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.

BRB Page 240: Change the second paragraph under "Battle-Forged Armies" to:
A Battle-forged army contains one Main Detachment and any number of Supplemental Detachments. The Main Detachment may be any kind of detachment except the Auxiliary Support Detachment. Supplemental Detachments may be any kind of detachment except for Battalion or Brigade. On pages 243-245, you will find several Detachments that can be used with any army, and more will be published in other sources.

Codex: Adeptus Astartes Space Marines Page 196: Change the first paragraph under "Stratagems" to:
If your army is Battle-forged and your Main Detachment is a Space Marines Detachment, you have access to the Stratagems shown here, and can spend Command Points to activate them. These reflect the unique strategies used by the Adeptus Astartes on the battlefield.

Rinse and Repeat for all stratagem unlock rules. Index: Assassins would require your main detachment be IMPERIUM as expected.

While I would also like matched play games to be limited to 1 Supplemental Detachment per 1000 points of the points limit, rounded up (i.e. 1 at 0-1,000 points, 2 at 1,001-2000 points, etc) that would probably stay as an "organised play" suggestion because people are allergic to any form of restrictions and GW would rather squat Primaris Marines than tell little Timmy he can't use some of his models.

End result: You can still soup and take GoodStuff.dec, but cannot use cheap battery battalions of chaff to farm CP for your powerful units.

Am I understanding correctly? You can only have 1 battalion or brigade and be battle forged?

 Xenomancers wrote:
Am I understanding correctly? You can only have 1 battalion or brigade and be battle forged?

Correct. This means you can no longer take 3 Minimum Battalions of Guard/DKOK/AdMech to get 18CP for almost no points. You get to have either a Battalion or Brigade, along with as many other detachments that you want. On second thought you might need to axe the Supreme Command detachment or allow that to be a main and not a supplemental.

NM - I got folled.

 Xenomancers wrote:
"Codex: Adeptus Astartes Space Marines Page 196: Change the first paragraph under "Stratagems" to:
If your army is Battle-forged and your Main Detachment is a Space Marines Detachment, you have access to the Stratagems shown here, and can spend Command Points to activate them. These reflect the unique strategies used by the Adeptus Astartes on the battlefield."

Has every codex been made to reflect these changes? If so. This is literally the biggest change from the FAQ. In fact. The fact that these changes were not highlighted and brought to light immediately is pretty sad. This literally kills soup in the most popular sense.

You realize you're in the PROPOSED rules forum right?

Sterling191 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
"Codex: Adeptus Astartes Space Marines Page 196: Change the first paragraph under "Stratagems" to:
If your army is Battle-forged and your Main Detachment is a Space Marines Detachment, you have access to the Stratagems shown here, and can spend Command Points to activate them. These reflect the unique strategies used by the Adeptus Astartes on the battlefield."

Has every codex been made to reflect these changes? If so. This is literally the biggest change from the FAQ. In fact. The fact that these changes were not highlighted and brought to light immediately is pretty sad. This literally kills soup in the most popular sense.

You realize you're in the PROPOSED rules forum right?

Oh sorry - there were page numbers referenced. It seemed legit. No I had no idea.

Sorry about that, I was presenting it in errata format.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Sorry about that, I was presenting it in errata format.

My mistake.
Personally. I don't like it. It would be better than what we have sure but it's far from perfect.

Many armies can't make brigades at 2k. So the armies that can benefit hugely. Why everyone else suffers.

My standard marine list is unaffected though. All mono Ultras with 1 battalion and 1 SHA.

This would hurt tau more than it would help them even though they can make an easy brigade (they rely on detachments and cheap troops to get their best unit) I guess they could just take 2 patrols to get those 2 additional commanders.

It would really hurt chaos armies as 2x battalion is pretty common for them.

Ultimately I like the stratagem for main faction only - It just makes sense. Though in this case I would like to see more than the 3/4 stratagems available to every army.

I still don't think this addresses the problem of external balance where only some army has access to cheap batt/brigade that actually pulls its own weight.

 skchsan wrote:
I still don't think this addresses the problem of external balance where only some army has access to cheap batt/brigade that actually pulls its own weight.

Well less stratagem fuelig issues and more issues due to actual unit strength.
That said you could then easier balance overall so imo not the worst idea.

So if I'm BattleForged, and am taking a Harlequin-supported Craftworld force, I can't WWP in my Harlequins?

I'd echo the "Not a huge fan, but may be a good idea".

One common suggestion we see a lot is:
"You only get Stratagems from your Warlord's faction"
A lot of the pushback that gets is that, if some Word Bearer or Rubric Chaos Lord (/sorcerer) brings some Demon allies (CSM main, Demons supplemental), then they can't use any Demon stratagems - including their Deepstrike stratagem. Obviously, this is a subset of your changes (in effect - minor variance), so the same criticisms would apply here.

That seems a little odd to me, but in most cases the loss of the stratagems seem reasonable.

Also, at first blush I thought not being able to take 2+ Battalions/Brigades was odd, but can't think of a common army theme that's totally wrecked by that.

The only thing coming to mind for beeing hit as a theme would be probably alpha legion that is split into the marine part and cannonfodder part.
IW much the same but most special detachments have troops slots aswell soooooo.

For the reasons pointed out by Bharring, I'm not in favor of the proposed changes.

You do address relativley specific problems (mainly cheap imperial batallions/brigades generating CP for knights or what have you), but you create a lot of casualties at the same time.

The CSM/daemon example is a good one. Grey Knights allied with a battery also come to mind as not being in need of another nerf. Harlequins take a big hit when they lose their stratagems but also don't generate CP particularly well. GSC/'nids probably don't need to lose access to their allies' strats when they team up.

So mechanically, you nerf stuff that doesn't need nerfed. Fluff-wise, you take away a lot of flavorful and narrative options from any army build that uses allies.

I like this idea, but my main issues would be:

1) Some armies rely significantly on their Stratagems for both flavour and function, so cutting them off for being "allies" leaves them high and dry. My Death Guard's Daemon allies can no longer deep strike, heal, take plague banners, etc.

2) Tying my Stratagems to my "main" force means I'm effectively compelled to choose the larger Detachment as my "main" force with my Warlord, even if it's meant to be an elite Inquisitorial strike team leading an assortment of Guard, or a small force of Iron Hands backed up by AdMech allies.

With that in mind, why not just change the Command Benefits of Brigades/Battalions to "0 CP if your army already includes a Brigade or Battalion"?

This also doesn't fully solve the CP disparity between hordes and elites, just limits its abuse: but that's not a new problem, just an ongoing old one.

I think I came to a conclusion:

"It's a great idea, and would fit most of the game, but there are parts that are written in a way where they just wouldn't work right."

Also, I think Detatchments-Cost would accomplish most of your goals in a much more balanced, nuanced, and yet simpler way.

I like the idea, but what about if all the detachments share the same keywords, say Astra Militarum & Vostroyan, you can take a second brigade/battalion? You have more cp, yes, but your not using it as a battery.

As above someone mentioned apparently double battalion is popular for chaos.
Of course I speak on my own situation, my Scion armybwill be two battalions that will have about 2000 points evenly split between them. So this is doing an army like mine an unnecessary disservice. (I would consider my bringing of Taurox Primes and Valkyries a good substitute for filling heavy support and elite slots, no?)

 Apple Peel wrote:
I like the idea, but what about if all the detachments share the same keywords, say Astra Militarum & Vostroyan, you can take a second brigade/battalion? You have more cp, yes, but your not using it as a battery.

For reasons mentioned above, the proposed system would strongly disfavor factions that struggle to generate their own CP. Allowing armies that can fill out a batallion or brigade easily to have several of such detachments would just exasperate that problem.

The ork player is good at generating CP and can only take ork (well, clan) detachments anyway. With a single brigade or batallion, he'll already generate CP way more efficiently than the Grey Knight player. Now let the ork player take a second batallion or brigade. He's going to benefit from his efficient CP generation even more, and the GK player will still be stuck with his first batallion's CP (if he even fielded a batallion at all).

Wyldhunt wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:
I like the idea, but what about if all the detachments share the same keywords, say Astra Militarum & Vostroyan, you can take a second brigade/battalion? You have more cp, yes, but your not using it as a battery.

For reasons mentioned above, the proposed system would strongly disfavor factions that struggle to generate their own CP. Allowing armies that can fill out a batallion or brigade easily to have several of such detachments would just exasperate that problem.

The ork player is good at generating CP and can only take ork (well, clan) detachments anyway. With a single brigade or batallion, he'll already generate CP way more efficiently than the Grey Knight player. Now let the ork player take a second batallion or brigade. He's going to benefit from his efficient CP generation even more, and the GK player will still be stuck with his first batallion's CP (if he even fielded a batallion at all).

Yeah no, That is not correctly showing the picture, Orks are one of the armies that require a lot more CP to function propperly.
GK require less CP overallbut generate at a terrible rate. A simple fix like the RC boost for all SM /CSM bodies would've solved the issue allready.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:
I like the idea, but what about if all the detachments share the same keywords, say Astra Militarum & Vostroyan, you can take a second brigade/battalion? You have more cp, yes, but your not using it as a battery.

For reasons mentioned above, the proposed system would strongly disfavor factions that struggle to generate their own CP. Allowing armies that can fill out a batallion or brigade easily to have several of such detachments would just exasperate that problem.

The ork player is good at generating CP and can only take ork (well, clan) detachments anyway. With a single brigade or batallion, he'll already generate CP way more efficiently than the Grey Knight player. Now let the ork player take a second batallion or brigade. He's going to benefit from his efficient CP generation even more, and the GK player will still be stuck with his first batallion's CP (if he even fielded a batallion at all).

Yeah no, That is not correctly showing the picture, Orks are one of the armies that require a lot more CP to function propperly.
GK require less CP overallbut generate at a terrible rate. A simple fix like the RC boost for all SM /CSM bodies would've solved the issue allready.

Well, that touches on how CP generation is even harder to balance because strats are priced based on the assumed availability of CP in a monofaction army. BCB's proposal actually would work with the variably priced stratagems because it basically makes armies monofaction in terms of strats. It just also kneecaps any faction dependent on its strats and chapter tactics that doesn't also happen to be good at generating CP.

If we're going to keep the concept of CP and Strats basically unchanged, I'd really prefer a system where players just get CP based on the game size (3CP per 500 points or whatever) and have stratagems costed around that standardized CP availability. Both players get X amount of cool stuff. This strat is worth Y cool stuff.

Wyldhunt wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:
I like the idea, but what about if all the detachments share the same keywords, say Astra Militarum & Vostroyan, you can take a second brigade/battalion? You have more cp, yes, but your not using it as a battery.

For reasons mentioned above, the proposed system would strongly disfavor factions that struggle to generate their own CP. Allowing armies that can fill out a batallion or brigade easily to have several of such detachments would just exasperate that problem.

The ork player is good at generating CP and can only take ork (well, clan) detachments anyway. With a single brigade or batallion, he'll already generate CP way more efficiently than the Grey Knight player. Now let the ork player take a second batallion or brigade. He's going to benefit from his efficient CP generation even more, and the GK player will still be stuck with his first batallion's CP (if he even fielded a batallion at all).

Yeah no, That is not correctly showing the picture, Orks are one of the armies that require a lot more CP to function propperly.
GK require less CP overallbut generate at a terrible rate. A simple fix like the RC boost for all SM /CSM bodies would've solved the issue allready.

Well, that touches on how CP generation is even harder to balance because strats are priced based on the assumed availability of CP in a monofaction army. BCB's proposal actually would work with the variably priced stratagems because it basically makes armies monofaction in terms of strats. It just also kneecaps any faction dependent on its strats and chapter tactics that doesn't also happen to be good at generating CP.

If we're going to keep the concept of CP and Strats basically unchanged, I'd really prefer a system where players just get CP based on the game size (3CP per 500 points or whatever) and have stratagems costed around that standardized CP availability. Both players get X amount of cool stuff. This strat is worth Y cool stuff.

But what about PL based games? You can still use CP, strays and such.

 Blndmage wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:
I like the idea, but what about if all the detachments share the same keywords, say Astra Militarum & Vostroyan, you can take a second brigade/battalion? You have more cp, yes, but your not using it as a battery.

For reasons mentioned above, the proposed system would strongly disfavor factions that struggle to generate their own CP. Allowing armies that can fill out a batallion or brigade easily to have several of such detachments would just exasperate that problem.

The ork player is good at generating CP and can only take ork (well, clan) detachments anyway. With a single brigade or batallion, he'll already generate CP way more efficiently than the Grey Knight player. Now let the ork player take a second batallion or brigade. He's going to benefit from his efficient CP generation even more, and the GK player will still be stuck with his first batallion's CP (if he even fielded a batallion at all).

Yeah no, That is not correctly showing the picture, Orks are one of the armies that require a lot more CP to function propperly.
GK require less CP overallbut generate at a terrible rate. A simple fix like the RC boost for all SM /CSM bodies would've solved the issue allready.

Well, that touches on how CP generation is even harder to balance because strats are priced based on the assumed availability of CP in a monofaction army. BCB's proposal actually would work with the variably priced stratagems because it basically makes armies monofaction in terms of strats. It just also kneecaps any faction dependent on its strats and chapter tactics that doesn't also happen to be good at generating CP.

If we're going to keep the concept of CP and Strats basically unchanged, I'd really prefer a system where players just get CP based on the game size (3CP per 500 points or whatever) and have stratagems costed around that standardized CP availability. Both players get X amount of cool stuff. This strat is worth Y cool stuff.

But what about PL based games? You can still use CP, strays and such.

What about it? Roughly X PL is equal to Y points. For every 500 points or whatever PL you get 3 CP.

 Blndmage wrote:
But what about PL based games? You can still use CP, strays and such.

If you are playing such a broken system then you obviously don't care about balance or good game design, so just give each player whatever number of CP you think forges the best narrative.