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.

Before everyone jumps down my throat, I'm mainly just doing this to see what people think of different detachments balance wise. I love being able to take allies, but do we need something along these lines to balance CP generation through MSU of horde units?

I was thinking something like 2 detachments allowed, one must be a patrol or battalion and this can be for either 1 or 2 factions.

Would you want to play in a tourney that was set up this way? Would you be annoyed that you have to take troops but can't spam MSU? Would you be annoyed that it lowers the average CP people might bring? I honestly am curious what people think about this.

Honestly, I’m up for anything that forces the game closer to the lore.

A Custodes army with three Infantry Squads and two Company Commanders with Kurov’s Aquila and Grand Strategist? Get bent.

Hatachi wrote:
I was thinking something like 2 detachments allowed, one must be a patrol or battalion and this can be for either 1 or 2 factions.

It was a solid plan a few editions back when factions had vaguely comparable numbers of units and those units were suitably sorted - i.e. heavy weapons in the heavy slots, fast units in the fast slots, etc.

Now you have armies with many dozens of units of all types in all slots while other factions can't even field a valid battalion.

FoCs only work when the factions are designed to work with them.

kombatwombat wrote:
Honestly, I’m up for anything that forces the game closer to the lore.

A Custodes army with three Infantry Squads and two Company Commanders with Kurov’s Aquila and Grand Strategist? Get bent.

Yeah I mean who ever heard of elite Imperial warriors fighting alongside the Imperial Guard? That's just never happened in the lore ever period. [/sarcasm]

kombatwombat wrote:
Honestly, I’m up for anything that forces the game closer to the lore.

A Custodes army with three Infantry Squads and two Company Commanders with Kurov’s Aquila and Grand Strategist? Get bent.

That seems fluffier than even Pure Custodes; probably could stand to have more Guard, but... sure?

A.T. wrote:

Hatachi wrote:
I was thinking something like 2 detachments allowed, one must be a patrol or battalion and this can be for either 1 or 2 factions.

It was a solid plan a few editions back when factions had vaguely comparable numbers of units and those units were suitably sorted - i.e. heavy weapons in the heavy slots, fast units in the fast slots, etc.

Now you have armies with many dozens of units of all types in all slots while other factions can't even field a valid battalion.

FoCs only work when the factions are designed to work with them.

Yeah, that's largely the reason why I worded it as a patrol/ battalion + 1 other. It would let you do things like a patrol of guard with an aux of Inquisitors or SoS. Main one that pops up to me as an issue would be Knights, but I don't think it would be hard to say they're exempt from the rule. It wouldn't be hard to make exceptions like that where needed, but the rule might hold well for the vast majority of factions.

Hatachi wrote:
Before everyone jumps down my throat, I'm mainly just doing this to see what people think of different detachments balance wise. I love being able to take allies, but do we need something along these lines to balance CP generation through MSU of horde units?

I was thinking something like 2 detachments allowed, one must be a patrol or battalion and this can be for either 1 or 2 factions.

Would you want to play in a tourney that was set up this way? Would you be annoyed that you have to take troops but can't spam MSU? Would you be annoyed that it lowers the average CP people might bring? I honestly am curious what people think about this.

The London GT has highlander detachments, which I think benefits some armies more than others.

I don't think limiting to 2 really helps and it cuts out some interesting builds.

How would imperial knights fit into this?

They can't run anything other than super heavy detachments or auxiliary super heavy detachments.

I think tournaments are fine doing what they believe their players want. As long as local organizers listen to the players that actually come to their tournaments they should run them the way the majority wants.

In a vacuum? No. Allies are a crutch GW has given themselves that prevents them from writing most of the Imperium armies properly.

Restrict players to one detachment sharing 100% of their keywords and then write the Codexes assuming that restriction, and maybe.

 LunarSol wrote:

kombatwombat wrote:
Honestly, I’m up for anything that forces the game closer to the lore.

A Custodes army with three Infantry Squads and two Company Commanders with Kurov’s Aquila and Grand Strategist? Get bent.

That seems fluffier than even Pure Custodes; probably could stand to have more Guard, but... sure?

and even then you're looking at a IG captain with a great gift for stragety, 30 of his troops.being supported by maybe 15 custodes. it definatly could use more guard but it's not terriable. it's less a fluff monstrocity then some of the PURE lists I've seen (looking at you any space marine list ever without Tacs)

I actually find the 3 restriction a bit annoying in one regard (I play 'pure' codex lists or mixed Genestealer cult/Guard) and that is Fortifications. You have to use a detachment even if you just want to bring one along. They aren't great but I do like how they look so would love to bring 1 or more along. But their lack of utility is one thing, using up a whole detachment is another!

The_Real_Chris wrote:
I actually find the 3 restriction a bit annoying in one regard (I play 'pure' codex lists or mixed Genestealer cult/Guard) and that is Fortifications. You have to use a detachment even if you just want to bring one along. They aren't great but I do like how they look so would love to bring 1 or more along. But their lack of utility is one thing, using up a whole detachment is another!

That hadn't crossed my mind. It's kind of surprising they didn't just make them a force org slot in patrols/ battalions like dedicated transports.

There's a few specific detachments that really cripple models by virtue of being a detachment.

My local tournament scene, we run no duplicate detachments except patrols, and that seems to work out pretty well. Curtails the ammount of cp as well.

I like the idea but some armies would have difficulty as they are designed to work differently with detachments. Knights are an obvious example and Dark Eldar too to some extent.

A better approach might be to say all armies must be from a single Codex as that would avoid Soup armies.

Granted that would prevent things like Imperial armies including a Knight as a support unit but given Knights are not exactly competitive at the moment, it probably won't matter much for tournaments.

 McGibs wrote:
My local tournament scene, we run no duplicate detachments except patrols, and that seems to work out pretty well. Curtails the ammount of cp as well.

That would basically kill my current ork army once codex drops in...

 McGibs wrote:
My local tournament scene, we run no duplicate detachments except patrols, and that seems to work out pretty well. Curtails the ammount of cp as well.

Curtails CPs but does nothing to prevent a lot of soup armies which are the real problem IMHO.

For example, under this scenario I could still field a Guard Battalion for tanks, bodies and CPs, A Blood Angel Vanguard to take some Death Company or Sanguinary Guard for fast melee and a Supreme Command Detachment of Custodes Shield Captains on Bikes. Perfectly legal, adequate CPs (especially with Grand Strategist and Kurov's Aquila) and showing everything that is wrong with multiple detachments in 8th.

The only thing limitations do is shift the meta. The more efficient armies will still be more efficient, while the lower tier armies will be impacted more by any blanket change to “balance”. It’s a sad fact, but the issue is internal codex balance, not external army building balance. You a better army? Pick one with better unit selections that are points efficient. You want your army to perform better? Play another army that plays better. Restricting detachments won’t fix that, just like the Rule of 3 doesn’t fix it, nor does limiting specific units such as no FW or only 1 Commander per Detachment fix anything. It just shift what’s good.

SJ

I think limiting allies and mixing factions would fix more than limiting detachments at this point. Id love to go back to the old 3-5E FOC, and I think for most armies that would work beautifully, but GW has splintered some factions such that they dont work that way or just dont have enough stuff to fill that out.

The biggest abuse we see however is really in allies covering gaps in capabilities and synergizing in unintended ways. Cut down on that and we'll cut out a lot of problems.

This conversation stresses me out, lol.

Is there really an issue with mixed armies of sub-faction detachments, or is the problem is unit costing? If a supreme command of 3 high performance models (say banannamen captain jetbikes) costs 1200 points then it's way more difficult to fit in the extra detachments and get the extra CP. That's excessive, of course, but for illustration purposes it gets the idea out.

Then, if you want to take your super fluffy Inquisition list with Sisters, Guard, and Assassins + an Inquisitor in 3 detachments (not currently allowed in the FAQ, but I dream for options whenever a codex comes along for Inq) to a tourney you don't get punished.

I don't think limiting the creativity is helpful - Let people build the armies of their dreams. But cost the units in a way that tries to prohibit exploitation (as best as reasonably can be conceived) and encourage some diversity.

Until then, I guess folks are gonna do what folks are gonna do to try and homerule some feel good. But it just seems like the basic framework isn't the problem, it's the resource value that breaks the framework, and that can be reasonably lobbied for. Maybe tourney operators can re-cost units for events to help drive that agenda.

 Mushkilla wrote:
How would imperial knights fit into this?

They can't run anything other than super heavy detachments or auxiliary super heavy detachments.

In a highlander they do fine. Most tournies are running 2000k or less anyway.

Some armies are designed to be soup.

All Imp factions not SM or Guard
Yanarri
Genestealer cult with Tyranids and or Guard

These armies would all suffer if you made one book the rule.

I don't mind makeing it 2 detachments as long as I know before hand.

The Fortification network should not count as a detachment if you feild ether of the bigger detachments 12CP or 5CP ones (Don't have my book it's battalion and Regiment I think)

Personally I'd nuke the Supreme Grand Command detachment and stick a LoW slot in the Brigade.

"command" stuff should mean bringing things for them to actually command, the others I'm fine with, but SGC just seems silly unless you tag a restriction on it - like you must have more non-HQ for a faction than HQ for that faction (so no Custards jet bike SGC unless you also have a good few other custards units for example)

leopard wrote:
Personally I'd nuke the Supreme Grand Command detachment and stick a LoW slot in the Brigade.

"command" stuff should mean bringing things for them to actually command, the others I'm fine with, but SGC just seems silly unless you tag a restriction on it - like you must have more non-HQ for a faction than HQ for that faction (so no Custards jet bike SGC unless you also have a good few other custards units for example)

yeah Supreme command seems wrong to me. I get why it was created. it was created so that anyone who bought X number of Librarians for say a Librarius conclave formation could still use their stuff, as GW went out of their way to ensure that no formations etc would be made ILLEGAL. Doesn't mean it's healthy. I think it'd be TOTALLY Kosher for tournies to limit the types of detachments allowed.

Heck I'd be fine with a tourny saying "patrols and battalions ONLY"

iodan333 wrote:
This conversation stresses me out, lol.

Is there really an issue with mixed armies of sub-faction detachments, or is the problem is unit costing? If a supreme command of 3 high performance models (say banannamen captain jetbikes) costs 1200 points then it's way more difficult to fit in the extra detachments and get the extra CP. That's excessive, of course, but for illustration purposes it gets the idea out.

Then, if you want to take your super fluffy Inquisition list with Sisters, Guard, and Assassins + an Inquisitor in 3 detachments (not currently allowed in the FAQ, but I dream for options whenever a codex comes along for Inq) to a tourney you don't get punished.

I don't think limiting the creativity is helpful - Let people build the armies of their dreams. But cost the units in a way that tries to prohibit exploitation (as best as reasonably can be conceived) and encourage some diversity.

Until then, I guess folks are gonna do what folks are gonna do to try and homerule some feel good. But it just seems like the basic framework isn't the problem, it's the resource value that breaks the framework, and that can be reasonably lobbied for. Maybe tourney operators can re-cost units for events to help drive that agenda.

It's not just a matter of cost, factions broadly are built around certain strengths and weaknesses and stuff is meant to only be so capable in certain roles. The looseness of the ability to integrate and swap factions means it's easy basically field an army that has all the strengths of multiple armies and none of the weaknesses, and can synergize in ways otherwise not possible to produce something even more powerful.

 Vaktathi wrote:
It's not just a matter of cost, factions broadly are built around certain strengths and weaknesses and stuff is meant to only be so capable in certain roles.

They were to some degree.

More recent factions however are built around whatever models GW is releasing at the time. The old self-contained and balanced army design has gone right out of the window.