It just seems like every Imperial army list I see has the notorious battalion with two commanders and three platoons to farm CPs. Maybe GW should release a box kit. Anyways I think it is a super crutch right up there with Slammaguinius and three five man squads of bolter scouts and three Shield-Cappies mounted on Dawneagles. Really makes games boring IMO.
No need to ban it. Just make IS 5 points (yes, I realize this will generate controversy - let's not debate it here though). Maybe tweak a few other small items and it becomes less attractive and harder to fit things in.
No, especially with the recent CP increase it really is not needed. Further if you wanted to fix it just errata the WL trait/relic to work differently. Like “whenever you use an A.M. stratagem roll a D6...”. Now it isn’t great at farming for other armies.
Daedalus81 wrote: No need to ban it. Just make IS 5 points (yes, I realize this will generate controversy - let's not debate it here though). Maybe tweak a few other small items and it becomes less attractive and harder to fit things in.
As a long time guard player I agree with this 100%. Infantry Squads are too cheap. It makes mainstay units like Conscripts irrelevant. and the price difference between the IS and Veteran squads means you might as well just run more IS to make up for their crummy BS. I want to be a clear tier of 4 for constripts, 5 for IS, then 6 for veterans. That way you pick the unit you need for the role and not because its cheap and taking another option would be silly. (and yes I know veterans are not troops)
The problem is the crunching down of the spectrum.
Tacs are down to 13ppm. Kabs are 6. Think about that.
How can you justify a Guardsmen at 5 when Kabs are 6? One of the costs of the model inflation is that, as they push model count by dropping points, there's less precision in the variance of points.
I'd love to see 5pt Guard, but it's getting hard to justify that with how other things are getting pointed.
I think the bonus 3 command points you get for battle forged should only apply to mono build armies. Plus command points should only be allowed to be used to the detachment that created them. More or less that would fix every problem I have with allies. Plus - allies would still probably better than mono factions (If that is the case it is clear to see allies are totally a problem within the game right now). In no way should it be illegal to take allies though - it is a cool thing to be able to do.
I think the bonus 3 command points you get for battle forged should only apply to mono build armies. Plus command points should only be allowed to be used to the detachment that created them. More or less that would fix every problem I have with allies. Plus - allies would still probably better than mono factions (If that is the case it is clear to see allies are totally a problem within the game right now). In no way should it be illegal to take allies though - it is a cool thing to be able to do.
Bharring wrote: The problem is the crunching down of the spectrum.
Tacs are down to 13ppm. Kabs are 6. Think about that.
How can you justify a Guardsmen at 5 when Kabs are 6? One of the costs of the model inflation is that, as they push model count by dropping points, there's less precision in the variance of points.
I'd love to see 5pt Guard, but it's getting hard to justify that with how other things are getting pointed.
Tacs are worth about 10 compared to a 6 point kabalite.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: Then how do you spend a CP to bring an Aux to take an Inquisitor or Asssasin or Celestine?
You would have to generate it through another detachment I guess. I don't think that detachment is legal in matched play anyways.
I like the idea of restricting CP to the Detatchment, but it's a huge paperwork headache. If it were simple and brainless to do, generally sounds like a good idea.
But are Relics and Aux Detatchments and such affected as well?
Daedalus81 wrote: No need to ban it. Just make IS 5 points (yes, I realize this will generate controversy - let's not debate it here though). Maybe tweak a few other small items and it becomes less attractive and harder to fit things in.
Arguably - if they were worthy of a price hike people would be fielding more than the bare minimum.
The problem is that they are cheap CP generation for other stronger units, and entirely caused by CPs being shared between different factional detachments.
Bharring wrote: The problem is the crunching down of the spectrum.
Tacs are down to 13ppm. Kabs are 6. Think about that.
How can you justify a Guardsmen at 5 when Kabs are 6? One of the costs of the model inflation is that, as they push model count by dropping points, there's less precision in the variance of points.
I'd love to see 5pt Guard, but it's getting hard to justify that with how other things are getting pointed.
I actually agree with this assessment, which mean the only "fix" is making marines cheaper. Unfortunately for the fluff players. The 6pt kabalite was really the nail in the coffin.
I think the bonus 3 command points you get for battle forged should only apply to mono build armies. Plus command points should only be allowed to be used to the detachment that created them. More or less that would fix every problem I have with allies. Plus - allies would still probably better than mono factions (If that is the case it is clear to see allies are totally a problem within the game right now). In no way should it be illegal to take allies though - it is a cool thing to be able to do.
Then you sort of screw over elite armies that use IG. I feel like i'd rather have the flexibility and just make things more of a difficult choice for list building.
You might be able to do something along the lines of CP is only generated by your Warlord's faction (keyword binding your Warlord's detatchment), or generated at a lower rate by other detatchments.
A Celestine here or there is cool. A Celestine as an auto-include is not.
There has been some suggestive evidence lately (tourny results, etc) that perhaps things aren't as dire as was thought. But it's not conclusive.
Bharring wrote: The problem is the crunching down of the spectrum.
Tacs are down to 13ppm. Kabs are 6. Think about that.
How can you justify a Guardsmen at 5 when Kabs are 6? One of the costs of the model inflation is that, as they push model count by dropping points, there's less precision in the variance of points.
I'd love to see 5pt Guard, but it's getting hard to justify that with how other things are getting pointed.
I actually agree with this assessment, which mean the only "fix" is making marines cheaper. Unfortunately for the fluff players. The 6pt kabalite was really the nail in the coffin.
As much as I hate IG, I voted no on this issue.
Adding to this, referring back to the numerous calculations on costing marines, 10 pt is good place for scouts, 11 is good place for marines.
Making Infantry Squads 5ppm isnt going to do much about soup, especially the CP battery issues, most of these armies arent running hundreds of guardsmen, for the CP battery lists, theyll be able to squeeze 30-60pts elsewhere without much issue in an 1850/2k game.
Likewise, banning one faction from being allies but not others doesnt hold any water either.
Simple fix...CP's only get to be used on the detachments or factions that generate them. Suddenly, the allied CP shennanigans ceases to be an issue, factions deal with the CP they were designed to have, and we dont need to get into manipulating points or bans.
Bharring wrote: The problem is the crunching down of the spectrum.
Tacs are down to 13ppm. Kabs are 6. Think about that.
How can you justify a Guardsmen at 5 when Kabs are 6? One of the costs of the model inflation is that, as they push model count by dropping points, there's less precision in the variance of points.
I'd love to see 5pt Guard, but it's getting hard to justify that with how other things are getting pointed.
I actually agree with this assessment, which mean the only "fix" is making marines cheaper. Unfortunately for the fluff players. The 6pt kabalite was really the nail in the coffin.
As much as I hate IG, I voted no on this issue.
Adding to this, referring back to the numerous calculations on costing marines, 10 pt is good place for scouts, 11 is good place for marines.
I think that is probably about as good as we can get in 8th. I concur.
GW should make a token set for sale to represent the CP's that can be used for particular armies. I feel like GW could make more money by offering 'official' book keeping system. I.e. - 'ADVANCE' token, 'MOVED' token, if they ever bring it back, 'PINNED' token etc.
This way, the whole 'oh its going to be a hassle tracking which army this CP is generated from and so and so' issue could be resolved.
Vaktathi wrote: Making Infantry Squads 5ppm isnt going to do much about soup, especially the CP battery issues, most of these armies arent running hundreds of guardsmen, for the CP battery lists, theyll be able to squeeze 30-60pts elsewhere without much issue in an 1850/2k game.
Likewise, banning one faction from being allies but not others doesnt hold any water either.
Simple fix...CP's only get to be used on the detachments or factions that generate them. Suddenly, the allied CP shennanigans ceases to be an issue, factions deal with the CP they were designed to have, and we dont need to get into manipulating points or bans.
Joan do you know how many CP an army was designed to have? Allies are part of the game and in theory the CP stuff is as designed. They added CP to detachments to make things like the guard cheap battalion less attractive. My preference on that front would have been having that bonus only in mono-faction builds, but I think restricting CP to generating faction is cumbersome and basically kills allies with minimal exception especially if you also take away the 3 you get for battleforged. Sorry but a lot in this thread reads as I hate allies.
Daedalus81 wrote: No need to ban it. Just make IS 5 points (yes, I realize this will generate controversy - let's not debate it here though). Maybe tweak a few other small items and it becomes less attractive and harder to fit things in.
Arguably - if they were worthy of a price hike people would be fielding more than the bare minimum.
The problem is that they are cheap CP generation for other stronger units, and entirely caused by CPs being shared between different factional detachments.
Ehh - I still think they are underpointed due to the 5+ save - drop it to a 6+.
Vaktathi wrote: Making Infantry Squads 5ppm isnt going to do much about soup, especially the CP battery issues, most of these armies arent running hundreds of guardsmen, for the CP battery lists, theyll be able to squeeze 30-60pts elsewhere without much issue in an 1850/2k game.
Likewise, banning one faction from being allies but not others doesnt hold any water either.
Simple fix...CP's only get to be used on the detachments or factions that generate them. Suddenly, the allied CP shennanigans ceases to be an issue, factions deal with the CP they were designed to have, and we dont need to get into manipulating points or bans.
Joan do you know how many CP an army was designed to have? Allies are part of the game and in theory the CP stuff is as designed. They added CP to detachments to make things like the guard cheap battalion less attractive. My preference on that front would have been having that bonus only in mono-faction builds, but I think restricting CP to generating faction is cumbersome and basically kills allies with minimal exception especially if you also take away the 3 you get for battleforged. Sorry but a lot in this thread reads as I hate allies.
I love the agendas to repoint certain units which is completely off topic. Do us all a favor and stay on topic thanks.
Yes at the cost of a detachment and a CP. That is a hefty tax.
The game is not "designed" in the sense you are speaking about. They don't even think about these things. Otherwise we wouldn't have the issues we have now.
I think the bonus 3 command points you get for battle forged should only apply to mono build armies. Plus command points should only be allowed to be used to the detachment that created them. More or less that would fix every problem I have with allies. Plus - allies would still probably better than mono factions (If that is the case it is clear to see allies are totally a problem within the game right now). In no way should it be illegal to take allies though - it is a cool thing to be able to do.
Then you sort of screw over elite armies that use IG. I feel like i'd rather have the flexibility and just make things more of a difficult choice for list building.
I mean. Those are the exact armies that need to be screwed. Also - it's a marvel that AMCP generator is actually better than Guillimans (the primarch known for strategy and military management) warlord trait. It's literally insane that the lord of all imperial forces has less command ability than a AM company commander.
Based on the number of issues that have nothing to do with allies, I don’t think you can make any statement about design. Was it intended to have small CP farms probably not. Was it designed for allies to share CP, probably so based on them not denying it. I mean the sharing thing is basically only an issue in this instance almost specifically because of the double CP regen. So fix the regen interaction and not the whole system.
Vaktathi wrote: Making Infantry Squads 5ppm isnt going to do much about soup, especially the CP battery issues, most of these armies arent running hundreds of guardsmen, for the CP battery lists, theyll be able to squeeze 30-60pts elsewhere without much issue in an 1850/2k game.
Likewise, banning one faction from being allies but not others doesnt hold any water either.
Simple fix...CP's only get to be used on the detachments or factions that generate them. Suddenly, the allied CP shennanigans ceases to be an issue, factions deal with the CP they were designed to have, and we dont need to get into manipulating points or bans.
Joan do you know how many CP an army was designed to have?
We dont specifically, but more broadly speaking, most factions (barring stuff like Harlequins) are designed as self contained forces fully playable without allies, their Stratagems are specific to their units and costed to such units, and when built as self contained forces usually operate within a range of CP availability that differs from other armies built as self contained forces as well, and access to allied CP's and CP batteries is wildly inconsistent.
Allies are part of the game
a very poorly implemented part of it.
and in theory the CP stuff is as designed.
Looking at the actual execution in codex books, it does not appear CP sharing was ever considered much.
but I think restricting CP to generating faction is cumbersome and basically kills allies
Just because you cant use 10CP generated by a Guard army on your Space Marines or Sisters?
Most armies arent reliant on stratagems, especially not on spamming them, except those that go out of their way to abuse certain mechanics and are built in a specific manner to do just that. Having a CP battery from another faction shouldnt be taken as a given, especially when so many lack such access.
with minimal exception especially if you also take away the 3 you get for battleforged. Sorry but a lot in this thread reads as I hate allies.
To some degree thats not unfair, but thats also because GWs implementation of "allies" is atrocious, even in matched play it is little more than "take whatever you want from wherever you want in whatever quantity you want if they share a fluff keyword then they get to share a bunch of game mechanics to boot". Between the allies rules and detachment allowances, you really can make almost any combination and mishmash of units perfectly legal to field, which leads to lots of problems.
Aside from armies built specifically to abuse CP generation, i dont see what great harm restricting CP's to at least just the factions that generate them does.
Bharring wrote: IG + big boys is the coolest/most fluffy ally in the game. It's the last one we should be trying to fully erradicate.
Exactly. Imperial armies having small contingencies of guard absolutely makes sense, because in almost every fluff piece ever they're always actually together in some way or another.
All we're missing is War Servitors or small detachments of tech priests in every army and we'd be playing the game as it's ACTUALLY written.
No need to ban specific lists. Simply make it so CP have to be spent on the detachment type that generated it. That way your not using AMCP on BA strategies and rerolls. This nukes soup builds while not penalizing people actually playing it for fluff
Daedalus81 wrote: No need to ban it. Just make IS 5 points (yes, I realize this will generate controversy - let's not debate it here though). Maybe tweak a few other small items and it becomes less attractive and harder to fit things in.
As a long time guard player I agree with this 100%. Infantry Squads are too cheap. It makes mainstay units like Conscripts irrelevant. and the price difference between the IS and Veteran squads means you might as well just run more IS to make up for their crummy BS. I want to be a clear tier of 4 for constripts, 5 for IS, then 6 for veterans. That way you pick the unit you need for the role and not because its cheap and taking another option would be silly. (and yes I know veterans are not troops)
Conscripts are not and never have been "mainstay units".
Infantry Squads are the mainstay unit. There's a reason why previous iterations of Platoons have required Infantry Squads to field Conscripts.
Yeah - I'm fine with it being legal too. IG should not be giving superior soldiers command bonuses - it is literally absurd. What are the command points supposed to represent in this case?
Daedalus81 wrote: No need to ban it. Just make IS 5 points (yes, I realize this will generate controversy - let's not debate it here though). Maybe tweak a few other small items and it becomes less attractive and harder to fit things in.
Or you do the smart thing and make it so that you cannot ally in anything larger than a Patrol or one of the <1 Hq + 3x Elite/HS/FA> things.
Make it so the "Auxiliary Support Detachments" actually become something people have to field and suddenly crap like the Battalions/Brigades are gone.
Yeah - I'm fine with it being legal too. IG should not be giving superior soldiers command bonuses - it is literally absurd. What are the command points supposed to represent in this case?
I play more armies than the average local event has present. It's not an army bias.
They're a resource. I was fine with warp charge for years, and some armies specifically building to create more, im fine with people shipping 200pts for more CP as well. Doesn't bother me at all.
Bharring wrote: IG + big boys is the coolest/most fluffy ally in the game. It's the last one we should be trying to fully erradicate.
You have got to be kidding me. Multiple shield captains is somehow fluffy?
You're aware they fight together, no?
Custodes don't have factions. They exist as a singular entity. Members of groups have individual "ranks". Those "ranks" can form other groups.
In "The Master of Mankind" some of the eldest custodes, ranging from a tribune to other captains are referred to as the "High Lords of Terra".
They're not marines. Stop thinking about them like them.
They are a genetically modified super humans - grown to be a fighting machine - the also have big armor and should pads. They are friggen marines dude. The levels of "elite soliders" in this game are becoming excessively lame. I'm not even sure how anyone even cares for imperial factions at this point.
That is another discussion though. The discussion is about taking the most basic armies in the game to soup up the most elite ones. Do you really think a 10,000 year old super solider is at all enhanced by a brigade of pathetic humans behind him? No. They are irrelevant to him. They aren't going to give him tactical insight or anything or the kind. He is a master of war - they are the army reserves.
Bharring wrote: IG + big boys is the coolest/most fluffy ally in the game. It's the last one we should be trying to fully erradicate.
Nobody's trying to "eradicate" it. They're trying to get it to an acceptable point.
You should not ever have been able to take Battalions or Brigades as allied choices. Ever.
Why?
Genuinely. Clearly GW wanted it, and has emphasized that by clarifying which detachments and ally matrix choices can be taken.
Why do you think, despite the intention of the game, we should not be able to do it?
Your perception of balance? Because, and no offense to any of us, but none of our opinions on that mean much. It's the game. It is what it is. We should be able or not be table to do anything, because we feel or think so.
Yeah - I'm fine with it being legal too. IG should not be giving superior soldiers command bonuses - it is literally absurd. What are the command points supposed to represent in this case?
I play more armies than the average local event has present. It's not an army bias.
They're a resource. I was fine with warp charge for years, and some armies specifically building to create more, im fine with people shipping 200pts for more CP as well. Doesn't bother me at all.
Well if you liked 7ths psychic system - which was essentially the same kind of thing. You will probably like this system. Most people didn't like it though. I know I didn't.
Bharring wrote: IG + big boys is the coolest/most fluffy ally in the game. It's the last one we should be trying to fully erradicate.
Nobody's trying to "eradicate" it. They're trying to get it to an acceptable point.
You should not ever have been able to take Battalions or Brigades as allied choices. Ever.
Whats also not fluffy is somehow having more guard power up BA or Custodes or whatever. Thematically having more BA should power up BA allowing them to do more unique BA things. Just make it's so that CP has to be used bt the detachment that generated it and this not only fixes the problem but makes more sense thematically.
Bharring wrote: IG + big boys is the coolest/most fluffy ally in the game. It's the last one we should be trying to fully erradicate.
Nobody's trying to "eradicate" it. They're trying to get it to an acceptable point.
You should not ever have been able to take Battalions or Brigades as allied choices. Ever.
Why?
Genuinely. Clearly GW wanted it, and has emphasized that by clarifying which detachments and ally matrix choices can be taken.
Why do you think, despite the intention of the game, we should not be able to do it?
Clearly GWdidn't want it. There exists the whole thing of "Auxiliary Support Detachments", which likely is what they assumed people would use for Allies.
I mean you can claim what you want, but I can point to Codex: Drukhari and how they give bonuses to an army clearly intended to have multiple Detachments for their benefits being tied to Patrols.
Your perception of balance? Because, and no offense to any of us, but none of our opinions on that mean much. It's the game. It is what it is. We should be able or not be table to do anything, because we feel or think so.
Our opinions might not mean much, but quite frankly neither should any of the people like Reecius or the various playtesters. They clearly wanted these abuses to stand and yet they're the ones whining about the tournament scene suffering because of it.
Bharring wrote: IG + big boys is the coolest/most fluffy ally in the game. It's the last one we should be trying to fully erradicate.
You have got to be kidding me. Multiple shield captains is somehow fluffy?
You're aware they fight together, no?
Custodes don't have factions. They exist as a singular entity. Members of groups have individual "ranks". Those "ranks" can form other groups.
In "The Master of Mankind" some of the eldest custodes, ranging from a tribune to other captains are referred to as the "High Lords of Terra".
They're not marines. Stop thinking about them like them.
They are a genetically modified super humans - grown to be a fighting machine - the also have big armor and should pads. They are friggen marines dude. The levels of "elite soliders" in this game are becoming excessively lame. I'm not even sure how anyone even cares for imperial factions at this point.
That is another discussion though. The discussion is about taking the most basic armies in the game to soup up the most elite ones. Do you really think a 10,000 year old super solider is at all enhanced by a bridge of pathetic humans behind him? No. They are irrelevant to him. They aren't going to give him tactical insight or anything or the kind. He is a master of war - they are the army reserves.
I... don't think you're aware of Custodes lore, genuinely.
Diocletian, again, a Custodian in "Master of Mankind" deliberately describes being impressed by a Knight Scion who stood before him and chose to fight for the emperor, was impressed by her Zeal.
Multiple Custodians regard Arkhan Land, a human techno archaeologist who literally created the Land Raider, with respect.
Custodians work alongside inquisitiors, who are humans. They sit among the High Lords of Terra, who are humans.
The Imperium of Man is for man. Created by The Emperor, and all creations exist for the betterment of Mankind.
Custodians fight for them, because it is the emperors vision. A human among them who is able to gleam a tactical level of insight to assist them is not only fully valid by warhammer lore, it's literally expected to find a human who might be of that level of standard that is assigned to an area BESIEGED BY THE ENEMY in which Custodians, maybe even in the Sol System, are then set out to also protect.
You're going against fluff to make it invalid. It's wrong.
Bharring wrote: IG + big boys is the coolest/most fluffy ally in the game. It's the last one we should be trying to fully erradicate.
Nobody's trying to "eradicate" it. They're trying to get it to an acceptable point.
You should not ever have been able to take Battalions or Brigades as allied choices. Ever.
Why?
Genuinely. Clearly GW wanted it, and has emphasized that by clarifying which detachments and ally matrix choices can be taken.
Why do you think, despite the intention of the game, we should not be able to do it?
Clearly GWdidn't want it. There exists the whole thing of "Auxiliary Support Detachments", which likely is what they assumed people would use for Allies.
I mean you can claim what you want, but I can point to Codex: Drukhari and how they give bonuses to an army clearly intended to have multiple Detachments for their benefits being tied to Patrols.
Your perception of balance? Because, and no offense to any of us, but none of our opinions on that mean much. It's the game. It is what it is. We should be able or not be table to do anything, because we feel or think so.
Our opinions might not mean much, but quite frankly neither should any of the people like Reecius or the various playtesters. They clearly wanted these abuses to stand and yet they're the ones whining about the tournament scene suffering because of it.
If it makes you feel any better, I am in complete agreement that the playtesters opinions should mean nothing. In practice, they tend to be gakkers.
Bharring wrote: IG + big boys is the coolest/most fluffy ally in the game. It's the last one we should be trying to fully erradicate.
You have got to be kidding me. Multiple shield captains is somehow fluffy?
You're aware they fight together, no?
Custodes don't have factions. They exist as a singular entity. Members of groups have individual "ranks". Those "ranks" can form other groups.
In "The Master of Mankind" some of the eldest custodes, ranging from a tribune to other captains are referred to as the "High Lords of Terra".
They're not marines. Stop thinking about them like them.
They are a genetically modified super humans - grown to be a fighting machine - the also have big armor and should pads. They are friggen marines dude. The levels of "elite soliders" in this game are becoming excessively lame. I'm not even sure how anyone even cares for imperial factions at this point.
That is another discussion though. The discussion is about taking the most basic armies in the game to soup up the most elite ones. Do you really think a 10,000 year old super solider is at all enhanced by a bridge of pathetic humans behind him? No. They are irrelevant to him. They aren't going to give him tactical insight or anything or the kind. He is a master of war - they are the army reserves.
I... don't think you're aware of Custodes lore, genuinely.
Diocletian, again, a Custodian in "Master of Mankind" deliberately describes being impressed by a Knight Scion who stood before him and chose to fight for the emperor, was impressed by her Zeal.
Multiple Custodians regard Arkhan Land, a human techno archaeologist who literally created the Land Raider, with respect.
Custodians work alongside inquisitiors, who are humans. They sit among the High Lords of Terra, who are humans.
The Imperium of Man is for man. Created by The Emperor, and all creations exist for the betterment of Mankind.
Custodians fight for them, because it is the emperors vision. A human among them who is able to gleam a tactical level of insight to assist them is not only fully valid by warhammer lore, it's literally expected to find a human who might be of that level of standard that is assigned to an area BESIEGED BY THE ENEMY in which Custodians, maybe even in the Sol System, are then set out to also protect.
You're going against fluff to make it invalid. It's wrong.
They can respect normal humans all they like but it doesn't make them any less useless by comparison in actual fights. Respect doesn't stop bullets. Plus aren't Custodes meant to be super duper awesome elite of the elite of the elite of the elite soldiers who are all tactical genius's? So they don't really need some Guard general with essentially no experience by comparison to give tactical insight. But hey, my whole group gave up in Gathering Storm so I might be absolutely behind the latest retcons.
Even if you didn't get CP people would still bring the guard battalion. The utility offered here with 30 screening bodies for 120 points is incredibly difficult to pass up.
Bharring wrote: IG + big boys is the coolest/most fluffy ally in the game. It's the last one we should be trying to fully erradicate.
You have got to be kidding me. Multiple shield captains is somehow fluffy?
You're aware they fight together, no?
Custodes don't have factions. They exist as a singular entity. Members of groups have individual "ranks". Those "ranks" can form other groups.
In "The Master of Mankind" some of the eldest custodes, ranging from a tribune to other captains are referred to as the "High Lords of Terra".
They're not marines. Stop thinking about them like them.
They are a genetically modified super humans - grown to be a fighting machine - the also have big armor and should pads. They are friggen marines dude. The levels of "elite soliders" in this game are becoming excessively lame. I'm not even sure how anyone even cares for imperial factions at this point.
That is another discussion though. The discussion is about taking the most basic armies in the game to soup up the most elite ones. Do you really think a 10,000 year old super solider is at all enhanced by a bridge of pathetic humans behind him? No. They are irrelevant to him. They aren't going to give him tactical insight or anything or the kind. He is a master of war - they are the army reserves.
I... don't think you're aware of Custodes lore, genuinely.
Diocletian, again, a Custodian in "Master of Mankind" deliberately describes being impressed by a Knight Scion who stood before him and chose to fight for the emperor, was impressed by her Zeal.
Multiple Custodians regard Arkhan Land, a human techno archaeologist who literally created the Land Raider, with respect.
Custodians work alongside inquisitiors, who are humans. They sit among the High Lords of Terra, who are humans.
The Imperium of Man is for man. Created by The Emperor, and all creations exist for the betterment of Mankind.
Custodians fight for them, because it is the emperors vision. A human among them who is able to gleam a tactical level of insight to assist them is not only fully valid by warhammer lore, it's literally expected to find a human who might be of that level of standard that is assigned to an area BESIEGED BY THE ENEMY in which Custodians, maybe even in the Sol System, are then set out to also protect.
You're going against fluff to make it invalid. It's wrong.
They can respect normal humans all they like but it doesn't make them any less useless by comparison in actual fights. Respect doesn't stop bullets. Plus aren't Custodes meant to be super duper awesome elite of the elite of the elite of the elite soldiers who are all tactical genius's? So they don't really need some Guard general with essentially no experience by comparison to give tactical insight. But hey, my whole group gave up in Gathering Storm so I might be absolutely behind the latest retcons.
Respect doesn't, no. I'm simply indicating they fight together; as they do.
Because they do.
They are useless, so are 32 Models in the AM Battalion you're using to ally.
Just one of them is providing you with a benefit, and perhaps that guy is seeing something no one else did.
We're taking "Warlord" too literally. It's just a model. Forge your own narrative if you're worried about it.
Quite literally any novel with Custodes has them fighting alongside some level of imperial chaff in one capacity or another.
They're almost always described as, at least, having serfs and servitors following them through battle reloading their weapons, let alone also defending guardsmen, admech contingencies, etc for the emperors works.
Vaktathi wrote: Making Infantry Squads 5ppm isnt going to do much about soup, especially the CP battery issues, most of these armies arent running hundreds of guardsmen, for the CP battery lists, theyll be able to squeeze 30-60pts elsewhere without much issue in an 1850/2k game.
Likewise, banning one faction from being allies but not others doesnt hold any water either.
Simple fix...CP's only get to be used on the detachments or factions that generate them. Suddenly, the allied CP shennanigans ceases to be an issue, factions deal with the CP they were designed to have, and we dont need to get into manipulating points or bans.
Joan do you know how many CP an army was designed to have?
We dont specifically, but more broadly speaking, most factions (barring stuff like Harlequins) are designed as self contained forces fully playable without allies, their Stratagems are specific to their units and costed to such units, and when built as self contained forces usually operate within a range of CP availability that differs from other armies built as self contained forces as well, and access to allied CP's and CP batteries is wildly inconsistent.
Allies are part of the game
a very poorly implemented part of it.
and in theory the CP stuff is as designed.
Looking at the actual execution in codex books, it does not appear CP sharing was ever considered much.
but I think restricting CP to generating faction is cumbersome and basically kills allies
Just because you cant use 10CP generated by a Guard army on your Space Marines or Sisters?
Most armies arent reliant on stratagems, especially not on spamming them, except those that go out of their way to abuse certain mechanics and are built in a specific manner to do just that. Having a CP battery from another faction shouldnt be taken as a given, especially when so many lack such access.
with minimal exception especially if you also take away the 3 you get for battleforged. Sorry but a lot in this thread reads as I hate allies.
To some degree thats not unfair, but thats also because GWs implementation of "allies" is atrocious, even in matched play it is little more than "take whatever you want from wherever you want in whatever quantity you want if they share a fluff keyword then they get to share a bunch of game mechanics to boot". Between the allies rules and detachment allowances, you really can make almost any combination and mishmash of units perfectly legal to field, which leads to lots of problems.
Aside from armies built specifically to abuse CP generation, i dont see what great harm restricting CP's to at least just the factions that generate them does.
The damage it does is to armies not designed to abuse those rules. I play Ravenguard allied with sisters, and have 9 CP total in most games. With your change I would have 6 one of which could be spent on sisters... so there is my one re-roll yay....Then my Ravenguard have 5, 3 of which probably get used pregame. So I have 1-3 strats to use during the game yay...sounds fun to me. Further I now need to track 2 separate CP pools, 3 if I went to other detachments. What this rule says to me is, no reason to ally now because it is overly punishing, I’m better off playing pure Ravenguard, and having probably 13 CP I can use on anything in my army.
You don't think the most elite should ever get a strategery bonus (spelling intended) by hanigng out with some flunkies?
So Alexander never needed his phalanx, and should have just fielded more Companions?
Tanks should fight tank battles, Infantry should fight infantry battles? Close Air Support is worthless?
What an elite unit needs most are more warm bodies. What warm bodies need most are elites.
Besides, there are only so many 10k-year-old super-soldiers. In any standard engagement, they likely need Guardsmen/PDF/whatever to actually get things done.
Bharring wrote: IG + big boys is the coolest/most fluffy ally in the game. It's the last one we should be trying to fully erradicate.
You have got to be kidding me. Multiple shield captains is somehow fluffy?
You're aware they fight together, no?
Custodes don't have factions. They exist as a singular entity. Members of groups have individual "ranks". Those "ranks" can form other groups.
In "The Master of Mankind" some of the eldest custodes, ranging from a tribune to other captains are referred to as the "High Lords of Terra".
They're not marines. Stop thinking about them like them.
They are a genetically modified super humans - grown to be a fighting machine - the also have big armor and should pads. They are friggen marines dude. The levels of "elite soliders" in this game are becoming excessively lame. I'm not even sure how anyone even cares for imperial factions at this point.
That is another discussion though. The discussion is about taking the most basic armies in the game to soup up the most elite ones. Do you really think a 10,000 year old super solider is at all enhanced by a bridge of pathetic humans behind him? No. They are irrelevant to him. They aren't going to give him tactical insight or anything or the kind. He is a master of war - they are the army reserves.
I... don't think you're aware of Custodes lore, genuinely.
Diocletian, again, a Custodian in "Master of Mankind" deliberately describes being impressed by a Knight Scion who stood before him and chose to fight for the emperor, was impressed by her Zeal.
Multiple Custodians regard Arkhan Land, a human techno archaeologist who literally created the Land Raider, with respect.
Custodians work alongside inquisitiors, who are humans. They sit among the High Lords of Terra, who are humans.
The Imperium of Man is for man. Created by The Emperor, and all creations exist for the betterment of Mankind.
Custodians fight for them, because it is the emperors vision. A human among them who is able to gleam a tactical level of insight to assist them is not only fully valid by warhammer lore, it's literally expected to find a human who might be of that level of standard that is assigned to an area BESIEGED BY THE ENEMY in which Custodians, maybe even in the Sol System, are then set out to also protect.
You're going against fluff to make it invalid. It's wrong.
They can respect normal humans all they like but it doesn't make them any less useless by comparison in actual fights. Respect doesn't stop bullets. Plus aren't Custodes meant to be super duper awesome elite of the elite of the elite of the elite soldiers who are all tactical genius's? So they don't really need some Guard general with essentially no experience by comparison to give tactical insight. But hey, my whole group gave up in Gathering Storm so I might be absolutely behind the latest retcons.
Respect doesn't, no. I'm simply indicating they fight together; as they do.
Because they do.
They are useless, so are 32 Models in the AM Battalion you're using to ally.
Just one of them is providing you with a benefit, and perhaps that guy is seeing something no one else did.
We're taking "Warlord" too literally. It's just a model. Forge your own narrative if you're worried about it.
Not disagreeing that they can fight together. They shouldn't get bonus tactical ability for fighting with guard though. That is just silly.
40k is not for simulating a realistic battle. Or do soldiers pause to look around after wandering a few steps into the battlefield? Do vehicles guns admire the scenery if other weapons are being fired?
If an engagement has several platoons of average Army infantry, an Army captain, and a Marine squad with a Marine Captain in it somehow, who's directing the overall battle? The Army captain or the Marine captain (modern military)?
In First Heretic Custodes fought alone. In Master of Mankind there was no AM or any flunkies. And flunkies don’t count as AM not even a good try there.
They also built flunkies giving more CP into the game. Troops are what net you the most CP, the basic troopers in any army. Elite guys? Next to nothing.
This is 2 issues you have combined into one and people are not going to agree untill you break down the issue to the individual root causes
The issue with allies isn't CP, its the plugging a codex's weakness from another codex, meaning that soup usually outperforms a mono codex build.
The issue with Imperial Guard is the rediculous 5+regenerate CP warloard trait and 5+ steel CP relic. Both of those for sub 200 points thats more CP for less points than any other faction in 8th edition. Untill the CP abusing farm is fixed doing anything else to IG is pointless as it won't address the underlying issue.
Vaktathi wrote: Making Infantry Squads 5ppm isnt going to do much about soup, especially the CP battery issues, most of these armies arent running hundreds of guardsmen, for the CP battery lists, theyll be able to squeeze 30-60pts elsewhere without much issue in an 1850/2k game.
Likewise, banning one faction from being allies but not others doesnt hold any water either.
Simple fix...CP's only get to be used on the detachments or factions that generate them. Suddenly, the allied CP shennanigans ceases to be an issue, factions deal with the CP they were designed to have, and we dont need to get into manipulating points or bans.
Joan do you know how many CP an army was designed to have?
We dont specifically, but more broadly speaking, most factions (barring stuff like Harlequins) are designed as self contained forces fully playable without allies, their Stratagems are specific to their units and costed to such units, and when built as self contained forces usually operate within a range of CP availability that differs from other armies built as self contained forces as well, and access to allied CP's and CP batteries is wildly inconsistent.
Allies are part of the game
a very poorly implemented part of it.
and in theory the CP stuff is as designed.
Looking at the actual execution in codex books, it does not appear CP sharing was ever considered much.
but I think restricting CP to generating faction is cumbersome and basically kills allies
Just because you cant use 10CP generated by a Guard army on your Space Marines or Sisters?
Most armies arent reliant on stratagems, especially not on spamming them, except those that go out of their way to abuse certain mechanics and are built in a specific manner to do just that. Having a CP battery from another faction shouldnt be taken as a given, especially when so many lack such access.
with minimal exception especially if you also take away the 3 you get for battleforged. Sorry but a lot in this thread reads as I hate allies.
To some degree thats not unfair, but thats also because GWs implementation of "allies" is atrocious, even in matched play it is little more than "take whatever you want from wherever you want in whatever quantity you want if they share a fluff keyword then they get to share a bunch of game mechanics to boot". Between the allies rules and detachment allowances, you really can make almost any combination and mishmash of units perfectly legal to field, which leads to lots of problems.
Aside from armies built specifically to abuse CP generation, i dont see what great harm restricting CP's to at least just the factions that generate them does.
The damage it does is to armies not designed to abuse those rules. I play Ravenguard allied with sisters, and have 9 CP total in most games. With your change I would have 6 one of which could be spent on sisters... so there is my one re-roll yay....Then my Ravenguard have 5, 3 of which probably get used pregame. So I have 1-3 strats to use during the game yay...sounds fun to me. Further I now need to track 2 separate CP pools, 3 if I went to other detachments. What this rule says to me is, no reason to ally now because it is overly punishing, I’m better off playing pure Ravenguard, and having probably 13 CP I can use on anything in my army.
It is your choice to play a dual army. Plus - if you just take 2 battalions you could have 10 base. You have options.
Ice_can wrote: This is 2 issues you have combined into one and people are not going to agree untill you break down the issue to the individual root causes
The issue with allies isn't CP, its the plugging a codex's weakness from another codex, meaning that soup usually outperforms a mono codex build.
The issue with Imperial Guard is the rediculous 5+regenerate CP warloard trait and 5+ steel CP relic. Both of those for sub 200 points thats more CP for less points than any other faction in 8th edition. Untill the CP abusing farm is fixed doing anything else to IG is pointless as it won't address the underlying issue.
If you restrict the command points generated by a detachment to only the detachment that generates them - you fix this problem.
Plus - you are right - there is more than one issue. Which favors taking allies even more. Mainly though - you have an overpowered force (like custodes) that needs command points to really shine - but they can't produce them. AM solves 2 problems at once by providing turn 1 screening and backfield objective holding. There is no reason not to do it. That is why it needs to be fixed.
Primark G wrote: In First Heretic Custodes fought alone. In Master of Mankind there was no AM or any flunkies. And flunkies don’t count as AM not even a good try there.
Master of Mankind literally had Thousands upon Thousands of Admech, ranging from servitors, skitarii, to tech adepts (literally all humans), fighting alongside Custodes, AM, a Blood Angel, Sisters, etc.
"Conscripts" are flunkies. They're CONSCRIPTED to fight. They're absolutely nothing.
The never fought side by side. I don’t believe there was any AM involved at all either. The Emperor, Custodes, SoS, and loyalist Mechanicus are all fighting Daemons in the Web way.
Ice_can wrote: This is 2 issues you have combined into one and people are not going to agree untill you break down the issue to the individual root causes
The issue with allies isn't CP, its the plugging a codex's weakness from another codex, meaning that soup usually outperforms a mono codex build.
The issue with Imperial Guard is the rediculous 5+regenerate CP warloard trait and 5+ steel CP relic. Both of those for sub 200 points thats more CP for less points than any other faction in 8th edition. Untill the CP abusing farm is fixed doing anything else to IG is pointless as it won't address the underlying issue.
If you restrict the command points generated by a detachment to only the detachment that generates them - you fix this problem.
Your half right IMHO, you limit the ability to abuse the IGCP farm to only IG strategums, but I have seen plenty of pure IG armies gaining CP as the game goes on even when spending CP as fast as they can this seems totally bonkers and god help non IG players when GW intorduces more strategums.
Vaktathi wrote: Making Infantry Squads 5ppm isnt going to do much about soup, especially the CP battery issues, most of these armies arent running hundreds of guardsmen, for the CP battery lists, theyll be able to squeeze 30-60pts elsewhere without much issue in an 1850/2k game.
Likewise, banning one faction from being allies but not others doesnt hold any water either.
Simple fix...CP's only get to be used on the detachments or factions that generate them. Suddenly, the allied CP shennanigans ceases to be an issue, factions deal with the CP they were designed to have, and we dont need to get into manipulating points or bans.
Joan do you know how many CP an army was designed to have?
We dont specifically, but more broadly speaking, most factions (barring stuff like Harlequins) are designed as self contained forces fully playable without allies, their Stratagems are specific to their units and costed to such units, and when built as self contained forces usually operate within a range of CP availability that differs from other armies built as self contained forces as well, and access to allied CP's and CP batteries is wildly inconsistent.
Allies are part of the game
a very poorly implemented part of it.
and in theory the CP stuff is as designed.
Looking at the actual execution in codex books, it does not appear CP sharing was ever considered much.
but I think restricting CP to generating faction is cumbersome and basically kills allies
Just because you cant use 10CP generated by a Guard army on your Space Marines or Sisters?
Most armies arent reliant on stratagems, especially not on spamming them, except those that go out of their way to abuse certain mechanics and are built in a specific manner to do just that. Having a CP battery from another faction shouldnt be taken as a given, especially when so many lack such access.
with minimal exception especially if you also take away the 3 you get for battleforged. Sorry but a lot in this thread reads as I hate allies.
To some degree thats not unfair, but thats also because GWs implementation of "allies" is atrocious, even in matched play it is little more than "take whatever you want from wherever you want in whatever quantity you want if they share a fluff keyword then they get to share a bunch of game mechanics to boot". Between the allies rules and detachment allowances, you really can make almost any combination and mishmash of units perfectly legal to field, which leads to lots of problems.
Aside from armies built specifically to abuse CP generation, i dont see what great harm restricting CP's to at least just the factions that generate them does.
The damage it does is to armies not designed to abuse those rules. I play Ravenguard allied with sisters, and have 9 CP total in most games. With your change I would have 6 one of which could be spent on sisters... so there is my one re-roll yay....Then my Ravenguard have 5, 3 of which probably get used pregame. So I have 1-3 strats to use during the game yay...sounds fun to me. Further I now need to track 2 separate CP pools, 3 if I went to other detachments. What this rule says to me is, no reason to ally now because it is overly punishing, I’m better off playing pure Ravenguard, and having probably 13 CP I can use on anything in my army.
It is your choice to play a dual army. Plus - if you just take 2 battalions you could have 10 base. You have options.
Which are severely limited by this rule....you have options now too, with you rule the options all become worse then playing mono-armies because doing so severely limits those options.
Ice_can wrote: This is 2 issues you have combined into one and people are not going to agree untill you break down the issue to the individual root causes
The issue with allies isn't CP, its the plugging a codex's weakness from another codex, meaning that soup usually outperforms a mono codex build.
The issue with Imperial Guard is the rediculous 5+regenerate CP warloard trait and 5+ steel CP relic. Both of those for sub 200 points thats more CP for less points than any other faction in 8th edition. Untill the CP abusing farm is fixed doing anything else to IG is pointless as it won't address the underlying issue.
If you restrict the command points generated by a detachment to only the detachment that generates them - you fix this problem.
Your half right IMHO, you limit the ability to abuse the IGCP farm to only IG strategums, but I have seen plenty of pure IG armies gaining CP as the game goes on even when spending CP as fast as they can this seems totally bonkers and god help non IG players when GW intorduces more strategums.
With how easy it is to get 13+ command points I don't really see this as an issue. Out of fairness though - the IG command point generator needs to be nerfed to 6+...like the exact trait the DE just got. 5+ is just better for no reason compared to other generators.
Primark G wrote: Not matter how you slice it it’s a black eye for the hobby and being heavily abused now.
It isn’t, but if it is seen as such, fix the farming portion, or require your warlord to come from your faction with the highest points. So you can take you 200 points for 5CP not 5+ farming.
Dude, ignore him. He’s defeated and just trolling you at this point to make himself feel superior or whatever.
Threads like this are why people have been leaving dakka to go post elsewhere. I’ve been posting here for years, and lurking even longer, and at no point has dakka ever been as god-awful as it is now. People like that have made this forum suck, and are the reason the entirety of the rest of the online 40k community makes fun of dakka. How /tg/ got to be a better place than this for 40k is beyond me, but it’s at that point.
Bi'ios wrote: Dude, ignore him. He’s defeated and just trolling you at this point to make himself feel superior or whatever.
Threads like this are why people have been leaving dakka to go post elsewhere. I’ve been posting here for years, and lurking even longer, and at no point has dakka ever been as god-awful as it is now. People like that have made this forum suck, and are the reason the entirety of the rest of the online 40k community makes fun of dakka. How /tg/ got to be a better place than this for 40k is beyond me, but it’s at that point.
He trolls the Custodes primary thread, as well. Has openly admitted to it. I recommend following this advice.
Vaktathi wrote: Making Infantry Squads 5ppm isnt going to do much about soup, especially the CP battery issues, most of these armies arent running hundreds of guardsmen, for the CP battery lists, theyll be able to squeeze 30-60pts elsewhere without much issue in an 1850/2k game.
Likewise, banning one faction from being allies but not others doesnt hold any water either.
Simple fix...CP's only get to be used on the detachments or factions that generate them. Suddenly, the allied CP shennanigans ceases to be an issue, factions deal with the CP they were designed to have, and we dont need to get into manipulating points or bans.
Joan do you know how many CP an army was designed to have?
We dont specifically, but more broadly speaking, most factions (barring stuff like Harlequins) are designed as self contained forces fully playable without allies, their Stratagems are specific to their units and costed to such units, and when built as self contained forces usually operate within a range of CP availability that differs from other armies built as self contained forces as well, and access to allied CP's and CP batteries is wildly inconsistent.
Allies are part of the game
a very poorly implemented part of it.
and in theory the CP stuff is as designed.
Looking at the actual execution in codex books, it does not appear CP sharing was ever considered much.
but I think restricting CP to generating faction is cumbersome and basically kills allies
Just because you cant use 10CP generated by a Guard army on your Space Marines or Sisters?
Most armies arent reliant on stratagems, especially not on spamming them, except those that go out of their way to abuse certain mechanics and are built in a specific manner to do just that. Having a CP battery from another faction shouldnt be taken as a given, especially when so many lack such access.
with minimal exception especially if you also take away the 3 you get for battleforged. Sorry but a lot in this thread reads as I hate allies.
To some degree thats not unfair, but thats also because GWs implementation of "allies" is atrocious, even in matched play it is little more than "take whatever you want from wherever you want in whatever quantity you want if they share a fluff keyword then they get to share a bunch of game mechanics to boot". Between the allies rules and detachment allowances, you really can make almost any combination and mishmash of units perfectly legal to field, which leads to lots of problems.
Aside from armies built specifically to abuse CP generation, i dont see what great harm restricting CP's to at least just the factions that generate them does.
The damage it does is to armies not designed to abuse those rules. I play Ravenguard allied with sisters, and have 9 CP total in most games. With your change I would have 6 one of which could be spent on sisters... so there is my one re-roll yay....Then my Ravenguard have 5, 3 of which probably get used pregame. So I have 1-3 strats to use during the game yay...sounds fun to me. Further I now need to track 2 separate CP pools, 3 if I went to other detachments. What this rule says to me is, no reason to ally now because it is overly punishing, I’m better off playing pure Ravenguard, and having probably 13 CP I can use on anything in my army.
It is your choice to play a dual army. Plus - if you just take 2 battalions you could have 10 base. You have options.
Which are severely limited by this rule....you have options now too, with you rule the options all become worse then playing mono-armies because doing so severely limits those options.
Nah dude - you could easily build an army with 10 cp. You just don't want to.
Bi'ios wrote: Dude, ignore him. He’s defeated and just trolling you at this point to make himself feel superior or whatever.
Threads like this are why people have been leaving dakka to go post elsewhere. I’ve been posting here for years, and lurking even longer, and at no point has dakka ever been as god-awful as it is now. People like that have made this forum suck, and are the reason the entirety of the rest of the online 40k community makes fun of dakka. How /tg/ got to be a better place than this for 40k is beyond me, but it’s at that point.
Well since you said it - it must be true. Also - this thread is actually producing good discussion - until you tried to derail it. Except maybe for the guy trying to argue that it is fluffy for custodes to get buku command points for taking AM brigades but at least hes discussing the topic.
I wasn't 100% sure who in this thread he was talking about.
I was hoping it wasn't me.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Do you not see a strategic benefit to an elite corps to have a less elite but more numerous corps to handle other jobs?
It’s unfair that Imperial soup players have a broken means to farm CP. What if they just didn’t take that WLT and relic but no they would never not do it.
Vaktathi wrote: Making Infantry Squads 5ppm isnt going to do much about soup, especially the CP battery issues, most of these armies arent running hundreds of guardsmen, for the CP battery lists, theyll be able to squeeze 30-60pts elsewhere without much issue in an 1850/2k game.
Likewise, banning one faction from being allies but not others doesnt hold any water either.
Simple fix...CP's only get to be used on the detachments or factions that generate them. Suddenly, the allied CP shennanigans ceases to be an issue, factions deal with the CP they were designed to have, and we dont need to get into manipulating points or bans.
Joan do you know how many CP an army was designed to have?
We dont specifically, but more broadly speaking, most factions (barring stuff like Harlequins) are designed as self contained forces fully playable without allies, their Stratagems are specific to their units and costed to such units, and when built as self contained forces usually operate within a range of CP availability that differs from other armies built as self contained forces as well, and access to allied CP's and CP batteries is wildly inconsistent.
Allies are part of the game
a very poorly implemented part of it.
and in theory the CP stuff is as designed.
Looking at the actual execution in codex books, it does not appear CP sharing was ever considered much.
but I think restricting CP to generating faction is cumbersome and basically kills allies
Just because you cant use 10CP generated by a Guard army on your Space Marines or Sisters?
Most armies arent reliant on stratagems, especially not on spamming them, except those that go out of their way to abuse certain mechanics and are built in a specific manner to do just that. Having a CP battery from another faction shouldnt be taken as a given, especially when so many lack such access.
with minimal exception especially if you also take away the 3 you get for battleforged. Sorry but a lot in this thread reads as I hate allies.
To some degree thats not unfair, but thats also because GWs implementation of "allies" is atrocious, even in matched play it is little more than "take whatever you want from wherever you want in whatever quantity you want if they share a fluff keyword then they get to share a bunch of game mechanics to boot". Between the allies rules and detachment allowances, you really can make almost any combination and mishmash of units perfectly legal to field, which leads to lots of problems.
Aside from armies built specifically to abuse CP generation, i dont see what great harm restricting CP's to at least just the factions that generate them does.
The damage it does is to armies not designed to abuse those rules. I play Ravenguard allied with sisters, and have 9 CP total in most games. With your change I would have 6 one of which could be spent on sisters... so there is my one re-roll yay....Then my Ravenguard have 5, 3 of which probably get used pregame. So I have 1-3 strats to use during the game yay...sounds fun to me. Further I now need to track 2 separate CP pools, 3 if I went to other detachments. What this rule says to me is, no reason to ally now because it is overly punishing, I’m better off playing pure Ravenguard, and having probably 13 CP I can use on anything in my army.
It is your choice to play a dual army. Plus - if you just take 2 battalions you could have 10 base. You have options.
Which are severely limited by this rule....you have options now too, with you rule the options all become worse then playing mono-armies because doing so severely limits those options.
Nah dude - you could easily build an army with 10 cp. You just don't want to.
Nah dude It severely limits options because to do that I am required to take specific options, that would make the army significantly worse...and I would still have much more limited abuse of my CP (only 5 for the marines to use). So no still far worse to the point that it is not worth doing over playing pure. To get 10 CP I’d still need 6 troops, and 4 HQ choices, have less CP, and less flexibility. So yeah I can build a worse army than I have now and still have worse access to my CP than I have now. So like I said...the I hate allies thread because your suggest change kills them except maybe taking guard the problem the OP was trying to solve you. So you have punished allies, but still not fixed the major complained about ally. Sorry your fix is terrible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Primark G wrote: It’s unfair that Imperial soup players have a broken means to farm CP. What if they just didn’t take that WLT and relic but no they would never not do it.
EASy to fix-your warlord must be in your faction with the most points. Fixed no more guard CP farm.
Bharring wrote: I wasn't 100% sure who in this thread he was talking about.
I was hoping it wasn't me.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Do you not see a strategic benefit to an elite corps to have a less elite but more numerous corps to handle other jobs?
Pretty sure he was talking about Primarch but who cares - he prefers another site to this one but still comes to this one to rave about how much this site sucks. Sounds butthurt.
Anyways. Back on track. No I don't see the benefit. Wouldn't it be even more beneficial to have additional armies from your same force - with direct lines of communication and understanding of your battle tactics at a very high level? Wouldn't they offer better information gathering? Better reliability? Ect?
Vaktathi wrote: Making Infantry Squads 5ppm isnt going to do much about soup, especially the CP battery issues, most of these armies arent running hundreds of guardsmen, for the CP battery lists, theyll be able to squeeze 30-60pts elsewhere without much issue in an 1850/2k game.
Likewise, banning one faction from being allies but not others doesnt hold any water either.
Simple fix...CP's only get to be used on the detachments or factions that generate them. Suddenly, the allied CP shennanigans ceases to be an issue, factions deal with the CP they were designed to have, and we dont need to get into manipulating points or bans.
Joan do you know how many CP an army was designed to have?
We dont specifically, but more broadly speaking, most factions (barring stuff like Harlequins) are designed as self contained forces fully playable without allies, their Stratagems are specific to their units and costed to such units, and when built as self contained forces usually operate within a range of CP availability that differs from other armies built as self contained forces as well, and access to allied CP's and CP batteries is wildly inconsistent.
Allies are part of the game
a very poorly implemented part of it.
and in theory the CP stuff is as designed.
Looking at the actual execution in codex books, it does not appear CP sharing was ever considered much.
but I think restricting CP to generating faction is cumbersome and basically kills allies
Just because you cant use 10CP generated by a Guard army on your Space Marines or Sisters?
Most armies arent reliant on stratagems, especially not on spamming them, except those that go out of their way to abuse certain mechanics and are built in a specific manner to do just that. Having a CP battery from another faction shouldnt be taken as a given, especially when so many lack such access.
with minimal exception especially if you also take away the 3 you get for battleforged. Sorry but a lot in this thread reads as I hate allies.
To some degree thats not unfair, but thats also because GWs implementation of "allies" is atrocious, even in matched play it is little more than "take whatever you want from wherever you want in whatever quantity you want if they share a fluff keyword then they get to share a bunch of game mechanics to boot". Between the allies rules and detachment allowances, you really can make almost any combination and mishmash of units perfectly legal to field, which leads to lots of problems.
Aside from armies built specifically to abuse CP generation, i dont see what great harm restricting CP's to at least just the factions that generate them does.
The damage it does is to armies not designed to abuse those rules. I play Ravenguard allied with sisters, and have 9 CP total in most games. With your change I would have 6 one of which could be spent on sisters... so there is my one re-roll yay....Then my Ravenguard have 5, 3 of which probably get used pregame. So I have 1-3 strats to use during the game yay...sounds fun to me. Further I now need to track 2 separate CP pools, 3 if I went to other detachments. What this rule says to me is, no reason to ally now because it is overly punishing, I’m better off playing pure Ravenguard, and having probably 13 CP I can use on anything in my army.
It is your choice to play a dual army. Plus - if you just take 2 battalions you could have 10 base. You have options.
Which are severely limited by this rule....you have options now too, with you rule the options all become worse then playing mono-armies because doing so severely limits those options.
Nah dude - you could easily build an army with 10 cp. You just don't want to.
Nah dude It severely limits options because to do that I am required to take specific options, that would make the army significantly worse...and I would still have much more limited abuse of my CP (only 5 for the marines to use). So no still far worse to the point that it is not worth doing over playing pure. To get 10 CP I’d still need 6 troops, and 4 HQ choices, have less CP, and less flexibility. So yeah I can build a worse army than I have now and still have worse access to my CP than I have now. So like I said...the I hate allies thread because your suggest change kills them except maybe taking guard the problem the OP was trying to solve you. So you have punished allies, but still not fixed the major complained about ally. Sorry your fix is terrible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Primark G wrote: It’s unfair that Imperial soup players have a broken means to farm CP. What if they just didn’t take that WLT and relic but no they would never not do it.
EASy to fix-your warlord must be in your faction with the most points. Fixed no more guard CP farm.
What choices are you required to take?
2 batallions
4hq - lias/captain 2x leu
6 troops - 3 scouts -3 intercessors
patrol
Celestine
2x sisters
You got about 900-1000 points to spam whatever units you want. List building getting harder is actually a good thing.
Vaktathi wrote: Making Infantry Squads 5ppm isnt going to do much about soup, especially the CP battery issues, most of these armies arent running hundreds of guardsmen, for the CP battery lists, theyll be able to squeeze 30-60pts elsewhere without much issue in an 1850/2k game.
Likewise, banning one faction from being allies but not others doesnt hold any water either.
Simple fix...CP's only get to be used on the detachments or factions that generate them. Suddenly, the allied CP shennanigans ceases to be an issue, factions deal with the CP they were designed to have, and we dont need to get into manipulating points or bans.
Joan do you know how many CP an army was designed to have?
We dont specifically, but more broadly speaking, most factions (barring stuff like Harlequins) are designed as self contained forces fully playable without allies, their Stratagems are specific to their units and costed to such units, and when built as self contained forces usually operate within a range of CP availability that differs from other armies built as self contained forces as well, and access to allied CP's and CP batteries is wildly inconsistent.
Allies are part of the game
a very poorly implemented part of it.
and in theory the CP stuff is as designed.
Looking at the actual execution in codex books, it does not appear CP sharing was ever considered much.
but I think restricting CP to generating faction is cumbersome and basically kills allies
Just because you cant use 10CP generated by a Guard army on your Space Marines or Sisters?
Most armies arent reliant on stratagems, especially not on spamming them, except those that go out of their way to abuse certain mechanics and are built in a specific manner to do just that. Having a CP battery from another faction shouldnt be taken as a given, especially when so many lack such access.
with minimal exception especially if you also take away the 3 you get for battleforged. Sorry but a lot in this thread reads as I hate allies.
To some degree thats not unfair, but thats also because GWs implementation of "allies" is atrocious, even in matched play it is little more than "take whatever you want from wherever you want in whatever quantity you want if they share a fluff keyword then they get to share a bunch of game mechanics to boot". Between the allies rules and detachment allowances, you really can make almost any combination and mishmash of units perfectly legal to field, which leads to lots of problems.
Aside from armies built specifically to abuse CP generation, i dont see what great harm restricting CP's to at least just the factions that generate them does.
The damage it does is to armies not designed to abuse those rules. I play Ravenguard allied with sisters, and have 9 CP total in most games. With your change I would have 6 one of which could be spent on sisters... so there is my one re-roll yay....Then my Ravenguard have 5, 3 of which probably get used pregame. So I have 1-3 strats to use during the game yay...sounds fun to me.
Any change can have a negative impact on things, but regarding specific army lists, unless theyre going to be totally invalidated or nerfed into unplayability, which the force you described wont be, it is difficult to be too worried over the loss of few CP in the grand scheme. Sure, for that CP hit isn't nothing, but its hardly the end of allies. Any change is likely going to negatively impact certain things. The last CSM/RH list I ran would encounter similar issues, but I can live with that change.
Also, it makes perfect sense that armies composed of disparate factions would be less effective at coordinating and operating in tactical harmony than one composed entirely of the same faction.
More to the point, until a few months ago, Stratagems didnt even exist in the game, if thats what is going to kill it for you, I wonder what the draw was before.
Further I now need to track 2 separate CP pools, 3 if I went to other detachments. What this rule says to me is, no reason to ally now because it is overly punishing, I’m better off playing pure Ravenguard, and having probably 13 CP I can use on anything in my army.
So, the only point to running an allied mixed force was to take advantage of CP mechanics? And CP's matter more than everything else allies offer?
Not fluffy themed armies, not running units and abilities that synergistically covered each others weaknesses, not finding a use for those handful of SM models you own in your otherwise 2000pt skitarii army, etc?
If so, I feel more strongly about that change than ever.
Limit it to just factions if you like instead of by detachment, thatll cut down on tracking requirements, but will still achieve the same goal.
If your force had corps appropriate to other roles, yes. But if your entire corps is identical, not so much. Custodes jsut don't have the 'warm bodies' necessary for many roles. They need warm bodies to do things.
It doesn't take an uber soldier to dig a latrene. An uber soldier isn't that much better at simply being present. And you can effectively have a dozen of warm bodies (real world, fluff, or game) for each super-uber-soldier, so even things where the uber-soldier is twice as good, the warm body has the advantage.
The communications thing is a real deal. It should be more a cost than a gain for strategery to mix multiple armies. But Custodes fighting with IG should have a lot more tactical flexability than simply more Custodes.
Someone once suggested you only get Stratagems - and maybe even CP - from detatchments of the same Keyword as your Warlord's detatchment - that might be an even more extreme option.
I like the general idea of mono having more CP or something to encourage it, but we need to ensure we don't simply remove "And IG allies" from the game. It's a hugely awsome thing to have in the game. Ideally, it would be a tradeoff.
Ice_can wrote: This is 2 issues you have combined into one and people are not going to agree untill you break down the issue to the individual root causes
The issue with allies isn't CP, its the plugging a codex's weakness from another codex, meaning that soup usually outperforms a mono codex build.
The issue with Imperial Guard is the rediculous 5+regenerate CP warloard trait and 5+ steel CP relic. Both of those for sub 200 points thats more CP for less points than any other faction in 8th edition. Untill the CP abusing farm is fixed doing anything else to IG is pointless as it won't address the underlying issue.
If you restrict the command points generated by a detachment to only the detachment that generates them - you fix this problem.
Your half right IMHO, you limit the ability to abuse the IGCP farm to only IG strategums, but I have seen plenty of pure IG armies gaining CP as the game goes on even when spending CP as fast as they can this seems totally bonkers and god help non IG players when GW introduces more strategums.
Pure IG having tons of command points isn't a problem though because IG strategems are lackluster. This is why you don't see pure guard lists dominating the GTs and IG being taken almost exclusively as a CP farm. The balance of army strategems seems to be that codexes with access to the best strategems have the hardest time generating them. This balance breaks though when you have a combined CP pool with codexes like guard. Simply split the CP up between the forces that generated them and you get back to the balance between strategems in codexes.
If you restrict the command points generated by a detachment to only the detachment that generates them - you fix this problem.
Plus - you are right - there is more than one issue. Which favors taking allies even more. Mainly though - you have an overpowered force (like custodes) that needs command points to really shine - but they can't produce them. AM solves 2 problems at once by providing turn 1 screening and backfield objective holding. There is no reason not to do it. That is why it needs to be fixed.
I'm sorry, but that's straight up dumb until you answer more questions about how this works. CP Generated from detachments restricted to that detachment only? So if I bring a brigade of guard and a secondary spearhead, also guard, I can only use 1 cp on the spearhead?
So even mono-force armies get punished because of the fluffy use of Imperial chaff?
I wouldn't say that is a real correlation. Eldar have amazing stratagems and can spam CP if they wanted to. Nids can do it to. You only need to produce what your army can use effectively though.
Tau generate CP easy by spamming commanders-fireblades and firewarriors which aren't even expensive and they are awesome. My tau have 18 command points with firepower at the level of AM.
The thing is - stratagems can only be used once per phase - so including multiple armies allows you to play more different stratagems which also in turn means you need more CP. That is the correlation I see.
If you restrict the command points generated by a detachment to only the detachment that generates them - you fix this problem.
Plus - you are right - there is more than one issue. Which favors taking allies even more. Mainly though - you have an overpowered force (like custodes) that needs command points to really shine - but they can't produce them. AM solves 2 problems at once by providing turn 1 screening and backfield objective holding. There is no reason not to do it. That is why it needs to be fixed.
I'm sorry, but that's straight up dumb until you answer more questions about how this works. CP Generated from detachments restricted to that detachment only? So if I bring a brigade of guard and a secondary spearhead, also guard, I can only use 1 cp on the spearhead?
So even mono-force armies get punished because of the fluffy use of Imperial chaff?
The way i imagine it (and i believe most people) is that it would be by detachment keyword. 3 BA detachments... great they all have the matching keyword and can share. 2 IG and 1 BA means that the 2 IG can share but the BA can use their own. 2 Catachan 2 Vallhallan they would have to split it.
This does 3 things for the game
1. Rewards fluffy mono build players with larger total CP pools
2. Still allows fluffy soup players to field what they want and actually fits fluff better (bringing more of a specifically trained soldier allows you to execute more of their maneuvers in a single engagement)
3. Helps balance by restricting CP generation by factions never designed to have that much
How do Eldar spam CP? Archon + Kabs can get you some with Brigades or Battalions, for far more points than IG. But CWE and Harlies do that much worse than Marines, Ynnari are tacked onto one of those, and Corsairs are always negative CP.
If you restrict the command points generated by a detachment to only the detachment that generates them - you fix this problem.
Plus - you are right - there is more than one issue. Which favors taking allies even more. Mainly though - you have an overpowered force (like custodes) that needs command points to really shine - but they can't produce them. AM solves 2 problems at once by providing turn 1 screening and backfield objective holding. There is no reason not to do it. That is why it needs to be fixed.
I'm sorry, but that's straight up dumb until you answer more questions about how this works. CP Generated from detachments restricted to that detachment only? So if I bring a brigade of guard and a secondary spearhead, also guard, I can only use 1 cp on the spearhead?
So even mono-force armies get punished because of the fluffy use of Imperial chaff?
That is a good point.
The wording would have to change to something like this then. "Command points generated by a specific faction keyword - can only be used by that faction keyword. Example - Command points generated by Chapter Ultra marines keyword detachment - can only be used for friendly Ultramarine keyword detachment units."
Bharring wrote: How do Eldar spam CP? Archon + Kabs can get you some with Brigades or Battalions, for far more points than IG. But CWE and Harlies do that much worse than Marines, Ynnari are tacked onto one of those, and Corsairs are always negative CP.
Well mean you know how to do it. It will cost a little more with eldar units because they are better units but you can easily fit 3 batallions or a brigade and a batallion into a CWE force. harder for DE but if you are willing to go the tripple threat - 3 battalions is doable. Plus they have a good CP generator as well.
Per CWE doing CP Battalions - not a lot of factions can't do that for the same or fewer points (GK, IK, Custodes, Harlies, Corsairs are the only factions worse off that way that come to mind). Even Marines do it cheaper.
Bharring wrote: Per CWE doing CP Battalions - not a lot of factions can't do that for the same or fewer points (GK, IK, Custodes, Harlies, Corsairs are the only factions worse off that way that come to mind). Even Marines do it cheaper.
The point difference is negligible. Space marine stratagems are trash though so there is that.
rangers are 60 = 180
warlocks are 55 = 110
290 batallion
Scouts 55 = 165
tech marine = 114
279 batallion
Plus - in the end - you are limited to 3 detachments in matched play - so really it is just about the ability to afford it in your army comp - not the ability to do it the cheapest.
Vaktathi wrote: Making Infantry Squads 5ppm isnt going to do much about soup, especially the CP battery issues, most of these armies arent running hundreds of guardsmen, for the CP battery lists, theyll be able to squeeze 30-60pts elsewhere without much issue in an 1850/2k game.
Likewise, banning one faction from being allies but not others doesnt hold any water either.
Simple fix...CP's only get to be used on the detachments or factions that generate them. Suddenly, the allied CP shennanigans ceases to be an issue, factions deal with the CP they were designed to have, and we dont need to get into manipulating points or bans.
Joan do you know how many CP an army was designed to have?
We dont specifically, but more broadly speaking, most factions (barring stuff like Harlequins) are designed as self contained forces fully playable without allies, their Stratagems are specific to their units and costed to such units, and when built as self contained forces usually operate within a range of CP availability that differs from other armies built as self contained forces as well, and access to allied CP's and CP batteries is wildly inconsistent.
Allies are part of the game
a very poorly implemented part of it.
and in theory the CP stuff is as designed.
Looking at the actual execution in codex books, it does not appear CP sharing was ever considered much.
but I think restricting CP to generating faction is cumbersome and basically kills allies
Just because you cant use 10CP generated by a Guard army on your Space Marines or Sisters?
Most armies arent reliant on stratagems, especially not on spamming them, except those that go out of their way to abuse certain mechanics and are built in a specific manner to do just that. Having a CP battery from another faction shouldnt be taken as a given, especially when so many lack such access.
with minimal exception especially if you also take away the 3 you get for battleforged. Sorry but a lot in this thread reads as I hate allies.
To some degree thats not unfair, but thats also because GWs implementation of "allies" is atrocious, even in matched play it is little more than "take whatever you want from wherever you want in whatever quantity you want if they share a fluff keyword then they get to share a bunch of game mechanics to boot". Between the allies rules and detachment allowances, you really can make almost any combination and mishmash of units perfectly legal to field, which leads to lots of problems.
Aside from armies built specifically to abuse CP generation, i dont see what great harm restricting CP's to at least just the factions that generate them does.
The damage it does is to armies not designed to abuse those rules. I play Ravenguard allied with sisters, and have 9 CP total in most games. With your change I would have 6 one of which could be spent on sisters... so there is my one re-roll yay....Then my Ravenguard have 5, 3 of which probably get used pregame. So I have 1-3 strats to use during the game yay...sounds fun to me. Further I now need to track 2 separate CP pools, 3 if I went to other detachments. What this rule says to me is, no reason to ally now because it is overly punishing, I’m better off playing pure Ravenguard, and having probably 13 CP I can use on anything in my army.
It is your choice to play a dual army. Plus - if you just take 2 battalions you could have 10 base. You have options.
Which are severely limited by this rule....you have options now too, with you rule the options all become worse then playing mono-armies because doing so severely limits those options.
Nah dude - you could easily build an army with 10 cp. You just don't want to.
Nah dude It severely limits options because to do that I am required to take specific options, that would make the army significantly worse...and I would still have much more limited abuse of my CP (only 5 for the marines to use). So no still far worse to the point that it is not worth doing over playing pure. To get 10 CP I’d still need 6 troops, and 4 HQ choices, have less CP, and less flexibility. So yeah I can build a worse army than I have now and still have worse access to my CP than I have now. So like I said...the I hate allies thread because your suggest change kills them except maybe taking guard the problem the OP was trying to solve you. So you have punished allies, but still not fixed the major complained about ally. Sorry your fix is terrible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Primark G wrote: It’s unfair that Imperial soup players have a broken means to farm CP. What if they just didn’t take that WLT and relic but no they would never not do it.
EASy to fix-your warlord must be in your faction with the most points. Fixed no more guard CP farm.
What choices are you required to take?
2 batallions
4hq - lias/captain 2x leu
6 troops - 3 scouts -3 intercessors
patrol
Celestine
2x sisters
You got about 900-1000 points to spam whatever units you want. List building getting harder is actually a good thing.
So compared to what I run now hat is 2 additional HQ choices required, and 3 extra marine troop choices, so a minimum of 300 extra points in marines...and no ability to use CP for sisters....so may as well drop the sisters entirely at that point. I think losing the 3 CP bonus would be fine. I don’t think restricting to detachment is a good rule especially when paired with the loss of 3 CP conversely I think you could keep the 3 CP as use for either faction and restrict detachment CP to faction. Both is too far, better to fix the guard CP farm then over nerf allies.
@vaktahi- It isn’t just about abusing CP rules, but being significantly hindered on flexibility using CP while also getting docked 3 CP is a bigger nerf than you are giving it credit for. Take my list, for sisters that 1 CP will be reserved for Celestine. So they get no stratagems beyond that single re-roll. The marines are also worse off with less CP than they would otherwise be, so in reality this change is a better nerf to allied elite armies than allying in chaff. To me it renders allies competitively speaking to IG and fluff lists. Almost no other build will be better than a pure list. The point is not wanting to be overly penalized. Like I said I could live with one change or the other not both. Both ring of- I hate allies and they should not be competitive. Better fixes exist.
Kanluwen wrote: Our opinions might not mean much, but quite frankly neither should any of the people like Reecius or the various playtesters. They clearly wanted these abuses to stand and yet they're the ones whining about the tournament scene suffering because of it.
...Where the hell have you gotten this impression? Reecius has been overall positive on the FAQ changes/nerfs, and is especially fond of the new deep strike limitations. The one thing he doesn't like is the new assault rules.
Xenomancers wrote: Just take a battalion of sisters then. They don't actually have stratagems yet though so...that might not be worth it.
Yup then I end up with too many CP for sisters and not enough for marines, unless I just spam troops. Hence the way less options comment. Like I said if I still have the 3 cp that can split eitherway it might work, but still would be wonky to track. I think just penalizing the 3 CP would be fine, then fix the IGCP farm. Or like an said go back to 3 CP for battalions in mixed armies and 5 in pure armies and fix the farm.
I think the idea was (or should be) either the "you only get 3cp if all your detatchments are based on the same keyword" *or* the "CP granted by a detatchment can only be used by detatchments based on the same keyword", not both.
Primark G wrote: We saw how GW pulled in the reins on soup with the big faq obviously they are not totally cool with it and need to implement further restrictions.
They seem rather cool about this particular interaction though....
BIG FAQ 1
When we originally wrote this
edition of Warhammer 40,000 we wanted to make sure that your army could include appropriate allies. For example,
in an Imperium army, Imperial Guardsmen and Space Marines should be able to fight side-by-side, and in a Chaos
army Chaos Space Marines should be able to burn the galaxy alongside their daemonic minions.
Bharring wrote: Per CWE doing CP Battalions - not a lot of factions can't do that for the same or fewer points (GK, IK, Custodes, Harlies, Corsairs are the only factions worse off that way that come to mind). Even Marines do it cheaper.
The point difference is negligible. Space marine stratagems are trash though so there is that.
rangers are 60 = 180
warlocks are 55 = 110
290 batallion
Scouts 55 = 165
tech marine = 114
279 batallion
Plus - in the end - you are limited to 3 detachments in matched play - so really it is just about the ability to afford it in your army comp - not the ability to do it the cheapest.
I believe this is what they call "moving the goalposts." Your original point gets shot down (that CWE easily generate CP), so you change the argument to "but SM strategems are bad."
EnTyme wrote: And what does that quote have to do with Space Marines being able to use the CP farmed by an Imperial Guard captain?
Just that AM ally very much seems to be the desired way to play Imperium in general and every communication we've had has reinforced it rather than suggest playing codex "pure" is at all intended. It's ironically gotten to the point where I feel like all the anti-ally players need to jump to Warmachine to make room for all the anti-theme players from that game.
It doesn't mean its unbalanced either. I mean, how are IG allied marine lists fairing against Eldar and Nids these days?
Not as well as IG & Custodes lists
Which gets us back to that reinforcing the notion that Imperium should be mixed, given the function of one of the Custodes models is to give Guard a pretty nifty buff.
It doesn't mean its unbalanced either. I mean, how are IG allied marine lists fairing against Eldar and Nids these days?
Not as well as IG & Custodes lists
Which gets us back to that reinforcing the notion that Imperium should be mixed, given the function of one of the Custodes models is to give Guard a pretty nifty buff.
No it just means Custodes are simply more powerful than marines.
Also exactlly which unit in the custodes codex has an ability that buffs keyword Astramilitarum.
I think that Mono lists of any variety should get some sort of bonus, be it CP, or some other nice mechanical thing to make them more unique. This would also bode well for armies that cannot take allies, like Necrons. Furthermore I wouldn't mind if that extended down to the <Regiment/chapter/dysnasty> level as well, not just the big army key word. Armies (with some exceptions, ala Harlequins) have been always built with the idea that they are to be taken in a vacuum, and their weaknesses are balanced by their strength. Allies allow you to plug those holes. If you notice armies that have trouble generating CPs tend to also be armies that have very strong Stratagems. Guard on the other hand have more CPs than they could ever hope to use but also have either oddly specific Stratagems or ones that are....meh.
The inclusion of Guard into other armies with their CP making abilities are part of the problem because they were designed to have maximum "tactical" flexibility in their resource pool (aka we have more men than you have bullets) but they do not have to tools to utilize that resource as effectively as lets say Admech or Custodes. This is where the inherent imbalance occurs.
You guys have suggested a lot of great ideas as well to deal with it. CP for its only detachment is a handy one but it becomes an annoying book keeping issue. I personally like the idea that the only stratagems that can be used at list price are that of the warlord (aka primary, which should be more than 50% of the army). Any allied detachments can use their stratagems beyond the rulebook ones with a +1 CP tax that cannot be recycled. This I think would do well to balance out that abuse and also make allies more of strategy instead of a must have.
Bharring wrote: Per CWE doing CP Battalions - not a lot of factions can't do that for the same or fewer points (GK, IK, Custodes, Harlies, Corsairs are the only factions worse off that way that come to mind). Even Marines do it cheaper.
The point difference is negligible. Space marine stratagems are trash though so there is that.
rangers are 60 = 180
warlocks are 55 = 110
290 batallion
Scouts 55 = 165
tech marine = 114
279 batallion
Plus - in the end - you are limited to 3 detachments in matched play - so really it is just about the ability to afford it in your army comp - not the ability to do it the cheapest.
I believe this is what they call "moving the goalposts." Your original point gets shot down (that CWE easily generate CP), so you change the argument to "but SM strategems are bad."
I wasn't moving the goalposts. Just simply adding to the discussion that you don't see space marine players trying to squeeze out a cheep battalion because there is literally no point - their stratagems are trash tier. The discussion above had to do with someone saying that there is a link between command point generation ability and stratagem power level. There is not - IMO. Tau, nids, and Eldar disprove that rather easily - both generate command points without interrupting their desired army comp and have very powerful stratagems.
It doesn't mean its unbalanced either. I mean, how are IG allied marine lists fairing against Eldar and Nids these days?
Not as well as IG & Custodes lists
Which gets us back to that reinforcing the notion that Imperium should be mixed, given the function of one of the Custodes models is to give Guard a pretty nifty buff.
No it just means Custodes are simply more powerful than marines.
Also exactlly which unit in the custodes codex has an ability that buffs keyword Astramilitarum.
I mean that helps with guard taking the warlord, but not really in the use of guard as a cheap CP source for a larger elite army. So it punishes more evenly allied forces and favors those that just bring the allies as a screen and cheap CP.
There is a solution but nobody wants to accept it: single 5th edition FOC with a LoW slot added (capped at 33% of your point total). No allies, no multiple detachments, no CP farming, all of it is gone. You get one FOC from one codex and you live with its weaknesses.
Peregrine wrote: There is a solution but nobody wants to accept it: single 5th edition FOC with a LoW slot added (capped at 33% of your point total). No allies, no multiple detachments, no CP farming, all of it is gone. You get one FOC from one codex and you live with its weaknesses.
I don't think a solution that completely eliminates the possibility of allies is a solution.
Peregrine wrote: There is a solution but nobody wants to accept it: single 5th edition FOC with a LoW slot added (capped at 33% of your point total). No allies, no multiple detachments, no CP farming, all of it is gone. You get one FOC from one codex and you live with its weaknesses.
Personally I liked that a lot more than what we have now. Maybe a modified version that allowed a single allied detachment with much greater limitations than the FOC. Something like our current patrol detachment? I don't think allies should be removed from the game.
Also exactlly which unit in the custodes codex has an ability that buffs keyword Astramilitarum.
Good point. It buffs any Imperial ally, but I guess the important bit is that its really only allies that can benefit from it. IG is the obvious pick but its available to others. It's just that Marines don't notice until they start getting hit with AP -3 or worse.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: You get one FOC from one codex and you live with its weaknesses.
Which means you'd better hope you're one of the codexes that does have weaknesses and everyone else can just hope they get better next edition.
Bharring wrote: The problem is the crunching down of the spectrum.
Tacs are down to 13ppm. Kabs are 6. Think about that.
How can you justify a Guardsmen at 5 when Kabs are 6? One of the costs of the model inflation is that, as they push model count by dropping points, there's less precision in the variance of points.
I'd love to see 5pt Guard, but it's getting hard to justify that with how other things are getting pointed.
Units should be costed in the context of the army.
Imperials should pay hugely for fast hover tanks if they have them at all.
Eldar should have fast hover tanks and should pay out the yang for land raider equivalents.
Orks should have lots of tough cc and low bs unreliably shooting and should rely heavily on leaders for army wide mechanics.
Tau should have paper thin cc and extremely reliable shooting and should also rely heavily on leaders for army wide mechanics.
Eldar should have expensive but ultra cool everything due to waning supplies (wave serpents should be more expensive to reflect this fact, I think) and lots of specialty stuff to reflect their once sprawling civilization, and many of these units should operate well without relying on leadership.
GK should be similar, for different reasons, and more expensive...
Anyways, point being that an eldar land raider should cost more points than a space marine land raider for example.
Peregrine wrote: There is a solution but nobody wants to accept it: single 5th edition FOC with a LoW slot added (capped at 33% of your point total). No allies, no multiple detachments, no CP farming, all of it is gone. You get one FOC from one codex and you live with its weaknesses.
No Detachments, No Flyers, Ultramarines Only, Final Destination.
Is the problem with the IGCP Farm really the 5 CP you get for the 200 point Battalion?
Isn't the problem really the ever present Grand Strategist Warlord Trait and Kurov's Aquila Relic that always come along with the detachment?
Why not stop trying to fix the symptom (IG have the best CP farming ability) and attack the disease (the ability to gain CP when a Stratagem is used)?
For example, force the Warlord to be a model in the faction with the most points assigned to it. Or outright ban every Warlord Trait and Relic that allows you to gain Command Points on a dice roll after the game starts.
alextroy wrote: Is the problem with the IGCP Farm really the 5 CP you get for the 200 point Battalion?
Isn't the problem really the ever present Grand Strategist Warlord Trait and Kurov's Aquila Relic that always come along with the detachment?
Why not stop trying to fix the symptom (IG have the best CP farming ability) and attack the disease (the ability to gain CP when a Stratagem is used)?
For example, force the Warlord to be a model in the faction with the most points assigned to it. Or outright ban every Warlord Trait and Relic that allows you to gain Command Points on a dice roll after the game starts.
I think we should remove the warlord trait and replace it with something else. Then nerf the relic to only work on 6+, like everyone else.
Instead of swinging a ban hammer have you considered looking at WHY its always Guard. (hint, its not just point costs)
Nerf Grand Stratagist and viola, guard is still a good option but no longer auto include and other cheap battalions get more room (Marines with scouts, AdMech).
No other CP recuperation is per CP on a 5+. Just change it to 1 6+ per Stratagem and you remove the main incentive for Guard allies.
Ordana wrote: Instead of swinging a ban hammer have you considered looking at WHY its always Guard. (hint, its not just point costs)
Nerf Grand Stratagist and viola, guard is still a good option but no longer auto include and other cheap battalions get more room (Marines with scouts, AdMech).
No other CP recuperation is per CP on a 5+. Just change it to 1 6+ per Stratagem and you remove the main incentive for Guard allies.
I'm not so sure. A bunch of screening bodies to do the dirty work of camping objectives and eating Smites while still actually bringing some useful firepower to the table is also pretty damn powerful. Add to that the extra firepower from the Basilisks the IG Battalion inevitably brings and it's a bit of a no-brainer for competitive armies. The CP regen/stealing is obviously very powerful too but I'm not convinced just nerfing that would prevent the CP farm detachments.
CP farm detachments will happen because armies want a bunch of CP.
The point is to make Guard not have the best CP recursion in the game in a factor of 2 or more.
You can literally double the cost of everything in the Guard book and you will still see minimal detachments everywhere because Grand Stratagist + Kurov's aquilla is that good.
Drop the marines to 10 pts. If you look around it's actually a good price. Fire warrior is 7, tzaangor is 7. A marine for 10 pts would be just right, not even close to overpowered and would generate more incentive to play an all marine army instead of splashing over to IG.
Peregrine wrote: There is a solution but nobody wants to accept it: single 5th edition FOC with a LoW slot added (capped at 33% of your point total). No allies, no multiple detachments, no CP farming, all of it is gone. You get one FOC from one codex and you live with its weaknesses.
I don't think a solution that completely eliminates the possibility of allies is a solution.
Of course it is. Allies need to go. It was a terrible decision from the beginning, and it's time to end the lunacy.
Though I guess if you really insist on having allies the problem could be fixed with some restrictions. You start with a single 5th edition FOC, and may add one of the following: a single LoW from the same codex as your primary detachment, a fortification detachment, or an allied detachment of up to 25% of your point total. Your two detachments may not share buffs of any kind (including stratagems), the allied detachment generates no CP, and all CP must be allocated to one detachment at the beginning of the game (effects that recover CP do not change this allocation). And the faction keyword system is removed entirely, any codex may ally with any other codex. You can now take allies if you really want them for fluff reasons, but you can't pick out the best buff units from multiple sources or use a token IG detachment as a CP battery.
(Though TBH the CP mechanic is stupid as hell and should be removed as well, rather than trying to make it work with a proper detachment system.)
I posted a thread about this when the big FAQ came out, but this was my solution:
Work out your main faction by working out which keyword is carried by the units totalling the highest points value in your army, ignoring Imperium, Chaos, Aeldari, and Tyranid.
Detachments that do not have the keyword of your main faction do not generate CP. They still cost CP if they have a negative cost.
So you want to bring Guardsmen as cheap screens for your predominantly space marine army? Sure, go for it! But you're not getting bargain CP in the deal too.
Ordana wrote: Instead of swinging a ban hammer have you considered looking at WHY its always Guard. (hint, its not just point costs)
Nerf Grand Stratagist and viola, guard is still a good option but no longer auto include and other cheap battalions get more room (Marines with scouts, AdMech).
No other CP recuperation is per CP on a 5+. Just change it to 1 6+ per Stratagem and you remove the main incentive for Guard allies.
I'm not so sure. A bunch of screening bodies to do the dirty work of camping objectives and eating Smites while still actually bringing some useful firepower to the table is also pretty damn powerful. Add to that the extra firepower from the Basilisks the IG Battalion inevitably brings and it's a bit of a no-brainer for competitive armies. The CP regen/stealing is obviously very powerful too but I'm not convinced just nerfing that would prevent the CP farm detachments.
Its a combination of point costs, the massive CP farm, and the fact that guardsmen are actually useful screens. If you had to take a battalion of grey knights to get the same double CP recuperation it would be far less splashable. The other option is to outright remove ally restrictions. Let the pro scene and WAAC players have disgustingly unfluffy armies without worrying about which alliances have the best soup since they all can have the same thing. If a unit is overpowered or undercosted to the point to where it is exactly like how Riptide Wings were in every army's list then the current FAQ and Chapter Approved system is in place to deal with the specific problem units. The last option is to just get rid of allies altogether with some limited exceptions like assassins who have permission to join a few select armies without penalty or Chapter Tactics. Plenty of units already have army specific versions of it, so why not have a few at the Imperial/Chaos level.
topaxygouroun i wrote: Drop the marines to 10 pts. If you look around it's actually a good price. Fire warrior is 7, tzaangor is 7. A marine for 10 pts would be just right, not even close to overpowered and would generate more incentive to play an all marine army instead of splashing over to IG.
Yeah not so much....A sister of battle is 9 points and has S3 T3, and WS4. SO for 1 point marines should get +1 WS, S and T? Fire warriors are S/T 3 with a 4+ save, BS 4+, and WS 5+(?) so for 3 points a marine should get +1 Save, S, T, BS, and +2 WS?
A marine is literally twice as durable against S 4 shooting than a fire warror, More than twice as durable against S3, 1.5 times as durable against S5, 1.9 times against S6 and 7. Shoots 16% better, fights 33% better to hit and wounds easier. That has to have some value more than a 43% points increase. Now 13 might be a bit much but it is closer than 10. The big issue is 40ks points are not granular enough to represent things very well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
vipoid wrote: If the choice is between banning allies or nerfing IG because they're too useful as allies, I'd go with the former.
I'd far rather armies be forced to work on their own than have IG nerfed to hell because Girlyman players use them as CP-farms or bullet-sponges.
Unfortunately the former is not an option due to how the game has come to be designed were several factions don't function as stand alone armies.
You really don't need to Nerf Guard to hell. You need to do 2 things. 1.) Require your warlord come from the faction with the highest point total in your army, 2 .) limit relics to only being in the faction of your warlord even with the stratagem. IG is still useful as allies, but don't provide a super boost of CP, unless you want to invest a ton of points. Right now the CP far produces 5 CP + (lets say you take a battalion of your main army and maybe a 1 CP detachment for 14 CP, and your opponent is around the same) a potential of on average another 9 CP. SO 200 points is bringing about 14 CP to the table.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ordana wrote: Instead of swinging a ban hammer have you considered looking at WHY its always Guard. (hint, its not just point costs)
Nerf Grand Stratagist and viola, guard is still a good option but no longer auto include and other cheap battalions get more room (Marines with scouts, AdMech).
No other CP recuperation is per CP on a 5+. Just change it to 1 6+ per Stratagem and you remove the main incentive for Guard allies.
The Ultra Marines Warlord Trait is on a 5+ per CP. Most other CP regen is per stratagem though not per CP.
A marine is literally twice as durable against S 4 shooting than a fire warror, More than twice as durable against S3, 1.5 times as durable against S5, 1.9 times against S6 and 7. Shoots 16% better, fights 33% better to hit and wounds easier. That has to have some value more than a 43% points increase.
Just a point, but a Fire Warrior does have a much better gun than a SM. I don't know if it's enough to make SMs worth just 3pts more, but I think it's worth noting.
You really don't need to Nerf Guard to hell. You need to do 2 things. 1.) Require your warlord come from the faction with the highest point total in your army, 2 .) limit relics to only being in the faction of your warlord even with the stratagem.
A marine is literally twice as durable against S 4 shooting than a fire warror, More than twice as durable against S3, 1.5 times as durable against S5, 1.9 times against S6 and 7. Shoots 16% better, fights 33% better to hit and wounds easier. That has to have some value more than a 43% points increase.
Just a point, but a Fire Warrior does have a much better gun than a SM. I don't know if it's enough to make SMs worth just 3pts more, but I think it's worth noting.
You really don't need to Nerf Guard to hell. You need to do 2 things. 1.) Require your warlord come from the faction with the highest point total in your army, 2 .) limit relics to only being in the faction of your warlord even with the stratagem.
I'd be fine with that.
True on the FW gun, it is better, hence why I also used the Sister, same gun 9 points for worse stats. Given everything I think marines might be 11 points mostly based off the cost of scouts, you would essentially be trading 1 point of armor for infiltrate at equal cost. Not sure that feels right either, but as I said points are not really granular enough on low point models as every point is a huge swing I've long though GW should multiply points by a factor of 10 to give them more precision. IMO marines should probably cost 1.5-1.75 times what a FW costs based on their stats Which would be 10.5 - 12.25 points.
vipoid wrote: So, here's a question - should armies have different amounts of CP in the first place?
Yes. The whole point of the CP mechanic was to be a balancing factor for the new detachments. If you take a 5th edition style FOC, with a balanced mix of units from the various FOC categories and a strong core of troops you get a lot of CP. If you take a bunch of heavy support units and nothing else just because you figured out that a particular tank is overpowered you get minimal CP. If you take a single unit from a random codex you get negative CP.
Of course the CP mechanic in general sucks and should be thrown out, but if you operate under the assumption that you're going to keep it then different armies should absolutely have different levels of CP.
Maybe GW could do a thing where a player has to pick 1 main faction keyword and they're the only CP you get. So they can still get CP for IG armies but not from their support. This way they can still farm but not as much.
Would only getting the faction stratagems of your Warlord be enough?
I'm thinking beyond IG - for the game as a whole.
Sure, you could take an IG battery with Custs/SM/Nids/Chaos, but if it's your HQ, now your SM/Custs/Nids/Chaos get none of *their* stratagems. But you could still take an IG force shored up by some Space Marines. Or a Custodes force backed up by IG.
The IG Battery forces would then still have tons of CP if they take an IG warlord, but what are they going to spend it on?
I doubt there'll be a change anytime soon, of course. Seems like there's vast disagreement on even whether one is needed.
Like the obvious majority of people, I think it's mostly fine as is.
I would support tournaments doing their own composition rules if they feel they want to veer towards the thematic, stylish, mono codex "everything looks like an army" battles.
See SN Battle Reports' "No Retreat" in Gibraltar... their rules pack specifically states what you can and can't have to ensure the armies meet the style they want.
for example:
Armies must be comprised of a single faction with the following armies being broken down further. (Note:
Whenever a specific codex is mentioned within this section it is assumed to also include the Index and Forge
World units of the same army)
Codex Space Marines
- Must contain one or two detachments solely comprised of units with the “Adeptus Astartes” keyword
- May contain a detachment solely comprised of units with the faction keyword “Inquisition”
- May contain a detachment solely comprised of units with the faction keyword “Questor Imperialis”
- Only one Chapter Type Keyword allowed within the entire army (e.g. Blood Angels, White Scars, etc)
and so on for each Codex.
Then the tournaments like LVO that want to be the best of the best of the best type affairs can stick with the current Chaos/Aeldari/Imperial soups.
It's really not a big issue unless you are sat there with 2000 points of Necrons thinking its not fair that you don't win your local RTT's. But that's not really a problem for the Matched Play game.
Nurglitch wrote: The irony is that people used to complain that we never saw Space Marines and Imperial Guard fighting side by side.
Yeah, youGW can't win.
There were calls to re-allow allies, when they weren't allowed, and now there are calls to re-ban them, when they are allowed. Sometimes I wonder if GW's own inconsistency has doomed themselves; if they had just allowed Allies from the beginning, the people who didn't like the idea wouldn't still be playing the game. (Yes, technically they did through Inquisition but that doesn't count as real allies because *handwave*).
As said in other threads, I am surprised that they didn't take more of a steer from AOS's allegiance system, where if you have >20% of your army come from a different faction keyword as your main force, you lose your faction-specific bonuses and revert to metafaction bonuses.
E.g. a Blood Angels army can take 400 pts of guard and still be BLOOD ANGELS but if you take 500pts, you are just IMPERIUM and get bog standard stuff. Maybe give an exception for a super-heavy aux detachment so taking 1 knight doesn't ruin you.
Perhaps this will be part of a future Chapter Approved. Probably not.
And now we're talking about how to perfectly balance allies, when there are several different viewpoints on what that means.
Most probably agree it shouldn't be auto-always-take-allies. It's not so broadly agreed that it shouldn't be never-take-allies. But where to balance it in the middle?
I'd love for solo SM to be more common than SM + IG, but I wouldn't want SM + IG to never be the answer. On the other hand, I'd rather Custodes to be more common with IG than solo - they simply don't make a great solo army IMO (thematically, talking about goals, not crunch).
The appropriate balancing point is really, really hard to agree on. And even if we could, with all the different factions and options on the game, could you imagine trying to balance it?
Not even Chess is balanced. DOTA/LOL/Starcraft are being rebalanced all the time. 40k goes far beyond any of those in combinatorial complexity. How is it possible? Who could actually do it?
But, yet, 40k seems more balanced then ever. Or, at least, the top lists seem more varied than ever.
I'd love to see less Allies in the game. I think I have ideas that'd do that without destroying Allies entirely. But the more I think and read, the more amazed I am at how balanced GW has made the game.
(Not that there aren't some clearly boneheaded choices. I'm sure if they had a deployment cycle measured in days instead of quarters, things would be even better.)
Silentz wrote: As said in other threads, I am surprised that they didn't take more of a steer from AOS's allegiance system, where if you have >20% of your army come from a different faction keyword as your main force, you lose your faction-specific bonuses and revert to metafaction bonuses.
E.g. a Blood Angels army can take 400 pts of guard and still be BLOOD ANGELS but if you take 500pts, you are just IMPERIUM and get bog standard stuff. Maybe give an exception for a super-heavy aux detachment so taking 1 knight doesn't ruin you.
Perhaps this will be part of a future Chapter Approved. Probably not.
I suspect the reason they didn't use that system is they intended for mixed hybrid armies to become a thing. Want an army with 800 pts of Imperial Guard, 600 pts of Sororitas, and 600 pts of Adeptus Mechanicus? Have at it. That's intended.
Silentz wrote: As said in other threads, I am surprised that they didn't take more of a steer from AOS's allegiance system, where if you have >20% of your army come from a different faction keyword as your main force, you lose your faction-specific bonuses and revert to metafaction bonuses.
E.g. a Blood Angels army can take 400 pts of guard and still be BLOOD ANGELS but if you take 500pts, you are just IMPERIUM and get bog standard stuff. Maybe give an exception for a super-heavy aux detachment so taking 1 knight doesn't ruin you.
Perhaps this will be part of a future Chapter Approved. Probably not.
I suspect the reason they didn't use that system is they intended for mixed hybrid armies to become a thing. Want an army with 800 pts of Imperial Guard, 600 pts of Sororitas, and 600 pts of Adeptus Mechanicus? Have at it. That's intended.
It is I still wish they had some sort of system in place that rewarded focused armies while still allowing for allies, to some extent they could have even done this through the brigade detachment it it were slightly more flexible. But it is clear that GW really only cares about detachments when talking about list building.
Silentz wrote: As said in other threads, I am surprised that they didn't take more of a steer from AOS's allegiance system, where if you have >20% of your army come from a different faction keyword as your main force, you lose your faction-specific bonuses and revert to metafaction bonuses.
E.g. a Blood Angels army can take 400 pts of guard and still be BLOOD ANGELS but if you take 500pts, you are just IMPERIUM and get bog standard stuff. Maybe give an exception for a super-heavy aux detachment so taking 1 knight doesn't ruin you.
Perhaps this will be part of a future Chapter Approved. Probably not.
I suspect the reason they didn't use that system is they intended for mixed hybrid armies to become a thing. Want an army with 800 pts of Imperial Guard, 600 pts of Sororitas, and 600 pts of Adeptus Mechanicus? Have at it. That's intended.
It is I still wish they had some sort of system in place that rewarded focused armies while still allowing for allies, to some extent they could have even done this through the brigade detachment it it were slightly more flexible. But it is clear that GW really only cares about detachments when talking about list building.
So I will preface what I am going to type with: "I agree with you." However, I would like to play devil's advocate, if only in an effort to replicate a discussion that may have been had between the rules writers regarding allies.
"I see your position, Breng77, that we should reward mono-armies. But does that not effectively ban soup from tournament play? Presumably, you would always go with the better option for tournament play. So we have to envision what we want tournament play to be. I argue, Breng77, that all else being equal, we would prefer to see a mixture of armies at tournaments, because that improves sales, encourages people to explore the entire model range available to them, and allows us more design space because we can release small mono-faction codexes like Custodes while ensuring those otherwise-bad codexes still have access to tools that allow them to compete at the highest level, through the ally system."
Bharring wrote: To attempt to rephrase/simplify (Unit - correct me if I didn't hit your point correctly - that's the point):
How do you not make Soup always the answer, while making Soup (or at least Allies) still the answer often.
With the added note of some books could only be written if Allies were viable (Custodes, etc).
I am fairly certain this is impossible, generally. Soup, as mentioned, inherently provides several advantages to an army simply by existing. At the highest, most competitive level, this means soup will have to be heavily restricted to break even with mono-builds, which means that armies designed to soup either ignore those penalties (but what is an army "designed to soup"? Custodes? Grey Knights? Sororitas? Imperial Guard?), and therefore become the most flexible armies in the game (and therefore the best TAC) or they just suck.
I would really like some more restrictions to allies in matched play. Something like that your warlord must have a faction keyword that correlates with at least 50% of your army points.(with the current restrictions that imperium etc doesn't count) Any other allied detachments cannot generate CP or use their specific stratagems. This would, in my opinion (which I know will be contested) make allies a decision that you have to weigh rather than just a simple improvement. Also as a small bonus it would be really easy to categorise army factions as you just have to look at the warlord.
I would personally just get rid of all the relics/traits that generate CP for a blanket +1/2 CP instead, with the changes to battalions & brigades most armies can get enough now anyways and that way we wouldn't have to keep track of two different "pools" of CP like some other posters in this thread has suggested.
I think some armies could reasonably be said to be more viable to have a codex written for with Soup being an option. IK, Custodes, Harlequins, Assasins, LOTD, etc. With their limited options, it's hard to justify a codex just for mono-them armies of them (although some can pull it off reasonably).
One codex seems to have been rewritten to effectively demand intrA-codex soup, even (DE)!
GK seem to be in an odd place where in 5th/6th they "became" a full-fledged mono-style faction, being ripped from Inq. And now, in 8th they seem to be getting the "sub faction" treatment, which feels unfair.
IG and Sisters both do Soup well, but conceptually do mono well too.
Silentz wrote: As said in other threads, I am surprised that they didn't take more of a steer from AOS's allegiance system, where if you have >20% of your army come from a different faction keyword as your main force, you lose your faction-specific bonuses and revert to metafaction bonuses.
E.g. a Blood Angels army can take 400 pts of guard and still be BLOOD ANGELS but if you take 500pts, you are just IMPERIUM and get bog standard stuff. Maybe give an exception for a super-heavy aux detachment so taking 1 knight doesn't ruin you.
Perhaps this will be part of a future Chapter Approved. Probably not.
I suspect the reason they didn't use that system is they intended for mixed hybrid armies to become a thing. Want an army with 800 pts of Imperial Guard, 600 pts of Sororitas, and 600 pts of Adeptus Mechanicus? Have at it. That's intended.
It is I still wish they had some sort of system in place that rewarded focused armies while still allowing for allies, to some extent they could have even done this through the brigade detachment it it were slightly more flexible. But it is clear that GW really only cares about detachments when talking about list building.
So I will preface what I am going to type with: "I agree with you." However, I would like to play devil's advocate, if only in an effort to replicate a discussion that may have been had between the rules writers regarding allies.
"I see your position, Breng77, that we should reward mono-armies. But does that not effectively ban soup from tournament play? Presumably, you would always go with the better option for tournament play. So we have to envision what we want tournament play to be. I argue, Breng77, that all else being equal, we would prefer to see a mixture of armies at tournaments, because that improves sales, encourages people to explore the entire model range available to them, and allows us more design space because we can release small mono-faction codexes like Custodes while ensuring those otherwise-bad codexes still have access to tools that allow them to compete at the highest level, through the ally system."
It is about finding the balance of reward that evens things out a bit more. So maybe that is Mono-faction armies getting more CP per detahcment. IF Soup armies got the old 3 CP for a battalion and mono-faction got the new 5 for instance. It might not make mono-faction as good, but it at least would dissuade the use of soup as a CP battery. OR if the Brigade was something like 17 CP but required the 3HQ, 6 Troops, and min 1 of each other slot (elite, fast, Heavy) but required you to put 100% of your points into the detachment.
OR if mono-faction allowed you to get around some other restriction. Essentially something to encourage building armies in that style for a purpose rather than making it the auto-choice. The same thing I like allies for, use them to build an army that favors a playstyle.
I do think it is possible to make Allies/Soup neither auto-take nor auto-lose, to put it somewhere in the middle. But I also think a complete solution to Chess is possible. Doesn't mean it's gonna happen in our lifetime.
It seems simple on the face of it - in 6 pages we probably have 60 different "perfect" suggestions for how to do it. But once you peel each of them past the first pass, they introduce other imbalances.
Some may actually be more balanced than what we have now. Perfect balance is functionally impossible, but "better" balance is possible. Not as easy as we often think at first, but I'm sure it can be done.
Breng77 wrote: It is about finding the balance of reward that evens things out a bit more. So maybe that is Mono-faction armies getting more CP per detahcment. IF Soup armies got the old 3 CP for a battalion and mono-faction got the new 5 for instance. It might not make mono-faction as good, but it at least would dissuade the use of soup as a CP battery. OR if the Brigade was something like 17 CP but required the 3HQ, 6 Troops, and min 1 of each other slot (elite, fast, Heavy) but required you to put 100% of your points into the detachment.
OR if mono-faction allowed you to get around some other restriction. Essentially something to encourage building armies in that style for a purpose rather than making it the auto-choice. The same thing I like allies for, use them to build an army that favors a playstyle.
I don't think it's possible to even things out. Harlequins, for example, would just be worse outright than pure Eldar if you prevent them from generating CP as well (when their codex comes out). If you say "well, you get 3 CP for a BN if you're soup" and you're running Ynnari, who are literally intended to soup, then you just have less CP than the exact same army with Craftworld Eldar.
The anti-soup crowd has already kneecapped some armies designed around soup (RIP Eldar corsairs). I'd like that not to happen, thanks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: I do think it is possible to make Allies/Soup neither auto-take nor auto-lose, to put it somewhere in the middle. But I also think a complete solution to Chess is possible. Doesn't mean it's gonna happen in our lifetime.
It seems simple on the face of it - in 6 pages we probably have 60 different "perfect" suggestions for how to do it. But once you peel each of them past the first pass, they introduce other imbalances.
Some may actually be more balanced than what we have now. Perfect balance is functionally impossible, but "better" balance is possible. Not as easy as we often think at first, but I'm sure it can be done.
Well, yes, that's the goal. But we have to start somewhere, and starting here, with soup being the default, is just as valid as "ALL SOUP IS BANNED FOREVER" and then slowly introducing allies incrementally.
Breng77 wrote: It is about finding the balance of reward that evens things out a bit more. So maybe that is Mono-faction armies getting more CP per detahcment. IF Soup armies got the old 3 CP for a battalion and mono-faction got the new 5 for instance. It might not make mono-faction as good, but it at least would dissuade the use of soup as a CP battery. OR if the Brigade was something like 17 CP but required the 3HQ, 6 Troops, and min 1 of each other slot (elite, fast, Heavy) but required you to put 100% of your points into the detachment.
OR if mono-faction allowed you to get around some other restriction. Essentially something to encourage building armies in that style for a purpose rather than making it the auto-choice. The same thing I like allies for, use them to build an army that favors a playstyle.
I don't think it's possible to even things out. Harlequins, for example, would just be worse outright than pure Eldar if you prevent them from generating CP as well (when their codex comes out). If you say "well, you get 3 CP for a BN if you're soup" and you're running Ynnari, who are literally intended to soup, then you just have less CP than the exact same army with Craftworld Eldar.
The anti-soup crowd has already kneecapped some armies designed around soup (RIP Eldar corsairs). I'd like that not to happen, thanks.
Why would Harlies be worse than pure Eldar? Becaue they are written to be part of a soup and not a stand alone army? IN this case either their addition to an Eldar Soup makes that soup stronger, or it doesn't. If it doesn't they won't be taken regardless of what you do with CP, or they will be because the player is unconcerned with competing anyway. If they make the army stronger, why should that not have some sort of cost? IF that cost is something like 4-6 CP over the course of an army a player needs to decide whether the trade is worth that.
Personally I have no issue with Ynnari having less CP than a craftworld army as soul burst more than makes up the difference. Though that has to do with how they write the codex for Ynnari and how the addition of their characters works. If you are taking all craftworld units with just the Ynnari HQs maybe that is mono-faction, but having Ynnari with Harlies, Craftworld and DE is not.
Maybe you make every army select a Main faction, that faction must be the faction of their warlord and then all CP from that faction are at the normal 5, and "allied factions" produce only 3. I believe that things exist where both soup and non-soup can be viable choices, it is just a matter of determining what those are. If that is indeed not possible you end up in a situation where some number of players end up screwed and i don't believe that must be true.
Breng77 wrote: Maybe you make every army select a Main faction, that faction must be the faction of their warlord and then all CP from that faction are at the normal 5, and "allied factions" produce only 3. I believe that things exist where both soup and non-soup can be viable choices, it is just a matter of determining what those are. If that is indeed not possible you end up in a situation where some number of players end up screwed and i don't believe that must be true.
Cue meme: "I WANT TO BELIEVE"
Jokes aside - sure. I believe it's not possible, you believe it is. I can't prove a negative, and you guys aren't games designers who are supposed to balance entire games. I guess it comes down to "we'll see what GW comes up with" but I have a hunch that you'll never see a healthy mix of soup/not-soup armies in the top 8 of LVO - generally one will be better than the other by even a tiny margin.
At least we can both agree that unreasonable people who just want soup outright banned are unreasonable.
Breng77 wrote: Maybe you make every army select a Main faction, that faction must be the faction of their warlord and then all CP from that faction are at the normal 5, and "allied factions" produce only 3. I believe that things exist where both soup and non-soup can be viable choices, it is just a matter of determining what those are. If that is indeed not possible you end up in a situation where some number of players end up screwed and i don't believe that must be true.
Cue meme: "I WANT TO BELIEVE"
Jokes aside - sure. I believe it's not possible, you believe it is. I can't prove a negative, and you guys aren't games designers who are supposed to balance entire games. I guess it comes down to "we'll see what GW comes up with" but I have a hunch that you'll never see a healthy mix of soup/not-soup armies in the top 8 of LVO - generally one will be better than the other by even a tiny margin.
At least we can both agree that unreasonable people who just want soup outright banned are unreasonable.
Yup, we are too far down that rabbit hole to ever ban allies again. They already scaled back significantly from where it was in 7th as far as which factions can take allies, to fall along fluff lines. I don't believe it would every be 100% perfect, but think it could certainly be closer than it is now. There is a big difference between top 8 LVO being one or the other, and almost every tournament army you see being one or the other. I think soup will always tend to be better, when available, but if say the brigade was more worth taking it might encourage some people to try out mono-armies for the extra CP bump. Right now a brigade given its requirements is really never worth taking over 2 battalions. Especially for armies that cannot do it super cheap.
As an ork player, I kind of still don't understand/care how keywords work, but in the big FAQ, didn't they say that all armies in a detachment must share one keyword in common, and that imperium and chaos didn't count?
If so, doesn't that prohibit you from taking 'allied' guard?
Breng77 wrote: Maybe you make every army select a Main faction, that faction must be the faction of their warlord and then all CP from that faction are at the normal 5, and "allied factions" produce only 3. I believe that things exist where both soup and non-soup can be viable choices, it is just a matter of determining what those are. If that is indeed not possible you end up in a situation where some number of players end up screwed and i don't believe that must be true.
Cue meme: "I WANT TO BELIEVE"
Jokes aside - sure. I believe it's not possible, you believe it is. I can't prove a negative, and you guys aren't games designers who are supposed to balance entire games. I guess it comes down to "we'll see what GW comes up with" but I have a hunch that you'll never see a healthy mix of soup/not-soup armies in the top 8 of LVO - generally one will be better than the other by even a tiny margin.
At least we can both agree that unreasonable people who just want soup outright banned are unreasonable.
Yup, we are too far down that rabbit hole to ever ban allies again. They already scaled back significantly from where it was in 7th as far as which factions can take allies, to fall along fluff lines. I don't believe it would every be 100% perfect, but think it could certainly be closer than it is now. There is a big difference between top 8 LVO being one or the other, and almost every tournament army you see being one or the other. I think soup will always tend to be better, when available, but if say the brigade was more worth taking it might encourage some people to try out mono-armies for the extra CP bump. Right now a brigade given its requirements is really never worth taking over 2 battalions. Especially for armies that cannot do it super cheap.
I agree it could be closer.
I'm also going to provide an anecdote (which isn't intended to support an argument but may illustrate a problem with soup) about why I take an Adeptus Mechanicus detachment in my superheavy tank company if I'm playing competitively:
The Tech-Priests are simply better than their Imperial Guard counterparts. It's just true. They're also 5 points more, but that 5 points gains them:
1) +1 to repair rolls for one of them (Warlord Trait)
2) Access to Forge World dogmas / canticles / stratagems (Graia stratagem is my only psychic defense)
3) Access to badass stratagems (Tech-Adept lets them repair twice).
There is no iteration of the Imperial Guard Tech-Priest that will gain those things, and therefore, it will always be optimal for me to bring soup if I am looking to repair my tanks in the field. Reducing the soup battalion to 3 CP? Doesn't make up for the difference in repair rolls (average 2 for an IG TPE, average 6 for my AdMech TPE), doesn't make up for the loss of psychic defense. The mere fact that Adeptus Mechanicus has a codex that can do different things to the Imperial Guard codex is sufficient to make it an auto-include for me - so short of giving the Admech Tech-Priest Enginseer the Astra Militarum keyword (like their friends do in the Astra Militarum codex), there's not much that can be done.
Right, and that is how allies should be. Right now however there is no trade off in CP for doing that same thing. I'm fine with people making a decision to improve their armies through allies when it facilitates a specific playstyle. IN your case helping your tanks. What I am not a fan of is the same ally choice being an auto-include in all play styles of a faction because it gives you cheap CP. It should never really be "I want to play Blood Angles, but I need more CP to do what I want to do, so I'll throw in this cheap guard for no other reason then giving me CP,"
For instance I play Ravenguard + Sisters, because it suits the playstyle I want. I have also done Dark Angles + White Scars, for the same reason.
Kap'n: The FAQ changed detatchments, not armies. So you can't take Bobby as your HQ (Codex:SM) and take a Tac squad, an IG squad, and a BA sqaud as your troops. You can take an SM detatchment, an IG detatchment, and a BA detatchment in one Imperium army, though.
I don't see how Adeptus Astartes bringing a detachment of Astra Militarum is a problem for the game. SM aren't exactly taking the stuff out of major events with or without allies. And it isnt ruining the fluff. The only problem I have with it is that it's too much of a no-brainer, auto-take for most armies, especially eliete ones. There should at least be meaningful choices with regard to allies. Guard detachments should be an inexpensive way to put boots on the ground and generate some CP. They can take up space and prevent deep strike. So if they were to generate 3 CP per a 200 pt ish batalion I think that's fair, but the 5 CP batalion (and the 12 CP brigade) should only count if it matches the faction KW of your warlord. Furthermore, I think someone else suggested changing the AMWL trait and relic to only recycle CP for Astra Militarum Strategems... I think that's very fair. But if you'd rather put that 200 pts toward your own SM army and get more CP, but fewer bodies and less board space, I think that's a meaningful choice.
I like CP but really think they should overhaul it. make each player get a set number of CP per turn (i'd suggest 3). Then allow some detachments to add 1 or 2 CP and others to subtract or add zero CP. Batallion +1 brigade +2, auxiliary still minus 1. all others 0. I love command points and would love stratagems to be more essential to tactical decisions on the battlefield and to be more independent than just who brought to most imperial guard battalions/ brigades.
compound this with as an ork player I just get annoyed that thanks to keywords I cannot run my orky traiter guard and orkified renegade space marines with them (holdovers from 6e and 7th allies), built and modeled around ork freebootas, space marine renegade pirates, and imperial guard privateers all working together for the love of loot. cannot play in 8th because nobody in my area plays anything outside of matched. would be cool to have the extra CP in addition to be being fieldable but alas xenos don't matter so cannot usually get alternative cheap cp and/or allies at all.
PiñaColada wrote: I would really like some more restrictions to allies in matched play. Something like that your warlord must have a faction keyword that correlates with at least 50% of your army points.(with the current restrictions that imperium etc doesn't count) Any other allied detachments cannot generate CP or use their specific stratagems. This would, in my opinion (which I know will be contested) make allies a decision that you have to weigh rather than just a simple improvement. Also as a small bonus it would be really easy to categorise army factions as you just have to look at the warlord.
I would personally just get rid of all the relics/traits that generate CP for a blanket +1/2 CP instead, with the changes to battalions & brigades most armies can get enough now anyways and that way we wouldn't have to keep track of two different "pools" of CP like some other posters in this thread has suggested.
There are no "current restrictions".
There are beta restrictions that have been proposed, but they are not actually full rules yet.
I would be curious to see how a few larger mono-faction tournaments would play out. I would imagine it would be ruled by Death Guard, Dark Eldar, Tyranids, and Imperial Guard.
PiñaColada wrote: I would really like some more restrictions to allies in matched play. Something like that your warlord must have a faction keyword that correlates with at least 50% of your army points.(with the current restrictions that imperium etc doesn't count) Any other allied detachments cannot generate CP or use their specific stratagems. This would, in my opinion (which I know will be contested) make allies a decision that you have to weigh rather than just a simple improvement. Also as a small bonus it would be really easy to categorise army factions as you just have to look at the warlord.
I would personally just get rid of all the relics/traits that generate CP for a blanket +1/2 CP instead, with the changes to battalions & brigades most armies can get enough now anyways and that way we wouldn't have to keep track of two different "pools" of CP like some other posters in this thread has suggested.
There are no "current restrictions".
There are beta restrictions that have been proposed, but they are not actually full rules yet.
Sure, fair point. I'm saying assuming the current beta rules are going into effect unchanged with the next FAQ, something along the lines I talked about earlier would be a step in the right direction to implement as new beta rules.
Elite armies should be the only ones with bonus CP and recover CP on X rolls. Madness giving that trait and relic to the most widely available allied race with the cheapest detachment filling costs.
Eldarain wrote: Elite armies should be the only ones with bonus CP and recover CP on X rolls. Madness giving that trait and relic to the most widely available allied race with the cheapest detachment filling costs.
Ehhhh...I'd argue that the cheaper armies, ideally, are going to be the ones using the most Command Points and should potentially have just as many options as elite armies with the bonus CP/recover CP on X rolls.
The problem comes down, however, to the fact that Stratagems don't really scale well when we get into the larger games. If things like the <Regiment> or <Chapter> or <Whatever> stratagems could be taken as scaled perks or we just had more of them in general? I think it would start to balance itself out.
As it stands, there's some stratagems that I just can't ever see being used. Either they're tied to units that are universally panned or something that people just don't give a hoot about and it becomes a big deal.
Kap'n Krump wrote: As an ork player, I kind of still don't understand/care how keywords work, but in the big FAQ, didn't they say that all armies in a detachment must share one keyword in common, and that imperium and chaos didn't count?
If so, doesn't that prohibit you from taking 'allied' guard?
It's on a DETACHMENT bases not an ARMY basis. You can still take a detachment of Astra Militarum and a detachment of Space Wolves in the same army, for example.
Kap'n Krump wrote: As an ork player, I kind of still don't understand/care how keywords work, but in the big FAQ, didn't they say that all armies in a detachment must share one keyword in common, and that imperium and chaos didn't count?
If so, doesn't that prohibit you from taking 'allied' guard?
It's on a DETACHMENT bases not an ARMY basis. You can still take a detachment of Astra Militarum and a detachment of Space Wolves in the same army, for example.
The rule was largely put in place to stop things like "I'm going to take a Guard detachment and take Celestine as one of my HQ's without bringing any Sisters" or "I'm going to take all of the best Blood Angels and Space Wolves named characters and put them in a Supreme Command".
I know i've said this before but I'll say it again. I think a good solution to soup would be to simply make it so your general determines your overall "faction" ( i.e. Astra Militarum, Custodes, etc) and if you use stratagems that are not from your faction then they will have a 1-2 CP tax to use them. This way there are no hidden recycle warlords feeding CPs to the custodes jetbikes, one of those guys will have to be general if you want a chance to use their stratagems. Special case armies like Inquisition could be an exception if they are warlord, or better yet they have their own pool of "generic" and not ridiculous stratagems that could work on all imperials (same with ynnarrii).
Also giving a fat bonus of some kind to armies taking a pure mono faction would be nice, like Brigades and Battalions only provide their new full CP value if you have a mono army, if not they could generate the OLD value.
I didn't bother reading the seven pages, but my vote is simple: Declare a primary faction, and gain CPs from detachments of that faction. Allied detachments grant minimal or no CPs.
That's assuming the entire thing doesn't get a complete rework sometime.
Elbows wrote: I didn't bother reading the seven pages, but my vote is simple: Declare a primary faction, and gain CPs from detachments of that faction. Allied detachments grant minimal or no CPs.
That's assuming the entire thing doesn't get a complete rework sometime.
Thats an even simpler way to do it! and simple is good, I like it
On one level I'd like to nuke soup into the ground so no one would take it to a tournament. If you want to play around with allies you can - but it shouldn't be a no brainer. Under the current rules it always will be without a major drawback which isn't currently in the game.
This might be a scrub mentality - but I like the idea of being an "X" player and getting the best out of your book. Books should then be buffed accordingly if they are bad rather than being in limbo for fear of buffing the soup that is dominating the current meta.
For the actual game I think the solution to the question is just killing CP farming abilities. As was suggested change them for "you get an extra CP or 2" and see where that gets you. Its clearly far too valuable to the point where its autotake across almost every faction that can do it. The fact Guard can do it more efficiently is a symptom.
I think there is an argument that say a brigade of Marines should offer you a lot more CP than a brigade of Guard - or there should be other detachments that vary by faction - but that just adds more complexity and GW can barely balance as it is. I don't think anyone wants to go back to formations even if the idea originally wasn't the "take 3 of this overpowered unit, give a further bonus" that it became.
Martel732 wrote: There would be less CP farming if IG stuff cost more fething points.
Well I can't argue with IS being 5 points per model but 6 is too much considering Kabalites exist now. Even then the extra 60 points isn't going to kill the farm.
IMO Your Warlord choice should dictate what stratagems you have access to as well as dictate what faction you get CP’s for (ie. you onty get CP’s for detachments that share the same faction keyword as your Warlord - Excluding Imperial, Chaos, etc. as stated in the beta rules.)
Martel732 wrote: There would be less CP farming if IG stuff cost more fething points.
Ah yes, nerf pure IG armies to kill off CP farming. Who cares if those IG players have a bad army, they don't matter. Why address the root cause of the issue, the broken ally/keyword system, when you can just kill off IG?
Martel732 wrote: There would be less CP farming if IG stuff cost more fething points.
Ah yes, nerf pure IG armies to kill off CP farming. Who cares if those IG players have a bad army, they don't matter. Why address the root cause of the issue, the broken ally/keyword system, when you can just kill off IG?
Or that the current CP generation method is broken. Also, I can do the same thing with CSM,TS,DG and Chaos Demons. Perhaps not as well, but its still easy CP and screeners.
