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.

 skchsan wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
The rule of 3 broke this but I think the rule of 3 really could do with some rework as while it achieved its broad aim it also caused collateral damage to units it shouldn't have hit.

I wonder who the culprit behind this was...

don't follow what your saying

 skchsan wrote:

 Galef wrote:
I'd actually be ok with WRs not being Troops, if there was a reason to take them. Even if that is a points reduction by at least 3-5ppm.
But yes, RW bikes, DW Termies, etc should all get the same treatment.

What about scout bikes though? Should they remain in fast attack?

Also, what do you think about BA DC's? Should they also get DC as troops again? What do you think the limitations/requirements should be?

I wasn't aware that Scout bikes were ever Troops. Those seem like they would be rare. Keep in mind that rarity also plays a part in this.
If a unit is extraordinarily common, like WRs, it is acceptable to form the core of any army. Units that are similar, but rare, might not be able to form the core.
Take that as you will.

The fact is, the bridge is burnt. WRs will never be Troops again.
But at least it would be nice if GW acknowledged that these iconic units that used to be central to certain sub-factions have some incentive, other than fluff, to be taking.
Instead, GW "overcorrected" and just shoved them into Fast Attack and Elite slots and said "Here, spend 4 Command points to take them as core again"
4 CPs is too harsh. 2CP might be acceptable, but you still lose ObSec, which can be a big deal

It also creates an issue where there is not incentive to take the traditional "filler" units over the true specialists. For example, if I have to take an Outrider detachment to field an all bike Saim-Hann army, why would I choose WRs over Spears or Vypers? WRs are not cheap enough to offer any advantage over the other 2.

The best solution might be to create special alterations for subfactions. As discussed, Saim-Hann outriders could get +3CP for taking 3 units for WRs and those WRs gain ObSec.
The same could be done for Death Company, and for Scout Bikers for whatever Chapter has the most of them.
But this gets too complicated and reeks of 7th formations.

-

 Galef wrote:

But this gets too complicated and reeks of 7th formations.

-

This is precisely why I was against this idea in the first place. It's like what your high school teacher always told you: "if you don't have enough gum to give out to the rest of the class, don't chew gum in the class."

Yep. And why I am ok with WRs being Fast attack. It is simple and prevents the slippery slop of just making everything Troops.

My issue is that now that WRs are Fast Attack, they are a completely redundant and utterly useless choice. I get the feeling DW and RW players feel the same about their regular Termies and Bikes.
If WRs were SUPER cheap, they might be an appealing choice, but you'd need like 4-5 WRs (fully loaded) for less than the cost of 3 Spears or something like that.

-

 skchsan wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
What about this simple kind of change:

Saim Hann: Wild Riders

An Outrider Detachment with the Saim Hann Craftworld Trait generates 3 CP instead of 1 CP if it contains the following units: One or more Autarch Skyrunners, three or more Windrider units, and two or more Vyper units.

___________________________

You could do the same with most of the Craftworlds, and various other armies. It's not game breaking, would give you a minor excuse to have fluff and would keep CPs relatively inline with the larger Battalions, etc. An Iyanden version of the above could include a Spiritseer, three or more Wraithguard/Wraithblade units, and two Wraithlords etc. A very easy fix which wouldn't rustle any jimmies. It doesn't change any battlefield roles (because yes...bikers should still not be troops), and doesn't change any game mechanics. Constructed properly they'll fit into existing detachment rules. It's more akin to the Dark Eldar ability, giving players a few CP generation options for units which are more fluffy.

What if fulfilling specific detachment requirements instead granted another trait? Something that's not game breaking but at a level of benefit one would get at the cost of CP's? I don't play eldar so I'm gonna go with a RW specific one:

Ravenwing Strike Force: The Rapid Hunt
An Outrider Detachment where every unit has the keyword RAVENWING may claim the benefits of 'Jink' during the first turn even though it has not advanced. The detachment may include CHARACTERS with BIKER keyword, but they do not benefit from 'Jink". In addition, if an entire army is made of units with RAVENWING keyword, then you may add 1 to the roll to see who goes first and seize the initiative roll.

Something in the lines of this where it only triggers abilities it already has or something that helps establish tempo in the game.

Sure, there's no limit to what you can get people to try...I'm just leaning toward the simplest, least-invasive option. We know how awful gamers are at creating balanced rules - so the less inventive the more well received it's likely to be at a local event/club.

 Galef wrote:
Yep. And why I am ok with WRs being Fast attack. It is simple and prevents the slippery slop of just making everything Troops.

My issue is that now that WRs are Fast Attack, they are a completely redundant and utterly useless choice. I get the feeling DW and RW players feel the same about their regular Termies and Bikes.
If WRs were SUPER cheap, they might be an appealing choice, but you'd need like 4-5 WRs (fully loaded) for less than the cost of 3 Spears or something like that.

-

Well termies were always only for fluffy non-competitive games. Bikes on the other hand was seriously hamstringed as RW was the only REAL competitive choice DA army had. At least DA traits allow them to be true gunline army now...

How is giving an mono subfaction army that's taking thematic units a small bonus of extra CP comparible to 7th edition formations?

I get they would have to release them all at once say in CA or such but given the inherent advantages of Aeldari soup, Imperial Soup.
You are not talking the same level of game breaking power creap that 7th edition had, Also with the new balancing FAQ's etc it would be what 3/4 months max until any blatantly OP stuff gets nerfed.

8th edition was supposed to have CP's to balance fluff players thematic lists against Competitive players. If subfaction army/detachment bonuses narrow that gap IMHO it's good for the game. It would also introduce more variety into event lists.

The balance changes have improved the situation but soup lists are still more commonly placing than pure subfaction lists.

Ice_can wrote:
The balance changes have improved the situation but soup lists are still more commonly placing than pure subfaction lists.

The issue with soups in 8th ed is that taking allies provide multiplicative benefits as opposed to additive.

Allies system in 6h and 7th was to provide abilities for armies to bolster certain role that army lacked - good example was eldar-tau lists where the two armies compliment each other (unbelieveably well, if I might add).

In 8th, taking allies, especially in the often seen AM CP farm imperium soup, the AM portion of the army provides CPs as well as much needed cheap screens for SM.

I would certainly love to see thematic armies buffed, but it's a very slippery slope.

What if for simplicity purposes, make a universal rule for vanguard, outrider, patrol and spearhead tp grant extra CPs if taken 3 or more times (similar to how Raiding Force rule works for DE).

Saim-hann Wild Riders
If your battleforged army includes at least 3 SAIM-HANN Outrider detachments, you receive +X Command Points. If your army includes more than 6 SAIM-HANN Outrider detachments you receive +2X instead.

I think it's safe to say we won't be seeing any update like this from GW, so I imagine we're just discussing group and local changes. House rules, etc.

I agree though, a minor CP bump for theme, etc. is nothing remotely similar to the absurdity of 7th edition formations.

 Elbows wrote:
I think it's safe to say we won't be seeing any update like this from GW, so I imagine we're just discussing group and local changes. House rules, etc.

I agree though, a minor CP bump for theme, etc. is nothing remotely similar to the absurdity of 7th edition formations.

For me, this is all theoretical. I don't like house rules because I don't always play against the same people.
I just like to discuss what I think "should" happen.

And while a minor CP bonus for theme is not similar to 7th, creating special snowflake detachments for "theme" is how 'the absurdity' started with 7th.
It was a slippery slope that GW fell down and I'd prefer 8E as it is than for it to get out of control again.

-

 Galef wrote:
Yep. And why I am ok with WRs being Fast attack. It is simple and prevents the slippery slop of just making everything Troops.

My issue is that now that WRs are Fast Attack, they are a completely redundant and utterly useless choice.
-

To be frank though, each army has slots that are overcrowded - it makes sense that eldar be one with overcrowded with FA choices given their forte is "strike fast."

Overcrowding if fine, but the unit that is meant to be the most common of all the "Fast Attacks" ends up being the least used. That is unacceptable and easily fixed by reducing the point cost significantly.

It would be the equivalent of saying you can have a raven wing army where bikes are the most common unit but they have no place in the army since another type of unit is priced slightly higher and is twice as effective. Either lower points cost of wind riders a bit or make them Troops so they are worth taking for the command points

Same problem with terminators. Either lower their points or make them better

 Galef wrote:
Overcrowding if fine, but the unit that is meant to be the most common of all the "Fast Attacks" ends up being the least used. That is unacceptable and easily fixed by reducing the point cost significantly.

Eh. You don't just want to reduce the points of things purely because they're less cost effective than another unit in the same slot. That was lies arms racing and power creep.

Honestly, I get the impression that most Saim-Hann players would be pretty happy with returning to 1 heavy weapon per 3 bikes and moving them back to troops. Surely most of the people who spammed scatbikes last edition have stopped fielding scatbike spam in favor of the flavor of the month. Meanwhile, those looking for a fluffy troop option would probably be happy to tone down the offense of windriders in exchange for having their iconic troop back without competing for FA slots or giving up CP.

Wind Riders don't need to be obsec troops because you can already make them that - you just play open play. You're not going to be taking Wind Riders in a competitive list anyway (even if they were troops) so you don't need the rule change for competitive play, nor do you need the CP. I genuinely don't understand the problem - unless they receive a change Wind Riders won't be taken over other troops for competitive play and if you're not playing competitive you can house rule how you want. If you're playing against someone who absolutely won't allow house rules then just take outrider detachment and have 3 massive blobs of bikers. You lose CP - that's the price for taking a fluff bunny army.

The same goes for the other specialist armies of White Scars bikers, Ravenwing, Deathwatch and Evil Sunz bikers (in my case) who all had special troops.

Did you really just say who cares because you're not going to use them?

The irony here is "You lose CP - that's the price for taking a fluff bunny army." (note the casual insult included).

GW stated openly that the intent was actually to benefit lore/fluff related armies with CP, etc. Something which hasn't taken place unfortunately.

The CP difference between a batallion and an outrider felt about right pre-FAQ, but the overall amount of CP available felt too low. Now the CP gap just feels too vast, but the amount of CP available (to batallions) is about right.

If you just made outriders, spearheads, and vanguards grant 3 CP instead of 1, the disparity between an Iyanden/RavenWing/Slaaneshi Cavalcade and a batallion might be fixed. Then you could tackle the issues of Windriders competing against Shining Spears for slots as its own issue.

If GW wants Saim-Hann to be assault army for some unreal reason, then just give them +1S or +1S on charge. Or/and give shooting from heavy weapons without penalty on all skimmers.

 Shadenuat wrote:
If GW wants Saim-Hann to be assault army for some unreal reason, then just give them +1S or +1S on charge. Or/and give shooting from heavy weapons without penalty on all skimmers.

This thread isn't about making saim hann stronger in melee, but rather the CP system being unfavorable for fluffy lists for armies that specializes in certain playstyle/FOC slots.

If GW errata'd Battalions to go back to 3CP and instead gave 5CPs to all Battle Forged lists, I think the disparity between Battalions and the other special detachments would not look so extreme

Being Battle Forged should give more CPs than a Battalion. It would also make the gap much smaller between lists that spam Battalions to game the system vs. lists that are trying to play their themed army.
You shouldn't have to choose between being competitive and playing the army you like. They should be one and the same.

-