Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

What about:

-Move Platoon Commander to HQ, 30 pts, additional buff/ability to compensate increase in cost
-Recost Company Commander to HQ, 40 pts, additional buff/ability to compensate increase in cost

No. Rename them to Senior Officer(Company Commander) and Junior Officer(Platoon Commander).

Biggest issue solved.

 Kanluwen wrote:
No. Rename them to Senior Officer(Company Commander) and Junior Officer(Platoon Commander).

Biggest issue solved.

What's the biggest issue it solves?

 skchsan wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
No. Rename them to Senior Officer(Company Commander) and Junior Officer(Platoon Commander).

Biggest issue solved.

What's the biggest issue it solves?

People whining that Platoon Commanders should be HQs rather than Elites. Junior Officers would fit as Elites.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
No. Rename them to Senior Officer(Company Commander) and Junior Officer(Platoon Commander).

Biggest issue solved.

What's the biggest issue it solves?

People whining that Platoon Commanders should be HQs rather than Elites. Junior Officers would fit as Elites.

I think overcrowding HQ's is the solution for AM. Currently as it stands, 1/2 of Elite choices for AM is filled with pseudo HQ's. Most other armies have their pseudo HQ's/mini HQ's in the HQ slot. AM should follow suite.

 skchsan wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
No. Rename them to Senior Officer(Company Commander) and Junior Officer(Platoon Commander).

Biggest issue solved.

What's the biggest issue it solves?

People whining that Platoon Commanders should be HQs rather than Elites. Junior Officers would fit as Elites.

I think overcrowding HQ's is the solution for AM. Currently as it stands, 1/2 of Elite choices for AM is filled with pseudo HQ's. Most other armies have their pseudo HQ's/mini HQ's in the HQ slot. AM should follow suite.

AM does follow suit. We have Tank Commanders and Tempestor Primes in the HQ slot. We have Primaris Psykers in the HQ slot.

Junior Officers are not HQ choices. Period. End of fricking story. They were always taken as part of the Platoons, but since Platoons are gone they're better served in the Elite slot.

You're also ignoring, I might add, that "overcrowding HQs" won't do anything other than make it even easier to take CP batteries. All it would do is hurt Guard armies, not those taking advantage of them.

 Kanluwen wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:
Platoons are constructed from troops.
So...platoon commanders should be troops right?
Simple

Because 120 Point Battalions should be a thing.

I don't get it sorry. Battalions are 300-800 soldiers

When he says "Battalion", he's obviously referring to the force organizational chart

I assume you're referring to Detachments?

I'd just go back to platoons. They were easy to build and organise really

 Kanluwen wrote:

AM does follow suit. We have Tank Commanders and Tempestor Primes in the HQ slot. We have Primaris Psykers in the HQ slot.

Junior Officers are not HQ choices. Period. End of fricking story. They were always taken as part of the Platoons, but since Platoons are gone they're better served in the Elite slot.

You're also ignoring, I might add, that "overcrowding HQs" won't do anything other than make it even easier to take CP batteries. All it would do is hurt Guard armies, not those taking advantage of them.

But from a lore perspective, a platoon commander is still an officer and is thus still a leader. It really does belong in the HQ section similar to how marines have captains and lieutenants. You pay less points and get less buffs, simple, but an officer is an officer.

I fail to see how saving 20 points on a battalion detachment (yet making brigades be more expensive as a consequence) would be that big of a deal. Even if it is that big of a deal to you, it's a problem with how IG are built as an army and how that interacts with the CP mechanics rather than being about platoon commanders belonging in the elites slot vs belonging in the HQ slot.

The platoon organization really needs to make a comeback. It gave infantry-focused lists much needed structure, it served as a balancing tool, and it allowed guard to deal with the problem of each 40 point infantry squad being worth a VP. Instead we have to rely on stupid mechanics like taking a heavy weapon to make the squad 9 models (which is most likely actually an oversight on GWs part, I doubt it was intended that way). It would help to alleviate the CP problem too. Because guard stuff is so cheap it is easy to fill up detachments, but if a a platoon commander, command squad, and two infantry squads was actually a single troop choice then guard CP batteries would be far less popular.

w1zard wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

AM does follow suit. We have Tank Commanders and Tempestor Primes in the HQ slot. We have Primaris Psykers in the HQ slot.

Junior Officers are not HQ choices. Period. End of fricking story. They were always taken as part of the Platoons, but since Platoons are gone they're better served in the Elite slot.

You're also ignoring, I might add, that "overcrowding HQs" won't do anything other than make it even easier to take CP batteries. All it would do is hurt Guard armies, not those taking advantage of them.

But from a lore perspective, a platoon commander is still an officer and is thus still a leader. It really does belong in the HQ section similar to how marines have captains and lieutenants. You pay less points and get less buffs, simple, but an officer is an officer.

And there your point completely falls apart.

Lieutenants are full-on leaders. Junior Officers aren't. They never have been. It's reflected in the fact that they can issue a single Order a turn.
You want an HQ option similar to Captains and Lieutenants? You've got it: the Tempestor Prime. He's a full-on leader in charge of his own group, the Junior Officers weren't.

I fail to see how saving 20 points on a battalion detachment (yet making brigades be more expensive as a consequence) would be that big of a deal. Even if it is that big of a deal to you, it's a problem with how IG are built as an army and how that interacts with the CP mechanics rather than being about platoon commanders belonging in the elites slot vs belonging in the HQ slot.

And this is why we can't have nice things.

The platoon organization really needs to make a comeback. It gave infantry-focused lists much needed structure, it served as a balancing tool,

No, It didn't. It resulted in blob squads and none of the extra elements(Special Weapon Squads and Heavy Weapon Squads) really seeing playtime in favor of huge masses of infantry.

Personally? I'd burn the whole book down, start from scratch and not let Robin Cruddace or any of his nonsense be anywhere near it.

and it allowed guard to deal with the problem of each 40 point infantry squad being worth a VP. Instead we have to rely on stupid mechanics like taking a heavy weapon to make the squad 9 models (which is most likely actually an oversight on GWs part, I doubt it was intended that way).

Um, why would that be an oversight? Did you not play Guard at all for the past few iterations?

That's how it's been for quite some time. Two models become a single 2W model instead.

It would help to alleviate the CP problem too. Because guard stuff is so cheap it is easy to fill up detachments, but if a a platoon commander, command squad, and two infantry squads was actually a single troop choice then guard CP batteries would be far less popular.

You know another way to "alleviate the CP problem"?

Make it so that you can't take anything other than the AUXILIARY or Superheavy Detachments as Allies!
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat...?!

 Kanluwen wrote:

w1zard wrote:

But from a lore perspective, a platoon commander is still an officer and is thus still a leader. It really does belong in the HQ section similar to how marines have captains and lieutenants. You pay less points and get less buffs, simple, but an officer is an officer.

And there your point completely falls apart.

Lieutenants are full-on leaders. Junior Officers aren't. They never have been. It's reflected in the fact that they can issue a single Order a turn.
You want an HQ option similar to Captains and Lieutenants? You've got it: the Tempestor Prime. He's a full-on leader in charge of his own group, the Junior Officers weren't.

A platoon commander is a Lieutenant or rank equivalent... read the unit description in the codex please p38. By your own definition, platoon commanders are "full on leaders" and thus belong in the HQ section.

 Kanluwen wrote:

w1zard wrote:
and it allowed guard to deal with the problem of each 40 point infantry squad being worth a VP. Instead we have to rely on stupid mechanics like taking a heavy weapon to make the squad 9 models (which is most likely actually an oversight on GWs part, I doubt it was intended that way).

Um, why would that be an oversight? Did you not play Guard at all for the past few iterations?

That's how it's been for quite some time. Two models become a single 2W model instead.

I understand how it works. You aren't getting what I am saying. You are also being extremely rude for no reason.

The fact is that Guard have many more kill points than other armies due to having really cheap and easy to kill units, but a lot of them. How is it fair that a 40 point infantry squad that easily dies to bolter fire is worth 1 VP when a full tactical squad is worth the same amount? It isn't. Past editions have "balanced" this by making the killing the entire platoon only worth 1 CP (through blob squads). This edition it's taking a heavy weapon in infantry squads to make the squad 9 models and thus not worth a VP for some reason. If it wasn't for this mechanic (which is again, most likely an oversight on GWs part) guard would autolose on any game mode relying on calculation of VPs, and indeed any guard army not wanting to run a heavy weapon in line squads (like krieg who actually can't) autolose in the VP game modes.

The platoon structure would fix that by either bringing back blob squads, or with a rule tacked onto the platoon structure stating something along the lines of "you have to kill the entire platoon to get the VP".

 Kanluwen wrote:

You know another way to "alleviate the CP problem"?

Make it so that you can't take anything other than the AUXILIARY or Superheavy Detachments as Allies!
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat...?!

Which would completely break armies that rely on allying to function, like assassins, inquisition, sisters of silence, custodes (arguably) etc. It also allows for more fluffy lists like ultramar auxilia fighting alongside ultramarines and other such things.

Soup is here to stay, get over it.

What is soup?
Damn 40k players pulling new terms out of nowhere each week

w1zard wrote:

The fact is that Guard have many more kill points than other armies due to having really cheap and easy to kill units, but a lot of them. How is it fair that a 40 point infantry squad that easily dies to bolter fire is worth 1 VP when a full tactical squad is worth the same amount? It isn't. Past editions have "balanced" this by making the killing the entire platoon only worth 1 CP (through blob squads). This edition it's taking a heavy weapon in infantry squads to make the squad 9 models and thus not worth a VP for some reason. If it wasn't for this mechanic (which is again, most likely an oversight on GWs part) guard would autolose on any game mode relying on calculation of VPs, and indeed any guard army not wanting to run a heavy weapon in line squads (like krieg who actually can't) autolose in the VP game modes.

The platoon structure would fix that by either bringing back blob squads, or with a rule tacked onto the platoon structure stating something along the lines of "you have to kill the entire platoon to get the VP".

If you are loosing guard infantry squads to massed bolter fire your doing something wrong.
Infantry squads outshoot any marine with a bolter point for point all day everyday.
40points for 10W 5+Sv 4+in cover is quite tanky in 8th edition mechanics.
Almost every infantry weapon has 0ap now compaied to previous editions guard benifited a lot for the core mechanics changes. Taking a VP to killing 2 squads, 1 command squad and a charictor would make them even more offensively cheese to play against.

I mean, I use Platoon Commanders all the time. They are great for Brigades to babysit Heavy Weapon Teams that have one base within 6" of Yarrick.

w1zard wrote:
I understand how it works. You aren't getting what I am saying. You are also being extremely rude for no reason.

User Kanluwen is known to be very emotional and outspoken when it comes to "nerfing" AM.

Design wise, Big-buff characters are normally HQ in the Guard, while Smaller-buff characters go in the Elite section. Platoon Commanders / Junior Officers were an exception to the rule, under the old Platoon system.

For example...

Lord Commie vs Regular Commie
Primaris Psyker vs whatever gak unit I've never used (sanctioned psykers?)
Company Commander vs Platoon Commander.

Other armies have options within their HQ slots to facilitate lower point games. Seriously, who took a Captain in 7th when a CM upgrade was available? Was it Captain Smashface?

Mechanically, there's no reason to move Platoon Coms from the elite slot.

PS: if the soup question was legit, it refers to taking "the best ingredients" from several sources / factions and mixing them together in a single list. Imperium Soup tends to take IG for bodies and board control, SM flavour of the month, a pinch of assassins, maybe a Knight, sprinkle of Custodes... you get the idea.

Ice_can wrote:

If you are loosing guard infantry squads to massed bolter fire your doing something wrong.
Infantry squads outshoot any marine with a bolter point for point all day everyday.
40points for 10W 5+Sv 4+in cover is quite tanky in 8th edition mechanics.
Almost every infantry weapon has 0ap now compaied to previous editions guard benifited a lot for the core mechanics changes. Taking a VP to killing 2 squads, 1 command squad and a charictor would make them even more offensively cheese to play against.

If you don't see how 10 T3 wounds at 5+ being worth 1 VP and 10 T4 wounds at 3+ also being worth 1 VP is not fair, I don't know what to tell you. Sure, point for point guard outshoots marines by a good margin, but when your army is something like 15 VPs while your opponent's army is 5 VPs, he gets 3x closer to victory then you do for destroying equal proportions of each others armies in the VP scenarios.

 skchsan wrote:

w1zard wrote:
I understand how it works. You aren't getting what I am saying. You are also being extremely rude for no reason.

User Kanluwen is known to be very emotional and outspoken when it comes to "nerfing" AM.

I wasn't suggesting nerfing AM, I have played AM since 3rd edition and am finally glad we are in a good spot. Re-introducing the platoon system (as long as it is done well) would go a long way toward giving our army even more character, as well as resolving some outstanding issues with balance (namely guard detachments being used as CP batteries). It would be more of a paradigm shift than a nerf.

 greatbigtree wrote:

Mechanically, there's no reason to move Platoon Coms from the elite slot.

Sure, but from a thematic standpoint it makes no sense. Why couldn't a Lieutenant lead a platoon sized element of IG into battle? Why does a regimental level officer have to oversee everything? It would be the equivalent of forcing marines to take captains as their HQs and having the Lieutenants be elites. It is also unfluffy in that the way it works now tends to make company commanders outnumber platoon commanders in pretty much every scenario, when in reality it should be exactly the opposite.

I gave up on 40k fitting my concepts of fluff a long time ago.

It doesn't make sense to provide *another* cheap HQ to Guard. They have one already. Mechanically, the problem with a Platoon Commander is that for 10 points more, you get another order. That's the short of it.

So CC are relatively undercosted compared to PC. That's the mechanical issue. Not the FOC. We have tons of Elite slots for specialist characters. Again, traditionally, that's where these characters have gone when there weren't considered "Non-FOC" units. A PC is on par with a Techpriest, medic (SM Apothecary), Priest (SM Lesser Chaplain) or Standard Bearer. Guard does not equal SM, or other similar factions. A Junior officer is more like a Nob than a Warboss. No matter where you look, mechanically speaking, with the exception of SM lieutenants, similar specialist individuals are put in the Elite FOC slot. It is the nature of what they are.

Moving back to platoon structure and required command squads for officers (make them one data sheet even if the officers operate separately to fit with other 8th HQs-like other units that must deploy together then are free to move on their own). This would fit in with the highly inflexible structured nature of the guard and would make adding a guard battalion less of a no-brainer. I think these type of restrictions actually make lists more interesting than "do what you want."

No objection to the Platoon structure, excluding the Sentinel experiment.

Vets might need to be reassigned to Troops. Minimum Platoon would be about 130 points, and three of those runs into the issue of small games being (no choice) minimum troops and Hq to build a brigade. I don't mind that, but it's not for everyone.

w1zard wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

If you are loosing guard infantry squads to massed bolter fire your doing something wrong.
Infantry squads outshoot any marine with a bolter point for point all day everyday.
40points for 10W 5+Sv 4+in cover is quite tanky in 8th edition mechanics.
Almost every infantry weapon has 0ap now compaied to previous editions guard benifited a lot for the core mechanics changes. Taking a VP to killing 2 squads, 1 command squad and a charictor would make them even more offensively cheese to play against.

If you don't see how 10 T3 wounds at 5+ being worth 1 VP and 10 T4 wounds at 3+ also being worth 1 VP is not fair, I don't know what to tell you. Sure, point for point guard outshoots marines by a good margin, but when your army is something like 15 VPs while your opponent's army is 5 VPs, he gets 3x closer to victory then you do for destroying equal proportions of each others armies in the VP scenarios.

1 VP don't matter when the marine player is tabled and automatically looses.
2 competitive marine lists don't have 10W in a squad they have 5 and they are rocking a 4+ save and still cost more than an infantry squad
3 Kill point victory is the one mission a hoard army should have an uphill struggle to win. It's the small counter balance to the advantage they have in stand up fights or objective scoring games.

 greatbigtree wrote:

So CC are relatively undercosted compared to PC. That's the mechanical issue. Not the FOC. We have tons of Elite slots for specialist characters. Again, traditionally, that's where these characters have gone when there weren't considered "Non-FOC" units. A PC is on par with a Techpriest, medic (SM Apothecary), Priest (SM Lesser Chaplain) or Standard Bearer. Guard does not equal SM, or other similar factions. A Junior officer is more like a Nob than a Warboss. No matter where you look, mechanically speaking, with the exception of SM lieutenants, similar specialist individuals are put in the Elite FOC slot. It is the nature of what they are.

Point conceded. It would still be nice though to have platoon commanders be more common than company commanders in any given list though and that is always going to happen as long as company commanders are HQs and platoon commanders are elites, simply because HQs are requirements.

Ice_can wrote:

1 VP don't matter when the marine player is tabled and automatically looses.
2 competitive marine lists don't have 10W in a squad they have 5 and they are rocking a 4+ save and still cost more than an infantry squad
3 Kill point victory is the one mission a hoard army should have an uphill struggle to win. It's the small counter balance to the advantage they have in stand up fights or objective scoring games.

1. Marines are weak this edition, we actually shouldn't be comparing guard to them because guard are about where they should be in terms of strength whereas marines need buffs, so this isn't a valid argument. VP are still very relevant against armies that can fight on par with guard.
2. See #1.
3. But it is not a "small counter balance". Kill 120 points of guardsmen and there goes THREE VP... hell kill a 4 man command squad (24 points) and there goes a VP, kill a 4 wound company commander (30 points) and there goes another VP. A guard army under fire leaks VPs like a sieve, and it is the only army in the game with this issue. Right now the only reason guard works in VP games is because we can prevent our infantry squads from granting VPs through abusing an oversight in the rules. I assume this is going to get fixed at some point so guard need something to compensate for that to function in VP scenarios. We are probably where we should be though in terms of other scenarios, with the possible exception that guardsmen may need to go to 5 points. However, if guardsmen do go to 5 points I expect quality of life improvements... like vanquishers and chimeras not being utterly garbage, and sergeants being able to take lasguns.

w1zard wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:

So CC are relatively undercosted compared to PC. That's the mechanical issue. Not the FOC. We have tons of Elite slots for specialist characters. Again, traditionally, that's where these characters have gone when there weren't considered "Non-FOC" units. A PC is on par with a Techpriest, medic (SM Apothecary), Priest (SM Lesser Chaplain) or Standard Bearer. Guard does not equal SM, or other similar factions. A Junior officer is more like a Nob than a Warboss. No matter where you look, mechanically speaking, with the exception of SM lieutenants, similar specialist individuals are put in the Elite FOC slot. It is the nature of what they are.

Point conceded. It would still be nice though to have platoon commanders be more common than company commanders in any given list though and that is always going to happen as long as company commanders are HQs and platoon commanders are elites, simply because HQs are requirements.

Until there is something a Platoon Commander can do that a Company Commander cannot do, it would never really play well.

You brought up Lieutenants and Captains earlier. Captains grant rerolls to Hit rolls of 1 in a bubble around them(bumped up to "reroll any Hit rolls" if you up them to a Chapter Master), Lieutenants grant rerolls to Wound rolls of 1. Lieutenants come as either solos or duos--Captains come as solos.

So what would you do for PCs that CCs don't already do? You can't really mess around with their Order nonsense--since Orders are set specifically to be hitting 1 unit 1 time each time an Order is done.

You really need to rework Orders entirely in order to do anything else with this, especially if you want to bring Platoons back. I had a whole system worked out at the launch of 8th but I don't care enough at this juncture to find it and repost it.
Basic gist was:
CCs grant an army-wide "order"(i.e.--"take objectives"), PCs grant a platoon-wide "order"(fire and move, dig in, whatever), and then lastly Sergeants grant a squad-wide "order"(reroll hits, reroll wounds, extra shots at expense of fighting in CC, etc)

1. Marines are weak this edition, we actually shouldn't be comparing guard to them because guard are about where they should be in terms of strength whereas marines need buffs, so this isn't a valid argument. VP are still very relevant against armies that can fight on par with guard.
2. See #1.

Kinda/sorta disagree and agree. Marines outside of a few builds are weak, but there's definitely some "oompf" there. A large part of it comes from the simple fact that Guilliman is a huge crutch for the faction as a whole to rely on and with Guard stuff thrown into the mix, you saw some early overperformance from that while things like Iron Hands and Raven Guard kinda just rot.

PS: I know that Raven Guard aren't awful, but once Dark Reapers hit the scene their benefit(-1 to be hit outside of 12") vanished. It goes to show how knife's-edge some of these codices are when it comes to balance. Guard have been dancing on that edge for awhile now, and we've definitely got some cuts on our soles because of their balance decisions.

3. But it is not a "small counter balance". Kill 120 points of guardsmen and there goes THREE VP... hell kill a 4 man command squad (24 points) and there goes a VP, kill a 4 wound company commander (30 points) and there goes another VP. A guard army under fire leaks VPs like a sieve, and it is the only army in the game with this issue. Right now the only reason guard works in VP games is because we can prevent our infantry squads from granting VPs through abusing an oversight in the rules. I assume this is going to get fixed at some point so guard need something to compensate for that to function in VP scenarios. We are probably where we should be though in terms of other scenarios, with the possible exception that guardsmen may need to go to 5 points. However, if guardsmen do go to 5 points I expect quality of life improvements... like vanquishers and chimeras not being utterly garbage, and sergeants being able to take lasguns.

And here's the rub: what real change do you think Platoons would make? Outside of putting them into blob squads again(which I'm vehemently against, I think that is a big part of what gets us into this mess to begin with), there's not really a whole lot outside of making it so that certain things don't count for KPs--which would just be silly.

 Kanluwen wrote:
...there's not really a whole lot outside of making it so that certain things don't count for KPs--which would just be silly.

Why would that be silly? You can have a rule embedded in the platoon rule that states you have to kill ALL of the infantry squads in that platoon in order to claim the VP.

That way, larger platoons would offer less VP and have less of a command squad/platoon commander points overhead (more infantry squads in relation)... with the trade-off of being less troop selections meaning less CP (due to smaller detachments) and less "goodies" like conscripts/HWS/SWS which would be limited on a by-platoon basis to 0-1 or something.

Kill points in general have always been unbalanced IMO. VP based on points seems better and then you don't have to have this conversation. As you balance things to be worth their points, this would just work better and better.

As for the IG, I think making the Commander have to come with his command squad, but letting the platoon commander be solo in the elite slot might help differentiate them some.

The old infantry platoon seems okay, but I think just fixing the way armies generate CP would be better than messing with that.

I'd personally prefer to see something like 1 cp per 100 points in the battle. Maybe 1 could per 150 instead, and then get rid of the different alternative FOC's.

Essentially, Battleforged armies that are either Brigades or Batallions give more CPs than armies that don't fit into those molds.

Maybe BF armies get 1 cp per 100 points, while non-BF armies get 1 cp per 200 points?

 greatbigtree wrote:
I'd personally prefer to see something like 1 cp per 100 points in the battle. Maybe 1 could per 150 instead, and then get rid of the different alternative FOC's.

Essentially, Battleforged armies that are either Brigades or Batallions give more CPs than armies that don't fit into those molds.

Maybe BF armies get 1 cp per 100 points, while non-BF armies get 1 cp per 200 points?

But then you are eliminating a vector for balancing armies, as in matched play both armies would have the same CP. Some armies have stronger stratagems then others (like custodes) so this wouldn't be fair. Also, it would eliminate the option of expanding your detachments to generate more CPs, vs having the detachments you need to get the units you want, which is an interesting mechanic.

I'm not going to lie, I haven't followed the use of strategems that closely. Like units, some will be more powerful / situational than others.

But both sides should have essentially the same number, because the game is supposed to be balanced. Functionally speaking, a wider, more diverse force SHOULD have fewer command points, if those points are meant to represent off-table resources the army can call upon. Like additional relics, orbital bombardments, coordinated reserve manipulation. It doesn't make sense from a logistical point of view.

If anything, you should start with a number of CP and then pay to have certain detachments. Battalions are free. Brigades cost 3 points. Lesser detachments cost 5. One-shot pieces cost 7.... I don't know.

The mixing and matching of detachments is a poor way to generate CP's. Why should a brigade, containing the minimum brigade and minimum "heavy" detachment pieces generate fewer CP then if someone bothers to place them in separate detachments? Why should someone get less CP if they (nonsensically) put a unit in the one-off slot?

I don't see CP generation as a useful balancing tool between armies. It rewards exploitive list construction... but that's it.

But I suppose this is a topic for proposed rules.

My bad for derailing.

 greatbigtree wrote:
I'm not going to lie, I haven't followed the use of strategems that closely. Like units, some will be more powerful / situational than others.

But both sides should have essentially the same number, because the game is supposed to be balanced. Functionally speaking, a wider, more diverse force SHOULD have fewer command points, if those points are meant to represent off-table resources the army can call upon. Like additional relics, orbital bombardments, coordinated reserve manipulation. It doesn't make sense from a logistical point of view.

If anything, you should start with a number of CP and then pay to have certain detachments. Battalions are free. Brigades cost 3 points. Lesser detachments cost 5. One-shot pieces cost 7.... I don't know.

The mixing and matching of detachments is a poor way to generate CP's. Why should a brigade, containing the minimum brigade and minimum "heavy" detachment pieces generate fewer CP then if someone bothers to place them in separate detachments? Why should someone get less CP if they (nonsensically) put a unit in the one-off slot?

I don't see CP generation as a useful balancing tool between armies. It rewards exploitive list construction... but that's it.

But I suppose this is a topic for proposed rules.

My bad for derailing.

Yeah we are getting off topic but I just wanted to state this last point.

If CPs are supposed to be equal across armies, AND stratagems are supposed to be equal in power across armies. Why even have them in the first place? It would make more sense to just get rid of them at that point and reduce the amount of balance variables for a better game. The game should strive for asymmetrical balance, not symmetrical balance.

 skchsan wrote:
What about:

-Move Platoon Commander to HQ, 30 pts, additional buff/ability to compensate increase in cost
-Recost Company Commander to HQ, 40 pts, additional buff/ability to compensate increase in cost

I actually really like this idea.

Nope. Already derailed once. I'll show myself out.

Back to the original thought, having them as a HQ unit by themselves would make AM CP batteries even cheaper, which I feel is bad. (Not by much admittedly, but still.)

However, allowing you to take 2-3 Platoon Commanders, as a single HQ unit choice for every Company Commander you have in the same detachment might work. It's not more points efficient, but it is more fluffier; and spreads your 'orders givers' out a bit.

I do personally like the Platoons thing, but that'd be a whole rewrite of the AM codex really, and how orders work probably - too much change at this point.