Desubot wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Desubot wrote:


But handicapping soup is the point. its literally the top everything. and the biggest abuse point of it is the CP sharing.

CP sharing is only an issue because different factions are so ludicrously varied in their ability to generate CP. In Xeno's system this issue really does not exist.

Its also an issue as different armies have varying levels of power when it comes to actual usable strats. which.... well i dont have Xenos so i cant really say.

seriously though question. what are the most common strats used for each faction?

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/761717.page#10097266
link to my proposed CP changes.

jcd386 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
I think it's a great system too. I think it's a good way to add costs to allies too instead of them being Scot free, by making allied detachment cost an extra CP or two, but not impacting the stratas they can use. So it's a solve for allies that tones them but doesn't kill them. However - it doesn't address the other issue at hand which is CP Regen. That being said, the issue is pretty easily fixed - just say CP cannot be regenerated in matched play. These two fixes would be great and simple.

How about we just limit it to one source? "Only 1 ability that regerenates/refunds/or creates command points in any way can be used per turn"

CP regen isn't that powerful if it doesn't stack and only works on <faction> abilities. If you have 15 starting CP, and blow 6 on the rulebook strats, you'll get 3 back from the IG warlord on the other 9. If your enemy uses 9 strats of their own over the course of the game, you'll get 3 of those back. You'll then get 2 more out of the 6 you've gotten back and average about 23 over the course of the game.

That's good, but it's not game breaking in a mono IG list. If you brought allies, their strategems would not regen for you so you'd get a lot less

Or the CP regen stuff can only get a certain amount back in a single turn. That's incredibly easier to implement.

And as for teranis, I think the strat should just be limited to once a game turn. Being able to get a knight back up 3 times in one turn is just silly. Though it would likely cost 6-9 CP to do so, which is still a lot of you only have 11.

jcd386 wrote:
And as for teranis, I think the strat should just be limited to once a game turn. Being able to get a knight back up 3 times in one turn is just silly. Though it would likely cost 6-9 CP to do so, which is still a lot of you only have 11.

This is just personal experience but I've never had to revive a knight more than once. By the time they kill your knight typically you have seriously crippled things that are good at killing knights. So...killing a knight that can just stand back up while another healthier knight is in your face wrecking things - most people decide at this point the have to start to threaten that other knight - so they can force you to lose 2 knights in 1 turn. Really...no one I play against has really figured out a suitable counter. The best counter is to shoot one dead and then charge it and kill it in the next phase. Again though - without a captain smash - not much else really wants to CC a knight. I honestly don't know they best way to deal with this. Because even if they do that - you can just explode your knight on a 4+ and deal d6 mortals to every around him - it's kind of like damned if you do damned if you don't.

I totally agree the strat should be once per game. It gives the opponent a reason to kill you knight. Because he can't get back up again.

 Xenomancers wrote:

jcd386 wrote:
And as for teranis, I think the strat should just be limited to once a game turn. Being able to get a knight back up 3 times in one turn is just silly. Though it would likely cost 6-9 CP to do so, which is still a lot of you only have 11.

This is just personal experience but I've never had to revive a knight more than once. By the time they kill your knight typically you have seriously crippled things that are good at killing knights. So...killing a knight that can just stand back up while another healthier knight is in your face wrecking things - most people decide at this point the have to start to threaten that other knight - so they can force you to lose 2 knights in 1 turn. Really...no one I play against has really figured out a suitable counter. The best counter is to shoot one dead and then charge it and kill it in the next phase. Again though - without a captain smash - not much else really wants to CC a knight. I honestly don't know they best way to deal with this. Because even if they do that - you can just explode your knight on a 4+ and deal d6 mortals to every around him - it's kind of like damned if you do damned if you don't.

I totally agree the strat should be once per game. It gives the opponent a reason to kill you knight. Because he can't get back up again.

Yeah if it was once a game turn you could shoot or smite it down and still hope to do D3 more damage the next phase and that would be it.

A rule saying you can only use it on each knight once a game would work too.

There is still currently a weakness at the end of the fight phase, since you can fight again with the unit that killed it in melee since those strats are also at the end of the phase and the player who's turn it is picks what happens first. But not all factions can even do that.

jcd386 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
I think it's a great system too. I think it's a good way to add costs to allies too instead of them being Scot free, by making allied detachment cost an extra CP or two, but not impacting the stratas they can use. So it's a solve for allies that tones them but doesn't kill them. However - it doesn't address the other issue at hand which is CP Regen. That being said, the issue is pretty easily fixed - just say CP cannot be regenerated in matched play. These two fixes would be great and simple.

How about we just limit it to one source? "Only 1 ability that regerenates/refunds/or creates command points in any way can be used per turn"

CP regen isn't that powerful if it doesn't stack and only works on <faction> abilities. If you have 15 starting CP, and blow 6 on the rulebook strats, you'll get 3 back from the IG warlord on the other 9. If your enemy uses 9 strats of their own over the course of the game, you'll get 3 of those back. You'll then get 2 more out of the 6 you've gotten back and average about 23 over the course of the game.

That's good, but it's not game breaking in a mono IG list. If you brought allies, their strategems would not regen for you so you'd get a lot less

The mechanic is terrible in general and simply shouldn't be a thing. Giving select factions access to the ability to ignore the entire mechanic of CP as a resource is just terrible game design

 SHUPPET wrote:

Xenomancers wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
I think it's a great system too. I think it's a good way to add costs to allies too instead of them being Scot free, by making allied detachment cost an extra CP or two, but not impacting the stratas they can use. So it's a solve for allies that tones them but doesn't kill them. However - it doesn't address the other issue at hand which is CP Regen. That being said, the issue is pretty easily fixed - just say CP cannot be regenerated in matched play. These two fixes would be great and simple.

How about we just limit it to one source? "Only 1 ability that regerenates/refunds/or creates command points in any way can be used per turn"

SHUPPET wrote:I think it's a great system too. I think it's a good way to add costs to allies too instead of them being Scot free, by making allied detachment cost an extra CP or two, but not impacting the stratas they can use. So it's a solve for allies that tones them but doesn't kill them. However - it doesn't address the other issue at hand which is CP Regen. That being said, the issue is pretty easily fixed - just say CP cannot be regenerated in matched play. These two fixes would be great and simple.

jcd386 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
I think it's a great system too. I think it's a good way to add costs to allies too instead of them being Scot free, by making allied detachment cost an extra CP or two, but not impacting the stratas they can use. So it's a solve for allies that tones them but doesn't kill them. However - it doesn't address the other issue at hand which is CP Regen. That being said, the issue is pretty easily fixed - just say CP cannot be regenerated in matched play. These two fixes would be great and simple.

How about we just limit it to one source? "Only 1 ability that regerenates/refunds/or creates command points in any way can be used per turn"

CP regen isn't that powerful if it doesn't stack and only works on <faction> abilities. If you have 15 starting CP, and blow 6 on the rulebook strats, you'll get 3 back from the IG warlord on the other 9. If your enemy uses 9 strats of their own over the course of the game, you'll get 3 of those back. You'll then get 2 more out of the 6 you've gotten back and average about 23 over the course of the game.

That's good, but it's not game breaking in a mono IG list. If you brought allies, their strategems would not regen for you so you'd get a lot less

The mechanic is terrible in general and simply shouldn't be a thing. Giving select factions access to the ability to ignore the entire mechanic of CP as a resource is just terrible game design

In theory I think it's fine if it's limited to faction only stratagems and there are other worthwhile warlord traits. With average rolls the UM/IG warlord ends up being something like "gain 4 CP" over the course of the game. This still tends to be better than a lot of warlord traits, though, so they should probably both change to <faction> only and be per strategem, not per CP.

It's not about whether it's OP or not, the resource should be what it is, and its terrible game design to cheapen it as such. Something like adding a few CP from a strategist commander is a much more thematic of doing it and doesn't have the potential swingy effect.

 SHUPPET wrote:
It's not about whether it's OP or not, the resource should be what it is, and its terrible game design to cheapen it as such. Something like adding a few CP from a strategist commander is a much more thematic of doing it and doesn't have the potential swingy effect.

Yeah I can agree with that.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Desubot wrote:


But handicapping soup is the point. its literally the top everything. and the biggest abuse point of it is the CP sharing.

CP sharing is only an issue because different factions are so ludicrously varied in their ability to generate CP. In Xeno's system this issue really does not exist.

Its also an issue as different armies have varying levels of power when it comes to actual usable strats. which.... well i dont have Xenos so i cant really say.

seriously though question. what are the most common strats used for each faction?

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/761717.page#10097266
link to my proposed CP changes.

I can't get myself to like it, this fact that brigade=battalion makes everything worse.
Between those two there are seven CPs of difference right now, because it is the most organic list possible and GW made this system to reward that.

If cheap detachments are the problem, then marmatag solution is better. I would tie it together with no CP sharing and have the 3 starting CPs spendable on any faction.

The only thing a brigade offers right now - is more CP per detachment - at the expense of unit selection and CP per point. Battalion is better in every situation for CP per point or opening slots per point. The only reason they are used to to get 12 CP out of a single detachment so you can take not one but 2 allied detachments. In any case - nether deserves anything over the other in terms of how much CP they should cost in my system. Plus - only a few armies can realistically make brigades anyways...so it is unfair to make brigade more powerful compared to batallion - fairness is my ultimate goal here with this. Both require you to take a lot of HQ and troops - that is the idea. +0 for both is fine.

So far this is the best Idea I have seen that handles soup in a way that doesn't completely destroy allies. Or favor one army over another for CP to start the game. IMO these are the most important issues regarding change in 40k balance. Allies and CP. Any change that doesn't address these 2 issues are going after the wrong issues.

 Xenomancers wrote:
The only thing a brigade offers right now - is more CP per detachment - at the expense of unit selection and CP per point. Battalion is better in every situation for CP per point or opening slots per point. The only reason they are used to to get 12 CP out of a single detachment so you can take not one but 2 allied detachments. In any case - nether deserves anything over the other in terms of how much CP they should cost in my system. Plus - only a few armies can realistically make brigades anyways...so it is unfair to make brigade more powerful compared to batallion - fairness is my ultimate goal here with this. Both require you to take a lot of HQ and troops - that is the idea. +0 for both is fine.

So far this is the best Idea I have seen that handles soup in a way that doesn't completely destroy allies. Or favor one army over another for CP to start the game. IMO these are the most important issues regarding change in 40k balance. Allies and CP. Any change that doesn't address these 2 issues are going after the wrong issues.

That's were we agree, fixing CP is a priority.
Were we disagree is in the fact that your idea devalues the need to have an organized army which looks neat on the table.
What you are saying is "Brigade isn't rewarding enough right now, so let's make it even less rewarding!" i though that we were trying to fix problems.
Also, 90% of the factions of the game can bring a decent brigade to the table, maybe that it won't win tournaments, but anyone from SM to Orks can do that.

I still think that the idea of a marmatag is the best one, you get CPs for a faction equal to the amount of points spent on that faction and how much organic is that faction force. Both fluffy and functional. Goodbye guard easy CP, a troop of custodes is worth as much CP as 6 infantry squads


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In any case if these new mini codici are an indication, GW is going the "Split CP" route.

i think expanding your FOC or taking allies should both cost something, not fill you up with CP. I could probably think of a better change if I spent like 2 minutes thinking about it, but I don't really care to as nothing i dream up is going to have any impact on the eventual change.

GW is aware of the issue. That's why they attend all these events now (and event plant players). They have collected feedback from the event, as well as online, and are going to put quite a hammer down.

That said, they are also aware of Orks and Genestealer Cults and everything they will do, so not as much will change as you may think. (Both armies can fight these soup lists almost comically well, by the way.)

Two changes regarding CP's should be considered.

1. A certain amount of points must be spent in a Batallion to be awarded the full 5 CP's. This allows expensive armies like Grey Knights and Necrons to be less handicapped when they spend 500 points to get 5 CP's, while Astra Militarum and various Aeldari can spend far less for the same amount (with better regeneration).

2. No CP sharing. Whichever detachment is generating CP's gets to spend those CP's. Whether originally or by replenishment. No 30 point officer generating 6 CP each turn for a Castellan to re-up a 3++. Yep, it means more bookkeeping, but that's the price you pay for mashing together multiple codices.

This will be how GW can remedy it, at least enough, without changing or invalidating data sheets.

As a side note: no unit with 24+ wounds and T8 should have access to a 3++. It's irrelevant on infantry (see: Necron Wraith, Tyranid Zoanthropes, and Terminators with shields), but on something that difficult to bring down already? Absolutely uncalled for. A 50/50 is more than enough. Especially on a unit that can pay CP to fully function, and has access to an endless CP farm courtesy of the Astra Militarum!

Invulnerable saves should scale down on tougher things. Loads of damage reduction was one of the penultimate problems with 7th edition.

 brassangel wrote:
As a side note: no unit with 24+ wounds and T8 should have access to a 3++. It's irrelevant on infantry (see: Necron Wraith, Tyranid Zoanthropes, and Terminators with shields), but on something that difficult to bring down already? Absolutely uncalled for. A 50/50 is more than enough. Especially on a unit that can pay CP to fully function, and has access to an endless CP farm courtesy of the Astra Militarum!

Invulnerable saves should scale down on tougher things. Loads of damage reduction was one of the penultimate problems with 7th edition.

Agree. GW is once again handing out invulnerable saves like candy to protect powerful models from the even more powerful weapons flying around everywhere. Then they make even more powerful weapons to combat the powerful models with all the invulnerable saves and then create models with even better invulnerable saves. The castellan is just the pinnacle of this vicious circle.
Instead of sticking a 4++ on every other model, they should just give them more wounds. But I guess that ship has sailed until the next edition.

 brassangel wrote:
GW is aware of the issue. That's why they attend all these events now (and event plant players). They have collected feedback from the event, as well as online, and are going to put quite a hammer down.

That said, they are also aware of Orks and Genestealer Cults and everything they will do, so not as much will change as you may think. (Both armies can fight these soup lists almost comically well, by the way.)

Oh really? Only way orks CAN win is by slowplaying badly enough that game ends on turn 2, max turn 3.

As a side note: no unit with 24+ wounds and T8 should have access to a 3++. It's irrelevant on infantry (see: Necron Wraith, Tyranid Zoanthropes, and Terminators with shields), but on something that difficult to bring down already? Absolutely uncalled for. A 50/50 is more than enough. Especially on a unit that can pay CP to fully function, and has access to an endless CP farm courtesy of the Astra Militarum!

Invulnerable saves should scale down on tougher things. Loads of damage reduction was one of the penultimate problems with 7th edition.

And remove soup(and thus leave you with 9CP to start with max) and how big deal that 3++ is? Especially with castellan who will likely want to use raven strategem and costs 3CP to get that 3++(plus warlord trait which often results in 1-2CP more spent). 5 CP a turn=not even 2 turns full effect. Once again we see it's the soup that's issue. Particularly when you soup ONE knight. With multiple knights that +1inv save strategem is pretty much irrelevant. I don't recall single game where it really has affected as when there's multiple knights it's easy to bypass it. And I have yet to even once protect my castellan with 3++. Without CP battery the 3 CP is just too much especially as opponent will then simply blow one other knight and shoot castellan next turn when it doesn't have CP for inv save anymore.

Thats what I always say.

When I see people saying things like "Baneblades/Bloodthirsters/Imperial Knights/etc..." need a 4++ to function... I'm like... "WTF, then whats the point of anti tank weaponry with high AP?!".
If you want models to be more durable give them more wounds, no better invulnerable saves. That way the become much more resilient vs small and mediums arm fire, but are still vulnerable to anti tank weaponry with high damage and high AP.


Also, yeah. I expect 0 changes to orks or genestealer cults with this FAQ because they are gonna have their codex in not too much time. It does not make sense.