Switch Theme:

Detachments generating CPs change, consolidating detachments  [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 us
Powerful Phoenix Lord





Dallas area, TX

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.
Then the Outrider/Vanguard/Spearhead detachment can be as-is (+1CP with minimum units), but gain +7CP if completely filled

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

-

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2019/02/15 22:15:58


   
Made in ca
Fresh-Faced New User




Armies that have trouble generating CP still do so, but now you get less CP for the same detachments than before. The armies that had the easiest time filling out detachments for CP, still do so.

The end result; it costs more for everyone to generate CP, which hurts the struggling armies more. Soup is still favored.
   
Made in us
Steadfast Ultramarine Sergeant






The amount of CP you have should be a fixed number regardless.
   
Made in us
Shrieking Traitor Sentinel Pilot




USA

 fraser1191 wrote:
The amount of CP you have should be a fixed number regardless.


I'm not against this, infact one of my favorite rule changes is that every individual HQ grants CP. But how would you handle detachments? This is a question I'm currently pondering for my rules overhaul.

"For the dark gods!" - A traitor guardsmen, probably before being killed. 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 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:
 fraser1191 wrote:
The amount of CP you have should be a fixed number regardless.


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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/16 04:08:10



ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in us
Steadfast Ultramarine Sergeant






 Sir Heckington wrote:
 fraser1191 wrote:
The amount of CP you have should be a fixed number regardless.


I'm not against this, infact one of my favorite rule changes is that every individual HQ grants CP. But how would you handle detachments? This is a question I'm currently pondering for my rules overhaul.


Well I'm not 100% sure on everything. But the way I see it is they pushed formations where you can take what you want but you get punished for themed armies like a bike army.

Since I know when you can take whatever you want troops get left behind, something like only troops getting Objective secured or are the only ones that can score (but the latter would still kill such armies). Battle forged armies would still be a requirement and such other rules too but regardless of if you take 10 patrols you'll still get X CP. (DE CP thing for patrols would also be solved)

Now as far as a fixed number, if you have a battle forged army you get 10 CP, then 3 base for 13. Just simulates a double battalion and I think this would be easiest but I wouldn't be surprised at people advocating for a nice round number like 15

Another thing I'd like to touch on is if every faction has a fixed number of CP then stratagems can be balanced around the finite CP. Got a overpowered stratagem bump it up 1 point, a weak one, make it cheaper
   
Made in us
Not as Good as a Minion





Astonished of Heck

Eh, I've always preferred the thought that the "standard" three detachments should give out CPs which you can spend on the more exotic detachments instead of giving out access to Strategems and Relics. This could leave access to the Strategems and Relics to be limited and finite on their own with only the occasional Unique Character providing access to more.

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in us
Powerful Phoenix Lord





Dallas area, TX

I don't want to focus of the specific number of CPs I've suggested, that can be sorted out.
The crux of this proposal is that you should absolutely, 100% get more CPs for taking above the minimum # of units in any given detachment. That is what I an suggesting

I'm not trying to fix Soup with this change. There are other ways to do that, like having detachments grant additional CPs if they share multiple faction keywords with your WL.

-

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/02/18 16:13:25


   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






 Galef wrote:
I don't want to focus of the specific number of CPs I've suggested, that can be sorted out.

The crux of this proposal is that you should absolutely, 100% get more CPs for taking above the minimum # of units in any given detachment. That is what I an suggesting
I'm not trying to fix Soup with this change. There are other ways to do that (like having detachments grant additional CPs if they share multiple faction keywords with your WL)

-


Would it make it too much if you got 1CP for each unit taken in a formation? or perhaps for every 300 points in a formation. That way you will suffer for taking 2 formations, unless you can hit the 300 point marker exactly.

IE at 1500 points, if you have 900 points in one detachment and 600 points in another, you get 5CP, but if you had 901 points in one and 599 in the other, you would only get 4CP.

quantities may need tweaking but it promotes using a single detachment, then upgrading to the bigger one if you need more space, which is how it should probably work.


Perhaps the best solution is to rewrite detachments as "formations" and only let people take one, but write more of them to incorporate battalion + spearhead and so on, with different benefits. Maybe add to some stratagems that they affect D3 units instead of one if you have the larger formation, as the formation is probably full of small, ineffective units.
The have an "allied detachment" which generates 1CP for being there and is only there to allow you to use a combination of units, not to generate CP.

Then perhaps we'll be back to the days where you took the strengths and weaknesses of an army, rather than cherry-picking the bits you like. Before allies, you wished that you could take a landraider with your guard army, because guard tanks had soggy bottoms (poor rear armour). armies should be balanced on their own, and played on their own - if you want 2 armies, play a doubles game.

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! 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: