Switch Theme:

Abolishing detachments entirely  [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 gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






I have had an idea for a simple way to remove detachments without letting people run riot with buying whatever they want.

Rule of 3 still applies. All troops get the "Core" rule, as do some other units in armies that need the flexibility. Some Warlord traits make certain units Core, EG an ork "Speedboss" trait would make all speed-freeks and Trukk units Core, but remove it from Troop choices.

The concept is: You can only buy 1 non-core unit for every core unit in your army, plus your warlord. If you want to buy an additional unit, then it costs you 1CP, or 3 core or 3 CP for a superheavy.

So an army with Warlord and 4 core units can have 4 non-core units, and any extra they want costs CP.

This way you can build a themed force (EG an ork army of warbikes, warbuggies and such) without worrying about running out of slots, but your loss will be in either spending extra CP or losing out on a warlord trait (and probably being clan locked to evil suns), and also a lack of objective secured troops.

This gives troops a real purpose (unlocking more units). It also makes list-building more relaxed, as you can just make what you want then work out the cost, then adjust if you don't like it!

12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!

I'm Selling Infinity, 40k, dystopian wars, UK based!

I also make designs for t-shirts and mugs and such on Redbubble! 
   
Made in gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

It's great for armies like Space Marines, for whom basically anything that isn't a Vehicle or Character is CORE. Not so great for stuff like Necrons, whom have like 2 CORE units in the entire book.

What's the problem you're trying to solve anyway? Detachments are already very free-form, or if you want to houserule to create what you consider a reasonable list anyway, just run that list.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/08 13:58:15


 
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought





Eye of Terror

Detachments are semi-broken. They limit the number of HQs that can be taken, which forces some armies to take multiple detachments at the cost of command points. This affects some factions more than others, particularly Chaos.

I'd be in favor of getting rid of detachments altogether. The relationship between detachments and CP is just a little off and I don't think GW will get past it.

But replacing detachments with a tag system, i.e. limits on CORE units, would be a non-starter. Ideally, I'd like to see something more like formations from previous editions, where you get some kind of a bonus for taking specific combinations of troops. Or just go back to the old FOC.


   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







Why not go back to one force org chart everyone's subject to so the org chart actually limits what you're taking instead of making a different complicated way to let people take whatever they want?

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran




 AnomanderRake wrote:
Why not go back to one force org chart everyone's subject to so the org chart actually limits what you're taking instead of making a different complicated way to let people take whatever they want?
Probably because the force org chart lasted about five minutes before the first "also this is 2-4-1, this counts as Troops for this special character, this army uses a special, different force org chart, etc" rules needed to be added. There are upsides to having a single standard structure that everyone has to work with, but that'll never work in a game that also wants to accommodate Armoured Companies, Speed Freaks, Deathwing, Wild Riders, and so on. Something's got to give.
   
Made in ca
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard






Vancouver, BC

Why not just do it the AoS way then?

 warboss wrote:
Is there a permanent stickied thread for Chaos players to complain every time someone/anyone gets models or rules besides them? If not, there should be.
 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







RevlidRas wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
Why not go back to one force org chart everyone's subject to so the org chart actually limits what you're taking instead of making a different complicated way to let people take whatever they want?
Probably because the force org chart lasted about five minutes before the first "also this is 2-4-1, this counts as Troops for this special character, this army uses a special, different force org chart, etc" rules needed to be added. There are upsides to having a single standard structure that everyone has to work with, but that'll never work in a game that also wants to accommodate Armoured Companies, Speed Freaks, Deathwing, Wild Riders, and so on. Something's got to give.


No, no, I'm saying the "this uses a different org chart stuff" didn't need to be added. Go back to the org chart and then stop writing exceptions entirely. Just do the org chart once and leave it alone.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran




 AnomanderRake wrote:
No, no, I'm saying the "this uses a different org chart stuff" didn't need to be added. Go back to the org chart and then stop writing exceptions entirely. Just do the org chart once and leave it alone.
Right, but at that point you're saying that World Eaters can't exist, because Berserkers stay Elites for everyone, so an entire army of Berserkers is impossible. Armoured Companies can't exist, because tanks are Heavy Supports and you can't get around needing Infantry Squads, so an entire army of tanks is impossible. Wild Riders can't exist, because you can only have so many Fast Attack choices, so an entire army of Aeldari bikers and speeders is impossible. And so on. Do you keep things like Lieutenants being 2-4-1? If so, you've already opened the door to some factions getting 2-4-1 Heavy Support/Fast Attack/Elites choices, at which point the "standard" org chart is already effectively out the window.
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







RevlidRas wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
No, no, I'm saying the "this uses a different org chart stuff" didn't need to be added. Go back to the org chart and then stop writing exceptions entirely. Just do the org chart once and leave it alone.
Right, but at that point you're saying that World Eaters can't exist, because Berserkers stay Elites for everyone, so an entire army of Berserkers is impossible...


Or...you do a WE Codex with Berzerkers in Troops the same way they did the Death Guard and Thousand Sons? Or a WE-specific "WE Berzerkers" unit (like how Deathwatch Veterans aren't normal SM Veterans) that's Troops in their appendix, if you wanted to make absolutely sure nothing was the same datasheet in different slots. Use the excuse to make them a distinct unit. Give them Cadere Weapons. Whatever.

...Armoured Companies can't exist, because tanks are Heavy Supports and you can't get around needing Infantry Squads, so an entire army of tanks is impossible...


GOOD. That's the point.

...Wild Riders can't exist, because you can only have so many Fast Attack choices, so an entire army of Aeldari bikers and speeders is impossible...


Windriders were Troops for everyone for four editions. What's wrong with going back to that?

...Do you keep things like Lieutenants being 2-4-1?...


No. I don't. And while we're at it dump "tank squadrons", it's pretty dumb already that the Rule of 3 lets Guard have twelve Russes (3x3 plus 3 commanders) but it'd somehow be OP for someone to take four Predators.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/08 21:45:41


Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




Wouldn't the Ro3 be more of a hinderance than the Detachments?
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Wouldn't the Ro3 be more of a hinderance than the Detachments?


The rule of 3 is a badly-considered half-baked patch for GW's decision to organize detachments as a complicated way of just letting you take whatever you want with no restrictions. If you go back to not letting people take whatever they want with no restrictions the rule of 3 becomes unnecessary.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




 AnomanderRake wrote:

...Armoured Companies can't exist, because tanks are Heavy Supports and you can't get around needing Infantry Squads, so an entire army of tanks is impossible...


GOOD. That's the point.


You clearly don't understand GW and FW then. If they used this system they'd just go ahead and re-release the old 3rd edition Armoured Company or FW Imperial Armour rules making Leman Russ tanks Troops again. Thus making your entire point mute.
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







Jarms48 wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:

...Armoured Companies can't exist, because tanks are Heavy Supports and you can't get around needing Infantry Squads, so an entire army of tanks is impossible...


GOOD. That's the point.


You clearly don't understand GW and FW then. If they used this system they'd just go ahead and re-release the old 3rd edition Armoured Company or FW Imperial Armour rules making Leman Russ tanks Troops again. Thus making your entire point mute.


That's why this is Proposed Rules. This isn't about what GW would do to sell more models, this is about what we'd to to make the game better. I think not allowing skew lists that grab the most efficient units in a Codex and spam them makes the game better.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




 AnomanderRake wrote:

That's why this is Proposed Rules. This isn't about what GW would do to sell more models, this is about what we'd to to make the game better. I think not allowing skew lists that grab the most efficient units in a Codex and spam them makes the game better.


Yes, but I don't see why you have to hamstring Guard when the standard Leman Russ is never taken. Even in this edition if they're spammed you're going to lose by primary points easily. Guard as a faction should be very modular, taken in many different regiment architypes. Such as:

All Astra Militarum regiments have access to:
- Officers
- Ministorum Priests
- Crusaders
- Aeronautica Imperialis
- Officio Perfectus
- Scholastica Psykana

Regiments Architypes:
- Infantry regiment: Can take any Regiment Infantry units. Also unlocks units with the Militarum Auxilla, or Sentinel keyword.

- Artillery regiment: Can take any Regiment Artillery units, and Infantry Squads. Also unlocks units with the Tech-Priest Enginseer, Servitors, and Sentinel keyword.

- Tank regiment: Can take any Regiment Tank unit, and Infantry Squads but they must be taken in a Chimera/Taurox transport. Also unlocks units with the Tech-Priest Enginseer, Servitors, and Sentinel keyword.

- Mechanised regiment: Can take any Regiment Infantry units but they must be taken in a Chimera/Taurox transport. Also unlocks units with the Tech-Priest Enginseer, Servitors, and Sentinel keyword.

Militarum Tempestus regiment: Can take any Tempestus Regiment units. Also unlocks units with the Militarum Auxilla, Tech-Priest Enginseer, and Servitors keyword.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 AnomanderRake wrote:
No, no, I'm saying the "this uses a different org chart stuff" didn't need to be added. Go back to the org chart and then stop writing exceptions entirely. Just do the org chart once and leave it alone.


While returning to the old force org chart would work and be perfectly serviceable, such a change would create some problems and leave others unresolved. I feel like this would ultimately be a sidegrade, albeit a simpler one than the current system. A few things that stick out to me:

A.) To make your proposed return to the force org chart work, you've already had to propose adding new codices to the game and changing the force org role of several units. I genuinely believe your proposal has merit, but this raises a red flag for me already.
B.) You've proposed returning windriders to the troop slot, but how about other units that conceivably ought to be troopable for similar reasons? Troop banshees probably wouldn't be broken and would make as much sense for Iybraesil as windriders do for Saim-Hann. We could say, "Sure, just make banshees troops for Iybraesil," but then where do we draw the line? Surely Altansar could argue they deserve dark reaper troops for similar reasons, and Il-Kaithe could probably argue they should have vaul support batteries and fire prism troops. Not that it's impossible to draw a reasonable line, but what would the criteria for that look like?
C.) Allies would need to be addressed.
D.) People had plenty of complaints about the force org chart back in the day. It favors factions with efficient troops. It prevents you from leaning into certain themes (probably not unreasonable to want to field 3 squads of vypers and 3 squads of shining spears in a Saim-Hann list, but the force org chart prevents this). You don't have the slots to field a herald of each chaos god without special rules that basically modify the force org chart. Etc. We'd be returning to those problems if we just straight up switched back to a single force org chart per army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Crazyterran wrote:
Why not just do it the AoS way then?

Could work, but you risk running into some of the same problems we have now and would have to create additional special rules to avoid actually losing some of the army themes that are currently possible. Saim-Hann is a good go-to example. Right now, they're fast attack rather than troops. They were troops until 8th edition and thematically should fill the role of troops in a Saim-Hann army. So do we say that windriders count towards the "% core" requirement of an AoS style army? If not, you're invalidating a classic canon style of army that had rules for decades. If so, what makes it okay for a unit of bikes equipped exclusively with heavy weapons to count as core while units with far less firepower point for point might not?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 techsoldaten wrote:
Detachments are semi-broken. They limit the number of HQs that can be taken, which forces some armies to take multiple detachments at the cost of command points. This affects some factions more than others, particularly Chaos.

I'd be in favor of getting rid of detachments altogether. The relationship between detachments and CP is just a little off and I don't think GW will get past it.

But replacing detachments with a tag system, i.e. limits on CORE units, would be a non-starter. Ideally, I'd like to see something more like formations from previous editions, where you get some kind of a bonus for taking specific combinations of troops. Or just go back to the old FOC.



I like the idea of abolishing detachments, or at least limited force org slots. However, I want to point out that one of the reasons/benefits of the current detachment system is that it creates an incentive to play monofaction instead of always taking allies. If I want to field some harlequins to serve as a melee threat in my mostly-craftworlder army, I'm functionally paying CP to expand my list of available units to include harlequins. Also, while formations were cute, they were also extremely problematic. A return to formations would require we solve all the problems that we went back and forth about in the Proposed Rules section back in 7th edition.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 some bloke wrote:
I have had an idea for a simple way to remove detachments without letting people run riot with buying whatever they want.

Rule of 3 still applies. All troops get the "Core" rule, as do some other units in armies that need the flexibility. Some Warlord traits make certain units Core, EG an ork "Speedboss" trait would make all speed-freeks and Trukk units Core, but remove it from Troop choices.

The risk here is that your particular army might not be lucky enough to get a trait that makes your preferred unit a troop. My Iybraesil is a canon-but-minor craftworld that doesn't have a craftworld trait in the current codex, so there's a good chance I wouldn't get a trait to make banshees troops. And even if I did, is there a reason my hypothetical buddy with a homebrew craftworld that favors striking scorpions the same way mine favors banshees shouldn't be able to take scorpion troops? And if you allow both of those units to be taken as troops, what's the criteria for which units don't get to be troops?


The concept is: You can only buy 1 non-core unit for every core unit in your army, plus your warlord. If you want to buy an additional unit, then it costs you 1CP, or 3 core or 3 CP for a superheavy.

So an army with Warlord and 4 core units can have 4 non-core units, and any extra they want costs CP.

I like the bones of this idea, but I'm not sure it's quite there. Continuing on with the Iybraesil banshee example that I'm sure you're all sick of... Let's say I start the game with -3CP to field three banshee units as the heart of my army. For the same 3 CP someone else could be fielding something much nastier. Those same CP could be letting my custodes opponent ignore his expensive troop tax in favor of more bikers or bike captains, for instance.

And under the current rules, I can already spend 3(?) CP to field a vanguard detachment with a trio of banshees. I'm annoyed that I'm starting the game at a disadvantage over someone fielding more powerful units that just happen to already be troops, but I can do it. Your proposal seems like it would end up with similar results while also risking injecting new problems. Actually, the current rules charge me some CP to field my banshee vanguard, but then I can field additional non-core units without paying any additional CP. Under your proposal, I'd have to pay 3CP for the banshees, then 1 CP for some reapers, 1CP for my hawks, etc.

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2021/06/09 05:01:15


 
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought





Eye of Terror

Feels like everyone is arguing for their preferred method of restricting unit choices. Not sure its leading anywhere.

Maybe we should look at why detachments / formations / FOCs exist. What are the goals, and are they designed to benefit users or GW?

FOCs existed in 40k through 7th edition. The point of an FOC was to limit the types of units that could appear in a list. This gave the game a sense of balance, in that no one could take 10 tanks and autowin against infantry armies.

One of the problems with FOCs was that not all Codexes were created equally. The true strength of a faction might exist in the Heavy Support slot, and the FOC would limit the player to 3 options. Another faction might have a selection of strong units for each FOC slot, creating serious imbalances in the game.

This changed in 6th, players could now take double FOCs. There was an accompanying allies chart that told players what armies were allowed to ally with whom. Allies were great for Imperial and Chaos players, not so great for Xenos armies. Tyranids, for instance, could only ally with themselves. But they did offer a way to get past some of the limitations of FOCs, a player could take double FOCs for the same faction and focus on the optimal units for their army.

During 7th, formations were introduced. A formation happened when a player took a specific combination of models, those units would receive special bonuses within the game. Arguably, this benefited GW the most, there were plenty of formations that included sub-optimal units that didn't appear often in lists. Never got much use out of formations.

When we got to 8th, we got detachments. Detachments resemble FOCs in that they limit unit choices. But they also earned players command points, there was an incentive to use as many detachments as possible. This, along with the introduction of keywords, lead to issues with soup armies that consisted only of optimal units. Since there was no incentive to focus on a single faction, the game lost some of it's flavor.

In 9th edition, detachments changed. Players received a number of command points at the start of the game, each detachment after the first cost CPs. This combatted the problem of soup armies, but it also exposed another issue. Certain 8th edition factions depend on HQ choices to buff their troops, the new detachment rules made it harder to take them. This created an inequity in that some factions could operate more efficiently with a single detachment, whereas others really needed more than one to do much on the tabletop.

Looking at detachments in terms of their historical context, seems they are meant to achieve the following goals:

- Detachments make sure HQs, troops, elites, fast attack, flyers, heavy support, Lords of War, dedicated transports and scenery have a place in any army.

- Detachments, along with the rule of 3, make sure no list skews too heavily towards one role.

- Detachments, along with keywords, discourage soup armies by taking away bonuses when forces don't all share the proper keywords.

- Detachments, along with command points, create an incentive to field the least complex list possible by limiting access to Stratagems for multiple detachments.

The question I have: don't detachments seem too complex? There are 24 factions that have to work in this structure, some will benefit from it more than others. But those benefits have a greater impact on the game than anything we ever saw with FOCs, at most an FOC would stop you from taking more than 3 elite / fast attack / heavy support choices. They did not limit your access to Stratagems / special rules, like we see with detachments.

I'd rather have something simpler to guide decisions about list building. Don't know if I'd go back to the FOC system, but I'd rather detachments were not tied to so many other things in the game.

   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







Jarms48 wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:

That's why this is Proposed Rules. This isn't about what GW would do to sell more models, this is about what we'd to to make the game better. I think not allowing skew lists that grab the most efficient units in a Codex and spam them makes the game better.


Yes, but I don't see why you have to hamstring Guard when the standard Leman Russ is never taken. Even in this edition if they're spammed you're going to lose by primary points easily. Guard as a faction should be very modular, taken in many different regiment architypes...


The argument that not allowing Guard to spam Russes constitutes "hamstringing" them works for any unit in any faction, at which point I question what the org chart is for. Why aren't we all just spamming the most efficient possible choice in our books and then back-fitting in lore explanations later? I'll write you fluff for a "Riptide Cadre" if you want.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







Wyldhunt wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
No, no, I'm saying the "this uses a different org chart stuff" didn't need to be added. Go back to the org chart and then stop writing exceptions entirely. Just do the org chart once and leave it alone.


While returning to the old force org chart would work and be perfectly serviceable, such a change would create some problems and leave others unresolved. I feel like this would ultimately be a sidegrade, albeit a simpler one than the current system. A few things that stick out to me:

A.) To make your proposed return to the force org chart work, you've already had to propose adding new codices to the game and changing the force org role of several units. I genuinely believe your proposal has merit, but this raises a red flag for me already.
B.) You've proposed returning windriders to the troop slot, but how about other units that conceivably ought to be troopable for similar reasons? Troop banshees probably wouldn't be broken and would make as much sense for Iybraesil as windriders do for Saim-Hann. We could say, "Sure, just make banshees troops for Iybraesil," but then where do we draw the line? Surely Altansar could argue they deserve dark reaper troops for similar reasons, and Il-Kaithe could probably argue they should have vaul support batteries and fire prism troops. Not that it's impossible to draw a reasonable line, but what would the criteria for that look like?
C.) Allies would need to be addressed.
D.) People had plenty of complaints about the force org chart back in the day. It favors factions with efficient troops. It prevents you from leaning into certain themes (probably not unreasonable to want to field 3 squads of vypers and 3 squads of shining spears in a Saim-Hann list, but the force org chart prevents this). You don't have the slots to field a herald of each chaos god without special rules that basically modify the force org chart. Etc. We'd be returning to those problems if we just straight up switched back to a single force org chart per army...


Ultimately taking away peoples' ability to spam the most efficient choice in their book makes the game less about the rock-paper-scissors skew game. In an ideal universe (with other changes, of course, this isn't a one-sentence fix because there are no one-sentence fixes for the bloated mess 9e has become) this would allow TAC lists with varied units to exist instead of forcing everyone to spam one thing to keep up.

Point by point:
A): Yes. I'll say it again: there are no one-sentence fixes. Any fix anyone in this thread proposes would require rewriting a chunk of the game to accommodate it. GW's insistence on trying to "fix" the game by writing the shortest rules possible is why it's only taken four years to build all the way back up to more bloat than 7th.
B): Small arms. "Troops" to me should be primarily infantry, with some bikes/jump troops on a case-by-case basis, and be soft-limited to S4- and non-power weapons barring 1/5 or 1/3 upgrade weapons (yes, I know Fire Warriors are S5, they can have a pass because I am incredibly tired of arguing with Tau players about whether S5 small arms are a good idea). I'm aware current Windriders can have all scatter lasers if they want; I maintain that was a moronic decision. If they're coming back to Troops they need to go back to one gun per 3 (pre-7th). If they want to keep all their guns they can stay in FA and Saim-Hann players can get used to the idea that "Saim-Hann" doesn't mean "all bikes all the time" and mechanized infantry are perfectly fluffy (look at the studio Guardians, for heaven's sake).
B.ii): Current Troops that would be taken out of Troops are Custodes (who should be a supplemental unit a la Assassins rather than a Codex), Heavy Intercessors (who are a bloated datasheet in a bloated army that should never have been Troops in the first place), and Kataphron (who are only Troops at all because some idiot decided that the Mechanicum needed to be split into two books in 7th). Things that would be added to Troops are Assault Marines (who shouldn't be competing for slots with Vanguard Veterans), Raptors (for symmetry), and maybe Windriders/Reavers depending on how much aggro "limit Windriders to one heavy weapon per three" generates.
C): I don't understand what Allies are for. GW doesn't seem to know what they're doing with them, given how they fluctuate so quickly from mandatory to unplayable. I'd dump unrestricted Allies with full access to their own home book from the game and move to a 3e Inquisition-style version where you'd get a more limited selection of units, few or no Stratagems, and no way to use WTs/Relics from allies.
D): Yes, the old FoC was limiting. I wish to stress that everything GW has done to open up the org chart more (multiple detachments and allies in 6th, formations in 7th, new org charts in 8th/9th) has only produced more unfluffy spam lists that render your fluffy lists even more unplayable because the spam list is just better. I know locking down the org chart and preventing spam is going to stop some fluffy lists from existing, but it'd give us a chance of making 40k a game again instead of an exercise in who bought more ridiculous crap.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Addendum: If you really want the fluffy spam lists back then do it like 30k Rites of War, and give downsides to putting the special unit in Troops. Sure, you can take all bikes in your White Scars, but you can't have any infantry at all unless they deploy in transports, no Dreadnaughts, and no Land Raiders if you're building that list. Stuff like that.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/09 06:07:40


Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




techsoldaten wrote:
The question I have: don't detachments seem too complex? There are 24 factions that have to work in this structure, some will benefit from it more than others. But those benefits have a greater impact on the game than anything we ever saw with FOCs, at most an FOC would stop you from taking more than 3 elite / fast attack / heavy support choices. They did not limit your access to Stratagems / special rules, like we see with detachments.

I'd rather have something simpler to guide decisions about list building. Don't know if I'd go back to the FOC system, but I'd rather detachments were not tied to so many other things in the game.

Agreed on detachments being more complex than necessary. I'd argue that...
* The main goal of the FOC and detachments is to limit skew and the exclusive fielding of relatively efficient units. (Efficient relative to troops, mostly.)
* Neither detachments nor the FOC are particularly good at preventing players from fielding skew lists and hyper-efficient units. With the exception of LoWs and HQs, you can generally get plenty of whatever battle field role slot you need. How much you pay to unlock those slots varies wildly from codex to codex and doesn't seem to be strongly considered when setting unit prices.

So with that in mind, I kind of like the idea of reducing "detachments" to basically keyword umbrellas. Get rid of force org slots altogether. All the space elves in my first detachment are Ulthwe. All the space elves in my second detachment are Alaitoc. If I want to field nothing but HQs, I can. Each detachment after the first costs X CP so that you have some incentive not to soup every game.

Of course, that doesn't really address the skew problems, but neither do the FOC/detachments. Like, an army where I spam nothing but elites can look very different depending on what those elites are. I might be fielding nothing but aspect warriors (probably fine), or I might be fielding nothing but riptides (probably not fine). Battlefield roles are mostly meaningless. They seem to mostly serve as a too-vague rating of just how "yikes" a unit is when you take more than one of them. Tons of troops? No yikes at all. Tons of elites/FA/HS? A bit of yikes. All flyers and Lords of War? Even more yikes.

This is a really half-baked idea, but I guess you could theoretically sort of invert the AoS army building rules by giving them a maximum "yikes budget." As in any units that seem like they'd be too good if you fielded a bunch of them get the "yikes" keyword. Only X% of your army may be made up of units with the yikes keyword. So my banshees, being pretty non-yikes, can be fielded in droves without issue. But I'd only be able to field so many dark reapers because they do have the yikes keyword. X could be a relatively high number. You could set it at, say, 50% meaning people could take lots of efficient units, but they'd still be forced to field some tamer elements that should tone down the overall spice of their list. It's the AoS approach, but most of your codex counts as "core," basically.

We almost need a detailed army comp metric that identifies how many powerful combos your list contains and gives your overall army a "yikes score," but I realize that's probably not practical in a game that constantly has new rules being released.

AnomanderRake wrote:
The argument that not allowing Guard to spam Russes constitutes "hamstringing" them works for any unit in any faction, at which point I question what the org chart is for. Why aren't we all just spamming the most efficient possible choice in our books and then back-fitting in lore explanations later? I'll write you fluff for a "Riptide Cadre" if you want.

I'd argue that the existence of "most efficient units" whose abilities are so much more powerful for their costs than other units is kind of the root of the problem here. If russes are so much more useful/powerful for their points than equivalent points of guardsmen, then the russ should probably be more expensive relative to guardsmen. Now, that doesn't mean that all units need to be equally lethal. Units can be more or less effective against specific types of targets. They can have greater or lesser mobility that sets them apart from similar options. They can have access to special rules and stratagems that other units don't have (kind of rehashing my points from the troops thread). But if a tactical marine squad is equipped for anti-infantry and they're both worse at killing infantry and worse and staying alive than something like a unit of centurions for the same points cost, then that would probably mean the centurions are too good at what they do compared to the tacticals.

(No idea what centurions actually cost or how their lethality compares to tacticals. Just drew their name out of a hat for the sake of discussion.)

So ideally, an armoured company would be a viable army that leans really heavily into being resistant to small arms fire but is susceptible to anti-tank offense AND can have a close game against a list without a ton of anti-tank by virtue of playing the objective, utilizing the advantages of the second list's non-specialized units, etc. Which admittedly, is a big ask.
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







Wyldhunt wrote:
AnomanderRake wrote:
The argument that not allowing Guard to spam Russes constitutes "hamstringing" them works for any unit in any faction, at which point I question what the org chart is for. Why aren't we all just spamming the most efficient possible choice in our books and then back-fitting in lore explanations later? I'll write you fluff for a "Riptide Cadre" if you want.

I'd argue that the existence of "most efficient units" whose abilities are so much more powerful for their costs than other units is kind of the root of the problem here. If russes are so much more useful/powerful for their points than equivalent points of guardsmen, then the russ should probably be more expensive relative to guardsmen. Now, that doesn't mean that all units need to be equally lethal. Units can be more or less effective against specific types of targets. They can have greater or lesser mobility that sets them apart from similar options. They can have access to special rules and stratagems that other units don't have (kind of rehashing my points from the troops thread). But if a tactical marine squad is equipped for anti-infantry and they're both worse at killing infantry and worse and staying alive than something like a unit of centurions for the same points cost, then that would probably mean the centurions are too good at what they do compared to the tacticals.

(No idea what centurions actually cost or how their lethality compares to tacticals. Just drew their name out of a hat for the sake of discussion.)

So ideally, an armoured company would be a viable army that leans really heavily into being resistant to small arms fire but is susceptible to anti-tank offense AND can have a close game against a list without a ton of anti-tank by virtue of playing the objective, utilizing the advantages of the second list's non-specialized units, etc. Which admittedly, is a big ask.


Which wanders straight into the skew problem. If you can take an army of all Russes and I can't know that before the game begins I have to have chosen to take all anti-tank weaponry or a big chunk of my army is useless, which means we're playing a game of rock-paper-scissors during list-building instead of a game of Warhammer. And if I've chosen to take all anti-tank weaponry then when I run into someone else with a Green Tide list I'm screwed. Which means we're either forced to negotiate which one of us has to build an unfluffy list before the game starts (am I forced to take all AT or are you forced to take some infantry?), or GW has to horrendously inflate the lethality of the game so an all-comers list won't be short of anti-armour when fighting a skew list, or I'm forced to find the anti-everything guns and spam them.

Or we could take the Bolt Action solution and say "there's an alternate narrative game mode where we're all taking just tanks" instead of trying to tie the game in knots so the all-tanks list can play in the same game as the all-comers list.

Or we could be playing Sigmar where every weapon is about as efficient against every target it's attacking so it doesn't matter whether you're taking tanks or not, but at that point why does any of this matter?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/09 06:19:54


Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




 techsoldaten wrote:

I'd rather have something simpler to guide decisions about list building. Don't know if I'd go back to the FOC system, but I'd rather detachments were not tied to so many other things in the game.


I quite like the current detachment mechanic. I just wish GW weren't so eager to kill souping. They could have added an additional step to the army creation process. Something like:

- Your Warlord forfeits their Command Benefits but in return does not lose access to their detachment abilities to take an allied faction in their army. This represents that Warlord expending their resources and influences to call for aid. So for example that means you'd be looking at minimum 4 CP cost for 2 Imperium keyword Patrols.

For narrative play we could even bring back the old ally chart. We have more factions than ever now, and also more lore around GSC that could make for some interesting ally interactions. There's been lore stating that Eldar, Ork, and Tau GSC are possible. So Nids could potentially ally with the aforementioned, and Guard. Which fixes up the issue of Nids not having any friends.

I'd love to see more Agents of the Imperium too. With the new Ad-Mech codex it seems we probably won't be seeing the Techpriest Enginseer in the Guard codex anymore. They could have been added as a potential Agent of the Imperium with a simple change from repair Astra Militarum vehicles to repair Imperium vehicles. Rogue Traders like Elucia Vhane would be cool to see as well.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AnomanderRake wrote:

Which wanders straight into the skew problem. If you can take an army of all Russes and I can't know that before the game begins I have to have chosen to take all anti-tank weaponry or a big chunk of my army is useless, which means we're playing a game of rock-paper-scissors during list-building instead of a game of Warhammer. And if I've chosen to take all anti-tank weaponry then when I run into someone else with a Green Tide list I'm screwed. Which means we're either forced to negotiate which one of us has to build an unfluffy list before the game starts (am I forced to take all AT or are you forced to take some infantry?), or GW has to horrendously inflate the lethality of the game so an all-comers list won't be short of anti-armour when fighting a skew list, or I'm forced to find the anti-everything guns and spam them.


This would be considered as list tailoring outside of competitive play. A good player with a balanced list would have enough models to deny primary points to a tank list, enough AT firepower to kill the biggest threats, and then know when to charge to get them stuck in engagement range.

Did you fight against pure Russ tanks? They aren't that great. If anything Tank Commanders should be what you're complaining about. That's the most efficient option.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/06/09 06:35:42


 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







Jarms48 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AnomanderRake wrote:

Which wanders straight into the skew problem. If you can take an army of all Russes and I can't know that before the game begins I have to have chosen to take all anti-tank weaponry or a big chunk of my army is useless, which means we're playing a game of rock-paper-scissors during list-building instead of a game of Warhammer. And if I've chosen to take all anti-tank weaponry then when I run into someone else with a Green Tide list I'm screwed. Which means we're either forced to negotiate which one of us has to build an unfluffy list before the game starts (am I forced to take all AT or are you forced to take some infantry?), or GW has to horrendously inflate the lethality of the game so an all-comers list won't be short of anti-armour when fighting a skew list, or I'm forced to find the anti-everything guns and spam them.


This would be considered as list tailoring outside of competitive play. A good player with a balanced list would have enough models to deny primary points to a tank list, enough AT firepower to kill the biggest threats, and then know when to charge to get them stuck in engagement range.

Did you fight against pure Russ tanks? They aren't that great. If anything Tank Commanders should be what you're complaining about. That's the most efficient option.


I don't want to play the skew list rock-paper-scissors game. Whether or not Russ spam is OP at this exact moment in this exact iteration of 9th is irrelevant to whether playing the skew-list rock-paper-scissors game in general is any fun. Have you ever played using the Armoured Company list from 3rd?

Also: Remember the bits about spamming the anti-everything guns and GW inflating the game's lethality out of control? That's already happened.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/09 06:45:39


Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

There's also no reason an Armoured Company needs to be purely tanks, it's entirely fluffy that they would be bringing along infantry support, either indigenous to the Armoured Company itself or attached from a nearby unit, because tanks need infantry support.
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




I don't want to play the skew list rock-paper-scissors game. Whether or not Russ spam is OP at this exact moment in this exact iteration of 9th is irrelevant to whether playing the skew-list rock-paper-scissors game in general is any fun. Have you ever played using the Armoured Company list from 3rd?

Also: Remember the bits about spamming the anti-everything guns and GW inflating the game's lethality out of control? That's already happened.


Yes, I played it and there were several restrictions:
- 1) Any weapon could hit and glance them on 6's. This was a special rule that came in the chapter approved. It was called something like Lucky Hit. If a unit had no chance of typically doing damage, say a S4 bolter into the front armour 14 of a Leman Russ, they were allowed to roll anyway. On a 6 to hit and 6 to wound/glance, whatever you want to call it these days, caused a glancing hit.
- 2) Once half of their vehicles were destroyed or immobilised they were forced to remain stationary or move back towards the players table-edge.
- 3) They weren't allowed to go within 12 of any terrain that had enemy infantry in it, unless that vehicle had friendly infantry within 6 inch of it.
- 4) You have to consider these were the days that it AP didn't match or beat a save you got the full roll. So if you took mainly battle tanks those battle cannons did nothing against anything with 2+ armour, they were also terrible at killing AV14.

I think it was updated when the 3.5 codex came out, I remember there being doctrines introduced and everything got a points increase.
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought





Eye of Terror

Wyldhunt wrote:
techsoldaten wrote:The question I have: don't detachments seem too complex? There are 24 factions that have to work in this structure, some will benefit from it more than others. But those benefits have a greater impact on the game than anything we ever saw with FOCs, at most an FOC would stop you from taking more than 3 elite / fast attack / heavy support choices. They did not limit your access to Stratagems / special rules, like we see with detachments.

I'd rather have something simpler to guide decisions about list building. Don't know if I'd go back to the FOC system, but I'd rather detachments were not tied to so many other things in the game.

Agreed on detachments being more complex than necessary. I'd argue that...
* The main goal of the FOC and detachments is to limit skew and the exclusive fielding of relatively efficient units. (Efficient relative to troops, mostly.)
* Neither detachments nor the FOC are particularly good at preventing players from fielding skew lists and hyper-efficient units. With the exception of LoWs and HQs, you can generally get plenty of whatever battle field role slot you need. How much you pay to unlock those slots varies wildly from codex to codex and doesn't seem to be strongly considered when setting unit prices.

So with that in mind, I kind of like the idea of reducing "detachments" to basically keyword umbrellas. Get rid of force org slots altogether. All the space elves in my first detachment are Ulthwe. All the space elves in my second detachment are Alaitoc. If I want to field nothing but HQs, I can. Each detachment after the first costs X CP so that you have some incentive not to soup every game.

Of course, that doesn't really address the skew problems, but neither do the FOC/detachments. Like, an army where I spam nothing but elites can look very different depending on what those elites are. I might be fielding nothing but aspect warriors (probably fine), or I might be fielding nothing but riptides (probably not fine). Battlefield roles are mostly meaningless. They seem to mostly serve as a too-vague rating of just how "yikes" a unit is when you take more than one of them. Tons of troops? No yikes at all. Tons of elites/FA/HS? A bit of yikes. All flyers and Lords of War? Even more yikes.


Good points.

I tend to run skew lists myself, detachments and FOCs have never stopped me. In 5th edition, I ran a Chaos Lord, 2 CSM squads and 30+ Chaos Spawn. In 8th, I ran a Black Legion list with 23 lascannons. We tend to think about them in terms of the battlefield role, not unit characteristics, and this might be overlooking something.

Let me ask: are you in favor of keeping detachments or proposing a new way of measuring list strength? The idea of a Yikes mechanic is intriguing, but I want to make sure I'm not reading anything into your response.

   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran




 AnomanderRake wrote:
Or...you do a WE Codex with Berzerkers in Troops the same way they did the Death Guard and Thousand Sons? Or a WE-specific "WE Berzerkers" unit (like how Deathwatch Veterans aren't normal SM Veterans) that's Troops in their appendix, if you wanted to make absolutely sure nothing was the same datasheet in different slots. Use the excuse to make them a distinct unit. Give them Cadere Weapons. Whatever.
At that point, why not add an Armoured Company Codex, or an "Armoured Company Leman Russ" that's Troops in their appendix? You're not actually making an argument in principle for a standard FOC, because you're clearly willing to manipulate or bypass or change that standard FOC for the sake of specific factions or units. You're just making the argument that you specifically don't like Armoured Companies. That's totally an argument we can have, but it's also a totally different argument.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
No. I don't. And while we're at it dump "tank squadrons", it's pretty dumb already that the Rule of 3 lets Guard have twelve Russes (3x3 plus 3 commanders) but it'd somehow be OP for someone to take four Predators.
Tank Squadrons existed before Rule of Three, which was already a very artificial restriction used to bluntly limit the impact of over-popular units without having to actually address them specifically, and interacts with different factions in wildly different ways depending on how they handle upgrades, unit sizes, and datasheets.

Is there any particular reason that a Blood Ravens army can't take 12 Primaris Librarians, but can take 3 of each of a Primaris Librarian, Librarian, Phobos Librarian, and Terminator Librarian? Is there any particular reason that Space Marines can take 3x Predator Annihilators and 3x Predator Destructors, when the only thing that changes is their main gun, while Adeptus Mechanicus can only take 3x Skorpius Disintegrators and have to pick different main guns within that datasheet? Why can I take 3x Daemon Princes in a Combat Patrol game (occupying 90% of my points), but I can't take 4x Daemon Princes in an Onslaught game (occupying 15% of my points). Hell, Tank Squadrons let Guard have 3x as many Leman Russes, but Combat Squads let Space Marines have twice as many Terminator Squads with half the models. Why?

It's all awkward as hell. If you really want an explicit Rule of Three, you'd be better-served stealing the unit-specific limits from Kill Team, and having them scale based on game size.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I don't want to play the skew list rock-paper-scissors game. Whether or not Russ spam is OP at this exact moment in this exact iteration of 9th is irrelevant to whether playing the skew-list rock-paper-scissors game in general is any fun.
Okay, so I'll ban Armoured Companies that are hard to damage with my anti-INFANTRY guns. Then ban Swarm Tyranid lists that render my anti-VEHICLE weapons useless. Then ban all Daemon lists, obviously, because they make all those points I spent on Armour Penentration totally pointless. Imperial Knights, that's a straightforward ban, they're not allowed to be a faction. Death Guard, well, just look at what they do to my D2 weapons, those are expensive, banhammer comes down. Adepta Sororitas screw over Thousand Sons and Grey Knights and anyone who runs PSYKERS by offering cheap and easy army-wide Deny The Witch, so ban them.

Don't get me wrong, I am sympathetic to the notion that match-ups shouldn't decide everything, and I dislike "abilities" that just totally nullify other "abilities" that an army spent points on and may even be built around... but you're never going to actually escape that kind of "tech". If anything, I'd find it more worthwhile to have tournaments let you bring along a "side deck" of units worth 10-20% of your main army, and swap it in or out depending on the game. 1500-point tournament? Bring along an extra squad of Eradicators and slot them in when an Armoured Company shows up, replacing something else. That makes flexible armies less vulnerable to unexpected "skew" lists.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/06/09 10:09:54


 
   
Made in gb
Stalwart Tribune





Personally I am happy with detachments as they stand.

But one alternative set of rules could be linked to the <Core> keyword. i.e. Core is unrestriced. but non-core units can only be taken up to 25% of the game value but this limit is per datasheet. i.e. at 2k you can only spend say 500points on 1 datasheet that is not core, but this can be split into as many units of that datasheet type as you want - if that non-core unit costs 100points then you can have 5 of them. the main thing is that every non-core unit can be taken up to the 25% limit. i.e. you could have many different non-core datasheets worth up to 500points each at 2k - so you could take an army entirely of non-core units, but they would have to be from at least 4 different datasheets.

Then you could look at giving out additional core keywords for subfaction traits possibly: for example:

assuming elder jetbikes and vypers are not core (I don't know if they are/will be or not - just an example). but in a Sam-hainn army (as determined by say a warlord choosing the faction or choosing a particular datasheet as a HQ choice) then these 2 units become core, but maybe they loose core on some different units.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/06/09 11:40:13


Praise the Omnissiah

About 4k of .

Imperial Knights (Valiant, Warden & Armigers)

Some Misc. Imperium units etc. Assassins...

About 2k of  
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 AnomanderRake wrote:

Ultimately taking away peoples' ability to spam the most efficient choice in their book makes the game less about the rock-paper-scissors skew game. In an ideal universe (with other changes, of course, this isn't a one-sentence fix because there are no one-sentence fixes for the bloated mess 9e has become) this would allow TAC lists with varied units to exist instead of forcing everyone to spam one thing to keep up.

Point by point:
A): Yes. I'll say it again: there are no one-sentence fixes. Any fix anyone in this thread proposes would require rewriting a chunk of the game to accommodate it. GW's insistence on trying to "fix" the game by writing the shortest rules possible is why it's only taken four years to build all the way back up to more bloat than 7th.
B): Small arms. "Troops" to me should be primarily infantry, with some bikes/jump troops on a case-by-case basis, and be soft-limited to S4- and non-power weapons barring 1/5 or 1/3 upgrade weapons (yes, I know Fire Warriors are S5, they can have a pass because I am incredibly tired of arguing with Tau players about whether S5 small arms are a good idea). I'm aware current Windriders can have all scatter lasers if they want; I maintain that was a moronic decision. If they're coming back to Troops they need to go back to one gun per 3 (pre-7th). If they want to keep all their guns they can stay in FA and Saim-Hann players can get used to the idea that "Saim-Hann" doesn't mean "all bikes all the time" and mechanized infantry are perfectly fluffy (look at the studio Guardians, for heaven's sake).
B.ii): Current Troops that would be taken out of Troops are Custodes (who should be a supplemental unit a la Assassins rather than a Codex), Heavy Intercessors (who are a bloated datasheet in a bloated army that should never have been Troops in the first place), and Kataphron (who are only Troops at all because some idiot decided that the Mechanicum needed to be split into two books in 7th). Things that would be added to Troops are Assault Marines (who shouldn't be competing for slots with Vanguard Veterans), Raptors (for symmetry), and maybe Windriders/Reavers depending on how much aggro "limit Windriders to one heavy weapon per three" generates.
C): I don't understand what Allies are for. GW doesn't seem to know what they're doing with them, given how they fluctuate so quickly from mandatory to unplayable. I'd dump unrestricted Allies with full access to their own home book from the game and move to a 3e Inquisition-style version where you'd get a more limited selection of units, few or no Stratagems, and no way to use WTs/Relics from allies.
D): Yes, the old FoC was limiting. I wish to stress that everything GW has done to open up the org chart more (multiple detachments and allies in 6th, formations in 7th, new org charts in 8th/9th) has only produced more unfluffy spam lists that render your fluffy lists even more unplayable because the spam list is just better. I know locking down the org chart and preventing spam is going to stop some fluffy lists from existing, but it'd give us a chance of making 40k a game again instead of an exercise in who bought more ridiculous crap.


I seem to have totally missed this response yesterday, Rake. Sorry about that.

A.) That's fair. Especially when we're talking about something as major as overhauling how armies are put together.
B.) We might disagree a bit on this point. Personally, I really like the idea of being able to take a heavily themed force, and having to take some "vanilla" options (or just options that don't lean into the theme) can weaken how cool it is to see that army on the table. Seeing an army of all jetbikes and skimmers doesn't feel quite the same when you know the avengers in those skimmers are only there to satisfy a troop tax. This is especially noticeable in smaller games (which I've come to prefer over 2k games) where that troop tax makes up a larger portion of your army. And that would be even more true if patrol detachments were ditched in favor of an FOC (if only by a single extra tax unit).

Given your criteria for what should qualify as a troop, how do you feel about something like a Death Wing themed army? You're potentially looking at a bunch of heavily armored bodies rocking strength 8 weapons (power fists). Would you require a green marine tax in DWing armies? Or how about those Iybraesil banshees I keep going on about? In case my internet tone is unclear, these are sincere questions; I'm not trying to pull a gotcha by pointing out that a popular army theme doesn't seem to fit into the criteria you've established. Just trying to get an idea for what potential armies might look like under your proposal.

Semi-side note: I'd be perfectly alright with troop windriders going back to 1 per 3 on the heavy weapons. Especially if we could stick some sort of melee weapon on a squad leader to lean into the close-ranged thing.

C.) I'm not necessarily against that. I'd even be willing to go so far as to say allies maybe shouldn't be a thing in tournament play. To me, their appeal is in more casual and story-oriented games. I like being able to represent the ynnari family reunion and having my primaris AL leading some cultist guardsmen.

D.) See, I'm not sure I agree with you here. Giving players more options has created new problems, but internal and external faction balance was far from perfect when I started playing in 5th edition. Limiting options makes balance a simpler puzzle to solve (fewer variables), but it isn't a solution in and of itself. Which I'm sure you're aware of. I just point it out because it seems like the drawback of making some army themes less viable/less-easy to represent seems certain, an improvement in balance worth that reduction in army variety does not. Fewer options probably makes it possible to achieve greater balance; I'd just want us to keep in mind how much balance bang we're getting for our option buck, y'know?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Addendum: If you really want the fluffy spam lists back then do it like 30k Rites of War, and give downsides to putting the special unit in Troops. Sure, you can take all bikes in your White Scars, but you can't have any infantry at all unless they deploy in transports, no Dreadnaughts, and no Land Raiders if you're building that list. Stuff like that.

Despite having argued against them earlier in this thread, I'd actually be happy to give a Rites of War approach a shot. However, I'd point out that:
1.) You still risk ending up with haves and have nots that can seem unfair/arbitrary. Can DA have a Death Wing RoW? Can Iyanden have wraith guard troops? Can Iybraesil have banshee troops? Can some guy's homebrew craftworld have scorpion or dark reaper troops?
2.) Pretty sure you're aware of the oldschool build-a-chapter rules that often boiled down to, "Get bonuses, but you aren't allowed to take options you weren't planning to take anyway." So not taking dreadnaughts and land raiders is kind of a "fake" drawback if they aren't currently so powerful that not taking them makes your list less efficient (before factoring in the benefits you receive).

So I'm really open to the RoW concept, but also very ready to be judge-y about the execution.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 techsoldaten wrote:

Good points.

I tend to run skew lists myself, detachments and FOCs have never stopped me. In 5th edition, I ran a Chaos Lord, 2 CSM squads and 30+ Chaos Spawn. In 8th, I ran a Black Legion list with 23 lascannons. We tend to think about them in terms of the battlefield role, not unit characteristics, and this might be overlooking something.

Yeah. This is basically the root of why I get so annoyed about the concept of the troop tax. What is and isn't a troop just always seems really arbitrary, and I always get the impression it's basically a failure to accurately define the unit characteristics. So framing discussions like this one with the idea that troops are always X or need to be Y usually feels like a trap.


Let me ask: are you in favor of keeping detachments or proposing a new way of measuring list strength? The idea of a Yikes mechanic is intriguing, but I want to make sure I'm not reading anything into your response.

I guess I'm strongly open to alternatives to the current system but not entirely opposed to keeping a modified form of detachments. I'm generally pretty anti-battlefield-role-slot as a balancing tool. I generally lean towards making it easier for people to represent their army's fluff on the table. I'm open to any ideas that let me play a variety of thematic armies while also lending themselves to game balance.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/10 03:20:42


 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







Wyldhunt wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
Addendum: If you really want the fluffy spam lists back then do it like 30k Rites of War, and give downsides to putting the special unit in Troops. Sure, you can take all bikes in your White Scars, but you can't have any infantry at all unless they deploy in transports, no Dreadnaughts, and no Land Raiders if you're building that list. Stuff like that.

Despite having argued against them earlier in this thread, I'd actually be happy to give a Rites of War approach a shot. However, I'd point out that:
1.) You still risk ending up with haves and have nots that can seem unfair/arbitrary. Can DA have a Death Wing RoW? Can Iyanden have wraith guard troops? Can Iybraesil have banshee troops? Can some guy's homebrew craftworld have scorpion or dark reaper troops?
2.) Pretty sure you're aware of the oldschool build-a-chapter rules that often boiled down to, "Get bonuses, but you aren't allowed to take options you weren't planning to take anyway." So not taking dreadnaughts and land raiders is kind of a "fake" drawback if they aren't currently so powerful that not taking them makes your list less efficient (before factoring in the benefits you receive).

So I'm really open to the RoW concept, but also very ready to be judge-y about the execution...


The "downsides" to the 4e SM build-your-own-Chapter were things like "you can only have one Terminator squad," the downsides to 30k Rites of War are things like "your army can only contain flyers, skimmers, jetbikes, or things that can be transported in one of those." They're much, much harsher, and you can't mix and match bonuses/penalties to effectively still just build whatever army you want.

I don't know if there's a practical way to actually do this in 9th because GW has already grossly inflated the lethality of the game and pushed anti-everything guns to reduce the impact of skew lists; on top of that it worked great for Space Marines because they have so many units and so much lore, you'd have to make a lot of stuff up for other armies.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






If only there was some sort of chart which could be used to organise your force.

If only!
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: