Hi!
Quote:
Starting with the formations themselves is probably the best idea.
For the most part, I'd prefer to stick with most of the 2nd edition / NetEpic conventions for detachment level formations, but mix in a few adjustments from Epic 1st and modern 40K. For example, the default Infantry formation should have four to six stands and the default Vehicle formation should have three. Specific notes by class follow:
Command formations should generally be a single model as default.
_ Infantry type Command stands (CHQ, Medics, Commissar, etc) could allow for secondary stands of either the same HQ type, or a related type. For example, an OM Inquisitor formation could have an option to add one or more stands of Grey Knights, a Guard CHQ could have the option to add another CHQ stand, or a Marine CHQ could allow for having an attached Medic or Techmarine. These would also have the option to add Transport model(s) varying by faction.
I like this idea very much. To have command formation is something that is currently missing and would be a real boon to formulate and implement.
Also, in the context of using an army organization, you could require command formations at certain levels or sizes to simulate the command structure, while other armies would require less of them.
Overalll I think this is a key and crucial thing to implement. I think it would support any such system greatly.
Quote:
_ Cavalry type would mainly be alternate versions of Infantry type stands usable with normal Cavalry formations, including Cavalry CHQ. Default should be single stand.
_ Vehicle type should always be just a single model, as would any class above Vehicle. I'm not aware of any possible additions that could be made here, but welcome suggestions.
I think for vehicles options to put characters of certain special models (a commissar in a baneblade for example) could be done. I can't really think of any particular use for extra vehicles in such a command formation.
Quote:
Infantry formations are where I think it could be helpful to import a convention from (relatively speaking) modern W40K. As I've noticed from various posts (mainly from mattman) W40K seems to assume that the base level for Infantry is a ten man squad. For Epic, this converts into being two stands. Thus I'm proposing that all Infantry formations be composed of multiples of two stands as a rule. In other words, there should never be formations with an odd number of Infantry stands. Except for Command formations. This will assist in making Break Point easier to determine for Infantry formations. Also cost will be very easy to preset as it will be X per two stands and the player can then make the formation as large as desired.
_ It would also simplify Break Point issues if ALL Infantry formations were pure-Infantry. IE, no included Transports. To make a Mechanized formation, one would then buy a Vehicle (or other class) formation of the appropriate type and size.
Funnily enough Magnus, many of the building blocks in 1st edition were 1 to 2 stands, so I heartily agree with formation blocks in 2 stand increments.
As for transports I would propose the way 1st edition solved this and that an organizational entity of a certain size (say a company for SM) would have a "transport pool" slot. where you could purchase transports to embark your formations in that organizational block.
That would keep the formations of a single type, but offer the transports needed as a separate "formation" also of the same type.
Therefore the same formation could be mechanized (or not) according to whether the transport pool was used or not.
Quote:
Support Weapon (IE, Light Artillery) formations could also benefit from being required to be purchased in multiples of two, but I'm not sure if there is precedent for that or not.
Regardless of precedent I think this needs to be done. Its congruent with the overall system proposed and offers flexibility that is needed.
Quote:
Cavalry formations seem to primarily come in groups of five stands, which kind of makes sense as at two per stand it works out to ten (Bikes, Horses, etc) per formation. Do we want to keep this convention, or would Cavalry be best shifted to a multiples of two stands rule as well? Aside from the two stands per rule making figuring costs easier, I have no strong opinion here.
Same as everything else, 2 stand formation blocks for building.
Quote:
Walker formations are generally four stands/models per formation in NetEpic, so these could also benefit from moving to a rule of multiples of two stands. On the other hand, based on what these represent, going stand by stand would be more "realistic" and better for some factions.
Agreed, the rule of two stands per formation block for buidling would indeed benefit these units.
Quote:
Vehicle formations are generally in threes. Do we want to stick to this as the default (IE, multiples of three per formation) or set the default to single models? Single models would make customizing formations easier, and be more in keeping with current W40K, but make figuring costs more complicated. Single model as default would probably be best here.
Vehicles are large enough and sparse enough as models in people's collections that doing them on a 1 model per formation block is indeed the best way to go.
Quote:
_ Heavy Artillery is really a sub-category of Vehicle, and could easily be folded into it. HA should use any rules that Vehicle does.
_ Flyers (that are not Super Heavy) are also a sub-category of Vehicle, and should use any rules therefore. [Of course, whatever new Flyer system gets created may change this.]
_ Floaters: same.
All of these should be like vehicles. 1 per formation block.
Quote:
Super Heavy are generally found as single model formations, and that should still be the default.
_ Flyers & Floaters: same as general Super Heavy.
Agreed.
Quote:
Knights though are generally found in threes, despite technically being Super Heavy. These should probably change to a default of single model.
No different from super heavies. Should be one per formation building block.
Quote:
Praetorians and Titans should, of course, be default of single model.
Of course.
Quote:
Of course, the above are just my opinions and what seems to be the general consensus. Please post any other ideas.
I am VERY enthused with this proposed method. It gives flexibility to players, can be easily integrated into any organizational structure we devise and I can't really see any way to "abuse" it as I go over scenarios in my head.
Do we have a sufficient of a formal idea with this to present it to other discussion formats?
Primarch