Galef wrote:What if, instead of a Patrol, Battalion & Brigade Detachment, they were combined to a single detachment with the same max options as a Battalion, but only required 1 Troops/1HQ to start.
The Command bonus could be the following:
+0 if only the minimum units are taken
+3 if 2HQ/3Troops are filled,
+5 if 2HQ/4 Troops, 1 Elite, 1 Fast Attack & 1 Heavy Support
+9 if completely filled (so 3
HQ, 6 Troops, 3 Elite/Fast/Heavy, & 2 Flyers)
Same goes for the Super Heavy and
SH Auxiliary detachments. Just combine the 2 detachments to a 1-5 option, with the Command Bonus being +3CP if 3 or more are taken.
Dedicated Transports do not have to be filled to gain the max
CPs
Would these changes help minimize Soup abuse? Would it encourage more varied lists that have different units?
the Premises of this change is to encourage filling the detachments instead of just taking the minimum and moving onto another
-
I feel like I'm missing something. Taking 2
HQ and 3 Troops of
IG in this system would still be a go-to way to generate
CP, and my dark eldar kabalite detachment would still be serving the same purpose. Armies that pay a premium to take those 2HQ and 3 Troops would still do so. The proposed setup just makes those 2HQ and 3 Troops generate fewer
CP. I see where taking a couple of extra units gives you more
CP than just the 2HQ and 3 Troops, but armies that don't soup will be hitting that as-is and under your system would basically be breaking even. So I guess you sort of diminish the disparity between armies that are specifically a batallion without any
FA/
HS/Elites and armies that don't field that specific set up. But then you're also hitting all those unoffensive armies that do take batallions but don't want to take an Elite,
HS, and
FA as well.
From an eldar perspective, my craftworlders would be mostly unaffected (I might have to figure out how to mix in an elite I didn't want to take). My harlequins, however, would have to take one or more voidweavers to break even on
CP generation. My dark eldar kabal detachment would have to field a
FA and some sort of elite that may or may not be a bit of a tax to break even.
So would it discourage "soup abuse?" Maybe. I'd be slightly discouraged from taking a batallion if I can't find a points efficient place for howling banshees or mandrakes or whatever in my list. Would it encourage more varied lists? Possibly the opposite. It might shake up the meta, but it would also make me less likely to splash in second-stringer picks within a given non-troop slot. For instance, I've been known to run both dark reapers and a night spinner in a craftworld batallion in my tournament lists. Under this system, that night spinner would be less likely to see play because I have mandatory
FA and Elite slots to fill out.
Then the Outrider/Vanguard/Spearhead detachment can be as-is (+1CP with minimum units), but gain +7CP if completely filled
This part of your suggestion is probably more of a separate topic, but I do kind of like the idea of filling out detachments to unlock additional
CP. It seems like it might be a good way to encourage certain thematic armies. Want to play a Saim-Hann Outrider force but realize that windriders are usually less good than shining spears? Well, 6
FA slots + the rule of 3 means that you can justify taking both for the sake of getting 7
CP instead of 1CP.
All that said, I still think my preferred way of generating
CP through detachments (if we must tie
CP to detachments at all) is to give everyone a budget of X
CP and have them spend some of that
CP to unlock detachments. A brigade might be 0 or 1CP. A batallion might cost 3CP. A Vanguard might cost 5CP. That sort of thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm warming up to this sentiment more and more over time. Troop and
HQ taxes (which are tied to Troop and
HQ efficiency disparities between factions) are a weird way to generate
CP. Especially when the game seems like it wants to encourage you to field a variety of lists that may or may not depend on units that happen to have a Troop or
HQ battlefield role.