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.

Hmm........ i can see this actually working and also be a problem.

In making fluffy list it would be incredibly great i could already think of a few things that would work (Abbadon making terminators and/or chosen troop slots, Farsight making crisis suits troops, Karanak making flesh hounds troops)

But in saying that, i can see some things being a huge incentive to take them if the units you can swap out are better than standard troops (if you could make kharn turn Bezerkers into troop slots then a lot of people would run kharn with zerkers in rhino's as ur standard troops. No need for normal CSM or cultist when you can get far superior berzerkers as your object holders)

A few other things would also incentivize people to take them not because of the fluff factor, but rather because it's more efficient to do it from a gaming perspective, which in turn can effect the balance heavily (again with the kharn thing. Now zerkers are not restricted to the 3 unit limit cause they are now troops........... yea that is not a good sign)

RoW could work. But it'll leave some real serious problems if they weren't addressed

mchammadad wrote:
Hmm........ i can see this actually working and also be a problem.

In making fluffy list it would be incredibly great i could already think of a few things that would work (Abbadon making terminators and/or chosen troop slots, Farsight making crisis suits troops, Karanak making flesh hounds troops)

But in saying that, i can see some things being a huge incentive to take them if the units you can swap out are better than standard troops (if you could make kharn turn Bezerkers into troop slots then a lot of people would run kharn with zerkers in rhino's as ur standard troops. No need for normal CSM or cultist when you can get far superior berzerkers as your object holders)

A few other things would also incentivize people to take them not because of the fluff factor, but rather because it's more efficient to do it from a gaming perspective, which in turn can effect the balance heavily (again with the kharn thing. Now zerkers are not restricted to the 3 unit limit cause they are now troops........... yea that is not a good sign)

RoW could work. But it'll leave some real serious problems if they weren't addressed

On the other hand Cultists make for excellent screens which you NEED in 8th. And Zerkers are obviously more expensive so if you fill up on only them you end up spending a lot of your points over there. What are you missing out on by going Kharns RoW? A list that is a one trick pony ends up with a hard counter. If you invest so heavily in the Zerkers strategy then what happens when that hard counter is on the other side of the board?

mchammadad wrote:
Hmm........ i can see this actually working and also be a problem.

In making fluffy list it would be incredibly great i could already think of a few things that would work (Abbadon making terminators and/or chosen troop slots, Farsight making crisis suits troops, Karanak making flesh hounds troops)

You don't need any of that.

We have alternate FOCs. All we need is a rule tied to those characters for those things to become scoring and for them to generate additional CPs or something of that nature.

 Kanluwen wrote:

mchammadad wrote:
Hmm........ i can see this actually working and also be a problem.

In making fluffy list it would be incredibly great i could already think of a few things that would work (Abbadon making terminators and/or chosen troop slots, Farsight making crisis suits troops, Karanak making flesh hounds troops)

You don't need any of that.

We have alternate FOCs. All we need is a rule tied to those characters for those things to become scoring and for them to generate additional CPs or something of that nature.

Look, options and choices are great but so are restrictions. We could arguably just scrap FoCs all together right now because they serve basically no purpose in 8th. Just give everyone 12 CP and let them take whatever the feth they want. But it's not good to do that. Restriuctions force people to get innovative. I started wanting to play 2k games because it let me build a super optimized list with all my bells and whistles and now I really enjoy the 1250-1500 point scale because it forces me to make choices and trim fat. Those limitations make for more interesting lists.

The FoC charts available in 8th are a gross work around of any kind of limitation. You can literally grab the FoC of choice to spam the slot of choice. It's balls. Limiting players to the basic 7th FoC and a single allied detachment is a good limitation that forces players to make choices. The RoW open up options for you in how you fill out those very limited slots, but they all also come with restrictions from other choices.

Another example. Tyranid Sky Blight Swarm.

You must take a Hive Tyrant with wings as your warlord.
Gargoyles and Shrikes can be taken as troops
Mawlocs, Trygons, Ravenors, and the Red Terror may not be taken in the detachment.

New options. New restrictions. They same very limited number of slots. Just new ways to fill them out.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

mchammadad wrote:
Hmm........ i can see this actually working and also be a problem.

In making fluffy list it would be incredibly great i could already think of a few things that would work (Abbadon making terminators and/or chosen troop slots, Farsight making crisis suits troops, Karanak making flesh hounds troops)

You don't need any of that.

We have alternate FOCs. All we need is a rule tied to those characters for those things to become scoring and for them to generate additional CPs or something of that nature.

Look, options and choices are great but so are restrictions. We could arguably just scrap FoCs all together right now because they serve basically no purpose in 8th. Just give everyone 12 CP and let them take whatever the feth they want. But it's not good to do that. Restriuctions force people to get innovative. I started wanting to play 2k games because it let me build a super optimized list with all my bells and whistles and now I really enjoy the 1250-1500 point scale because it forces me to make choices and trim fat. Those limitations make for more interesting lists.

The FoC charts available in 8th are a gross work around of any kind of limitation. You can literally grab the FoC of choice to spam the slot of choice. It's balls. Limiting players to the basic 7th FoC and a single allied detachment is a good limitation that forces players to make choices. The RoW open up options for you in how you fill out those very limited slots, but they all also come with restrictions from other choices.

Another example. Tyranid Sky Blight Swarm.

You must take a Hive Tyrant with wings as your warlord.
Gargoyles and Shrikes can be taken as troops
Mawlocs, Trygons, Ravenors, and the Red Terror may not be taken in the detachment.

New options. New restrictions. They same very limited number of slots. Just new ways to fill them out.

you're saying formations but your example sounds more like the 7th edition pre-necron codex detachment rules. which seemed reasonably well received.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

mchammadad wrote:
Hmm........ i can see this actually working and also be a problem.

In making fluffy list it would be incredibly great i could already think of a few things that would work (Abbadon making terminators and/or chosen troop slots, Farsight making crisis suits troops, Karanak making flesh hounds troops)

You don't need any of that.

We have alternate FOCs. All we need is a rule tied to those characters for those things to become scoring and for them to generate additional CPs or something of that nature.

Look, options and choices are great but so are restrictions. We could arguably just scrap FoCs all together right now because they serve basically no purpose in 8th. Just give everyone 12 CP and let them take whatever the feth they want. But it's not good to do that. Restriuctions force people to get innovative. I started wanting to play 2k games because it let me build a super optimized list with all my bells and whistles and now I really enjoy the 1250-1500 point scale because it forces me to make choices and trim fat. Those limitations make for more interesting lists.

The FoC charts available in 8th are a gross work around of any kind of limitation. You can literally grab the FoC of choice to spam the slot of choice. It's balls. Limiting players to the basic 7th FoC and a single allied detachment is a good limitation that forces players to make choices. The RoW open up options for you in how you fill out those very limited slots, but they all also come with restrictions from other choices.

You know what doesn't let you work around a limitation? "The Rule of 3". Which specifically applies to things other than Troops...so your argument literally falls apart here.

Also restrictions don't do as much as you seem to think. That's why we're in this mess in the first place.

Another example. Tyranid Sky Blight Swarm.

You must take a Hive Tyrant with wings as your warlord.
Gargoyles and Shrikes can be taken as troops
Mawlocs, Trygons, Ravenors, and the Red Terror may not be taken in the detachment.

New options. New restrictions. They same very limited number of slots. Just new ways to fill them out.

Gargoyles, arguably, should be Troops to begin with. No argument there.

What you're asking for though is a return to book specific Detachments something that GW has specifically stated they don't want to do. It also looks like you want bonuses for taking specific things...which again lines up perfectly with what I'm suggesting here and have also suggested with regards to adding "Formations" ala AoS where you pay points(100+) and get a benefit for the units in that Formation.

I dont want bonuses for taking specific things. I dont want either part of that. Not specific things. Not bonuses.

 Lance845 wrote:
I dont want bonuses for taking specific things. I dont want either part of that. Not specific things. Not bonuses.

Well then you're in the wrong spot. This is a discussion specifically focused upon those ideas.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
I dont want bonuses for taking specific things. I dont want either part of that. Not specific things. Not bonuses.

Well then you're in the wrong spot. This is a discussion specifically focused upon those ideas.

What a ridiculous thing to say. Go back to post one and reread the thread. I am in exactly the right spot. Try to keep up with the flow of conversation.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
I dont want bonuses for taking specific things. I dont want either part of that. Not specific things. Not bonuses.

Well then you're in the wrong spot. This is a discussion specifically focused upon those ideas.

What a ridiculous thing to say. Go back to post one and reread the thread. I am in exactly the right spot. Try to keep up with the flow of conversation.

And go back to the post that you made. You gave a weird rambling speech about how options and choices are great and so are restrictions and some weird nonsense example of removing Mawlocs, Trygons, Raveners, and the Red Terror from a Detachment while requiring a Hive Tyrant with Wings as a Warlord and then literally tried to suggest it wasn't actually a formation.

You do understand that under the system that I'm proposing, which already exists in Age of Sigmar and is actually regarded fairly well there, that you would take your Detachment of a Hive Tyrant with Wings as your Warlord, take your Gargoyles, and then pay a certain number of points to turn those specific items into a "Skyblight Swarm" which gets some benefits only for those items right?

And that I've also proposed that the outlier Detachments such as Vanguard, Outrider,and Spearhead be turned into ones that can't be allied in as part of soup yeah? And that to address it, those Detachments should get higher base CP?

Of course you're not, because you just wanted to complain about people suggesting ways for Formations to work and still grant benefits.

 Kanluwen wrote:

And go back to the post that you made. You gave a weird rambling speech about how options and choices are great and so are restrictions and some weird nonsense example of removing Mawlocs, Trygons, Raveners, and the Red Terror from a Detachment while requiring a Hive Tyrant with Wings as a Warlord and then literally tried to suggest it wasn't actually a formation.

You do understand that under the system that I'm proposing, which already exists in Age of Sigmar and is actually regarded fairly well there, that you would take your Detachment of a Hive Tyrant with Wings as your Warlord, take your Gargoyles, and then pay a certain number of points to turn those specific items into a "Skyblight Swarm" which gets some benefits only for those items right?

And that I've also proposed that the outlier Detachments such as Vanguard, Outrider,and Spearhead be turned into ones that can't be allied in as part of soup yeah? And that to address it, those Detachments should get higher base CP?

Of course you're not, because you just wanted to complain about people suggesting ways for Formations to work and still grant benefits.

Jesus you have a lot of misconceptions and misunderstandings about what I am saying.

Lets try to clear this up.

1) It wasn't weird nonsense. It was a rough example of a potential RoW. A mechanic that exists in Warhammer 30k. Look into it. It is not a formation. It doesn't create a new detachment separate from the other detachments. It doesn't give bonus rules. It doesn't "cost points" and it doesn't require you to take Shrikes and Gargoyles. And for the recond, I DON'T think Gargs should be troops.

2) What you are suggesting is in no way similar to what I am suggesting. None. Not at all. The differences are fundamental. Lets talk about some benefits you suggest. Lets say your Skyblight Swarm "formation" lets Gargs, Shrikes, and Flyrants (the units in the formation) advance and charge. Would make sense! What point cost are you going to give that? Is it the same point cost with 1 flyrant, 1 unit of 3 shrikes and 2 units of 10 gargs as it is with 2 Flyrants, 1 unit of 9 shrikes and 2 units of 30 gargs? Can you see how you CANNOT possibly cost it effectively since the PPM doesn't actually change but the model counts can vary wildly? Formations are bad. And I don't care how well received AoS's version of them is. You can't balance them. They are bad.

3) I don't like the outlier detachments. They are one of the worst things in 8th. They are the reason you might as well not have detachments at all. Axe them. Up to 2 detachments with the restricted number of slots and then you don't need bandaid rules like "The rule of 3" to reign in the nonsense you allowed in the first place.

4) Restrictions force innovation. Choices are the building blocks you build it with. Formations that force you to take specific units eliminate choice and push players towards building in a predefined box. MY Skyblight Swarm could have 9 units of shrikes or 9 units of gargs, or 3 gargs 3 shrikes and 3 hormagaunts. Or 2 Genestealers, 1 Hormagaunt, 1 termagant, 2 shrikes and 2 gargs. Choices. What YOU suggest is that you get a prebuilt little package of 2 shrikes 3 gargs and a Flyrant and they all get bonus rules whether they consist of 37 models or 109 all for a flat cost? See the difference yet? Go ahead. Propose a way to balance your formation. I would LOVE to hear it.

Rites Of War function like formations though once you realize you only take specific ones to take specific units. Same with HQ Special Characters.

Well, yes. The point of the RoW is to emulate fluffy strategies by bringing more then you would normally be able to of certain types of units and restricting out units that don't fit with the theme of the subfaction/strategy.

But what they don't do is create all new detachments or hand out special rules to units. Which I would say is a far worse element then finding ways to bring units.

If we're going to bring something back, I'd rather it be Spearhead. being able to buff a small set of units through generic upgrades that everyone have equal access to and cost points vs giant dumps of special rules that are army wide but specific to certain armies that swing wildly between terrible and getting hundreds of free points for an army you were already playing.