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.
This was an idea I floated in the now locked Vigilus thread as a way to get soup under control and reward more mono build lists. Basically, it's to take the current system of CPs per detachments taken and put in reverse. Rather than starting with a few CPs and gaining more as you take more detachments (which is where the abuse comes in), you instead start with a lot of CPs and lose them as you take extra detachments. Smaller detachments mean more lost CPs. Therefore, if you go with a more monobuild list you'll retain more CPs as a reward.
As for how many CPs detachments cost, I was thinking that a Brigade or Super Heavy Detachment costs you 0, a Battalion costs you 1, a Patrol, Vanguard, Spearhead, Outrider, Supreme Command, Air Wing, Super Heavy detachment or Fortification Network costs you 2, and the Auxiliary Support Detachment costs you 3.
The big question is, how do you determine how many CPs you have in the first place? And would this system even work? Because in answer to both, I honestly don't know!
This idea has been pitched before. I like it. For starting number of CP, I like the idea of something like 3 CP base + 3 CP per 500 points you're playing. So at 1500 points, you'd be at 3+ 9 = 15 CP before detachments. At 2000, you'd be at 18.
Also, I like the idea of adding an "allies tax" to detachments after the first. Something like +1 to the cost of a detachment if its common keyword is not the same as the first but is the same "type." I.e. +1 CP if you have a <chapter> or <craftworld> keyword as the common keyword for both detachments but the specific chapters or craftworlds are different. +2 CP instead if the common keyword is not of the same type (so +2 if you have IG and SM in the same list).
You might have to tweak the specific wording or come up with some snowflake exceptions for certain lists. I'm fine with this. The idea here is to put a CP cost on soup. Taking bad moonz for your loota detachment and evil sunz for your deepstriking detachment is fine, but the extra CP you pay to do so reflects the increase in power cherry picking gives you. Running ravagers with a doom farseer for support is fine, but one of those detachments is going to cost you 2 extra CP.
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
This would be a good idea. Mono-build lists should be rewarded with a TON of extra command points, not soup lists being rewarded with CPs for spamming cheap guardsmen.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Tge issue is the codex's arn't built for that sort of structure. Tau especially would suffer from this rule due to having a 1 per detachment limit.
You also have to balance out the cost of special detachment vrs the troop heavy and then balance those troops which is a big part of the current problem with CP balance. Good troops gives you a good army with buckets of CP. Bad troops screws you for CP or taking tax units.
Also with the advent of formations I'm not sure we want to incentivise single massive detachments even more as the formation costs the same for a brigade and a patrol.
Just a thought, but to boost the CP for mono-builds, rather than having all the keyword limitations etc., what about detachment detachments?
so a detachment which includes a battalion and an outrider, which offers more CP than the two separately, but being it's own detachment must be made of the same army? Let's call them Formations.
You could even reduce the size & CP of detachments to accommodate this.
so you would have a HQ detachment of 1-2 HQ's, and "TROOPS" of 1-3 Troops. Then you would have the ELITES Detachment of 1-3 elites, FAST ATTACK of 1-3 fast attack, HEAVY SUPPORT of 1-3 heavy supports, and FLIER of 1-2 fliers. Each would grant 1 CP. There would be a rule to prevent extra detachments being taken if the previous wasn't full - so you can't take 2 elite detachments of 1 unit. There would have to be a "HQ" one of 1-2 HQ as well.
Then you have the "Batallion" formation, which would comprise of 1 HQ and 2 TROOPS detachments, 0-2 ELITE detachments, 0-1 FAST ATTACK detachments, 0-1 HEAVY SUPPORT Detachments and 0-1 FLIER Detachments.
The battalion would grant double CP for each detachment. so if you filled it, you would get 16CP. If you had the minimum of 2 troops & 1 HQ, you get 6CP.
A Brigade would be 3 HQ, 6 TROOPS, 1-3 ELITE, 1-2 FAST ATTACK, 1-2 HEAVY SUPPORT and 0-1 FLIER. If it doubled CP, as above, it would give 24CP minimum and 34CP Max. Which may be a bit much.
Outriders, spearheads and vanguards would have 1 HQ, 1 Troops and 1-3 of their specialty. They wouldn't double CP.
Then you simply state that you may only have CP from one detachment - your warlords. CP can still be spent anywhere, but if you want to get a lot of them, take a big detachment. taking a minimum of units in each detachment will not grant a lot of CP, like it does now.
Edit - I've made this it's own topic to avoid derailing the thread, I got a bit carried away writing it!
Carry on!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/03 11:15:46
12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!
You also have to balance out the cost of special detachment vrs the troop heavy and then balance those troops which is a big part of the current problem with CP balance. Good troops gives you a good army with buckets of CP. Bad troops screws you for CP or taking tax units.
I actually think the proposed system helps with this. Most competitive lists are including at least one batallion or brigade at the moment. So you can pretty much expect to have at least 3 troops in a given competitive list. Under this system, you could take a batallion and no other detachments and come out with quite a few CP. No need to take multiple troop-heavy detachments to crank up your CP. No need to take the loyal 32 because your main army's troops are expensive. You just take the 3 squads of troops that were going to be in your army somewhere anyway, and now you have all the CP you need unless you're really looking to take a bunch of options from a single force org slot. And instead of players automatically looking at the loyal 32 or a kabal batallion, it's easier to justify taking your own book's troops because staying in a single book effectively gains you CP rather than costing them.
It does make souping slightly less desirable, but giving up a couple of CP for the expanded unit catalogue and ability to optimize your faction traits is still going to be worth it for players who want to run that sort of list.
If you were running, for the sake of argument, two loyal 32 batallions for your CP before, you were spending about 400 points. Under this system, you just take 3 of your in-house troops. Which will probably cost you less than 400 points unless you're really investing in them anyway.
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
One of the interesting things about this idea is that is what Power Levels were supposed to do.
Could you imagine a tournament where they list organization as 2000 points, with 4 Command Points? Those Command Points would be used to buy detachments rather than in-game Stratagems?
The idea can still work now, just alter the nomenclature so that the Detachments still give their Stratagem CPs, but are "purchased" through another name.
Still, the Astra boys need to be caught up, I think.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
You also have to balance out the cost of special detachment vrs the troop heavy and then balance those troops which is a big part of the current problem with CP balance. Good troops gives you a good army with buckets of CP. Bad troops screws you for CP or taking tax units.
I actually think the proposed system helps with this. Most competitive lists are including at least one batallion or brigade at the moment. So you can pretty much expect to have at least 3 troops in a given competitive list. Under this system, you could take a batallion and no other detachments and come out with quite a few CP. No need to take multiple troop-heavy detachments to crank up your CP. No need to take the loyal 32 because your main army's troops are expensive. You just take the 3 squads of troops that were going to be in your army somewhere anyway, and now you have all the CP you need unless you're really looking to take a bunch of options from a single force org slot. And instead of players automatically looking at the loyal 32 or a kabal batallion, it's easier to justify taking your own book's troops because staying in a single book effectively gains you CP rather than costing them.
It does make souping slightly less desirable, but giving up a couple of CP for the expanded unit catalogue and ability to optimize your faction traits is still going to be worth it for players who want to run that sort of list.
If you were running, for the sake of argument, two loyal 32 batallions for your CP before, you were spending about 400 points. Under this system, you just take 3 of your in-house troops. Which will probably cost you less than 400 points unless you're really investing in them anyway.
Again so Tau have to pay CP to bring multiple commanders as they are 1 per detachment. yeah cheers
You also have to balance out the cost of special detachment vrs the troop heavy and then balance those troops which is a big part of the current problem with CP balance. Good troops gives you a good army with buckets of CP. Bad troops screws you for CP or taking tax units.
I actually think the proposed system helps with this. Most competitive lists are including at least one batallion or brigade at the moment. So you can pretty much expect to have at least 3 troops in a given competitive list. Under this system, you could take a batallion and no other detachments and come out with quite a few CP. No need to take multiple troop-heavy detachments to crank up your CP. No need to take the loyal 32 because your main army's troops are expensive. You just take the 3 squads of troops that were going to be in your army somewhere anyway, and now you have all the CP you need unless you're really looking to take a bunch of options from a single force org slot. And instead of players automatically looking at the loyal 32 or a kabal batallion, it's easier to justify taking your own book's troops because staying in a single book effectively gains you CP rather than costing them.
It does make souping slightly less desirable, but giving up a couple of CP for the expanded unit catalogue and ability to optimize your faction traits is still going to be worth it for players who want to run that sort of list.
If you were running, for the sake of argument, two loyal 32 batallions for your CP before, you were spending about 400 points. Under this system, you just take 3 of your in-house troops. Which will probably cost you less than 400 points unless you're really investing in them anyway.
Again so Tau have to pay CP to bring multiple commanders as they are 1 per detachment. yeah cheers
Why would a smaller Tau force (not apocalypse sized) have any reason fluff wise to take multiple Commanders? It makes absolutely no fluff sense and I imagine is only used for power gaming purposes. You can take the eight if you want at 1000 points in CA apparently, but multiple commanders? Cheese
I'm not going to re-read the lunacy that is the last few pages of this thread, but I'd be very surprised if anyone actually said that. Even that one guy banging on about how relatively difficult it might be for an Inquisitor to acquire power armour, I don't think even that guy said that.
People should HAVE to run troops. Penalizing them for doing so all but ensures you will never see another model in that category on the table, considering they are considered by many to be a tax rather than a benefit.
TBH, we should go all the way back to the damn force org chart. This flexibility creates way more many problems than it fixes.
Making a super heavy detatchment cost 0cp to field means you will see armies of superheavy spam. And i'm gonna go ahead and hard pass on that.
You should get 2 HQs, and unlimited Troops for free, and once those are filled, you can opt to pay a cp for 2 slots of a type or something like that, and 3 CP for a superheavy.
So i take my mandatory 2 HQs and 3 mandatory troops, and have 15 CP, and I can opt to buy the slots i need to fill out the force. Also lets you buy into other armies with your CP.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/04 23:50:54
Bedouin Dynasty: 10000 pts
The Silver Lances: 4000 pts
The Custodes Winter Watch 4000 pts
MajorStoffer wrote:
...
Sternguard though, those guys are all about kicking ass. They'd chew bubble gum as well, but bubble gum is heretical. Only tau chew gum.
iGuy91 wrote: People should HAVE to run troops. Penalizing them for doing so all but ensures you will never see another model in that category on the table, considering they are considered by many to be a tax rather than a benefit.
TBH, we should go all the way back to the damn force org chart. This flexibility creates way more many problems than it fixes.
Making a super heavy detatchment cost 0cp to field means you will see armies of superheavy spam. And i'm gonna go ahead and hard pass on that.
You should get 2 HQs, and unlimited Troops for free, and once those are filled, you can opt to pay a cp for 2 slots of a type or something like that, and 3 CP for a superheavy.
So i take my mandatory 2 HQs and 3 mandatory troops, and have 15 CP, and I can opt to buy the slots i need to fill out the force. Also lets you buy into other armies with your CP.
Or alternatively, use the Troop-cored Detachments to provide access to the other Detachments. The bigger the Core Detachment, the more... creative you can get with the quantity and quality of any secondary Detachments.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/05 01:49:54
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
You do have to run troops - or it costs you CP. I came up with a system like this. Your first Batallion cost 0 - your second costs 1 and you start with 15 CP. batallions Require 3 troops and can take up to 6. Most armys today have between 3-6 troops units. Your complaint is unwarranted I think.
The Vans/Spearhead/Outrider detachments all cost 2 CP in my system. So Troop detachments are favored.
Think about Custodes for a second. After they take their required 3 troops units for a batallion that is 1/4 of their army. They CAN NOT afford to take more.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/04 23:58:06
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Expanding on the OPs idea, I was thinking of the following:
Players get X CP per X pts. (say 1 CP per 100 pts)
Turn the battalion into the CAD shown below:
Spoiler:
Then keep the Spearhead, Vanguard, Outriders, and Super Heavy Detachment. Those 5 will be "primary detachments".
Players must use one primary detachment but may not use more than one.
Players may use one or more Auxiliary Detachment(s) (similar to the allied detachment shown) at the cost of, say, 5 CP as an example.
In addition, keep the Aux Support Detachment but remove the option to bring an HQ.
Super Heavy Aux could cost 3CP.
Remove the supreme command detachment and brigade.
Make patrol detachments the only detachment for games under 500 pts, and remove the HQ requirement.
You also have to balance out the cost of special detachment vrs the troop heavy and then balance those troops which is a big part of the current problem with CP balance. Good troops gives you a good army with buckets of CP. Bad troops screws you for CP or taking tax units.
I actually think the proposed system helps with this. Most competitive lists are including at least one batallion or brigade at the moment. So you can pretty much expect to have at least 3 troops in a given competitive list. Under this system, you could take a batallion and no other detachments and come out with quite a few CP. No need to take multiple troop-heavy detachments to crank up your CP. No need to take the loyal 32 because your main army's troops are expensive. You just take the 3 squads of troops that were going to be in your army somewhere anyway, and now you have all the CP you need unless you're really looking to take a bunch of options from a single force org slot. And instead of players automatically looking at the loyal 32 or a kabal batallion, it's easier to justify taking your own book's troops because staying in a single book effectively gains you CP rather than costing them.
It does make souping slightly less desirable, but giving up a couple of CP for the expanded unit catalogue and ability to optimize your faction traits is still going to be worth it for players who want to run that sort of list.
If you were running, for the sake of argument, two loyal 32 batallions for your CP before, you were spending about 400 points. Under this system, you just take 3 of your in-house troops. Which will probably cost you less than 400 points unless you're really investing in them anyway.
Again so Tau have to pay CP to bring multiple commanders as they are 1 per detachment. yeah cheers
Why would a smaller Tau force (not apocalypse sized) have any reason fluff wise to take multiple Commanders? It makes absolutely no fluff sense and I imagine is only used for power gaming purposes. You can take the eight if you want at 1000 points in CA apparently, but multiple commanders? Cheese
The codex has 3 generic HQ options period and 6 named charictors.
One sept cant take one of those Generics so gets 3 copies of one data sheet and either a named charictor or 1 commander.
This isn't like Guilliman, Calgar and Tiggy all walking along with Voliris etc that no-one minds. This is about that rule limiting one army to 4 HQ's choices without paying CP. I'm not saying allow people to go supreme comand spam happy.
I do find it laughable that people are OK with 3 dawn eagle captains but 2 tau commanders is ultimate cheese.
Honest question as I don't play that often...
Is CP really that valuable/powerful that it's a problem?
I read a lot about how Imperial Guard need to be nerfed as they provide too many (easy/cheap) CP, but from other places I don't see armies with Imperial Guard in winning a huge amount... unless it's with Imperial Knights too.
Just make Vanguard/Superheavy/ETC cost many more CP. That will incentivise Battalions/Brigades/Patrols, while not preventing people from playing that way.
Ideally, you should be able to field this force:
-Farseer/Autarch on Bike
-3xWindriders
-2xShiningSpears
-3xVyper Squadrons
-A couple Gravtanks
But you should have far fewer CP than someone running this force:
-Farseer/Autarch
-3xGuardians in Serpents
-2xWindriders
-1xShining Spears
-A couple GravTanks
Also, I'd have Brigade, Battalion, and Patrol cost 1 (or few) CP. This way, you're incentivised to take one Battalion over 6 Patrols or 2 Brigades.
To mix this with the upthread suggestions, it looks something like this:
CP: Each player gets 1 CP per 100 points or 5PL, rounded up.
This would:
-Incentivise Troops
-Not overly penalize non-Troop builds
-Incentivise filling out available slots over adding detatchments - if you already maxxed out your FA, adding HS or Elite units now costs less than adding more FA, but you can pay to add more FA if you want.
-Incentivise Mono lists with more CP, without penalizing Soup or getting into the "what constitutes Soup" weeds
The exact numbers might need some tweaking, but the idea is to:
-Leverage as simple a design space as is viable
-Promote "fluffy" and "fun" lists
-Not prohibit any currently-available list
-Try to fairly balance Soup vs Mono, without destroying either
While we're at it, I'd love for the Battalion to go down to 1 mandatory HQ.
iGuy91 wrote: People should HAVE to run troops. Penalizing them for doing so all but ensures you will never see another model in that category on the table, considering they are considered by many to be a tax rather than a benefit.
TBH, we should go all the way back to the damn force org chart. This flexibility creates way more many problems than it fixes.
Making a super heavy detatchment cost 0cp to field means you will see armies of superheavy spam. And i'm gonna go ahead and hard pass on that.
You should get 2 HQs, and unlimited Troops for free, and once those are filled, you can opt to pay a cp for 2 slots of a type or something like that, and 3 CP for a superheavy.
So i take my mandatory 2 HQs and 3 mandatory troops, and have 15 CP, and I can opt to buy the slots i need to fill out the force. Also lets you buy into other armies with your CP.
I think this is literally the worst idea posted in this thread and maybe the forum in general for a long time.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
TarkinLarson wrote: Honest question as I don't play that often...
Is CP really that valuable/powerful that it's a problem?
I read a lot about how Imperial Guard need to be nerfed as they provide too many (easy/cheap) CP, but from other places I don't see armies with Imperial Guard in winning a huge amount... unless it's with Imperial Knights too.
CPs are very valuable. The abilities that use them to activate are important for the function of any army. So the more CPs you can cram in the better. Which is why cheap IG detachments are so powerful. They feed CPs to the rest of the army.
IG are basically the base for Imperial Soup being strong because they give CPs to fuel it.
Meanwhile, pure lists are struggling because they usually fail to get many CPs at all while still needing the abilities they trigger to be competitive.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Absolutely. Which is why I think the system needs to reversed.
Also, I would have thought that the proposed system would have helped the Tau. They’re pretty much a stand alone faction, which makes it easier to build a brigade, which means more CPs.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/05 19:51:01
Also, I would have thought that the proposed system would have helped the Tau. They’re pretty much a stand alone faction, which makes it easier to build a brigade, which means more CPs.
Brigades are already plenty achievable for Tau it's just a absolutely frustrating way to build due to 1 Commander per detachment BS they are still stuck with.
Heck have rule of 3 apply to the Commander Keyword by all means but needing to pay CP for a second detachment to unlock a 4th HQ choice is BS.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/05 23:12:47
T'au Commanders have their own special brand of 'boned' that needs to be fixed directly. Outside the Commander issue, isn't it still a huge boon to T'au?
Bharring wrote: T'au Commanders have their own special brand of 'boned' that needs to be fixed directly. Outside the Commander issue, isn't it still a huge boon to T'au?
This. Tau commanders becoming 0-1 seems like it was a sort of prototype for the rule of 3 that just never got repealed. They should probably be 0-3 now, and they would definitely warrant being 0-3 in the proposed reverse detachment rules.
Tau having wonky limitations on their HQs doesn't make the proposed rules a bad idea.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
iGuy91 wrote: People should HAVE to run troops. Penalizing them for doing so all but ensures you will never see another model in that category on the table, considering they are considered by many to be a tax rather than a benefit.
TBH, we should go all the way back to the damn force org chart. This flexibility creates way more many problems than it fixes.
Making a super heavy detatchment cost 0cp to field means you will see armies of superheavy spam. And i'm gonna go ahead and hard pass on that.
A few things here:
* I absolutely disagree that people should be flatly required to run troops. At the size of conflict that your average 2k point game of 40k represents, it's perfectly reasonable that armies like the deathwing or windrider hosts known for strongly favoring non-troop units to show up without them. The Deathwing can work with greenwing, sure, but there are plenty of times where they don't. Saim-Hann likes to put its basic troops on bikes. Do they have some guardians riding in serpents or some rangers helping the craftworld out? Sure, but not every chunk of an army known for preferring alternatives to dismounted infantry is going to have dismounted infantry in it. I don't want White Scars players to be forced to field tactical marines instead of bikers to satisfy some arbitrary notion of what "troops" are. There's no fluff reason to require them.
* If troops are considered a tax because they're basically a bad unit, then mandatory troops means you're saying, "You have to spend this much money on plastic models you don't like if you want to play this game." Troops should be just as desirable as non-troops in their own way. Of course, at that point, there's not much mechanical reason to require troops.
* The force org chart didn't really do much good. It stopped you from taking more than 3 of a given unit, but the rule of 3 does that now. It stopped you from taking more than 3 units from a given force org slot, but that's just a way of giving a relative advantage to armies with competitive options in many slots compared to armies whose competitive options are tied up in one or two slots. In terms of fluff, it made troops mandatory, which wasn't fluffy at all for many armies and thus resulted in special rules to make non-troops troops (like bike captains making bikers "troops"). So it wasn't really mechanically helpful, and we had to go out of our way to make exceptions to it to field fluffy armies if we didn't just so happen to have armies whose lore meshed well with the old CAD's arbitrary layout.
Detachments are more complicated than a single force org chart, so your assertion that the flexibility creates more problems than it fixes might technically be correct. But I don't think the detachment rules were really meant to be "problem fixers" exactly. They sort of "fixed" formations by getting rid of them for a while, and they made troop-heavy armies more desirable because batallions and brigades are the way to go if you want a reasonable amount of CP, and they give us a way to field allies. So it's less about fixing problems than it is incentivizing troops (in a way that I personally disagree with) and opening up lore-based army builds.
I agree that there should be a drawback to running an all-superheavies list, and the reverse detachment rules presented in this thread do that by making troop-heavy detachments a better source of CP than a superheavy detachment.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/07 02:41:11
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
I have to say, I often lust for the old "2 troops and a HQ" I grew up with, but I also remember the anguish of having a combo which would work so well, but needed 4 fast attack or heavy slots.
I don't think troops should be compulsory any more, but I do think that they need a key battlefield role. The old rules that only troops could take objectives did this well, but made no sense (1 grot > 15 burna boys when it came to holding objectives!).
I don't think there's an easy way to sort this out - if, for example, you make troops unlock CP, if you do it by unit you favour MSU. if you do it by points you cripple MSU, as they would have to take big detachments to have enough slots to take that many points of troops.
12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!
I’m ok with Super Heavy Detachments costing some CPs rather than being ‘free’. I was using its current cost as a guide, and I figured that the points cost of the minis would balance it out. But yeah, costing 1 or 2 CPs is OK by me.
About troops; this is why I like AoS’s system. Leader, Battleline, Artillery, Behemoth and Other according to points allow for a lot of variation. And it can be adjusted when needed (Other type becomes Battleline if general shares keyword for example). But that’s a whole other discussion.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/12/07 11:11:24
By making detatchments with mandatory Troop slots cost fewer CP *and* unlock more slots than other detatchments, you incentivise troops without preventing players from making lists without them. This way, it's permissive for whatever you want to do, but if you want to not have troops, it's going to cost you (lots of CP).
Bharring wrote: By making detatchments with mandatory Troop slots cost fewer CP *and* unlock more slots than other detatchments, you incentivise troops without preventing players from making lists without them. This way, it's permissive for whatever you want to do, but if you want to not have troops, it's going to cost you (lots of CP).
But Spearhead/Outrider/Vanguard based lists are already screwed for CP, maxing at 6 CP.
Even my 2,000point lists only have two detachments, so 5CP.
Compared to current CP for battalions/brigades, it's a slap in the face for what's usually a weaker, thematic list.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/12/08 05:15:16
Bharring wrote: By making detatchments with mandatory Troop slots cost fewer CP *and* unlock more slots than other detatchments, you incentivise troops without preventing players from making lists without them. This way, it's permissive for whatever you want to do, but if you want to not have troops, it's going to cost you (lots of CP).
But Spearhead/Outrider/Vanguard based lists are already screwed for CP, maxing at 6 CP.
Even my 2,000point lists only have two detachments, so 5CP.
Compared to current CP for battalions/brigades, it's a slap in the face for what's usually a weaker, thematic list.
Which is yet another argument for the proposed system. A single spearhead or outrider for deathwing or Saim-Hann windriders would have fewer CP than an army made out of a single brigade, but it would still hypothetically give you way more CP than an all-outriders list currently does. Let's assume that you start with 20 CP for a 2,000 point game under the proposed system. Let's also assume that brigades cost 0 or 1 CP while batallions cost 3 and outriders/vanguards cost 5. Your ravenwing or Saimhann army would end up with 15 CP instead of 6 AND you wouldn't have to fiddle around with multiple detachments to run it.
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
Bindmage,
I consider "But what If I want no troops" to be a critical balance point. A good balance between "Troops-based armies should have a strategic advantage" provided by CP, and "Non-troops-based armies should have enough CP to be relevant, while still clearly at a disadvantage".
I may have gone too far on that regard. Consider these two armies:
Space Marines
1x Captain
1x Libby
6x Tac Marines
2x Devs 2x ASM
1x Dread
1x Sternguard
+ some gubbins to fill
Let's assume that, kitted out plus transports, is 2k points. Under this scheme, it can be run at 19 CP remaining for play. Because it all fits in one Battalion. That's quite a bit.
Now, lets compare that to a WHite Scars detatchement
1x Captain on Bike
1x Libby on Bike
6x SM Biker squads
+ some gubbins to fill
Again, assuming we reach 2k points, that's looking at either 14 CP or 11CP (depending on how many FA it needs) - much more than the current 6, but still clearly lower than the troops-based variant.
Wyldhunt wrote: This. Tau commanders becoming 0-1 seems like it was a sort of prototype for the rule of 3 that just never got repealed. They should probably be 0-3 now, and they would definitely warrant being 0-3 in the proposed reverse detachment rules.
Tau having wonky limitations on their HQs doesn't make the proposed rules a bad idea.
Warrant how? You ever saw a platoon commanded by 4 generals?
Not only the rule is completely fine, I am still puzzled people complain they were allowed to keep at least some of their OP units (when the alternative was doubling the point cost, it was way too good) and instead of being grateful they want cheese that was universally hated back. You guys are avare most of the armies in the game would love to have even one unit as good as the commander?
If anything, the 0-1 limit should have been extended to things like chapter masters, custode bike captains, etc, not rolled back...
10000 pts
4000 pts
12PL 
