Rules to prevent cheap Command Point 'generating' factions from being abused. Update 6/22 revised version with updated detachments.
Idea 1.
Spoiler:
Detachment Revisions Command points are based on the overall points limit of the game and detachments do not add points, they reduce them.
The starting command point total is 1 command point for every full 100 points being played. For example, in a 1750 point game, each player would start with 17 CPs. In a 2000 point game, if a player only has an army of 1997, that player still gets 20 starting command points because the amount is based on the points limit of the game. This Detachment system is for 2500 points and under. The recommended max number of detachments per army is five.
Each detachment subtracts the following amounts from the starting command point total. Dedicated Transports are 'up to 1 per each other choice which includes INFANTRY models' for all detachments.
- Patrol Detachment: -2 Command Points (1 HQ, 1-2 Troops, 0-1 Elites, 0-1 Fast Attack, 0-1 Heavy, 0-1 Flyer)
[Each Drukhari Patrol Detachment after the first is -1 Command Point.]
Haravikk wrote: To be honest I think part of the problem with CP generation is that you can get extra CPs at all, as this was always going to be exploited.
IMO it would be better if the number of CPs per player were fixed by game size, and detachment choices could only lose CPs, not add them. This way you still balance to a degree overuse of certain detachments, but otherwise the number of CPs is the same for both players, barring character bonuses.
I like the idea. Won't ever happen because it's a good idea, but still a good idea.
You start with PL/5 (Agreed Points Limit / 100 rounded for matched play) Command Points. e.g if you have 110 PL in your army you begin with 22 Command points. A 1500 point limit game would have each player start with 15 points (even if you only take 1499 points etc.), a 1750 point limit game would have each player starting with 18 points, and so on.
A Brigade is -0 points.
A Battalion is -1 point.
A Super-Heavy Detachment or Air Wing Detachment is -2 points.
A Vanguard, Spearhead or Outrider detachment is -3 points.
A Supreme Command detachment is -4 points.
A Super-Heavy Auxiliary Detachment and Fortification Network is -5 Command Points
An Auxiliary Support Detachment is -7 points.
To a minimum of 1.
Idea 2.
Spoiler:
Make CP only usable by the detachment FACTION that generated it, that faction keyword cannot be Chaos, Imperium, Aeldari, Ynnari, or Tyranids, as per the Battle Brothers rule in the April FAQ.
Idea 3.
Spoiler:
Remove CP generated from detachments, instead make CP based on the points level of the game, or 1CP per X amount of points--i.e., 1CP per 150 points. Also remove CP generating relics, warlord traits, and special rules.
Because 40k devolving into Guard vs Eldar is fun, right? Because that is all this rule will do. It also ignores the fact that you don't need a <REGIMENT> detachment to unlock stratagems, just an ASTRA MILITARUM one.
It's not a bad idea, but personally I really like that you can dump a lot of CPs into a smaller detachment, as it feels very fluffy to represent your strategy hinging around an Astartes strike team for example.
For balance purposes I'm not sure it would make a big difference, so I think the extra book-keeping probably isn't worth it overall.
I think the big problem with CP abuse are the armies that can most easily fill out those high CP detachments; when it comes to guard GW has never had any apparent idea of how to build a sane guard list, it always seems to end up absurdly cheap with weird structural shenanigans.
BaconCatBug wrote: Because 40k devolving into Guard vs Eldar is fun, right? Because that is all this rule will do. It also ignores the fact that you don't need a <REGIMENT> detachment to unlock stratagems, just an ASTRA MILITARUM one.
Your first statement is hyperbole. This wouldn't kill mixed factions, just weaken them. Besides, some people actually like playing single factions and against them.
Edit: Also, if individual codices cannot stand on their own, that's the problem. Those codex books need to be addressed. Armies shouldn't be dependent on allies to be competitive.
Out of curiousity, how many detachments have you made or know that people make that aren't <FACTION> specific?. Ynnari? What other armies wouldn't choose a faction specific detachment to gain their codex bonuses?
BaconCatBug wrote: Because 40k devolving into Guard vs Eldar is fun, right? Because that is all this rule will do. It also ignores the fact that you don't need a <REGIMENT> detachment to unlock stratagems, just an ASTRA MILITARUM one.
Your first statement is hyperbole. This wouldn't kill mixed factions, just weaken them. Besides, some people actually like playing single factions and against them.
Edit: Also, if individual codices cannot stand on their own, that's the problem. Those codex books need to be addressed. Armies shouldn't be dependent on allies to be competitive.
Out of curiousity, how many detachments have you made or know that people make that aren't <FACTION> specific?. Ynnari? What other armies wouldn't choose a faction specific detachment to gain their codex bonuses?
Actually, Ynnari have to be FACTION-specific now. No more souping in a single detachment with them.
I don't hate the OP's proposed rule, but I'm not that against a CP battery detachment either. The extra book keeping sounds annoying but not so annoying as to be problematic. Letting guard generate CP for your Blood Angels sounds more like a symptom than a problem. Ideally, you'd make each faction roughly as good at CP generation as others so that taking allies primarily for extra CP isn't as appealing. The main drawback to this that I see is that armies that don't want to take batallions or brigades won't get to use their fun and flavorful stratagems as often. My craftworld troops are fine but not especially cheap or impressive, so I tend not to field batallions of them. As a result, I'd be likely to only have a single CP (plus the 3 battleforged ones) to spend on their stratagems. So if I want to webway in 2 asuryani units in my harlequin/asuryani/drukhari army, I'll only have 1 CP to spend on craftworld sttratagems.
Just keep the ability to take allies to the smaller factions. Simple.
Allow harlequins, deathwacth, gen cult, sisters, inquisition, ad mech, custodes, grey knights etc, to take allies. Just make illegal to ally SM and IG units.
Blackie wrote: Just keep the ability to take allies to the smaller factions. Simple.
Allow harlequins, deathwacth, gen cult, sisters, inquisition, ad mech, custodes, grey knights etc, to take allies. Just make illegal to ally SM and IG units.
Because IG have never worked with SM ever in the history of the universe.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skchsan wrote: What if PL became primary CP generator rather than detachment types?
Every 10PL = 1CP. Rescale CP generated via detachments to +1/3/5 to special/battalion/brigade respectively.
I like this idea, but I dislike the PL aspect for matched play. Should be 1 CP per 200 points, rounding down.
Wyldhunt wrote: Letting guard generate CP for your Blood Angels sounds more like a symptom than a problem. Ideally, you'd make each faction roughly as good at CP generation as others so that taking allies primarily for extra CP isn't as appealing.
During the preview of 8th, I thought GW designers claimed there were going to be faction specific detachments. Though, maybe I misheard or misunderstood what they were saying in an interview. That could possibly alleviate CP generation problems for specific armies..
CPs based on points with some added extras for detachment types is definitely interesting.
To be honest I think part of the problem with CP generation is that you can get extra CPs at all, as this was always going to be exploited.
IMO it would be better if the number of CPs per player were fixed by game size, and detachment choices could only lose CPs, not add them. This way you still balance to a degree overuse of certain detachments, but otherwise the number of CPs is the same for both players, barring character bonuses.
Haravikk wrote: To be honest I think part of the problem with CP generation is that you can get extra CPs at all, as this was always going to be exploited.
IMO it would be better if the number of CPs per player were fixed by game size, and detachment choices could only lose CPs, not add them. This way you still balance to a degree overuse of certain detachments, but otherwise the number of CPs is the same for both players, barring character bonuses.
I like the idea. Won't ever happen because it's a good idea, but still a good idea.
You start with PL/5 (Agreed Points Limit / 100 rounded for matched play) Command Points. e.g if you have 110 PL in your army you begin with 22 Command points. A 1500 point limit game would have each player start with 15 points (even if you only take 1499 points etc.), a 1750 point limit game would have each player starting with 18 points, and so on.
A Brigade is -0 points. A Battalion is -1 point. A Super-Heavy Detachment or Air Wing Detachment is -2 points. A Vanguard, Spearhead or Outrider detachment is -3 points. A Supreme Command detachment is -4 points. A Super-Heavy Auxiliary Detachment and Fortification Network is -5 Command Points An Auxiliary Support Detachment is -7 points.
Probably would adjust the higher end of the detachments a bit, depending on if said detachments are being either incentivized or not used because of adjustments. But other than that it's a nice idea
I think I might just only allow detachments that are the same chapter faction as your warlord to generate CP. I'd also probably make the warlord have to come from the largest detachment points wise.
Allies should be possible but not automatic or obviously better than a solo faction army.
Haravikk wrote: To be honest I think part of the problem with CP generation is that you can get extra CPs at all, as this was always going to be exploited.
IMO it would be better if the number of CPs per player were fixed by game size, and detachment choices could only lose CPs, not add them. This way you still balance to a degree overuse of certain detachments, but otherwise the number of CPs is the same for both players, barring character bonuses.
I like the idea. Won't ever happen because it's a good idea, but still a good idea.
You start with PL/5 (Agreed Points Limit / 100 rounded for matched play) Command Points. e.g if you have 110 PL in your army you begin with 22 Command points. A 1500 point limit game would have each player start with 15 points (even if you only take 1499 points etc.), a 1750 point limit game would have each player starting with 18 points, and so on.
A Brigade is -0 points.
A Battalion is -1 point.
A Super-Heavy Detachment or Air Wing Detachment is -2 points.
A Vanguard, Spearhead or Outrider detachment is -3 points.
A Supreme Command detachment is -4 points.
A Super-Heavy Auxiliary Detachment and Fortification Network is -5 Command Points
An Auxiliary Support Detachment is -7 points.
To a minimum of 1.
I've added this to the original post. Also, for this style to work, many of these detachments would likely need to be streamlined in the sense that the minimum requirements in the detachment would be all the units that could be taken. Few or no additional choices in each detachment available, otherwise players would just overload each detachment to avoid buying into another.
I'm not totally sold on the numbers but I get where you're coming from. 11 CP for 3 specialist slots would be somewhere between very nice and generous (certainly way better than the current 6). More importantly it would remove the negativity from builds I like.
Shas'O'Ceris wrote: I'm not totally sold on the numbers but I get where you're coming from. 11 CP for 3 specialist slots would be somewhere between very nice and generous (certainly way better than the current 6). More importantly it would remove the negativity from builds I like.
The points and detachment penalties need some slight adjustments to get everything right, but overall it's a good idea.
I was looking at guard cp batteries, and giving it some thought, and came looking for a place to post my idea. Here seems appropriate, how about approaching the problem from the other direction? Rather than going after guard, how about spreading the love?
*Integrated training*
costs 180 points, 1 relic slot and 1 warlord slot, may be taken by your warlord in an army that only consists of pure <faction keyword>, eg all blood angels detachments in an army only, all space wolves only, all sisters of the bleeding heart sorority, etc etc. May not be taken by imperial guard, or anyone that is a filthy cp battery.
Grants +5cp to the army, may roll a 5+ on every spent cp to regain a cp, may roll a 5+ on every enemy strategem used to regain a cp.
Basically a guard cp battery without the guard, to represent the integrated training of a 'pure' army. The downside is the lack of cheap chaff from the guard infantry squads, the upside is you can take 2nd and 3rd relics from you 'main' force and don't require the battery to be the warlord.
Its easy to look at Guard, because they are the most glaring example of a staple on ally to army lists to generate CP.
The problem is twofold, 1) Elite armies love using CP but struggle to generate them on their own, and 2) Having lots of chaff bodies floating around helps immensely in protecting those same elite armies. It creates a situation where cheap swarmy troop infantry is way over valued by the game, to the point where elite troop infantry is plotted out almost completely. If we fix Guard CP batteries, we also need to fix CHAOS CP batteries. You know, Cultists. Chaos Batallions tend to cost a bit more points than Guard ones true, but its ultimately a wash since Chaos would be buying those Daemon Prince and Sorcerer HQs anyway. A fix that addresses CP for everyone would help all armies, because it would make Imperial Forces less dependent on Guard to function, and it would allow Chaos armies to explore other troop options aside from Cultists Right now, cheap troop infantry is chocking the variety out of the game. I agree that a CP system that allocates CP based on the size of the game is the overall fairest solution. The real issue as others have pointed out is that GW is prevented from balancing the power of strategems by army access because all armies have the same access via alliances! So it must be that the access should be equivalent.
A guard specific fix to the problem would be to bring back the Platoon = 1 Troop Choice. Anyone who played Guard in 5th edition and before should be very familiar with this. In order to qualify as a troop choice you must purchase a Platoon Command Squad and at least 2 Infantry Squads. You could then take further units such as Special Weapon and Heavy Weapon teams in the Platoon. This would make a guard battalion sky leap in price instead of needing 2x company commanders and 3x infantry squads, you would need to ally in 2x company commaners, 3x platoon command squads, and 6x infantry squads. Many armies would still ally this formation in for the additional CP and screening bodies, but it would cost as much as 2 Guard Battalions currently and drastically cut down on players ability to 'slot' this into a list, and lower the amount of CP you get from AM. It would not have a big effect on AM pure lists, because they tend to have more CP then they can use effectively anyway.
In my opinion this would fix a lot of the issues with imperial soup, however it doesn't particularly help with Chaos soup and the issue of cheap cultists. removing cultists from Codex CSM and implementing a similar structure in a citadel release of Renegades and Heretics isn't as graceful, as it leaves CSM with only one basic troop, and it doesn't make sense for R&H to have an organized command structure in the same way as AM. Obviously Cultists are a problem that needs to be fixed as well. Although Cultists far more limited equipment options helps keep them as a lesser threat than Guard Squads... look out, they can take a HEAVY STUBBER...
My initial response to Akean's proposal is negative. First they it either includes a mechanism not currently in the game, which could set performance fir all kinds of special rules (I think aos does this). Second is that it would work well for the armies that could take ig anyways, especially in fluff for what that's worth,
so why bother?
I do think that battalion gives 1 too many cp, and outrider/spearhead/vanguard 1 too few. But this is still an issue with heavy infantry troops not feeling worth their points.
Guard get 4ptsX10models and csm do too, tau and admech get 7ptsX5models. There are lots of batteries, ig is just too efficient at it by a little bit. Imo there should be no getting cp back.
Shas'O'Ceris wrote: My initial response to Akean's proposal is negative. First they it either includes a mechanism not currently in the game, which could set performance fir all kinds of special rules (I think aos does this). Second is that it would work well for the armies that could take ig anyways, especially in fluff for what that's worth,
so why bother?
I do think that battalion gives 1 too many cp, and outrider/spearhead/vanguard 1 too few. But this is still an issue with heavy infantry troops not feeling worth their points.
Guard get 4ptsX10models and csm do too, tau and admech get 7ptsX5models. There are lots of batteries, ig is just too efficient at it by a little bit. Imo there should be no getting cp back.
The term CP battery isn't necessarily applicable to Tau, Necron, Tyranids and Orks as they are the same faction. The issue at hand here is bringing in allies under imperium or chaos keyword for the sole purpose of gaining CP's to be spent to the primary, non IG or cultist detachments. Cultists are less so a problem as they have much heavier HQ tax (nearly 2~3 times) and because they're still CSM detachment and not a Chaos Daemon detachment (unless of course you're running a 6 daemon prince army, which even then, would be two CSM detachments & 1 daemons detachment).
IGCP battery costs 180 pts. That's the cost of 1 Tac squad with plas, combi plas & plas cannon. Do I take a 10 man Tac squad to build towards a SM battalion or just spend the same amount of points on a full AM battalion? Think about it.
I love, and have previously suggested, BCB's suggested rules.
The actual numbers may need fine tuning, but it's a great idea.
For instance, I think every detatchment - even brigade - should be at least 1 point.
Having crazy army composition (multiple detatchments, more air power and less boots, etc) should give you fewer CP, as you're a less organized/well-rounded force.
akaean wrote: Its easy to look at Guard, because they are the most glaring example of a staple on ally to army lists to generate CP.
The problem is twofold, 1) Elite armies love using CP but struggle to generate them on their own, and 2) Having lots of chaff bodies floating around helps immensely in protecting those same elite armies. It creates a situation where cheap swarmy troop infantry is way over valued by the game, to the point where elite troop infantry is plotted out almost completely. If we fix Guard CP batteries, we also need to fix CHAOS CP batteries. You know, Cultists. Chaos Batallions tend to cost a bit more points than Guard ones true, but its ultimately a wash since Chaos would be buying those Daemon Prince and Sorcerer HQs anyway. A fix that addresses CP for everyone would help all armies, because it would make Imperial Forces less dependent on Guard to function, and it would allow Chaos armies to explore other troop options aside from Cultists Right now, cheap troop infantry is chocking the variety out of the game. I agree that a CP system that allocates CP based on the size of the game is the overall fairest solution. The real issue as others have pointed out is that GW is prevented from balancing the power of strategems by army access because all armies have the same access via alliances! So it must be that the access should be equivalent.
A guard specific fix to the problem would be to bring back the Platoon = 1 Troop Choice. Anyone who played Guard in 5th edition and before should be very familiar with this. In order to qualify as a troop choice you must purchase a Platoon Command Squad and at least 2 Infantry Squads. You could then take further units such as Special Weapon and Heavy Weapon teams in the Platoon. This would make a guard battalion sky leap in price instead of needing 2x company commanders and 3x infantry squads, you would need to ally in 2x company commaners, 3x platoon command squads, and 6x infantry squads. Many armies would still ally this formation in for the additional CP and screening bodies, but it would cost as much as 2 Guard Battalions currently and drastically cut down on players ability to 'slot' this into a list, and lower the amount of CP you get from AM. It would not have a big effect on AM pure lists, because they tend to have more CP then they can use effectively anyway.
In my opinion this would fix a lot of the issues with imperial soup, however it doesn't particularly help with Chaos soup and the issue of cheap cultists. removing cultists from Codex CSM and implementing a similar structure in a citadel release of Renegades and Heretics isn't as graceful, as it leaves CSM with only one basic troop, and it doesn't make sense for R&H to have an organized command structure in the same way as AM. Obviously Cultists are a problem that needs to be fixed as well. Although Cultists far more limited equipment options helps keep them as a lesser threat than Guard Squads... look out, they can take a HEAVY STUBBER...
At some point though aren't we just trying to design a different game? I mean, if we need to take care of cheap Imperium batteries and cheap cultist batteries, do we need to have a look at Tyranid swarms? Honestly Tau can generate a good amount of CP with strike squads. Orks can break their Boyz swarmz into multiple detachments for CP...
At some point I have to wonder if we're trying to remove the engine to make the car less noisy. If these batteries are making the stratagem system function and effectively reducing the power of first turn charges and smite spam.... what are we actually fixing by trying day after day to remove it?
Is it the cheap bodies that make the guard CP farm broken or their regeneration ability thats the real issue.
For example Ultramarines can only regen on 5+ no stealingÂ
Choas can steel on a 5+ no regenÂ
Tau can regen 1 per strat and steal 1 cp per strategum.Â
None of the above feel broken in terms of CP.Â
Its the stacking 5+ and 5+ meaning if you start with say 14 CP not unreasonable for a guard or soup list. You get +4 due to grand strategist & unless your opponent is CP starved they'll spend say 9 thats another +3, grand strategist on 6 of those gives you another +2 which should allow you to get +1 from the last 3.Â
Thats generated 10 CP over the starting CP.Â
Tau would get +2 from their own +1.5 from the enemy +.5 from the generated CP so they generated 4CPÂ
Ultramarines start with 12 and regain +4Â CPÂ then another +1CP from that so generated 5CP.
IMHOCPÂ isn't the issue its guards broken regen combo.
Haravikk wrote: To be honest I think part of the problem with CP generation is that you can get extra CPs at all, as this was always going to be exploited.
IMO it would be better if the number of CPs per player were fixed by game size, and detachment choices could only lose CPs, not add them. This way you still balance to a degree overuse of certain detachments, but otherwise the number of CPs is the same for both players, barring character bonuses.
I like the idea. Won't ever happen because it's a good idea, but still a good idea.
You start with PL/5 (Agreed Points Limit / 100 rounded for matched play) Command Points. e.g if you have 110 PL in your army you begin with 22 Command points. A 1500 point limit game would have each player start with 15 points (even if you only take 1499 points etc.), a 1750 point limit game would have each player starting with 18 points, and so on.
A Brigade is -0 points.
A Battalion is -1 point.
A Super-Heavy Detachment or Air Wing Detachment is -2 points.
A Vanguard, Spearhead or Outrider detachment is -3 points.
A Supreme Command detachment is -4 points.
A Super-Heavy Auxiliary Detachment and Fortification Network is -5 Command Points
An Auxiliary Support Detachment is -7 points.
To a minimum of 1.
I've added this to the original post. Also, for this style to work, many of these detachments would likely need to be streamlined in the sense that the minimum requirements in the detachment would be all the units that could be taken. Few or no additional choices in each detachment available, otherwise players would just overload each detachment to avoid buying into another.
Maxing out on a detachment should be encouraged, not penalized
Any CP generated by a detachment can only be used for that detachment. The 3 for being battleforged cc an be used for any detachment.
This can limit come super elite armies. (Knights and custodes come to mind)
Any CP generated by a detachment can only be used for that detachment. The 3 for being battleforged cc an be used for any detachment.
This can eliminate come super elite armies. (Knights and custodes come to mind)
Fixed that for you.
I'm not entirely sure why elite armies need to be limited. It takes a lot of work to make them work compared to swarms and things like Eldar.
Wouldn't the upthread suggestion of formations-cost-CP reverse it though, helping elite armies?
The only-used-in-detatchment also makes it really hard to do bookkeeping.
If things were rebalanced, I think it'd be cool if only the Warlord's detatchment's faction could take a Chapter Tactic or book stratagems. That'd cut down on soup being auto-include without entirely eliminating it. And would make sense, as the force is fighting using the Warlord's preferred tactics, not their own. Might overly nerf Allies, though. I like BCBs suggestions more.
Bharring wrote: Wouldn't the upthread suggestion of formations-cost-CP reverse it though, helping elite armies?
The only-used-in-detatchment also makes it really hard to do bookkeeping.
If things were rebalanced, I think it'd be cool if only the Warlord's detatchment's faction could take a Chapter Tactic or book stratagems. That'd cut down on soup being auto-include without entirely eliminating it. And would make sense, as the force is fighting using the Warlord's preferred tactics, not their own. Might overly nerf Allies, though. I like BCBs suggestions more.
I think ultimately trying to use CP to reward purity isn't looking at the big picture. There are factions that function pure. They're on top now and forcing it on everyone else just widens the gap. The reason for this really isn't CP related, its simply that efficient troops provide flexible and efficient means of counterplay to things like objectives, psychics, and charges. They're just kind of a basic tool every army needs and in Custodes we saw the extremes needed to even try and make a faction work without them (and they still really don't). If anything, I see the CP carrot as just a way to get everyone to realize that, yeah, Guard are the way GW has chosen to give a bunch of armies access to the kind of foundation every army needs to succeed. The other route is to actually give everyone a model for this job, but why? Why make a 4 PPM Custodes martyr unit when Guard exist and fill this role in the fluff all the time?
I've come around to the point where I felt I was early in my Warmachine career. I wanted to play all heavies all the time, but quickly found myself at the mercy of things with longer threat ranges. Eventually I started throwing a cheap unit in the way to block charge lanes and learned the value of a tarpit to blunt the value of an extreme alpha strike. 40k feels like its in that place right now, but rather than accept an available solution to the problems they're facing, players are seeking to rewrite the game less than a year in without really gaining anything from the change. Punish people for taking Guard and watch as a bunch of people switch to complaining about the lack of viable tactics against extreme threat ranges in armies that can't buy a 1W model for less than 1% of a list. Guard allies aren't dominating the scene; just letting a pretty wide swath of sub armies compete with the 2-3 "pure" codexes that have all the tools everyone else has to soup for. It really seems like soup does more good for the game than anything. I honestly don't understand the constant tirade.
Mchagen wrote: it doesn't reward 'faction pure' armies either. It rewards fewer detachments.
Given you can't ally within a detachment, that's fundamentally the same thing.
Personally, I quite like dividing my pure armies into multiple detachments. I'd actually like to see the Elite/FA/Heavy Support detachments get a CP bump, as I currently feel like there's not quite enough incentive to do this, but when it works I like the feeling of dedicated battlefield roles under the command of separate officers.
No its not fundamentally the same thing. Also, as I've said earlier in the thread, in order for the current proposed detachment system to work, there need to be updated detachments.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skchsan wrote: Maxing out on a detachment should be encouraged, not penalized
If a player can get away with using only specific choices in one detachment, then that player will choose the best detachment to maximize their command points. That leads to specific detachments being pointless In this proposed change.
Ideally, this system will encourage maxing out detachments, but also limiting the non-mandatory options in each so there isn't a 'go-to' detachment. It will still be flexible if the detachments are set with the right amount of choices along with the correct CP penalty.
Currently, a battalion can fit most army compositions--why have steeper penalties for taking a vanguard or outrider if a player can take the minimum troops choices (in points), then max out on elites and fast attack.in that same detachment. Updating the detachment options will fix that issue.
Mchagen wrote: No its not fundamentally the same thing. Also, as I've said earlier in the thread, in order for the current proposed detachment system to work, there need to be updated detachments.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skchsan wrote: Maxing out on a detachment should be encouraged, not penalized
If a player can get away with using only specific choices in one detachment, then that player will choose the best detachment to maximize their command points. That leads to specific detachments being pointless In this proposed change.
Ideally, this system will encourage maxing out detachments, but also limiting the non-mandatory options in each so there isn't a 'go-to' detachment. It will still be flexible if the detachments are set with the right amount of choices along with the correct CP penalty.
Currently, a battalion can fit most army compositions--why have steeper penalties for taking a vanguard or outrider if a player can take the minimum troops choices (in points), then max out on elites and fast attack.in that same detachment. Updating the detachment options will fix that issue.
Well that'ts because Battlion only allows max 3 specialization slots per detachment. My RW army for example could be composed of 9 FA slots spread across 2 detachments - under the system where the old min is the new max, why should i be forced to take 3 detachments, threby taking more CP penalties, when I can fit them into 2 detachments? How does this not 'doesn't hurt' elite armies?
You say your system encourages fewer detachments, but are seriously hamstringing certain lists to be able to composed in fewest detachments possible by forcing smaller detachments.
skchsan wrote: Well that'ts because Battlion only allows max 3 specialization slots per detachment. My RW army for example could be composed of 9 FA slots spread across 2 detachments - under the system where the old min is the new max, why should i be forced to take 3 detachments, threby taking more CP penalties, when I can fit them into 2 detachments? How does this not 'doesn't hurt' elite armies?
You say your system encourages fewer detachments, but are seriously hamstringing certain lists to be able to composed in fewest detachments possible by forcing smaller detachments.
The old min is not the new max, I said there would still be options in each detachment, but that they would be limited.
I'm a fan of supporting minimizing the number of detatchments taken, but not necessarily supporting maxing out the detatchments.
They're not quite the same thing. Minimizing number of detatchments means things like taking a 10-man Tac squad, or using two of your open Heavy Support slots instead of adding a 3 FA through a Vanguard. If you require detatchments to be fully filled, you make it unreasonable to take 2 Elites or 5 Troops.
If a Brigade wants to take every FA slot but only a few HS slots, or vice versa, that doesn't seem to be a problem.
Which Detatchments do you think would be entirely pointless under that scheme? I'm not seeing any, but haven't checked each one.
Bharring wrote: I'm a fan of supporting minimizing the number of detatchments taken, but not necessarily supporting maxing out the detatchments.
They're not quite the same thing. Minimizing number of detatchments means things like taking a 10-man Tac squad, or using two of your open Heavy Support slots instead of adding a 3 FA through a Vanguard. If you require detatchments to be fully filled, you make it unreasonable to take 2 Elites or 5 Troops.
If a Brigade wants to take every FA slot but only a few HS slots, or vice versa, that doesn't seem to be a problem.
Which Detatchments do you think would be entirely pointless under that scheme? I'm not seeing any, but haven't checked each one.
It applies to the three specialist slots, namely vanguard, outrider and spearhead deteachments. Although super-heavy, air wing and supreme command could also fall under 'specialist' detachments, but it already comes with heavier restrictions.
Having said, certain armies with poor troop choices would be penalized two-fold if maxing out within specialist detachments were discouraged since: you already sacrificed CP gain (loss in the current proposed system) for the sake of not paying troop tax AND being forced to take further CP loss by being forced to take more detachments. Of course, the severity of penalty in the proposed system would vary in degree depending on how the CP loss system is balanced, but at the end of the day, list building will revert back to 6th ed before the introduction of formations in 7th where every list MUST take troops because it makes exponentially more sense to just outright pay the troop tax to get that certain unit you want.
An Armored Battalion would still want a Spearhead detatchment (or even multiple) would it not? You still could play without troops, it's just less beneficial to?
I assumed that the required slots would still be required, and the optional slots would still be optional.
I'd rather the majority of armies be better fielding the CAD, while still making any currently-legal army legal. The CP cost of playing with no troops I saw as a positive, not a negative. That might just be my bias.
For specifics, a CWE army with Supreme Command, Air Wing, and Outriders would do poorly on CP generation - and I think that's a good thing. A Battallion/Brigade-based army at the same points, but with fewer FA and more troops, should have more tactical flexibility (CP).
Which factions/army styles would be unfairly impacted?
Bharring wrote: An Armored Battalion would still want a Spearhead detatchment (or even multiple) would it not? You still could play without troops, it's just less beneficial to?
I assumed that the required slots would still be required, and the optional slots would still be optional.
I'd rather the majority of armies be better fielding the CAD, while still making any currently-legal army legal. The CP cost of playing with no troops I saw as a positive, not a negative. That might just be my bias.
For specifics, a CWE army with Supreme Command, Air Wing, and Outriders would do poorly on CP generation - and I think that's a good thing. A Battallion/Brigade-based army at the same points, but with fewer FA and more troops, should have more tactical flexibility (CP).
Which factions/army styles would be unfairly impacted?
What's currently being suggested is that optional max slots be reduced, which would hinder certain armies that are already sacrificing CP generation to further expend CP's to make their armies legal.
Furthermore, when you are paying troop tax to generate more CP's, where are those CP's being spent? Currently, troops only serve as screens & CP generation. For armies whose troops make poor screens, it only has 1 purpose - which is to generate CP's.
Don't get me wrong - forcing people to use troops by granting benefits is a great system. However, it's a biased system that benefits armies with viable troop choices.
What would be more fair is that if the rule of three applied to troops as well so that a given army isn't spamming the most point efficient troops 12 times to unlock two brigade detachments.
I was thinking about this, and I think the best and easiest solution is to make Command Points something that your army "buys".
For those of you who played Malifaux, this will be familiar. You get a cache of "soulstones" which can be used for various things, such as giving yourself a positive flip to a card draw or preventing damage, etc. You get these in your cache through leftover points in list building. So a smaller crew will typically have more soulstones.
Applying this to 40K. Lets say we make each Command Point cost 10 points. So in a 2K point game, I could take a 1,900 point army, and spend 100 points for 10 command points. I'm not sure on the actual value of a command point, but for the sake of this example 10 per is a round number. Basically to get more command points, players must take a smaller army. Against a player with fewer command points you have less points on the table, but more flexibility from your special CP abilities.
Obviously the pricing would need to be adjusted, and perhaps obsec would need to be strengthened so people take troops (or require at least one troop in every detachment).
akaean wrote: I was thinking about this, and I think the best and easiest solution is to make Command Points something that your army "buys".
For those of you who played Malifaux, this will be familiar. You get a cache of "soulstones" which can be used for various things, such as giving yourself a positive flip to a card draw or preventing damage, etc. You get these in your cache through leftover points in list building. So a smaller crew will typically have more soulstones.
Applying this to 40K. Lets say we make each Command Point cost 10 points. So in a 2K point game, I could take a 1,900 point army, and spend 100 points for 10 command points. I'm not sure on the actual value of a command point, but for the sake of this example 10 per is a round number. Basically to get more command points, players must take a smaller army. Against a player with fewer command points you have less points on the table, but more flexibility from your special CP abilities.
Obviously the pricing would need to be adjusted, and perhaps obsec would need to be strengthened so people take troops (or require at least one troop in every detachment).
This approach would need entire overhaul of the game system as we have it. I think it's best to keep with the resources we have on hand (i.e. power levels, points, detachments, command benefits) and alter those around rather than changing entirely how army building and CP usages work.
the current subtractive suggestion is essentially the same system we have in terms of how an army is built, how CP are generated (or lost), how stratagems benefit the said army, but overall leverage and even out the CP discrepancies between armies with good/cheap troops and those with worthless/expensive troop choices.
Well, with the insistence of some people saying you can use Jury Rigging infinitely (backed up by FACEBOOK no less!), I'd love that system to have literally unkillable baneblades unless you take off ALL my wounds.
Soup isn't doing more good than harm. You can't write a codex assuming you're going to ally. They should be a compliment, NOT the current crutch that they are.
Agreed. If it was up to me, I'd just outright ban allies in matched play games. After all, matched play is supposed to be the more "balanced" version of the game system allowing for a competitive play. Currently as it stands, the ally system is too exploitable and should just be for narrative or open play options.
skchsan wrote: Agreed. If it was up to me, I'd just outright ban allies in matched play games. After all, matched play is supposed to be the more "balanced" version of the game system allowing for a competitive play. Currently as it stands, the ally system is too exploitable and should just be for narrative or open play options.
It doesn't need to be banned. What needs to happen is making armies viable by themselves.
skchsan wrote: Agreed. If it was up to me, I'd just outright ban allies in matched play games. After all, matched play is supposed to be the more "balanced" version of the game system allowing for a competitive play. Currently as it stands, the ally system is too exploitable and should just be for narrative or open play options.
The problem with this is GW has written codex with the assumption underlying it that you will have a Battalion minimum regardless of army or such and that you'll be bringing atleast some way to regain or steel CP'S.
To remove the ally system now would just upend one sort of broken for an even more messy broken.
Additionally allies is a sneaky way to get people to start second etc armies oh a few infantry squads and some commanders, of then some heavy weapons, then a might aswell bring some nlos shooting cause thats perfectly balanced. Well its almost 1k may aswell just make it 1k.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: It doesn't need to be banned. What needs to happen is making armies viable by themselves.
Armies ARE viable themselves - it's just not hyper-competitive. Why spend 305 points on 3x scouts, lieutenant and captain when you can buy something that does nearly same amount of damage for 180 points on 3x infantry squads and 2 company commanders?
Mix-and-matching for competitiveness needs to be curbed for matched plays.
Sadly GW's mantra seems to be "Play with all your models, regardless of faction" and seemed to realise "Whoops this would really annoy the people who like to pretend there is even an iota of balance in this game" and made the matched play rules as an afterthought.
I have heard rumours that GW wanted to scrap points altogether and only have power levels, but the playtesters threatened to raise hell if they tried to push it. I can't verify it, but it's not unbelievable.
The easiest solution is either that that you can only generate CP for detachments of your warlord's faction. Only problem is that it doesn't stop pure Guard armies showing up with 25+ CP anyway.
Alternatively, you can only spend CP generated by detachments on that detachments stratagems (the free 3 would be universal). That again stops the usefulness of 180 point battery battalions. The only spanner in the works would be where to the negative for Aux detachments get taken from, so not an Ideal solution. Perhaps make the negative come from the default 3 and limit aux detachments to 3 max, regardless?
BaconCatBug wrote: Alternatively, you can only spend CP generated by detachments on that detachments stratagems (the free 3 would be universal). That again stops the usefulness of 180 point battery battalions. The only spanner in the works would be where to the negative for Aux detachments get taken from, so not an Ideal solution. Perhaps make the negative come from the default 3 and limit aux detachments to 3 max, regardless?
Strange this is similar to my original post, but you didn't approve of it, 'Eldar vs IG games would be all that we'd see.' Though I figured it was because I suggested using specific <REGIMENT>, <CHAPTER>, etc keywords instead of basing it on codex-level keywords such as Astra Militarum or Adeptus Astartes. I assume this suggestion would use that level of keyword to define 'that detachments stratagems.'
That's the change I made to the original idea based on the feedback in this thread. But when I saw the post of the subtractive idea, I figured that could work better because it had less book-keeping. It's more work to balance it all though.
I've been working on play-testing the subtractive system and getting the values and FoC slots right for each detachment, but haven't played many games lately. Tweaking my original idea would be far less work and only requires minimal book-keeping, it may be what my group ends up using.
BaconCatBug wrote: Alternatively, you can only spend CP generated by detachments on that detachments stratagems (the free 3 would be universal). That again stops the usefulness of 180 point battery battalions. The only spanner in the works would be where to the negative for Aux detachments get taken from, so not an Ideal solution. Perhaps make the negative come from the default 3 and limit aux detachments to 3 max, regardless?
That was the originally posted idea; the problem is that it doesn't prevent the excessive CP generation at all, it just stops you using it on other detachments, which aren't necessarily the problem. Personally I like the idea of being able to dump CPs into a small strike force if my strategy hinges around it, it's very fluffy for a bigger force to act as a vehicle for an Astartes drop pod assault or whatever. So yeah, it's a well-intentioned idea, but it doesn't really solve the root problem, which is armies that can generate excessive CPs.
This is why the subtractive method is the better overall solution; it puts a ceiling on CPs so in the worst case there is an absolute maximum to how many CPs an abusive list can get, and by having detachments subtract from that pool you're encouraged to take as few detachments as possible, i.e- actually filling them out rather than just taking the bare minimum units to get extra CPs.
Haravikk wrote: That was the originally posted idea; the problem is that it doesn't prevent the excessive CP generation at all, it just stops you using it on other detachments, which aren't necessarily the problem. Personally I like the idea of being able to dump CPs into a small strike force if my strategy hinges around it, it's very fluffy for a bigger force to act as a vehicle for an Astartes drop pod assault or whatever. So yeah, it's a well-intentioned idea, but it doesn't really solve the root problem, which is armies that can generate excessive CPs.
This is why the subtractive method is the better overall solution; it puts a ceiling on CPs so in the worst case there is an absolute maximum to how many CPs an abusive list can get, and by having detachments subtract from that pool you're encouraged to take as few detachments as possible, i.e- actually filling them out rather than just taking the bare minimum units to get extra CPs.
[Responding to the added underlined emphasis].
Before we started testing the subtractive system, it was suggested that battalions have a min points value. That could be as simple as adding a restriction to a battalion so that each one is a minimum of 20% of the total points amount of the army. For example, in a 2000 point game, each battalion must be at least 400 points.
I think that is still a viable option if we decide to revert to the original idea.
Mchagen wrote: Before we started testing the subtractive system, it was suggested that battalions have a min points value. That could be as simple as adding a restriction to a battalion so that each one is a minimum of 20% of the total points amount of the army. For example, in a 2000 point game, each battalion must be at least 400 points.
That could work, but I think it would need to be a flat number of points rather than a percentage, otherwise in larger games you could struggle to hit the minimum points cost. I mean, a Battalion used to be pretty much all you'd get in a 2,000 point game, except maybe a small allied detachment, so I'd look for the minimum to be at least 1,000 points, and you shouldn't even be able to consider a Brigade unless you can put 2,000 into it (maybe 2,500 because of the tripled CP bonus?).
You'd still get people putting in the bare minimum, but it'd definitely curb some of the excess, I'm just not 100% on what the points (or power level) requirements should be.
Yes, the Force Organization Chart was all you'd usually need in 2000 or less in previous editions, but you could still use it in low points games--as low as 400 for most armies. 40k in 40.
That's why I don't like a fixed amount because it skews the games towards a specific points level, and I like playing lower point games as well.
Strange that you brought up not being able to fill out a 20% detachment, but then suggest 1000 point min. Which would require a game of 5000+ points using 20%. Anything at that level is already niche, which is typically open or narrative play anyway.
Mchagen wrote: Before we started testing the subtractive system, it was suggested that battalions have a min points value. That could be as simple as adding a restriction to a battalion so that each one is a minimum of 20% of the total points amount of the army. For example, in a 2000 point game, each battalion must be at least 400 points.
I think that is still a viable option if we decide to revert to the original idea.
I feel like this will end up as an unnecessary additional constraint that ends up punishing battalions more than help with the CP problem.
Simpler the system, the better.
A true fix to this CP problem is make Command Reroll stratagem "once per turn" only, with 0 CP cost.
Mchagen wrote: Before we started testing the subtractive system, it was suggested that battalions have a min points value. That could be as simple as adding a restriction to a battalion so that each one is a minimum of 20% of the total points amount of the army. For example, in a 2000 point game, each battalion must be at least 400 points.
I think that is still a viable option if we decide to revert to the original idea.
I feel like this will end up as an unnecessary additional constraint that ends up punishing battalions more than help with the CP problem.
Simpler the system, the better.
A true fix to this CP problem is make Command Reroll stratagem "once per turn" only, with 0 CP cost.
That's the significant part of the command point problem though--cheap battalions for specific armies providing easy CP. So yes, it would punish cheap battalions, because they're broken currently.
How in any way whatsoever, is your suggestion a 'true fix' to that issue?
Bit off tangent but whatabout to deal with the CP regeneration from "whenever you use strategem" or "for each CP you spend" allies make all such traits only work when using strategem works for strategems from that faction.
That could work and I've considered a nearly identical rule as an add on to the original idea of CP use restricted to the faction keyword of the detachment that generated them.
However, I've mixed sentiments on the CP regeneration abilities at the moment, I'd rather just have them removed. Whenever they're available as a warlord trait or relic for specific armies, it seems to be the auto-take option nearly every time. They're just too good, especially when stacked with a high starting CP amount.
Once again having one way to regain or steal extra CP isn't the main issue, it's being able to do both at the same time that makes the IG CO farm so core to competitive lists.
No other single faction comes close (Except maybe Drukari haven't read the codex to understand their weird rules).
Needing a 5+nets you usually 2-3 extra CP per game not game breaking
Needing a 6+ for both again nets you 2-3
Combining regain and steeling nets you on avarage 7-8 CP extra
You then add in stacking CP abilitys and you can end up in CP gaining which is totally broken
Mchagen wrote: How in any way whatsoever, is your suggestion a 'true fix' to that issue?
The only stratagem worth spamming CP is reroll. Take that away, and there ceases to be a reason to amass CP's.
I can make do a game with 6 CP's. I only ever feel short of maybe 2 or 3 CPs. Most lists with +10 CP's spend anywhere from 6-8 CPs per game on rerolls.
Mchagen wrote: Before we started testing the subtractive system, it was suggested that battalions have a min points value. That could be as simple as adding a restriction to a battalion so that each one is a minimum of 20% of the total points amount of the army. For example, in a 2000 point game, each battalion must be at least 400 points.
I think that is still a viable option if we decide to revert to the original idea.
I feel like this will end up as an unnecessary additional constraint that ends up punishing battalions more than help with the CP problem.
Simpler the system, the better.
A true fix to this CP problem is make Command Reroll stratagem "once per turn" only, with 0 CP cost.
That's the significant part of the command point problem though--cheap battalions for specific armies providing easy CP. So yes, it would punish cheap battalions, because they're broken currently.
How in any way whatsoever, is your suggestion a 'true fix' to that issue?
Mchagen wrote: How in any way whatsoever, is your suggestion a 'true fix' to that issue?
The only stratagem worth spamming CP is reroll. Take that away, and there ceases to be a reason to amass CP's.
I can make do a game with 6 CP's. I only ever feel short of maybe 2 or 3 CPs. Most lists with +10 CP's spend anywhere from 6-8 CPs per game on rerolls.
That would hevily depend on your army, and subfaction.
Mchagen wrote: How in any way whatsoever, is your suggestion a 'true fix' to that issue?
The only stratagem worth spamming CP is reroll. Take that away, and there ceases to be a reason to amass CP's.
I can make do a game with 6 CP's. I only ever feel short of maybe 2 or 3 CPs. Most lists with +10 CP's spend anywhere from 6-8 CPs per game on rerolls.
Uhhh not so much. My BA and Iknights both LOVE munching down CP. Captain hammer likes to burn 1 to get all ragey pre-game, 2 to have a 3d6 charge coming in, 1 to get an extra d3 swings, and 3 to fight twice. Mephiston likes having those last couple as well. The knights like charging after advancing, using house raven's reroll all 1's strat, buffing their invuln, blowing up in the middle of enemies, acting on their top profile when damaged, and grabbing multiple relics and warlord traits.
How about only granting CPs for detachments of the main faction? Ie: allied detachments does not generate CP (similar to using assassins, sisters of silence etc).
So if you want allies, you’d want them solely for what they do on the battlefield, and never for CP reasons (contrary, they’d have to make up for the CPs you’d have gotten if you stayed with your main faction).
Automatically Appended Next Post: This also makes sense in that one united force with one commander who knows the military structure and culture of every unit he commands, would command it much more easily than a force of multiple factions, each with not only their own military structure and such, but also with their own language, culture, religion and so on.
Mchagen wrote: How in any way whatsoever, is your suggestion a 'true fix' to that issue?
The only stratagem worth spamming CP is reroll.
Is it the only stratagem worth using CP on?
I don't disagree with your recommendation. But I disagree with your idea that it is the 'true fix' to cheap CP generation.
Burned through 8CP in a 1000pt game with my Dark Eldar and only one was for a re-roll and there were still things I would have done if I had double the points.
If CP is a big issue - the easiest thing is to have a cap on it and maybe also restrict regen to one per turn?
I think the simplest solution would be to tie CP generation to something other than detachments, such as points spent on troops and/or HQs.
That way you are taking guardsmen because you like them, not because they give you a million CP.
They should also do something about the near unlimited CP you can get from the IG warlord + relic + BA relic, as that gets pretty silly fast, and both the IG battery and smash captain detachments are no brainers for most imperium armies anyway.
jcd386 wrote: I think the simplest solution would be to tie CP generation to something other than detachments, such as points spent on troops and/or HQs.
That way you are taking guardsmen because you like them, not because they give you a million CP.
They should also do something about the near unlimited CP you can get from the IG warlord + relic + BA relic, as that gets pretty silly fast, and both the IG battery and smash captain detachments are no brainers for most imperium armies anyway.
Force to declare a main detachment, only these can use and take Relics.
Re- implement Platoons for IG and R&H, add a bonus for that, like better morale or +1 order, etc. ( 1 Platoon command Squad, 2-5 Inantery Squads, 0-5 HWT Squads but no more then Infantery Sqads.)
Only Main detachments can use CP genereated by other detachments, which share the same keyword, as in if i run 2 Space wolve detachments, they can give over and use both relics, the additional guard detachment can't.
I've seen a lot of napkin math back on forth oh this ... but I think the solution to CP farm batteries and to some extent the proliferation of soup, is to make the following change to CP, its simple and clear but not unfair.
Command points earned by a detachment on units the same faction keyword can be spent on stratagems from their faction, if a command point originates from a different faction that CP only count for half a command point.
This is not only fluffy representing the disorganization of in controlling a combined arms army, it doesn't outright kill off CP farm detachments and soup but it hurts it big time ...
So much so it might be worth taking a battalion of 3 scouts and two cheap Hq's to power your Space marine stratagems ... rather than 3 guardsman units and the Aquilla because it only brings 2.5 usable command points to a combined arms detachment
Unrealistic uncompetative Example Imperial Soup 3CP
Supreme command - 3 Sheild Captains 1 CP Battalion - Battery battalion with Aquilla 5 CP Spearhead - 3 x las Pred's + other marine punchy stuff 1 CP
Total CP 10 if you were using it inside source faction but only 7 in reality when used across keyword to power either the shield captains or the space marines. I dont think this is unviable and a bit more balanced,
It encourages the player to look at bringing the battalion inside his actual core faction by rewarding him in extending either the spearhead or the supreme command but doesn't force the fact.
Just get rid of soups for CP generation. Your primary faction is determined by the majority pts. Any other factions within the same army does not generate CP.
Why are we defending a broken mechanism for the sake of "fluffiness"? There is no rational explanation for rewarding fluffy soups nor is there a reason to protect it.
If you want your army to be fluffy, you do it at the cost of competitiveness.
Provide me one example why AM batt + SM should be allowed in terms of game balance.
skchsan wrote: Just get rid of soups for CP generation. Your primary faction is determined by the majority pts. Any other factions within the same army does not generate CP.
Why are we defending a broken mechanism for the sake of "fluffiness"? There is no rational explanation for rewarding fluffy soups nor is there a reason to protect it.
If you want your army to be fluffy, you do it at the cost of competitiveness.
Provide me one example why AM batt + SM should be allowed in terms of game balance.
Define faction?
Do you mean codex or keyword, eg sept, hivefleet, captor, house?
As GW has clearly designed some codex's to mix and match keywords as they only realy benifit certain units.or locked charictors to a keyword.
Unfortunately it seems that there wasn't a clear universal vision of what they were trying to build with 8th edition mechanics when they started and they haven't been able to take the step back and rebalance everything if they have settled on a vision yet.
6ppm guardsmen would not only kill competitive guard, but people would just start taking skitarii rangers for chaff and not much would change. Rangers are T3 4+ with a 6++ and 30" lasguns, and shoot better then guardsmen for 7 points.
I think you could make an argument for 5ppm guardsmen, but guard would need things in exchange, like lasguns for sergeants and some of our underperforming units buffed to compensate.
6ppm guardsmen would not only kill competitive guard, but people would just start taking skitarii rangers for chaff and not much would change. Rangers are T3 4+ with a 6++ and 30" lasguns, and shoot better then guardsmen for 7 points.
I think you could make an argument for 5ppm guardsmen, but guard would need things in exchange, like lasguns for sergeants and some of our underperforming units buffed to compensate.
6ppm guardsmen would not only kill competitive guard, but people would just start taking skitarii rangers for chaff and not much would change. Rangers are T3 4+ with a 6++ and 30" lasguns, and shoot better then guardsmen for 7 points.
I think you could make an argument for 5ppm guardsmen, but guard would need things in exchange, like lasguns for sergeants and some of our underperforming units buffed to compensate.
W/e. 4 ppm is absurd.
If they are absurd, what are 6pts kabalites then i Wonder?
6ppm guardsmen would not only kill competitive guard, but people would just start taking skitarii rangers for chaff and not much would change. Rangers are T3 4+ with a 6++ and 30" lasguns, and shoot better then guardsmen for 7 points.
I think you could make an argument for 5ppm guardsmen, but guard would need things in exchange, like lasguns for sergeants and some of our underperforming units buffed to compensate.
W/e. 4 ppm is absurd.
If they are absurd, what are 6pts kabalites then i Wonder?
Are you honestly telling me that guardsmen could be 6pts but kabalites are also 6pts?
Even though kabalites literally are a budget marine statwise stripped of it's armor?
I honestly don't see the problem at all. Strategems are a new mechanic to the game and they add a semblance of command strategy that was missing in 6th and 7th. A more numerous force having greater CPs makes sense, and in the current fluff, since the siege and fall of Cadia we see Imperium forces working more closely together, the same goes for Chaos and Eldar. If you are just taking Elite Heavy infantry then you SHOULD have less CPs as you would limit your strategies on campaign. This is why when marching to war, Roman legions were supplemented with Auxiliary Cavalry, Light Infantry, Archers and Slingers. It is why when taking towns in WW2, where possible, foot regiments were supported by Tanks, air support, artillery and even paratroopers.
Play the current game for what it is rather than changing its core fundementals. Don't get me wrong, the game needs adjustments, Orks, GKs, DW and others need a boost, as do fortifications and specific units in current codices, Flamestorm Preds being an example. But CPs and Strategems are absolute core principles of the game.
Side note - I read earlier in the thread one player said that only the reroll strategem is used regularly. I utterly disagree. Just naming SM/BA and Guard Strategems that are very good include: Honour the chapter, Masterful Marksmanship, Only In death Does Duty End, Wisdom of the Ancients, Death Visions of Sanguinius, Descent of Angels, Forlorn Fury, Upon Wings of Fire, Consolidate Squads, Inspired Tactics, Vegence for Cadia, Overlapping fields of Fire, and of course the Relic ones. And the SM/BA also have Hellfire Shells and Flak Missiles, which often mean you see a single ML and HB in these lists just to take advantage of these.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also Guardsmen should be 5ppm and that would solve a lot of issues with Guard. The rule of 3 has already hit them hard with Company Commanders, Vets and HWSs so 6ppm is too steep. 5 would fine tune them I feel.
Not Online!!! wrote: Are you honestly telling me that guardsmen could be 6pts but kabalites are also 6pts?
Even though kabalites literally are a budget marine statwise stripped of it's armor?
No, kabalites should be around 9 ppm since guardians are 8 ppm.
6ppm guardsmen would not only kill competitive guard, but people would just start taking skitarii rangers for chaff and not much would change. Rangers are T3 4+ with a 6++ and 30" lasguns, and shoot better then guardsmen for 7 points.
I think you could make an argument for 5ppm guardsmen, but guard would need things in exchange, like lasguns for sergeants and some of our underperforming units buffed to compensate.
W/e. 4 ppm is absurd.
If they are absurd, what are 6pts kabalites then i Wonder?
5 ppm solves nothing for guard. What needs to come back are platoons, that would allready tripple the point cost for cp bateries whilest letting a pure guardsmen army still profit off of 4 ppm guardsmen.
@Martel, why should a kabalite cost more then a guardian?
Poly Ranger wrote: Play the current game for what it is rather than changing its core fundementals. Don't get me wrong, the game needs adjustments, Orks, GKs, DW and others need a boost, as do fortifications and specific units in current codices, Flamestorm Preds being an example. But CPs and Strategems are absolute core principles of the game.
I don't agree. But I have played the game for what it is--a broken mess. So now we [note; we is my gaming group] come up with house rules to make the game more enjoyable for both sides.
If you aren't willing to test out some extra rules for your gaming, why are you posting in this section, to tell other people how to play their games?
Not at all, I'm merely trying to understand the issue. I saw the title of the thread and was interested. After reading through there are some good ideas but I don't understand *why*. Being a core mechanic of the game, changing CP generation changes the whole concept of list building. (Imo) Whilst there are definitely things that need tweaking, I don't consider this edition the broken mess you do. 7th, 6th... now they were broken messes, when the 7th ed Eldar codex came out it truly felt like GW were trying to troll everyone.
GW are actively trying to equalize the game currently, the rule of 3 on both units and detachments between 1001-2000pts is a huge step in the right direction. As is their +1 for every extra Smite that is cast.
All armies (but 1) have access to cheap CP batteries. Imperium with Guard, Chaos with Cultists, Orks with boys and Grotz, Nids with Gaunts etc... Only Necrons off the top of my head don't. Personally I think it's a waste for people to min-max these. With the Guard one for example, the squads are so much better with a Lascannon and plasma included and the company comanders are significantly better with a plasma pistol and/or power weapon, furthermore since you've opened up those 3 heavy slots, you may as well take HWSs since they are so cheap. People min-maxing at 180pts are gimping themselves imo.
If you don't list build with an eye toward command points thats absolutely fine but no surprise when the opponent has noticably more than you. Much like when I don't take any psykers, I know I won't be stopping any powers or when I havent put any anti-air in my list, I'd better have volume of fire to make up for that -1 or -2 to hit. But that's all part of it, for some armies it's easier to overwhelm opponents with psykers, others pretty much completely ignore morale, others are hard to hit across the whole army whilst others are easier to fit more command points in. Take any of those away and you are taking away some of the variety. That's why I don't understand the problem with CPs, it's part of the characteristics of an army.
skchsan wrote: Just get rid of soups for CP generation. Your primary faction is determined by the majority pts. Any other factions within the same army does not generate CP.
I like this, but I think it might be better to keep CP segregated. I don't think you should be fielding 800 points of Blood Angels and 1200 points of Ast.Militarum to provide CP for the Blood Angels. You get 3 CP to spend anywhere, the rest are proprietary to the detachments that generated those CP, allowing detachments with identical <keyword> - ignoring keywords Chaos and Imperium.
A bit more book keeping, but probably worth it. Why does having a ton of guardsmen make the Blood Angels suddenly able to do more epic stuff?
Poly Ranger wrote: Not at all, I'm merely trying to understand the issue. I saw the title of the thread and was interested. After reading through there are some good ideas but I don't understand *why*. Being a core mechanic of the game, changing CP generation changes the whole concept of list building. (Imo) Whilst there are definitely things that need tweaking, I don't consider this edition the broken mess you do. 7th, 6th... now they were broken messes, when the 7th ed Eldar codex came out it truly felt like GW were trying to troll everyone.
Because 7th edition was bad and 8th is better than 7th, 8th must be good and not flawed? There are some pretty glaring issues with 8th at the moment, and the biggest is still their inability to create concise well-written rules. It seems to be the same problem over and over, even though they've had several editions to learn from. There's a reason there's already a stack of FAQ documents after a year of this editions release and questions adding up due to rule inconsistencies and interactions between base rules and codex books. .
GW are actively trying to equalize the game currently, the rule of 3 on both units and detachments between 1001-2000pts is a huge step in the right direction. As is their +1 for every extra Smite that is cast. .
If the claim of most 'play-tested edition' was even remotely accurate, they could have sorted out most of those issues before the edition was released. There are problematic balance issues that even casual players can spot after a few games, or even upon first read-through. I do like that they are attempting to fix some of the issues, but it seems 8th is more a beta test that players are evaluating for the rules designers instead of a well-designed system from the start.
All armies (but 1) have access to cheap CP batteries. Imperium with Guard, Chaos with Cultists, Orks with boys and Grotz, Nids with Gaunts etc... Only Necrons off the top of my head don't. Personally I think it's a waste for people to min-max these. With the Guard one for example, the squads are so much better with a Lascannon and plasma included and the company comanders are significantly better with a plasma pistol and/or power weapon, furthermore since you've opened up those 3 heavy slots, you may as well take HWSs since they are so cheap. People min-maxing at 180pts are gimping themselves imo..
Players shouldn't have to take a cheap CP battery in order to be competitive, that's part of the point of making the changes. Also, they take the guard battalion for a cheap screen, putting in high cost weapons such as lascannons weakens the purpose of the throw-away unit, especially when most those units are getting destroyed first turn. Shooting off one lascannon that hits 50% of the time isn't typically worth the investment that they aren't filling in better with the rest of their army.
If you don't list build with an eye toward command points thats absolutely fine but no surprise when the opponent has noticably more than you. Much like when I don't take any psykers, I know I won't be stopping any powers or when I havent put any anti-air in my list, I'd better have volume of fire to make up for that -1 or -2 to hit. But that's all part of it, for some armies it's easier to overwhelm opponents with psykers, others pretty much completely ignore morale, others are hard to hit across the whole army whilst others are easier to fit more command points in. Take any of those away and you are taking away some of the variety. That's why I don't understand the problem with CPs, it's part of the characteristics of an army.
There's no surprise when playing with these modified rules because my opponent doesn't have a drastically skewed CP allowance compared to me. That's exactly the point. You're already paying the costs of the units, for their gear, statline, etc. Why is it that units in specific armies then get extra value per point from additional CP than others. Your psyker example for instance--you have no psykers, but you've used those points that could have bought a psyker in place of another unit(s). That doesn't work so well when comparing to CP. Some armies just get more CP generation than others, is it because they are inherently weaker? That would make sense in a more balanced game, but that's not the situation currently.
The original concept in the first post that I've been play-testing wasn't even my idea (mine was completely different), I've only tweaked it a bit. But I was willing to try it out to see if it worked. Most posters in this thread can't even get that far before decrying it a bad idea.
I will agree that CP generation is a glaring problem in this edition.
Cheap CP generating for other more Cp intense armies shows that the ratio of CP generation is too loopsided at this point.
I did find the idea of a flat CP amount while adding specilised force orgs into a list only deducted from that static total sounds like a great idea. But the only problem i can see with it is the fact that you would fall into the same pitfall of using other armies as a "gap" filler to make sure that your CP stays relatively high.
The idea of keeping track of CP from multiple factions sounds like the way to go. People say "But that's too much paperwork, too much bookkeeping"
Im sorry, but keeping track of wounds is just as much "bookkeeping" as keeping track of people's psychic powers and other small things. Keeping track on something which could be delegated to a dice of all things is hardly what i would say as "book" intensive. And since it would stop people relying on soup so much it would make the game more interesting.
Also, i propose that you receive a reward for staying as a single specific faction. Perhaps an additional award of CP. this way building mono army is still just as rewarding as souping
mchammadad wrote: But the only problem i can see with it is the fact that you would fall into the same pitfall of using other armies as a "gap" filler to make sure that your CP stays relatively high.
Can you explain how this is even possible in the subtractive system in the OP? Taking more detachments lowers CP, with the new beta rule battle brothers in the April FAQ, it makes it illegal to take allies in the same detachment; the common keyword shared among all units cannot be chaos, imperium, aeldari, ynnari, or tyranids. Are you assuming this will not get through the beta?
Also, I agree with you on the book-keeping with the original idea of CP usable only for the faction that generated it. It's not hard to keep track of at all. It's actually one of the easiest changes to implement which addresses most of the problem.
If someone is making a brigade detachment just to fill in extra points (in this example, a IG brigade with a Space marines heavy list) since some armies are actually really cheap to make up a brigade, the problem is that those "cheap fillers" will be heavily incentivized with the system.
Say for example, it was a 1850 -2000 tournament, if you can fill in all you need in your main army in say 1200 or 1000 points(Which isn't that much of a stretch). Then you could just fill the rest with a "filler" army and only suffer the penalties from your main army force
This means if you wanted to have a specialized detachment but also knew that you couldn't fill out the points, then a "filler" army would cover you nicely. Like having say a Heavy support detachment because you wanted to go big on those slots, you can then use a "filler" army to cover up the points difference without loosing CP, excentially making it that soup is mandatory if your going a heavy/elite/fast attack tailored list
Do you mean, taking an IG brigade, then taking another detachment of marines? I don't see how that's an exploit, bringing a brigade of 'filler' to save what, 2 command points from a battalion?
What i mean is that if you can make a filler army for one in which you can use a specialized detachment to make the meat of your list to not be hit soo much by the penalties if you took say a battalion to make up the extra points.
Say you wanted a hellblaster heavy list with repulsors (so a captain with hellblaster/repulsors only), but you dont want to take any more CP hits because you know what stratagems you need to use, so to fill the rest of the gap you use an army that is easier to get a battalion, in this case IG to fill in the gap.
Since CP in this format is finite, you want to do as many things as possible to ensure you have the most amount of CP for the game. With this setup the person saves at least another 2 CP, whic doesn't sound like much but considering that most good strats are 2 CP, it's a hell of a good investment.
This type of list building would be very common for list such as these, as the hit by taking another detachment hurts when the resource is finite and diminishing
Show me. Post this hypothetical list and we'll see how it breaks this format.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, having 2 CP more is much different from having what a brigade currently gives. I'm not seeing the problem with what you seem to be posting over and over, but not exactly explaining why it's such a 'pitfall.'
If a brigade is the only problem area with this format you can see, why not suggest fixing the brigade? It seems you're just willing to throw the entire idea out because you think you've found some sort of loophole to maintain high CP, which ends up saving... 2 more over a battalion.
I think that mchammadad's point is that instead of taking minimal brigades to spam CP's, a player can instead take minimal brigades to avoid losing CP's instead, so the exploit still exists to a degree, which is a fair point.
That said, it's still not breaking the subtractive system as such as it's a far weaker exploit, and you're still capped by actual game size, rather than number of exploitative detachments taken. Plus you're still losing CP's for the specialist detachment(s) you take, you're not able to counteract that in any way.
It would be a good argument in favour of also adding a points minimum to battalions and brigades, as this will still help to limit their being spammed.
Mchagen wrote: Or different values to prevent abusive options.
The only problem with this is you would probably be playing the equivalent of 40k army builder whack a mole, cause when you change the values of one army to be more points heavy everyone will just go to the next cheapest army, and so on and so on and then you get to the point where guardsmen are 10-12pts a model, then SM's join in the circle and along it keeps on going.
There is no solution to this type of thinking. Point adjustments on their own will not solve anything, but rather a combination of different things (Minimum point requirements for detachments, Limit of datasheets, Adjustments on weapons and not models)
A combination of these things works, but when you only adjust them individually you get nowhere
You must remember, If a game has rules then someone is gonna try and exploit the rules to their benefits
Hmm... Adjusting the Detachment slots will kinda make people lean into either detachments that would fulfill their entire army composition in one go without needing useless or "tax" slots or they would lean into detachments that give better bonuses but require a slight increase in "Tax" units
For example, say you made the battalion get an additional 2 heavy support slots in total (So 5 heavy slots per batalion detachment), if you can fufill your army composition with only 4 or 5 heavy slots, then there is no need to ever go for the heavy slot detachment when you know that the batallion would be less of a penalty CP wise, even if you had to pay extra in "tax" troops and an additional HQ.
A second example is that you made the specialized detachments require one "Troop" slot in addition to it's current slot cost, but in exchange the points reduction is reduced to 3 instead of 4, Again. If you can fill out your army composition with this detachment, then it would look to be a much better alternative than taking a battalion and being "taxed" with the requirements of an additional HQ and two more troops
Adjusting the penalties of the detachments themselves will either make some detachments more appealing in terms of army building or look less appealing. I mean the Super heavy detachment looks terrible compared to the auxiliary version. It's basically saying that one lord of war is better in terms of CP than a army of lord of wars(Imperial knights army cries). Tweaking these will need many iterations of play testing and feedback to get the "sweet" spot. But atm we do not have enough data or feedback to see if this current iteration of these rules are what is considered "balanced".
However, the ruleset at this moment is a good foundation to start upon. Slight adjustments based on feedback will make it better as it's played more
But this is only one part of the cookie, the other parts are unit points and universal restrictions
Just make CP based on Point Limit. The argument that "small elite armies should have less CP" is nonsense because every faction other than Necrons can spam two super cheap battalions or are based on two battalions at a minimum anyway.
mchammadad wrote: I mean the Super heavy detachment looks terrible compared to the auxiliary version. It's basically saying that one lord of war is better in terms of CP than a army of lord of wars(Imperial knights army cries).
I don't know why I need to explain this, but 1 lord or war slot doesn't make an army, 3-5 slots do. Also, when taking 1 lord of war subtracts 3, and taking three min slots subtracts 7, the basic math shows that taking 3 super heavy auxiliary equates to 9 lost CP. That's not terrible comparatively.
BaconCatBug wrote: Just make CP based on Point Limit. The argument that "small elite armies should have less CP" is nonsense because every faction other than Necrons can spam two super cheap battalions or are based on two battalions at a minimum anyway.
I'm beginning to realize this might be the best option, with some changes on how command points can be used. I think this idea from Wyldhunt in the shenanigans thread has potential;
A while back, I pitched something to the effect of...
*Make all stratagems either minor or major.
* Select X minor stratagems before deployment.
* Select Y major stratagems before deployment.
* You may use either an unlimited number or Z (hadn't settled on which) minor stratagems in a game round.
* You may use one major stratagem in a game round.
* Some stratagems would still be usable before/during deployment. The number of times they could be used would vary from stratagem to stratagem.
*Command points are no longer a thing; you just play the stratagems throughout the game.
*Optionally, include "Medium" stratagems that could be used more often than major stratagems, but less often than minor ones.
The intention was to limit the number of stratagems you had to remember at once, allow players to use the less potent stratagems they'd normally feel iffy about spending CP on, and provide players with yet another way to make their army (and its tactics) more personalized.
Though I still think there should be a total CP available so that stratagems are still valued based on how good they are instead of simply 'major' or 'minor' with set allowable amounts each turn.
BaconCatBug wrote: Just make CP based on Point Limit. The argument that "small elite armies should have less CP" is nonsense because every faction other than Necrons can spam two super cheap battalions or are based on two battalions at a minimum anyway.
Except that doesn't put any demands on list creation at all. I think they very much want players taking troops. It seems generally pretty healthy for everyone to have a chunk of chaff in their lists.
Chaff already has its own merit. If troops in general need more of a boost, then additional bonuses for scoring could be implemented. An extra VP on a 3+ for scoring an objective with troops choices for example.
LunarSol wrote: Except that doesn't put any demands on list creation at all. I think they very much want players taking troops. It seems generally pretty healthy for everyone to have a chunk of chaff in their lists.
I think it's less about forcing you to take troops, and more about discouraging the use of overly specialised armies, or at least, making you pay for it in some way.
An army of all Imperial Knights for example has the potential to steam-roll a more balanced list that may not have quite enough anti-tank to really deal with it, especially if they don't get first turn (so some of that anti-tank is dying right away). Access to stratagems that can deal mortal wounds, help protect those units, or allow you to play to your own strengths can thereby balance things out a bit.
So no, I wouldn't want to have CPs based on game size alone, as this would either break list building or require us to go back to a single force organisation option again. I think if we want freedom in list building then CPs are a decent way to balance choice, so different detachment types still need to have their trade-offs.
Making CP based on points alone wouldn't necessarily require a return to the FoC or break list building. There could be other reasons to take detachments, such as specific game-play options or stratagems available to each detachment.
Also, troops wont go away because they are the only units that reliably get objec secure in this edition if your army is codex forged.
Taking no troop detachments basically means that you are taking a more elite based army but sacrificing your objective staying power by skimming on troops.
There have probably been many games won because someone didn't have troops while the other guy did on that one important objective.
Troops still have a role in this edition, but people shouldn't be forced to take them if they don't want to.
Hense the CP based on points sounds like an excellent idea
I like the suggestion op made to prevent cp farms. Here is my counter suggestion. Everyone gets 10cp with no chance to regenerate them (aka remove those lame traits and relics). All detachments would give +0cp so you can build wathever army. That would remove all the 180pts soup farms and put all armies on an equal playing field.
Gitdakka wrote: I like the suggestion op made to prevent cp farms. Here is my counter suggestion. Everyone gets 10cp with no chance to regenerate them (aka remove those lame traits and relics). All detachments would give +0cp so you can build wathever army. That would remove all the 180pts soup farms and put all armies on an equal playing field.
This is almost exactly what I've been thinking of play-testing next. Though I still think the command points should scale based on points level. So I'll be testing it at 1CP for every full 150 points. I've added it to the original post.
If needed, bonuses (not in the form of CP) can be added to less appealing detachments. Either game-play options or unlocked stratagems that are gained by taking a specific detachment.
Gitdakka wrote: I like the suggestion op made to prevent cp farms. Here is my counter suggestion. Everyone gets 10cp with no chance to regenerate them (aka remove those lame traits and relics). All detachments would give +0cp so you can build wathever army. That would remove all the 180pts soup farms and put all armies on an equal playing field.
This is almost exactly what I've been thinking of play-testing next. Though I still think the command points should scale based on points level. So I'll be testing it at 1CP for every full 150 points. I've added it to the original post.
If needed, bonuses (not in the form of CP) can be added to less appealing detachments. Either game-play options or unlocked stratagems that are gained by taking a specific detachment.
The question is if cp really scales with points. The amount of rounds remain the same for small or big games. So there are only a certain amount of time you can use cp. Now if you had say 20cp @2000pts it would be pretty hard to use them all compared to 10cp @1000pts. Maybe it scales in a non linear fashion.
I think it's pretty obvious that it should be commanders giving command points. Not troops. A supreme command is what should be bringing lots of command points.
Each HQ should basically have a CP value when you purchase them.
Example.
Company commander gives you 1 CP Lord Commisar gives you 2 CP
Super commanders like Calgar or an Autarch or a custodian hero should give you like 3-4 CP.
Xenomancers wrote: I think it's pretty obvious that it should be commanders giving command points. Not troops. A supreme command is what should be bringing lots of command points.
Each HQ should basically have a CP value when you purchase them.
Example.
Company commander gives you 1 CP Lord Commisar gives you 2 CP
Super commanders like Calgar or an Autarch or a custodian hero should give you like 3-4 CP.
This would probably lead to everyone allying in custodes commanders and blood angel smah captains. For the added cp benefit. We would effectively replace am battallion spam with cheesy hq spam.
Automatically Appended Next Post: This or IG commander spam for cheap CP
Gitdakka wrote: The question is if cp really scales with points. The amount of rounds remain the same for small or big games. So there are only a certain amount of time you can use cp. Now if you had say 20cp @2000pts it would be pretty hard to use them all compared to 10cp @1000pts. Maybe it scales in a non linear fashion.
I think it does for games under 2000 points, which for what I play works fine. Using a ratio of 1 to 150 gives 13 CP in a 2000 point game and 10 in 1500 points. I think that's a reasonable average.
CP based on HQs would be another exploitable resource method and would likely be more abusive than the current detachment rules.
Xenomancers wrote: I think it's pretty obvious that it should be commanders giving command points. Not troops. A supreme command is what should be bringing lots of command points.
Each HQ should basically have a CP value when you purchase them.
Example.
Company commander gives you 1 CP Lord Commisar gives you 2 CP
Super commanders like Calgar or an Autarch or a custodian hero should give you like 3-4 CP.
This would probably lead to everyone allying in custodes commanders and blood angel smah captains. For the added cp benefit. We would effectively replace am battallion spam with cheesy hq spam.
Automatically Appended Next Post: This or IG commander spam for cheap CP
I still think CP's should be limited to your own faction. So that would fix that problem.
Gitdakka wrote: The question is if cp really scales with points. The amount of rounds remain the same for small or big games. So there are only a certain amount of time you can use cp. Now if you had say 20cp @2000pts it would be pretty hard to use them all compared to 10cp @1000pts. Maybe it scales in a non linear fashion.
I think it does for games under 2000 points, which for what I play works fine. Using a ratio of 1 to 150 gives 13 CP in a 2000 point game and 10 in 1500 points. I think that's a reasonable average.
CP based on HQs would be another exploitable resource method and would likely be more abusive than the current detachment rules.
How would it be more exploitable? Troops are cheaper than HQ's dude. Armies that have cheap HQ's also have cheap troops. The issue with these armies is they can transfer their busted CP generation to armies that can't get command points on their own.
My solution fixes both problems currently involved with command point gerneration.
#1 All armies would be able to effectively produce their own command points.
#2 With command points being limited to your own faction (ie. Custodes would only allowed to be able to use command points generated by custodes).
Pricing on some HQ's might need to change. Plus you could give currently useless options have a use now.
Example.
Captain smash might produce 2 command points - a chaplain could create 3.
A fireblade might produce 2 - an ethereal 3.
(just ideas)
Don't know exactly where the numbers should be but obviously it should be some sort of per point ratio. Meaning - every army should be able to produce command points at about the same rate.
Certain factions it would make sense that it is their specialty (like space marines). Some might not excel at it (like IK) in general though - HQ's are the ones giving command (they should be the ones producing command points).
But it doesn't eliminate value gained from points per CP obtained. So for instance, an IG character gives X amount of CP, compared to a SM character that gives X or Y amount of CP, or even another type of IG character that costs more, but not significantly enough to change the amount of command points gained. Those CP values won't and can't be exactly based on points so there will be a skew which creates the abuse. The cheapest, best value HQs will be chosen to spam CP.
Mchagen wrote: But it doesn't eliminate value gained from points per CP obtained. So for instance, an IG character gives X amount of CP, compared to a SM character that gives X or Y amount of CP, or even another type of IG character that costs more, but not significantly enough to change the amount of command points gained. Those CP values won't and can't be exactly based on points so there will be a skew which creates the abuse. The cheapest, best value HQs will be chosen to spam CP.
It's trading one abusive system for another.
You could only abuse it if you were allowed to trade CP between factions. Which is part of my suggestion. I suggest you can't do that first and foremost.
Then - we could look at fixing some stratagems. Since now - every books stratagems know exactly what kind of CP genreation can be expected from within that codex. Some might need to go down in price because of that.
Xenomancers wrote: You could only abuse it if you were allowed to trade CP between factions. Which is part of my suggestion. I suggest you can't do that first and foremost.
How would you balance all the different HQ choices in each book against each other. Then make sure that internal balance matches external. Your suggestion would require a significant rework of HQs in order to achieve a balanced system. But you're obviously free to go ahead and do so and post the results. I doubt you'd be willing to do it though. You've not even posted how many 'HQ' points a CP should be valued at. The point is, once you start evaluating the details, the system becomes ridiculously complex to change into something usable without simply creating arbitrary values and sticking them onto each HQ.
I can understand the background concept of HQ choices providing command points, but it requires a significant amount of updates to implement correctly.
Then - we could look at fixing some stratagems. Since now - every books stratagems know exactly what kind of CP genreation can be expected from within that codex. Some might need to go down in price because of that.
Whether it be only using your own factions CP, or CP determined by points values, or CP provided by Characters etc. ANY change to the CP system would require extensive playtesting.
My preference at the moment is CP from characters that can only be used for that characters faction, combined with a small pool of CP that can be used by anyone in your army.
If they keep the CP concept roughly as what we have today I would like to see the following for Matched play:
2CP per 250 pts
Gain 1CP per game turn
Make a universal "Grand Strategist" BRB Warlord trait for all factions to take if they want
Give each faction a Relic similar to Kurov's Aquila, only usable from the Warlord detachment, so no stacking from multiple relics.
And finally make faction specific warlord traits and relics worth taking in the sense that you have to really weight the benefits of CP generation to the faction specific traits.
X078 wrote: If they keep the CP concept roughly as what we have today I would like to see the following for Matched play:
2CP per 250 pts
Gain 1CP per game turn
Make a universal "Grand Strategist" BRB Warlord trait for all factions to take if they want
Give each faction a Relic similar to Kurov's Aquila, only usable from the Warlord detachment, so no stacking from multiple relics.
And finally make faction specific warlord traits and relics worth taking in the sense that you have to really weight the benefits of CP generation to the faction specific traits.
Don't you run into the problem that for certain armies CP is way more valuable then for others?
X078 wrote: If they keep the CP concept roughly as what we have today I would like to see the following for Matched play:
2CP per 250 pts
Gain 1CP per game turn
Make a universal "Grand Strategist" BRB Warlord trait for all factions to take if they want
Give each faction a Relic similar to Kurov's Aquila, only usable from the Warlord detachment, so no stacking from multiple relics.
And finally make faction specific warlord traits and relics worth taking in the sense that you have to really weight the benefits of CP generation to the faction specific traits.
Don't you run into the problem that for certain armies CP is way more valuable then for others?
That's already a problem today by just having the CP mechanic. By having CP's and letting a faction get more benefit out of them them creates imbalance. One way to handle this is to balance the cost and use of stratagems better.
The value of CP's is in my view one of the more important things that GW uses today when introducing a new codex. It will be more optimized, ergo better. Good old power creep. But hey they wouldn't sell as many new models otherwise. It's the same concept as computer gaming, introduce an OP unit, nerf it in a later patch.
X078 wrote: If they keep the CP concept roughly as what we have today I would like to see the following for Matched play:
2CP per 250 pts
Gain 1CP per game turn
Make a universal "Grand Strategist" BRB Warlord trait for all factions to take if they want
Give each faction a Relic similar to Kurov's Aquila, only usable from the Warlord detachment, so no stacking from multiple relics.
And finally make faction specific warlord traits and relics worth taking in the sense that you have to really weight the benefits of CP generation to the faction specific traits.
Don't you run into the problem that for certain armies CP is way more valuable then for others?
That's already a problem today by just having the CP mechanic. By having CP's and letting a faction get more benefit out of them them creates imbalance. One way to handle this is to balance the cost and use of stratagems better.
The value of CP's is in my view one of the more important things that GW uses today when introducing a new codex. It will be more optimized, ergo better. Good old power creep. But hey they wouldn't sell as many new models otherwise. It's the same concept as computer gaming, introduce an OP unit, nerf it in a later patch.
One would imagine that GW allready makes enough money on their rulebooks, codices, CA and other assorted "must-haves" reccurently no?
Also it is kind of counterproductive to basically restart the ruleset to get rid of the powercreep and basically just pulling a 180 and adding it back in instead with "stratagems".
See, the problem is, that you buy a couple of guardsmen, to get CP for your custodes captains. So let's solve that:
"CP generated by a detachement can only be used by this detachement" ?
so the guardsmen are free to use the CP generated by them, but the custodes captians can only use the one CP they generate by themselfes and the 3 "general" CP.
X078 wrote: If they keep the CP concept roughly as what we have today I would like to see the following for Matched play:
2CP per 250 pts
Gain 1CP per game turn
Make a universal "Grand Strategist" BRB Warlord trait for all factions to take if they want
Give each faction a Relic similar to Kurov's Aquila, only usable from the Warlord detachment, so no stacking from multiple relics.
And finally make faction specific warlord traits and relics worth taking in the sense that you have to really weight the benefits of CP generation to the faction specific traits.
Don't you run into the problem that for certain armies CP is way more valuable then for others?
That's already a problem today by just having the CP mechanic. By having CP's and letting a faction get more benefit out of them them creates imbalance. One way to handle this is to balance the cost and use of stratagems better.
The value of CP's is in my view one of the more important things that GW uses today when introducing a new codex. It will be more optimized, ergo better. Good old power creep. But hey they wouldn't sell as many new models otherwise. It's the same concept as computer gaming, introduce an OP unit, nerf it in a later patch.
One would imagine that GW allready makes enough money on their rulebooks, codices, CA and other assorted "must-haves" reccurently no?
Also it is kind of counterproductive to basically restart the ruleset to get rid of the powercreep and basically just pulling a 180 and adding it back in instead with "stratagems".
You never have enough money but realistically less people will buy a codex if it is mediocre especially in matched play hence why a new codex is always better.
Anyways my ideas are not meant to be as drastic as restarting or 180 anything but standardizing the way CP's are handled in terms of CP per points, relics and the if needed balance the cost of the Stratagems themselves.
If the real problem is cheap CP generation then make it available to all, but at least make the alternative as good so that is a though choice. Today CPgen is an autopick if it's available but it shouldn't have to be.
von Hohenstein wrote: See, the problem is, that you buy a couple of guardsmen, to get CP for your custodes captains. So let's solve that:
"CP generated by a detachement can only be used by this detachement" ?
so the guardsmen are free to use the CP generated by them, but the custodes captians can only use the one CP they generate by themselfes and the 3 "general" CP.
Sound's like a good solution to me.
All that does is make Guard autowin because they can generate more CP
X078 wrote: If they keep the CP concept roughly as what we have today I would like to see the following for Matched play:
2CP per 250 pts
Gain 1CP per game turn
Make a universal "Grand Strategist" BRB Warlord trait for all factions to take if they want
Give each faction a Relic similar to Kurov's Aquila, only usable from the Warlord detachment, so no stacking from multiple relics.
And finally make faction specific warlord traits and relics worth taking in the sense that you have to really weight the benefits of CP generation to the faction specific traits.
Don't you run into the problem that for certain armies CP is way more valuable then for others?
That's already a problem today by just having the CP mechanic. By having CP's and letting a faction get more benefit out of them them creates imbalance. One way to handle this is to balance the cost and use of stratagems better.
The value of CP's is in my view one of the more important things that GW uses today when introducing a new codex. It will be more optimized, ergo better. Good old power creep. But hey they wouldn't sell as many new models otherwise. It's the same concept as computer gaming, introduce an OP unit, nerf it in a later patch.
So when are they going to nerf Astra Pay points for 2 get a 3rd free Militarum? Been waiting 6 months for that to get patched.
Instead they doubled down and brought out Codex can't hit me Aeldari.
I'm not arguing your wrong as I can see your point I just wish the patches didn't take over a year to be released.
Though I suppose given the slower turnaround time compaired to video games you have to let something be OP for longer to maximise profits from meta chasers.
X078 wrote: If they keep the CP concept roughly as what we have today I would like to see the following for Matched play:
2CP per 250 pts
Gain 1CP per game turn
Make a universal "Grand Strategist" BRB Warlord trait for all factions to take if they want
Give each faction a Relic similar to Kurov's Aquila, only usable from the Warlord detachment, so no stacking from multiple relics.
And finally make faction specific warlord traits and relics worth taking in the sense that you have to really weight the benefits of CP generation to the faction specific traits.
Don't you run into the problem that for certain armies CP is way more valuable then for others?
That's already a problem today by just having the CP mechanic. By having CP's and letting a faction get more benefit out of them them creates imbalance. One way to handle this is to balance the cost and use of stratagems better.
The value of CP's is in my view one of the more important things that GW uses today when introducing a new codex. It will be more optimized, ergo better. Good old power creep. But hey they wouldn't sell as many new models otherwise. It's the same concept as computer gaming, introduce an OP unit, nerf it in a later patch.
So when are they going to nerf Astra Pay points for 2 get a 3rd free Militarum? Been waiting 6 months for that to get patched.
Instead they doubled down and brought out Codex can't hit me Aeldari.
I'm not arguing your wrong as I can see your point I just wish the patches didn't take over a year to be released.
Though I suppose given the slower turnaround time compaired to video games you have to let something be OP for longer to maximise profits from meta chasers.
IG is not really the problem. Nerfing IG will not really acomplish anything, just reintroduce platoons:1 platoon command squad and 2-5 guardsmen squads = 1 troop choice. There, trippled the cp battery price whilest IG still is usefull.
Unbalanced stratagems and Unbalanced faction specific boosts and Unbalanced psychic phase are the real Problem.
From the aptly named aeldari that can't be hit to dissis that are to cheap.
but realistically less people will buy a codex if it is mediocre especially in matched play hence why a new codex is always better.
