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.

I mean most people don't fill up detachments anyway, so why not do the following:

Bring Battalions back to 3CPs, and Brigades back to 9CPs. Next, no army may use the same detachment twice.
Now everyone has more limited CPs and basically has to use the "smaller" ones, which they can now have more of (still subject to minimum unit requirements)

And the final part of this: Battle Forge grants 3CPs EACH ROUND if your WL is alive.
So the net affect of this change shouldn't impact more "balanced" lists as they will be getting about the same number of CPs, just over the course of the game.

What this change really achieves is 3 important things:

1) It takes some of the CP generation AWAY from detachments. If you can only take 1 Battalion and it only gives you 3CPs, it's less "abusable" by armies that can spam cheap troops
2) By shifting the CP generation to a turn basis, it "funnels" what Stratagems you can use early. If you only have about 6-8 on the first turn, you can still do good things, but you cannot dump as many Strats that early
3) By giving CPs per turn, both armies will have access to Strats on turn 3 onward (unlike now when some armies are spent by turn 2) making potential later turns less one-sided.

Currently it is too common that one army has no CPs left while the other has nearly a dozen. These changes should make that scenario nearly impossible (unless one of the players saves all there CPs til later, or has a Brigade, both options that have proven to not be great strategies)

-

Why the restriction that you only get the CP's if your Warlord is alive? Seems to really push the game into being Warmachine where the focus is on taking out the enemy leader. It would also seem to lead to a run-away winner situation - if you have a good turn 1 and get the enemy WL, you're pretty much guaranteed of winning since they'll lack the resources to come back. The rest of the game is just going through the motions of mopping up.

 Asmodai wrote:
Why the restriction that you only get the CP's if your Warlord is alive? Seems to really push the game into being Warmachine where the focus is on taking out the enemy leader. It would also seem to lead to a run-away winner situation - if you have a good turn 1 and get the enemy WL, you're pretty much guaranteed of winning since they'll lack the resources to come back. The rest of the game is just going through the motions of mopping up.

I can respect that. I was just thinking from a logic pov, rather than gameplay for that. If your COMMANDer is gone, how are you getting COMMAND points?

So maybe I'll amend that to be 3CPs each turn if your WL is alive, or only 2CPs if not. So there's reason to kill the WL (but there always has been), but less of a consequence in this proposed change, I guess. The main point of there being involvement with your WL is that, in theory, the reason you have those resources is because your commander is making tactical decisions and communicating those to key units.

-

I like the idea of limiting to one of each type of detachment. I think it would be good on it's own, to be honest. It will destroy the CP-battery market, as nothing is efficient at it outside of battalions. Soup will be to plug holes rather than CP-spam.

It also makes for a more thematic list. A brigade of marines with a battalion of guard as an ally. A battalion of Iron Hands with a vanguard of grey knights.

As for generating CP as you go, it's not ideal. Getting 3CP per turn is powerful, and as an Ork player, I can guarantee that this will be used to fire my Souped-up Shokk Attack Gun twice, every turn. As it is, when I get down to 4-5CP, spending 2CP starts to feel risky.

Dropping CP values of detachments wouldn't be necessary if they were limited to one per army.

Perhaps instead of gaining CP through the game, your warlord can decrease CP costs of stratagems - EG "If a stratagem is used on a friendly unit within 12" of the warlord, or an enemy unit within 18" of the warlord, the CP cost is halved". I would prefer to see the warlord reduce CP outgoings than increase CP as the game progresses. It would also promote using CP every turn as they will come back.

Gaining 1CP per turn would be enough, to me. Perhaps 2CP if the warlord is alive, or an additional CP on a 4+. gaining 3 per turn results in using 3 per turn, which results in Knights and other high-density units dealing disproportionate damage compared to armies who tend to use a few CP here and there.

Knights were designed to have few CP and use them to great effect. Guard were designed to have lots of CP and use them willy nilly for slight improvements. This method of yours could work, but CP values will need to be adjusted to match the new, more level amount of CP. shoot twice for a knight is a lot better than for an ork, for an example (which may not even be a knight strat, I've not faced them yet). It should cost more CP to use.

My thinking for 3CPs per turn is in conjunction with Bats and Brigs going back to 3/9CPs
But if you keep them at 5/12 respectively, than yeah, only 1-2CPs per turn could be good.

I really like the idea of CPs being given as the game goes by as it really sucks to run out and some armies do so quickly. It also funnels CP usage over the game.
By limiting CPs early on, it's less likely for a player to have a really devastating turn 1.

Here's an alternate idea: BF armies gain 1CP each turn. If your WL is alive, you gain CPs equal to the turn number instead.
That way you get more it the game runes longer (as your Troops are gaining intel and potentially resources from the battle)
But the balance to that is that if you get to turn 3 onward, you'll have less units to use those CPs on.

-

Brigades just need to go away. As long as they exist in a form literally unreachable by a good number of armies, they'll push the need for things like the loyal 32 to compete.

 LunarSol wrote:
Brigades just need to go away. As long as they exist in a form literally unreachable by a good number of armies, they'll push the need for things like the loyal 32 to compete.

I agree.

Actually, while we are changing stuff, I think a good solution to the Battalion/Brigade issue would be to drop Brigades entirely, but grant Battalions addition CPs for additional options.
Some think like:
2 HQ, 3 Troops = 3CPs
For every 3 of the following, add +1CP: 1 Elite, 1 Fast & 1 Heavy

That way, a detachment with just HQ & Troops would be 3 CPs, but if you want 5CPs, for example, you'd have to take 2 HQs, 3 Troops, 2 Elites, 2 Fast & 2 Heavy
Or 2 HQ, 3 troops, 3 Elites and 3 Heavy.

-

 Galef wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
Brigades just need to go away. As long as they exist in a form literally unreachable by a good number of armies, they'll push the need for things like the loyal 32 to compete.

I agree.

Actually, while we are changing stuff, I think a good solution to the Battalion/Brigade issue would be to drop Brigades entirely, but grant Battalions addition CPs for additional options.
Some think like:
2 HQ, 3 Troops = 3CPs
For every 3 of the following, add +1CP: 1 Elite, 1 Fast & 1 Heavy

That way, a detachment with just HQ & Troops would be 3 CPs, but if you want 5CPs, for example, you'd have to take 2 HQs, 3 Troops, 2 Elites, 2 Fast & 2 Heavy
Or 2 HQ, 3 troops, 3 Elites and 3 Heavy.

-

I like the idea of adding more CP for more slots taken up in the Detachment. With more units to Command, a Commander should be able to have more Command Points, "this I command!".



Command.

 LunarSol wrote:
Brigades just need to go away. As long as they exist in a form literally unreachable by a good number of armies, they'll push the need for things like the loyal 32 to compete.

So long as the Astra Militarum is lacking their Platoons, there may still be a need for such detachments in the more normally sought game sizes.

I still like the idea of having a starting pool of CP and then using them to buy detachments - with bigger detachments costing less CP.
EG a brigade would cost 0CP to buy, a battalion 1CP, a vanguard 3CP, a single superheavy 4CP, a superheavy detachment 2CP, and so on.

Soup would still exist, and smaller detachments would still have less CP than bigger ones, but taking 2 minimal battallions would give you less CP than taking one and actually filling it. Soup would only exist for the merits of another armies units, and not for how cheap they can fill a battalion.

However, having a limit of 1 of each detachment would work really well. I feel there should either be an in-between on the brigade and battalion, or the brigade should call for 1 or 2 elite/heavy/fast choices instead of 3 of each, to make it more accessible.

I'd also like to see the old force-org (2 troops and a HQ) return as another detachment. Though too many will result in the same issue, but under different names!

I have a further suggestion.

Why not decouple slots and detachments?

- An army requires min 1 character to lead the army.
- For each 3 characters in your army you get 1CP
- An army requires a minimum of 2 troops choice.
- For every 2 troops choices in your roster you get 1CP.
- For every 3 fast, heavy, flyer or elite choices in your roster you get 1CP
- Superheavies give 0 CP.
- all same sub faction gives 3 CP.
I like the idea of a 1CP extra per turn, 2 if the WL is alive (kill team style).

Orkimedez_Atalaya wrote:
I have a further suggestion.

Why not decouple slots and detachments?

- An army requires min 1 character to lead the army.
- For each 3 characters in your army you get 1CP
- An army requires a minimum of 2 troops choice.
- For every 2 troops choices in your roster you get 1CP.
- For every 3 fast, heavy, flyer or elite choices in your roster you get 1CP
- Superheavies give 0 CP.
- all same sub faction gives 3 CP.
I like the idea of a 1CP extra per turn, 2 if the WL is alive (kill team style).

It's important to remember that the detachments impose limitations as well as requirements. With this design, I could create an army of cheap heavy supports and cheap troops, which will generate a lot of CP and be efficient at using them. Gretchin are 30pts per squad, and mek guns are about 30pts each as well, so I could make a 1880pt army with 1 SAG mek, 30 units of 10 gretchin, and 30 mek guns, for a total of 28CP to spend. As an extreme example.

Another, potentially simpler idea would be the following:

Every army requires at least a Partrol, a Battalion or Super Heavy detachment to start. No detachment can be duplicated, but you can have as many different detachments as you want.

CPs are no longer generated by detachments, but by army size. Battle Forged armies grant 3CPs for each 500pts of the army limit (so 12CPs for 2000pts). At the start of each battle round, you gain +1CP if your WL is alive.

Now everyone gets the same amount of CPs regardless of detachment, but are required to take a specific one to start.

-

 some bloke wrote:

Orkimedez_Atalaya wrote:
I have a further suggestion.

Why not decouple slots and detachments?

- An army requires min 1 character to lead the army.
- For each 3 characters in your army you get 1CP
- An army requires a minimum of 2 troops choice.
- For every 2 troops choices in your roster you get 1CP.
- For every 3 fast, heavy, flyer or elite choices in your roster you get 1CP
- Superheavies give 0 CP.
- all same sub faction gives 3 CP.
I like the idea of a 1CP extra per turn, 2 if the WL is alive (kill team style).

It's important to remember that the detachments impose limitations as well as requirements. With this design, I could create an army of cheap heavy supports and cheap troops, which will generate a lot of CP and be efficient at using them. Gretchin are 30pts per squad, and mek guns are about 30pts each as well, so I could make a 1880pt army with 1 SAG mek, 30 units of 10 gretchin, and 30 mek guns, for a total of 28CP to spend. As an extreme example.

Right...if you forgo the rule of 3. Otherwise, the only thing you would br able to spam is grot, which sincerely, you can do it now anyways.

Orkimedez_Atalaya wrote:

 some bloke wrote:

Orkimedez_Atalaya wrote:
I have a further suggestion.

Why not decouple slots and detachments?

- An army requires min 1 character to lead the army.
- For each 3 characters in your army you get 1CP
- An army requires a minimum of 2 troops choice.
- For every 2 troops choices in your roster you get 1CP.
- For every 3 fast, heavy, flyer or elite choices in your roster you get 1CP
- Superheavies give 0 CP.
- all same sub faction gives 3 CP.
I like the idea of a 1CP extra per turn, 2 if the WL is alive (kill team style).

It's important to remember that the detachments impose limitations as well as requirements. With this design, I could create an army of cheap heavy supports and cheap troops, which will generate a lot of CP and be efficient at using them. Gretchin are 30pts per squad, and mek guns are about 30pts each as well, so I could make a 1880pt army with 1 SAG mek, 30 units of 10 gretchin, and 30 mek guns, for a total of 28CP to spend. As an extreme example.

Right...if you forgo the rule of 3. Otherwise, the only thing you would br able to spam is grot, which sincerely, you can do it now anyways.

Ok, but currently I need 2 HQ's per 3 grot squads to make CP. With your suggestion, I could have 1 weirdboy and however many 30pt grot squads needed to give me the CP for a powerhouse unit and ultimate board control.

Or, I could run 9 dreads (units of 3) 15 Kans (units of 5) and 18 mek guns (units of 6) with a big mek and 20 grots for 11CP and 9 heavy support slots, 2 troops and a HQ.

Orks are not the worst ones in this, other armies have more useful slot-fillers to use. Just pointing out that the detachments as they are limit your choices, in a good way.

Instead of limiting number of detachments, and using detachments to generate CPs which can only be spent on Stratagems, I'd prefer to see a starting pool of CPs available to both players derived from the point limit of the game, and CPs are spent on detachments beyond the first.

For example (numbers for illustrative purposes only, a Patrol would cost 1CP, a Battlion 2CP and a Brigade 3CP, Vanguard 1CP etc.

When you appoint your Warlord you are refunded the CPs you spent on their detachment.

I think this would eliminate CP farming, and soup purely for the purposes of gaining CPs, while making mixed faction armies/soup still a viable option for those who want to use it to plug gaps in their roster. It would also encourage people to fill up all the slots in a detachment before buying another detachment, which I think would be a positive for the game. and with the Warlord refunding the CP cost of their detachment, it would encourage appointing the warlord from a larger detachment (Battalion, rather than Patrol etc) since the refund is larger, and this seems to me a good thing.

The exact structure/requirements of each detachment might need to be reworked to make sure there is balance across the different factions, and I expect the CP cost of stratagems would need to be looked at too. The only limit placed on the number of detachments you can field would be the availability of CPs rand the players' willingness to spend them on detachments or to keep them to use on stratagems.

I think this system could also work in conjuration with a system where CPs are generated each turn, provided the starting pool is large enough to allow for the selection of detachments.

Aash wrote:
Instead of limiting number of detachments, and using detachments to generate CPs which can only be spent on Stratagems, I'd prefer to see a starting pool of CPs available to both players derived from the point limit of the game, and CPs are spent on detachments beyond the first.

For example (numbers for illustrative purposes only, a Patrol would cost 1CP, a Battlion 2CP and a Brigade 3CP, Vanguard 1CP etc.

When you appoint your Warlord you are refunded the CPs you spent on their detachment.

This is a fairly nice solution too, but I think you have those points inversed (I know it's just an example) but Brigades should be FREE since they require so much, Battalions should cost the least since they require more Troops and Vanguard, Outriders & Spearheads should cost more because they give you more powerful units (in theory) without Troop tax

-

 Galef wrote:

Aash wrote:
Instead of limiting number of detachments, and using detachments to generate CPs which can only be spent on Stratagems, I'd prefer to see a starting pool of CPs available to both players derived from the point limit of the game, and CPs are spent on detachments beyond the first.

For example (numbers for illustrative purposes only, a Patrol would cost 1CP, a Battlion 2CP and a Brigade 3CP, Vanguard 1CP etc.

When you appoint your Warlord you are refunded the CPs you spent on their detachment.

This is a fairly nice solution too, but I think you have those points inversed (I know it's just an example) but Brigades should be FREE since they require so much, Battalions should cost the least since they require more Troops and Vanguard, Outriders & Spearheads should cost more because they give you more powerful units (in theory) without Troop tax

-

My thinking on larger detachments costing more CPs was for 2 reasons:
Firstly, the Warlord refunds the CP cost of their detachment, encouraging the player to make the warlord from he largest detachment.
Secondaly, to encourage the pllayer taking allies to have a main detachment with their primary force (eg Brigade/battalion with Warlord, so not costing any CPs) and that allies woudl be more likely to be in the form of a smaller detachment such as a Vanguard or Patrol. I think this would lead to more interesting army builds in general eg a Brigade of IG with Warlord supported by a Knight Low and Patrol of SM, or an Ultramarine Battalion (with Warlord) supported by a Vanguard of White Scars etc. I think this would discourage 3 Battalion lists etc and result in more variety. And I've necer liked that you might have a Battalion of one faction and then the Warlord is from the Patrol, it really should be the other way around!

Saying that, you might have a point with costing the Detachments the other way around. I;m not sure, I think I'd need to see it both ways to know really.

 some bloke wrote:

Orkimedez_Atalaya wrote:

 some bloke wrote:

Orkimedez_Atalaya wrote:
I have a further suggestion.

Why not decouple slots and detachments?

- An army requires min 1 character to lead the army.
- For each 3 characters in your army you get 1CP
- An army requires a minimum of 2 troops choice.
- For every 2 troops choices in your roster you get 1CP.
- For every 3 fast, heavy, flyer or elite choices in your roster you get 1CP
- Superheavies give 0 CP.
- all same sub faction gives 3 CP.
I like the idea of a 1CP extra per turn, 2 if the WL is alive (kill team style).

It's important to remember that the detachments impose limitations as well as requirements. With this design, I could create an army of cheap heavy supports and cheap troops, which will generate a lot of CP and be efficient at using them. Gretchin are 30pts per squad, and mek guns are about 30pts each as well, so I could make a 1880pt army with 1 SAG mek, 30 units of 10 gretchin, and 30 mek guns, for a total of 28CP to spend. As an extreme example.

Right...if you forgo the rule of 3. Otherwise, the only thing you would br able to spam is grot, which sincerely, you can do it now anyways.

Ok, but currently I need 2 HQ's per 3 grot squads to make CP. With your suggestion, I could have 1 weirdboy and however many 30pt grot squads needed to give me the CP for a powerhouse unit and ultimate board control.

Or, I could run 9 dreads (units of 3) 15 Kans (units of 5) and 18 mek guns (units of 6) with a big mek and 20 grots for 11CP and 9 heavy support slots, 2 troops and a HQ.

Orks are not the worst ones in this, other armies have more useful slot-fillers to use. Just pointing out that the detachments as they are limit your choices, in a good way.

I personally don't see anything wrong with that example. It is a walkers list with all the letters. Thematical even.

The less troops you take, the harder it is to control objectives. The more you take, less points for anything else.

3 HQs and 4 troops would give you 3CP. Currently, you get 5.

 Galef wrote:

Aash wrote:
Instead of limiting number of detachments, and using detachments to generate CPs which can only be spent on Stratagems, I'd prefer to see a starting pool of CPs available to both players derived from the point limit of the game, and CPs are spent on detachments beyond the first.

For example (numbers for illustrative purposes only, a Patrol would cost 1CP, a Battlion 2CP and a Brigade 3CP, Vanguard 1CP etc.

When you appoint your Warlord you are refunded the CPs you spent on their detachment.

This is a fairly nice solution too, but I think you have those points inversed (I know it's just an example) but Brigades should be FREE since they require so much, Battalions should cost the least since they require more Troops and Vanguard, Outriders & Spearheads should cost more because they give you more powerful units (in theory) without Troop tax

-

This is one of my preferred approaches to the whole CP/detachments thing. Though I think there's an argument to be made for getting rid of force org slots all together. (You should want to take HQs and Troops because they fulfill a role; not because your devastators can't shoot flakk missiles without scouts present.)

 Galef wrote:

 Asmodai wrote:
Why the restriction that you only get the CP's if your Warlord is alive? Seems to really push the game into being Warmachine where the focus is on taking out the enemy leader. It would also seem to lead to a run-away winner situation - if you have a good turn 1 and get the enemy WL, you're pretty much guaranteed of winning since they'll lack the resources to come back. The rest of the game is just going through the motions of mopping up.

I can respect that. I was just thinking from a logic pov, rather than gameplay for that. If your COMMANDer is gone, how are you getting COMMAND points?

So maybe I'll amend that to be 3CPs each turn if your WL is alive, or only 2CPs if not. So there's reason to kill the WL (but there always has been), but less of a consequence in this proposed change, I guess. The main point of there being involvement with your WL is that, in theory, the reason you have those resources is because your commander is making tactical decisions and communicating those to key units.

-

Except multiple factions don't rely on one COMMANDER.
Cue I AM ALPHARIUS meme.

I think we could foster some racial diversity here by making detachments for Battle Forged dependent on the race.

Dark Elves need a totally different setup for a "Battalion" than say, Skittari.

Custodes need more troops, less vehicles. Also, their BN now grants 7, and their brigade, being currently impossible, would instead be removed and their Vanguard would be worth 3.

Necrons are the only ones who I think should have a "flowing" style of CP. "Escalation Protocols" At 1st turn, you get 3. Second 4. Third 5. So on. And make their Battleforged be unrestricted other than 2x HQ.

There should be wildly different styles for CP farming between races.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I think we could foster some racial diversity here by making detachments for Battle Forged dependent on the race.

Dark Elves need a totally different setup for a "Battalion" than say, Skittari.

Custodes need more troops, less vehicles. Also, their BN now grants 7, and their brigade, being currently impossible, would instead be removed and their Vanguard would be worth 3.

Necrons are the only ones who I think should have a "flowing" style of CP. "Escalation Protocols" At 1st turn, you get 3. Second 4. Third 5. So on. And make their Battleforged be unrestricted other than 2x HQ.

There should be wildly different styles for CP farming between races.

I like this, would be cool and thematic.

also armies like Guard could require many more models for a similar amount of CP for example making them less attractive as a CP battery.

 The Forgemaster wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I think we could foster some racial diversity here by making detachments for Battle Forged dependent on the race.

Dark Elves need a totally different setup for a "Battalion" than say, Skittari.

Custodes need more troops, less vehicles. Also, their BN now grants 7, and their brigade, being currently impossible, would instead be removed and their Vanguard would be worth 3.

Necrons are the only ones who I think should have a "flowing" style of CP. "Escalation Protocols" At 1st turn, you get 3. Second 4. Third 5. So on. And make their Battleforged be unrestricted other than 2x HQ.

There should be wildly different styles for CP farming between races.

I like this, would be cool and thematic.

also armies like Guard could require many more models for a similar amount of CP for example making them less attractive as a CP battery.

And the reason it will never happen?

BECAUSE IT WOULD RESULT IN LESS MODEL SALES!!!!! (Boooooo, hissss)

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I think we could foster some racial diversity here by making detachments for Battle Forged dependent on the race.

Dark Elves need a totally different setup for a "Battalion" than say, Skittari.

Custodes need more troops, less vehicles. Also, their BN now grants 7, and their brigade, being currently impossible, would instead be removed and their Vanguard would be worth 3.

Necrons are the only ones who I think should have a "flowing" style of CP. "Escalation Protocols" At 1st turn, you get 3. Second 4. Third 5. So on. And make their Battleforged be unrestricted other than 2x HQ.

There should be wildly different styles for CP farming between races.

How do you pull that off without screwing over certain (fluff supported) army builds though? Like, if you decide craftworlders should be light on troops and heavy on fast attack, then you're screwing over Ulthwe and its guardian-centric theme. If you decide they should be all about elite units like howling banshees or wraith guard but don't also give them benefits for focusing on Fast Attack, then you're screwing over Saim-Hann's jetbike-focused theme. If you decide to focus on just troops and HQs (like the current rules do), then you're punishing Iyanden (troop light, wraith heavy) and Saim-Hann (everyone should be on a jetbike or in a serpent). And if you decide that there's a craftworld that canonically focuses on each battlefield role, then what do you do about that?

These days, I find myself wondering if detachments should no longer have force org slots and should instead just be buckets of whatever units you want so long as they share appropriate keywords. The point of detachments, then, would be to unlock units/strats rather than to provide CP. So you might...

* Have X CP based on game size. Say 3 CP for every 500 points.
* Have up to 3 detachments. All units within a given detachment must share a faction keyword, and having a faction with a certain keyword unlocks strats for that keyword. Basically how it is now. If you want BA units, you need either a BA detachment or an Adeptus Astartes detachment. If you want BA units as well as BA strats, warlord traits, and relics, you need a BA detachment.
* Each detachment after the first costs Y CP. Maybe, like, 2 CP or something. So if you field GK, IG, and Imperial Knights in the same army, you're going to be playing with 4 less CP than normal, but you'll have access to the units, strats, etc. of all 3 of those factions.

Under those rules, you wouldn't have to worry about how many troops or fast attacks or whatever you're fielding; you'd be able to field the units you want. And if some units are auto takes or never takes at that point, then it means the autotakes need to be nerfed, and the nevertakes need to be buffed. The rule of 3 would still prevent you from spamming a given unit any more than you can now. You just don't have to worry about how efficient an HQ tax is when trying to unlock fast attack slots for the assault marines in your fluffy raven guard list, nor are you punished for not spamming living troops in your Iyanden list.

You could easily have a few detachments for army-specific playstyles. There would be no issue even adding slots which can only be filled by units with a certain keyword.

EG:

Ork Dread Mob:
2-3HQ
2-4 troops
0-2 elites
0 fast attack
0-3 heavy support
2-6 WALKER
0-1 STOMPA

so you can take up to 6 units of deff dreads and killa kans, in addition to mek gun support or wagons, but no fast attack.


This could easily be done for a few other armies too, EG BIKER slots for bike-themed armies in addition to fast attack.

 some bloke wrote:
You could easily have a few detachments for army-specific playstyles. There would be no issue even adding slots which can only be filled by units with a certain keyword.

EG:

Ork Dread Mob:
2-3HQ
2-4 troops
0-2 elites
0 fast attack
0-3 heavy support
2-6 WALKER
0-1 STOMPA

so you can take up to 6 units of deff dreads and killa kans, in addition to mek gun support or wagons, but no fast attack.


This could easily be done for a few other armies too, EG BIKER slots for bike-themed armies in addition to fast attack.

Hello 7th my old friend....
You've come to talk to me again....

 Charistoph wrote:

 some bloke wrote:
You could easily have a few detachments for army-specific playstyles. There would be no issue even adding slots which can only be filled by units with a certain keyword.

EG:

Ork Dread Mob:
2-3HQ
2-4 troops
0-2 elites
0 fast attack
0-3 heavy support
2-6 WALKER
0-1 STOMPA

so you can take up to 6 units of deff dreads and killa kans, in addition to mek gun support or wagons, but no fast attack.


This could easily be done for a few other armies too, EG BIKER slots for bike-themed armies in addition to fast attack.

Hello 7th my old friend....
You've come to talk to me again....

Yeah, that's somewhere between a formation and a decurion, but instead of specific special rules, you get CP to fuel a list of special rules (stratagems). So my concern with something like that is that you either....

A.) Don't give certain army themes a detachment. For instance, you might give Saim-Hann something to let them field a lot of fast attack units, but do you also give Iybraesil, a minor craftworld, a detachment to help them field a bunch of banshees? How about a homebrewed craftworld where they're all about using war walkers and/or wraith lords almost to the exclusion of normal troops? Do you give them a heavy support-focused detachment? And if you don't remember to include a detachment for, let's say, vaul support batteries, then do those units just never see play because you're basically forced to field other units to generate CP?

or...

B.) You give so many detachment options/detachment options that are so flexible that you can field whatever you want. At which point, why bother having different detachments at all?

I really like the idea of themed detachments, but I'm not sure how you do them without just bringing back formations (and all their associated problems) and/or punishing people for not playing one of the handful of formations that get created. You wanted to play Greenwing Dark Angels? Pfft. Only Ravenwing and Deathwing have detachments. Guess you can nerf yourself by playing the generic option instead.

Wyldhunt wrote:
I really like the idea of themed detachments, but I'm not sure how you do them without just bringing back formations (and all their associated problems) and/or punishing people for not playing one of the handful of formations that get created. You wanted to play Greenwing Dark Angels? Pfft. Only Ravenwing and Deathwing have detachments. Guess you can nerf yourself by playing the generic option instead.

Another question with them is: Why can't you just do that with combining the current default detachments?

Part of the reason why they made all these basic detachments was because of the backlash on how out of control those other detachments (either Role-based, Formation, or Choice-based) which came with every new codex started to get.

Admittedly not having free models helps, but do we really trust them NOT to go back to that at some point or in some version?

I have another suggestion...

Stratagem:
Heavy Bias, 1CP: You may either replace all of your fast attack slots or all of your elites slots with heavy support slots.
Fast Attack Bias, 1CP: You may either replace all of your heavy support slots or all of your elites slots with fast attack slots.
Elites Bias, 1 CP: You may either replace all of your Fast Attack or all of your Heavy support slots with Elites slots.

In all instances it has to be all of the slots, not some, and you don't have to fill them.
So if you wanted to run a themed army with bikes & attack bikes, you could double your fast attacks and sacrifice your heavy or elites.

The key is sacrificing some slots. It's weird how old 40k was about trying to get more army to fit into the slots you had, and new 40k is about trying to get as little army as possible to fill the compulsory slots for more CP. It seems backwards to me.


Another-another option:

1: We ditch the force organisation chart and make the rule of 3 a hard rule.
2: We give each army X CP for Y points, which I have in the past argued against, but hear me out.
3: We make players buy unit slots:

HQ:
1-2 = gain 1 CP each
3+ 0CP
Troops:
1-3 = gain 1 CP each
4+ 0CP
Elites, fast attack, heavy support, flyer:
1-3 0CP
4+ 1 extra CP for each over 3 (4th costs 1, 5th costs 2, etc)
Superheavy:
1+ 3CP

So you could have a troop-heavy army and have a lot of CP to play with, or you can have an average army with average CP, or you could have 9 heavy support slots and nothing else, and pay 1+2+3+4+5+6CP =21CP, which you probably wouldn't get in the first place without gaining 5 from 2HQ and 3 troops.

Exact CP per points would need to be sorted - maybe different armies generate it differently depending on their average unit points. Usually cheaper armies want to use more troops, though.

Alternatively you can have less CP per point, and have any number of troops generate CP, so you need more troops to have more slots.