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.

While I enjoy 8E's standardized detachment system, I think it can be improved to make army construction a lot more flexible and less ridiculously punishing if you want to specialize. The difference between +1 and +5 CP is wayyy too large.

1. Battalion detachments provide +4 CP
2. Lower Brigade detachment requirements; provide +8 CP
3. Lower Vanguard, Spearhead, Outrider, and Air Wing detachments requirements; provide +2 CP
4. Supreme Command detachments provide +2 CP
5. Improve granularity of Knight Lance bonus

BATTALION DETACHMENT
2-3 HQ
3-6 Troops
0-6 Elites
0-3 Fast Attack
0-3 Heavy Support
0-2 Flyers
+4 CP

BRIGADE DETACHMENT
3-5 HQ
6-12 Troops
2-8 Elites
2-5 Fast Attack
2-5 Heavy Support
0-2 Flyers
+8 CP

VANGUARD DETACHMENT
1-2 HQ
0-3 Troops
2-6 Elites
0-2 Fast Attack
0-2 Heavy Support
0-2 Flyers
+2 CP

SPEARHEAD DETACHMENT
1-2 HQ
0-3 Troops
0-2 Elites
0-2 Fast Attack
2-6 Heavy Support
0-2 Flyers
+2 CP

OUTRIDER DETACHMENT
1-2 HQ
0-3 Troops
0-2 Elites
2-6 Fast Attack
0-2 Heavy Support
0-2 Flyers
+2 CP

AIR WING DETACHMENT
2-5 Flyers
+2 CP

SUPREME COMMAND DETACHMENT
3-5 HQ
0-1 Elite
0-1 Lord of War
+2 CP

SUPER-HEAVY DETACHMENT
3-5 Lords of War
+3 CP
Knight Lance +1 CP for each Questoris or Dominus; one becomes a character

Supreme Command is generally thought to be too good.

Why are you making it better?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Supreme Command is generally thought to be too good.

Why are you making it better?

Well, I could care less about the perception. I mean, I am a game designer by profession, and experience and best practice tell me that making piecemeal exceptions when balancing a system is never a good idea. In fact, it's probably what caused the problem that I am trying to solve in the first place.

Consider what I am doing here: I am pushing a baseline change. I am bringing the CP per detachment up by 1 and bringing down the requirements of the most restrictive specializations in order to make army construction more flexible and less punishing for specialized armies. (Every army that is BF today is BF under this new system. But the Command Benefits are more evenly distributed, and more discretionary points are freed up.) It may well be that players of a certain army always run Supreme Command or Battalion after weighing it against all other detachments, as it is in the current system. That is fine, but the system itself should not inherently favor armies with good HQs and troops anyway. Obviously, cross-codex balance is outside the scope of my proposal. But reducing the opportunity cost of taking these detachments with only 1 HQ and no troop requirements will help mitigate the problem.

In short, design proactively, not reactively.

Why not use 1 cp per 150 points played (10 cp at 1500 points) enact a rule of 1 identical data sheet per 500 points played (rule of 3 at 1500 points) with the exception of "core units" (typically troops now) that you can have unlimited numbers of?

At this point, FOC abuse for CP farming is a problem, so get rid of the FOC abuse potential. Generating CP based on detachments is an inherently broken system.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Why not use 1 cp per 150 points played (10 cp at 1500 points) enact a rule of 1 identical data sheet per 500 points played (rule of 3 at 1500 points) with the exception of "core units" (typically troops now) that you can have unlimited numbers of?

At this point, FOC abuse for CP farming is a problem, so get rid of the FOC abuse potential. Generating CP based on detachments is an inherently broken system.

This is actually a brilliant idea. Less forcing into allies, and helps the more elite armies function on their own.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Why not use 1 cp per 150 points played (10 cp at 1500 points) enact a rule of 1 identical data sheet per 500 points played (rule of 3 at 1500 points) with the exception of "core units" (typically troops now) that you can have unlimited numbers of?

At this point, FOC abuse for CP farming is a problem, so get rid of the FOC abuse potential. Generating CP based on detachments is an inherently broken system.

While I agree that that would also be a solution, there are also missed opportunities. Some armies definitely do need more CP than others. Having your FOC give you bonuses is nice for that. We also would be completely removing the disincentive for taking more detachments; I merely mitigated them.

There is no disadvantage to multiple detachments. It is an arbitrary benefit that rewards army construction that relies on strong Troop / HQ choices. IG is a strong faction, and even more so that it has very good Troops and Good / Dirt Cheap HQ's to gain more CP.

In a well designed game, CP's are a resource that should have "equal" value to any faction, like points should have "equal" value to all factions. The notion that some factions are more reliant on CP's then others is a sign that their units are over costed, or that their stratagems are abilities that should have been part of the units they're used with... and then have the units costed appropriately.

Using detachment structures to determine CP's is poor design. Of all things, access to multiple detachments should cost CP, rather than generate it. Multiple detachments (used to) increase unit spam, and made it easier to soup broken combos... and gave you more CP to abuse those combos with. It's a positive feedback loop.

(Scientifically speaking, positive feedback loops are generally bad for living things.)

Charging CP for access to multiple detachments is a negative feedback loop. You may be able to soup more powerful combos, but that comes at the expense of fewer CP to take advantage of them.

You mad made battalions non viable as the specialist detachment are just too good in comparison

Been thinking about this too, but from the top down perspective.

The problem I see is that there is too much room between Battlion and Brigade.

Given the system is based on actual Army Organization, I think the solution would be to:
1) Rename Battalion to Company keeping the same requirements.
2) Create new requirements for what will be called Battalion as follows.
HQ - 2
Troops - 4
Elites - 1
Fast Attack - 1
Heavy Support - 1
+ 1 of any of the final three, Fast, Elite, Heavy for a total of 2 for that role.
+8 CP

This helps armies that typically have a smaller model count, like Marines. It alows then to get more CP than adding other detatchments. They can field a decent force at higher point values.

I have experimented with some of this and can play a fairly strong force at @1500pts.
I also find that armies like Marines cannot field a full Brigade at 2000pts, like say AM or Orks, without severly limiting their capabilities.

I agree with some of the original post, that specialist detachments should be 2. That seems like a doable start.

In terms of an overhaul I see some merit in 1cp per 150pts, and also -cp for some detachments. 0 brigade, 1 battalion, 2 specialists, 3 super heavy.

Supreme command can be removed. It's just an outlet for spamming the few hqs worth spamming.

Shas'O'Ceris wrote:
I agree with some of the original post, that specialist detachments should be 2. That seems like a doable start.

In terms of an overhaul I see some merit in 1cp per 150pts, and also -cp for some detachments. 0 brigade, 1 battalion, 2 specialists, 3 super heavy.

Supreme command can be removed. It's just an outlet for spamming the few hqs worth spamming.

Supreme Command being removed is a ridiculous idea. It's what allows for some fluffier things(ex: Mortarion and his 'advisors', Guilliman and his cohort, etc) to exist compared to just splitting things off.

Realistically, if you want to do something like that then we need to actually break things down further with regards to Lords of War.

 greatbigtree wrote:
There is no disadvantage to multiple detachments. It is an arbitrary benefit that rewards army construction that relies on strong Troop / HQ choices. IG is a strong faction, and even more so that it has very good Troops and Good / Dirt Cheap HQ's to gain more CP.

In a well designed game, CP's are a resource that should have "equal" value to any faction, like points should have "equal" value to all factions. The notion that some factions are more reliant on CP's then others is a sign that their units are over costed, or that their stratagems are abilities that should have been part of the units they're used with... and then have the units costed appropriately.

Using detachment structures to determine CP's is poor design. Of all things, access to multiple detachments should cost CP, rather than generate it. Multiple detachments (used to) increase unit spam, and made it easier to soup broken combos... and gave you more CP to abuse those combos with. It's a positive feedback loop.

(Scientifically speaking, positive feedback loops are generally bad for living things.)

Charging CP for access to multiple detachments is a negative feedback loop. You may be able to soup more powerful combos, but that comes at the expense of fewer CP to take advantage of them.

There is a disadvantage when there is a cap to the number of detachments you can take. I am strictly assuming we're going by the current guidelines for matched play.

Again, I am flattening the structure by lifting the baseline for the specialist detachments.

And yes, I agree with you in principle, but a wholesale change to "CP per points" might be problematic for some armies, which were designed with access to more CP in mind.

 BoomWolf wrote:
You mad made battalions non viable as the specialist detachment are just too good in comparison

Huh? I would still take 2 Battalions for my own army with this setup. And really, I don't know why the alternative of making specialist detachments brutally punishing is better. Armies with crappy HQs, like AdMech (and practically all of the remaining indexes), really would like this change.

Shas'O'Ceris wrote:
I agree with some of the original post, that specialist detachments should be 2. That seems like a doable start.

In terms of an overhaul I see some merit in 1cp per 150pts, and also -cp for some detachments. 0 brigade, 1 battalion, 2 specialists, 3 super heavy.

Supreme command can be removed. It's just an outlet for spamming the few hqs worth spamming.

Supreme Command is basically an HQ specialization detachment. I have no problems with this, since every army plays differently, and some rely on their HQs more than others.

Now, are some HQs really OP and are some armies dependent on their HQs? Yes. But those are other issues. Besides, the rule of 3 really helped with that.

@ Suzuteo:

Which CP intensive armies wouldn't benefit from straight CP / Points? Honestly, who thinks it's fun to ally 32 Guard models for the extra however many CP for under 200 points? Are you under the impression that all Imperial armies that need lots of CP were DELIBERATELY designed with a cheap CP battery in mind?

I believe that 1500 points has a 3 detachment limit? Maybe it's only 2. If a mono-faction list, like pure IG, is going to use at least 6 infantry squads (and/or Scions) and plans to use cheap buff characters, at said 1500 points, why would they NOT take multiple detachments? More CP, higher unit caps. Not only is there a lack of detriment, it is actively better to use multi-detachment forces.

If someone is looking to soup a character-plus-unit into a list (to make it more powerful through a combo) why further reward that by giving more CP? Why make it more advantageous to do that? Making a broken combo also give you more CP is inherently imbalancing. It crates a positive feedback loop. It is unhealthy for the game.

What CP needs to do is be locked to the faction that generates it. No more IG battalions to fuel Custard Stratagems

I'm not understanding what's punishing about 'specialist' detachments. Do you mean punishing for the people who load up on them, or the people who they play against?

Here's the way I see it:

Under the current rules from the big FAQ, the Brigade fetches 12 cp; that's more than you can make by breaking the same group of models into smaller detachments. Since you need one HQ for each smaller detachment, you's only be able to make 3, which would only get you 9 CP.

If I was up against a Brigade, and I wanted to play a specialist force, one extra HQ choice allows me to field four minimum sized vanguards, or four minimum sized spearheads, or four minimum sized outriders and balance the CP's. In order to field the Brigade, I need 18 units, but to field any of the CP equivalent specialist forces, I only need 16 units.

So what's punishing about that?

And funny thing, you can do it with a mono army or a soup army.

Now if you're going super minimal points and maximum detachments, some armies might be cheap enough that they could field multiple brigades- I don't play Guard, so I'm not sure what the cheapest brigade costs. In that scenario, yeah, only a few armies have enough HQ options to supply an equal number of smaller detachments. To counter the CP of two brigades, you'd need 8 HQ choices instead of 6, but you would still be able to get away with fewer units.

Any army list that includes 2 generic HQ and 2 named HQ, or 3 generic HQ can assemble a specialist army that is the CP equivalent of a double Brigade. What's more, they can do it with fewer total units, though they will need two more HQ than their opponent.

Any army with fewer HQ choices available would have to soup in order to be on equal footing. So currently, pure Sisters, and pure ministorum can't balance a double brigade.

Your proposed change doesn't really alter the premise; your Brigade yields 8 CP, while your specialists detachments yield 2 CP, so I can still achieve CP balance by adding one HQ and fielding four small detachments. Under the current system, the specialist army needs 16 units to counter the CP's of the 18 unit brigade; under your system, the specialist needs 12 units to counter the Brigade's 15.

Your system does provide an interesting option for non specialist armies because you offer double point for batallions. Two of the specialist detachments would equal one batallion in CP, but the battalion only needs five units where the specilist needs six.

Double Battalions, in your system provides as many CP as a brigade with only 10 units as opposed to 15. That makes brigades really impractical for armies with enough HQ choices to go with many smaller detachments. If I add 4 HQ choices to Brigade, I can instead have two battalions, a vanguard, an outrider and a spearhead 17 CP to the Brigade's 8!

Four HQ choices isn't cheap in every army, and isn't available for all armies, but with more than double the CP, I think only see Brigades in armies with too few HQ.

Personally, I never liked brigades. Smaller detachments have more versatility, character and narrative/rp potential. One thing that is interesting about your detachments is that given minimum squad sizes, you could field as many models in a kill team as you could in a whole detachment.

I'd second the post that talked about paying CP for detatchments rather than generating CP from detatchments.

Invert the CP costs, and get 1 CP per [500?] points of battleforged. A Battalion would be dirt cheap. A Brigade would be cheap. A Supreme Command would be costly.

Bharring wrote:
I'd second the post that talked about paying CP for detatchments rather than generating CP from detatchments.

Invert the CP costs, and get 1 CP per [500?] points of battleforged. A Battalion would be dirt cheap. A Brigade would be cheap. A Supreme Command would be costly.

So only 1-4 CP?
500 point games would be rough, imagine if all 2,000 point games only had 4 CP!

might as well be playing 5th/6th edition if that was the case

500pts is way too much, that's basically only 1 good strat per game.

120pts would be more acceptable (Rounding down) on a 1500pt game (common game type) that is 12 command points, which is your standard brigade

100pts would be okay, unti you get to the higher points (20 cp in a 2000pt game). But then again, most tournaments are within the 1500-1750pt mark so you would be looking at 15 or 17 points.

This would be before detachment reductions, which would need to be tweaked so that each detachment combo is viable in a game, but made sure that the reductions aren't either too much or not enough.

(example, running a Supreme command with a battalion could be say -4 points (-1 battalion, -3 supreme command) while a brigade could be -0 points. But say that brigade wanted to run a Auxiliary super heavy at -4 points.

If the game runs just fine and there isn't too many problems then we could say that these points are somewhat viable, not concrete just viable)

Run it through as many list as we can and then we could find just the right pts reductions for everything

If I were to do it, my suggestion would be to scrap the FOC, because it has lost it's importance. Frankly, there are enough detachment options that the only thing you have to take are HQ options. You can easily play non-troop choice lists if you want.

Also, many editions have had alternate FOC that allowed something to count as troops. Biker Marines, Wraithguard, for example. At one time, IG had to spend a doctrine point to make Storm Troopers count as troops. BA used to have assault marines as troops. Abbadon lets you take Chosen, or was it Terminators as Troops? Dark Angels have had their "wings" forever-ish. The point is, the game has often let you play a list with something as troops that wouldn't normally be.

So to that end, I'd create a points based limiting system.

For "FOC", you can take only one of a given unit per 500 points, unless that unit is a CORE choice. Anything that is currently a troop choice will count as a CORE choice. Hypothetically, at 1500 points you'd be limited to 3 of a kind, except for CORE choices. In addition, you may nominate one dataslate / unit that would not normally be a CORE choice from your PRIMARY FACTION to count as a CORE choice. This would let Terminator Wings, Biker Armies, Wraith-armies, Sentinel Packs, Sorcerous Kabals, Dreadsocks... uhm-err... LRBT armoured companies, all-suit Tau, Carnifex Bricks, Flyrant spam, all the colours of the rainbow lists to exist.

Only units from your PRIMARY FACTION may be CORE units.

You get 1 cp per 150 points or part thereof. If you include more than one faction in your army, add 50 points to this per faction. A 3-faction list would have 1 cp per 250 points played. At 1500 points, a mono faction list would have 10 points. Dual faction would have 8 cp. Tri-faction would have 6 cp. The exact values would likely need to be tweaked, but ballparking for now.

Roll all the odd-ball Imperial units like Inquisitors, Assassins, Sisters of silence into a single "Agents of the Imperium" faction.

Suzuteo wrote:
I think it can be improved to make army construction a lot more flexible and less ridiculously punishing if you want to specialize.

Punishing specialization is a feature, not a bug. The whole point is to undo some of 7th's utter lunacy with "take anything you want and get huge buffs for it" and move just a tiny bit back in the direction of the old FOC. FOC-style armies with a strong core of troops get more CP, if you want a "take whatever you want" army that ignores the balancing restrictions of the FOC you pay for it with less CP. Getting only 1 CP for a detachment is the price you pay for getting to spam that heavy support unit and ignore all of the other slots. If you want to improve the game then the solution is more restrictions, preferably eliminating soup and the alternate detachments entirely.

I still say the biggest problem with the FOC is the gap between Battalion and Brigade, both in size and CP.

I think adding something between the top two sizes would help with a lot of the balance issues.
Changing from previous:

Cohort 8CP
2HQ
4 Troops
1 Elite
1 Fast Attack
1 Heavy Support
+1 from any except HQ
for a total of 10 units

I'm farily sure 500pts wouldn't be the number for "1cp per [500] points". I just needed a number to get it across.

How many CP should a Battallion at 2k have? How many points How many points should a Brigade + Vanguard at 2k have? The plug & chug to get the points per CP.

And I'll repeat that any system that rewards multiple detachments with additional resources is encouraging cherry picking between codices.

It also encourages MSU as the only functional build strategy. I would genuinely like to see some kind of mechanic that (at a minimum) didn't punish FLU (few large unit) builds. Just for the variety!

It just doesn't make sense, that equally sized armies should have some kind of resource assigned to them based on number of units achieved in list construction. If point values of units are on an equal in-game scale, then you get greater overall value from MSU as they generate more CP / point.

Similarly, Soup lists, by their nature, generate more CP / point because they have to be multiple detachments.

If a person wishes to see fewer Soup builds, one way to decrease their presence would be to stop rewarding and start "punishing" them with fewer CP, instead of more.

The issue isn't that there needs to be an intermediate level between Brigade and battalion, because MSU will always be able to fill a larger Unit requirement, which always will generate more cp / point. Even if cp were limited to the largest generating cp detachment, and additional detachments did not generate cp, MSU as your primary detachment would still be better.

There is no way to balance cp/point based on list / unit construction that does not reward MSU. Unless you simply say that you get X cp per this many points you play. It doesn't need to be as granular as I've suggested. It could be 5 cp for every 500 points, or 4 cp @ 500, 7 cp @ 1000, 9 cp @ 1500, 10 cp @ 2000 +.

The point would be to have everyone, with equal list construction restrictions, at equal points value, have equal access to cp.

The idea is 1 CP per X points, then buy detatchements.
Exact numbers made up to show a point, so I'm not arguing specifics:
Lets say 1 CP per 200 points.
Battalion costs 1 CP
Brigade costs 1 CP
Patrol costs 1 CP
Vanguard et cetra 3 CP
Aux costs 1 CP

We play a 2k game. That's 10 CP.

I build a Battalion. I have tons of slots, but need 6 troops, 3 of each specialty, etc. I get 9 CP for the game.

You play a Vanguard, a Supreme, and an Aux. Totals to 7 CP. You now have a lot more specialization in which slots you can take, but you only get 3 CP for the game.

Alternately, we play 1000pts.

I take a Brigade. Some units maxed out. I get 4 CP to use in game.

You take 2 Brigades of MSU. You get 3 CP to use in game.

The exact numbers aren't right above (probably need more CP, need to set CP costs carefully for detatchments), but if you want to maximize your CP, you need to minimize your slots taken. Taking larger squads brings about more CP instead of less (although not to the point of making MSU unplayable).

This is actually a really good idea. It turns the current detachment logic on it's head. Instead of trying to get more detachments in your army to gain more CP, you are encouraged to take only the minimum necessary to fit your units.

It also penalizes the gaminess of taking multiple detachments from the same codex purely for taking advantage of various Traits/Relics/Stratagems that are nice, but not the most "efficient" options for some units.

@greatbigtree

1) MSU does not have to mean multi-dexing, as long as the primary dex contains at least 2 generic HQ options.

2) It absolutely makes sense that an army consisting of several small units with varying areas of expertise has more tactical flexibility (ie.Command Points) than an equal number of soldiers grouped into larger teams with fewer command structures, especially when a large proportion of those soldiers have a more generalized skill set.

Remember that two units of five models working together to achieve the same objective effectively are a ten model unit just as three would effectively be a fifteen model unit.

The converse is not true- your ten model squad CANNOT break coherency to become two five model squads, nor can your fifteen model squad break coherency twice to form three five model squads, or one ten model squad and one five model squad.

How can you possibly believe that FLU can be as tactically flexible either on the tabletop or in real life as MSU?

And why would you want GW to create a combat system based that rewards inherently inflexible and inefficient organizational structures with additional tactical flexibility?

PenitentJake wrote:
How can you possibly believe that FLU can be as tactically flexible either on the tabletop or in real life as MSU?

Alternating activations, efficient use of stratagems and similar buffs that apply to a single unit, missions that use kill points as a primary win condition. It's very easy to offset the advantages of MSU and provide incentive to take larger units.

I think the FLU vs. MSU argument is outside of the scope of detachment structure and goes more into the mechanical efficiency of stratagems and damage allocation. Suffice to say, any good detachment structure should allow you to play both.

One thing I am noticing is that a lot of people here seem to have a preconceived notion of how the game SHOULD be played. If so, this proposed rule change is not for you. Its goal is to open the system up so that regardless of what codex or codexes you use, you can build an army.

I mean, AdMech should have lots of Heavy Support; White Scars lots of Fast Attack; Assassins lots of Elites; the list goes on. Specialization shouldn't be penalized because it is baked into the DNA of many armies.

@ Peneitent Jake: I play Guard. I am well aware that Multi-Detachments don't mean multi-dexes. I play a wide variety of units. I buy models I like and then git-gud with them. In the past, I've used the standard FOC for most of my gaming career.

These days, because of my unit selections, I can easily build a double-Battalion plus other Detachment, when I play 1500 to 2000 points. I can crank out absurd numbers of CP because the units I like and own happen to be inexpensive (point wise) and my combined arms play style gives me the opportunity to take lots of troops and HQs, and then shuffle my other units into small detachments. Guard has no shortage of cheap, buffing HQ choices to sling around. Before the rule of 3 popped up? Lulz.

Or I could fit it all in a Single Battalion (except I had to take fewer HQ's). The only difference was 100 or so points of HQ's I *wanted* to have access to, to buff my dudes, and all of a sudden I had twice as many CP's. Same points, same units (more or less) and more options to expand into. I was gaining a resource for no reason, gaining access to more FOC slots that I wanted, and for all intents-and-purposes playing an "Unbound" army with command benefits. Compared to having to build a more structured, limited format.

Command points don't just represent tactical options, but also access to war materiel off table. A single, large formation is more likely to be lead by a Chapter Master, that can call in an Orbital bombardment from his Space Limo, that then smacks the stupid off an Ork's face with his PimpSword of Justice. Did the rag-tag group of cast-offs just happen to tactically outthink their enemy into having all those off-table resources available? Or did they come with the invasion fleet?

Sarcasm aside, sometimes having the biggest stick with the pointiest rock on the end wins. Sometimes, quantity has a quality all its own. As a Guard player, I can honestly say that no matter what I bring to the table, I'm really playing MSU. Because points wise, and being picked up by the handful wise, I have lots of units, that are cheap. I want other armies to have the same number of CP as me. I don't want to have to juggle stupid choices like, "I was going to take a Commissar, but for 15 more points I could get 5 more CP if I move these units into another battalion and make him a Lord Commissar..." because most armies can't do that. And it's aggrievating minutiae that I can change the in-game power of my army by such a degree, over what could have been a typo for all the importance it should have.

I want better game balance. The current format generates and rewards imbalance.

@ Suzuteo: I do want a good detachment system to allow both MSU and FLU. The current system and your proposed solution does not address the FLU option's failure.

Everyone has a notion of how the game should be played. That's what an opinion is. My opinion is that your proposal won't help. You can argue that it can... but you haven't addressed any points that have arisen in order to defend your suggestion, so in a discussion / debate, that tends to indicate your suggestion does not have merit. Not to be cruel, but simply to explain the idea of "winning" an argument. I agree that certain armies should have a focus on what they do. I propose that the CORE units suggestion I had above, and allowing the player to choose one "other" unit to be a CORE choice allows the specialization without the gaminess of detachment farming.

In order for you to prove the value of your proposal, you would need to refute my claims, and provide evidence or reasoning to support your claim.

Ironically, my saying this is a "dirty trick" in debate, in which I set myself up as the authority you need to appeal to in order to have your opinion validated, and by which I may then dismiss your points out of hand... so don't fall for that.

Present your claims as though to an audience in a theatre. You don't need to convince me. You need to convince the audience.

@PenitentJake
Speaking to your earlier point, you are right. The Battalion-Brigade relationship is the most awkward spot.

My proposal sought to be conservative and did not increase any of the requirements of the detachments. My methodology was to use specialist detachments as a baseline and break down CP like this:

1 CP per 1 HQ = 1.5 Troop = 2 Specialist

In keeping with this, Brigades should have 10 CP, being three specialist detachments (6CP) plus 6 troop units (4 CP). But I applied -2 CP to Brigade for the slot efficiency. My detachment system assumes we are capping detachments somehow, and it assumes that if you are in one of the codexes that is blessed with a bevy of unit types, you shouldn't be allowed to take two other detachments of convenience and a Brigade. By the way, Patrol and Auxiliary also got -1 CP penalty for convenience.

@greatbigtree
Going to be honest, you're really sucking all the oxygen out of the thread. While I've already stated that I agree with you in principle on the CP issue, you don't seem to get that this is a proposal for a modest reduction of requirements and a flattening of command benefits to improve the existing 8E's detachment structure. Instead, you're pushing what is essentially a totally different FOC system and talking about things that are 1) outside of the scope of my proposal and 2) not very smart given what we have already experienced of 8E.

On my first point, I don't think the detachment structure is where we fix the MSU vs FLU problem. And I am not interested to try by that method. I also didn't mention the datasheet cap at all.

On my second point, I think your CORE system would actually be worse than what we have now. This is because it removes command benefits, thus eliminating the incentive to take the more generalized detachment and then removes the Rule of Three in favor of a limit that honestly might as well not exist.

I mean, under your system, at 2000 points, you can take four of any datasheet and an unlimited number of units of a certain unit type. And you get 13 CP no matter what. This is not the direction we want to go. It doesn't encourage creativity. It invites abuse.