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.

So to cut to the quick, I think GW needs to introduce a modern tournament format. They've done a decent job streamlining the game with 8E, but right now, FLG sets an arbitrary 2000 point limit that feels like a compromise, with neither the balance of low points nor the variety that comes with high points. This results in many problems:

A. Excessive game time: Longer game times mean fewer games, fewer rounds. While 8E has halved game times, they need to come down to 60 minutes.
B. Spam: Players are incentivised to spam efficient units to build up an effective points lead. This exaggerates imbalances in the game.
C. First-mover advantage: The higher the points go, the easier it is for players to throw knockout punches on turn one.
D. Limited counter-play: Players cannot diversify their armies with counter-play tools for fear of taking dead points. Thus, only dominant strategies are viable.

And yes, there are the business aspects as well. GW needs to sell more models, and Warhammer needs to move into the streaming realm, which is not happening if games drag on for 90 minutes because every other army has 100+ Conscripts and Boyz.

So here's my proposal for a very simple format:

1. A legal army shall consist of no more than 3 detachments valued at no more than 2500 points
3. Players take turns deploying units and may deploy no more than 1250 points of their army. If a detachment has HQs, all of them must be deployed before non-HQ units.
4. Game surfaces will be exactly 6'x4' in dimensions.

Other improvements, in areas such as command points and warlord traits, might be helpful as well, but I just wanted to start here.

Why do HQs have to be deployed first?

Why 2500 points?

Why only half the army? And what if you have no reserves?

What if you want to deepstrike an HQ?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Why do HQs have to be deployed first?

To force players to plan their detachments more carefully instead of spamming.

To provide an example, imagine you have Girlyman, Cawl, and Celestine with one BFF. That's 810 points. 64.8% of your army. If you planned three detachments with these three characters as the HQs, if you wanted to access the slots of all three, you need to pay their "tax."

Then there are the armies out there that spam HQs. By limiting their detachments to three and forcing them to drop HQs first, you limit the number of Crisis Commanders or Malefic Lords on the board.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Why 2500 points? Why only half the army? And what if you have no reserves?

1250 points allows you to accommodate extremely non-granular units while still getting a low point count game. (You can squeeze two Knights with a smaller detachment into this point count.) 2500 points gives players a 25% buffer on their existing armies for a third detachment.

It doesn't matter if you have reserves or not.

 JNAProductions wrote:
What if you want to deepstrike an HQ?

Deploy it to reserves, just as you currently do.

So you're saying you write a 2500 point list, but play a 1250 point game?

1. A legal army shall consist of no more than 3 detachments valued at no more than 2500 points

If you want to avoid spamming, 3 detachements is already plenty. How about adding no duplicate detachements? Personally I would ban all spam detachements (but I know a lot of power players and tournament players get furious of the idea and then come with a ridiculous fluff argument that it should be possible because there is some novel published by the guys that are pushing the models that say they can...), they are what makes the game a spam game...

3. Players take turns deploying units and may deploy no more than 1250 points of their army. If a detachment has HQs, all of them must be deployed before non-HQ units.

Although the intention is noble, I know that I my LGS this would make deployment very time consuming. People start thinking very long before deploying, not wanting to make mistakes, recalculating before starting to deploy etc... IMHO armylists should be made at home so that you win time on the playing part. Having just as much on the field as next to the field is a bit to open. If you really want to go in that direction, would having something like a 1250 list with x 500pts sideboard not be easier/faster?

Deploying HQ's first is a bit taking away some tactical advantages, and it feels wrong. Only in star trek does the captain beams to the dangerous area first. In a more real scenario, first come the scouts and then tactical deployment on the intel received.
Alternatively, you could deploy a detachement at a time instead of a unit. That way all hq's of a detachement have to be included?

4. Game surfaces will be exactly 6'x4' in dimensions.

I can understand where that is coming from. But isn't that how it would be following the rulebook for a 1250 game, I thought only 1000 and lower were small table and 2500 and higher bigger?

JNAProductions wrote:So you're saying you write a 2500 point list, but play a 1250 point game?

Yes.

minisnatcher wrote:If you want to avoid spamming, 3 detachements is already plenty. How about adding no duplicate detachements? Personally I would ban all spam detachements (but I know a lot of power players and tournament players get furious of the idea and then come with a ridiculous fluff argument that it should be possible because there is some novel published by the guys that are pushing the models that say they can...), they are what makes the game a spam game...

Hm. Not sure about banning duplicate detachments, since armies do just involve multiple detachments of the same type. I think the best way to stop spam is to decrease the margin of

minisnatcher wrote:Although the intention is noble, I know that I my LGS this would make deployment very time consuming. People start thinking very long before deploying, not wanting to make mistakes, recalculating before starting to deploy etc... IMHO armylists should be made at home so that you win time on the playing part. Having just as much on the field as next to the field is a bit to open. If you really want to go in that direction, would having something like a 1250 list with x 500pts sideboard not be easier/faster?

The time savings for reducing an army from 2000 to 1250 points would allow for a set deployment time. If anyone slow plays past the deployment time, DQ them.

You make a good case for something like power level or rounding every total unit cost to a multiple of 5 or 10 though.

As for a sideboard, given how everything still needs to be battleforged, it seems like my proposal, but with a 1750 point list.

JNAProductions wrote:Deploying HQ's first is a bit taking away some tactical advantages, and it feels wrong. Only in star trek does the captain beams to the dangerous area first. In a more real scenario, first come the scouts and then tactical deployment on the intel received.
Alternatively, you could deploy a detachement at a time instead of a unit. That way all hq's of a detachement have to be included?

Yes. That is the idea.

Hm. Deploying an entire detachment at a time would require us to have much more granular detachments.

JNAProductions wrote:I can understand where that is coming from. But isn't that how it would be following the rulebook for a 1250 game, I thought only 1000 and lower were small table and 2500 and higher bigger?

I don't think it's a hard rule, but an assumption.

Hm. Not sure about banning duplicate detachments, since armies do just involve multiple detachments of the same type. I think the best way to stop spam is to decrease the margin of

But by having to deploy hqs first you a re basically punishing anyone to bring a battalion or bigger detachement (3 hq tax) and promoting spam detachement (1hq tax).

Having no duplicate detachements does not exclude you from bringing more of the same, as most stuff also fits in other slots of other detachments, it just increases the tax for spamming.
Want more then 5 heavy support units, you can but you will need to pay the tax of another detachment with heavy support slots and not just 2 hq's for 10 heavy supports. IG will laugh at the tax requirement for multiple spam detachements, every elite army will be punished by the multiple rule.

Hm. Deploying an entire detachment at a time would require us to have much more granular detachments.

How about first fielding the "tax" = detachment requirements?

 minisnatcher wrote:
But by having to deploy hqs first you a re basically punishing anyone to bring a battalion or bigger detachement (3 hq tax) and promoting spam detachement (1hq tax).

Having no duplicate detachements does not exclude you from bringing more of the same, as most stuff also fits in other slots of other detachments, it just increases the tax for spamming.
Want more then 5 heavy support units, you can but you will need to pay the tax of another detachment with heavy support slots and not just 2 hq's for 10 heavy supports. IG will laugh at the tax requirement for multiple spam detachements, every elite army will be punished by the multiple rule.

Yes. Armies that spam HQs are disadvantaged in deployment. Armies that spam detachments can only spam three.

Although youve clearly put some effort into this idea. I have to say I disagree with most of your ideas. They work in theory but in practice would make deployment take far longer than it does now since people will have to be tallying up what theyve deployed/what theyve squeezed in. And also it will massively encourage MSU spam. If you took large units you would be at risk of getting caught under 1250 and being at a disadvantage. Also the "lower game time" is easily solved by playing smaller size games to begin with. If you dont want to play a longer game then dont but you shouldnt expect other people to agree with you that over 1hr is too long for any game. Also deploying hqs first would probably cause a few issues. I agree with you on the firsg turn advantage but i think the issue can be solved with more terrain or a 5th ed "dawn of war" style deployment where 1hq and 2 troops.were deployed and then during your first turn you walked on the rest of your army. Maybe give players the option of "walking on" any units they want to first turn.

Sayingthat. Why dont you try and organise a tournament with these rules and see how it goes?

Coming back to 40k from 3rd/4th edition times, I find the whole detachment shenanigans to be ridiculous in the extreme.

I understand their usefulness in making semi-balanced lists for more casual play or narrative missions. But in a tournament, everyone should be forced to use the standard battalion detachment, no more, no less. Moreover, eliminate the crazy levels of allied units / mixed army lists.

Final Destination, Fox only, no items.

Jokes aside, I personally would get around that ruleset by building exactly two 1250 point "detachments", which are actually entirely independent army lists. Probably one infantry skew and one armor skew. Because I can't be bothered to pick and choose individual units on the spot from a partial detachment.

Which for me means you could toss out that entire convoluted structure and just say it's a 1250 point game.

However, I can definitely see some people who would use up a good chunk of the 60 minutes picking and choosing models across three different detachments, agonizing over whether they've tailored *just right* for the current opponent.

Especially since even at 1250, 60 minutes might already be a bit tight for high model-count armies.

Suzuteo wrote:
Excessive game time: Longer game times mean fewer games, fewer rounds. While 8E has halved game times, they need to come down to 60 minutes.

This right here just immediately bothered me, and is my biggest problem with this whole suggestion. Why would anybody want this? I don't know about you, but for me, this is one of my main hobbies. I enjoy composing a good army, painting them, setting up a nice terrain setup, getting everything on the table, and playing the game. 40k has always been a long game, and while It's good to be moving away from 5-hours to complete two turns games that you never actually get to finish, turning 40k into a one hour game would completely change it. It honestly kind of reads as a a situation of you trying to turn a game that doesn't suit you into something it isn't to jive with what you want.

And yes, there are the business aspects as well. GW needs to sell more models, and Warhammer needs to move into the streaming realm, which is not happening if games drag on for 90 minutes because every other army has 100+ Conscripts and Boyz.

This is narrative. Imperial guard armies should have 100 conscripts. That's what the Imperium does, hurls men by the millions into a meat grinder. Orks should have 100 Boyz, that's what they do, swarm over everything in a green tide. People picked those armies because they liked those things

So here's my proposal for a very simple format:

1. A legal army shall consist of no more than 3 detachments valued at no more than 2500 points
3. Players take turns deploying units and may deploy no more than 1250 points of their army. If a detachment has HQs, all of them must be deployed before non-HQ units.
4. Game surfaces will be exactly 6'x4' in dimensions.

I'm not really seeing where this changes much of anything, since 2500 points is fairly common for tournaments, and 6'x4' is, again, fairly standard, and many tournaments already limit detachments. I'm definitely not seeing where it improves anything, since now I would have to slog the exact same number of models to a tournament, except I can only use half my army, Í have to somehow magic my army into such a way that a 2500 point army can easily be broken into 1250 point pieces, which isn't exactly easy, unless I literally build multiple 1250 or 625 lists and stick them together into a clunky mass, and I'm then having to deploy my mangled army in a ridiculous, counter-intuitive way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mezmorki wrote:
Coming back to 40k from 3rd/4th edition times, I find the whole detachment shenanigans to be ridiculous in the extreme.

I understand their usefulness in making semi-balanced lists for more casual play or narrative missions. But in a tournament, everyone should be forced to use the standard battalion detachment, no more, no less. Moreover, eliminate the crazy levels of allied units / mixed army lists.

This would completely destroy many armies' ability to play to their style and destroy the point of having any differentiation. You might as well just convert the game to a game where everyone just pushes the same number of monotone cubes around and rolls dice, some sort of chess for extreme masochist.

Dark Eldar are supposed to be fast, vicious, piratical, striking out nowhere on jetbike and raiders, killing and flaying and then disappearing again. To say "oh, Dark Eldar should have to take the standard Battalion, because I think detachments are stupid", when an Outriders detachment makes way more sense, is ridiculous.

Space Wolves rally around great heroes, the living legends of the chapter. Saying, hey, you can't take a High Command detachment because I think you should run the same list as everyone else destroys their uniqueness.

I'm sorry, but detachments are a massive improvement compared to the stilted FoCs of previous editions.

AnFéasógMór wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mezmorki wrote:
Coming back to 40k from 3rd/4th edition times, I find the whole detachment shenanigans to be ridiculous in the extreme.

I understand their usefulness in making semi-balanced lists for more casual play or narrative missions. But in a tournament, everyone should be forced to use the standard battalion detachment, no more, no less. Moreover, eliminate the crazy levels of allied units / mixed army lists.

This would completely destroy many armies' ability to play to their style and destroy the point of having any differentiation. You might as well just convert the game to a game where everyone just pushes the same number of monotone cubes around and rolls dice, some sort of chess for extreme masochist.

Dark Eldar are supposed to be fast, vicious, piratical, striking out nowhere on jetbike and raiders, killing and flaying and then disappearing again. To say "oh, Dark Eldar should have to take the standard Battalion, because I think detachments are stupid", when an Outriders detachment makes way more sense, is ridiculous.

Space Wolves rally around great heroes, the living legends of the chapter. Saying, hey, you can't take a High Command detachment because I think you should run the same list as everyone else destroys their uniqueness.

I'm sorry, but detachments are a massive improvement compared to the stilted FoCs of previous editions.

I also started playing in 3rd (played through 4th) and recently came back. I also trace a lot of the game's problems to the current Force Organization structure. The current set-up leaves VERY little room for error in terms of unit balance (which is something GW has repeatedly shown they're bad at, much less FW) - if someone is restricted in how many slots they have, it's impossible to spam 6 copies of a unit that is overly points efficient. Balance for troop slot choices is still critical, but it leaves more room for error (or for units that are in fact outstanding for their points) because quantities are limited.

Your argument that it will take the flavor out of armies is (in my opinion) unfounded. Dark Eldar, for example, can take raiders as a transport for their troops choices. Still a very fast unit, still in character, just not the most crazy points efficient way to have a unit perform in that role.

 znelson wrote:

AnFéasógMór wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mezmorki wrote:
Coming back to 40k from 3rd/4th edition times, I find the whole detachment shenanigans to be ridiculous in the extreme.

I understand their usefulness in making semi-balanced lists for more casual play or narrative missions. But in a tournament, everyone should be forced to use the standard battalion detachment, no more, no less. Moreover, eliminate the crazy levels of allied units / mixed army lists.

This would completely destroy many armies' ability to play to their style and destroy the point of having any differentiation. You might as well just convert the game to a game where everyone just pushes the same number of monotone cubes around and rolls dice, some sort of chess for extreme masochist.

Dark Eldar are supposed to be fast, vicious, piratical, striking out nowhere on jetbike and raiders, killing and flaying and then disappearing again. To say "oh, Dark Eldar should have to take the standard Battalion, because I think detachments are stupid", when an Outriders detachment makes way more sense, is ridiculous.

Space Wolves rally around great heroes, the living legends of the chapter. Saying, hey, you can't take a High Command detachment because I think you should run the same list as everyone else destroys their uniqueness.

I'm sorry, but detachments are a massive improvement compared to the stilted FoCs of previous editions.

I also started playing in 3rd (played through 4th) and recently came back. I also trace a lot of the game's problems to the current Force Organization structure. The current set-up leaves VERY little room for error in terms of unit balance (which is something GW has repeatedly shown they're bad at, much less FW) - if someone is restricted in how many slots they have, it's impossible to spam 6 copies of a unit that is overly points efficient. Balance for troop slot choices is still critical, but it leaves more room for error (or for units that are in fact outstanding for their points) because quantities are limited.

Your argument that it will take the flavor out of armies is (in my opinion) unfounded. Dark Eldar, for example, can take raiders as a transport for their troops choices. Still a very fast unit, still in character, just not the most crazy points efficient way to have a unit perform in that role.

Except that in terms of points efficiency, a squad of Kabalites in a raider is actually an arguably more point efficient, better choice than Reavers, with similar speed and access to specialist weapons, if not quite as good in close combat, for significantly lower price, and on par with Hellions, with better guns and better range than Hellions, who have better melee, for about the same price.

Which has next to nothing to do with my point. 40k is a game that people are (or at least should be) drawn to, at least in part, because of the variety and quality of models, the ability for customization, the ability to make your army yours. Sure, I could just run Kabalites in Raiders and go "oh well, they've kind of got the flavor I want, good enough", but that isn't the flavor that I want, or that I spent my hard-earned money on, I like screaming hoards of drug-addled psychopaths swooping around on skyboards and jetbikes, hungry for blood. And that is a perfectly reasonable flavor to want for a DE army. That is a perfectly good reason to play an Outriders Detachment, and focus on FA units, rather than just take squad after squad after squad of Kabalites, and I shouldn't have to sacrifice the integrity of my expensive, personalized army because other players don't like options.

And I get it, it's all about trying to stop the jerk who is going "well, I'm gonna just spam a hundred razorwing flocks because I did a bunch of math and that's how I win tournaments to win prize money to buy more models that only appeal to me for their ability to win tournaments", but the truth is, switching to "oh you can only play a battalion" isn't gonna hurt that guy, because he's still going to sit there and come up with the cheesest possible list he can with the parameters he's given, and you're still not gonna win tournaments unless you buy exactly what the meta says to. The only person it actually hurts is the guy at the tournament who just wants to come play the list he spent a buttload of time and money and thought designing, that he can't run because you decided everyone should be limited to the same FoC.

@ AnFéasógMór

I think this boils down to a difference of style / opinion.

Your argument here essentially boils down to: "Don't bother trying to control force organization because someone is just going to break it anyways"

I couldn't disagree more. The fact that people will try to abuse the system for advantage is a reason to try harder to implement balance controls (especially on composition) not a reason to give up. IMHO your argument about fielding "whatever you want to field" is perfectly suited to friendly games and narrative play, but it's not what a tournament setting should be based on.

To each their own.

I think armies in tournament should be mono detachment, the good old CAD. Stop.

 znelson wrote:
@ AnFéasógMór

I think this boils down to a difference of style / opinion.

Your argument here essentially boils down to: "Don't bother trying to control force organization because someone is just going to break it anyways"

I couldn't disagree more. The fact that people will try to abuse the system for advantage is a reason to try harder to implement balance controls (especially on composition) not a reason to give up. IMHO your argument about fielding "whatever you want to field" is perfectly suited to friendly games and narrative play, but it's not what a tournament setting should be based on.

To each their own.

I mean, I do get where you're coming from, but I'd just personally rather not see narrative and competitive be mutually exlusive. I definitely do think we need to find ways to enforce balance and prevent cheese, but I guess for me, while we're in Proposed Rules, where anything can hypothetically happen, I'd rather just see that happen by actually balancing the game where it's supposed to be balanced, in point costs. I could also see introducing some sort of basic anti-spam rule, like saying that no more than x% of your army can be comprised of the same non-Troop unit or something.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ETA: I guess to me, one of the biggest problems with the game meta has always been that the people who play the game the way it was intended, putting together armies they think are cool and fun, aren't the people tournaments are designed around, and I feel like this format would just do that in a different way.

The Deer Hunter wrote:
I think armies in tournament should be mono detachment, the good old CAD. Stop.

I've seen several people pitch something to this effect both in this thread and elsewhere. I understand the impulse to "stop spam" and "broken combos" by limiting detachments, but I'm not sure this actually matches up with what we're seeing in 8th edition. Things that are doing well in tournaments are are things like Roboute Guilliman buffing a thing of your choice, fearless cultists/conscripts that screen devastating shooting elements, imperial knight houses, and magnus backed up by some brimstones and other psykers. All of those can be built in a in a single CAD. Well, not the knights, but the rest. People aren't winning games because they took a ton of warp spider aspect hosts or spammed riptide wings these days. They're winning with lists that can fit inside a single detachment.

So I understand the impulse to limit options by restricting people to a single detachment, but that doesn't really fix the "problem lists" that are doing well.

You could argue for a single detachment with units of a single "old school" faction (so all craftworld eldar, all space marines of the same chapter, all imperial guard, etc.), but that seriously messes up quite a few factions. The inquisition, for instance, is not really made to operate by itself, nor are deathwatch or arguably harlequins. And knights running around on their own is actually one of the more problematic options out there.

And as mentioned, you do have armies that are hurt more than others by being confined to a CAD. Remember how craftworlders were scary in 7th because they could take a bunch of scatbikes backed up by a wraith knight? That's not detachment abuse; that's a single CAD. Meanwhile, dark eldar are stuck with 3 elites/fast attack slots to try and shove anti tank into, and tyranids are taking weird off-brand spore mines to avoid having to actually field troops. Granted, the specifics would be different in 8th edition, but you'd ultimately just end up with some variation on the same problem while also basically banning fluffy armies featuring allies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Suzuteo wrote:
So to cut to the quick, I think GW needs to introduce a modern tournament format. They've done a decent job streamlining the game with 8E, but right now, FLG sets an arbitrary 2000 point limit that feels like a compromise, with neither the balance of low points nor the variety that comes with high points. This results in many problems:

A. Excessive game time: Longer game times mean fewer games, fewer rounds. While 8E has halved game times, they need to come down to 60 minutes.
B. Spam: Players are incentivised to spam efficient units to build up an effective points lead. This exaggerates imbalances in the game.
C. First-mover advantage: The higher the points go, the easier it is for players to throw knockout punches on turn one.
D. Limited counter-play: Players cannot diversify their armies with counter-play tools for fear of taking dead points. Thus, only dominant strategies are viable.

And yes, there are the business aspects as well. GW needs to sell more models, and Warhammer needs to move into the streaming realm, which is not happening if games drag on for 90 minutes because every other army has 100+ Conscripts and Boyz.

So here's my proposal for a very simple format:

1. A legal army shall consist of no more than 3 detachments valued at no more than 2500 points
3. Players take turns deploying units and may deploy no more than 1250 points of their army. If a detachment has HQs, all of them must be deployed before non-HQ units.
4. Game surfaces will be exactly 6'x4' in dimensions.

Other improvements, in areas such as command points and warlord traits, might be helpful as well, but I just wanted to start here.

A. 60 minutes feels pretty harsh, even if we shrink game size. Assuming you play 6 game rounds, you're looking at 5 minutes per player turn. No thanks. That said, I'm not opposed to speeding the game up even more.
B. See above for how I feel about spam. TLDR; spam isn't what most of the really effective lists are running. Spam or no spam, competitive players will always try to find the most points-efficient options. All we can really hope for is a set of rules that doesn't make one option dramatically more efficient than another.
C. I agree with you on this one. I think shrinking game size is a pretty solid answer to this one.
D. True enough.

Conscripts/Boyz:
It has been my personal experience that players who actually field large model count armies tend to be pretty good at moving those units efficiently. Conscript blobs usually either stand still or do the "move your rear guys to the front" trick to speed things up. Orks can generally just figure out the farthest forward position for their front line and then scoot everything else forward behind that now that templates aren't a thing. Also, armies like this tend to have a lot of squishy targets. The size of the army tends to shrink rapidly once shots are fired. Has slow play with large model count actually been an issue you've experienced in 8th edition?

1./3. The HQs part of this seems silly. It doesn't really make sense from a fluff or gameplay perspective. As for building a large army and then deploying a small one, why not simplify this to a side-board system? For instance, players could make a 1,000 point list and two or three 500 point "side boards." Before deployment, players look at their opponent's main army and side boards, then select which of the three side boards they want to field in secret and reveal simulatenously. So if I see my opponent brought body spam, I'll bring my side board that can chew through conscript spam. If they brought lots of tanks, I'll bring my tank busting side board instead. That sort of thing. Waaaaaay less complicated and time consuming than trying to deploy 1250 points piecemeal from a larger 2500 point list.

4. This is pretty much universal already. So... uh... sure.

To those saying "1 Battalion would be best for balance" I have to disagree with that notion. Different armies have their strengths in different slots and saying essentially "if you have good spamable troops and elites your army deserves to be better is silly." But you can only take 3 each of heavies and Fast, and hey knight players...you cannot play at all. People really view the CAD (old standard FOC) with rose colored glasses. I agree that spam is way to easy and the current system allows for too much flexibility I think the fixes lie elsewhere.

Right now you are incentivized to fill out min requirements of multiple detachments to get CP, I think it would be better to see CP awarded based on taking things in a variety of slots, and filling out your FOCs at a greater rate than they are for taking separate detachments.

I would rather see Detachments work as follows
1-3 HQ
0-6 of any single other slot of choice (so Troop, Elites, Fast, Heavy)
0-3 of other slots
0-2 Flyers

dedicated transports as now no CP bonuses for taking them.

You get 1 CP for the first choice taken in any FOC, +1 CP if you have at least 1 choice in every FOC, +1 CP for each FOC role completely filled out, +1 CP for each Role that has no repeated unit choices.

LOW are separate detachment composed of a single LOW with no CP awarded.

Breng77 wrote:
Right now you are incentivized to fill out min requirements of multiple detachments to get CP, I think it would be better to see CP awarded based on taking things in a variety of slots, and filling out your FOCs at a greater rate than they are for taking separate detachments.

I can get on board with this approach.

The weirdness with the existing setup is that having players take multiple detachments to maximize CP's is counter-intuitive with respect to command. Having to manage multiple detachments would require more command & control effort to coordinate across detachments, imposing a tax or overhead on it. Keeping everything within 1 detachment would be far more logical given the scope and scale of the game.

Anyway, I like the direction you are going in with. Obviously, what gets you +CP bonuses can be experimented with.

Breng77 wrote:
To those saying "1 Battalion would be best for balance" I have to disagree with that notion. Different armies have their strengths in different slots and saying essentially "if you have good spamable troops and elites your army deserves to be better is silly."

This. I mean, probably the single most complained about spam list in the game right now is conscript spam, and it doesn't really help to be like, DE can't spam razorwing flocks, but hey, guard, go ahead and keep the detachment you were gonna use anyway to field those 300 conscripts.

 Mezmorki wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Right now you are incentivized to fill out min requirements of multiple detachments to get CP, I think it would be better to see CP awarded based on taking things in a variety of slots, and filling out your FOCs at a greater rate than they are for taking separate detachments.

I can get on board with this approach.

The weirdness with the existing setup is that having players take multiple detachments to maximize CP's is counter-intuitive with respect to command. Having to manage multiple detachments would require more command & control effort to coordinate across detachments, imposing a tax or overhead on it. Keeping everything within 1 detachment would be far more logical given the scope and scale of the game.

Anyway, I like the direction you are going in with. Obviously, what gets you +CP bonuses can be experimented with.

+

I also like this idea, although I'm not sure the notion that "more detachments = more CP" is entirely accurate. Sure, if you were going to take 2 HQs and 6 heavy supports anyway, you're better off doing it with 2 spearheads instead of 1 (earning you 2CP instead of 1CP), but you're probably better off going the batallion route if you're building your list around getting more CP. But maybe I'm splitting hairs.

Howbabout forcing armies to include a number of points in geq, meq, teq and heavys(tanks and mosters) say about 300 points of each would be requried. In our tournaments list are prepared at home but the list im seeing are spammed with meqs and tanks with some teqs. As an eldar player i have access to prety well only geq models even in my elites which are only glorified geqs. Im outclassed and out gunned no matter my list becasue my list contains some of each catagory while everyone else is loaded up on meqs and better. Even detachment restrictions cannot fix this problem.

vaurapung wrote:
Howbabout forcing armies to include a number of points in geq, meq, teq and heavys(tanks and mosters) say about 300 points of each would be requried. In our tournaments list are prepared at home but the list im seeing are spammed with meqs and tanks with some teqs. As an eldar player i have access to prety well only geq models even in my elites which are only glorified geqs. Im outclassed and out gunned no matter my list becasue my list contains some of each catagory while everyone else is loaded up on meqs and better. Even detachment restrictions cannot fix this problem.

What GEQs do Marines have?

What GEQs do Necrons have?

"Which has next to nothing to do with my point. 40k is a game that people are (or at least should be) drawn to, at least in part, because of the variety and quality of models, the ability for customization, the ability to make your army yours. Sure, I could just run Kabalites in Raiders and go "oh well, they've kind of got the flavor I want, good enough", but that isn't the flavor that I want, or that I spent my hard-earned money on, I like screaming hoards of drug-addled psychopaths swooping around on skyboards and jetbikes, hungry for blood. And that is a perfectly reasonable flavor to want for a DE army. That is a perfectly good reason to play an Outriders Detachment, and focus on FA units, rather than just take squad after squad after squad of Kabalites, and I shouldn't have to sacrifice the integrity of my expensive, personalized army because other players don't like options."
AnFéasógMór

Part of my point. I understand that armies need to be different but in a tournament situation it should be battlefeild wits that win a game not a grade A list. If every list contained some run of the mill infantry led by an hq with some heavy support and a couple elites then we could play tournaments with wits instead of getting blown away. I chose the army that i liked, i chose the models that i liked and have enjoyed working on them for several years now but getting curbstomped by overzealous power players needs to be stopped. My army should have the same odds of winning as my opponents army all depending on our battlefeild tactics.

As for managing faster games. Smaller tables with less units. It takes about 20to30 minutes to play a 100 point kill team with 8th edition rules how could a 2000 point game take less than 3 hours unless your tabled at end of turn 2 or top of 3

Wyldhunt wrote:

 Mezmorki wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Right now you are incentivized to fill out min requirements of multiple detachments to get CP, I think it would be better to see CP awarded based on taking things in a variety of slots, and filling out your FOCs at a greater rate than they are for taking separate detachments.

I can get on board with this approach.

The weirdness with the existing setup is that having players take multiple detachments to maximize CP's is counter-intuitive with respect to command. Having to manage multiple detachments would require more command & control effort to coordinate across detachments, imposing a tax or overhead on it. Keeping everything within 1 detachment would be far more logical given the scope and scale of the game.

Anyway, I like the direction you are going in with. Obviously, what gets you +CP bonuses can be experimented with.

+

I also like this idea, although I'm not sure the notion that "more detachments = more CP" is entirely accurate. Sure, if you were going to take 2 HQs and 6 heavy supports anyway, you're better off doing it with 2 spearheads instead of 1 (earning you 2CP instead of 1CP), but you're probably better off going the batallion route if you're building your list around getting more CP. But maybe I'm splitting hairs.

True, but if you are taking say 2 HQ 3 Troops, 3 Heavy support, you are encouraged to throw in a 3rd HQ for the Spearhead point. Other than the brigade, the emphasis is more on taking minimum requirements for a detachment as much as is possible. So essentially if you took 2 HQ, 3 Troops, 2 Heavies, 2 Fast, 2 Elites in a battalion you are punished compared to the guy taking 3 HQ, 3 Troops, 3 Heavies, 2 Elites in a Battalion + spearhead. Now the 2 fast choices might be better than the extra HQ and Heavy, but the point is you are encouraged to take the minimum requirements.

vaurapung wrote:
Howbabout forcing armies to include a number of points in geq, meq, teq and heavys(tanks and mosters) say about 300 points of each would be requried. In our tournaments list are prepared at home but the list im seeing are spammed with meqs and tanks with some teqs. As an eldar player i have access to prety well only geq models even in my elites which are only glorified geqs. Im outclassed and out gunned no matter my list becasue my list contains some of each catagory while everyone else is loaded up on meqs and better. Even detachment restrictions cannot fix this problem.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

vaurapung wrote:


Part of my point. I understand that armies need to be different but in a tournament situation it should be battlefeild wits that win a game not a grade A list. If every list contained some run of the mill infantry led by an hq with some heavy support and a couple elites then we could play tournaments with wits instead of getting blown away. I chose the army that i liked, i chose the models that i liked and have enjoyed working on them for several years now but getting curbstomped by overzealous power players needs to be stopped. My army should have the same odds of winning as my opponents army all depending on our battlefeild tactics.

I disagree with a lot of this. Apologies in advance. This is going to be a bit of a rant.

First of all, having mandatory requirements on geq/teq/meq etc. just isn't workable. Tyranids have zero TEQ options. Same with eldar. Dark eldar only have a single meq unit, and that's toughness 3, so really more of a sister equivalent. Furtherforme, how effective a given army's geq, meq, etc. are vary wildly from army to army. This would be a bizarre, arbitrary restriction to impose on players in a competitive setting that also wouldn't really have any positive impact on competitive play. It would, however, make many army themes unplayable. A deathwing army, for instance, should be perfectly capable of running all TEQ models and maybe some vehicular support if that's what the player wants.

As for your paradigm on competitive play...

* List building is part of 40k. 40k is not chess. Taking units that synergize well, play off of strengths, and cover or leave exposed various weaknesses is part of the game. While there are problematically powerful options out there that are arguably harmful to the overall state of the game, choosing which options to field is still part of the game. Building a strong list doesn't mean you aren't using your "wits." It means that you're smart enough to realize that half the game is putting together a good army. If you really want to take the list building out of the game, host a tournament where everyone is required to field the exact same list. Heck. That could even be fun.

* A player isn't "overzealous" for building a competitive list or for knowing how to play it well. There's more than one way to play 40k. In D&D, some groups enjoy the roleplaying side of things and don't care about/maybe even actively prefer to avoid optimizing their characters for the sake of the story, character interaction, etc. This is valid. Some groups genuinely enjoy building optimized characters and tackling challenging dungeon crawls designed to threaten life and limb of those characters. This is also completely valid. Similarly, some 40k players prefer competitive games to non-competitive ones. It is a perfectly valid way to have fun. If you are in a tournament, you've signed the social contract stating that people are here to bring their more powerful lists. Bringing a tournament list to an explicitly casual game would be a jerk move, but bringing that same list to a tournament is just to be expected. This is the agreement when you go to a tournament. It's not a behavior that needs to be stopped.

* "My army should have the same odds of winning as my opponents army all depending on our battlefeild tactics." See the first bullet point above, but also, let's talk about tactics in 40k. You can certainly make meaningful decisions in the 40k, but let's face it. Most of the decisions happen in list building, a lot of the ones after that happen during deployment and on turn 1, and most of what happens after that is dice rolling and relatively small-scale decision making. 40k is not a brilliant new form of chess that has recently been hampered by the introduction of powerful options. It's not the game of choice for geniuses seeking to test the limits of their tactical brilliance. It's a game where you slap a fun story on your models, line them up across from one another, and then roll dice to see whether or not things go your way. Let's not overhype the tactical depth of a game where your wizard's head randomly explodes from time to time and where the transport capacity of an ork vehicle was once determined by how many models you could physically stack on top of it.

TLDR; There's more than one way to play 40k. People aren't "overzealous power gamers" for acknowledging that listbuilding is part of 40k. Even with identical armies, 40k would still be a dice game where victory is determined by dice rolls as much as by decision making. The GEQ/TEQ/MEQ thing is just weird and would probably cause way more balance issues in competitive play than it would solve.

Sorry if that came out harsh.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

 Mezmorki wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Right now you are incentivized to fill out min requirements of multiple detachments to get CP, I think it would be better to see CP awarded based on taking things in a variety of slots, and filling out your FOCs at a greater rate than they are for taking separate detachments.

I can get on board with this approach.

The weirdness with the existing setup is that having players take multiple detachments to maximize CP's is counter-intuitive with respect to command. Having to manage multiple detachments would require more command & control effort to coordinate across detachments, imposing a tax or overhead on it. Keeping everything within 1 detachment would be far more logical given the scope and scale of the game.

Anyway, I like the direction you are going in with. Obviously, what gets you +CP bonuses can be experimented with.

+

I also like this idea, although I'm not sure the notion that "more detachments = more CP" is entirely accurate. Sure, if you were going to take 2 HQs and 6 heavy supports anyway, you're better off doing it with 2 spearheads instead of 1 (earning you 2CP instead of 1CP), but you're probably better off going the batallion route if you're building your list around getting more CP. But maybe I'm splitting hairs.

True, but if you are taking say 2 HQ 3 Troops, 3 Heavy support, you are encouraged to throw in a 3rd HQ for the Spearhead point. Other than the brigade, the emphasis is more on taking minimum requirements for a detachment as much as is possible. So essentially if you took 2 HQ, 3 Troops, 2 Heavies, 2 Fast, 2 Elites in a battalion you are punished compared to the guy taking 3 HQ, 3 Troops, 3 Heavies, 2 Elites in a Battalion + spearhead. Now the 2 fast choices might be better than the extra HQ and Heavy, but the point is you are encouraged to take the minimum requirements.

Ah. Good points. While I like the idea of getting more CP for filling out force org slots, do you worry that this might punish certain themed armies? If I want to play a Saim-Hann list, for instance, I'm probably going to be predisposed to field a lot of Fast Attack and transports and not a lot of troops.

I like a lot of the stuff presented here. I think CP bonuses for filling out a detachment is a great idea.

If a particular faction needs CP bonuses for fielding an imbalanced list (like Iyanden, which I play) then it can be written into the faction specific rules. Saim Hann can get a bonus for fielding be a certain number of fast slots, etc.

Armies like Saim Hann already are punished with few CP and more so than in my suggested fix. Right now unless you are taking at least 3 troops you are stuck at 6 cp max.in the system above even with a single detachment I can easily get 14 CP (which means it might need tweaking perhaps take away the 3 free cp) Either way they are more penalized now. The most penalized armies are things like harlequins with few options in their slots but they still get 8/11 cp if they want to.

Saim hann
HQ(3cp)
Bike farseer
Bike warlock
Bike autarch

Troop(1cp)
8 storm guardians)

Elite(1cp)
5 fire dragons

Fast(2 cp)
2x4 cannon jetbikes
4 x3 cannon jetbikes

Heavies (3cp)
1 falcon
1 fire prism
1 night spinner

Dedicared transports
2 wave serpents

To Wyldhunt,

You werent to harsh about what you had to say.

What i have issues with is wanting to play 40k but everyone (my best friends that i play with all the time) wanting me to play in our local shops tournaments. Well in the tournament enviornment im going to lose every game because i didnt buy the bang for buck power models when i started collecting. I have 10000+ points of models that lose every game.

I dont comrehend why matched play games have to be so unbalanced. Your saying that list building is over half of winning a game so for tournaments that have a small player base having restrictions on list building is an adequate answer to the one or two tournament players in the group. Its no fun to host or be part of a tournament that the winner is decided just because someone showed up with a list that cant be countered locally. For example assassins spam.

To Breng77

I missed something, using cp for list building instead of detatchments or pointing out how some armies can get massive amounts of cp while others cannot.

I general have 5 or 7 cp because i run one battalion with one spearhead. And the only things i use cp for are rerolls like 3 times in a game on average.