Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
- No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
- Times and dates in your local timezone.
- Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
- Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
- Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2021/12/21 13:00:44
Subject: What if? Army specific detachments.
|
 |
Ridin' on a Snotling Pump Wagon
|
How do!
No particular ideas in mind for this thread, but figured it might prove an interesting think tank type discussion. And I do like a good think tank.
As you no doubt know, 8th and 9th Ed introduced a variety of what used to be called Force Organisation Charts. From intentionally troop heavy and in theory quite well rounded forces, to super specialist detachments. Each allows different selections, and going Out There has a cost in Command Points.
As a non-active player, I get the impression the effort is appreciated, but the implantation is a bit flawed. And it largely boils down to how an individual’s head canon for a force stands, and not at all Troop options being equal across codexes.
Back in the dim and distant past, we saw different armies having slightly different takes on how you assembled your force. As a loose example, Imperial Guard could take one Support Unit for every Infantry unit. This lead to a different looking force to other Codexes.
In modern 40K, and the conversation which sparked this thread? The Eldar rumours (the veracity of which remains to be seen) are claiming CWE will see no Aspects in Troops, outside of hypothetical at the time of writing shifts from characters and/or stratagems.
Given Aspects are the real fighters of CWE, that doesn’t sit quite right with me. In my head canon (heavily influenced by actual canon), Guardians are more make weight. Citizen Soldiery drafted in certain conflicts, and so they shouldn’t be as common a sight as Aspects working in concert.
Now one could of course do that by choosing the Elites heavy Detachment, but then you’re doing yourself out of Command Points. Which depending how reliant they end up on Stratagems could prove a serious disadvantage.
But what if each army had at the very least variation on the CP costs of more specialist detachments? This could be an army wide rule (so for argument’s sake, CWE get the CP cost of an Elites detachment [Vanguard?] rebate for the first one), or potentially tied to a Character (so again for arguments sake and just an example I’ve not really though through) the same rebate could be gained from heading up that Detachment with an Autarch or Phoenix Lord, to represent that’s their area of tactical expertise.
Any thoughts on this?
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2021/12/21 13:15:05
Subject: Re:What if? Army specific detachments.
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
There are already variants of this in the game.
You can make Deathwing or Ravenwing Detachments, for example, that while retaining the Elite/FA composition, gain most benefits you'd normally have in a Battalion with troops, notably ObSec and a refund on CP costs for the detachment. But it comes with added restrictions to ensure a bit more fluff-adherence.
Same could easily be done with Aspect Warriors, where an "Aspect Host" Vanguard Detachment could grant your Aspect Warriors ObSec and refund you the CP cost for the Detachment if led by a Phoenix Lord, but had some restrictions so you couldn't use it to spam Elite Wraith-constructs with it.
Armies of Renown are also a thing, which could easily be adapted to represent a Windrider Host or some such, while simultaneously ensuring that just randomly throwing Aspects or Bikes into the troop slot becomes a min/max opportunity for people trying to build a completely different army from the archetypes you would envision in a bike-heavy or aspect-heavy army. #
That said, simply having less CP might also be acceptable game-balance. You are taking more efficient "elite" units and save points on maybe less efficient Guardians (especially if Aspects aren't given near-Guardian-statlines/profiles to ensure they remain unproblematic if spammed a lot and instead get better datasheets more inline with the lore). To keep it even, having it cost CP wouldn't be the worst idea to balance different approaches.
|
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/12/21 13:17:42
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2021/12/21 13:31:03
Subject: Re:What if? Army specific detachments.
|
 |
Automated Rubric Marine of Tzeentch
|
see, i'd always understood is as the aspect warriors were the cutting edge, leading the attack and doing the pivotal roles, but the guardians were not just "makeweight", but their to give the eldar the bulk and mass for the aspects to operate around. they tie down the enemy, watch the flanks, hold the terrian the aspects take, etc. in short, they furfill those boring but necessary roles that troops should. They give the eldar the volume to form a battleline, to be more than just raiders.
as to faction specific detachments.....i'm not sure. I feel that if your going to skew hard into a given playstyle their should be consequences, and a reduction of command points, and by extension access to the stratagems a lot of elite units need to be at full efficiency, is a meaningful tradeoff.
lets face it, for many factions, the troop tax is real, they feel their troops are a burden they must pay for to get access to the stuff they want. The single biggest reason for the popularity of scouts in 8th edition was they let you fill out troops slots with a cheaper unit than tac marines, and the second they no longer could do that because they were moved to elites, they plummeted in popularity. (I feel scouts should have been fast attack choice if they cant be troops, with their concealed positions and outflank abilities, but thats a different argument)
Now, to get around that tax, you should be giving something up or else its just a flat upgrade. The specialist detachments make you pay for this.
Also, they enable you "half skew" if you run multiple detachments, as extra HQ choices are rarely a "tax" to most people. for example, a regular battalion for most of your force and a elite detachment for a punching force.
also, the "armies of renown" idea that GW is pushing out in its warzone octarius books is another way of doing what your talking about: creating "fluffly" detachments with non standard army building restrictions.
|
To be a man in such times is to be one amongst untold billions. It is to live in the cruelest and most bloody regime imaginable. These are the tales of those times. Forget the power of technology and science, for so much has been forgotten, never to be relearned. Forget the promise of progress and understanding, for in the grim dark future there is only war. There is no peace amongst the stars, only an eternity of carnage and slaughter, and the laughter of thirsting gods.
Coven of XVth 2000pts
The Blades of Ruin 2,000pts Watch Company Rho 1650pts
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2021/12/21 13:42:56
Subject: Re:What if? Army specific detachments.
|
 |
Executing Exarch
|
Isn't this broadly the remit of those Psykick Awakening 2.0 - (Paywall bugaloo) books
I suspect the GW won't push it any further than that. lest those evil TFG players break their slapdash way of doing things, and while the munny rolls in why bother
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/21 13:43:31
"AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED." |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2021/12/21 14:10:23
Subject: What if? Army specific detachments.
|
 |
Painlord Titan Princeps of Slaanesh
|
The easiest way to fix the eldar situation would be to say if you take a Phoenix Lord as your warlord that aspect warrior becomes a troop choice. This is what happens with chaos if you take a particular legion then X elite choice becomes a troop choice. The big change that would have to occur in that Phoenix lords would have to be eligible for warlord traits and should benefit from craftworld traits.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2021/12/22 13:14:41
Subject: What if? Army specific detachments.
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
I miss Corsairs Detachments....
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2021/12/22 15:03:32
Subject: What if? Army specific detachments.
|
 |
Killer Klaivex
The dark behind the eyes.
|
I miss Corsairs.
|
blood reaper wrote:I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote:Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote:GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
Andilus Greatsword wrote:
"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"
Akiasura wrote:I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.
insaniak wrote:
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2021/12/22 15:44:40
Subject: What if? Army specific detachments.
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Rumour is they're coming back.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2021/12/22 16:05:15
Subject: What if? Army specific detachments.
|
 |
Gore-Drenched Khorne Chaos Lord
|
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:How do!
In modern 40K, and the conversation which sparked this thread? The Eldar rumours (the veracity of which remains to be seen) are claiming CWE will see no Aspects in Troops, outside of hypothetical at the time of writing shifts from characters and/or stratagems.
Given Aspects are the real fighters of CWE, that doesn’t sit quite right with me. In my head canon (heavily influenced by actual canon), Guardians are more make weight. Citizen Soldiery drafted in certain conflicts, and so they shouldn’t be as common a sight as Aspects working in concert.
Now one could of course do that by choosing the Elites heavy Detachment, but then you’re doing yourself out of Command Points. Which depending how reliant they end up on Stratagems could prove a serious disadvantage.
Why not take 3 min guardian units and have 6 elite slots with a normal battalion? That's still the ratio you're interested with, majority aspects with a guardian "bulk" if you will.
But what if each army had at the very least variation on the CP costs of more specialist detachments? This could be an army wide rule (so for argument’s sake, CWE get the CP cost of an Elites detachment [Vanguard?] rebate for the first one), or potentially tied to a Character (so again for arguments sake and just an example I’ve not really though through) the same rebate could be gained from heading up that Detachment with an Autarch or Phoenix Lord, to represent that’s their area of tactical expertise.
Any thoughts on this?
They did this in 6th/7th? Wasn't a fan then because it because either a useless tacked on detachment that wasn't better or it was outright better and never worth taking a normal one (assuming formations didn't win out).
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2021/12/22 16:08:20
Subject: What if? Army specific detachments.
|
 |
Killer Klaivex
The dark behind the eyes.
|
The rumour I saw was that Corsairs get all of one unit.
Given that they used to be an entire army, I'd hardly call that coming back.
|
blood reaper wrote:I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote:Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote:GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
Andilus Greatsword wrote:
"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"
Akiasura wrote:I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.
insaniak wrote:
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2021/12/22 16:23:35
Subject: What if? Army specific detachments.
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Yes, what the game needs is surely more things stacked on top of it...
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/12/22 20:25:03
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2021/12/22 16:48:33
Subject: What if? Army specific detachments.
|
 |
Killer Klaivex
The dark behind the eyes.
|
One thing I'll say on this topic is that I'm not sure CPs should be the price you pay for taking 'unconventional' detachments.
Ordana wrote:
And no your not giving up CP by putting your army in a Vanguard detachment, you get 1 detachment for free (the one with your warlord in it).
Not playing a Battalion doesn't cost you anything.
That is outright wrong.
Vanguards, Spearheads and Outriders all cost you 3CP even if your Warlord is in them.
|
blood reaper wrote:I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote:Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote:GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
Andilus Greatsword wrote:
"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"
Akiasura wrote:I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.
insaniak wrote:
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2021/12/22 17:01:32
Subject: What if? Army specific detachments.
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Yes.. going from a full army with an incredible book that basically is the reason why we have army traits and detachments to 1-2 units... yes that is "coming back"
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2021/12/22 17:10:09
Subject: What if? Army specific detachments.
|
 |
Death-Dealing Devastator
|
Army Specific detachments I'd like to see:
A battlesuit-only T'au force that gets extra benefits for using only battlesuit keyworded units (other than Firewarriors, Devilfish, and HQ's). So basically crisis suits, stealth suits, Ghostkeels, Riptides, Stormsurges, Broadsides. Maybe move Stealth Suits to Fast Attack?
Also I'd like to see different FOC's for the different Imperial Guard regiments. Like Catachans should have a sentinel- and infantry-heavy detachment, whereas Valhallans should have a vehicle-heavy detachment design.
Is that the kind of thing you're talking about? I apologize for not taking the time to flesh out my thoughts and add more details...
|
Squats 2020! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2021/12/22 17:16:12
Subject: What if? Army specific detachments.
|
 |
Preacher of the Emperor
|
This thread is giving me 7th edition formation PTSD. You weren't there man..... you weren't there...
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2021/12/22 17:24:25
Subject: What if? Army specific detachments.
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Amishprn86 wrote:
Yes.. going from a full army with an incredible book that basically is the reason why we have army traits and detachments to 1-2 units... yes that is "coming back"
This is true enough. I'm not terribly familiar with Corsairs, but I think I would have liked them. I think I'll start a separate thread to get some more info on what was lost, and what could conceivably be coming back.
For what it's worth, I'm not sure whether I entirely trust the rumours at all; they claim that Ynarri, Harlequins, Corsairs and CWE are all in one book, and quite frankly, I don't see how it's possible to do that with GW's current standard for bespoke army content. Like most rumours, I believe this "leak" contains kernels of truth, but I certainly hope they are wrong on some of the details. I think a combined book would be moving the Eldar backwards a good number of years. It might almost make me as angry at GW as everyone else is because of strats.
Funny thing is that since everyone who hates strats is "anti-bloat" they probably think four factions in one book is a great idea.
Sorry for the tangent.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2021/12/22 17:54:02
Subject: What if? Army specific detachments.
|
 |
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests
Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.
|
I think army-specific detachments should be the only alternate detachments besides the basic FOC.
I also think the FOC should scale based on game size.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2021/12/22 18:34:34
Subject: What if? Army specific detachments.
|
 |
Preacher of the Emperor
|
I'm a fan of the current FOCs. You have a few standard ones everyone can use with no penalty, and then if you choose to specialize you pay the premium. It seems pretty fair.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2021/12/22 18:41:36
Subject: Re:What if? Army specific detachments.
|
 |
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran
Canada
|
I never liked the FOC - one of the bad changes when they brought in 3rd. Don't tell me what to bring! I will chose my own army thank you.
I prefer the 8th and 9th system of Detachments over the 3-7th Ed FOCs. Plenty of flexibility, but you pay a price in CPs if you go "skew."
I think it is rather silly to insist on what should be majority "troops" in a force where we have armies made up of super-elite dudes (Grey Knights, Custodes etc). A typical 40K force on a tabletop is something like a Company group. It doesn't have to be scaled down version of what the entire faction "has" in our fictional setting.
All Aspect Warriors? Why not?
|
All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2021/12/22 18:44:37
Subject: What if? Army specific detachments.
|
 |
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare
|
I liked the idea behind Formations. Execution less so.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2021/12/22 19:01:38
Subject: What if? Army specific detachments.
|
 |
Irked Necron Immortal
Switzerland
|
I sometimes miss 3rd Editions system.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/22 19:02:04
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2021/12/22 19:20:49
Subject: What if? Army specific detachments.
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
I don't see the difference between this and Patrol/ Battalion/ Brigade. They are basically scaling old-style FOC's.
Certainly the specialist detachments add to that, but in practice, I find they are rarely worth the CP cost, so I generally just stick to the basic three...
Which, again ARE scaling oldschool FOC's.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/22 19:21:10
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2021/12/22 20:24:41
Subject: What if? Army specific detachments.
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
vipoid wrote:One thing I'll say on this topic is that I'm not sure CPs should be the price you pay for taking 'unconventional' detachments.
Ordana wrote:
And no your not giving up CP by putting your army in a Vanguard detachment, you get 1 detachment for free (the one with your warlord in it).
Not playing a Battalion doesn't cost you anything.
That is outright wrong.
Vanguards, Spearheads and Outriders all cost you 3CP even if your Warlord is in them.
Well that's me looking silly. Was pretty sure it was in all of them. Well easy change then instead of having army specific detachments simply added the command benefit to the 3 specialized detachments. easy, clean. done.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2021/12/22 21:15:07
Subject: What if? Army specific detachments.
|
 |
The Marine Standing Behind Marneus Calgar
|
H.B.M.C. wrote:I think army-specific detachments should be the only alternate detachments besides the basic FOC.
I also think the FOC should scale based on game size.
Was it 5th that had the second FOC at 2k points? And people playing 1999+1 point games to avoid it.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2021/12/22 21:53:31
Subject: What if? Army specific detachments.
|
 |
Inquisitorial Keeper of the Xenobanks
|
Leo_the_Rat wrote:The easiest way to fix the eldar situation would be to say if you take a Phoenix Lord as your warlord that aspect warrior becomes a troop choice. This is what happens with chaos if you take a particular legion then X elite choice becomes a troop choice. The big change that would have to occur in that Phoenix lords would have to be eligible for warlord traits and should benefit from craftworld traits.
You are making too much sense. I like it. Maybe something like army wide themes a la chapter traits, too?
As I had understood them , guardians might have been aspects but had returned to civilian life, to be recalled when times demanded.
|
. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2021/12/22 22:18:06
Subject: What if? Army specific detachments.
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Nevelon wrote: H.B.M.C. wrote:I think army-specific detachments should be the only alternate detachments besides the basic FOC.
I also think the FOC should scale based on game size.
Was it 5th that had the second FOC at 2k points? And people playing 1999+1 point games to avoid it.
I do remember that but not for 5th, I also remember almost all places and events did 1850 for 5th, but maybe it was 6th? I can't remember now lol.
Double checked, it was 6th, just another reason why 6th is the worst edition ever.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/22 22:20:12
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2021/12/22 23:38:30
Subject: What if? Army specific detachments.
|
 |
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests
Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.
|
deviantduck wrote:I'm a fan of the current FOCs. You have a few standard ones everyone can use with no penalty, and then if you choose to specialize you pay the premium. It seems pretty fair.
The current FOCs make the FOC meaningless. You can just take whatever you want. Why even have restrictions when you can pay a pittance to get more of any other choice? PenitentJake wrote:I don't see the difference between this and Patrol/ Battalion/ Brigade. They are basically scaling old-style FOC's.
Because I don't think there should be Patrol/Battalion/Brigades. Just one FOC, no other types of special formations (other than Codex-specific ones), and they scale with game size. No "I want more Heavy Support choices than the FOC allows, so I'll pay 3 CP and suddenly have a whole bunch more!". Why have limitations if you can just circumvent those limitations for virtually no cost? Nevelon wrote:Was it 5th that had the second FOC at 2k points? And people playing 1999+1 point games to avoid it.
Which wouldn't be necessary or even desired if the FOC scaled based on points.
|
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/12/22 23:41:49
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2021/12/22 23:50:36
Subject: What if? Army specific detachments.
|
 |
The Marine Standing Behind Marneus Calgar
|
The double FOC for 6th (thanks for looking that up) was a form of scaling. At 2k, you had twice the space, if you were willing to pay twice the requirements. Not a very granular scale, but at least it kept the same ratios.
How would you do a scaling FOC that doesn’t end up looking like either the old 2x at 2k or the patrol/battalion/brigade? You could work out some formula, but I think it would probably end up being more complicated then just pick the one that matches the size you want.
I’m torn on the elite/FA/HS ones. They promote skew lists, with minimal drawbacks. On the other hand they are the tool we need to do things like windrider hosts, deathwing armies, etc. Is it better the slot swapping to troops? Which often required specific/named HQs? Pros and cons.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2021/12/23 01:28:12
Subject: What if? Army specific detachments.
|
 |
Killer Klaivex
The dark behind the eyes.
|
Nevelon wrote:The double FOC for 6th (thanks for looking that up) was a form of scaling. At 2k, you had twice the space, if you were willing to pay twice the requirements. Not a very granular scale, but at least it kept the same ratios.
I suspect the issue is that the requirements ended up being pretty negligible as compared with the rewards. Especially when you remember that there was no rule of 3.
Nevelon wrote:
How would you do a scaling FOC that doesn’t end up looking like either the old 2x at 2k or the patrol/battalion/brigade? You could work out some formula, but I think it would probably end up being more complicated then just pick the one that matches the size you want.
I could be wrong, but I think HBMC's point wasn't necessarily that his hypothetical FoC would bear no resemblance to Patrols or Battalions, but rather that you would not have the same plethora of detachments to choose from.
So you could have something like:
500pts:
1-2 HQs
1-3 Troops
0-2 Elites
0-2 Fast Attack
0-2 Heavy Support
1000pts:
1-3 HQs
2-4 Troops
0-3 Elites
0-3 Fast Attack
0-3 Heavy Support
1500pts:
1-4 HQs
2-6 Troops
0-3 Elites
0-3 Fast Attack
0-3 Heavy Support
2000pts:
2-5 HQs
2-8 Troops
0-4 Elites
0-4 Fast Attack
0-4 Heavy Support
(I don't know exactly what HBMC has in mind re numbers, so I'm just taking a rough guess.)
Anyway, I think the point is that you would have the appropriate FoC for your game size and nothing else.
As in, you can't choose between a Battalion or 2-3 Patrols or a Battalion and a Patrol or a Patrol and an Outrider or whatever. You just get a single FoC based on game size and that's your lot.
|
blood reaper wrote:I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote:Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote:GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
Andilus Greatsword wrote:
"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"
Akiasura wrote:I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.
insaniak wrote:
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2021/12/23 02:24:46
Subject: What if? Army specific detachments.
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
4th had 2 detachments at 2500
|
|
 |
 |
|