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.

 corpuschain wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
I think it's great. The only thing better would be a full return to the 5th edition FOC (one per army, no other detachments allowed), where you can't take more than three of any unit because you run out of FOC slots.

The FOC was magnificent. I still use it to plan what to buy when starting a new army.

Yeah, I miss the old FoC too. The 8th ed ones feel clunky to me.
It doesn't help that if you want a nice number of command points you have to use them. Using patrol is pointless.

Maybe I should send GW an email and suggest that they give patrols 3CP now that Battalions give 5. That should make them more appealing over those 1CP detachments.

Patrols cannot have 3 CP, maybe 1. IF they were 3 CP why take a 5 CP battalion? I mean extra detachment you aren't using spend 75 points on guard for 3 CP? Patrols don't need to be appealing over the 1 CP detachments, doing so almost negates the reason to take battalions.

But now there's no reason to take patrols over anything else. Why take a patrol when you could load up on 3 cheap FA options and get a CP? Anything you can get with patrol you can get more with outrider, vanguard or the heavy one. I do not see the point in taking an option that offers nothing when there are better alternatives.

Either they give patrols 1-2CP, or they differentiate between "main" detachments and "support" detachments. For every "support" detachment, one must first field a "main" detachment, with patrols, battalions and brigades being "main" and the current 1CP detachments being "support".

This should give patrols a reason for being taken, as well as adding a bit more depth to army building.

They could just have 1 FOC chart and give everyone the same amount of base CPs. That way everyone starts at the same point (barring bad codex vs good codex armies).

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
But now there's no reason to take patrols over anything else. Why take a patrol when you could load up on 3 cheap FA options and get a CP? Anything you can get with patrol you can get more with outrider, vanguard or the heavy one. I do not see the point in taking an option that offers nothing when there are better alternatives.

Either they give patrols 1-2CP, or they differentiate between "main" detachments and "support" detachments. For every "support" detachment, one must first field a "main" detachment, with patrols, battalions and brigades being "main" and the current 1CP detachments being "support".

This should give patrols a reason for being taken, as well as adding a bit more depth to army building.

The reason to take them is to pay the minimum points to get something into your army without paying CP. In most cases you are required to take at least 4 units for a detachment. Patrol Requires 2. SO 1 HQ, 1 Troop and whatever else you want is in most cases cheaper than 1 HQ and 3 of something else, unless you want the something else. That is why the patrol is "free". IT sees more use in lower points games where taking another battalion isn't an option, or if you want to splash in for a specific faction for just a few models, especially from different slots. I really don't see the need for the "support" vs "main" detachment thing you are advocating for. No top armies at this point are spamming 1 CP detachments. Most are running 1-2 Battalions for CP and then a single other detachment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
They could just have 1 FOC chart and give everyone the same amount of base CPs. That way everyone starts at the same point (barring bad codex vs good codex armies).

That really isn't balanced as some armies rely on their CP to compete a lot more than others. I'm not saying how it is now is the best, but unless that same CP is a ton, it really makes some armies much better than others.

If anything, the FA/HS/etc formations should be 0CP. Whether or not you give any CP for Patrols.

Breng77 wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
They could just have 1 FOC chart and give everyone the same amount of base CPs. That way everyone starts at the same point (barring bad codex vs good codex armies).

That really isn't balanced as some armies rely on their CP to compete a lot more than others. I'm not saying how it is now is the best, but unless that same CP is a ton, it really makes some armies much better than others.

As a mono GK player I am painfully aware of the differences that strategies cause. I play an army with very little CP generation and high point cost Strategies. There are always going to be imbalances whether it's point costs or strategy costs so that's not really an argument against my proposal.

However, I really feel that if everyone started with the same amount of points then at least you wouldn't be facing armies with 15+ points and recursion of said points points while you have 8 due to an expensive (point wise) army.

But those armies with 15 and recursion (outside of soup) don't need all those CP. If they were going to fix it I'd rather see the CP mechanic tied to your HQ choices. Give each HQ data slate a command value and that is how many CP they generate. This would have been a better way to represent on field LD as opposed to all the aura buffs that exist in the game. In fact you could have had HQs generate a certain ammount of CP each turn. Like your low level options or combat monsters might only generate 0-1 CP each turn, but your high level commanders generate 3 or more.

That would better allow you to balance CP across armies and have it be something you build into your army design. Maybe a GK grandmaster gives you 3 CP every turn, where a guard company commander generates only 1. Guard might still end up with more, but not as many more as HQ slots are limited in detachments (Patrol 1, Battalion 3, Brigade 4?, Supreme Command 5) so having access to super cheap options to generate caps out by taking up slots.

RE: Rule of three, and I have only skimmed the thread but what I keep thinking is that it should be tied into the table slot for number of detachments

so in a game under 2000 points you are only allowed to use a data sheet twice, in a game in the 3000-3999 points it would be 4, etc...

I also think Patrol should add the same +2command points

JmOz01 wrote:
RE: Rule of three, and I have only skimmed the thread but what I keep thinking is that it should be tied into the table slot for number of detachments

so in a game under 2000 points you are only allowed to use a data sheet twice, in a game in the 3000-3999 points it would be 4, etc...

I also think Patrol should add the same +2command points

It's already like that, the rule of three becomes the rule of two at 1000 points and the rule of four at 2500.

I like it because I'm sick to death of spam armies.

Just a personal preference really but I much prefer it when there's a mix of units on the table.

I don't think I'd mind it if they went back to the old force org charts, but I'm probably in the minority there.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
But now there's no reason to take patrols over anything else. Why take a patrol when you could load up on 3 cheap FA options and get a CP? Anything you can get with patrol you can get more with outrider, vanguard or the heavy one. I do not see the point in taking an option that offers nothing when there are better alternatives.

Either they give patrols 1-2CP, or they differentiate between "main" detachments and "support" detachments. For every "support" detachment, one must first field a "main" detachment, with patrols, battalions and brigades being "main" and the current 1CP detachments being "support".

This should give patrols a reason for being taken, as well as adding a bit more depth to army building.

I take patrols all the time. Their minimum investment is just one HQ one troop, rather than 3 of something. In armies that don't have hyper-cheap options in a given slot (cough cough not Tau or Guard) you might want to invest in a single unit rather than three.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I like it because I'm sick to death of spam armies.

Just a personal preference really but I much prefer it when there's a mix of units on the table.

I don't think I'd mind it if they went back to the old force org charts, but I'm probably in the minority there.

THANK YOU
Sheesh. There is literally no upside to ignoring this rule. More variety is good for the game.

the_scotsman wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
But now there's no reason to take patrols over anything else. Why take a patrol when you could load up on 3 cheap FA options and get a CP? Anything you can get with patrol you can get more with outrider, vanguard or the heavy one. I do not see the point in taking an option that offers nothing when there are better alternatives.

Either they give patrols 1-2CP, or they differentiate between "main" detachments and "support" detachments. For every "support" detachment, one must first field a "main" detachment, with patrols, battalions and brigades being "main" and the current 1CP detachments being "support".

This should give patrols a reason for being taken, as well as adding a bit more depth to army building.

I take patrols all the time. Their minimum investment is just one HQ one troop, rather than 3 of something. In armies that don't have hyper-cheap options in a given slot (cough cough not Tau or Guard) you might want to invest in a single unit rather than three.

Then what do you do for CP? 3 CP doesn't seem to do much.

You take more than one detachment. Like 2 Battalions and a Patrol, or a Brigade and Patrol etc.

Patrols would need CP if you only got one Detachment. With 3 having one not produce CP is hardly a huge loss.

Spoletta wrote:

JmOz01 wrote:
RE: Rule of three, and I have only skimmed the thread but what I keep thinking is that it should be tied into the table slot for number of detachments

so in a game under 2000 points you are only allowed to use a data sheet twice, in a game in the 3000-3999 points it would be 4, etc...

I also think Patrol should add the same +2command points

It's already like that, the rule of three becomes the rule of two at 1000 points and the rule of four at 2500.

Umm, I have not seen that, was that part of the FAQ? I don't doubt you, just something I had missed...I will agree that it is basically the same, but the minutia detail of what happens in larger games is of minor import to me.

Why spend points on a patrol if you could spend points on a detachment that gives more CP? If you have the points to field 3 detachments, you have the points to field detachments that give more than 0 CP.
Or you can just add more units to the brigade.

RedGriefer wrote:
What are people's thoughts on the Rule of Three? I like how it encourages variety in an army but then again as a Drukhari player it prevents me from taking two battalion detachments with my Wych cult. Do you think the Rule of Three will make it past the Beta phase unchanged? What are your thoughts on it?

I love the rule of three. IMHO units that are not troops or transports shouldn't be spammed, that's a good concept and I don't think drukhari are affected by that since HQs are still a tax and having 4+ of the same kind is a very huge tax. We can dispose of lots of CPs anyway, even with this limitation.

Using pure wych cult armies is possible, you can even field two battallions and a third detachment, but you must include lelith and drazhar. Of course if you want to play with only the red grief you cannot bring lelith.

JmOz01 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

JmOz01 wrote:
RE: Rule of three, and I have only skimmed the thread but what I keep thinking is that it should be tied into the table slot for number of detachments

so in a game under 2000 points you are only allowed to use a data sheet twice, in a game in the 3000-3999 points it would be 4, etc...

I also think Patrol should add the same +2command points

It's already like that, the rule of three becomes the rule of two at 1000 points and the rule of four at 2500.

Umm, I have not seen that, was that part of the FAQ? I don't doubt you, just something I had missed...I will agree that it is basically the same, but the minutia detail of what happens in larger games is of minor import to me.

Yeah it does. It scales with game size.

@CthulusSpy No not necessarilly.

Lets just take a Marine list for example

Min battalion is ~285 points
Min patrol is ~115
Min supreme command ~180
Min outrider ~ 195
Min spearhead ~255
min Vanguard ~ 228

In every instance the patrol is significantly cheaper. Even in the case that what I want fills one of the slots in that detachment. Outrider is closest so lets look at that.

If I want one 9 man scout bike squad in my army, so I am splashing in some marines.

I can either take an outrider with 1 HQ, 3 fast. So that is 60+45+45 (2 attack bikes is cheapest) for 150 points, then my scout bikes. Or I can take a Patrol and save 35 points. If I also want scouts for screening the patrol is an even better deal. OR maybe a few scout squads is all I want.


Or what if I want Celestine? I can either take a patrol and spend 45 points on 1 battle sister squad, or I can buy 2 additional units, or I can get -1 CP, and take and Aux support.


OR what if I have points for 3 detachments but I can fit 2 Battalions and a Patrol, or 1 Battalion, a Spearhead, and an outrider. Which option is better? The answer is it depends, but the Patrol one has more 3 More CP than the other combination.

OR I want to splash in a different chapter tactic but don't want it for most of my army (Say 2 units of Black templar scouts in a Ravenguard army)

At some point you are talking about spending 100+ points to get 1 CP, and taking units you might not otherwise want.

That brings up an interesting question to me, one that I have been pondering for some while...If you were able to pay for CP with points, how much would they be worth. This is for comparison sake, (ie. is it worth taking this unit I don't want to get +X CP)

My army right now is spending about 250 pts for about 150 points of want and 5 Command points

As someone that plays mostly 500-1,500 point games, it tents to be the Rule of 2, which can be crippling.

I love the new FOC themed detachments. They let you field armies that you've read about, fast, heavy or elite forces that patrols/battalions/brigades don't.

The whole rule of 2/3/4 thing really screws with folk that have been building their collections to fill out a Spearhead, Outrider or Vanguard detachment as the focal point of their forces.

Before folks jump in with "but it's only for organized things, like tournaments!", that's true, but many metas , including my own have a tournament mindset, and will hold to these rules at all times.

JmOz01 wrote:
That brings up an interesting question to me, one that I have been pondering for some while...If you were able to pay for CP with points, how much would they be worth. This is for comparison sake, (ie. is it worth taking this unit I don't want to get +X CP)

My army right now is spending about 250 pts for about 150 points of want and 5 Command points

If you got no units I think it would be quite low. Even throw away units contribute to the game in some manner. I think it might cap out at most at 10 points per CP.

I am "that" soup player

3 units of guardsman (w/missile launchers, special weapons)
Company Commander
Primaris Psycher

I think it's an important rule. Many of the top lists we've seen have been spamming on model or the other, encouraging top players to just take the most one-sided thing they can and then hope they don't drop against it's opposite. The one that manages to squeak by claims the tables.

The whole point of FOC/Formations was to limit the massive spamming of non-troops and having a rule seems pretty much like what the community was asking for.

Yeah, but those 3 units of guardsman contribute to the game to some value, if as nothing other than chaff, as to some extend do the characters. SO if you got absolutely nothing but CP for points you would pay less than you do for that battalion. I'd posit a lot less.

 iGuy91 wrote:
THANK YOU
Sheesh. There is literally no upside to ignoring this rule. More variety is good for the game.

Its not quite that simple.

Forcing more variety is fine for the armies with lots of good units, it's very bad for the armies that have few good units which are mostly the ones that are already struggling.

That is good for those books though with the assumption that GW continues to address problems.

Prior to this books could skate by on 1 or 2 units in mono-builds. Now if they only have 1 or 2 good units, the results will show their issues and in theory they will get fixed.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 iGuy91 wrote:
THANK YOU
Sheesh. There is literally no upside to ignoring this rule. More variety is good for the game.

Its not quite that simple.

Forcing more variety is fine for the armies with lots of good units, it's very bad for the armies that have few good units which are mostly the ones that are already struggling.

Though its good for players to not feel forced into buy 5+ of the only good model that at some point will get toned down or otherwise fall out of favor as other things are buffed into a more prevalent role. The one model to rule the codex style armies that have always driven the competitive game are a big reason people have collections that do not survive an edition change. This is honestly a good way to minimize the damage done when changes need to be made.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 iGuy91 wrote:
THANK YOU
Sheesh. There is literally no upside to ignoring this rule. More variety is good for the game.

Its not quite that simple.

Forcing more variety is fine for the armies with lots of good units, it's very bad for the armies that have few good units which are mostly the ones that are already struggling.

Alternately: It's good because it might force GW's writers to pay more attention to a given Codex rather than sticking with "oh, give them one powerful crutch unit, they'll be fine".