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.

Reemule wrote:

Lemondish wrote:
I'm glad we understand now that the main source of the issue is CP fuel, but targeting everybody instead of focusing on the repeat offenders sounds rather foolish.

I don't think this works the way you want. If you don't address an underlying cause of an issue, your just going to spend all your efforts just addressing the next alliteration of the same issue. And I don't think its a "targetting" anyone, or any faction.

For me, i want all options to be available to play, with all options to be viable in some context. Now it might be that the context for some is a obscure formation build, and that is really the only place that something works, so be it.

Right. The issue with just addressing the immediate problem is the people who abuse that will just move onto the next abuse, and we're stuck with another year+ of that being abused, then the next thing, then the next thing. Fix the root cause to stop chasing the tail of the people that will try and break everything they can.

Most of what I'd like to see would require something bigger than FAQ.

Reemule wrote:

Lemondish wrote:
I'm glad we understand now that the main source of the issue is CP fuel, but targeting everybody instead of focusing on the repeat offenders sounds rather foolish.

I don't think this works the way you want. If you don't address an underlying cause of an issue, your just going to spend all your efforts just addressing the next alliteration of the same issue. And I don't think its a "targetting" anyone, or any faction.

For me, i want all options to be available to play, with all options to be viable in some context. Now it might be that the context for some is a obscure formation build, and that is really the only place that something works, so be it.

But the underlying cause of the issue is CP generation and sharing from unbalanced sources.

If Infantry Squads weren't so effective at providing you CP in a battery, then they are no longer an issue. If Castellans didn't gain so much benefit from excessively hoarding CP, then there won't be an issue. Traitor Castellans are manageable, after all.

Both of these outliers could be balanced around by slapping Astra Militarum with a nerf to their CP generation a la Brood Brothers, which only affects AM. Making a few specific Knight Stratagems limited in Matched Play solves the Castellan issue without affecting how DE detachments generate CP. Both are targeted nerfs to the outliers and do not create some new system from scratch with unforeseen consequences. That's a far more measured approach, and just like the Flyer nerf early in the edition, this is exactly what we should expect and hope for.

Like it or not, the solution will not be a new edition style rehaul of the CP system.

Wayniac wrote:

Reemule wrote:

Lemondish wrote:
I'm glad we understand now that the main source of the issue is CP fuel, but targeting everybody instead of focusing on the repeat offenders sounds rather foolish.

I don't think this works the way you want. If you don't address an underlying cause of an issue, your just going to spend all your efforts just addressing the next alliteration of the same issue. And I don't think its a "targetting" anyone, or any faction.

For me, i want all options to be available to play, with all options to be viable in some context. Now it might be that the context for some is a obscure formation build, and that is really the only place that something works, so be it.

Right. The issue with just addressing the immediate problem is the people who abuse that will just move onto the next abuse, and we're stuck with another year+ of that being abused, then the next thing, then the next thing. Fix the root cause to stop chasing the tail of the people that will try and break everything they can.

This comment, like the one it's referring to (and I addressed above) seems to assume that there is a solution available that will address this problem. A solution so perfect it doesn't itself create a new unbalanced source of abuse.

I'm sorry to say gentlemen, but you're being naive if you think such a solution exists.

Nothing in this thread can be said to come close to achieving that, evidenced by the vast majority of people specifically highlighting every single time one of these half-baked but well-intentioned plans is rightfully challenged for having a disproportionate impact on a faction or force that is not in any way the source of your ire. It's okay to want something addressed, but let's be real here - the real problem isn't Grey Knight strike squads in a Battalion fueling Sisters of Battle stratagems. That isn't an issue.

The problem is the outliers. Address the current outliers. Then address the next.

Should a new system be implemented the only thing we'll have achieved is a new set of outliers that will take time to develop. I fail to see how that is any different from the situation you described above. You will always be stamping down on problems as they arise, whether in a new system or the current one.

The least disruptive is to stay within the current one.

At this point of the debate about CP, I'm really feeling like the Sigmar version of the system is better. Generate CP every turn, options tied you have available are tied to army comp.

Nothing will address all the issues; the game is too bloated for that. But sometimes for the good of the majority of the game, you need to fix it even if it breaks something else that's less impactful, then you can address that.

Otherwise it's just analysis paralysis and nothing will get done.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
At this point of the debate about CP, I'm really feeling like the Sigmar version of the system is better. Generate CP every turn, options tied you have available are tied to army comp.

I too feel this is a better solution overall, but to imagine we would change to it in an FAQ is naiveté incarnate.

Especially since we're simultaneously complaining about the speed at which these arrive while wanting from them far more than any previous FAQ or Errata has ever provided.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:
Nothing will address all the issues; the game is too bloated for that. But sometimes for the good of the majority of the game, you need to fix it even if it breaks something else that's less impactful, then you can address that.

Otherwise it's just analysis paralysis and nothing will get done.

Analysis Paralysis is actually far more likely for a major adjustment to the structure of a system like this in the ways folks are suggesting. Let's ignore for a moment that it's entirely impossible to do in an FAQ.

I simply suggest that it's better to act NOW within the confines of that system as it stands currently, especially in an FAQ, than to try and test out a new format that may not actually address the issue at hand. Which is why addressing the outliers is easier to do in the short term and helps the majority of the game, because the majority of the game is not unbalanced due to CP generation and allies.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
At this point of the debate about CP, I'm really feeling like the Sigmar version of the system is better. Generate CP every turn, options tied you have available are tied to army comp.

Nah, CP is fine if you take out 3 detachments and any codex you wish.

1 Detachment for main (Patrol, Battalion or Brigade only), 1 optional detachment (can be specialist detachments now) 1 ally detachment but cant be supreme command detachment.

Less variety sure, but cleaner rules and it feels more like an army now. Less CP in total for more meaning uses of them, and you are forced to at least play with 1 troop, also you can still take multi books, but you have 1 main book. Your main army can still have 2 detachments, this also gives rules like DE special detachments a real use as well.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
At this point of the debate about CP, I'm really feeling like the Sigmar version of the system is better. Generate CP every turn, options tied you have available are tied to army comp.

Nah, CP is fine if you take out 3 detachments and any codex you wish.

1 Detachment for main (Patrol, Battalion or Brigade only), 1 optional detachment (can be specialist detachments now) 1 ally detachment but cant be supreme command detachment.

Less variety sure, but cleaner rules and it feels more like an army now. Less CP in total for more meaning uses of them, and you are forced to at least play with 1 troop, also you can still take multi books, but you have 1 main book. Your main army can still have 2 detachments, this also gives rules like DE special detachments a real use as well.

To put my thoughts as simply and nicely as I can: that system would royally suck.

I agree that each change is going to be something that causes other ripple effects. Some desired, some not.

I also feel the game has basic behavior I’d like to change. First issue, that soup is demonstrably better than mono-faction. Second being that the game rewards taking minimum detachment sizes, and last that weapons do not scale well in relation to the hordes.

None of these issues are faction related, I see them as game system related. My thought with my system is it changes the first and the second, and it will be interesting to see how it changes the game at all levels.

Yeah I don't see anything wrong with the way CP is spent. Perhaps a limit on how many stratagems can be played on a unit per turn. 1 Would actually be fine for that. Giving you access to all your CP actually adds a lot to the game because later in the battle no one has any CP left. That is kinda fun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Reemule wrote:
I agree that each change is going to be something that causes other ripple effects. Some desired, some not.

I also feel the game has basic behavior I’d like to change. First issue, that soup is demonstrably better than mono-faction. Second being that the game rewards taking minimum detachment sizes, and last that weapons do not scale well in relation to the hordes.

None of these issues are faction related, I see them as game system related. My thought with my system is it changes the first and the second, and it will be interesting to see how it changes the game at all levels.

Yes. The game is slanted towards cheap troops and min detachments right now (obviously this is bad - not everyone has cheap troops and hq's). With the change we are suggesting where you start with CP and detachments cost you CP - the game becauses slanted to putting as many units in a detachment as you can....REALLY....that isn't a problem for anyone. What changes? Armies that need CP now get access to them. Armies that spam cheap troops will still do so to fill out brigades....everyone wins.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
At this point of the debate about CP, I'm really feeling like the Sigmar version of the system is better. Generate CP every turn, options tied you have available are tied to army comp.

Nah, CP is fine if you take out 3 detachments and any codex you wish.

1 Detachment for main (Patrol, Battalion or Brigade only), 1 optional detachment (can be specialist detachments now) 1 ally detachment but cant be supreme command detachment.

Less variety sure, but cleaner rules and it feels more like an army now. Less CP in total for more meaning uses of them, and you are forced to at least play with 1 troop, also you can still take multi books, but you have 1 main book. Your main army can still have 2 detachments, this also gives rules like DE special detachments a real use as well.

To put my thoughts as simply and nicely as I can: that system would royally suck.

Why do you think that? B.c you cant play your super friends lists anymore? Or b.c you are forced to field 1 HQ 1 Troop?

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
At this point of the debate about CP, I'm really feeling like the Sigmar version of the system is better. Generate CP every turn, options tied you have available are tied to army comp.

Nah, CP is fine if you take out 3 detachments and any codex you wish.

1 Detachment for main (Patrol, Battalion or Brigade only), 1 optional detachment (can be specialist detachments now) 1 ally detachment but cant be supreme command detachment.

Less variety sure, but cleaner rules and it feels more like an army now. Less CP in total for more meaning uses of them, and you are forced to at least play with 1 troop, also you can still take multi books, but you have 1 main book. Your main army can still have 2 detachments, this also gives rules like DE special detachments a real use as well.

To put my thoughts as simply and nicely as I can: that system would royally suck.

Why do you think that? B.c you cant play your super friends lists anymore? Or b.c you are forced to field 1 HQ 1 Troop?

No because that just a supremely terrible list detachment requirement system your creating, so to play a codex ultramarine army you have to take a minimum of a battalion of to have any CP a vanguard and then a Super heavy aux for Gman, yeah hard pass of that cluster fudge, while a brigde of guard and a castellen is still rocking 15CP and no downside.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:


Isn't a servitor at this point a 2-point T3 4+ body with a single imperial guard powerfist attack?

I'm fairly sure I ran the numbers on them at some point and relized if they could be taken in any significant numbers (you are limited to a total of 12 since they're fixed unit size 4) they would be crazy OP.

With the servo arm at 0, yea it would be a huge problem.

12 of them with PC and a TM is 266. 24 plasma shots isn't too bad at that price save for trying to keep them alive.

I'll admit I had a moment where I thought "Huh, power fist IG for 5 ppm. I have 6 elite slots, that's 24 dudes for 120 points. Why have I not built some of those?" because I forgot about Rule of Three.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Yeah I don't see anything wrong with the way CP is spent. Perhaps a limit on how many stratagems can be played on a unit per turn. 1 Would actually be fine for that. Giving you access to all your CP actually adds a lot to the game because later in the battle no one has any CP left. That is kinda fun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Reemule wrote:
I agree that each change is going to be something that causes other ripple effects. Some desired, some not.

I also feel the game has basic behavior I’d like to change. First issue, that soup is demonstrably better than mono-faction. Second being that the game rewards taking minimum detachment sizes, and last that weapons do not scale well in relation to the hordes.

None of these issues are faction related, I see them as game system related. My thought with my system is it changes the first and the second, and it will be interesting to see how it changes the game at all levels.

Yes. The game is slanted towards cheap troops and min detachments right now (obviously this is bad - not everyone has cheap troops and hq's). With the change we are suggesting where you start with CP and detachments cost you CP - the game becauses slanted to putting as many units in a detachment as you can....REALLY....that isn't a problem for anyone. What changes? Armies that need CP now get access to them. Armies that spam cheap troops will still do so to fill out brigades....everyone wins.

This so much, the system as it is rewards playing cheap troops and min detachments instead of cramming as much of your list into a single detachment.

Ice_can wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
At this point of the debate about CP, I'm really feeling like the Sigmar version of the system is better. Generate CP every turn, options tied you have available are tied to army comp.

Nah, CP is fine if you take out 3 detachments and any codex you wish.

1 Detachment for main (Patrol, Battalion or Brigade only), 1 optional detachment (can be specialist detachments now) 1 ally detachment but cant be supreme command detachment.

Less variety sure, but cleaner rules and it feels more like an army now. Less CP in total for more meaning uses of them, and you are forced to at least play with 1 troop, also you can still take multi books, but you have 1 main book. Your main army can still have 2 detachments, this also gives rules like DE special detachments a real use as well.

To put my thoughts as simply and nicely as I can: that system would royally suck.

Why do you think that? B.c you cant play your super friends lists anymore? Or b.c you are forced to field 1 HQ 1 Troop?

No because that just a supremely terrible list detachment requirement system your creating, so to play a codex ultramarine army you have to take a minimum of a battalion of to have any CP a vanguard and then a Super heavy aux for Gman, yeah hard pass of that cluster fudge, while a brigde of guard and a castellen is still rocking 15CP and no downside.

You are 100% correct, b.c i forgot to type in something important, ALlies dont get stratagems, relics, WL traits.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
At this point of the debate about CP, I'm really feeling like the Sigmar version of the system is better. Generate CP every turn, options tied you have available are tied to army comp.

Nah, CP is fine if you take out 3 detachments and any codex you wish.

1 Detachment for main (Patrol, Battalion or Brigade only), 1 optional detachment (can be specialist detachments now) 1 ally detachment but cant be supreme command detachment.

Less variety sure, but cleaner rules and it feels more like an army now. Less CP in total for more meaning uses of them, and you are forced to at least play with 1 troop, also you can still take multi books, but you have 1 main book. Your main army can still have 2 detachments, this also gives rules like DE special detachments a real use as well.

To put my thoughts as simply and nicely as I can: that system would royally suck.

Why do you think that? B.c you cant play your super friends lists anymore? Or b.c you are forced to field 1 HQ 1 Troop?

1 HQ and 1 Troop. I have two armies: Sisters and Templars. Both of which I tend to go with a Battalion (2 HQ, 3 Troop) minimum because it works the best for how the army plays. Limiting that and I might as well just go play Kill Team.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Moving back on to wishlisting: I want Power Fists for Librarians so they can cast Fist.

Pleasestop wrote:

Drager wrote:

Karol wrote:
The way I see CP, is GW had a "great" idea to take special rules of some armies and put them one one per turn stratagems, while giving others actual extra things to do. From the get go such a system can not be balanced.

I have to pay 2CP to have one unit per turn get special ammo. A DW player has special ammo on all his models. Even with imbalance in generating of CP, that system would have failed anyway. I understand that GW wanted the stratagem to make stuff more interactive or fluid. But in GW style they either made stuff so bad it never gets used, like pay 1CP to deep strike a GK unit, or so good it gets used every time like the BA super pack, shield rotation or vect.

You realise that outside of GK pay 1 to deepstrike is great right? And that you can't use the GK codex as a reference for anything, it's the worst design error in 8th, so using that to evaluate CP in general, is nonsense.

No, Karol does not. She has a very poor grasp of her codex, but claims that her failure at playing them is 100% GWs fault, and any discussion that isn't focused soley on improving GK is a waste of time.

Because even though GK aren't great, with some skill, some tricks and some nonGK allies you can win. Or you could convert your GK to DW, SW, or whatever and try a different army. But it's easier to blame GW and rage, because your sister got an iPad and you bought an army you don't know how to play.

Lol. So "just play different army" is good arqument that GK doesn't suck?

GK sucks. It's one of the armies even index orks felt pity for. Index orks despite being rather crappy army roflstomped GK's fairly easily. And now it's even worse.

It's basically 1 unit codex. ONE unit in the codex that's worth anything so basically it's 3 models from GK and then non-GK for rest of points if you want GK "army" to field that makes sense.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
At this point of the debate about CP, I'm really feeling like the Sigmar version of the system is better. Generate CP every turn, options tied you have available are tied to army comp.

Nah, CP is fine if you take out 3 detachments and any codex you wish.

1 Detachment for main (Patrol, Battalion or Brigade only), 1 optional detachment (can be specialist detachments now) 1 ally detachment but cant be supreme command detachment.

Less variety sure, but cleaner rules and it feels more like an army now. Less CP in total for more meaning uses of them, and you are forced to at least play with 1 troop, also you can still take multi books, but you have 1 main book. Your main army can still have 2 detachments, this also gives rules like DE special detachments a real use as well.

To put my thoughts as simply and nicely as I can: that system would royally suck.

Why do you think that? B.c you cant play your super friends lists anymore? Or b.c you are forced to field 1 HQ 1 Troop?

1 HQ and 1 Troop. I have two armies: Sisters and Templars. Both of which I tend to go with a Battalion (2 HQ, 3 Troop) minimum because it works the best for how the army plays. Limiting that and I might as well just go play Kill Team.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Moving back on to wishlisting: I want Power Fists for Librarians so they can cast Fist.

You missed the 1st part, i said patrol, battalion or brigade to start with, then 1 detachment can be specialists (aka outrider, spearhead, etc..)

Only if Ravenwing, Deathwing, and other armies get special rules that allow their elites, fast, and so on to be fitted into the Troop slot. If I am going to run Ravenwing I don't want to have spam scouts to fill a basic detachment.

 Eldarsif wrote:
Only if Ravenwing, Deathwing, and other armies get special rules that allow their elites, fast, and so on to be fitted into the Troop slot. If I am going to run Ravenwing I don't want to have spam scouts to fill a basic detachment.

Or you could, y'know, just make it so their Outrider and Vanguard Detachments get the same schtick as the Leman Russ Spearheads and you get Objective Secured.

 Eldarsif wrote:
Only if Ravenwing, Deathwing, and other armies get special rules that allow their elites, fast, and so on to be fitted into the Troop slot. If I am going to run Ravenwing I don't want to have spam scouts to fill a basic detachment.

100% ok with that.

Windrider Hosts get boned.
ASM Reserve Companies and Dev Reserve companies get boned.
Ravenwing
Deathwing
More extreme Spirit Hosts
SpeedFreaks can have issues
And so forth

I'd rather see a Detatchments-Cost form over the "Here's your 3 detatchements, one must be a basic one" structure. I think not having a Brig/Batt should mean you're extremely CP-handicapped, but shouldn't prevent the above from being playable at all.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
Only if Ravenwing, Deathwing, and other armies get special rules that allow their elites, fast, and so on to be fitted into the Troop slot. If I am going to run Ravenwing I don't want to have spam scouts to fill a basic detachment.

Or you could, y'know, just make it so their Outrider and Vanguard Detachments get the same schtick as the Leman Russ Spearheads and you get Objective Secured.

Which isn't viable right now due to the EXTREME lack of CPs it would give you. And that's the problem.
If CPs were tied to games size instead, armies using mostly Vanguards/Outriders could work. They'd only be giving up ObSec instead of the majority of potential CPs.

-

Bharring wrote:
Windrider Hosts get boned.
ASM Reserve Companies and Dev Reserve companies get boned.
Ravenwing
Deathwing
More extreme Spirit Hosts
SpeedFreaks can have issues
And so forth

I'd rather see a Detatchments-Cost form over the "Here's your 3 detatchements, one must be a basic one" structure. I think not having a Brig/Batt should mean you're extremely CP-handicapped, but shouldn't prevent the above from being playable at all.

Ro3 for the above seems like a bigger issue imo.

This all sounds like an attempt to bring back the FOC without the bit where you just bring back the FOC.

Windrider Hosts can only have:
-27 Bikes, which only add up to about 800 points
-27 Shining Spears, which only add up to about 1000 points
-Three Vyper squads
-3 Farseers on bikes
-3 Warlocks on bikes
-3 Autarcks on bikes
-Plus support (grav tanks, fliers, etc)
How ever will they reach 2k points?

RavenWing has 3 Bike squads, 3 Scout Bikes (do DA get that?), 3 Vets on Bikes, and 3 of their special squads, among other things - plus support.

Deathwing can only have 3 squads of each *type* of Termie available to them - no problem filling up 2k points, even before support.

Spirit Hosts?
-30 Wraithguard
-30 Wraithblades
-3 WraithLords
-3 WraithKnights
-3 Hemlock Wraithfighters
You're not running out of options

Speed Freaks? Same deal

Ro3 limits their list building, but each of those is easily possible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Phaeron Gukk wrote:
This all sounds like an attempt to bring back the FOC without the bit where you just bring back the FOC.

I wish we could.

 Galef wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
Only if Ravenwing, Deathwing, and other armies get special rules that allow their elites, fast, and so on to be fitted into the Troop slot. If I am going to run Ravenwing I don't want to have spam scouts to fill a basic detachment.

Or you could, y'know, just make it so their Outrider and Vanguard Detachments get the same schtick as the Leman Russ Spearheads and you get Objective Secured.

Which isn't viable right now due to the EXTREME lack of CPs it would give you. And that's the problem.
If CPs were tied to games size instead, armies using mostly Vanguards/Outriders could work. They'd only be giving up ObSec instead of the majority of potential CPs.

-

No, the problem is that you people want specialized forces to be getting the same benefits as non-specialized.

But hey there's still hope. You could ask for them to get benefits to their CP pools when taken as a fluffy force, like the Drukhari Patrol benefits.

SemperMortis wrote:

 Chris521 wrote:

dkoz wrote:
I don't understand this hatred for soup. Yes the rules need some work but for non-competitive games it's no big deal. I'd like to see some of the terrain issues addressed. I understand it's difficult & can be some what subjectively but better definitions & rules for certain types of terrain would be good.

I pretty much feel the same about soup. That's why my suggestions are much more delicate than most of the suggestions in this thread. I'm also in support of many of the Cities of Death terrain rules being added into the core game.

DKoz, you answered your own question in the second sentence. In casual play its fine, in competitive play its not. Feth, in casual/narrative/open play (Whatever you want to call it today), you can just say "Hey I know the stompa is like 30pts over priced so just take it as a 650pt unit instead of the almost 1,000pts it currently is. Or you can say "Yeah I realize my cool tank commanders are OP as hell, I love the model though so i'll only bring 1".

It boils down to this. In any kind of game play that isn't competitive the rules are rough guidelines that are followed at the users discretion. In competitive play, this is where rules are forged and decided upon as players try to find the most bang for their buck and find ways to maximize their chances of success. Simply put, Competitive game play needs rules, narrative/open whatever does not.

I'd say that in competitive play soup is fine as well. Yes putting some fixes in the FAQ will be a good thing but having armies made up of "soup" doesn't seem to be that big of an issue.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
At this point of the debate about CP, I'm really feeling like the Sigmar version of the system is better. Generate CP every turn, options tied you have available are tied to army comp.

Nah, CP is fine if you take out 3 detachments and any codex you wish.

1 Detachment for main (Patrol, Battalion or Brigade only), 1 optional detachment (can be specialist detachments now) 1 ally detachment but cant be supreme command detachment.

Less variety sure, but cleaner rules and it feels more like an army now. Less CP in total for more meaning uses of them, and you are forced to at least play with 1 troop, also you can still take multi books, but you have 1 main book. Your main army can still have 2 detachments, this also gives rules like DE special detachments a real use as well.

To put my thoughts as simply and nicely as I can: that system would royally suck.

Why do you think that? B.c you cant play your super friends lists anymore? Or b.c you are forced to field 1 HQ 1 Troop?

1 HQ and 1 Troop. I have two armies: Sisters and Templars. Both of which I tend to go with a Battalion (2 HQ, 3 Troop) minimum because it works the best for how the army plays. Limiting that and I might as well just go play Kill Team.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Moving back on to wishlisting: I want Power Fists for Librarians so they can cast Fist.

You missed the 1st part, i said patrol, battalion or brigade to start with, then 1 detachment can be specialists (aka outrider, spearhead, etc..)

Still don't like it. I may not use allies, but it doesn't mean they should be booted out of the game.

I wish we could.

I prefer the detachment system over the FOC in principle, because I think different factions should have fundamentally different army structures. However, I totally get that the FOC "worked" for a lot of people and I'm happy to debate the merits of bringing it back or not. But all these suggestions where we jury-rig the Detachment system into a Frankenstein's FOC instead of just bringing back the FOC sound fundamentally silly to me.