# Army Troop Ratios in 5th Edition



## Hespithe (Dec 26, 2006)

If you guys are like me, you probably do your best thinking while in the shower. I imagine that I look a bit smarter in there, too. :shok:

For those of you who really haven't been plagued by the rumors and discussion of the up and coming 5th Edition, here's a little tidbit... Scoring Units, as they are now known, are gone. Instead, the new version of Scoring unit is known by another name; Troops. Yup, only Troop FOC selections will count as scoring units, leaving the other FOC selections twiddling their thumbs when objectives need to be claimed. It also means that standard Victory Point scenarios will be played quite differently. The crux is this... Troop FOC selections will be worth only 1VP when, and only when, they are completely wiped out (no under half) or are falling back at game's end. Fast Attack, Elite, and Heavy Support FOC selections will be worth 2VPs and HQs will be worth 3VPs when the same conditions are met (totally dead or falling back at game's end).

Oddly enough, when these two new rules are combined, you'll see that Troops are necessary for 2 out of 3 standard missions (as 2 of 3 will be decided by objectives and not VPs), making a full 6 Troop FOC selections very desirable. But, these 6 FOC selections are only worth at most 6VPs to your opponent in VP scenarios. Looking at it, it would seem that having massive amounts of core Troop units is a real deal with the new rules, but often those units are not as effective, and in some cases completely ineffective, when compared to their Elite, FA, HS, and HQ comrades.

Now I'm wondering what the new best 'winning' ratio of Non-troops to Troops will be in the future edition. I imagine that with 6VPs going to Troops in many armies, the other FOC selections will be kinda sparse, especially at the 1500pt level. Is a 5:6 or 7:6 ratio feasible for most armies? Do you really want to place a single Sentinel where the enemy can snipe it in the first turn netting a quick and easy 2VPs?

It came to me that my current armies (IG, SOB, Necron at the point value most commonly played) seem to have the same Non-Troop/Troop ratio, being roughly 3.5:1. How far off of ideal do you believe this to be? Or, is it even worth worrying over?

What are your plans for 5th Edition army design with regard to this new ratio?


----------



## DeusMortemEst (Dec 14, 2007)

WTF? Is this true? It just seems horribly retarded... Or maybe I just got it all wrong? I'm confused.


----------



## Hespithe (Dec 26, 2006)

Ha! For games won by VPs, the VPs are assigned as follows

1 - Troops
2 - Elite, FA, HS
3 - HQ

The unit must be completely destroyed to award a victory point.

As for scoring units, well, Troops are it. It has been said that only non-vehicle and non-swarm troops count, and only basic infantry troops can be scoring units. This would mean that Blood Angels Assault Squads (Troop/Jump Infantry), Hormagaunts (Troop/Beasts), and Guardian Jetbikes (Troops/Eldar Jetbike) as well as other units would not qualify as scoring units. 

Keep in mind that this is all based off of the initial leak/release of the work-in-progress 5th Edition rules set, though it must be said that 'those in the know' state that the rules as presented in this unfinished document are very (x3) accurate.


----------



## Bishop120 (Nov 7, 2007)

Well if true it would go along with the nice emphasis from the codex point of view of having lots of troops this would appear very accurate. Another one for GW on forcing us to buy lots of troops.

Its just very frustrating to me.. to see things like this.. prices go higher even though manufacturing is supposed to be cheaper and easier.. codexes and the core rules changed around so that troops (and lots of them) become the focus of the game. Its pretty blatant when you look at the codexes that thats what GW wants to force you to do. CSM for example.. 1 special weapon at 9 men or less and then your special+heavy at 10 men or more and a max of 20 marines to a troop choice. Not to mention certain other squads which used to go upto 20 are now capped at 10. Lets look at the Orks.. no real modifications to the squad rules with exception to needing a 10:1 ratio for your heavy weapons, and a loss of the Mob up rule where a falling back squad of orks could merge with another mob. These 2 rules alone are going to force people to build larger mobs to game with, which again is to try and sell the troop boxes. Think of whats been happening with regular Space Marines.. combat squads anyone?? Wonder if each combat squad will be worth 1VP to your oppenent or if it will be based around the full squad?

Im not trying to make this out to be a "oh big bad GW is trying to steal my money" because its really not. Its just frustrating to me to have GW so ok.. now your armies that you love and know and have been playing with for the last few years are illegal and we were removing all the organization from your army and we want you to play with this army/concept in mind (take as many troops as possible so you have to buy as many models as possible from us). In all honesty I think this is going to turn out to be a bad thing for GW even if it works. At best they've propped up there company for another year or two and then they are going to have to do something diffrent to get people to buy models again (warhammer 50K anyone?). Its going to be ok everyone bought another 2-4 troop boxes and then we're maxed out on models and then what??


----------



## DeusMortemEst (Dec 14, 2007)

Hespithe said:


> Ha! For games won by VPs, the VPs are assigned as follows
> 
> 1 - Troops
> 2 - Elite, FA, HS
> ...


Ah, well, ok. I guess my fear was exaggerated... I guess there's still hope, then. But will it still be possible to play with only two troop choices? And if so, what are the complications? (Sorry, but I'm really slow at absorbing this knowledge...


----------



## Hespithe (Dec 26, 2006)

With only two Troop choices, you are practically guaranteed to lose 2 of 3 standard missions, as those 2 units will have a hard time claiming d3+2 objectives. The army will still be playable, but you'd have to rely on completely destroying all opposition in order to prevent them from claiming any objectives, while keeping your 2 troop units safe.


----------



## MarzM (Jan 26, 2007)

In some way's im quite worried about my guard. Guard at the best of time are fairly easy to kill. So shooting 5 guy's in a command squad will score my opponent 1 point, well thats a lot easier than trying to return fire and kill a space marine unit. In truth i like the idea that tanks and elite infantry can take objective but not hold them. It makes a lot of sense in that this is not their role on the battle field. Nids might be the odd one out, because their not really meant to care about the gribblies, but like everything else i'll wait to see the book!

MarzM


( I dont post pump, so it's taken a while, but only 3 post till the big 500)


----------



## Janus Blackheart (Jan 24, 2008)

I do believe that most people under value and underplay there troop choices as they are the most point effecient units you can field. The problem is there is no diversity in the troop choices, most army's only have one or maybe two. As opposed to fantasy where you are given 4-5 core troop choices to choose from.


----------



## MarzM (Jan 26, 2007)

well, necrons only get 1 troops choice but in many ways yes you are correct. 40k troops choices are very limited compared to your average Fantasy army.

This might be more indicative of modern armies when a company/regement etc will have a particular role to play so they have a standard template for how they should be set up!

Where as, historically (being from europe where lots of it comes from) armies would have been made up of random groups of people brought together under one banner for a common reason. It just so happened that the Italians had great Knights (partly because of Milianese plate) England had the best archers ( because of the feudel laws on archery). The Spanish had good pike etc etc etc. So the armies were more of a mish mash of things thrown together!


MarzM

2 to go!


----------



## Hespithe (Dec 26, 2006)

MarzM, consider that your opponent must kill the entire infantry platoon to score 1 Victory Point. The point is scored for the FOC selection, not the individual unit.

This means, that for my IG army, my opponent would have to kill a full 37 models, and their Chimera, in order to score 1 Victory Point for the FOC selection. Meanwhile, I would then have 4 Troop Scoring Units to claim objectives.

Yes, IG are gonna have a rough time dealing with 'Running' combat units on terrain heavy boards, but for the Ratio, the IG have the advantage. Marine Tactical Squads utilizing the Combat Squads rule have a lesser, but similar advantage.

Janus, as for troop diversity, you have the right of it. Many armies have only 2 or three options, while others have several. Poor Necrons only have the one, lol. Army list design will become an entirely new beast for meta-game discussions.

Oh, and as for post count pumping... I've never done that either. I'm still crawling my way to 1K... Eventually I'll have something important enough to type, and get there.


----------



## MarzM (Jan 26, 2007)

Well if that is true then that is great! I took it that it mean unit by unit! I was worried for a minute.

My Infantry squads are run around 35 to 55 guy's! If this is the case then dug in guard are going to be a nightmare to shift (which is how it should be).k:

In truth i think if the rules come out like the Pdf (that i honestly havent seen) :angel:then you will see a lot less min and a lot more max! 10 man marine units again! I feel a tear coming on! No dont look! This could get emotional! 

MarzM :mrgreen:


1 to go!


----------



## Metal_Ead (Jan 30, 2008)

I think you guys read the PDF wrong or something. Your facts about 5th Edition are wrong. The point system is just for a specific scenario. Also units with distinct elements count as seperate units for victory conditions so a platoon of guard would not have to be destroyed for one point in that scenario. Each squad would be seperate (or transports for that matter). Also beakie combat squads would count as seperate units from one another aswell. No point clarifying everything for you, find the leaked PDF and read it.


----------



## Hespithe (Dec 26, 2006)

As I mentioned, Metal Ead, the VP listing I posted was for the standard mission that required VPs to win and not objectives. I did not state that it was standard for all games. Also, the passage in the PDF that stated VP issuance stated FOC slots, not units. 

It may be that we have different versions of the trial rules, true, and what you say may be correct. But, and this is just my over sensitive feelings here, try to state your comments without derogatory or condescending remarks. Your last line would have given me pause if it was stated over a gaming table.


----------



## Morgal (Sep 26, 2007)

Focus on guard since there what i play.

That can't be right, to be an arse i could field 1 HQ with special weapons squads, and 2 troop choices consiting of up to 5 las plas squads...giving me a total of 5 VP you could earn...i blow up 2 tanks, i win.

If i spread out my troop choice and hide one squad you get 0 VP even though you may have killed 4 squads of guard and there troop hq?...seems wrong.

Also for scoring..the troops only thing confuses me...i would hope they ment infantry only...

IE, no jump packers, no bikes, no skimmers, no tanks.


----------



## Hespithe (Dec 26, 2006)

OK, guys.... I went looking and found another version of the 5th Edition PDF. This one actually has a few graphics instead of just the blank spaces the other PDF has.

And, it seems that in this newer edition (to me... I'm not really sure which is more current, or if either of them are any good, actually) Metal Ead is right on the issue of VPs for that third mission. The units award the points, not the FOC (if all is correct, that is). This would put IG at a severe disadvantage, as our 2 minimum compulsory troop requirements would net the opponent 6VPs all by themselves. In effect, a much smaller enemy army could be all but wiped out, but as long as one man lives, it can win in any VP match against IG by simply running more weaker units off the board. One unit of combat specialists can earn the opposition more VPs than their own army is worth. As long as a single member is alive and not fleeing at the end of the game, the opposition wins.

I'm hoping that this PDF is an earlier version.

Still, all indicators point to the informations as largely correct. Any ideas on how you plan to deal with the new nature of the 40K meta-game?


----------



## Engelus (Jul 26, 2007)

I like where 40k is headed, Ill be glad to not encounter tons and tons of elite and heavy support. as a Black Templar marine player my basic troops are pretty expensive, and I only have one choice. i'm forced to bring 2, and that never leaves many points for anything else.

im always going up against pathetically cheap troop choices that hardly do anything, and get totally outgunned and out meleed by elites and heavy support. whereas my elites are so damn expensive that they are totally useless. terminators are a total waste of points, no matter how they are used.


----------



## foulacy (Nov 24, 2007)

Im in two minds about what ive just read, its all confusing, just got to buckl up sit back and hope they dont f*** it all up.

As for Terminators been a complete waste of points, i couldnt disagree more.


----------



## neilbatte (Jan 2, 2008)

from what i have read it seems that many troop choices could become obsolete and not picked as too much of a liability . guardians are to easy to kill and have such short range that they wont be worth taking similar reasoning for scouts in the marine dex or gretchin mobs further limiting peoples choices as most armies have access to only 1 or 2 troops choices


----------



## martin4696 (Oct 30, 2007)

erm 

ORKS for the major win , new codex and know stupid scoring system who is going to beat them seriously ???


----------



## d'hargetezan (Mar 1, 2008)

Well, Imperial Guard will certainly have an easy time with this, unfourtionately I don't play Guard. Curs you Casmiricus!


----------



## Ario Barzano (Jan 18, 2008)

The simple thing is if you disagree with the possible new rules why not just play the 4th ed with you mates and 5th when competing, this is what one of my friends does with 3rd because he does not agree with lots of the things in the 4th ed.


----------



## SETH CHAPTER MAST (Feb 5, 2008)

Well making 5ed more squad base will i hope make players think more about there games and how they are going to play there battles.
Which should stop those BIG bug list from being taken and IG AC list too. 
But from what i have heard from "A" friend who works for GW at there HQ is that the leeked rules have been change. This is partly due to 2 things:-

1. Some armys list in 40k have no troops on foot. e.g. Raven Wing, Death Wing, Armoured Company ect these armys would not be able to hold OBJ.

2. This will make some armys way to hard to beat IG, Blood Angles, Nids, Eldar and orks because of the troops they can take.

But as for VP thats staying the same:- Kill 1 squad of SM = 1vp. But for the talk about IG im not sure wether it is 1 for a squad or 1 for a TC.


----------



## freaklord (Sep 13, 2007)

sounds like it's the way to go. objectives should be held only by infantry units. even tanks wouldn't really be able to hold a building without out infantry support. but elite choices not been able to doesn't make sense to me. maybe if holding objectives was unit specific, for example a squad for storm troopers could hold, as could a marine assault squad. where as a techpriest on his own couldn't. this is the way me and the lads i play currently play. We try and put real life into the rules, no way could you hold and ojective with a single model.


----------



## stormshroud (Apr 27, 2007)

I am concerned about how this is going to play out when 5th Edition arrives. 

Look at the following extreme example. A guardsman costs the same as an ork (base points cost) so 6 full troop choices for a ork player = 180 orks and 6 VP's for guard equivalent points (approx) = 3 full platoons (165 guardsmen) and 18 VP's?!? The guard come in a sightly less points and this doesn't allow for any heavy weapons but I think you get the idea. Now this is ~1000pts (1200 with gear) so not apocalypse scale and still 300pts for snacky stuff in a standard 1500pt game. It would appear that guard are going to get fubar'd by this purely my the number of VP's that there troops give away.

I think that this way of doing things is going to turn 5th ed into the 'Horde edition' in the way 4th Ed is referred to as the 'Skimmer Edition'. You will see lots of maxed out troop armies so 180 orks, 120 CSMs, etc. But that is just my 2 cents, take it or leave it.


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

I have looked at the 5th edition requirements, as I want to build a Tau force when the time is right. My current design contains 5 FOC troop choices, 1 hq, 3 elite, 1 FA and 2 heavy support, although I may drop this too 2 elite choices. 

I have used this on the current rules and it still works well, but I am thinking it will work better under 5th edition.

I actually like the changes and have always favoured troop heavy armies, but have never got them to work as people would always take more specialist troops and out assault or out shoot me.


----------



## stormshroud (Apr 27, 2007)

Don't get me wrong I too like troop heavy armies. I am just worried that this VP system opens up a whole new suite of issues and shifts the 'powergame' focus.

Another example is VP / objective wise 20 Plague Marines (One of the most hard to kill troops in the game) are the same value VP-wise as 10 Gretchin with runtherd??? :shok: And you have to wipe them out to a man to get anything?! I for one really don't fancy trying to shift 120 Plague Marines to get at the objectives or to get 6 VP's!!


----------



## Morgal (Sep 26, 2007)

troop only is fairly harsh although i like the concept of infantry holding objectives...

tho should it be troop choices i see grabing a few remnant squads and spamming the heck out of them.


----------



## freaklord (Sep 13, 2007)

i suppose that when the 5th comes out there will be a new IG codex with it, i can see a drop in pts cost troops wise. makes sense for a number of reasons.

1/ infanty troop units are the only units that can hold objectives means more people take troop choices. troop choice means more models, which means more money to GW.

2/ points cost lower for troop choices, more people take troop choices, more money to GW.


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

IG have a lot to gain and a lot to lose from these rules.

2 scenarios out of 3, it makes no difference what dies. You just want to capture objectives with troops, and they can have loads of troops units. Good for the guard.

The kill points scenario, with a point per unit killed, is not so good for them. In this scenario (according to the rules I have) you get a point for troops, 2 for elites etc and 3 for HQ. Killing a transport gives the same points as the unit it was bought for, so a drop pod bought for a command squad is worth 3 kill points but a land raider crusader bought as for a crusader squad is worth 1 point. 

I really don't like the look of this scenario, as you can have realy huge differences in the total number of kill points available from an army. It's quite easy to imagine wiping out your opponent but still losing.

Instead I would make this scenario about reaching a point a bit like necron phase out. Kill 75% of your opponent's kill points to win. If neither or both of you do that, it's a draw. That way it doesn't matter if your army has 5 kill points in it or 20, but elite units are still higher value kills than troops.

I think that the balance will favour having several large troops units as things stand. ARmies with good troops units available to them, black templars for example, will probably be the ones that do well. The flexibility of the BT crusader squad is actually really interesting for 5th as they can have anything from a 6 man las/plas squad to 20 guys running or 15 in a LRC. You can deploy 2 LRCs full of guys in dawn of war, which has to be a worry.


----------



## stormshroud (Apr 27, 2007)

So in 2 of 3 scenarios you are capturing ojectives, on average how many? I am guessing it won't be more than 6. So the fact that a guard player has many more scoring units (that are potentially blocking each other LOS etc) is irrelevant as each is a max of 10 men strong, a CSM / Ork player advances 20-30 models per troop choice which have to be wiped out to a man to be stopped.

Please don't think I am against this new edition I am just not convinced by all the information out there that it is an improvement. I have been playing 40K since the Rogue Trader days and can't see a new addition stopping that. I will continue to play my armies as I always have no matter how fubar'd they get by a new rules set, so my mechanised guard will still be rolling around, my Salamanders will still adhere to the Codex structure of 5 or 10 man squads, etc, etc


----------



## Kronus (Mar 1, 2008)

These rules seem to benefit my Orks no end. I have enough Orks to field the 180 maxed out troop list with more to spare. As if LOS wasn't enough to protect my elite units behind my boyz + running instead of shooting against IG i would only need to kill a poxy 60 guardsmen to cover whatever he throws at them + they would be all but impossible to kill in the course of 6 turns when it comes to taking objectives. Ye gods Orcs are going to be an absolute nightmare. They only annoying thing is that warbuggies and deathkopters which are both easy to kill will become far to valuable vp wise to use


----------

