Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

Core/Support structure
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=82&t=13470		 Page 1 of 3
Author:  pixelgeek [ Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:17 am ]
Post subject:  Core/Support structure
So after reading some of Ginger's reports and playing a few games on my own I think that it might be an idea to try to rework the CSM army structure to help eliminate some of the more possibly abusive army lists and also to perhaps remove the 0-x limitations that no-one likes.

The core/support structure used in many lists has been suggested but I was hoping to perhaps open up a discussion about other different structures or options to provide the same structural limitations but perhaps with a more Chaotic feel to it
Author:  zombocom [ Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:29 am ]
Post subject:  Core/Support structure
I think the 0-1 per retinue, as used by the forlorn hope, is a much better option than the fixed 0-1s.
Author:  pixelgeek [ Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:52 am ]
Post subject:  Core/Support structure
Quote: (zombocom @ 05 Sep. 2008, 21:29 )

I think the 0-1 per retinue, as used by the forlorn hope, is a much better option than the fixed 0-1s.

It still would give you an army that had a lot of special formations in it though.

Even a 2:1 ratio of CSM formations to special formations would cut down on the number of all Terminator and DP armies.

A 1 per Retinue solution does though make the focus the CSM formations
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Sat Sep 06, 2008 8:34 am ]
Post subject:  Core/Support structure
I like the general structure of the Red Corsairs army list: http://www.tacticalwargames.net/forums....orsairs
Author:  The_Real_Chris [ Sat Sep 06, 2008 11:59 am ]
Post subject:  Core/Support structure
I like 'core' and 'support' as well.

Core would be the inoffensive stuff. Support would be 1 per core.
Something like
1+ Retunie
Bikes
Armour
(Raptors could go in here if they are balanced with bikes)

Support 1 per core formation
Chosen (with varable size formations being y units strong with extra z units for whatever each and optional Lords)
Forlorn Hope (would they still need the one per Retunine restriction?)

I'd make Lords optional for player control (you don't want to spend points for everyone to have it, garrissons and the stuff probably aren't interested).

You can do other things as well then, like make WE formations (that cost a fair bit) and stick them in support. The 1/3 is very crowded with assault, titan and aircraft in it currently. Then again should it be left to a list like Iron Warriors to have lots of WE?

You could maybe even put limited upgrades like Demon Princes in support, with a note saying they may be added to any unit with a Lord, replacing that unit of the formation they are added to. Though they would probably need a seperate 0-x restriction (I think it should be 0-1 as really we see more Demon Princes than apocalpyse and such character units should surely be rare in an Epic scale game - theres not many out there!

A simpler but far tougher way would be inoffensive stuff in one section and everything worrysome in the 1/3 restriction. That would really cut it down though.
Author:  dptdexys [ Sat Sep 06, 2008 12:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Core/Support structure
Would setting the Chosen and Forlorn Hope to 0-1 of either(not both) per Retinue be too much of a hindrance for the list and help put the focus on Retinues ?

As an example to take 2 chosen and 2 forlorn hope would need 4 retinues,it would also scale with larger games.
Author:  The_Real_Chris [ Sat Sep 06, 2008 1:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Core/Support structure
Kinda makes the list very retunie centrered though (you need scout screen and terminaotrs are always attractive) - should it be?
Author:  Ginger [ Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Core/Support structure
Quote: (dptdexys @ 06 Sep. 2008, 12:25 )

Would setting the Chosen and Forlorn Hope to 0-1 of either(not both) per Retinue be too much of a hindrance for the list and help put the focus on Retinues ?

As an example to take 2 chosen and 2 forlorn hope would need 4 retinues,it would also scale with larger games.

Hmm, I must admit I thought the idea was to have a section of "Core" formations, and then restrict each of the relevant support formations to '1' per core formation. So A single Retinue would allow both a Chosen and a Forlorn Hope. The Retinue and the relevant supports could be termed a "Battlegroup" or similar name.

Further to TRC's suggestion on warlords, a compromise might be to have one Warlord free per "Core" formation (or even per 'battlegroup'), with the option to buy extras up to the number of formations in the 'battlegroup' - perhaps 25 points per warlord 'upgrade'. However, I would still suggest that you should have the option of paying for the SC.
Author:  pixelgeek [ Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Core/Support structure
Quote: (Ginger @ 06 Sep. 2008, 09:00 )

Further to TRC's suggestion on warlords, a compromise might be to have one Warlord free per "Core" formation (or even per 'battlegroup'), with the option to buy extras up to the number of formations in the 'battlegroup' - perhaps 25 points per warlord 'upgrade'. However, I would still suggest that you should have the option of paying for the SC.

They aren't free.
Author:  The_Real_Chris [ Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Core/Support structure
Any system were Lords get taken out should see the formations recosted to operate without them if that's the players choice.
Author:  zombocom [ Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Core/Support structure
Quote: (pixelgeek @ 06 Sep. 2008, 17:29 )

They aren't free.

No matter how you try to word it, the SC is free.
Author:  zombocom [ Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Core/Support structure
No, the fluff doesn't really say that. It says armies are always led by a great warlord.
Author:  scarik [ Sat Sep 06, 2008 7:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Core/Support structure
For Chaos Characters I think Retinues should come with a Lord regardless of other considerations simply because that's what a Retinue is, the personal forces of a Lord.

Other formations should have the option of a Lord and the Army should be required to have a Warlord.

If the Warlord is free then it should be like Orks and have rules about what units it can join.

A Core/Support structure is the easiest way to balance out problem units. A simple IG 1:2 ratio should do it.
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Sat Sep 06, 2008 7:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Core/Support structure
Quote: (zombocom @ 06 Sep. 2008, 18:14 )

No, the fluff doesn't really say that. It says armies are always led by a great warlord.

And there's no reason that that great Lord should be present at every single battle the Black Legion (Or whatever Chaos army) is involved in.

Maybe I can see the justification for Orks (The biggest Ork on the field simply takes up the mantle of Warboss), but there's no reason that a CSM Supreme Commander should be present in every single Epic battle other than if you're kowtowing to a 40k-centric attitude where you get the impression that Abbadon the Despoiler routinely has fist-fights with Marneus Calgar....
Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/