So we've had quite a long sample of this CP experiment. IMO - it's one of the weakest parts of the game. So with my mates I have been trying out a new system and we like it a lot. Here - I will explain it to you in detail. Mainly - this lets you take whatever army you want - without forcing you to take another army to gen command points. Yet - it still allows you to take allies.

Every battle forged army receives a flat number of command points to start. For 2000 points - 15 (including the base 3 for being battle-forged) has seemed like a good starting number. We have tried 10 and 20 - both seemed like too much or too little.

Okay that isn't so crazy right? Now here's where it get interesting.

Batallion/Brigade give you +0 command points. More like - they are the only detachments that don't cost you to lose command points. Reasoning behind this is these detachments give a lot of slot allocations but also force you to take more HQ and troops.

Vangaurd/Spearhead/Outrider -2 command points. Want to spam a slot - it's going to cost you command points

Superheavy. -3 want to bring a superheavy army - that costs you command points.

Aux detachment. -2 want to bring an unit with no slot for it - that cost command points.

Patrol. -1 not as bad as an aux detachment but it still costs you 1 point.

Armies that have special detachments like for example IK (Knight lance) will get a +0 detchment. Same for DE with their special patrol detachment rule (a DE army that has 3 patrol detachment gets them for +0 command points instead of -1)

Before you knock this - try it. I promise you - you will find it enjoyable and it will feel more fair. It is possible that some negatives need to be placed on allies but I we haven't done enough testing with that part of it. My suggestion would be -1 for allied detachments added in edition to the minus they take for detachments. Example - allied batallion gives you -1. Allied Super heavy Aux gives you a -3.

These are the only detachments we have tested. I know there are more special detachments - like fort network. Find a number that works for those and work with it.
EDIT^^^
Additional untested changes
Knights can forseeably be problematic with high base CP. This would be a buff to them and that seems a little much. Perhaps the knight lance should not be a -0 detachment. Feel free to test and give feedback in the comments. My friends don't really want to face my kngihts anymore because they never lose. Perhaps your friends are more willing - test it out. Give feedback.

Other suggestions in regards to stratagem use.
Limit the number of CP that can be played per turn to 3 or 4.
Limit the number of stratagems that can be played on a single unit per turn to 2 (including command reroll)
Open to more suggestions here as well.

I have 2 problems with this:

1) Brigade should give better benefits than battalion
2) Doesn't solve CP detachments. I can still get unlimited CPs by taking 200 points of grand strategist and kurov's aquila.

Spoletta wrote:
I have 2 problems with this:

1) Brigade should give better benefits than battalion
2) Doesn't solve CP detachments. I can still get unlimited CPs by taking 200 points of grand strategist and kurov's aquila.

Counter to Point 1 is many mono factions can't build a competative Brigade and some can't even build a brigade at sub 2k.
Some codex's were also clearly designed around mixing subfactions not massive mono subfaction lists.

2)I don't think I've met any player IRL that believes that the Grand Strategists and Kurov's in a single faction is remotely balanced.
That combo is supper broken and no amount of CP generation changes will rain in that mess.

Spoletta wrote:
I have 2 problems with this:

1) Brigade should give better benefits than battalion
2) Doesn't solve CP detachments. I can still get unlimited CPs by taking 200 points of grand strategist and kurov's aquila.

At some point though - more command points does nothing for you or isn't worth the investment away from stuff that is killy. I agree though - this does nothing to stop that - It could be discouraged another way. Like perhaps forcing your warlord to com from your "primary detachment" - which would be your largest detachment (or something even less restrictive). I don't see this as a problem too much though because 15 command points is more than enough to use all the starts you want for 3 turns anything over that is just excessive as it really isn't needed.

The brigade does give you more slots for HS and elites. True - this might not be very important but it is something. Plus 2 batallions compared to a brigade. A brigade pays less HQ tax to get bonus slots. It might not be the slots you want...but it is slots.

Make Battalion/Brigade cost 1 CP instead of 0. The bigger one gives you more slots/cp.

The scheme might benefit from an upscaling of the CP costs. Also, the CP should be specified on the 1CP per X points level.

BCB has a tighter version of this he posts on relevant threads in Proposed Rules from time to time. I like it.

Grand Strat/Kurov's may need a targetted fix independent of a broader fix. I see this as more punishing those CWE lists that bring few, if any, Troops.

The only fair way to fix it is the CP generated can only be spent by the faction generating it. The IK codex was not designed to have double digit CP.

This is one of those things where a well meaning change just creates a new normal/optimal configuration for people to argue changes to. My one concern is that people react irrationally to penalties over bonuses regardless of a net zero change to the final product, but I get the value in the difference here. I do agree that 15 seems like the right starting number.

On a side note, Brigades should just be gone, which I suppose is effectively what was done here. They're unreasonable for the vast majority of the game and really just create a problem in the system for the few factions that can manage it under 2000 points. It feels like it was supposed to be like the unreasonably battalions from AoS that have min costs in the 3000+, with GW forgetting how cheap everything is for Guard.

I don't think a new system actually solves anything though. It likely creates a new normal for people to whine about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 deviantduck wrote:
The only fair way to fix it is the CP generated can only be spent by the faction generating it. The IK codex was not designed to have double digit CP.

Pretty sure it was....

That's where higher costs might make it mean something. So that there's a benefit to fitting everything into a Brigade or pair of Battalions.

The difference is that, instead of minimizing what you're doing in each detatchment so you can fit in more for more CP, you'd instead need to maximize your detatchments, so that you pay the fewest CP. Adding 3 FA units costs CP instead of giving you CP.

Bharring wrote:
Make Battalion/Brigade cost 1 CP instead of 0. The bigger one gives you more slots/cp.

The scheme might benefit from an upscaling of the CP costs. Also, the CP should be specified on the 1CP per X points level.

BCB has a tighter version of this he posts on relevant threads in Proposed Rules from time to time. I like it.

Grand Strat/Kurov's may need a targetted fix independent of a broader fix. I see this as more punishing those CWE lists that bring few, if any, Troops.

Most of the time the battalion will be better in this case - but I am okay with that. Nether hurt you. Brigade can get away with less HQ choices and still open up 5HS and 8 elites if you don't mind taking 3 FA 3 Elites. In any case I agree - without altering the brigade a little bit it wont be as important in this version on CP generation. (Currently it is also never used ether)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 deviantduck wrote:
The only fair way to fix it is the CP generated can only be spent by the faction generating it. The IK codex was not designed to have double digit CP.

I don't think these armies are "designed" in the sense you think they are. Plus - if there were any sense behind the person designing them. Taking a look at what you can do with 200 points to generate CP's from another imperial force is certainly something you should do when designing a new imperial codex.

So ether A.) GW did deisgn them that way.
B.) GW is incompetent and doesn't play test their game or even know how to make balanced rules.


In ether case I see no issue with treating every army the same in regards to CP generation. If GW can't take 20 minutes to sit down and make fair rules for their game - Heck - I'll do it.

I agree that this system would be better. I think most armies should be able to comfortably get a good number of CP, and right now CP is unfairly skewed in favor of armies with cheap units for no reason, and you are disincentivized to fill out your detachments. If anything, all detachments could cost at least 1 CP (and perhaps up the starting amount by 3) to reward people who take fewer detachments and actually fill them out.

Having different faction CP you have to keep track of sounds terrible. I do think the CP regen abilities could only work on that factions strategems, though. You should probably also only be able to roll one dice for CP regen.

Bring back Formations, limit you to 1 CP/turn and let you bank them.

Any Formations you've got in your army unlock an additional Relic(remove the "buy additional Relic stratagems" or make it so that they get reworded to only be available based on the number of Formations you have) and a single CP at the start of the game.

AoS has the right of it in that regard.

Bharring wrote:Grand Strat/Kurov's may need a targetted fix independent of a broader fix. I see this as more punishing those CWE lists that bring few, if any, Troops.

They need to be locked to Company Commanders only.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Bring back Formations, limit you to 1 CP/turn and let you bank them.

Any Formations you've got in your army unlock an additional Relic(remove the "buy additional Relic stratagems" or make it so that they get reworded to only be available based on the number of Formations you have) and a single CP at the start of the game.

AoS has the right of it in that regard.

Bharring wrote:Grand Strat/Kurov's may need a targetted fix independent of a broader fix. I see this as more punishing those CWE lists that bring few, if any, Troops.

They need to be locked to Company Commanders only.

While I did like formations a lot. I think it's pretty unrealistic to have a complete redesign of the games detachments. Stratagems are an integral part of the game too. Aside from that "this idea is better" kind of comments. Do you have anything to suppose this wouldn't be a big improvement on the game.

Can my inquisition please not be forced to -2 cp if I run 3 of them in a command detatchment? I already stopped being an army, and 60% of my models are illegal, so if you’d be so kind as to not hurt them more that’d be nice.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Bring back Formations, limit you to 1 CP/turn and let you bank them.

Any Formations you've got in your army unlock an additional Relic(remove the "buy additional Relic stratagems" or make it so that they get reworded to only be available based on the number of Formations you have) and a single CP at the start of the game.

AoS has the right of it in that regard.

Bharring wrote:Grand Strat/Kurov's may need a targetted fix independent of a broader fix. I see this as more punishing those CWE lists that bring few, if any, Troops.

They need to be locked to Company Commanders only.

While I did like formations a lot. I think it's pretty unrealistic to have a complete redesign of the games detachments. Stratagems are an integral part of the game too. Aside from that "this idea is better" kind of comments. Do you have anything to suppose this wouldn't be a big improvement on the game.

You don't have to change the organizational method at all. Formations in AoS are literally just you having taken the stuff normally, then paying a points cost to field it as the formation and get the rules.

And quite frankly, if we can completely and utterly neuter Commissars then we can stand a big shift to Command Points.

I'd rather see someone just jump Company Commanders up a few points since they are 99% of the problem with their CP battalions.

 Jaxler wrote:
Can my inquisition please not be forced to -2 cp if I run 3 of them in a command detatchment? I already stopped being an army, and 60% of my models are illegal, so if you’d be so kind as to not hurt them more that’d be nice.

This will be corrected when you get a codex. In a friendly game I would not force you to take negative CP because you don't have a codex yet. In these discussions I think it's very important to understand - issues that are a result of not having a codex are not issues we need to worry about when making adjustments to the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Bring back Formations, limit you to 1 CP/turn and let you bank them.

Any Formations you've got in your army unlock an additional Relic(remove the "buy additional Relic stratagems" or make it so that they get reworded to only be available based on the number of Formations you have) and a single CP at the start of the game.

AoS has the right of it in that regard.

Bharring wrote:Grand Strat/Kurov's may need a targetted fix independent of a broader fix. I see this as more punishing those CWE lists that bring few, if any, Troops.

They need to be locked to Company Commanders only.

While I did like formations a lot. I think it's pretty unrealistic to have a complete redesign of the games detachments. Stratagems are an integral part of the game too. Aside from that "this idea is better" kind of comments. Do you have anything to suppose this wouldn't be a big improvement on the game.

You don't have to change the organizational method at all. Formations in AoS are literally just you having taken the stuff normally, then paying a points cost to field it as the formation and get the rules.

And quite frankly, if we can completely and utterly neuter Commissars then we can stand a big shift to Command Points.

Commissars was a clear over nerf. Triple nerfing a problem when 1 nerf would have been sufficient. You have my sympathy with commissars.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ChargerIIC wrote:
I'd rather see someone just jump Company Commanders up a few points since they are 99% of the problem with their CP battalions.

That should also happen. An HQ choice for under 40 points is asinine.

Factions are supposed to have different number of CPs available.

If you give equal CPs to everyone, you just shift the balance to a new OP, you don't solve anything.

The actual CP system is fine, the only change needed is locking CPs to the detachments generating it.

You want an HQ choice for 40 points in Guard, then give us one worth putting pointed items on.

There's no survivability buffs, there's no role altering weapons or gear.

There's no real reason to put any upgrades that aren't just Relics on them.

Spoletta wrote:
Factions are supposed to have different number of CPs available.

If you give equal CPs to everyone, you just shift the balance to a new OP, you don't solve anything.

The actual CP system is fine, the only change needed is locking CPs to the detachments generating it.

The actualy CP system is not fine. I disagree. Mono custodies cant get gak for CP. Mono knights are also significantly boned by that rule. Nids win games on their own without soup and can make tons of CP for themselves with good stratagems. There is no link between ability to generate command points and power of stratagems. Eldar and DE can easily generate the points they need and stratagems are fantastic.

This is an interesting system, but I've got two issues with it:

1) Probably a minor point, but having a Patrol give -1CP seems really strange and counter-intuitive.

2) It seems like there should be a penalty for taking allies. e.g. For each army you include after the first, you lose 5 CPs.

So, you're free to take the best units from multiple different armies, but it'll cost you heavily in terms of CPs. (Obviously we could have exceptions or reduced penalties for stuff like Inquisition.)


The thing is, though, I'm wondering if this is the best way to handle CPs in the first place. Rather than having a ton of them to start with, would it be better to just have a few that regenerate each turn?

 Kanluwen wrote:
You want an HQ choice for 40 points in Guard, then give us one worth putting pointed items on.

There's no survivability buffs, there's no role altering weapons or gear.

There's no real reason to put any upgrades that aren't just Relics on them.

This.

Also, are Company Commanders even an issue now that you're limited to 3-per-army?

 Kanluwen wrote:
You want an HQ choice for 40 points in Guard, then give us one worth putting pointed items on.

There's no survivability buffs, there's no role altering weapons or gear.

There's no real reason to put any upgrades that aren't just Relics on them.

The ability to make an infantry unit shoot twice while filling HQ requirements is worth at least as much as the unit they are causing to shoot twice. They can also use that ability twice. They are already worth 40 points.


I'd also be perfectly fine with them getting access to storm bolters or something nifty like that.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:
This is an interesting system, but I've got two issues with it:

1) Probably a minor point, but having a Patrol give -1CP seems really strange and counter-intuitive.

2) It seems like there should be a penalty for taking allies. e.g. For each army you include after the first, you lose 5 CPs.

So, you're free to take the best units from multiple different armies, but it'll cost you heavily in terms of CPs. (Obviously we could have exceptions or reduced penalties for stuff like Inquisition.)


The thing is, though, I'm wondering if this is the best way to handle CPs in the first place. Rather than having a ton of them to start with, would it be better to just have a few that regenerate each turn?

 Kanluwen wrote:
You want an HQ choice for 40 points in Guard, then give us one worth putting pointed items on.

There's no survivability buffs, there's no role altering weapons or gear.

There's no real reason to put any upgrades that aren't just Relics on them.

This.

Also, are Company Commanders even an issue now that you're limited to 3-per-army?

The -1 for patrols is more or less a nerf to allies - though I can see your point. The idea here is you should have to take troops/hq's to open up slots - patrols do do that so it's a reasonable objection.
Limiting CC to 3 does not really excuse them being underpoint IMO. Hive tyrants were nerfed in the same way and went up points and are still played at a high rate. CC would be too IMO.

Also I think nerfing allies to that degree is too much. Maybe a -2 for each allied detachment.

How would this scale to 500, 750, 1,000, 1,250, 15,00, 1750?

Is there's a points per CP?

 Blndmage wrote:
How would this scale to 500, 750, 1,000, 1,250, 15,00, 1750?

Is there's a points per CP?

We tested 2500 points with 20 CP. It was more than enough. The exact ratio at 2500 if it is to be the same is like 18.9. So we just gave another CP. 1 cp for 133 points and round up.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
You want an HQ choice for 40 points in Guard, then give us one worth putting pointed items on.

There's no survivability buffs, there's no role altering weapons or gear.

There's no real reason to put any upgrades that aren't just Relics on them.

The ability to make an infantry unit shoot twice while filling HQ requirements is worth at least as much as the unit they are causing to shoot twice. They can also use that ability twice. They are already worth 40 points.

You don't "make an infantry unit shoot twice". You add an additional shot to two specific weapons. Not even "weapon types". Two specific guns get an additional shot.

Honestly, where do you even get your information about Guard from?

I'd also be perfectly fine with them getting access to storm bolters or something nifty like that.

You mean a thing they had access to but now don't?

No thanks. I'd rather see different "versions" of Officers. Grenadier Officers, Mechanized Infantry Officers, etc.

For a 500 point game though I would probably run with 6 CP. These are typically learning games and you would want people to have fun - not feel starved for CP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
You want an HQ choice for 40 points in Guard, then give us one worth putting pointed items on.

There's no survivability buffs, there's no role altering weapons or gear.

There's no real reason to put any upgrades that aren't just Relics on them.

The ability to make an infantry unit shoot twice while filling HQ requirements is worth at least as much as the unit they are causing to shoot twice. They can also use that ability twice. They are already worth 40 points.

You don't "make an infantry unit shoot twice". You add an additional shot to two specific weapons. Not even "weapon types". Two specific guns get an additional shot.

Honestly, where do you even get your information about Guard from?

I'd also be perfectly fine with them getting access to storm bolters or something nifty like that.

You mean a thing they had access to but now don't?

No thanks. I'd rather see different "versions" of Officers. Grenadier Officers, Mechanized Infantry Officers, etc.

So you are complaining that Officers get access the the same kinds of weapons that space marine captains do?

FRFSRF does not let you shoot twice with a lasgun?

It seems like almost every attempt to fix this, misses the issue of CP regeneration and just seem to go after armies people don’t feel are gentlemanly.

I don’t feel that it’s a “cheap battalion problem” because you never see serious Chaos Players souping in a Renegades and Heretics battalion for ten points cheaper than the imperial guard version. It’s the CP regen that’s the issue. We can say up and down that people don’t bring R&H because R&H suck, but if all your using it for is 5 CP, who cares how good 32 bullet catchers are?

We need to remove CP regeneration Traits and relics, or just make everyone’s CP generate each turn like Kill Team. Probably both.

 Kanluwen wrote:

You don't have to change the organizational method at all. Formations in AoS are literally just you having taken the stuff normally, then paying a points cost to field it as the formation and get the rules.

No, they force you to take specific bundles of units. I want to choose myself which units to take.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iur_tae_mont wrote:
It seems like almost every attempt to fix this, misses the issue of CP regeneration and just seem to go after armies people don’t feel are gentlemanly.

I don’t feel that it’s a “cheap battalion problem” because you never see serious Chaos Players souping in a Renegades and Heretics battalion for ten points cheaper than the imperial guard version. It’s the CP regen that’s the issue. We can say up and down that people don’t bring R&H because R&H suck, but if all your using it for is 5 CP, who cares how good 32 bullet catchers are?

We need to remove CP regeneration Traits and relics, or just make everyone’s CP generate each turn like Kill Team. Probably both.

Yep. I think the CP regeneration is way worse issue than being able to buy 5CPs for 200(ish) points.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
How would this scale to 500, 750, 1,000, 1,250, 15,00, 1750?

Is there's a points per CP?

We tested 2500 points with 20 CP. It was more than enough. The exact ratio at 2500 if it is to be the same is like 18.9. So we just gave another CP. 1 cp for 133 points and round up.

So that would make it (rounding 5+ up, not sure if that's what you mean):
500: 4
750: 6
1,000: 8
1,250: 9.39, so 10?
1,500: 11.27, so 12?
1,750: 13.15, so 14?
2,000: 15.03, no way you'd round this to 16
2,250: 17
2,500: 18.80 to 19

Do those sound like valid amounts of CP at each points level?

 Xenomancers wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Factions are supposed to have different number of CPs available.

If you give equal CPs to everyone, you just shift the balance to a new OP, you don't solve anything.

The actual CP system is fine, the only change needed is locking CPs to the detachments generating it.

The actualy CP system is not fine. I disagree. Mono custodies cant get gak for CP. Mono knights are also significantly boned by that rule. Nids win games on their own without soup and can make tons of CP for themselves with good stratagems. There is no link between ability to generate command points and power of stratagems. Eldar and DE can easily generate the points they need and stratagems are fantastic.

But what you prove is only that armies with good stratagems and ok CP generation do fine. You should also look at armies that don't have access to good stratagems or methods of generating them. It does have an efffect on those armies, and it aint positive.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
You want an HQ choice for 40 points in Guard, then give us one worth putting pointed items on.

There's no survivability buffs, there's no role altering weapons or gear.

There's no real reason to put any upgrades that aren't just Relics on them.

The ability to make an infantry unit shoot twice while filling HQ requirements is worth at least as much as the unit they are causing to shoot twice. They can also use that ability twice. They are already worth 40 points.

You don't "make an infantry unit shoot twice". You add an additional shot to two specific weapons. Not even "weapon types". Two specific guns get an additional shot.

Honestly, where do you even get your information about Guard from?

I'd also be perfectly fine with them getting access to storm bolters or something nifty like that.

You mean a thing they had access to but now don't?

No thanks. I'd rather see different "versions" of Officers. Grenadier Officers, Mechanized Infantry Officers, etc.

So you are complaining that Officers get access the the same kinds of weapons that space marine captains do?

Yeah, sure okay. Bolt Pistol, Plasma Pistol, and Boltgun. Those are the 3 options for Officers. They can't even take a Lasgun.

And let's be honest here: Marine Captains still have a pretty good spread of options between their multiple datasheets, and Primaris Captains are an option too.

FRFSRF does not let you shoot twice with a lasgun?

Nope.

All lasguns and hotshot lasguns in the ordered unit change their Type to Rapid Fire 2 until the end of the phase.

So it literally just lasts for Shooting.

Just start at 5 minimum and add 1 for every 200 points you are playing with.

 Blndmage wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
How would this scale to 500, 750, 1,000, 1,250, 15,00, 1750?

Is there's a points per CP?

We tested 2500 points with 20 CP. It was more than enough. The exact ratio at 2500 if it is to be the same is like 18.9. So we just gave another CP. 1 cp for 133 points and round up.

So that would make it (rounding 5+ up, not sure if that's what you mean):
500: 4
750: 6
1,000: 8
1,250: 9.39, so 10?
1,500: 11.27, so 12?
1,750: 13.15, so 14?
2,000: 15.03, no way you'd round this to 16
2,250: 17
2,500: 18.80 to 19

Do those sound like valid amounts of CP at each points level?

Not properly tested for lower point games. I would suggest a minimum CP amount. Like say - 6. Then at like 1000 points start following that chart.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
You want an HQ choice for 40 points in Guard, then give us one worth putting pointed items on.

There's no survivability buffs, there's no role altering weapons or gear.

There's no real reason to put any upgrades that aren't just Relics on them.

The ability to make an infantry unit shoot twice while filling HQ requirements is worth at least as much as the unit they are causing to shoot twice. They can also use that ability twice. They are already worth 40 points.

You don't "make an infantry unit shoot twice". You add an additional shot to two specific weapons. Not even "weapon types". Two specific guns get an additional shot.

Honestly, where do you even get your information about Guard from?

I'd also be perfectly fine with them getting access to storm bolters or something nifty like that.

You mean a thing they had access to but now don't?

No thanks. I'd rather see different "versions" of Officers. Grenadier Officers, Mechanized Infantry Officers, etc.

So you are complaining that Officers get access the the same kinds of weapons that space marine captains do?

Yeah, sure okay. Bolt Pistol, Plasma Pistol, and Boltgun. Those are the 3 options for Officers. They can't even take a Lasgun.

And let's be honest here: Marine Captains still have a pretty good spread of options between their multiple datasheets, and Primaris Captains are an option too.

FRFSRF does not let you shoot twice with a lasgun?

Nope.

All lasguns and hotshot lasguns in the ordered unit change their Type to Rapid Fire 2 until the end of the phase.

So it literally just lasts for Shooting.

Okay just a wording problem here. I consider taking rapid fire 1 to rapid fire 2 as shooting twice. yeah I know the sarg cant take a las gun. for 1 point he takes a bolter. It wont shot twice but it adds the same firepower.

I'm not hating here. I am all about customization of characters. You should be able to give them anything in the arsenal IMO. Like in the space marine game you can carry a las cannon on captain titus. No problem with that. It was sweet. your issues with customization are not unique. My primaris captain comes with 1 option...power fist or power sword and MC boltgun (which is a crappy weapon for a 70 point bs2 model)

I don't hate CP generation the way it is, but it definitely seems weird that the more complex and varied the army you take, the more CPs you get. Why should 2 battalions in an army give more command options than having just one? You have two command structures. Makes no sense.

 Xenomancers wrote:
So you are complaining that Officers get access the the same kinds of weapons that space marine captains do?

You're going to have to show your work, there. Or are there "Commander Smashfuckers" running about one-rounding units that I'm just missing?

FRFSRF does not let you shoot twice with a lasgun?

Effectively, but not quite. Even still, that combination requires 70 points of models to be able to cause 2 unsaved wounds vs MEQ, and that includes the Marines being presented on a silver platter to the Guard player (within 12" in the open).

TL;DR of your idea: "nerf MSU, make my death star more effective".

 Peregrine wrote:
TL;DR of your idea: "nerf MSU, make my death star more effective".

What is this? 7th eddition? There is no such thing as a death star anymore. Everything can be killed. Split fire is free. MSU vs large units main disparity is efficiency of stratagems and spells and leadership penalties and total area covered. CP does not need to be dragged into that. In fact - multiple small units should actually be more difficult to command.

What is your answer to this?

If I tried to make a MSU custodes army - could I even make 3 battalions? No they can barely make 2 and that is their entire army? How about imperial knights that can only really make a single detachment? Why should some armies make cheaper battalions to create the same number of command points? Why should I have to bring imperial guard to play imperial knights? It doesn't make any sense.

Yet an army like tau can take 2 battalions and 3 storm surges...or guard 2 battalions and 3 baneblade types. Guess how many command points these armies generate? 5+5+3+3 = 16. Wow...almost exactly the amount my proposed rules give you.

The main thing it does is create a level playing field for armies that can't generate their own command points.

I like this idea overall as it gives everyone a more equal access to CPs and doesn't really reward multiple Battalions with cheap options.

I'd tweak it a bit for simplicity and do the following:
For every 500pts a BF army gains 4CPs. So 2K would net you 16CPs to start with.

Battalions = 0CPs
Brigades = +3CPs as it is difficult to achieve for some armies
Vanguard/Spearhead/Outrider/Flyer = -2CPs because you pay to avoid Troop/2nd HQ tax
Command = 0CP, but an army can only every have 1 Command detachment. It doesn't make sense that having more leaders is LESS command points.

I would also combine both Super Heavy/LoW detachment into a single option as follows:
1-5 LoW = 0CPs, -1CP for each LoW taken after the 1st
So if you take all 5 LoW, it is -4CPs. At 2K, the army still has 12CPs, which is more than a similar LoW detachment can currently get without help.

-

 Galef wrote:
I like this idea overall as it gives everyone a more equal access to CPs and doesn't really reward multiple Battalions with cheap options.

I'd tweak it a bit for simplicity and do the following:
For every 500pts a BF army gains 4CPs. So 2K would net you 16CPs to start with.

Battalions = 0CPs
Brigades = +3CPs as it is difficult to achieve for some armies
Vanguard/Spearhead/Outrider/Flyer = -2CPs because you pay to avoid Troop/2nd HQ tax
Command = 0CP, but an army can only every have 1 Command detachment. It doesn't make sense that having more leaders is LESS command points.

I would also combine both Super Heavy/LoW detachment into a single option as follows:
1-5 LoW = 0CPs, -1CP for each LoW taken after the 1st
So if you take all 5 LoW, it is -4CPs. At 2K, the army still has 12CPs, which is more than a similar LoW detachment can currently get without help.

-

I like those Ideas. I will try them out.

True it doesn't make sense that command detachment costs you points...but really - spamming HQ's is one of the strongest tactics in the game. Maybe if the detachment forced you to take the elite slot - i would be okay with 0 cp.

 Xenomancers wrote:

True it doesn't make sense that command detachment costs you points...but really - spamming HQ's is one of the strongest tactics in the game. Maybe if the detachment forced you to take the elite slot - i would be okay with 0 cp.

Agreed, which I why I'd limit the Command detachment to 1 per army. Combined with the limit of 3 of any single datasheet and I think it should be fine. Requiring the Elite might be good too.

-

 Peregrine wrote:
TL;DR of your idea: "nerf MSU, make my death star more effective".

The second half of that acronym here is pretty clear - you obviously didn't read it.

The only things you could call "death stars" in the present game are basically mega-buffed superheavies...which all receive -3pts per LOW in Xeno's system.

I usually disagree with Xeno when their logic is faulty, but it is kind of tough to see much of a downside for this system. Besides, I suppose, nearly every army getting very similar CPs...but that's not a bad thing either.

If you gave me free latitude to design a system, it'd either be something like this, or it'd be a system whereby the percentage of your army made up of the various roles determines your CP (more troops = more CPs whether those troops are 10 custodes or 50 guardsmen). But, honestly, we have a nearly zero chance of gw making their customers do percentage math in the current edition.

The current CP system is asinine for the same reason that playing a mission based on "kill points" is asinine. "A unit" can be anywhere from 10 points to 2000+ points in 40k, why would you EVER base ANY SYSTEM on "hey, how many units ya got???"

If you don't understand how having more HQs could give you fewer CP, you've never had too many cooks in the kitchen!

I'm not in favor of the Brigade giving CP. I thought the intention was to move to an always-pay version. If you instead had Battalions and Brigades both cost 1, you'd have a situation where both were useful for different reasons.

Hey, you want an even easier way to do it?

Make it so that the single FOC auxiliary choices can be the only real way for you to ally things in.

Bharring wrote:
I'm not in favor of the Brigade giving CP. I thought the intention was to move to an always-pay version. If you instead had Battalions and Brigades both cost 1, you'd have a situation where both were useful for different reasons.

It is far, far easier for most armies to build Battalions than Brigades. Brigades require FA/Elite/HS, which not everyone wants to take and are often forced to take the cheapest throw-away options
Therefore, the Battalion should be the standard that doesn't require paying CPs, whereas using a Brigade already requires a ridiculous amount of "tax" units and therefore should give you a reward in CPs. All other detachments should pay CPs to use (save potentially the Command for reasons stated above)

Brigades should absolutely have incentive to play, otherwise a Battalion would be the only "larger" detachment anyone would play. 2 Battalions give you essentially the same "slots" as 1 Brigade, but doesn't require you to take all the FA/Elite/HS options that you may not want/cannot afford.

You also need some detachments be 0CP, otherwise it's impossible to have the full CPs a BF army would generate.

-

But...a brigade also gives you 6 slots in all roles without costing you CP.

I think this system works if you limit armies to one of each detachment. It doesn't work quite as well if you're not.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Hey, you want an even easier way to do it?

Make it so that the single FOC auxiliary choices can be the only real way for you to ally things in.

Kind of like in 7th - could take a single allied detachment - which was basically a patrol.

What if we expand on that idea. We make a special detachment called an allied detachment - it looks like a patrol detachment - you can only take one of them and it gives you -2 CP to your base. I think that would work really well? What do you think?

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Hey, you want an even easier way to do it?

Make it so that the single FOC auxiliary choices can be the only real way for you to ally things in.

Kind of like in 7th - could take a single allied detachment - which was basically a patrol.

What if we expand on that idea. We make a special detachment called an allied detachment - it looks like a patrol detachment - you can only take one of them and it gives you -2 CP to your base. I think that would work really well? What do you think?

No.

the_scotsman wrote:
But...a brigade also gives you 6 slots in all roles without costing you CP.

I think this system works if you limit armies to one of each detachment. It doesn't work quite as well if you're not.

It couldn't work with only 1 detachment. It could work with a limit of 2.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Hey, you want an even easier way to do it?

Make it so that the single FOC auxiliary choices can be the only real way for you to ally things in.

Kind of like in 7th - could take a single allied detachment - which was basically a patrol.

What if we expand on that idea. We make a special detachment called an allied detachment - it looks like a patrol detachment - you can only take one of them and it gives you -2 CP to your base. I think that would work really well? What do you think?

No.

Why not? To punitive? Not punitive enough?

 Xenomancers wrote:

Why not? To punitive? Not punitive enough?

Way too restrictive. You should be able to make armies with extensive use of allies. Ad Mech and Imperial Knights. Inquisition and everything Imperial. Ynnari and friends. Major problem with allies is the CP, especially CP regeneration. Once that is handled, allies are fine.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Hey, you want an even easier way to do it?

Make it so that the single FOC auxiliary choices can be the only real way for you to ally things in.

That's actually a really good idea.

 Xenomancers wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
But...a brigade also gives you 6 slots in all roles without costing you CP.

I think this system works if you limit armies to one of each detachment. It doesn't work quite as well if you're not.

It couldn't work with only 1 detachment. It could work with a limit of 2.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Hey, you want an even easier way to do it?

Make it so that the single FOC auxiliary choices can be the only real way for you to ally things in.

Kind of like in 7th - could take a single allied detachment - which was basically a patrol.

What if we expand on that idea. We make a special detachment called an allied detachment - it looks like a patrol detachment - you can only take one of them and it gives you -2 CP to your base. I think that would work really well? What do you think?

No.

Why not? To punitive? Not punitive enough?

Not one detachment total. One of each detachment. Your army can have one battalion. One outrider. One supreme command. etc. Any number within the points limit.

 Crimson wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Why not? To punitive? Not punitive enough?

Way too restrictive. You should be able to make armies with extensive use of allies. Ad Mech and Imperial Knights. Inquisition and everything Imperial. Ynnari and friends. Major problem with allies is the CP, especially CP regeneration. Once that is handled, allies are fine.

Maybe the only 1 per army isn't necessary then. Imperial soup's primary issue is CP gen. Eldar soup is more about super synergies. Like...Doom with splinter rifles and dessie is absolutely insane.

There needs to be some sort of limitation on allies. Picking and choosing the best combos out of 15 codex should have some negative associated with it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
But...a brigade also gives you 6 slots in all roles without costing you CP.

I think this system works if you limit armies to one of each detachment. It doesn't work quite as well if you're not.

It couldn't work with only 1 detachment. It could work with a limit of 2.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Hey, you want an even easier way to do it?

Make it so that the single FOC auxiliary choices can be the only real way for you to ally things in.

Kind of like in 7th - could take a single allied detachment - which was basically a patrol.

What if we expand on that idea. We make a special detachment called an allied detachment - it looks like a patrol detachment - you can only take one of them and it gives you -2 CP to your base. I think that would work really well? What do you think?

No.

Why not? To punitive? Not punitive enough?

Not one detachment total. One of each detachment. Your army can have one battalion. One outrider. One supreme command. etc. Any number within the points limit.

I'm down with that. That actually would give a brigade a purpose.

So, screw DE and their 3-Patrol nonsense?

I think the intention of the system is to *allow* certain detatchments to be spammed. As in, you can take almost exclusively Outriders to do an SM Bike Company or Windriders or Speed Freaks. You just get almost no CP.

Bharring wrote:
So, screw DE and their 3-Patrol nonsense?

I think the intention of the system is to *allow* certain detatchments to be spammed. As in, you can take almost exclusively Outriders to do an SM Bike Company or Windriders or Speed Freaks. You just get almost no CP.

In my OP I made concession to this kind of special detachment rule. Knight lance and DE patrols were my examples - they should be -0 command points.

 vipoid wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Hey, you want an even easier way to do it?

Make it so that the single FOC auxiliary choices can be the only real way for you to ally things in.

That's actually a really good idea.

Here's a more finessed version:

A Battle-Forged Army has to feature the same Army keyword(Astra Militarum, Tau Empire, etc) on all of its Detachments. Any other Army units added to the army, in order to remain Battle-Forged, must be Auxiliary choices with the exception of certain Factions that replace those keywords.

Boom. Soup is solved fairly well, with the exception of Genestealer Cult and their wonkiness right now. But that can be fixed too by adding the Guard stuff into the GSC book proper.

Or you know, you can stop trying to kill soup completely just because it offends you to see Guard and Space Marines together?

 LunarSol wrote:
Or you know, you can stop trying to kill soup completely just because it offends you to see Guard and Space Marines together?

Seconded.

 LunarSol wrote:
Or you know, you can stop trying to kill soup completely just because it offends you to see Guard and Space Marines together?

People whine constantly about my army and how it's unbalanced. We have people who don't understand or even misrepresent the details of the army to justify their complaints of imbalance.

So while I have no qualms about people running Guard and Marines together, I do have qualms about my army having suffered significant changes because there's a mechanism in place(auxiliary detachments) that is supposed to be for this kind of stuff yet somehow it's able to be completely sidestepped for people to abuse with "soup" lists.

You shouldn't be able to bolster Marines with a super cheap Detachment of Guard to fill out CPs. End of story. You want Guard and Marines? Cool! You get a CP generation penalty.

 LunarSol wrote:
Or you know, you can stop trying to kill soup completely just because it offends you to see Guard and Space Marines together?

Humm - no one wants to kill soup completely. It certainly needs some kind of penalty or something.

What offends people is a custodes army (10,000 year old masters of war) needing to take IG batallions (25 year old newbs) to get "command points". Lets be real here. Aint no one playing space marines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Hey, you want an even easier way to do it?

Make it so that the single FOC auxiliary choices can be the only real way for you to ally things in.

That's actually a really good idea.

Here's a more finessed version:

A Battle-Forged Army has to feature the same Army keyword(Astra Militarum, Tau Empire, etc) on all of its Detachments. Any other Army units added to the army, in order to remain Battle-Forged, must be Auxiliary choices with the exception of certain Factions that replace those keywords.

Boom. Soup is solved fairly well, with the exception of Genestealer Cult and their wonkiness right now. But that can be fixed too by adding the Guard stuff into the GSC book proper.

Soup is not as big of a problem as armies not being able to produce their own command points without it. At least with imperial factions IMO.

 Xenomancers wrote:


What offends people is a custodes army (10,000 year old masters of war) needing to take IG batallions (25 year old newbs) to get "command points".

Then just give Custodes a way to have the CP they need without IG! And ban IG from having infinite CP. 5CPs for 200 points is not a huge deal, infinite CP for 200 points is.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Hey, you want an even easier way to do it?

Make it so that the single FOC auxiliary choices can be the only real way for you to ally things in.

That's actually a really good idea.

Here's a more finessed version:

A Battle-Forged Army has to feature the same Army keyword(Astra Militarum, Tau Empire, etc) on all of its Detachments. Any other Army units added to the army, in order to remain Battle-Forged, must be Auxiliary choices with the exception of certain Factions that replace those keywords.

Boom. Soup is solved fairly well, with the exception of Genestealer Cult and their wonkiness right now. But that can be fixed too by adding the Guard stuff into the GSC book proper.

Seconded. This is a great way to handle it, much more than a clunky rework of the entire CP system/8th edition.

 Crimson wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:


What offends people is a custodes army (10,000 year old masters of war) needing to take IG batallions (25 year old newbs) to get "command points".

Then just give Custodes a way to have the CP they need without IG! And ban IG from having infinite CP. 5CPs for 200 points is not a huge deal, infinite CP for 200 points is.

That is what this is system is.

I assure you. Custodes will not even bother with a gaurd batallion if they already start with CP. Also - I just had a thought. What if regenerated command points could not be regenerated again?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Hey, you want an even easier way to do it?

Make it so that the single FOC auxiliary choices can be the only real way for you to ally things in.

That's actually a really good idea.

Here's a more finessed version:

A Battle-Forged Army has to feature the same Army keyword(Astra Militarum, Tau Empire, etc) on all of its Detachments. Any other Army units added to the army, in order to remain Battle-Forged, must be Auxiliary choices with the exception of certain Factions that replace those keywords.

Boom. Soup is solved fairly well, with the exception of Genestealer Cult and their wonkiness right now. But that can be fixed too by adding the Guard stuff into the GSC book proper.

Seconded. This is a great way to handle it, much more than a clunky rework of the entire CP system/8th edition.

That just kills allies and in addition does not solve the problem of elite armies without access to cheap hq and troops not being able to generate command points. A rework is required - CP is unfairly generated across armies.

 Xenomancers wrote:
What if regenerated command points could not be regenerated again?

I feel like that may be harder to track than just capping total CPs for the game.
For example, if you started with 16CPs, you could potentially regen another 16. That's pretty much what happens now. It is rare for an army to more than double there starting CPs, possible but rare
I'd rather see CPs generated mid-game to be hard capped at a certain level, so total cap = 1CP per 100pts

For example, if you are playing 2K, you cannot generate more than 20CPs in the whole game, including those you started with.
So if you started with 14CPs, you can only ever generate 6 more before you are done.

-

Formations should just reward based on the amount of points spent in them.

Example:

Brigade - +1 cp per 200 points.
Battalion - +1 cp per 300 points
other - +1 cp per 400 points

Also limit the non-base force org portion of these detachments so you can't take expensive heavies in a battalion to get your CP up. 0-2 heavies in a battalion, for example.

Why not “everyone gets 15 Command points” and be done with it?

Remove the “x detachment gives x CP” and faq all the CP regeneration tools to instead just give 1+ Command points.

 Iur_tae_mont wrote:
Why not “everyone gets 15 Command points” and be done with it?

Remove the “x detachment gives x CP” and faq all the CP regeneration tools to instead just give 1+ Command points.

Then all you'll see are spearheads and vanguards. The detachment/force org structure would have to be massively redesigned.

And, all abilities that allow you to generate CP on top of that (by rolling, or flat from characters) would have to be removed.

 Marmatag wrote:
Formations should just reward based on the amount of points spent in them.

Example:

Brigade - +1 cp per 200 points.
Battalion - +1 cp per 300 points
other - +1 cp per 400 points

Also limit the non-base force org portion of these detachments so you can't take expensive heavies in a battalion to get your CP up. 0-2 heavies in a battalion, for example.

That seems like a little bit too much math going on pregame. This version is much more simple and more or less establishes the same thing. It rewards taking brigade and batallion and punishes everything else. Its also a lot easier for your opponent to understand where your CP are coming from. Nor does it require a rework of the detachments FOC (not opposed to this) I just think simpler is better. (I'm sure those aren't the actual values you would use ether - those seem real weak.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Iur_tae_mont wrote:
Why not “everyone gets 15 Command points” and be done with it?

Remove the “x detachment gives x CP” and faq all the CP regeneration tools to instead just give 1+ Command points.

Then all you'll see are spearheads and vanguards. The detachment/force org structure would have to be massively redesigned.

And, all abilities that allow you to generate CP on top of that (by rolling, or flat from characters) would have to be removed.

Yeah exactly -

FOC is important.
HS is the most powerful slot. Unlocking these slots should require troops or command points. This is my logic.

 Iur_tae_mont wrote:
Why not “everyone gets 15 Command points” and be done with it?

Remove the “x detachment gives x CP” and faq all the CP regeneration tools to instead just give 1+ Command points.

I think there's value in forcing people to take a good percentage of chaff in the game. It helps reduce skew in general and makes sure even in a bad matchup, you're not left feeling incapable of killing anything. Knights are probably the one place where this breaks down and honestly, I think in some ways it was better when they had to take Guard to fuel their stuff. The codex reliance on strategems and relics though gives us a "first knight, best knight" problem that makes this kind of irrelevant though.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Iur_tae_mont wrote:
Why not “everyone gets 15 Command points” and be done with it?

Remove the “x detachment gives x CP” and faq all the CP regeneration tools to instead just give 1+ Command points.

I think there's value in forcing people to take a good percentage of chaff in the game. It helps reduce skew in general and makes sure even in a bad matchup, you're not left feeling incapable of killing anything. Knights are probably the one place where this breaks down and honestly, I think in some ways it was better when they had to take Guard to fuel their stuff. The codex reliance on strategems and relics though gives us a "first knight, best knight" problem that makes this kind of irrelevant though.

The argument that it's good that IK need to take some infantry in their army so you have something to shoot bolters at is extremely weak IMO. More or less you get about the same value out of shooting the knight even wounding on a 6 . It's just hard for people to math that out.

40 lasgun shots averages 1 wound on an imperial knight. For about 18 points of damage when shooting at a 450 point knight. Which is about the same return shooting at gaurdsmen in cover.

Someone probably already brought this up, but it is very possible to spam Drukhari Kabalites and Venoms without losing any command points by your system. Per GW, there's no limit on Troops or Transports. So, this is completely possible. Zoom in, shoot, zoom out over and over.

SG

 ServiceGames wrote:
Someone probably already brought this up, but it is very possible to spam Drukhari Kabalites and Venoms without losing any command points by your system. Per GW, there's no limit on Troops or Transports. So, this is completely possible. Zoom in, shoot, zoom out over and over.

SG

Spamming troops in transports is fine provided they are both not under-costed. In this case they both are. It's even nastier if they are 10 man in raiders - with 2 blasters/shredders and splinter cannon plus splinter racks ignoring cover rerolling 1's from inside the transports. LOL.

This system is to allow armies to have a fair command point generation system that doesn't favor 1 army over another. Nothing short of point changes will fix DE.

Keeping the base CP as you suggest. Why not limit allies to 1 brigade with the following special rules:
1) All the units must have the same army key word;
2) Unless all the allies have the same faction key word they do not gain any special rules or abilities other than what is on their data sheet;
3) -1 CP for each different faction key word in the allied brigade (minimum of -1 CP);
4)There is no minimum requirement to this brigade (so you don't have to have 2 HQs etc) but it does enforce the unit type maximums.
5) Add 3 LoW slots to the brigade.

Anyway just a quick thought.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Spamming troops in transports is fine provided they are both not under-costed. In this case they both are.

Citation needed.

Kabalites are *maybe* 1pt undercosted, though I've yet to be convinced. They're barely better than guardsmen in terms of survivability, and their basic weapons are barely better than Lasguns, and lack any of the Orders/buffs that make lasguns a threat.

Venoms are fairly cheap, but they can only transport 5 guys and (especially for a transport that was once a gun-platform) their shooting is abysmal. Their one bonus is that they're more resilient to single-shot, high-AP anti-tank guns (e.g. Lascannons) than many other transports. But this comes at the expense of being much more vulnerable to lighter weapons like Autocannons and Heavy Bolters.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Keeping the base CP as you suggest. Why not limit allies to 1 brigade with the following special rules:
1) All the units must have the same army key word;
2) Unless all the allies have the same faction key word they do not gain any special rules or abilities other than what is on their data sheet;
3) -1 CP for each different faction key word in the allied brigade (minimum of -1 CP);
4)There is no minimum requirement to this brigade (so you don't have to have 2 HQs etc) but it does enforce the unit type maximums.
5) Add 3 LoW slots to the brigade.

Anyway just a quick thought.

What Exactly is the aim of this. Right off the top of my head I see a problem. 3 ravagers and a void raven bomber - for the cost of -1 cp to go with my eldar. Without even an HQ tax. Not feeling it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Spamming troops in transports is fine provided they are both not under-costed. In this case they both are.

Citation needed.

Kabalites are *maybe* 1pt undercosted, though I've yet to be convinced. They're barely better than guardsmen in terms of survivability, and their basic weapons are barely better than Lasguns, and lack any of the Orders/buffs that make lasguns a threat.

Venoms are fairly cheap, but they can only transport 5 guys and (especially for a transport that was once a gun-platform) their shooting is abysmal. Their one bonus is that they're more resilient to single-shot, high-AP anti-tank guns (e.g. Lascannons) than many other transports. But this comes at the expense of being much more vulnerable to lighter weapons like Autocannons and Heavy Bolters.

1 point undercosted is significant when you only cost 6 points. Access to reoll 1's ignore cover inside a transport they do far more damage than infantry do per point against a host of targets...absolutely insane when they are shooting at things like...carnifex or hive tyrants or custode jet bikers. Really though - all that I would really be okay with if they cost 7 points. The true OP of warriors is 2 specials per 10 + a heavy + a sucubus blast pistol. They are basically IG vetrens that can go in an open topped transport reroll 1's from the inside and they have 6+ FNP if their vehcail dies - that count as troops - that cost as much as an IG vetren.

People please remember this is a suggestion to fix 1 issue.
The game as it is has a number of issues but trying to fix everything at once will result in choas.

If one thing is a problem you try and find the simplest solution to that problem.

Let's try and not derail this with discussion of which units are or arn't undercosted.

Ice_can wrote:
People please remember this is a suggestion to fix 1 issue.
The game as it is has a number of issues but trying to fix everything at once will result in choas.

If one thing is a problem you try and find the simplest solution to that problem.

Let's try and not derail this with discussion of which units are or arn't undercosted.

Thank you Ice. I agree - lets keep it on topic. A command point fix will not fix broken units. It will allow armies to play without allies if they don't want to. Which is good.

 Xenomancers wrote:
HS is the most powerful slot. Unlocking these slots should require troops or command points. This is my logic.

*Looks at the Custodes codex*

*Sees Vertus Praetors in Fast Attack*

*Looks at Heavy Support, sees only a Land Raider*

Come again?

Also, on Deathstars...

What do you call a blob of Bullgryns with Slabshields and Mauls, around a Vexila Defensor with a Primaris Psyker nearby, getting a 2+ Invuln save?

 vipoid wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Spamming troops in transports is fine provided they are both not under-costed. In this case they both are.

Citation needed.

Kabalites are *maybe* 1pt undercosted, though I've yet to be convinced. They're barely better than guardsmen in terms of survivability, and their basic weapons are barely better than Lasguns, and lack any of the Orders/buffs that make lasguns a threat.

Venoms are fairly cheap, but they can only transport 5 guys and (especially for a transport that was once a gun-platform) their shooting is abysmal. Their one bonus is that they're more resilient to single-shot, high-AP anti-tank guns (e.g. Lascannons) than many other transports. But this comes at the expense of being much more vulnerable to lighter weapons like Autocannons and Heavy Bolters.

All credibility is destroyed, Venoms are fantastic.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Keeping the base CP as you suggest. Why not limit allies to 1 brigade with the following special rules:
1) All the units must have the same army key word;
2) Unless all the allies have the same faction key word they do not gain any special rules or abilities other than what is on their data sheet;
3) -1 CP for each different faction key word in the allied brigade (minimum of -1 CP);
4)There is no minimum requirement to this brigade (so you don't have to have 2 HQs etc) but it does enforce the unit type maximums.
5) Add 3 LoW slots to the brigade.

Anyway just a quick thought.

What Exactly is the aim of this. Right off the top of my head I see a problem. 3 ravagers and a void raven bomber - for the cost of -1 cp to go with my eldar. Without even an HQ tax. Not feeling it.

It would allow allies but limit the amount of types of units. It would reduce the amount of soup to maybe 1 or 2 other key words but not neccessarily keep people from using more. It would also be the only place for a person to put allies so if they took a main force from faction 1 and wanted allies from factions 2 and 3 they could do that at the cost of 2 CPs and not getting any of the normal benefits.
If you wanted you could require 1 HQ for each faction word used and that would put a hard cap of no more than 3 allies but I was thinking about factions that don't have HQs yet like Sisters of Silence.
In any event it's just a suggestion.

Seems fine I would suggest having the +3 only apply to mono faction builds as currently there is no incentive for taking a mono faction and this also buffs all xeno builds such as tau, orks, Necrons ect right out of the gate

Also just remove CP regeneration from the game altogether. CP is such an amazingly strong tool giving some factions the ability to gain more throughout the game and not others is just impossible to balance.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
HS is the most powerful slot. Unlocking these slots should require troops or command points. This is my logic.

*Looks at the Custodes codex*

*Sees Vertus Praetors in Fast Attack*

*Looks at Heavy Support, sees only a Land Raider*

Come again?

Also, on Deathstars...

What do you call a blob of Bullgryns with Slabshields and Mauls, around a Vexila Defensor with a Primaris Psyker nearby, getting a 2+ Invuln save?

FA/ HS - makes no difference - they are all taxed the same way under this system.

Bait for my 3 storm surges? Death hex? Jinx? Drain? Infernal gateway? Smite? Bait for my witches? Bait for my wracks? Bait for my voidravens. It's not like a 7th eddition deathstar which was indestructable. 3 void ravens will reduce almost any deathstar unit in a single turn.

Every wound takes a mortal on a 3+ against 3 void ravens. And they didn't even have to shoot you with their 6d3 str 8 ap-3 d3 damagers and 3d6 reroll wound missles - those can shoot your custodies bikers instead.

So what about:

1) Choose a faction keyword, excluding those mentioned in the 'Battle Brothers' beta rule.

2) CP is only generated from detachments where every unit contains that faction keyword.

3) Strategems may only be used on, and relics may only be chosen for, units with that faction keyword.

Then you can still cherry pick whatever nonsense you wanna throw together. But you are tactically penalized for netlisting the best stuff.

I just had an idea.

Using the CP system as it is and bring all the detachments back to how they were pre FAQ (so Battalions only generate +3cp), what if there where "levels" of Battle Forged?

Let me explain: BF currently gives +3CPs to start and requires 2 things:
A) all units be sorted into detachments and
B) the army as a whole share 1 Faction Keyword.

But what if sharing additional Faction or Subfaction keywords granted you additional CPs?
For example, sharing only 1 keyword only gives you +3CPs for BF, but sharing 2 across all units in your army could give you +6, sharing 3 or more could add +9CPs

This could kill 2 birds with a single stone as it would reward armies that stick to a single subfaction. This may eliminate the need to shuffle around detachment bonuses as taking a cheap Guard battalion in a Marine Army would actually lose you CPs over just taking more Marines.
It evens out, essentially.

-

 Galef wrote:

But what if sharing additional Faction or Subfaction keywords granted you additional CPs?
For example, sharing only 1 keyword only gives you +3CPs for BF, but sharing 2 across all units in your army could give you +6, sharing 3 or more could add +9CPs

Something like that would be good. This is actually a reasonable suggestion that doesn't make the soup unplayable, merely slightly less desirable. (Though no need to go beyond two faction keywords, you don't need extra CP for being ULTRAMARINES on top of IMPERIUM and ADEPTUS ASTARTES.)

 Crimson wrote:

 Galef wrote:

But what if sharing additional Faction or Subfaction keywords granted you additional CPs?
For example, sharing only 1 keyword only gives you +3CPs for BF, but sharing 2 across all units in your army could give you +6, sharing 3 or more could add +9CPs

Something like that would be good. This is actually a reasonable suggestion that doesn't make the soup unplayable, merely slightly less desirable. (Though no need to go beyond two faction keywords, you don't need extra CP for being ULTRAMARINES on top of IMPERIUM and ADEPTUS ASTARTES.)

All of the FAQ'd keywords shouldn't count for the additional CP then as nercons only have necro, dynasty as keywords they don't have an "Imperium" equivalent. Same for Tau its just Tau, Sept.

Ice_can wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Galef wrote:

But what if sharing additional Faction or Subfaction keywords granted you additional CPs?
For example, sharing only 1 keyword only gives you +3CPs for BF, but sharing 2 across all units in your army could give you +6, sharing 3 or more could add +9CPs

Something like that would be good. This is actually a reasonable suggestion that doesn't make the soup unplayable, merely slightly less desirable. (Though no need to go beyond two faction keywords, you don't need extra CP for being ULTRAMARINES on top of IMPERIUM and ADEPTUS ASTARTES.)

All of the FAQ'd keywords shouldn't count for the additional CP then as nercons only have necro, dynasty as keywords they don't have an "Imperium" equivalent. Same for Tau its just Tau, Sept.

It should work so that if your army is united by keyword other than IMPERIUM, CHAOS, AELDARI, YNNARI or TYRANIDS you get the extra CP.

Yeah, fair enough. I'd say +3CP if your army is BF, +6CP if all units in your army share 2 or more faction keywords.

It makes soup less desirable, yet still possible. Keeping Battalions at 3CP should also help the temptation to add 2 cheap battalions to Factions that don't share more than 1 keyword.

I say remove CP regeneration (or reduce it to 6+ per strategem, 5+ is pretty generous) and give some armies like Custodes and IK buffers to CP compensate.

Then change it so armies are not rewarded for full CP from secondary detachments. So if you bring in a 180pt guard battalion, you may only get 1CP as opposed to 5CP.

Maybe a bit convoluted but I am not of the belief that starting CP should all be fair.

If CP regeneration abilities have to exist at all, they should be given to expensive elite armies like Custodes and Knights. It is completely bonkers that the faction which has the easiest time filling the detachments and gaining a hefty CP total that way has the most potent CP regeneration abilities in the game.

 Crimson wrote:
If CP regeneration abilities have to exist at all, they should be given to expensive elite armies like Custodes and Knights. It is completely bonkers that the faction which has the easiest time filling the detachments and gaining a hefty CP total that way has the most potent CP regeneration abilities in the game.

Elite armies need the CP to begin with! The cheapest battalion a custodes player can field is 700+pts. To compensate they should probably start with a base +6 but that would only work if they dont have access to cheap IG battalions that generate 5CP.

IG in isolation dont have any game breaking strategems. So giving them more CP isn't the problem. But its when you give them CP and regen for people to use on other armies that becomes an issue IMO.

Neatest solution would be to just say "You can only use Stratagems associated with your Warlord's faction".

Leave the idea of "Custodians cost 700+ so should have more CP!" to the balancing of the *actual* stratagems.

For example, a 1 CP strat for Imperial Guard should be weaker than a 1 CP strat for Custards

 Eonfuzz wrote:
Neatest solution would be to just say "You can only use Stratagems associated with your Warlord's faction".

Leave the idea of "Custodians cost 700+ so should have more CP!" to the balancing of the *actual* stratagems.

For example, a 1 CP strat for Imperial Guard should be weaker than a 1 CP strat for Custards

Yes agreed. This would work as opposed to a CP overhaul which would be a 9th edition thing.

In reference to Custodes and (knights to an equal extent), each army should be able to operate as a mono faction for the most part without being penalised for it. If a player decides to soup, because for example they like having guard in their army, they should not get the benefit of CP and regen at all.

Custodes have their captains as obsec for the reason that they are limited in obsec troops, it stands to reason they should be able to get a CP adjustment due to their elite nature.

I don't know. This is very weird for Imperial Knights now that they lose CPs for having more detachments rather than gaining them,

Why do so many people in this thread not understand that CP totals are supposed to be unequal? Different armies having different amounts of CP is a feature, not a bug. A MSU army like IG will have lots of CP, but each CP will have a small effect. An elite army will have fewer CP, but each CP will have a bigger effect. Spending 1 CP to buff a 300 point unit adds more power to your army than spending the same 1 CP to buff a 50 point unit. In the end spending lots of CP to add up small effects vs. spending few CP on more powerful effects balances out. Giving each army the same CP total just rewards elite/death star armies that can maximize the power of each CP spent at the expense of MSU armies that no longer get a CP advantage to make up for their lack of per-CP power.

The problem with IG (and similar cheap MSU options) is not that they get a lot of CP, it's soup abuse. You buy a bunch of CP at the discount "buff your 50 point infantry squad" rate, but then you spend them at the higher "buff your 300 point unit" rate. Remove the ability to use CP outside of the faction that produced them (or just ban allies entirely, which is the better solution) and that problem goes away.

Except even in pure guard yhe CP isn't spent of buffing Infantry squads its spent on buffing LoW tanks and Scion Comand squads not on joe slow infantry squads.

Also are you going to defend the grand strategist and Kurov's combo of broken?

 Peregrine wrote:
Why do so many people in this thread not understand that CP totals are supposed to be unequal? Different armies having different amounts of CP is a feature, not a bug.

Exactly. Custodes and Knights were never supposed to have a ton of CP. It's weird that people find it unfair that all armies can't have 15 CP.

 deviantduck wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Why do so many people in this thread not understand that CP totals are supposed to be unequal? Different armies having different amounts of CP is a feature, not a bug.

Exactly. Custodes and Knights were never supposed to have a ton of CP. It's weird that people find it unfair that all armies can't have 15 CP.

Yes, those armies are indeed meant to have less CP and thus have more powerful Strats. The problems is that you rarely see them with few CPs because they add a cheap Guard Battalion to generate CPs.
So you end up with units with powerful Strats and more CPs than they were designed to have.

There are several solutions. Most involve de-incentivizing taking Battalions of different Factions
At the very least, Battalions should go back to only 3CP and being BF should go up to 5 minimum

-

 Galef wrote:

Yes, those armies are indeed meant to have less CP and thus have more powerful Strats.

I don't believe that. GW writers knew how the ally rules work when writing these codices. Custodes book even includes several things that can be used to buff other Imperium units. They were meant to use allies.

 Crimson wrote:

 Galef wrote:

Yes, those armies are indeed meant to have less CP and thus have more powerful Strats.

I don't believe that. GW writers knew how the ally rules work when writing these codices. Custodes book even includes several things that can be used to buff other Imperium units. They were meant to use allies.

It had to be part of the designer's thought process. Knowing how the ally rules work is not the same as assuming everyone will use them. The designers often design from a "players will commit to just this army" standpoint.
They have to. That is the only thing explaining why some factions have better strats than others

-

How to fix CP

1) buy the 200 point guard tax, custodes and knights
2) build and make them look pretty
3) buy a plane ticket to the UK
4) go curb stop at Warhammer world until you brutally defeat one of the GW rule writters
5) ???
6) CP farm nerfed in next chapter approved


Seriously the reason this broken stuff does not get addressed is because the UK does not play like they do in the states the rule writters base it off of what they experience. It's why the big FAQ got pushed back a month, because one of the GW guys went to LVO(iirc it was LVO) and got curb stomped by a flyrant list at which point they nerfed flayrant spam and introduced the rule of 3 data cards.

 Galef wrote:
That is the only thing explaining why some factions have better strats than others

No. The reason is that the writers sometimes accidentally write good strats and sometimes bad.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
How to fix CP

1) buy the 200 point guard tax, custodes and knights
2) build and make them look pretty
3) buy a plane ticket to the UK
4) go curb stop at Warhammer world until you brutally defeat one of the GW rule writters
5) ???
6) CP farm nerfed in next chapter approved


Seriously the reason this broken stuff does not get addressed is because the UK does not play like they do in the states the rule writters base it off of what they experience. It's why the big FAQ got pushed back a month, because one of the GW guys went to LVO(iirc it was LVO) and got curb stomped by a flyrant list at which point they nerfed flayrant spam and introduced the rule of 3 data cards.

That wouldn't help as roumer was/is none of the 40k rules team play in competitive events.
It's not a USA vrs UK thing its a non of the rules team play competative and hence can't see why things are broken as they have fluff goggles.

Ice_can wrote:
That wouldn't help as roumer was/is none of the 40k rules team play in competitive events.

I'd probably go with this. The designers write the rules to have fun, not to be competitive. That often means things can be broken because the intent was not to play them in that way.
Basically, we are playing the game wrong and rather than use a bit of restraint in our lists to play them "right", some demand the designers fix the game.
It shouldn't take going to a "competitive" event for the designers to see this, however, they just need a few designers that playtest *trying* to break the game, rather than play fluffy lists and say "yep, the rules are good"

-

 Crimson wrote:

 Galef wrote:

Yes, those armies are indeed meant to have less CP and thus have more powerful Strats.

I don't believe that. GW writers knew how the ally rules work when writing these codices. Custodes book even includes several things that can be used to buff other Imperium units. They were meant to use allies.

Imperial units can aura buff other imperial units without also using the CP siphon mechanic. In fact, one might even follow the steps I outlined above in this thread as a simple fix.

1) Choose a faction keyword, excluding those mentioned in the 'Battle Brothers' beta rule.

2) CP is only generated from detachments where every unit contains that faction keyword.

3) Strategems may only be used on, and relics may only be chosen for, units with that faction keyword.

If one wants to use strategems (or relics) to make superman even better, one must pay the tax to bring superman caliber troops units.

jaxor1983 wrote:

Imperial units can aura buff other imperial units without also using the CP siphon mechanic. In fact, one might even follow the steps I outlined above in this thread as a simple fix.

1) Choose a faction keyword, excluding those mentioned in the 'Battle Brothers' beta rule.

2) CP is only generated from detachments where every unit contains that faction keyword.

3) Strategems may only be used on, and relics may only be chosen for, units with that faction keyword.

If one wants to use strategems (or relics) to make superman even better, one must pay the tax to bring superman caliber troops units.

A simpler fix that potentially acheives the same goal it as follows:
An army only has access to Strats and Relics from the same codex as the army Warlord.
Likewise, CPs can only be generated from detachments that share at least 1 keyword that is NOT Imperium, Chaos, Aeldari, Ynnari or Tyranids as defined by the Beta rule.

So adding a Guard Battalion to generate CPs for Knights would be worthless

-

 Galef wrote:
A simpler fix that potentially acheives the same goal it as follows:
An army only have access to Strats and Relics from the same codex as the army Warlord.
Likewise, CPs can only be generated from detachments that share at least 1 keyword that is NOT Imperium, Chaos, Aeldari, Ynnari or Tyranids as defined by the Beta rule.

So adding a Guard Battalion to generate CPs for Knights would be worthless

Dear Athe, no, this is insane! Just give soups three or so CPs less and remove the CP regen from the game. That's all that is needed, no need to nuke the soup from the orbit.

 Crimson wrote:

 Galef wrote:
A simpler fix that potentially acheives the same goal it as follows:
An army only have access to Strats and Relics from the same codex as the army Warlord.
Likewise, CPs can only be generated from detachments that share at least 1 keyword that is NOT Imperium, Chaos, Aeldari, Ynnari or Tyranids as defined by the Beta rule.

So adding a Guard Battalion to generate CPs for Knights would be worthless

Dear Athe, no, this is insane! Just give soups three or so CPs less and remove the CP regen from the game. That's all that is needed, no need to nuke the soup from the orbit.

Agreed. I didn't say it was a better fix, just simpler.

I truly feel the best fix would be to take Battalions back down to 3CPs, have BF grant 3-5 CPs from the start and armies that share 2+ Faction Keywords on all units get an additional +3CPs. It would make soup still viable, but would not be the ONLY answer. Armies like Necrons or only uising Marines would be able to get about the same total CPs as soup lists.
CP regen is another issue. I like the idea of turning those rule into just +1CP for the game and that's it.

-

 Peregrine wrote:
Why do so many people in this thread not understand that CP totals are supposed to be unequal? Different armies having different amounts of CP is a feature, not a bug. A MSU army like IG will have lots of CP, but each CP will have a small effect. An elite army will have fewer CP, but each CP will have a bigger effect. Spending 1 CP to buff a 300 point unit adds more power to your army than spending the same 1 CP to buff a 50 point unit. In the end spending lots of CP to add up small effects vs. spending few CP on more powerful effects balances out. Giving each army the same CP total just rewards elite/death star armies that can maximize the power of each CP spent at the expense of MSU armies that no longer get a CP advantage to make up for their lack of per-CP power.

The problem with IG (and similar cheap MSU options) is not that they get a lot of CP, it's soup abuse. You buy a bunch of CP at the discount "buff your 50 point infantry squad" rate, but then you spend them at the higher "buff your 300 point unit" rate. Remove the ability to use CP outside of the faction that produced them (or just ban allies entirely, which is the better solution) and that problem goes away.

By what metric can you state that command points are ment to be unequal?
Does not Gaurd have access to 500+ point units in their own codex? Where custodians don't? What is this "buff unit rate" nonsense. It's a complete fabrication not grounded in fact of any kind.

You mean to tell me that eldar have a "buff unit rate" that has something to do with their ability to generate command points and stratagem power? No - it's doesn't - they have amazingly efficient and powerful stratagems with easy command point generation as well.

By your logic. Greyknights should have amazing stratagems - actually they are the most expensive and crappy in the game. The game is unbalanced - and the command point structure is poorly designed. That is why they are unequal.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
How to fix CP

1) buy the 200 point guard tax, custodes and knights
2) build and make them look pretty
3) buy a plane ticket to the UK
4) go curb stop at Warhammer world until you brutally defeat one of the GW rule writters
5) ???
6) CP farm nerfed in next chapter approved


Seriously the reason this broken stuff does not get addressed is because the UK does not play like they do in the states the rule writters base it off of what they experience. It's why the big FAQ got pushed back a month, because one of the GW guys went to LVO(iirc it was LVO) and got curb stomped by a flyrant list at which point they nerfed flayrant spam and introduced the rule of 3 data cards.

Designers out of touch with their own game. Truly sad. Pathetic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Galef wrote:

Yes, those armies are indeed meant to have less CP and thus have more powerful Strats.

I don't believe that. GW writers knew how the ally rules work when writing these codices. Custodes book even includes several things that can be used to buff other Imperium units. They were meant to use allies.

It had to be part of the designer's thought process. Knowing how the ally rules work is not the same as assuming everyone will use them. The designers often design from a "players will commit to just this army" standpoint.
They have to. That is the only thing explaining why some factions have better strats than others

-

I think you are being to generous and understanding here. I can think of a lot of other reasons why some armies have betters stats than others. IE - power creep - bias - incompetence.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Why do so many people in this thread not understand that CP totals are supposed to be unequal? Different armies having different amounts of CP is a feature, not a bug. A MSU army like IG will have lots of CP, but each CP will have a small effect. An elite army will have fewer CP, but each CP will have a bigger effect. Spending 1 CP to buff a 300 point unit adds more power to your army than spending the same 1 CP to buff a 50 point unit. In the end spending lots of CP to add up small effects vs. spending few CP on more powerful effects balances out. Giving each army the same CP total just rewards elite/death star armies that can maximize the power of each CP spent at the expense of MSU armies that no longer get a CP advantage to make up for their lack of per-CP power.

The problem with IG (and similar cheap MSU options) is not that they get a lot of CP, it's soup abuse. You buy a bunch of CP at the discount "buff your 50 point infantry squad" rate, but then you spend them at the higher "buff your 300 point unit" rate. Remove the ability to use CP outside of the faction that produced them (or just ban allies entirely, which is the better solution) and that problem goes away.

By what metric can you state that command points are ment to be unequal?
Does not Gaurd have access to 500+ point units in their own codex? Where custodians don't? What is this "buff unit rate" nonsense. It's a complete fabrication not grounded in fact of any kind.

You mean to tell me that eldar have a "buff unit rate" that has something to do with their ability to generate command points and stratagem power? No - it's doesn't - they have amazingly efficient and powerful stratagems with easy command point generation as well.

By your logic. Greyknights should have amazing stratagems - actually they are the most expensive and crappy in the game. The game is unbalanced - and the command point structure is poorly designed. That is why they are unequal.

Have you seen the guard stratagems? They are very poor compared to other armies stratagems, and even fewer actually affect the 500 point units in a meaningful way. Most call out specific units or keywords like INFANTRY or LEMAN RUSS etc. Even then, orders are better most of the time. (which also dont affect baneblades).

So yes, they do have 500 point units in the codex, almost no stratagems can be applied to them (and the ones that do are not that good). Theres only 2 off the top of my head that would specifically affect a baneblade in a meaningful way. 1 gives it 2+ to hit in melee (whoopee) and the other +1 BS (which is good, but is a vostroyan stratagem which means you cant be cadian or catachan on the baneblade making the regimental doctrine/chapter tactic useless)

Point is, im not trying to say guard is UP, soup is fine or any nonsense like that. Im just trying to say Peregrines claim makes sense when you look at the IG stratagems. They only provide small buffs and even when applied to the large 500 point models its not as impactful as custode or IK ones

 Billagio wrote:


Have you seen the guard stratagems? They are very poor compared to other armies stratagems, and even fewer actually affect the 500 point units in a meaningful way. Most call out specific units or keywords like INFANTRY or LEMAN RUSS etc. Even then, orders are better most of the time. (which also dont affect baneblades).

"Guard have bad stratagems, anything else is fake news." -Guard players

You only need 1 or 2 good stratagems to make the set fantastic.

Outflanking a Shadow Sword is the definition of a god mode stratagem, for example.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Billagio wrote:


Have you seen the guard stratagems? They are very poor compared to other armies stratagems, and even fewer actually affect the 500 point units in a meaningful way. Most call out specific units or keywords like INFANTRY or LEMAN RUSS etc. Even then, orders are better most of the time. (which also dont affect baneblades).

"Guard have bad stratagems, anything else is fake news." -Guard players

You only need 1 or 2 good stratagems to make the set fantastic.

Outflanking a Shadow Sword is the definition of a god mode stratagem, for example.

It's no better than being able to outflank a Knight. If that's the best stratagem in the Guard codex, then phhrrrbt. We're, at our best, equal to a fairly mediocre stratagem from the Knights codex. Neat.

 Billagio wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Why do so many people in this thread not understand that CP totals are supposed to be unequal? Different armies having different amounts of CP is a feature, not a bug. A MSU army like IG will have lots of CP, but each CP will have a small effect. An elite army will have fewer CP, but each CP will have a bigger effect. Spending 1 CP to buff a 300 point unit adds more power to your army than spending the same 1 CP to buff a 50 point unit. In the end spending lots of CP to add up small effects vs. spending few CP on more powerful effects balances out. Giving each army the same CP total just rewards elite/death star armies that can maximize the power of each CP spent at the expense of MSU armies that no longer get a CP advantage to make up for their lack of per-CP power.

The problem with IG (and similar cheap MSU options) is not that they get a lot of CP, it's soup abuse. You buy a bunch of CP at the discount "buff your 50 point infantry squad" rate, but then you spend them at the higher "buff your 300 point unit" rate. Remove the ability to use CP outside of the faction that produced them (or just ban allies entirely, which is the better solution) and that problem goes away.

By what metric can you state that command points are ment to be unequal?
Does not Gaurd have access to 500+ point units in their own codex? Where custodians don't? What is this "buff unit rate" nonsense. It's a complete fabrication not grounded in fact of any kind.

You mean to tell me that eldar have a "buff unit rate" that has something to do with their ability to generate command points and stratagem power? No - it's doesn't - they have amazingly efficient and powerful stratagems with easy command point generation as well.

By your logic. Greyknights should have amazing stratagems - actually they are the most expensive and crappy in the game. The game is unbalanced - and the command point structure is poorly designed. That is why they are unequal.

Have you seen the guard stratagems? They are very poor compared to other armies stratagems, and even fewer actually affect the 500 point units in a meaningful way. Most call out specific units or keywords like INFANTRY or LEMAN RUSS etc. Even then, orders are better most of the time. (which also dont affect baneblades).

So yes, they do have 500 point units in the codex, almost no stratagems can be applied to them (and the ones that do are not that good). Theres only 2 off the top of my head that would specifically affect a baneblade in a meaningful way. 1 gives it 2+ to hit in melee (whoopee) and the other +1 BS (which is good, but is a vostroyan stratagem which means you cant be cadian or catachan on the baneblade making the regimental doctrine/chapter tactic useless)

Point is, im not trying to say guard is UP, soup is fine or any nonsense like that. Im just trying to say Peregrines claim makes sense when you look at the IG stratagems. They only provide small buffs and even when applied to the large 500 point models its not as impactful as custode or IK ones

A vostryn or tallarn shadowsword is nasty being able to outflank an anti titanic unit is very strong.(The knight one is strong but can't be used on FW or Dominus class knights)
Also Can't Jurry rigging be used unlimited times on any LoW to regain all its wounds in a single turn with enough CP?
The re-rolling any dice one per phase is very strong when you have enpugh CP to do it in the move, shooting, charge and fight phase every turn.
Also a pure knight list has what 9CP and will be luck to start the game with 5

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Billagio wrote:


Have you seen the guard stratagems? They are very poor compared to other armies stratagems, and even fewer actually affect the 500 point units in a meaningful way. Most call out specific units or keywords like INFANTRY or LEMAN RUSS etc. Even then, orders are better most of the time. (which also dont affect baneblades).

"Guard have bad stratagems, anything else is fake news." -Guard players

You only need 1 or 2 good stratagems to make the set fantastic.

Outflanking a Shadow Sword is the definition of a god mode stratagem, for example.

It's no better than being able to outflank a Knight. If that's the best stratagem in the Guard codex, then phhrrrbt. We're, at our best, equal to a fairly mediocre stratagem from the Knights codex. Neat.

It doesn't need to be better - both are god mode. Just pointing out there is no "buff unit rate" that codex have. It is completely random and more or less - stratagems are costed based on what is going to use them.
Overlapping feilds of fire and talyern outflank are amazing strats. Overwatch buff is great - crush him is great. Preliminary bombardment is great. Take cover is great (cant you use this on a baneblade too?)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Billagio wrote:


Have you seen the guard stratagems? They are very poor compared to other armies stratagems, and even fewer actually affect the 500 point units in a meaningful way. Most call out specific units or keywords like INFANTRY or LEMAN RUSS etc. Even then, orders are better most of the time. (which also dont affect baneblades).

"Guard have bad stratagems, anything else is fake news." -Guard players

You only need 1 or 2 good stratagems to make the set fantastic.

Outflanking a Shadow Sword is the definition of a god mode stratagem, for example.

It's no better than being able to outflank a Knight. If that's the best stratagem in the Guard codex, then phhrrrbt. We're, at our best, equal to a fairly mediocre stratagem from the Knights codex. Neat.

With 3-4 times more command points. Knights get maybe 1 command reroll a game. Gaurd players probably take 12.

You cannot use Take Cover on anything but Infantry.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Billagio wrote:


Have you seen the guard stratagems? They are very poor compared to other armies stratagems, and even fewer actually affect the 500 point units in a meaningful way. Most call out specific units or keywords like INFANTRY or LEMAN RUSS etc. Even then, orders are better most of the time. (which also dont affect baneblades).

"Guard have bad stratagems, anything else is fake news." -Guard players

You only need 1 or 2 good stratagems to make the set fantastic.

Outflanking a Shadow Sword is the definition of a god mode stratagem, for example.

It's no better than being able to outflank a Knight. If that's the best stratagem in the Guard codex, then phhrrrbt. We're, at our best, equal to a fairly mediocre stratagem from the Knights codex. Neat.

It doesn't need to be better - both are god mode. Just pointing out there is no "buff unit rate" that codex have. It is completely random and more or less - stratagems are costed based on what is going to use them.
Overlapping feilds of fire and talyern outflank are amazing strats. Overwatch buff is great - crush him is great. Preliminary bombardment is great. Take cover is great (cant you use this on a baneblade too?)

Overlapping Fields of Fire is a Cadian specific stratagem. Overwatch buff only applies to tanks.

I've already corrected you on these elsewhere, but of course you'll just keep reiterating misinformation.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Billagio wrote:


Have you seen the guard stratagems? They are very poor compared to other armies stratagems, and even fewer actually affect the 500 point units in a meaningful way. Most call out specific units or keywords like INFANTRY or LEMAN RUSS etc. Even then, orders are better most of the time. (which also dont affect baneblades).

"Guard have bad stratagems, anything else is fake news." -Guard players

You only need 1 or 2 good stratagems to make the set fantastic.

Outflanking a Shadow Sword is the definition of a god mode stratagem, for example.

It's no better than being able to outflank a Knight. If that's the best stratagem in the Guard codex, then phhrrrbt. We're, at our best, equal to a fairly mediocre stratagem from the Knights codex. Neat.

It doesn't need to be better - both are god mode. Just pointing out there is no "buff unit rate" that codex have. It is completely random and more or less - stratagems are costed based on what is going to use them.
Overlapping feilds of fire and talyern outflank are amazing strats. Overwatch buff is great - crush him is great. Preliminary bombardment is great. Take cover is great (cant you use this on a baneblade too?)

Overlapping Fields of Fire is a Cadian specific stratagem. Overwatch buff only applies to tanks.

I've already corrected you on these elsewhere, but of course you'll just keep reiterating misinformation.

\
Everyone who knows the game - knows exactly what I am talking about dude. They all know I am not spreading misinformation. The stratagems are good. Want to see bad stratagems - open codex space marines or grey knights. Here are some real trash stratagems.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
You cannot use Take Cover on anything but Infantry.

Thanks for that - I am pretty sure it's been used on a tank against me. I will know next time.

 Crimson wrote:
I don't believe that. GW writers knew how the ally rules work when writing these codices. Custodes book even includes several things that can be used to buff other Imperium units. They were meant to use allies.

They may have been meant to use allies. They were probably not meant to take a minimum 200-point IG detachment with the warlord and CP relic purely as a CP farm, because GW designs around their idea of narrative play and not competitive list optimization. Their idea of an allied IG force would be something like several infantry squads, a LRBT or Basilisk or two, maybe some ogryns or veterans or whatever. And the warlord would certainly be a Custodes hero, because gold marines do not let a mere mortal command them. That sort of list is not the same kind of balance problem as spending 200 points for a CP farm in every elite army.

This does bring a very valid point and very simple way to mitigate CP batteries (slightly). A sentence could be added to page 132 of the AM codex that states something about not letting your warlord be AM if your army contains a character from any of the other imperium factions.

 Xenomancers wrote:
By what metric can you state that command points are ment to be unequal?

The metric is that inequality is an obvious and inescapable consequence of the CP generation rules. When CP is tied to the number of detachments you fill an army with cheap units will fill more detachments, and therefore generate more CP, than an army with more expensive units. Even GW can't be stupid enough to fail to notice this consequence, so the fact that they used the current system means that CP inequality is a deliberate choice.

Easier to just errata Grand Strategist to not be strictly better than other traits. Technically reducing errata since it was the errata that broke it in the first place.

 Peregrine wrote:
Even GW can't be stupid enough to fail to notice this consequence, so the fact that they used the current system means that CP inequality is a deliberate choice.

I agree for the most part. It certainly helps explain why Eldar have such good Strats, because unless you soup in cheap Dark Eldar, CWE have a harder time filling Battalions with enough points left for competitive choices.
So they inherently have less CPs, ergo they get better strats.

This obviously isn't consistent across all factions, but there are enough cases to suggest it's deliberate.

-

jaxor1983 wrote:
This does bring a very valid point and very simple way to mitigate CP batteries (slightly). A sentence could be added to page 132 of the AM codex that states something about not letting your warlord be AM if your army contains a character from any of the other imperium factions.

Even easier is adding something to the main rulebook that you cannot bring anything outside of Auxiliary(read: 1 unit per choice, with a -1 penalty to your CP total) Detachments from other books.

I think at the very least there was an initial believe that cheaper stuff should have greater access to CP. The baseline strategems are generally more needed by large weak units in the case of insane bravery or spent less impactfully (rerolling a failed 4+/5+ is less likely to be a CP well spent than a 3+). It didn't take long for Guard to spend all their CP on the tanks though, making it just kind of an advantage all around.

What I can't tell is whether or not GW decided this was less a bug and more of a feature. This demand to take cheap chaff to fuel the big impactful stuff has been double downed on pretty repeatedly as the edition progressed and I'm not really convinced its a bad thing.

The core idea of 15 cp is nice, but I'd rather see something like

4 CP per round, refreshed at the top of each round for each player.

All cp regen/gain items changes to: At the top of each round each player with this item/skill that has the character with the item/Skill still on the battlefield can gain an extra CP for use in this round on a roll of 5+. One attempt per round.

If your force is mono faction, once per game gain 1 CP for a round you chose.

 LunarSol wrote:
I think at the very least there was an initial believe that cheaper stuff should have greater access to CP. The baseline strategems are generally more needed by large weak units in the case of insane bravery or spent less impactfully (rerolling a failed 4+/5+ is less likely to be a CP well spent than a 3+). It didn't take long for Guard to spend all their CP on the tanks though, making it just kind of an advantage all around.

To be fair, the tanks tend to have a few more stratagems that aren't "reactive".

Things like "Aerial Spotters" for Basilisks and Wyverns, "Crush Them!" and "Jury Rigging" for any vehicle, "Officio Prefectus Command Tank" for a Leman Russ, Mobile Command Vehicle for Chimeras--those are all things that you can choose to activate on your turn. There's also "Vortex Missiles" but...those require Deathstrikes.
Those all have a much more (IMO) dramatic "payout" compared to the Guard Infantry oriented stratagems.

Not to say they're bad, just that they're very much reactive rather than active.

What I can't tell is whether or not GW decided this was less a bug and more of a feature. This demand to take cheap chaff to fuel the big impactful stuff has been double downed on pretty repeatedly as the edition progressed and I'm not really convinced its a bad thing.

And it's funny how when I've made suggestions that make the cheap chaff a hindrance rather than a boon, I get told to "stop trying to kill soup!".

 Kanluwen wrote:

Even easier is adding something to the main rulebook that you cannot bring anything outside of Auxiliary(read: 1 unit per choice, with a -1 penalty to your CP total) Detachments from other books.

Even easier solution: let's just ban Guard.

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Even easier is adding something to the main rulebook that you cannot bring anything outside of Auxiliary(read: 1 unit per choice, with a -1 penalty to your CP total) Detachments from other books.

Even easier solution: let's just ban Guard.

Sure. Let's ban HQ choices too. Maybe LoWs? Oh I know, FAs are pretty OP now!

In any regards:
The option is right there. We've had those Auxiliary detachments since day freaking one. But why would you take one when you can just throw another faction's stuff in?

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Even easier is adding something to the main rulebook that you cannot bring anything outside of Auxiliary(read: 1 unit per choice, with a -1 penalty to your CP total) Detachments from other books.

Even easier solution: let's just ban Guard.

That would certainly free up a lot of time and money to play golf instead, I guess. Let's try it.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Even easier is adding something to the main rulebook that you cannot bring anything outside of Auxiliary(read: 1 unit per choice, with a -1 penalty to your CP total) Detachments from other books.

Even easier solution: let's just ban Guard.

Sure. Let's ban HQ choices too. Maybe LoWs? Oh I know, FAs are pretty OP now!

I mean you started this nonsense about banning people's armies.

In any regards:
The option is right there. We've had those Auxiliary detachments since day freaking one. But why would you take one when you can just throw another faction's stuff in?

Auxiliary detachment is for when you want to bring just unit. It has to be possible to build armies that have large allied contingents.

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Even easier is adding something to the main rulebook that you cannot bring anything outside of Auxiliary(read: 1 unit per choice, with a -1 penalty to your CP total) Detachments from other books.

Even easier solution: let's just ban Guard.

Sure. Let's ban HQ choices too. Maybe LoWs? Oh I know, FAs are pretty OP now!

I mean you started this nonsense about banning people's armies.

Difference is my route doesn't "ban" anyone's armies. It just makes them hilariously inefficient when they do the current nonsense of bringing one army's stuff to pad out their own's weaknesses.

In any regards:
The option is right there. We've had those Auxiliary detachments since day freaking one. But why would you take one when you can just throw another faction's stuff in?

Auxiliary detachment is for when you want to bring just unit. It has to be possible to build armies that have large allied contingents.

Sure, and we can have that when you all stop bringing more allied units than what you claim is your actual army.

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Even easier is adding something to the main rulebook that you cannot bring anything outside of Auxiliary(read: 1 unit per choice, with a -1 penalty to your CP total) Detachments from other books.

Even easier solution: let's just ban Guard.

Sure. Let's ban HQ choices too. Maybe LoWs? Oh I know, FAs are pretty OP now!

I mean you started this nonsense about banning people's armies.

In any regards:
The option is right there. We've had those Auxiliary detachments since day freaking one. But why would you take one when you can just throw another faction's stuff in?

Auxiliary detachment is for when you want to bring just unit. It has to be possible to build armies that have large allied contingents.

We'll, you can, the cost is CP, but if you have cheap battalions, you have CP to burn, right?

 Kanluwen wrote:

Difference is my route doesn't "ban" anyone's armies. It just makes them hilariously inefficient when they do the current nonsense of bringing one army's stuff to pad out their own's weaknesses.

Oh okay then! Let's just make it so that Guard detachments can never generate any CP. Now that's fair and good fix?

Sure, and we can have that when you all stop bringing more allied units than what you claim is your actual army.

What the feth it matter what people call their army? Some people's armies are soup. Knights with household troops (Skitarii in my case), Inquisitorial taskforces, Ynnari, Craftworlds with Dark Eldar mercenaries, etc.

Ice_can wrote:


2)I don't think I've met any player IRL that believes that the Grand Strategists and Kurov's in a single faction is remotely balanced.
That combo is supper broken and no amount of CP generation changes will rain in that mess.

while certainly a ridiculous combo, in practice, at least in my games, I never make it through enough CP's in the first place for it to matter most of the time either way, at least with a mono-IG force. If I start with 15 CP's and generate another 8 during a game, but only spend 12, it doesn't actually do anything but leave me with 11 unused CP.

It's definitely an issue in soup lists for armies that otherwise are very limited on CP's, but I think allies/soup has been a major balance issue with the game since they brought it back in 6E.

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Difference is my route doesn't "ban" anyone's armies. It just makes them hilariously inefficient when they do the current nonsense of bringing one army's stuff to pad out their own's weaknesses.

Oh okay then! Let's just make it so that Guard detachments can never generate any CP. Now that's fair and good fix?

Sure, let's make it so other armies can do the same. After all, CPs are borked right?

Sure, and we can have that when you all stop bringing more allied units than what you claim is your actual army.

What the feth it matter what people call their army? Some people's armies are soup. Knights with household troops (Skitarii in my case), Inquisitorial taskforces, Ynnari, Craftworlds with Dark Eldar mercenaries, etc.

Why should people be able to whine about my Guard army being used to fill gaps and then protest when I want to prevent them from doing so?

If you want any of those things, you should have a penalty to contend with.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
By what metric can you state that command points are ment to be unequal?

The metric is that inequality is an obvious and inescapable consequence of the CP generation rules. When CP is tied to the number of detachments you fill an army with cheap units will fill more detachments, and therefore generate more CP, than an army with more expensive units. Even GW can't be stupid enough to fail to notice this consequence, so the fact that they used the current system means that CP inequality is a deliberate choice.

"Even GW can't be stupid enough to fail to notice this consequence"
Coming from you that is funny - you believe GW is completely incompotent. I happen to agree with that. They fail at things far more simple than the complexities of building a competitive list. Competitive isn't even in their dictionary - they actually thing people load space marine sargets with powerfists with a flamer and a multimelta in the squad 10 man (combat squaded). Come on dude - this is beyond them. Did you see the commisar nerf? That GW? Nothing is below slipping by them.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Ice_can wrote:


2)I don't think I've met any player IRL that believes that the Grand Strategists and Kurov's in a single faction is remotely balanced.
That combo is supper broken and no amount of CP generation changes will rain in that mess.

while certainly a ridiculous combo, in practice, at least in my games, I never make it through enough CP's in the first place for it to matter most of the time either way, at least with a mono-IG force. If I start with 15 CP's and generate another 8 during a game, but only spend 12, it doesn't actually do anything but leave me with 11 unused CP.

It's definitely an issue in soup lists for armies that otherwise are very limited on CP's, but I think allies/soup has been a major balance issue with the game since they brought it back in 6E.

What stops you using that 11 CP to jury rig a shadowsword for how many wounds in a single turn?
Just becuase your not using those CP which I don't get as competitive mono guard players seam to find ways to burn through max CP.

I think a better way, rather than beating soup over the head with a brick, would just be dial back the command points and remove CP regen.

you get three for Battleforge and you get additional command points for whatever detachment your warlord is in.

Patrols are worth 0
Battalions are worth 2
Brigades are worth 3
Everyone else is worth 1

From that point, you gain 2 every turn.

The most someone would start with is 6 and that would require the warlord to be in a brigade. Then every player would gain 12 more over the course of the game.

Ice_can wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Ice_can wrote:


2)I don't think I've met any player IRL that believes that the Grand Strategists and Kurov's in a single faction is remotely balanced.
That combo is supper broken and no amount of CP generation changes will rain in that mess.

while certainly a ridiculous combo, in practice, at least in my games, I never make it through enough CP's in the first place for it to matter most of the time either way, at least with a mono-IG force. If I start with 15 CP's and generate another 8 during a game, but only spend 12, it doesn't actually do anything but leave me with 11 unused CP.

It's definitely an issue in soup lists for armies that otherwise are very limited on CP's, but I think allies/soup has been a major balance issue with the game since they brought it back in 6E.

What stops you using that 11 CP to jury rig a shadowsword for how many wounds in a single turn?
Just becuase your not using those CP which I don't get as competitive mono guard players seam to find ways to burn through max CP.

In open/narrative play, nothing I guess, but that's a relatively minor issue among the things possible in that style of play, and I'm assuming if we're talking about competitive play we're talking Matched Play, and under those rules you can't just spam Jury Rigging and can only use it once per turn at the start of the turn (unless I'm forgetting something), so you can't burn through those CP like that, and if you wanna have a Shadowsword do nothing for a turn to heal 1 wound, your opponent will probably thank you.

 Iur_tae_mont wrote:
I think a better way, rather than beating soup over the head with a brick, would just be dial back the command points and remove CP regen.

you get three for Battleforge and you get additional command points for whatever detachment your warlord is in.

Patrols are worth 0
Battalions are worth 2
Brigades are worth 3
Everyone else is worth 1

From that point, you gain 2 every turn.

The most someone would start with is 6 and that would require the warlord to be in a brigade. Then every player would gain 12 more over the course of the game.

Honestly, the best thing they can do is go to the Age of Sigmar system when it comes to how CPs are generated.

You get 1 each round, and you can pool them up.
You get a one-time additional boost of CPs for each Warscroll Battalion that you've fielded.
Since WBs cost points as well there's another bit there.

 Vaktathi wrote:

I'm assuming if we're talking about competitive play we're talking Matched Play, and under those rules you can't just spam Jury Rigging and can only use it once per turn at the start of the turn (unless I'm forgetting something), so you can't burn through those CP like that, and if you wanna have a Shadowsword do nothing for a turn to heal 1 wound, your opponent will probably thank you.

Yup all strategems can only be used once a turn in matched play. But a shadowsword is probably sitting in the backfield so even if it is Jury Rigged, its going to be about to shoot its intended target.

For guard strategems, you could burn through CP but most of the time you are doing just for the sake of it rather than it be part of a core strategy. Guard strategems are one of the tamest sets as far as I can tell, the only one remotely powerful is Vengence for Cadia and that is Chaos specific. Heck just using it for Command rerolls you could get through it if you wanted.

That screws the Inquisition who only have HQ & Elite choices.

 Ecclesiarch 616 wrote:
That screws the Inquisition who only have HQ & Elite choices.

The "Vanguard Detachment" exists. HQs & Elites, bam.

 Smirrors wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

I'm assuming if we're talking about competitive play we're talking Matched Play, and under those rules you can't just spam Jury Rigging and can only use it once per turn at the start of the turn (unless I'm forgetting something), so you can't burn through those CP like that, and if you wanna have a Shadowsword do nothing for a turn to heal 1 wound, your opponent will probably thank you.

Yup all strategems can only be used once a turn in matched play. But a shadowsword is probably sitting in the backfield so even if it is Jury Rigged, its going to be about to shoot its intended target.

For guard strategems, you could burn through CP but most of the time you are doing just for the sake of it rather than it be part of a core strategy. Guard strategems are one of the tamest sets as far as I can tell, the only one remotely powerful is Vengence for Cadia and that is Chaos specific. Heck just using it for Command rerolls you could get through it if you wanted.

Once per phase not turn, at the start of your turn is dubious as to being a phase or not a phase and hence any at the start of your turn strategums are currently not RAW limited.

Ice_can wrote:

Once per phase not turn, at the start of your turn is dubious as to being a phase or not a phase and hence any at the start of your turn strategums are currently not RAW limited.

Sorry my bad. Not sure what you mean about the second part, i thought it was clear enough what start meant but clearly not.

 Smirrors wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Once per phase not turn, at the start of your turn is dubious as to being a phase or not a phase and hence any at the start of your turn strategums are currently not RAW limited.

Sorry my bad. Not sure what you mean about the second part, i thought it was clear enough what start meant but clearly not.

It's been done to death in the ymdc section
Short version start of your turn is pre your movement phase, what phase comes before you movement phase? No such phase exsists.
So RAW start of turn strategums are outwith a phase to be limited by the once per phase rule. Its cheesey but rules correct.

Ice_can wrote:

 Smirrors wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

I'm assuming if we're talking about competitive play we're talking Matched Play, and under those rules you can't just spam Jury Rigging and can only use it once per turn at the start of the turn (unless I'm forgetting something), so you can't burn through those CP like that, and if you wanna have a Shadowsword do nothing for a turn to heal 1 wound, your opponent will probably thank you.

Yup all strategems can only be used once a turn in matched play. But a shadowsword is probably sitting in the backfield so even if it is Jury Rigged, its going to be about to shoot its intended target.

For guard strategems, you could burn through CP but most of the time you are doing just for the sake of it rather than it be part of a core strategy. Guard strategems are one of the tamest sets as far as I can tell, the only one remotely powerful is Vengence for Cadia and that is Chaos specific. Heck just using it for Command rerolls you could get through it if you wanted.

Once per phase not turn, at the start of your turn is dubious as to being a phase or not a phase and hence any at the start of your turn strategums are currently not RAW limited.

Jury Rig wrote:
Use at the start of your turn. Select an Astra Militarum Vehicle from your army. It cannot move, charge or pile in this turn, but immediately heals 1 wound.

It tells you when you use it. It's the start of your turn.

There's no ambiguity here.

 Ecclesiarch 616 wrote:
That screws the Inquisition who only have HQ & Elite choices.

Not really, You'd start out with 4 command points and gain another 12 over the course of the game, giving you 16 in total.

Without spamming the ever-loving heck out of Guard, your Inquisition army isn't getting 16 in a game right now.

Or you take a Battalion of any imperial faction and have someone there be your warlord and you'd get 5 to start and 12 over the course of the game for a total of 17.

Thats not an issue I think that will come up much, 90% of players wont even think of it, Id never even heard of it, and that sounds like a rather absurd hill to try and die on for a rules argument in a pickup game while any given TO is probably unlikely to view favorably unless theyre a veteran of specficic web forums.

So, while I think the combo is abusable, within a mono-IG force thats already bringing lots of CP's, it's not offering much that isn't already taken care of by existing mechanics most of the time.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Sure, let's make it so other armies can do the same. After all, CPs are borked right?

No because the theme was to gome with insane bs suggestions which disproportionately punish certain armies.

Why should people be able to whine about my Guard army being used to fill gaps and then protest when I want to prevent them from doing so?

Because Guard's CP generation is too good, soup or no soup. I have no problem with bringing Guard allies in general, I do that mysels, I just don't take grand strategist or Kurov's Aquila.

If you want any of those things, you should have a penalty to contend with.

Small penalty perhaps, yes. But what you suggest is not reasonable. -1 Cp per one unit is not reasonable, and as there is a detachment limit in use in many games, that would mean max two allied units. It effectively bans soup. Furthermore, It would still allow Yvraine &Reapers or grand strategist & Kurov's Aquila commander to be allied. So it would punish the people who want to make flavourful varied armies, but would leave the worst cheese untouched.

 Crimson wrote:
It effectively bans soup.

This is a feature, not a bug.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
"Even GW can't be stupid enough to fail to notice this consequence"
Coming from you that is funny - you believe GW is completely incompotent. I happen to agree with that. They fail at things far more simple than the complexities of building a competitive list. Competitive isn't even in their dictionary - they actually thing people load space marine sargets with powerfists with a flamer and a multimelta in the squad 10 man (combat squaded). Come on dude - this is beyond them. Did you see the commisar nerf? That GW? Nothing is below slipping by them.

The point is that even if you aren't a competitive player the fact that different armies get different amounts of CP is extremely obvious. You don't have to play competitively, you just have to write a few lists of any kind to realize that CP is not uniform across all armies. There is absolutely no way GW failed to notice this fact. It's like saying that GW didn't realize that space marines had a 3+ save, and that passing saves on a 4 on a D6 roll was a consequence of putting "3+" in the rules.

We dont need to ban soups, IMO just give bonus to mono armies. Why not give 5CP to a mono army consisting of just 1 Faction?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
It effectively bans soup.

This is a feature, not a bug.

And many people think that banning FW would be a feature. But we don't like that either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
We dont need to ban soups, IMO just give bonus to mono armies. Why not give 5CP to a mono army consisting of just 1 Faction?

Yes, something like this would be good. Five points is kinda lot though. Maybe three? Or maybe it should scale with the size of the game? +1 CP for every 500 points for monoarmies?

 Crimson wrote:
And many people think that banning FW would be a feature. But we don't like that either.

The two are not at all the same. Banning soup accomplishes a legitimate game design goal of preventing the destruction of faction identity. Your army is your army, with all of its strengths and weaknesses, you don't get to turn half the game into an over-homogenized mess where the only question is which melee elites you're going to pair with your IG CP battery. Banning FW accomplishes nothing, which book a rule is printed in has nothing to do with how it functions in the game. It's equivalent to banning all units printed on page 76 of their respective codices, because page 76 is third-party fan rules.

 Peregrine wrote:

The two are not at all the same. Banning soup accomplishes a legitimate game design goal of preventing the destruction of faction identity. Your army is your army, with all of its strengths and weaknesses, you don't get to turn half the game into an over-homogenized mess where the only question is which melee elites you're going to pair with your IG CP battery. Banning FW accomplishes nothing, which book a rule is printed in has nothing to do with how it functions in the game. It's equivalent to banning all units printed on page 76 of their respective codices, because page 76 is third-party fan rules.

Stop this nonsense. We've been over this, this 'faction identity' exists only in your head. You already have powerful melee elites in your IG codex in form of Ogryns or Bullgryns. You can have your giant FW tanks and I want to have my Primaris Space Marines fighting next to the tiny guardsmen because it looks cool.

Maybe the easiest way to fix the current easy CP generation problem is to remove the restriction that all your forces need to share a keyword. Then, there's no inequality between any of the factions. One could use their PBCs, void ravens, and 200 points of IG. There's no faction identity to worry about as it is, so what difference would it make, functionally?

 Crimson wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
It effectively bans soup.

This is a feature, not a bug.

And many people think that banning FW would be a feature. But we don't like that either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
We dont need to ban soups, IMO just give bonus to mono armies. Why not give 5CP to a mono army consisting of just 1 Faction?

Yes, something like this would be good. Five points is kinda lot though. Maybe three? Or maybe it should scale with the size of the game? +1 CP for every 500 points for monoarmies?

When they 1st talked about factions in 40k and how they were working, i honestly thought you would get more bonuses/Buffs for playing mono and less for mixing, i was really excited until i saw there was no buffs b.c you can have a detachment and still gain full rules.

I really hope GW moves towards a system where we can have both Mono and mix armies but you are given incentive to not ally, allies are fluffy, but its extremely hard to balance 1000's of units and rules when you can fill the army with only the Best of the Best and you have 0 reasons to take 99% of all units.

I like soup, but i dont like the idea you can cherry pick every BiS unit in the game under 1 army.

Another idea is to have +2 CP's for each faction shared with another detachment, you have 3 SM detachments you gain +4CP, you have 2 SM and 1 IK;s then you gain +2

jaxor1983 wrote:
Maybe the easiest way to fix the current easy CP generation problem is to remove the restriction that all your forces need to share a keyword. Then, there's no inequality between any of the factions. One could use their PBCs, void ravens, and 200 points of IG. There's no faction identity to worry about as it is, so what difference would it make, functionally?

I would rather see the other direction. Soup kitchen is closed. Nobody gets soup now. Its been over a year since 8th released and soup has never stopped being an issue. Even when CP didn't matter soup was king. When only half the armies had codices, soup was king. The problem is soup. If you take away CP batteries then soup will just switch to options that either less CP intensive or can make use of the CP they can get. Its going to take a substantial nerf to dethrone soup. Something along the lines of losing access to all strategems, all chapter tactics, and all faction warlord traits/relics. A nice alternative would be a few soup strategems in CA so their CP still has a purpose. A dozen or so each for Aeldari/Ynnari, Imperium, and Chaos that can only be used by soup. Generic ones that can be used by all armies would work too. Naturally, exceptions for things like Inquisition and the assassins will still exist.

I think BOLS might be right with this article.

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2018/09/40k-gw-hints-at-command-points-per-detachment.html

With the Mini dex's pushing to you can only use CP from a detachment on the Stratagems for that detachment, the game changes if that comes out in a CA. I hope that if the CP is saved/Made by a CP generators that it is then bound to the detachment that generated it.

It completely removes the current cheeseball, Guard, Castellen, Smash Capts, as your Castallen won't even be able to rotate shields, and the Smash Captains are almost as bad.

Not sure if it affects the Eldar side.

The only issue I have with restricting CPs to only be used for the detachments that generate them is that I don't want to keep track on that.
Keeping track of my own is easy. Keeping track of my opponents, however, might be a nightmare.
I have a hard enough time keeping track of all the special abilities and snow flake rules for the huge variety of factions that exist that I just don't have the time or resources to "study" and memorize every little detail for.

I have very bad experiences with opponent "cheating" because they didn't know there own rules. I used to have all the Codices when they were all soft cover and I was single with no kids. So I was able to call out when something wasn't being done right and have that discussion with my opponent.
Now? Forget it. I have to just accept my opponents word unless something truly feels fishy. Otherwise we spend more time reading each other's books than actually playing

Adding a division of CPs that can only be spent on the detachment that generates it would just elevate my level of suspicion that an opponent my accidentally use the wrong CPs.

A better fix is that the only detachments that can generate CPs are those that share at least 2 factions keywords with the WL (so the WL's detachment and any others that are the same factions)
That would instantly eliminate using Guard as CP battery for the rest of the Imperium without nerfing mono-Guard.

-

CP being locked to detachment has a lot of bad consequences.

#1 - it creates more book keeping. I for one hate book keeping.
#2 - it pretty much guts allies and specifically archetypes that are designed to work with allied units. For example - Guilliman (grants CP you can't use if you have allies), dominus knights(sheild stratagem cant be used because you have no CP for it), and Custodians (lots of allied interactions).
#3 - it does nothing to help armies that can't generate their own CP.

Basically it's the first idea I had. Because it is the most obvious. I thought about it - realized it's one of the worst solutions possible because it addressed only 1 issue (OP soup) but creates more problems than it solves. There are much better solutions. I realize GW probably already printed CA so all this discussion is meaningless. But - it really isn't. My hope is that TO who are looking to create a better competitive environment might catch wind of this idea and implement it. Or at the very least - I hope A few players try this in their local stores and maybe a few players games got better as a result.

Reemule wrote:
I think BOLS might be right with this article.
Not sure if it affects the Eldar side.

That will Nuke Ynnari to only using the the three out of the Rule Book. Shouldn't bother just allies Eldar and DE too too much.

Command points are okay as they are.

Some other things require work instead, such as the spamming of units.

 RedCommander wrote:
Command points are okay as they are.

Some other things require work instead, such as the spamming of units.

Spamming of units has been fixed. You can only take 3 unless they are Troops
Fixing how CPs are generated has the side affect of reducing Troop spam too.

-

 Xenomancers wrote:
CP being locked to detachment has a lot of bad consequences.

#1 - it creates more book keeping. I for one hate book keeping.
#2 - it pretty much guts allies and specifically archetypes that are designed to work with allied units. For example - Guilliman (grants CP you can't use if you have allies), dominus knights(sheild stratagem cant be used because you have no CP for it), and Custodians (lots of allied interactions).
#3 - it does nothing to help armies that can't generate their own CP.

Basically it's the first idea I had. Because it is the most obvious. I thought about it - realized it's one of the worst solutions possible because it addressed only 1 issue (OP soup) but creates more problems than it solves. There are much better solutions. I realize GW probably already printed CA so all this discussion is meaningless. But - it really isn't. My hope is that TO who are looking to create a better competitive environment might catch wind of this idea and implement it. Or at the very least - I hope A few players try this in their local stores and maybe a few players games got better as a result.

I have to disagree with your points here
#1- The amount of bookkeeping is minimal and no more than tracking wounds over multiple characters. While it is a technical "increase" its so minimal i feel it makes a poor excuse for excluding it
#2- It doesn't "gut" allies. You still receive added flexibility and strength by being able to choose units over multiple books. It simply adds a drawback that is "less points spent on army x= less CP to spent on army x. There needs to be a drawback to soup or soup will always be 100% better then mono
#3. Every army can generate its own CP so I'm not sure what you're talking about. If an army is found to need more CP you can simply increase the amount that faction generates per detachment or reduce the cost of its strategems. Any mono dex that's already struggling is also unaffected by this change and soup builds power levels are lowered so the gap has effectively been decreased day 1 without a single change. More balance changes can be added as needed once they see where the meta has settled

 Xenomancers wrote:
CP being locked to detachment has a lot of bad consequences.

#1 - it creates more book keeping. I for one hate book keeping.
#2 - it pretty much guts allies and specifically archetypes that are designed to work with allied units. For example - Guilliman (grants CP you can't use if you have allies), dominus knights(sheild stratagem cant be used because you have no CP for it), and Custodians (lots of allied interactions).
#3 - it does nothing to help armies that can't generate their own CP.

Basically it's the first idea I had. Because it is the most obvious. I thought about it - realized it's one of the worst solutions possible because it addressed only 1 issue (OP soup) but creates more problems than it solves. There are much better solutions. I realize GW probably already printed CA so all this discussion is meaningless. But - it really isn't. My hope is that TO who are looking to create a better competitive environment might catch wind of this idea and implement it. Or at the very least - I hope A few players try this in their local stores and maybe a few players games got better as a result.

@#2, Again the case is overstated, I think, as I haven't seen the actual rules yet. Specifically, With the Dominus Knights. You can run enough to get them some CP and have access to that Stratagem. It will be something that you will need to put some consideration into.

If I had any concerns I'd like there to be a specific mention that is you bring more than 1 detachment of the same faction, they could share CP. So if I bring a Battalion of Ultramarines, and a supreme command to bring in Gulliman, I think there should just be a single CP pool.

Also that would answer your Book Keeping concern as well.

Reemule wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
CP being locked to detachment has a lot of bad consequences.

#1 - it creates more book keeping. I for one hate book keeping.
#2 - it pretty much guts allies and specifically archetypes that are designed to work with allied units. For example - Guilliman (grants CP you can't use if you have allies), dominus knights(sheild stratagem cant be used because you have no CP for it), and Custodians (lots of allied interactions).
#3 - it does nothing to help armies that can't generate their own CP.

Basically it's the first idea I had. Because it is the most obvious. I thought about it - realized it's one of the worst solutions possible because it addressed only 1 issue (OP soup) but creates more problems than it solves. There are much better solutions. I realize GW probably already printed CA so all this discussion is meaningless. But - it really isn't. My hope is that TO who are looking to create a better competitive environment might catch wind of this idea and implement it. Or at the very least - I hope A few players try this in their local stores and maybe a few players games got better as a result.

@#2, Again the case is overstated, I think, as I haven't seen the actual rules yet. Specifically, With the Dominus Knights. You can run enough to get them some CP and have access to that Stratagem. It will be something that you will need to put some consideration into.

If I had any concerns I'd like there to be a specific mention that is you bring more than 1 detachment of the same faction, they could share CP. So if I bring a Battalion of Ultramarines, and a supreme command to bring in Gulliman, I think there should just be a single CP pool.

Also that would answer your Book Keeping concern as well.

Yeah, the way I've always envisioned it is that detachments that have the same keyword can still share CP. So if you took 2 detachments of UM and one IG you would only have 2 CP pools one for IG and one for UM. This makes sense from a rules standpoint (we have a keyword system so its easy to impliment) and from a thematic sense "hey we have a lot more points in army x than army y so we can do more cool army x stuff than army y stuff"

Asmodios wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
CP being locked to detachment has a lot of bad consequences.

#1 - it creates more book keeping. I for one hate book keeping.
#2 - it pretty much guts allies and specifically archetypes that are designed to work with allied units. For example - Guilliman (grants CP you can't use if you have allies), dominus knights(sheild stratagem cant be used because you have no CP for it), and Custodians (lots of allied interactions).
#3 - it does nothing to help armies that can't generate their own CP.

Basically it's the first idea I had. Because it is the most obvious. I thought about it - realized it's one of the worst solutions possible because it addressed only 1 issue (OP soup) but creates more problems than it solves. There are much better solutions. I realize GW probably already printed CA so all this discussion is meaningless. But - it really isn't. My hope is that TO who are looking to create a better competitive environment might catch wind of this idea and implement it. Or at the very least - I hope A few players try this in their local stores and maybe a few players games got better as a result.

I have to disagree with your points here
#1- The amount of bookkeeping is minimal and no more than tracking wounds over multiple characters. While it is a technical "increase" its so minimal i feel it makes a poor excuse for excluding it
#2- It doesn't "gut" allies. You still receive added flexibility and strength by being able to choose units over multiple books. It simply adds a drawback that is "less points spent on army x= less CP to spent on army x. There needs to be a drawback to soup or soup will always be 100% better then mono
#3. Every army can generate its own CP so I'm not sure what you're talking about. If an army is found to need more CP you can simply increase the amount that faction generates per detachment or reduce the cost of its strategems. Any mono dex that's already struggling is also unaffected by this change and soup builds power levels are lowered so the gap has effectively been decreased day 1 without a single change. More balance changes can be added as needed once they see where the meta has settled

Custodes can not generate their own CP. Their battalion is 650 points. The idea is the ease of generation is unfairly distributed. Armies with cheap HQ and troops do it to easy comparably. This is a fact. I am not engaging it this debate. It is unfair. Everyone knows it. Moving on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Reemule wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
CP being locked to detachment has a lot of bad consequences.

#1 - it creates more book keeping. I for one hate book keeping.
#2 - it pretty much guts allies and specifically archetypes that are designed to work with allied units. For example - Guilliman (grants CP you can't use if you have allies), dominus knights(sheild stratagem cant be used because you have no CP for it), and Custodians (lots of allied interactions).
#3 - it does nothing to help armies that can't generate their own CP.

Basically it's the first idea I had. Because it is the most obvious. I thought about it - realized it's one of the worst solutions possible because it addressed only 1 issue (OP soup) but creates more problems than it solves. There are much better solutions. I realize GW probably already printed CA so all this discussion is meaningless. But - it really isn't. My hope is that TO who are looking to create a better competitive environment might catch wind of this idea and implement it. Or at the very least - I hope A few players try this in their local stores and maybe a few players games got better as a result.

@#2, Again the case is overstated, I think, as I haven't seen the actual rules yet. Specifically, With the Dominus Knights. You can run enough to get them some CP and have access to that Stratagem. It will be something that you will need to put some consideration into.

If I had any concerns I'd like there to be a specific mention that is you bring more than 1 detachment of the same faction, they could share CP. So if I bring a Battalion of Ultramarines, and a supreme command to bring in Gulliman, I think there should just be a single CP pool.

Also that would answer your Book Keeping concern as well.

#1 and #2 are inherently linked. If BA or custodes can't generate enough CP in a mono army. What makes you think they can do it with a single detachment??? They can't. Units are more powerful with stratagems. Units that can't use stratagems because they don't have CP are not as useful. It kills allies.

Guilliman is an ultra marine. That will never be an issue. Guilliman supporting knights or custodians just dies. He can only use CP on himself in that case - worthless.

And as I've said the book keeping issue isn't with your own book keeping, it's with keeping up with your opponents book keeping.

The solution needs to keep allies viable, but completely remove using allies as CP batteries.
Moving CP generation away from detachments and more heavily on being Battle Forged goes a long way towards this solution.

-

I'm not an expert on other forces, but sticking to what I do know...

As a Knight player I need to be aware and ready to play games where I have access to 9 CP. And No more. (I can't see a good way in a 2K game to get more than 9 with my forces)

With my Ultramarines I can get to 12 very easily a number of ways. So I need to be ready to play with 12.

I feel I can make both of these work for me. Are you implying Custodes can't get to 9?

 Xenomancers wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
CP being locked to detachment has a lot of bad consequences.

#1 - it creates more book keeping. I for one hate book keeping.
#2 - it pretty much guts allies and specifically archetypes that are designed to work with allied units. For example - Guilliman (grants CP you can't use if you have allies), dominus knights(sheild stratagem cant be used because you have no CP for it), and Custodians (lots of allied interactions).
#3 - it does nothing to help armies that can't generate their own CP.

Basically it's the first idea I had. Because it is the most obvious. I thought about it - realized it's one of the worst solutions possible because it addressed only 1 issue (OP soup) but creates more problems than it solves. There are much better solutions. I realize GW probably already printed CA so all this discussion is meaningless. But - it really isn't. My hope is that TO who are looking to create a better competitive environment might catch wind of this idea and implement it. Or at the very least - I hope A few players try this in their local stores and maybe a few players games got better as a result.

I have to disagree with your points here
#1- The amount of bookkeeping is minimal and no more than tracking wounds over multiple characters. While it is a technical "increase" its so minimal i feel it makes a poor excuse for excluding it
#2- It doesn't "gut" allies. You still receive added flexibility and strength by being able to choose units over multiple books. It simply adds a drawback that is "less points spent on army x= less CP to spent on army x. There needs to be a drawback to soup or soup will always be 100% better then mono
#3. Every army can generate its own CP so I'm not sure what you're talking about. If an army is found to need more CP you can simply increase the amount that faction generates per detachment or reduce the cost of its strategems. Any mono dex that's already struggling is also unaffected by this change and soup builds power levels are lowered so the gap has effectively been decreased day 1 without a single change. More balance changes can be added as needed once they see where the meta has settled

Custodes can not generate their own CP. Their battalion is 650 points. The idea is the ease of generation is unfairly distributed. Armies with cheap HQ and troops do it to easy comparably. This is a fact. I am not engaging it this debate. It is unfair. Everyone knows it. Moving on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Reemule wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
CP being locked to detachment has a lot of bad consequences.

#1 - it creates more book keeping. I for one hate book keeping.
#2 - it pretty much guts allies and specifically archetypes that are designed to work with allied units. For example - Guilliman (grants CP you can't use if you have allies), dominus knights(sheild stratagem cant be used because you have no CP for it), and Custodians (lots of allied interactions).
#3 - it does nothing to help armies that can't generate their own CP.

Basically it's the first idea I had. Because it is the most obvious. I thought about it - realized it's one of the worst solutions possible because it addressed only 1 issue (OP soup) but creates more problems than it solves. There are much better solutions. I realize GW probably already printed CA so all this discussion is meaningless. But - it really isn't. My hope is that TO who are looking to create a better competitive environment might catch wind of this idea and implement it. Or at the very least - I hope A few players try this in their local stores and maybe a few players games got better as a result.

@#2, Again the case is overstated, I think, as I haven't seen the actual rules yet. Specifically, With the Dominus Knights. You can run enough to get them some CP and have access to that Stratagem. It will be something that you will need to put some consideration into.

If I had any concerns I'd like there to be a specific mention that is you bring more than 1 detachment of the same faction, they could share CP. So if I bring a Battalion of Ultramarines, and a supreme command to bring in Gulliman, I think there should just be a single CP pool.

Also that would answer your Book Keeping concern as well.

#1 and #2 are inherently linked. If BA or custodes can't generate enough CP in a mono army. What makes you think they can do it with a single detachment??? They can't. Units are more powerful with stratagems. Units that can't use stratagems because they don't have CP are not as useful. It kills allies.

Guilliman is an ultra marine. That will never be an issue. Guilliman supporting knights or custodians just dies. He can only use CP on himself in that case - worthless.

Once again if an army like custodes is underpowered because of lack of CP you can easily fix them by A. giving them more CP B. reducing the cost of their strategems. Its not only an easy fix but adds another category that you can institue balance through instead of just points cost

Reemule wrote:
I'm not an expert on other forces, but sticking to what I do know...

As a Knight player I need to be aware and ready to play games where I have access to 9 CP. And No more. (I can't see a good way in a 2K game to get more than 9 with my forces)

With my Ultramarines I can get to 12 very easily a number of ways. So I need to be ready to play with 12.

I feel I can make both of these work for me. Are you implying Custodes can't get to 9?

Yeah they can get 9. IG gets 15 CP for 500 points. Tau get 18 without breaking a sweat at 2000 (just taking all the units they want anyways). Hugely unbalanced.

Having CP doesn't imply effectiveness... Guard having more CP they have to spend on Guard Stratagems isn't that terrifying.

Same with Tau.

What are you worried about?

Asmodios wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
CP being locked to detachment has a lot of bad consequences.

#1 - it creates more book keeping. I for one hate book keeping.
#2 - it pretty much guts allies and specifically archetypes that are designed to work with allied units. For example - Guilliman (grants CP you can't use if you have allies), dominus knights(sheild stratagem cant be used because you have no CP for it), and Custodians (lots of allied interactions).
#3 - it does nothing to help armies that can't generate their own CP.

Basically it's the first idea I had. Because it is the most obvious. I thought about it - realized it's one of the worst solutions possible because it addressed only 1 issue (OP soup) but creates more problems than it solves. There are much better solutions. I realize GW probably already printed CA so all this discussion is meaningless. But - it really isn't. My hope is that TO who are looking to create a better competitive environment might catch wind of this idea and implement it. Or at the very least - I hope A few players try this in their local stores and maybe a few players games got better as a result.

I have to disagree with your points here
#1- The amount of bookkeeping is minimal and no more than tracking wounds over multiple characters. While it is a technical "increase" its so minimal i feel it makes a poor excuse for excluding it
#2- It doesn't "gut" allies. You still receive added flexibility and strength by being able to choose units over multiple books. It simply adds a drawback that is "less points spent on army x= less CP to spent on army x. There needs to be a drawback to soup or soup will always be 100% better then mono
#3. Every army can generate its own CP so I'm not sure what you're talking about. If an army is found to need more CP you can simply increase the amount that faction generates per detachment or reduce the cost of its strategems. Any mono dex that's already struggling is also unaffected by this change and soup builds power levels are lowered so the gap has effectively been decreased day 1 without a single change. More balance changes can be added as needed once they see where the meta has settled

Actually Assasins and Sisters of silence can't generate CP for themselfs. GW allowed then to be taken in understrength vanguards, but with 0CP.

Reemule wrote:
Having CP doesn't imply effectiveness... Guard having more CP they have to spend on Guard Stratagems isn't that terrifying.

Same with Tau.

What are you worried about?

That's part of what makes those armies balanced. Guard & Tau can generate loads of CP, but there strats are meh.
Knights, Eldar and some Marine factions have really good Strats, but generally can't get in the double-digits for CPs, so they can't use them all.
But when you have Guard generating tons of CPs that can be used on those really good Knight Strats, then you have an issue.

You make it so that only the WLs detachment can generate CPs (and those detachments of the same factions as the WL) and you fix the problem.
CPs can still be shared amongst detachments (so no extra book keeping) but you aren't able to "plug holes" in an armies weaknesses as easily.
Allies are still useful for what they can do (Assassins), but you don't bring them to generate CPs

-

Reemule wrote:
Having CP doesn't imply effectiveness... Guard having more CP they have to spend on Guard Stratagems isn't that terrifying.

Same with Tau.

What are you worried about?

Guard players keep saying they have terrible strategums, but they do have some worth whike strategums, heck just being able to spam comman point re-roll if used correctly is powerful.

If they do implement this change I'd like to see the CP for bats (4) and brigs (8) brought back down and the supplemental detachments brought up (2 cp for vanguards, outriders...).

I still think it is a much worse solution than charging per detachment. It is also going to lead to some interesting issues with keyword interactions but I'll just keep crossing my fingers over here and hope that GW doesn't implement such a dumb rule...

bananathug wrote:
If they do implement this change I'd like to see the CP for bats (4) and brigs (8) brought back down and the supplemental detachments brought up (2 cp for vanguards, outriders...).

I still think it is a much worse solution than charging per detachment. It is also going to lead to some interesting issues with keyword interactions but I'll just keep crossing my fingers over here and hope that GW doesn't implement such a dumb rule...

If they do implement this change, they should actually leave the CPs as they are printed in the book (so Bats go back to 3), but then up the amount of CPs Battle Forged gives (3 per 500pts, or 3 generated each turn, or something)
As BF CPs would be shared, it wouldn't be so restrictive as the CPs generated (and used) per detachment and outright eliminates the "need" to farm CPs from other detachments.
Even though it creates the situation of an opponent "forgetting" which CPs belong where

-

CP’s are going to be tied to factions. The writing is on the wall. You can argue until the cows come home but that looks like the fix GW is going to go with first. Adjust and move on. The focus now should be how to address how that will impact armies and how other changes will be needed to combat these issues.

Asmodios wrote:

Reemule wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
CP being locked to detachment has a lot of bad consequences.

#1 - it creates more book keeping. I for one hate book keeping.
#2 - it pretty much guts allies and specifically archetypes that are designed to work with allied units. For example - Guilliman (grants CP you can't use if you have allies), dominus knights(sheild stratagem cant be used because you have no CP for it), and Custodians (lots of allied interactions).
#3 - it does nothing to help armies that can't generate their own CP.

Basically it's the first idea I had. Because it is the most obvious. I thought about it - realized it's one of the worst solutions possible because it addressed only 1 issue (OP soup) but creates more problems than it solves. There are much better solutions. I realize GW probably already printed CA so all this discussion is meaningless. But - it really isn't. My hope is that TO who are looking to create a better competitive environment might catch wind of this idea and implement it. Or at the very least - I hope A few players try this in their local stores and maybe a few players games got better as a result.

@#2, Again the case is overstated, I think, as I haven't seen the actual rules yet. Specifically, With the Dominus Knights. You can run enough to get them some CP and have access to that Stratagem. It will be something that you will need to put some consideration into.

If I had any concerns I'd like there to be a specific mention that is you bring more than 1 detachment of the same faction, they could share CP. So if I bring a Battalion of Ultramarines, and a supreme command to bring in Gulliman, I think there should just be a single CP pool.

Also that would answer your Book Keeping concern as well.

Yeah, the way I've always envisioned it is that detachments that have the same keyword can still share CP. So if you took 2 detachments of UM and one IG you would only have 2 CP pools one for IG and one for UM. This makes sense from a rules standpoint (we have a keyword system so its easy to impliment) and from a thematic sense "hey we have a lot more points in army x than army y so we can do more cool army x stuff than army y stuff"

That is probably not an issue, with the way they warded the new mini codici they have tied it to "Faction stratagems", so an SM detachment will generate CPs for SM stratagems.

Galef wrote:And as I've said the book keeping issue isn't with your own book keeping, it's with keeping up with your opponents book keeping.

The solution needs to keep allies viable, but completely remove using allies as CP batteries.
Moving CP generation away from detachments and more heavily on being Battle Forged goes a long way towards this solution.

-

Yeah, but the more CPs you tie to just being battleforged, the more you defeat the purpose of CPs, which are a way to reward organic armies.

Ice_can wrote:

Reemule wrote:
Having CP doesn't imply effectiveness... Guard having more CP they have to spend on Guard Stratagems isn't that terrifying.

Same with Tau.

What are you worried about?

Guard players keep saying they have terrible strategums, but they do have some worth whike strategums, heck just being able to spam comman point re-roll if used correctly is powerful.

Sure, they have some good one, but they can't burn 9 CPs on a model like a BA or an IK can do, and the average level of their stratagems is surely not the eldar level.

As I've said in every other thread started about CP issues, GW is NOT going to develop some all new formula for distributing CPs. It's just not going to happen.

Try it out as a house rule for a tourny if you like, but GW is going to make the simplest solution, using the fewest words as possible. So far the only believable change would be to relegate CPs to its associated detachment. Cuts down on Guard farms and is easy to explain. Stop with the convoluted instructions. There's not going to be a major change. Just a clarification.

I’ll think this is a bad change if we see mono themed Guard and Tau forces with loads of CP winning tourney’s. And I don’t think I’ll actually be that sad. It would be a nice change of pace.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
As I've said in every other thread started about CP issues, GW is NOT going to develop some all new formula for distributing CPs. It's just not going to happen.

Try it out as a house rule for a tourny if you like, but GW is going to make the simplest solution, using the fewest words as possible. So far the only believable change would be to relegate CPs to its associated detachment. Cuts down on Guard farms and is easy to explain. Stop with the convoluted instructions. There's not going to be a major change. Just a clarification.

Sadly, I believe you are right.
Better prepare myself to spend an additional 15-20 minutes per game making sure my opponent allocates their CPs correctly.

-

If you regularly have opponents you cannot trust to not cheat you have bigger problems than command points...

 Galef wrote:

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
As I've said in every other thread started about CP issues, GW is NOT going to develop some all new formula for distributing CPs. It's just not going to happen.

Try it out as a house rule for a tourny if you like, but GW is going to make the simplest solution, using the fewest words as possible. So far the only believable change would be to relegate CPs to its associated detachment. Cuts down on Guard farms and is easy to explain. Stop with the convoluted instructions. There's not going to be a major change. Just a clarification.

Sadly, I believe you are right.
Better prepare myself to spend an additional 15-20 minutes per game making sure my opponent allocates their CPs correctly.

-

Every tournament I've ever been to the player must provide you a list of their army. Write next to each detachment on the paper x,y,z for corresponding CP. Every time they spend one just subtract that amount from the detachments CP pool. I mean seriously we are talking like a game total of like 90 seconds and some super basic math

Or simply bring 3 D-20 and just change them as they spend them. there are so many incredibly easy ways to keep track of this

 Crimson wrote:
If you regularly have opponents you cannot trust to not cheat you have bigger problems than command points...

I trust my opponents, but the game continues to be so overly complicated that forgetting rules is a too common occurrence. My LGS has a good mix of competitive players and laid-back players.

Asmodios wrote:
Or simply bring 3 D-20 and just change them as they spend them. there are so many incredibly easy ways to keep track of this

I completely agree. But not everyone has that level of ease or common sense. I don't want to be TFG who constantly has to remind my opponent how to play the game
But if I don't, my opponent may end up using a CP for a detachment that SHOULD be out of CPs. Probably by accident, but it could affect the game greatly nonetheless

-

Median Trace wrote:
CP’s are going to be tied to factions. The writing is on the wall. You can argue until the cows come home but that looks like the fix GW is going to go with first. Adjust and move on. The focus now should be how to address how that will impact armies and how other changes will be needed to combat these issues.

I think there are a few important factors to look at first. Where the 3 CP for being battleforged goes, and do the 3 generic strategems have to use CP from the faction they are targeting. (Command reroll for BA must also come from their own CP etc) Guard will still be worth taking for 5 command rerolls and board control. They will just ditch the WL trait and relic. It could also make Imperial soup change from "smashcaptains and knights" to "smashcaptains or knights." Which ever one doesn't get kept is turned into something that either uses Guard CP or doesn't need CP to function.

 Galef wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
If you regularly have opponents you cannot trust to not cheat you have bigger problems than command points...

I trust my opponents, but the game continues to be so overly complicated that forgetting rules is a too common occurrence. My LGS has a good mix of competitive players and laid-back players.

Asmodios wrote:
Or simply bring 3 D-20 and just change them as they spend them. there are so many incredibly easy ways to keep track of this

I completely agree. But not everyone has that level of ease or common sense. I don't want to be TFG who constantly has to remind my opponent how to play the game
But if I don't, my opponent may end up using a CP for a detachment that SHOULD be out of CPs. Probably by accident, but it could affect the game greatly nonetheless

-

This is no different than how you have to do it not. "hey I'm going to spend 3CP on x.... actually you are out" now its just "I'm going to spend 3 CP on x.... actually that detachment is out". For example the 3 D20 example, id just put them on the sideboard. When he spends a CP just say "ok x CP on that" change the corresponding D20. No arguments to be had and quick and easy to do. No different than tracking your opponents CP currently you might just have a max of 3 dice instead of 1.

I hope you are right. At any rate, I shouldn't be so worried. I haven't played a single tourney since before 8E dropped (not enough spare time).

 Galef wrote:

bananathug wrote:
If they do implement this change I'd like to see the CP for bats (4) and brigs (8) brought back down and the supplemental detachments brought up (2 cp for vanguards, outriders...).

I still think it is a much worse solution than charging per detachment. It is also going to lead to some interesting issues with keyword interactions but I'll just keep crossing my fingers over here and hope that GW doesn't implement such a dumb rule...

If they do implement this change, they should actually leave the CPs as they are printed in the book (so Bats go back to 3), but then up the amount of CPs Battle Forged gives (3 per 500pts, or 3 generated each turn, or something)
As BF CPs would be shared, it wouldn't be so restrictive as the CPs generated (and used) per detachment and outright eliminates the "need" to farm CPs from other detachments.
Even though it creates the situation of an opponent "forgetting" which CPs belong where

-

I don't like the idea of the generating CP but the idea of going back to book CPs with battle forged giving a larger pool seems good. But a lot of people here are arguing that just giving out CP without tying to some sort of troop tax breaks the game.

I play marines so the less you tie CP to my terrible characters and troops the happier I am. Glad I haven't put together or painted that custode patrol I was going to add to my army...Can I just say how stupid it is that supreme command detachments give CP but patrols don't. Whatever, I need to stop buying new models anyway.

CP by detachment makes sense because that's what's generating it.

The name of the game with this system is, "how do i get the best battalions available to my highest-level keyword?"