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.

Right now all of this stuff is completely broken, causing ridiculous unbalanced armies that load up on only the most effective units and the 2-3 strategies that perfectly synergize with them to double or triple their offensive or defensive power within a certain turn, contributing to the "game is decided on the first turn" nonsense we see today.

All of these proposals are for matched play only:
- No strategems allowed
- No allies allowed
- Limit all armies to one strict Battalion force org chart per 2,000 points (1-2 HQ, 2-6 elites, 0-3 fast attack, 0-3 elites, 0-3 heavy support), but add slots for a group of 0-3 flyers too
- No Lords of War allowed in games of 2,000 points or below
- Command points are generated by filling up groups of the force org chart
- Each command point yields a re-roll of any one die, nothing more

Pointed Stick wrote:
Right now all of this stuff is completely broken, causing ridiculous unbalanced armies that load up on only the most effective units and the 2-3 strategies that perfectly synergize with them to double or triple their offensive or defensive power within a certain turn, contributing to the "game is decided on the first turn" nonsense we see today.

All of these proposals are for matched play only:
- No strategems allowed
- No allies allowed
- Limit all armies to one strict Battalion force org chart per 2,000 points (1-2 HQ, 2-6 elites, 0-3 fast attack, 0-3 elites, 0-3 heavy support), but add slots for a group of 0-3 flyers too
- No Lords of War allowed in games of 2,000 points or below
- Command points are generated by filling up groups of the force org chart
- Each command point yields a re-roll of any one die, nothing more

So, you know, screw fluffy White Scars bike armies. Make them take Tactical squads, or scouts!

Oh, and no fielding your Stompa in a game! Have to make it "easy" for your opponent!

And your SoB/Black Templars Psyker Hate Parade? Nah, throw that out.

Also, just feth Infantry Guard. They won't be able to field enough points either.

Well the idea is that these are just the generic army composition rules. Individual armies would have exceptions as appropriate; I imagine White Scars and Ravenwing would have exceptions and indeed be allowed to take all bikes somehow.

But yes, the idea is to penalize or make impossible unbalanced armies that don't actually feel like actual armies... but only in matched play games of course. Matched play implies a semblance of balance and strategy, and those are impossible to achieve if you can just take seven flying hive tyrants or half a dozen knights. These kinds of lists are practically impossible to beat unless you tool up against them in advance, making it impossible to design a "take all comers" matched play list. It's not fun when you can look at your opponent's army list and know you have a 90% chance of losing before you even deploy.

Pointed Stick wrote:
Right now all of this stuff is completely broken, causing ridiculous unbalanced armies that load up on only the most effective units and the 2-3 strategies that perfectly synergize with them to double or triple their offensive or defensive power within a certain turn, contributing to the "game is decided on the first turn" nonsense we see today.

All of these proposals are for matched play only:
- No strategems allowed
- No allies allowed
- Limit all armies to one strict Battalion force org chart per 2,000 points (1-2 HQ, 2-6 elites, 0-3 fast attack, 0-3 elites, 0-3 heavy support), but add slots for a group of 0-3 flyers too
- No Lords of War allowed in games of 2,000 points or below
- Command points are generated by filling up groups of the force org chart
- Each command point yields a re-roll of any one die, nothing more

no




(I basically dislike everything about this idea, except the command points generated by filling groups on force org, that seems fine, but also basically what we already have)

Play previous editions that had no allies or strategems.

 CadianGateTroll wrote:
Play previous editions that had no allies or strategems.

Had other pitfalls though, formations, bonkers Flyer rules, Whip shenanigans, taudar.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Pointed Stick wrote:
Right now all of this stuff is completely broken, causing ridiculous unbalanced armies that load up on only the most effective units and the 2-3 strategies that perfectly synergize with them to double or triple their offensive or defensive power within a certain turn, contributing to the "game is decided on the first turn" nonsense we see today.

All of these proposals are for matched play only:
- No strategems allowed
- No allies allowed
- Limit all armies to one strict Battalion force org chart per 2,000 points (1-2 HQ, 2-6 elites, 0-3 fast attack, 0-3 elites, 0-3 heavy support), but add slots for a group of 0-3 flyers too
- No Lords of War allowed in games of 2,000 points or below
- Command points are generated by filling up groups of the force org chart
- Each command point yields a re-roll of any one die, nothing more

So, you know, screw fluffy White Scars bike armies. Make them take Tactical squads, or scouts!

Oh, and no fielding your Stompa in a game! Have to make it "easy" for your opponent!

And your SoB/Black Templars Psyker Hate Parade? Nah, throw that out.

Also, just feth Infantry Guard. They won't be able to field enough points either.

Pretty much this. In an effort to improve balance, you're throwing out huge chunks of the game as well as many tools for adding flavor to one's army. And speaking as someone who started in the olden days of 5th edition where we didn't have any of these newfangled stratagems or detachments or formations or even allies, we still had imbalanced games. If you were playing one of the stronger 'dexes, you'd be an uphill challenge for anyone playing one of the middle or lower tier 'dexes.

What I'm saying is that stripping away the things you want to remove doesn't automatically balance the game. It just shakes up the fashion in which the game is imbalanced while also removing a bunch of flavorful options.

Based on this post, I think you might enjoy a format we've used at several local tournaments. It's basically just 1500 points, single detachment. Sometimes with no LoW allowed. It's not something I'd want to play all the time, but in the context of a tournament it removes some of the more potent synergies that rely on having lots of CP or allies. As a general matched play rule, it would feel extremely restrictive, but for a format agreed upon in advance for one day's worth of gaming? It's a nice way to tone things down and force people to play mono-book.

Wyldhunt wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Pointed Stick wrote:
Right now all of this stuff is completely broken, causing ridiculous unbalanced armies that load up on only the most effective units and the 2-3 strategies that perfectly synergize with them to double or triple their offensive or defensive power within a certain turn, contributing to the "game is decided on the first turn" nonsense we see today.

All of these proposals are for matched play only:
- No strategems allowed
- No allies allowed
- Limit all armies to one strict Battalion force org chart per 2,000 points (1-2 HQ, 2-6 elites, 0-3 fast attack, 0-3 elites, 0-3 heavy support), but add slots for a group of 0-3 flyers too
- No Lords of War allowed in games of 2,000 points or below
- Command points are generated by filling up groups of the force org chart
- Each command point yields a re-roll of any one die, nothing more

So, you know, screw fluffy White Scars bike armies. Make them take Tactical squads, or scouts!

Oh, and no fielding your Stompa in a game! Have to make it "easy" for your opponent!

And your SoB/Black Templars Psyker Hate Parade? Nah, throw that out.

Also, just feth Infantry Guard. They won't be able to field enough points either.

Pretty much this. In an effort to improve balance, you're throwing out huge chunks of the game as well as many tools for adding flavor to one's army. And speaking as someone who started in the olden days of 5th edition where we didn't have any of these newfangled stratagems or detachments or formations or even allies, we still had imbalanced games. If you were playing one of the stronger 'dexes, you'd be an uphill challenge for anyone playing one of the middle or lower tier 'dexes.

What I'm saying is that stripping away the things you want to remove doesn't automatically balance the game. It just shakes up the fashion in which the game is imbalanced while also removing a bunch of flavorful options.

Based on this post, I think you might enjoy a format we've used at several local tournaments. It's basically just 1500 points, single detachment. Sometimes with no LoW allowed. It's not something I'd want to play all the time, but in the context of a tournament it removes some of the more potent synergies that rely on having lots of CP or allies. As a general matched play rule, it would feel extremely restrictive, but for a format agreed upon in advance for one day's worth of gaming? It's a nice way to tone things down and force people to play mono-book.

Not even starting on the strict hq restriction, certain armies would literally drop from decent to nearly unusable.
Armies with allies designed ( I agree that is bad) will have also a problem and I don't feel like needing to explain people they can't really field their army anymore is a thing gw wants.

Pointed Stick wrote:
Right now all of this stuff is completely broken, causing ridiculous unbalanced armies that load up on only the most effective units and the 2-3 strategies that perfectly synergize with them to double or triple their offensive or defensive power within a certain turn, contributing to the "game is decided on the first turn" nonsense we see today.

All of these proposals are for matched play only:
- No strategems allowed
- No allies allowed
- Limit all armies to one strict Battalion force org chart per 2,000 points (1-2 HQ, 2-6 elites, 0-3 fast attack, 0-3 elites, 0-3 heavy support), but add slots for a group of 0-3 flyers too
- No Lords of War allowed in games of 2,000 points or below
- Command points are generated by filling up groups of the force org chart
- Each command point yields a re-roll of any one die, nothing more

I feel like you need to be more specific with your grievances if you want to address the root problem here. Conversely, you also need to precisely consider the benefits of and intent behind the current system if you're to retain them.

Why do we have Detachments? Because for balance and aesthetic reasons, Warhammer 40,000 likes to encourage certain army compositions, e.g. at least one HQ, a number of core Troops, and a relatively small number of specialist Elites. This was the purpose of the old Force Organization Chart.

However, many armies in the setting were highly specialized, such as whole regiments of Imperial tanks (Heavy Support), whole warbands of World Eater Berzerkers (Elites), or whole gangs of bike-mounted Orks (Fast Attack). This meant that, in order to represent these forces, practically every army ended up with its own variants and modifications to the FOC, such as taking certain units as Troops, taking multiple units in the same slot, and so on.

Detachments are an excellent response to this situation. Instead of trying (and failing) to produce a one-size-fits-all template for every single army, 8e sets up a range of different options and offers rewards to encourage players to take the one it favours. There is room for everybody, but the old FOC (or something like it) remains preferable. In this case, the rewards are Command Points.

The ability to include multiple Detachments in a single army fills a number of roles. First, it allows 8e to put caps on the number of units in any given Detachment, reducing the opportunity for abuse of the slot system. Second, it increases the flexibility further, allowing players to include different formations in the same force without missing out on the aforementioned rewards. Third, it allows for easy scaling: no need to detail bigger and bigger Detachments for larger games, just take more of them. Finally, it plays into 8e's Faction system, allowing an Iron Hands player to be accompanied by AdMech allies, or an Ork force of multiple different Clans to unite under one banner. This also allows for the existence of Factions that simply aren't meant to stand on their own, such as the Inquisition, Harlequins, or the three Drukhari sub-Factions.

So what are the problems with this system? Which are specific to the system (general), and which are the result of specific rules around the system (local)? How can these problems be addressed, and can you retain the system's benefits while doing so?

For my part, the problems I perceive boil down to:

1) Rewards. Some armies are much better at filling the system requirements than others, and reap the CP rewards as a result. This might not be a problem in itself; Orks, for example, have an easier time generating CP than Grey Knights, but are also much more reliant on it. However, as Stratagems have become increasingly imaginative, fun, and more a core part of gameplay, limiting their use for "elite" factions with fewer units can feel counterintuitive or downright punishing. In addition, the ways in which non-elite armies can use extra Detachments to "farm" more CP often feel arbitrary and against the spirit; why should an Ork army that includes two Weirdboyz and 90pts of Gretchin suddenly receive +5CP just for splitting them off into a separate Detachment?

2) Allies. The allies system currently feels too loose, rewarding armies comprised of a disparate mishmash of allies just as much as more tightly-focused forces. This is mainly a problem because of 1), allowing armies that can't game the system to team up with those that can: the result is the so-called "Loyal 32". One potential solution can be found in the Genestealer Cults, who halve the CP rewards for Astra Militarum Detachments. Another problem is the potential for minmaxing the "Faction Traits" tied to Detachments; there is nothing stopping an Ork player from putting all his shooty units in a Bad Moonz Detachment, all his fighty units in a Goffs Detachment, all his vehicles in an Evil Sunz Detachment, etc, scorning the spirit of those rules to enjoy all the benefits.