Can the Command Roster rules be improved?

[Brother Tyler]

As it stands right now, factions with cheaper models are at a disadvantage compared to those with more expensive models when Command Rosters are constructed based on number of models. In my opinion, the rules for Command Rosters need to be adjusted. The current rules are driven by models, but this creates a significant gap in that all models are not equal. An Adeptus Custodes Command Roster consisting of 20 models is far more potent than an Astra Militarum Command Roster consisting of 20 models. Sure, the Astra Militarum have more model choices than the Adeptus Custodes, but there is still the basic comparison between 20 Astra Militarum models and 20 Adeptus Custodes models. In my perfect world, Command Roster construction would be by points rather than models.

 

The initial concepts below are driven by a squad of Adeptus Astartes, but it could easily be modified if discussion develops compelling evidence that some other construct is better.

 

I would max a Command Roster out at a points level that allows for a full squad of Intercessors (typical loadout of 7 plus 2 Gunners plus 1 Sergeant) plus a Lieuetenant. That might even be adjusted to allow for one or two non-Commander Elites choices (perhaps one Terminator and one Assault Marine). Calculating either of those options should provide a decent ballpark maximum points value for any faction's command roster (there is some variation in options, so we'd have to determine a basic number within that range). This would still allow players a degree of flexibility, depending on how they want to compose their Command Roster. Some factions with expensive models (Adeptus Custodes, Grey Knights) would have fewer models than factions with cheaper models (Astra Militarum).

 

Campaigns can all run in different ways, so there's no perfect solution for how a Command Roster system might be revamped. A generic structure, though, would be to allow a Command Roster to reach up to 200 points at the start. This would provide players with enough flexibility to tailor forces to opponents (assuming they build that flexibility into their model choices). As the campaign progresses, the maximum value of the Command Roster might increase. This might even vary depending on how the player performs:

• In a "winner improves" method, winning a mission allows for a player to increase their Command Roster max by 50 points, while the loser only increases by 25 points (a draw might yield a 35 point increase). This wouldn't necessarily lead to runaways as all it does is increase the flexibility a player has in tailoring a kill team.
• In a "loser improves" method, the opposite happens - loser increases by 50 points, winner increases by 25 points, draw increases by 35 points. The concept here is that providing more flexibility to losing kill teams balances things a bit more.

With either method, the campaign would have a ceiling that can't be exceeded, regardless of how well/poorly a player does. There might even be other limits. For example, a starting kill team can only consist of core unit choices, with elites and commanders added later (potentially at different times).

 

In this way, Command Rosters might better reflect their factions and the kill teams that can be created from them - those with more expensive models will have fewer models whereas those with cheaper models will have more models.

 

Do you think that the Command Roster rules can be improved in some way? If you don't like the method I've proposed above, what would you do to improve those rules?

[Dosjetka]

Your improved system is a good idea and I would definitely consider implementing into any campaign I might run in the future for my local group. The only thing I'd consider changing is the roster points increase given per game, though that would entirely depend on how frequently people are playing: if people are playing at least once a week, I'd suggest giving out 5-15 points per game so that the escalation doesn't happen too suddenly and there's not too much of a gap between folks; however, if people are only getting games in every couple of weeks/month, then upping the points by the amount you've suggested seems more reasonable and suitable.