Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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?"

 Marmatag wrote:
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?"

It renders useless EVERY 1 CP Detachments, so no

I think separate CP pools is a bad idea, and it hurts the worst already suffering minifactions like the Inquisition, Assassins and SoS.

Tracking them will also be annoying, though considering that I already use glass beads to track my CP, I guess I'll just get differently coloured ones if this thing actually happens.

KurtAngle2 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
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?"

It renders useless EVERY 1 CP Detachments, so no

Not if Battle Forged gives more CP than now, and those CPs can be shared in any detachment.

The FAQ should return all detachments to their printed CPs (so Battalions go back to only 3CPs) and BF should give at least 5 CPs.
That will mean that even 1CP detachments can potentially spend 6CPs over the course of the game.
Easy fix that doesn't involve a complicated FAQ and should be easy to explain

-

 Galef wrote:

KurtAngle2 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
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?"

It renders useless EVERY 1 CP Detachments, so no

Not if Battle Forged gives more CP than now, and those CPs can be shared in any detachment.

The FAQ should return all detachments to their printed CPs (so Battalions go back to only 3CPs) and BF should give at least 5 CPs.
That will mean that even 1CP detachments can potentially spend 6CPs over the course of the game.
Easy fix that doesn't involve a complicated FAQ and should be easy to explain

-

I could live with this.

KurtAngle2 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
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?"

It renders useless EVERY 1 CP Detachments, so no

Yeah essentially, in a general sense if you want to use stratagems for your faction you need to bring a battalion. Why should you soup in an outrider and get the full benefits of command points rewarded for paying the troop tax, when you pay that tax with Guard? 180 points to get 5 CP is not what was intended when they designed the Knight stratagems. Clearly.

 Marmatag wrote:


Yeah essentially, in a general sense if you want to use stratagems for your faction you need to bring a battalion. Why should you soup in an outrider and get the full benefits of command points rewarded for paying the troop tax, when you pay that tax with Guard?

Because the faction in question doesn't have troops to take?

Apart from assassins (which do not have stratagems) and SoS (which again do not have stratagems), care to tell me which factions don't have troops? Ik, but IKs have special detachments for CPs.

Spoletta wrote:
Apart from assassins (which do not have stratagems) and SoS (which again do not have stratagems), care to tell me which factions don't have troops? Ik, but IKs have special detachments for CPs.

The Inquisition.

 Crimson wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Apart from assassins (which do not have stratagems) and SoS (which again do not have stratagems), care to tell me which factions don't have troops? Ik, but IKs have special detachments for CPs.

The Inquisition.

Oh yeah those too, but again, no stratagems.


Sure, we need to know how generic stratagems would be managed, but even if you don't have access to rerolls that's hardly crippling, You were probably going to use the reroll on the bigger detachment in any case.

Reemule wrote:
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.

The idea is every army should have roughly the same win rate. This is what a balanced game looks like. If we can't have that - who cares. lets just stick with this and have endless CP and Castellans blasting everyone off the table. Why even make changes to command points if we are just going to move to a still unbalanced game?

My issue isn't that Factions without troops get gimped, it is that not every faction "feels" right in a Battalion. Sometimes you want an Outrider as your core army, which 4 CPs isn't enough (1 + BF 3). Saim-Hann Windriders, Ravenwing Bikes, Deathwing Terminators, etc.

And let's stop treating Troops as a "tax". Sure they can be that at times, but they also have ObSec, which is very important. Foregoing the "troop tax" in favor of a fluffy list denies having any units with ObSec.
This is intentional and I actually like how it balances. But restricting CPs to detachments without somehow giving more CPs in general, puts the nail in the coffin for Outriders, Spearheads, Vanguards, etc. Battalions having 5x more CPs already does that, sadly

The easiest and most fair fix (if we are restricting CPs to detachments) is to return all detachments back to "factory settings" and make BF be the primary generator of CPs, 5 at least, that can be shared amongst all detachments.

So you'd have up to 4 "pools" of CPs. 1 for each detachment (up to 3) and 1 for being BF. The pool that can be shared (BF) should be the pool with the largest amount of CPs.
But after that, restricting CPs to each detachment prevents cheap "troop tax" detachments giving "troop tax-less" detachments more CPs than they are designed to have, which makes perfect sense

.

Why don't we just give each army 10 command points for being battleforged and not have it linked to detachments at all? If I remember right, gw's original justification was to say that heavy troop armies needed the large amount of CP to help balance them against elite armies. Obviously that's not the case anymore and there are a lot of reasons to take troops including objective secured. So just give everyone 10 each and call it a day.

 Crimson wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:


Yeah essentially, in a general sense if you want to use stratagems for your faction you need to bring a battalion. Why should you soup in an outrider and get the full benefits of command points rewarded for paying the troop tax, when you pay that tax with Guard?

Because the faction in question doesn't have troops to take?

Every faction has access to troops. Salt-to-taste armies that don't have troops (Inquisition, Assassins) don't even have stratagems, so it's not like you're missing out.

So, the point stands.

And troops are absolutely a tax in 8th edition. Without requiring them to get CPs, you'll see almost none of them, except in lists that depend on cheap bodies, and then it'll be a game of the best wounds-to-points ratio.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:


Yeah essentially, in a general sense if you want to use stratagems for your faction you need to bring a battalion. Why should you soup in an outrider and get the full benefits of command points rewarded for paying the troop tax, when you pay that tax with Guard?

Because the faction in question doesn't have troops to take?

Every faction has access to troops. Salt-to-taste armies that don't have troops (Inquisition, Assassins) don't even have stratagems, so it's not like you're missing out.

So, the point stands.

And troops are absolutely a tax in 8th edition. Without requiring them to get CPs, you'll see almost none of them, except in lists that depend on cheap bodies, and then it'll be a game of the best wounds-to-points ratio.

I got to disagree. Most armies only access to objective secured is through troops. ObSec is important in tournament settings. Not to mention, some army's just have really good troops. Deathwatch, adeptus custodes, Imperial Guard, AdMech, e.t.c.

Audustum wrote:
Not to mention, some army's just have really good troops. Deathwatch, adeptus custodes, Imperial Guard, AdMech, e.t.c.

Which is kinda problem with tying the CP to troops too. Some factions get cheap and really good troops (Guard) while others get bad and expensive troops (Marines.)

 Xenomancers wrote:

Reemule wrote:
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.

The idea is every army should have roughly the same win rate. This is what a balanced game looks like. If we can't have that - who cares. lets just stick with this and have endless CP and Castellans blasting everyone off the table. Why even make changes to command points if we are just going to move to a still unbalanced game?

You think the CA is going to fix balance in the game? Its going to take years of CA's to get to that.

Audustum wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:


Yeah essentially, in a general sense if you want to use stratagems for your faction you need to bring a battalion. Why should you soup in an outrider and get the full benefits of command points rewarded for paying the troop tax, when you pay that tax with Guard?

Because the faction in question doesn't have troops to take?

Every faction has access to troops. Salt-to-taste armies that don't have troops (Inquisition, Assassins) don't even have stratagems, so it's not like you're missing out.

So, the point stands.

And troops are absolutely a tax in 8th edition. Without requiring them to get CPs, you'll see almost none of them, except in lists that depend on cheap bodies, and then it'll be a game of the best wounds-to-points ratio.

I got to disagree. Most armies only access to objective secured is through troops. ObSec is important in tournament settings. Not to mention, some army's just have really good troops. Deathwatch, adeptus custodes, Imperial Guard, AdMech, e.t.c.

Objective secured rarely comes up in tournaments. People already do their best to minimize their troop investment.

 Marmatag wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:


Yeah essentially, in a general sense if you want to use stratagems for your faction you need to bring a battalion. Why should you soup in an outrider and get the full benefits of command points rewarded for paying the troop tax, when you pay that tax with Guard?

Because the faction in question doesn't have troops to take?

Every faction has access to troops. Salt-to-taste armies that don't have troops (Inquisition, Assassins) don't even have stratagems, so it's not like you're missing out.

So, the point stands.

And troops are absolutely a tax in 8th edition. Without requiring them to get CPs, you'll see almost none of them, except in lists that depend on cheap bodies, and then it'll be a game of the best wounds-to-points ratio.

I got to disagree. Most armies only access to objective secured is through troops. ObSec is important in tournament settings. Not to mention, some army's just have really good troops. Deathwatch, adeptus custodes, Imperial Guard, AdMech, e.t.c.

Objective secured rarely comes up in tournaments. People already do their best to minimize their troop investment.

I think you're crazy on that one. Objective Securities huge at tournaments. As the game continues to get tweaked so that armies are not just constantly tabling each other as much it will only get more important

Maybe if you're playing in old school eternal war, where scoring occurs at the end of the game. Then your Custodes troops in blobs of 10 are viable. But it's not making the difference between hold more, that's dictated by bodies on the table.

 Marmatag wrote:
Maybe if you're playing in old school eternal war, where scoring occurs at the end of the game. Then your Custodes troops in blobs of 10 are viable. But it's not making the difference between hold more, that's dictated by bodies on the table.

I'm not even entirely sure what's meant by "hold more". My primary experience is with NOVA. In case you don't know NOVA's scoring structure, it's this:

Primary
Caps at 18 points.
Pick either end of game or progressive (turns 2-6) scoring. You and your opponent can pick different ones. Progressive scoring gets you +1 point for having an objective, +1 point for having a second objective, +2 points for having more objectives than your opponent and an additional +2 points for having two more objectives than your opponent for a max per turn of 6 points (primary is capped at 18 and there are always 6 objective markers).

Secondary - Tailored Ops
Caps at 12 points.
I'll mention but skip these since none of them are objective based.

Secondary - Engineers
Caps at 6 points.
Two units you have are marked pre-game as engineers. They can scout 1 objective each on each turn. This surrenders most of their actions for the remainder of the turn but gets you 1 victory point.

Secondary - Army Destruction
Caps at 4 points.
You get points depending how many points of the enemy army you destroyed.

So there are 24 total points based on objectives (mix of progressive and endgame) and 16 points based on something else.

If you're playing against someone using progressive and you don't have objective secured, it will be very easy for that person to score 4+ points per turn and deny you endgame victory points since you can't wrest objectives from them. If you don't have bodies and obsec of your own, you really just have to rely on tabling them.

Thus, in the competitive world I know ObSec is very important.

In ITC you are scoring at most 2 per turn for objectives.

1 if you hold an objective
1 if you hold more

In general you're going to see 4 objectives or more on the table. Which means obsec is minimized. When you're dealing with 2 objectives then maybe yeah.

You'd need to control 3 objectives in a 4 objective game to get that 1 extra point. It becomes a function of footprint more than obsec. And this is true of most games.

And seriously, your obsec infantry squads are going to get shot off of the table if they're taking an objective that is likely to be contested. So you come back to dropping elite durable infantry on them, like Custodes. And that's a sizable investment in a unit that is very localized... and then removed from range anyway.

It's almost never a function of "who has more obsec bodies" and more "who has enough living units to feasibly hold more." Everything dies so fast in 8th edition. The 8th edition adage is true: if your opponent wants something dead in your list, it will die.

It's also worth pointing out, there are some specific ITC missions where obsec actually doesn't count for controlling objectives, and it's based purely on bodies.

All that said, if i could get ~12 command points without bringing any troops, i'm doing it.