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.

I'd also incentivize CAD more with something like this: "Any player who's army consists of only a Combined Arms Detachment or a Combined Arms Detachment and an Allied Detachment may pick a second warlord trait from the warlord trait tables available to the players model after the first trait is rolled.
AND

Either: In addition you may take an additional 50pts of warhear for your warlord for free OR In addition all models that are part of this army are treated as battle brothers as shown on the Allies Matrix chart."

The way to fic the CAD/AD ie classic FOC is to not let formations break the game. We got introduced to formations with reasonable bonuses, sure the FBSC was a bit much, but most were reasonable, the Detachments consisting of Formations became a thing, each granting better and better bonuses which are stackable. Formationhammer 40k became real, and it throws any illusion of balance out the window.

You might be right its just not the route I was going to go to try to fix it.

Now, the "treated as Battle Brothers" thing just might be enough incentive. It'd be nasty, that's for sure - remember 6e Taudar? Well, same Tau, Eldar better if anything - same shenanigans (mostly).

So, yeah, I'm not sure that'd be a great idea. As someone who plays both Tau and Eldar, I wouldn't mind that - and I wouldn't mind having IOM and Eldar as BBs either, but I think it could easily be gamebreaking.

The balancing factor is /supposed/ to be that formations force you to take units you might not otherwise want (like Vaul's Wrath Support Batteries for Eldar, or Gargoyles for Tyranids), but in too many cases, either everything's great anyway so that's no loss, or the bonuses are so huge that even taking a few wonky units doesn't hurt the whole. It's all out of phase right now. We'll see how that shakes out.

I'm more in the ban formations camp. They limit creative freedom and break the game.

 Zagman wrote:
The way to fic the CAD/AD ie classic FOC is to not let formations break the game. We got introduced to formations with reasonable bonuses, sure the FBSC was a bit much, but most were reasonable, the Detachments consisting of Formations became a thing, each granting better and better bonuses which are stackable. Formationhammer 40k became real, and it throws any illusion of balance out the window.

Yep.
I'm in favor of "alternate FOC" formations, like nemesis strike or champions of fenris cause they give you a more fluffy way to field your forces that you can no longer do since FOC swap characters became (mostly) extinct. I don't like things like FBSC or skyhammer that just give you more stuff that you can add on to an existing army. I also hate Decurion-style formations with a passion, it makes army selection way too complicated...just give the units those special rules and an alternate FOC (one or 2 per codex is good) and be done with it. Then we could go back to playing single FOC 40K, maybeee an allied detachment, and have inherent limits in each army and a metagame (unless you're eldar and have everything in your codex, feth them).

 Zagman wrote:
The way to fic the CAD/AD ie classic FOC is to not let formations break the game.

Exactly. You can't bring back the CAD without making it just as overpowered as the worst formations/detachments, and if you do that you're just adding to the list of broken stuff. The correct approach is to nerf the overpowered formations/detachments so they're no longer such obvious choices and put a limit on how many formations/detachments you can put in an army. For example, you could add a rule that your primary detachment has to have at least 75% of your points, which would put a strict limit on how many special formations you can take. Combine that with a nerfing of the worst offenders and you make formations "this would be a nice support option for my main force" instead of "how can I organize the units I'm already taking to maximize the overpowered special rules they get".

I always found the CAD too restrictive - I like to play an all-canoptek army because I love the idea of a legion of janitors/guardians protecting their sleeping masters' tombs, but with CAD enforced I always had to include one or two awakened masters in the list, which annoyed me.

That said, if formations were more like alternate CADs than the way they are now, it would be a good change. Rather than "take X units, gain X benefit", something more like the Flesh Tearers' "get extra fast attack in exchange for fewer troops" would be a much better way of doing it.

I wrote proposed rules awhile back (before Scatterbikes were a thing...*cough cough*) that were based on the normal CAD, but rather than 6 Troops, you chose whether to have +3 Troops/Elites/FA/HS, and got a different bonus accordingly. The idea was based on the concept that each Faction should have at least one "Elite" theme build (tech), one "standard" build (attrition), one "fast" and one "heavy". Whether an Armored Krumpany, a Tempestus strike force, Logan wing, etc...

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/641944.page

They should have done this: Only Troop units score, but in a CAD, all units count as scoring.

That would have made taking a CAD meaningful.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
I always found the CAD too restrictive - I like to play an all-canoptek army because I love the idea of a legion of janitors/guardians protecting their sleeping masters' tombs, but with CAD enforced I always had to include one or two awakened masters in the list, which annoyed me.

That's why Unbound was added as a way of building an army.

 jasper76 wrote:
They should have done this: Only Troop units score, but in a CAD, all units count as scoring.

That would have made taking a CAD meaningful.

Actually this would be a pretty good fix.

My this looks complicated for what it does.

Why not go back to basics and have simple proportional scaling over the rarity of units in a particular force , decided by the HQ?
Eg rather than class units by 'function' ..fast attack ..heavy support..and elite.
Class how common they re in that particular force.With the HQ unit setting the theme.Eg a White Scar SM HQ mounted on bikes allows bike units to be taken as common units .

EG
Select HQ.

Then select 2 to 8 Common units.

Then select up to one Specialized unit for every 2 Common units selected.

Then select up to one Restricted unit for every 2 Specialized unit selected.

(Then select up to one Support choice, for every 8 common units selected.Optional for larger games to include fortifications lords of war etc.)

The HQ you select determine which units count as Common Specialized and Restricted for that list.

This way players can make more heavily themed lists , without having to use 'named HQs' to break artificial restrictions from slots tied to unit function.

I may need to explain that better?

 J3f wrote:
I'm more in the ban formations camp. They limit creative freedom and break the game.

Wouldn't Banning formations be limiting creative freedom by removing more options?

Not sure for Eldar and necrons. but im having a ton of issues building with Glads. The demi company ends up taking a ton of points unless taken as tax models at which point they become pretty sub optimal usually sitting back and doing nothing.

I think it adds a bit more brain picking for people.

Lanrak wrote:
My this looks complicated for what it does.

Why not go back to basics and have simple proportional scaling over the rarity of units in a particular force , decided by the HQ?
Eg rather than class units by 'function' ..fast attack ..heavy support..and elite.
Class how common they re in that particular force.With the HQ unit setting the theme.Eg a White Scar SM HQ mounted on bikes allows bike units to be taken as common units .

EG
Select HQ.

Then select 2 to 8 Common units.

Then select up to one Specialized unit for every 2 Common units selected.

Then select up to one Restricted unit for every 2 Specialized unit selected.

(Then select up to one Support choice, for every 8 common units selected.Optional for larger games to include fortifications lords of war etc.)

The HQ you select determine which units count as Common Specialized and Restricted for that list.

This way players can make more heavily themed lists , without having to use 'named HQs' to break artificial restrictions from slots tied to unit function.

I may need to explain that better?

I see what you mean there. Percentage of points might be better than raw numbers, but that's an implementation nitpick. That would cut down on spam while still allowing interesting lists that aren't just "fill the table with lasgun-toting guybrushes, because that's all you're allowed".

A few armies might be hurt by having poor "Common" choices, but then, nothing says that "Common" has to map onto "Troops" currently.

@jade_angel.
I would hope we could totally ignore the current 'slot names' (Troops, Elite, Fast Attack, Heavy Support,)and correct the two flaws in force design they inflict on players.

Primarily, as already stated, this method limits players to 'generic lists with slight twists.'
You can not have any of the stronger themes , without having to resort to 'Special character unlocks' /completely separate lists.
Considering the huge and diverse range of force composition and play styles in the background of 40k , the Regiments, Klans , Chapters, Craftworlds , Hive Fleets etc.I think this artificial limitation is a disservice to the 40k IP.

Secondary , the artificial way it divides the force into set functions,totally detracts players from exploring multiple synergies within force composition!

A lot of players just look for the most cost effective Elite, Fast Attack, Heavy Support choice .And spam these as much as they can while taking the minimum amount of 'weak/boring' troop options.
Hardly conducive to 'forging a narrative', or even following established themes in the rich background material.

I would much prefer the units that can be taken in the entire race/ faction listed first.
Then then multiple themed lists cover 6 to 12 different themes .You could list the well known 'named' versions of these themes as examples.

Eg for Orks we could have.

Bad Moon ('Elite' as Orks get!Biggest gunz and Ardest Armour.)

Blood Axe,(Militaristic focus /special forces.)

Death Skulls (Get a bit of everything,from salvaging, (some say stealing)equipment from other KlanzThe standard current list. ),

Evil Sunz (Mobile/motorized Infantry)

Goffs,(Foot slogging Infantry hoard)

Kult Of Speed , (Recon/ fast attack.)

Snake Bite, (Primitive /low tech War band.)


This way we can include some more stronger themed units like Boar Boys and Squiggoths.
Without having them appear in any lists other than (Snakebite )Primitive Ork hoard type lists.

I think it would be important to balance list bonuses with real drawbacks , that are proportionate and in keeping with the theme of the force.

Offering a wider selection of themes would allow a much wider range of diversity in the games of 40k that actually get played.This would be a good thing IMO.


Another way we could cover more themed lists would be to borrow an idea from Epic Space Marine.
Select an HQ as normal.This will list the 'Core force ' (Epic Company card) that can be selected with that particular HQ..

This 'Core Force' is a 4 unit selection that sets the core theme of the force.The 4 units that are always found in a force with that theme.
(These units are not restricted to current Troops choices.But are an appropriate mix of units based on the core theme.)

The Core force you select will determine which 2 Specialized units you may select.

The two Specialized units you take , (if you want to) , determine the Restricted unit you may take. (If you want to.)

This also makes force selection a lot easier, and allows players to simply pick a theme they like and build a force in simple steps.

Select a HQ ,
Pick a themed Core force from those allowed by the HQ.
Select up to two Specialized units allowed by the Core Force.
Select a Restricted units allowed by the Specialized units ,(if you take them.)

The player has the choice of adding a duplicate Core force attached to the original HQ, after they add two Specialized units to the original Core force.

Or selecting a New HQ and Core force , after they have attached two Specialized , and a Restricted unit to the original Core force.

I probably need to explain that better?

However, using unit 'rarity ' in classification of 'slots' is much better than using unit 'function'.No matter if you use percentages or direct ratios to control 'rarity' composition.

I may not have explained it that well.
But the idea is as units are classed by rarity , that means that special characters and specific codex books are not needed to overcome the restrictions of classification by function.

EG for space marines a 'Death Wing'(First company Elite list where 'Elite' units are 'Common') list can be covered with the same FoC as a White Scars list .(A fast attack list where fast attack units are common.)

Just the Common, Specialized and Restricted classification changes for each theme of of list.

Space wolf units can only be used with Space wolf HQs , in the same way Snakebite units ,(boar boys wild boys , Squiggoths ) can only be use with Snakebite HQs.

There are several ways to structure the composition.

But do you think classing units by rarity rather than function will unlock the F.O.C. and make more varied list something players can use and enjoy?

Yeah, I think it could. It would need a rather extensive set of house rules, similar to but probably more extensive than the balance errata that Zagman's been doing.

The various FOC-slot-shifting bits that were floating around in 5th and 6th were headed in this direction, a little. Of course, formations kicked all that into the air, so...

Lanrak wrote:
My this looks complicated for what it does.

Why not go back to basics and have simple proportional scaling over the rarity of units in a particular force , decided by the HQ?
Eg rather than class units by 'function' ..fast attack ..heavy support..and elite.
Class how common they re in that particular force.With the HQ unit setting the theme.Eg a White Scar SM HQ mounted on bikes allows bike units to be taken as common units .

EG
Select HQ.

Then select 2 to 8 Common units.

Then select up to one Specialized unit for every 2 Common units selected.

Then select up to one Restricted unit for every 2 Specialized unit selected.

(Then select up to one Support choice, for every 8 common units selected.Optional for larger games to include fortifications lords of war etc.)

The HQ you select determine which units count as Common Specialized and Restricted for that list.

This way players can make more heavily themed lists , without having to use 'named HQs' to break artificial restrictions from slots tied to unit function.

I may need to explain that better?

I don't think I'd consider that to be less complicated, but I like it. The two main problems I see with it are A.) It makes troops which are already often lackluster even less appealing. See the thread about "core units" for my thoughts there. B.) Some thematic lists are simply more powerful than others. So an autarch or farseer on a jetbike might make scatterbikes a common choice, but they're always going to outperform the jump pack captain's assault marine army.

Edit: Not that B. isn't already a problem anyway.

Edit: @MagicJuggler: I remember you making those rules! They looked promising!

@Wyldhunt.
I would propose that the theme that has the current 'troops' units as Common choices .Would have access to a much wider range of choice in the Specialized and Restricted slots
And possibly get SLIGHT thematic bonuses, Eg a Goff Warband allows ANY Boys mobs to be upgraded to Ard Boys.(Not just one per army.)

Where as the further along a theme a list goes, it looses 'counter theme' options.

Eg
The 'fast attack themed ' list can not take some 'heavy support units' in support.(Specialized and Restricted.)

This is the other reason I was thinking about buying a 'Core' of 4 units to start the theme.
As this can cut out 'unit spamming ' as it allows a more synergistic background focused way to balance out the themes.

Eg if for example Ork Warbikers were considered OP.( I am not as familiar with Eldar as I am with Orks. so this is just an example to show how we can balance the units 'organically' during F.O.C composition)

In a K.O.S. list where Warbikes are 'on theme.'

HQ
Ork Warboss on warbike (With retinue options.)

K.O.S Core ,
Select 4 Common units from the Following.
1 to 2 Warbikers.
0 to 2 Warbuggy/trak Skwadrons
0 to 2 Deffkopters.

Specialized units.
0 to 2 Trukk boys mobs.
0 to 2 Gun trukks
0 to1 Scrappaz Mob.(Burna Boys in a trukk, must include 2 Warbuggy/trak Skwadrons in the Core .)
0 to 1 Nobz Warbikes (Must include 2 Warbikers in the Core .)

Restricted units.
0 to 1 Battlewaggon.
0 to 1 Mekboy Speedstaz Skwadron.(Must include 'Scrappaz' unit in Specialized units.)
0 to 1 Fighta Bomma Skwadron .(Must include a Deffkopters unit in the Core.)

This is just a made up example off the top of my head.
The idea is we use 'new' units to fill the gaps if a particular themed army is far to fragile in areas when particular units are selected.
And we use the combined arms approach to tone down the number of the most powerful units, to stop spamming in lists.

This allows lots of player choice in army selection, but tries to curb excesses while keeping any force selected on theme, but at a moderated power level.
Remember the army book will include 6 to 12 lists like this to cover all the themes and faction options.

A unrestricted selection would allow a KoS army to just over load on 'OP bikers.'
Eg
HQ
War boss on warbike and retinue.

Common .
8 X warbikers,

Specialized
4 X Nobs On Warbikes .

Restricted
Any thing you like as the list is so OP at this point its makes no difference.

This was just an example pretending that Orks on warbikes are OP and Nobs on warbikes are super OP.JUST for the sake of illustrating the proposed method.

I am not saying Ork bikers are OP.

I'd try playing that, Lanrak!

I'm not sure if you're familiar with dropzone commander but, I think the way it makes you choose your list would work well with 40k. You are allowed so many different battle groups depending on the points your playing. You would have an he battle group that would consist of your warlord, a support unit like a command squad. Your infantry battle group would included your troops and their transports and maybe a support unit. Your armored battle group would consist of a vehicle or vehicles and maybe a dev squad. Each army would have a battle group chart that would fit their background and then away you go.

@scitech.
I agree that buying units in groups is a good way to address the synergistic balance in a natural and unobtrusive way.

But the huge variety of units available in 40k mean that the amount of ' unit group' options and composition has to be more detailed and varied.IMO.

My proposed variation on this method is posted a bit earlier in this thread.

The HQ and 4 Core units in the Primary group, allow a theme to be developed and power levels to be moderated .
The 1st expansion of 2 Specialist and ! Restricted , can round out the force.

Then the player has the option to;-

A)Select an additional 4 Core units , (a secondary group)to add to his primary HQ. (For 8 Core units in total .)
And add 2 extra Specialized and 1 Restricted unit.(For 4 Specialized and 2 Restricted in total.)

Or

B)Select an 'Allied HQ and Core ' from another theme from that race/faction.

We are currently playing the rule that Allied HQ& Core units can not select Specialized and Restricted units. This stops players using 'allies' to over compensate for tactical drawbacks if they go for a heavy primary theme. EG We are trying to prevent using allies to cherry pick optimal builds , that are completely counter intuitive.

We have found buying units in groups , makes army selection a lot quicker and more flexible.(But the options and compositions need a huge amount of play testing.)