter being a sergeant equipped with whichever melee load-out you need to do some melee work...with the rest of his squad acting as his external wound battery. These guys are great for chip and mild annoyance, and certainly against most other troop choices in other factions can actually do some serious work but the moment you bring out anything meant for a role, these guys fold fast. They can't out-range a target, they can't out melee a proper melee unit (even the more milder versions with most factions), so why bother? Kind of why I believe Intercessors took over, they did the whole "being bodies" better by merit of focusing on making their ability to exchange blows with other faction troops better. While still laughably easy to slap off an objective, it would take an actual unit of merit to do so as other troops would ether get bogged down and unable to claim the objective effectively or would just get clapped.

But again...we are talking their best attribute being "troop vs. troop"...so why bring troops if they lose against anything that isn't troop?

 

To me, the thing that failed was that a lot of specialists (anything that isn't a troop choice) doesn't feel like a specialist, more of a flavoured troop choice. We have seen units literally made good or bad by adding the CORE keyword to them and now suddenly they are good...excuse me but I thought these guys were the specialists...why do we need to tell them how to tie their shoelaces?

Troops should be the units that aren't much by themselves but are the unit that can receive the buffs of a faction leader. These are the choices that get those re-roll auras. Leaders ordering the Rank and File while the specialists get on with their duty because they know their role: Fast Attacks get in Fast and Attack, Heavy Support does the Supporting with Heavy guns, the Elites especially shouldn't need ordered around as these are the guys the leaders know they can leave to their own devices to get the job done.

 

This can even have unique army building notes, as in my mind this would then give access in design space for marines to have a unique gimmick in that their Assault Marines from Fast Attack and Devastators from Heavy Support being NOTABLE exceptions to that design concept, being able to receive aura buffs. A fluffy and unique mechanic to make them worth taking (thus giving Assault Marines at least SOMETHING over Vanguard veterans...)

[AenarIT]

By exclusion, nothing about the current Tau troop choices: fragile, expensive, harmless (apart from Breachers), not flexible (min size 10). 
It’s not going to surprise anyone if they completely disappear from the tables this season. Maybe Breachers put in reserves, but even then I think you could spend those 85 points way better.

Screening is done more efficiently by Kroot hounds (FA), drones detached from vehicles or in independent units (40 pts for min size 4), Vespids (way faster), Pathfinders (more useful), …

Objective holding is something you do with vehicles or Crisis suits (obsec with an Enforcer Commander), …

Some troops are good enough to be played competitively, but they are a minority.

Then again, in casual games you can still play whatever you want as long as you’re happy.

[Warden-Paints]

Is there a consensus on which troops are currently seen as top tier? 

[AenarIT]

1 hour ago, Warden-Paints said:

Is there a consensus on which troops are currently seen as top tier? 

Now that you can build a list with none, I would consider top tier those troops that get played nonetheless.
It means that they have a role that more specialized unit in the army cannot carry out just as well.
- Noise Marines are probably the best troops that come to mind, Blastmasters are bonkers
- Rubric Marines are solid even without armour of contempt, the TS codex is not that deep so they might be an inevitable choice
- Tactical Marines with free upgrades and sticky objectives might turn out to be good (at least in some chapters)
- AdMech stuff in general is going to be pretty good (Kataphrons gained CORE for the first time in 9th ed)
- Necron Warriors at 11 ppm could be the basis of horde style lists
- Guardsmen might see some play? But the Guard meta is still up in the air
- Custodes might have some troops on the table no matter what

- GSC is not a faction I'm familiar with, acolyte or neophyte spam could work

 

In a nutshell, top tier troops are either very efficient for their points, very good at doing something or they are the cheapest, most flexible unit available. 

We'll see once the season starts to offer some tournament results, for now it's just a lot of theorycrafting.


 

[Special Officer Doofy]

I mean historically up until more recent technology (nuclear armaments and man-less vehicles such as drones) wars were fought and won with the rank and file troop. Warhammer 40k to me is like knights in space. It is so unrealistic in the sense no one would be running around with a chainsaw sword if there's little pistols that can melt right through a tank. So I think their desire to push troops onto players is to simulate that historically a majority of militaries were mostly just troops.

 

I personally like seeing troops on the table. I never saw them as a tax. But I don't drive to far places to play super sweaty competitive meta chasing tournaments, just playing with my friends and the occasional local tournament, so none of us complained about things like having "Plague marines" in a "Death Guard" army 

 

I think scoring should be much more based around the troop slot personally.

[Karhedron]

3 hours ago, Warden-Paints said:

Is there a consensus on which troops are currently seen as top tier? 

 

I would add Space Marine Infiltrators to the list. They can deploy in no-man's land, they have a special rule to hamper enemy reserves, they have cheap durability buffs in the form of the Helix Gauntlet and Smoke grednades. They also have access to the Guerrilla Warfare stratagem which allows them to redeploy if necessary. Although not very killy, they do have a lot of utility for a Troop choice. Ironically, they are a better swiss-army unit than Tactical Marines, despite having a fixed loadout.

 

They are a unit I would probably continue to bring, even in an Arks of Omen detachment.

[Rogue]

Genestealer Cult Acolytes don't feel like a tax, and can be set up to achieve various battlefield roles.

 

A bare-bones unit of five coming from underground can seize unguarded objectives or play for secondaries like Retrieve Data or Behind Enemy Lines.

 

On the other hand, you can take 10 acolytes with four rock drills/saws/cutters and maybe a banner (now the points have dropped) and you've got a nasty assault unit for under 150 points.

 

Our elite combat units certainly have strengths and useful roles to play, but the Acolytes don't feel outmatched - they just fulfil a different tactical option. Which feels about right.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

I think the addition of flyers, lords of war, and the more flexible detachments just make it really hard to make solid elite troop choices. They just aren't flexible enough to deal with the threats they have to on the table, and those threats make them feel less durable. The "horde" armies can make up for it with sheer numbers.

 

I'm going to be really curious to see which armies still use troops after the AoO detachment becomes official. My bet is that a fair chunk of armies will just drop them entirely, but I still think at least half will keep them.  

 

  

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

14 hours ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

I mean historically up until more recent technology (nuclear armaments and man-less vehicles such as drones) wars were fought and won with the rank and file troop. Warhammer 40k to me is like knights in space. It is so unrealistic in the sense no one would be running around with a chainsaw sword if there's little pistols that can melt right through a tank. So I think their desire to push troops onto players is to simulate that historically a majority of militaries were mostly just troops.

 

I personally like seeing troops on the table. I never saw them as a tax. But I don't drive to far places to play super sweaty competitive meta chasing tournaments, just playing with my friends and the occasional local tournament, so none of us complained about things like having "Plague marines" in a "Death Guard" army 

 

I think scoring should be much more based around the troop slot personally.

Even in the nuclear and drone age ‘troops’ are still what win wars, and likely always will be.

[jaxom]

Thank you, all, for the thoughtful responses. What do you think of new thing with Troop units scoring more points off objectives? Does that make a difference, or just make good troops better?

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

22 hours ago, chapter master 454 said:

Its a question of what you want them to do.

 

In my opinion, the one slot that lacks any distinct identity is the troops slot other than "tax" and "fodder" units. Fast Attack units are by their nature, fast and attack...makes sense. Some are less sensical than others (did you know: the R'Varna battlesuit in Tau Empire, a Forge World unit, is a Fast Attack choice despite moving something like 8" and mounts two heavy weapons?) but overall, Fast Attack is where you will find mobility in an army. Heavy Support is where we keep big guns, almost like the Heavy weapons and Supporting units are kept here...funny that. This slot comprises commonly of armour and higher rate weapons, typically a polar opposite to Fast Attack in that while it lacks mobility it makes up for in fire power (which fast attack tends to lack). Elites are a bit of a wild card division however you can bet your bottom dollar that most armies have some of their most unique and powerful units within these choices and can often been seen as "exemplars" of the faction I suppose, but to an extreme. Effectively, the Elites are the Curve Breaker of most armies where units often will have amped stats beyond their pay-rate. Headquarters (or HQs are we call them as standard...anyone think that is weird?) are the leaders of the faction and we see that fairly well across all armies. HQs will often be what people are building around or the unit that helps them build into it.

 

Troops however...just don't do anything. They are by all accounts...the "vanilla" of the codex. These guys get to hold objectives only because they tend to be the cheapest unit to bring for the job. It is important to hold objectives but having anything more than one is normally overkill for such tasks as you normally only have 1 home objective to hold and the rest are ether no-mans land or enemy zone, both of which troops don't last in very long.

Sure, some factions really like their troops because they are actual workhorses but often that is because they come in well above the weight class they belong to. Death Guard plague marines punch well above their weight class for their points imo, same with Rubrics. Orks naturally like their troops because they are built to do what they like to do: Krump things good in melee and en mass and Quantity has a Quality all its own.

 

Then we look at likely the most sore thumb example of it: the Tactical Squad. The swiss army knife unit that CAN do it all but never really does it well. Commonly more seen as MSU special weapon squads more than actual full 10 mans, this unit I would say is the text-book "tax troop" unit that people only bring when forced, and even then they brought scouts more than these guys (goes to show, we instead of taking the fully trained battle brothers, we opt for the interns!).

Sure, in theory its nice but what do they actually bring? One heavy weapon is unlikely to do anything...similarly the same with a special weapon...their big hitter being a sergeant equipped with whichever melee load-out you need to do some melee work...with the rest of his squad acting as his external wound battery. These guys are great for chip and mild annoyance, and certainly against most other troop choices in other factions can actually do some serious work but the moment you bring out anything meant for a role, these guys fold fast. They can't out-range a target, they can't out melee a proper melee unit (even the more milder versions with most factions), so why bother? Kind of why I believe Intercessors took over, they did the whole "being bodies" better by merit of focusing on making their ability to exchange blows with other faction troops better. While still laughably easy to slap off an objective, it would take an actual unit of merit to do so as other troops would ether get bogged down and unable to claim the objective effectively or would just get clapped.

But again...we are talking their best attribute being "troop vs. troop"...so why bring troops if they lose against anything that isn't troop?

 

To me, the thing that failed was that a lot of specialists (anything that isn't a troop choice) doesn't feel like a specialist, more of a flavoured troop choice. We have seen units literally made good or bad by adding the CORE keyword to them and now suddenly they are good...excuse me but I thought these guys were the specialists...why do we need to tell them how to tie their shoelaces?

Troops should be the units that aren't much by themselves but are the unit that can receive the buffs of a faction leader. These are the choices that get those re-roll auras. Leaders ordering the Rank and File while the specialists get on with their duty because they know their role: Fast Attacks get in Fast and Attack, Heavy Support does the Supporting with Heavy guns, the Elites especially shouldn't need ordered around as these are the guys the leaders know they can leave to their own devices to get the job done.

 

This can even have unique army building notes, as in my mind this would then give access in design space for marines to have a unique gimmick in that their Assault Marines from Fast Attack and Devastators from Heavy Support being NOTABLE exceptions to that design concept, being able to receive aura buffs. A fluffy and unique mechanic to make them worth taking (thus giving Assault Marines at least SOMETHING over Vanguard veterans...)

The question is, what’s more important for troops? The ability to do it all (or a lot), or the ability to do one or two things well?

 

tactical squad with a plasma gun and lascannon may not be excellent at vehicle killing, but by having them present it most certainly complicates your opponents’ calculations.

 

in fact this is a concept the US Navy is really leaning heavily into called distributed lethality. The idea that less capable ships, should still have some capability to be a legitimate threat to major enemy naval assets.(a 3000ton ship being able to sink or cripple a 10,000+ ton ship)

[Karhedron]

11 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

The question is, what’s more important for troops? The ability to do it all (or a lot), or the ability to do one or two things well?

 

I think it is more a question of the cost-effectiveness of what they do. Tactical squads definitely suffer from "jack of all trades, master of none" syndrome. For the points, they can be out-performed by nearly any other unit which is slightly more specialised. They will get outshot by Fire warriors, diced by Ork Boys and outmanoeuvred by Aeldari. They cannot outperform Custodes in any role.

 

It is easier to get mileage out of more specialised units. GW seem to overvalue generalists. Tactical squads may be able to chop-the-shooty and shoot-the-choppy on paper but trying to exploit an enemy's weak point while still holding an Objective is really hard. I would find it easier to get value out of a squad of Fire Warriors and 2 squads of Breachers than 2 Tactical squads.

 

There is a reason Assault Intercessors are fairly popular and that is because they have a clearly defined role. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

4 hours ago, Karhedron said:

 

I think it is more a question of the cost-effectiveness of what they do. Tactical squads definitely suffer from "jack of all trades, master of none" syndrome. For the points, they can be out-performed by nearly any other unit which is slightly more specialised. They will get outshot by Fire warriors, diced by Ork Boys and outmanoeuvred by Aeldari. They cannot outperform Custodes in any role.

 

It is easier to get mileage out of more specialised units. GW seem to overvalue generalists. Tactical squads may be able to chop-the-shooty and shoot-the-choppy on paper but trying to exploit an enemy's weak point while still holding an Objective is really hard. I would find it easier to get value out of a squad of Fire Warriors and 2 squads of Breachers than 2 Tactical squads.

 

There is a reason Assault Intercessors are fairly popular and that is because they have a clearly defined role. 

I also don’t really think assault intercessors should be troops personally.

 

it would be like putting assault marines in the troops slot imho.  Assault marines would almost be auto-takes if they were troops.

Edited January 8, 2023 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Leonaides]

Perhaps they should be... infantry (unless really specialist/actually elite) could be core, and the troop tax definition could be core. Let's you have specialised armies (so you could have an assault company with all jump pack units for example) but your vanguard squads would still be elite, not core.

 

 

 

You could have a guard artillery platoon, with heavy weapon squads as core, but your field artillery would be hs, not core. 

 

You could have a samm hain windriver host with guardian bikes as core, but your shining spears and warlocks etc would be elite/hq.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Rogue]

Thinking about it more, maybe the answer is 'A troops choice is good if I want to pick it'. Which means the definition of 'good' will vary from codex to codex, player to player, even tactical approach to tactical approach.

 

From the comments above, it feels like people don't want to take intercessors because there are other units that can do things better.

 

Whereas, and because Cults is what I know, both GSC troops absolutely have roles to play - acolytes bring a combat threat that is distinct from my elite units (plus can be configured for actions or objective grabbing, or dropping in with hand-flamers), and neophytes can be set up as a reasonable shooting threat (not something the codex has tons of), as meat-shields (freeing up other units), or as cheap, numerous back-line screens or objective holders. 

 

My troops units are good because they bring valid, useful options to the table. They're not a tax, they're a valuable part of the army (at least, they are the way I play). 

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

5 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

I also don’t really think assault intercessors should be troops personally.

 

it would be like putting assault marines in the troops slot imho.  Assault marines would almost be auto-takes if they were troops.

 

Blood Angels used to be able to assault marines as troops in 5th they hardly broke anything and that was a much more troop centric edition. I think they would be a great troop, but I'm sure some chapters would go in different directions. Assault intercessors haven't broken the game either. I use them with my wolves and they're solid but there just another unit that relies on str 4 attacks to get the job done.

 

52 minutes ago, Rogue said:

Thinking about it more, maybe the answer is 'A troops choice is good if I want to pick it'. Which means the definition of 'good' will vary from codex to codex, player to player, even tactical approach to tactical approach.

 

From the comments above, it feels like people don't want to take intercessors because there are other units that can do things better.

 

Whereas, and because Cults is what I know, both GSC troops absolutely have roles to play - acolytes bring a combat threat that is distinct from my elite units (plus can be configured for actions or objective grabbing, or dropping in with hand-flamers), and neophytes can be set up as a reasonable shooting threat (not something the codex has tons of), as meat-shields (freeing up other units), or as cheap, numerous back-line screens or objective holders. 

 

My troops units are good because they bring valid, useful options to the table. They're not a tax, they're a valuable part of the army (at least, they are the way I play). 

 

Thats fair, I view troops as a tax at the moment, intercessors just don't do enough against some armies. I do think armor of contempt being gone, may help because they'll have some AP again but that works both ways.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

2 hours ago, Jorin Helm-splitter said:

 

Blood Angels used to be able to assault marines as troops in 5th they hardly broke anything and that was a much more troop centric edition. I think they would be a great troop, but I'm sure some chapters would go in different directions. Assault intercessors haven't broken the game either. I use them with my wolves and they're solid but there just another unit that relies on str 4 attacks to get the job done.

 

 

Thats fair, I view troops as a tax at the moment, intercessors just don't do enough against some armies. I do think armor of contempt being gone, may help because they'll have some AP again but that works both ways.

No one said anything about any units breaking the game.

 

I personally don’t think GW has any real clue what they want troops to do/be, and with ranges that have so much flexibility within them like marines do, it is hard to justify taking a tactical or an intercessor squad.

 

before primaris the marine range marines didn’t have a lot access to a lot of good shooting options. Sternguard, devastators, and tactical terminators. So there was a fairly limited range.

 

now you we have sooo many options to fill every role, that means there isn’t much of a good reason to take most of the units in our troops section.

 

that’s why I think assault marines would be such an auto-take as troops. They’re not the best FA option by far, but because they have the possibility to arguably have better firepower than tactical or intercessors squads, with the same durability and much better mobility, so yeah it seems like why would anyone choose a tactical squad, intercessor, assault intercessors?

[BrainFireBob]

IMO, they screwed up Elites by making them better Troops sans drawbacks. Coupled with legacy issues from older design spaces that no longer exist (Ravenwing, Swordwind, Tau through 8th), it's not easily fixed.

 

Troops need to do at least two of the following:

 

1) Hold objectives/score

2) Provide synergies to the rest of the army

3) Provide meaningful chip damage in bulk

4) Be relatively cheap

5) Provide aggregate bulk or endurance to an army

6) Provide a complementary buff

 

They're the units that by-unit are so-so at best but can do reasonable work in multiples. Going all-in for Troops should provide comparable concentrated winning capability to any other skew, but unlike straight wrecking balls (HS), board control (FA), low body high-effect units (Elites), even more extreme skewed Elites (LoW), they do it by cumulative effect.

 

A single Troops unit that doesn't lean heavily into endurance (Guard platoon, heavy intercessors, plague marines), should be a nuisance scooted around to annoy/score but be easy early game to shift for an opponent. 2-3 units together should tote enough punch that even if they get mauled by an Elite unit, they'll effectively neutralize it in turn. So to some extent points costing is out of whack. Talking Marines, in 3rd 5 tactical termies would run 200 points, 10 tacs+a rhino would be 200. Comparable firepower-tacs won by the rhino stormbolter- better CC on the termies but the tacs had a ride and double the wounds, if at a reduced save. Pfists also struck last. On its own before upgrades, that was a good elites:troops performance ratio. Tacs would soak and flood from rhinos, termies for hard targets in CC. 

 

We've pulled away from that. Adding things like Infiltrators with three abilities- the ability to mess with an opponent's deployment, and helix+smoke (endurance), AND their wound-on-6s rule- too much, the entire package is Elites. Conversely, the real problem with Reivers is that they're not Troops or FA. 

 

EDIT: Intercessors were good at rollout because they had increased durability for the loss of a transport. Big squads would hit rapid fire range one turn earlier. So, big squad- Intercessors. Small squad- Tacs (due to combi+special+maneuverability). 

Edited January 9, 2023 by BrainFireBob
Followup

[Xenith]

The best troops are the ones that:

• can go out and do damage/kill stuff
• be ObSec
• Don't have another troop/other unit in a similar role that is more point efficient. 

The next best ones are those that are both durable enough, either through #models or toughness to hold an objective, while being cheap enough to not draw too many points away from other things in the army that will kill or take objectives in no man's land. 

 

Tactical Marines were poor as they had weak bolters and AP-1/2D is prevalent so they still died fast, with no strat access.

Intercessors are decent as they have a range of [decent] weapon options, access to strats to make them stronger or tougher, and a good enough A stat to actually be a threat - A TH wielding intercessor serge gets 4A and can readily cripple a tank or take a chunk out of a knight in combat. 

 

Rubrics are (were?) ok as they were tougher than a tactical marine with a better gun, and ObSec, they also have strats/powers to make them tougher, come back from the dead, or teleport around - teleporting ObSec is no joke. However Rubrics make up 25% of the ARCANA ASTARTES choices in the army, so hey have to be good at killing. 

Cultists are bad as they don't get ObSec in a TSons list, are T3 with a poor save. Tzaangor are generally bad, but are occasionally seen in lists because:

• for 2ppm more than a cultist you get +1S, +1T, +1Ld and a 5++ and ObSec on top. 
• They're sufficiently cheaper than a rubric unit to let you not feel bad to have them hiding at the back or performing actions, wasting their shooting. 

Contrast this with like, Eldar Guardians that are 9ppm with a 4+ save, and T3. If you can hide them, great, but if you can't, anything that looks at them funny will kill them. If you want a heavy weapon in the unit suddenly you're looking at an average of 11ppm. Maybe I'm using them wrong, and maybe with the right craftworld choices they can be decent, but for 2pts more, you can get a dire avenger which gets +1shot, -1AP, +1Ld, can perform actions while shooting, and finally can be taken in a smaller squad size for a 65pt investment rather than 90 minimum. 

[Karhedron]

49 minutes ago, Xenith said:

Contrast this with like, Eldar Guardians that are 9ppm with a 4+ save, and T3. If you can hide them, great, but if you can't, anything that looks at them funny will kill them. If you want a heavy weapon in the unit suddenly you're looking at an average of 11ppm. Maybe I'm using them wrong, and maybe with the right craftworld choices they can be decent, but for 2pts more, you can get a dire avenger which gets +1shot, -1AP, +1Ld, can perform actions while shooting, and finally can be taken in a smaller squad size for a 65pt investment rather than 90 minimum. 

 

I completely agree. Guardians have been a poor Troop choice since 3rd edition when Gav Thorpe madly decided that the best use for citizen militia was to give them paper-thin armour and machine pistols. No wonder the Eldar are a dying race. 

 

In 1st/2nd edition Shurican Catapults were better than Storm Bolters. If they had equivalent stats in the current edition, they would b 24" range and either RF2 or Assault 3. Plus you could take them in 5-man squads so the tax for a heavy weapon was not so bad.

 

Guardians for me show exactly how NOT to design Troops. They are too expensive to be used for hiding or Actions. They are too short-ranged to camp on home Objectives and they are too fragile to contest the midfield. Arks of Omen has been a godsend for Eldar since 8th edition moved Jetbikes from Troops to FA (which they really should have been) and Dire Avengers from Troops to Elite (which was a bad move). Now that we can do without mandatory Troops units, I am planning to run my Guardians as Corsair Void Reavers. They have 24" range RF guns and they can be taken in 5-man squads which provides much cheaper ObjSec who can be used for backfield camping or Actions without being such a waste.

[Xenith]

9 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

8th edition moved Jetbikes from Troops to FA

 

There is I think a core of this discussion:

As troops, Jetbikes were amazing, they were fast, tougher than other eldar, and about 60pts in a min unit, however as FA I think they're overshadowed by other choices and get left behind. 3 shroudrunners are a little more than 3 scatterlaser jetbikes, but you get a whole lot more.