Switch Theme:

Heavily Restrictive Thematic Formations?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





This is less a specific rule and more a request for your thoughts concerning a potential way of doing things. Obviously we all like being able to build lists in lots of different ways and to create our own unique flavor of playstyle. That said, what would you guys and gals think of using a very heavily restrictive form of force org chart/detachment exclusively when building armies? This would probably be mostly in the context of campaigns or other special situations where everyone is similarly restricted. Each detachment would be intended for games of about 2,000 points or less and give you thematic bonuses (y'know, like detachments theoretically do), but you'd also be forbidden from using certain units or from combining the detachment with a CAD, formations, decurions, etc.

So for instance, a Saim-Hann detachment would still let you take those nasty scatter bikes people love so much, but it would restrict how many infantry units you could have that aren't mounted in a transport. Partly for fluff reasons and largely for mechanical reasons, wraith knights wouldn't be allowed to be part of the detachment. As a detachment bonus, you might unlock Nuadu Fireheart as a character or gain some sort of outflanking ability to reflect the ability of bikes to rapidly reposition themselves and attack from unexpected angles. Without land-raider busters like the wraith knight, those scatter bikes have a serious weakness in the form of AV 13, but they can still take a limited number of fire dragons, storm guardians, and plenty of bright lance shots to deal with that sort of thing.

And you would, of course, design the detachments with balance against one another in mind, tweaking them to tone down some of the more severe imbalances that have popped up in the meta. If you like mixing together an army from 3 different books to make the most terrifying cheese tornado you can, this rules set probably isn't for you. Instead of playing against 3 wraith knights and scatter bikes with a wraithguard d-scythe squad arriving via webway portal against an adamantine lance backed up by skitariii in Blood Angels drop pods, you'd be playing a certain Tau S'ept versus a specific kabal, theoretically with forces that represent the fluff well on both sides. Here's how I see it:

CONS
* More restrictive list building prevents mechanical gimmicks some people like.
* Restrictive list building potentially prevents people from representing their own homebrew fluff.
* People don't like change.
* Some people will complain that the detachments prevent super murder combos. These complaints will mostly come from people who like to use said super murder combos.

PROS
*Presents a chance to step back from the Decurion-style shenanigans that many people are unhappy about.
*Presents a chance to do away with some of the nastier combos that many people don't like facing (like webway d-scythes, wraithknights + scatter bikes, etc.)
*Allows for additional fluffy special rules!
*Presents a chance to provide a flavorful way of playing factions that struggle to be fluffy right now. Here's looking at you Alpha Legion and Thousand Sons.


ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






I never played HH but the ROW they have do this in a less ham-fisted way. They shift the FOC around so a Legion that wants more of one slot gets that, but has less of every other slot, or is required to take more of two particular slots than the rest of the FOC combined.

I would take formations as published and errata- in specific "0- per force" restrictions.

I went to Hershey Park in central PA this year, and I have to say I was more than a little disappointed. I fully expected the entire theme park to be make entirely of chocolate, but no. Here in America, we have "building codes," and some other nonsense about chocolate melting if don't store it someplace kept below room temperature. 
   
Made in us
Xeno-Hating Inquisitorial Excruciator





If youve ever played planetfll from spartan games i quite like the helix system they use in that. One core element with 6 other elements arranged around it of all different types. To get more of one type you sacrifice the slot directly opposite but t means only a maximum of two fo half your types. Ive really butchered the explanation but its a good system.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




I mean if you actually make them more thematic (aka restricting models in the army so they are balanced and fluffy) it would be like warmachine tier lists. GW in no way wants this as it leads to less model sales then the 0 restrictions from current formations. Its how formations should be (I mean this was the original idea in warmachine where formations were clearly taken from), but it will never happen.
   
Made in gb
Lieutenant Colonel




I think this idea is very workable if I have understood it right.
If every faction has several themes , eg.

Foot Slogging infantry
Mechanised infantry,
Scout /recon.
Air cav/air borne.
Armoured Assault.
Deep strike assault.
Special/Elite forces .

And the stronger the theme, the more restriction on units available.

EG a Foot slogger list gets a wider range of support options,(armour, artillery ,air strikes, and deep striking units.etc.)Than a Deep Strike assault force might get.(Only air strikes perhaps.)

Would my alternative F.O.C based on unit rarity be something along the line you were thinking about Wyldhunt?

   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: