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.

Players regularly keep track during the psychic phase playing as or against Eldar or Thousand Sons. Tracking 3 1 digit integers is not too much 'bookkeeping.'

Also, as I think many have said before, assign the battle forged bonus CP to the detachment with your warlord in it. If you roll to steal or regain the CP, it goes to the detachment that allowed you to steal or regain it.

 Silentz wrote:
I remain surprised that they don't enact a similar system to Age of Sigmar where approximately 20% of your points can be spent on "allies" before your army stops being valid for a specific Allegiance. Which is where the powerful rules are.

So - for example - 1600 points of Catachan 400 points of soup can be a Catachan army. 1500 of Catachan and 500 of soup no longer gets catachan bonuses.

Pretty hard to retrofit to 40k now, though - and there would need to be exceptions otherwise no army could ever take a Knight unless it was pure knights.

And then people just spend the minimum 180 points on Guard?

HoundsofDemos wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Would anyone get upset if the CP's your army generates are limited by faction? For example, your Imperial Guard detachment gives you 6 Cp's, you're Custodes detachment gives you 3, and your Blood angles jumppack captain detachment gives you 1.

You could only used the CP's generated by the IG on the IG. Only those generated by Custodes on Custodes. Only those generated by Blood angels on Blood Angels. The 3 you get before detachments are generic and can be used anywhere.


This would still allow elite armies to have horde bullet catchers while not letting the little guys spam abilities for the elite armies.

upset or not, it's more bookkeeping, requiring like 3 separate CP counters and awareness of which one is which, and difficult to keep an eye on both your own and your opponents. It's basically counter productive to their entire design goal this edition, so they won't do it.

Take a piece of paper, draw three columns. Write down each faction and how many CP you started with. When you use some, cross out the old number and right the new number. As far as book keeping goes this is about the same as being able to count to ten in your head.

It's really not though, because you have to calculate what options you have available by crossreferencing, even in your head, each column with the cost of strats to work out your optimal combos available at any given time. Then you should be doing the same with your opponent, it's not really a practical addition to a game where they are trying to remove all bloat.

Downplay it to being as easy as you like, but remember they removed the cover system for being too much, this stands zero chance.

I like a lot of the rules from Killteam, which unfortunately hasn't really built up a following where I play.

Im hoping some of the core rules get brought into 40k, maybe as Advanced rules or something. Units falling back OR Overwatch ing, 6s always hit, LOS being models Body only, hopping over, under barriers less than 1.5' doesent count against movement.

 SHUPPET wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Would anyone get upset if the CP's your army generates are limited by faction? For example, your Imperial Guard detachment gives you 6 Cp's, you're Custodes detachment gives you 3, and your Blood angles jumppack captain detachment gives you 1.

You could only used the CP's generated by the IG on the IG. Only those generated by Custodes on Custodes. Only those generated by Blood angels on Blood Angels. The 3 you get before detachments are generic and can be used anywhere.


This would still allow elite armies to have horde bullet catchers while not letting the little guys spam abilities for the elite armies.

upset or not, it's more bookkeeping, requiring like 3 separate CP counters and awareness of which one is which, and difficult to keep an eye on both your own and your opponents. It's basically counter productive to their entire design goal this edition, so they won't do it.

Take a piece of paper, draw three columns. Write down each faction and how many CP you started with. When you use some, cross out the old number and right the new number. As far as book keeping goes this is about the same as being able to count to ten in your head.

It's really not though, because you have to calculate what options you have available by crossreferencing, even in your head, each column with the cost of strats to work out your optimal combos available at any given time. Then you should be doing the same with your opponent, it's not really a practical addition to a game where they are trying to remove all bloat.

Downplay it to being as easy as you like, but remember they removed the cover system for being too much, this stands zero chance.

It is pretty easy, after a few games a player should have memorized most of their given armies rules. Further how is this any different than having one big pool. You still need to reference what strat does what. This doesn't add bloat, it discourages a frankly unhealthy practice of encouraging every army to have a CP battary of chaff regardless of fluff or actual unit utility.

Look, I know people want to argue that it's not hard to do that kind of bookkeeping but ultimately it's clunky game design and would only make it harder for new players to learn the game in the long run.

Cut it down to a set number of points generated per turn based on unit comp and we'd have something to work with that would be a lot more fair. Limit how many uses you can use CP regeneration to being 1 per game each and we'd be just about perfect.

I'd actually be good with that or tie it to points. You get so many based on how big of a game your playing. That's a fair better game design than what GW has come up with so far.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
I'd actually be good with that or tie it to points. You get so many based on how big of a game your playing. That's a fair better game design than what GW has come up with so far.

Kill Team has a 1 per turn, +1 if you have a leader on the board generation mechanic, but I'd likely add in something +1 for troop units (making taking them more important to take and to actually deal with instead of largely ignoring while you focus fire their bigger threats off the board) and change the leader thing to your Warlord. Leave the special characters who give you a bonus CP at the start of the game for taking them unchanged and I think the basic set up would be pretty good.

HoundsofDemos wrote:


It is pretty easy, after a few games a player should have memorized most of their given armies rules. Further how is this any different than having one big pool. You still need to reference what strat does what. This doesn't add bloat, it discourages a frankly unhealthy practice of encouraging every army to have a CP battary of chaff regardless of fluff or actual unit utility.

It's different to having 1 big pool, because you have 3. And you are adding and removing from each individually. And you have to run calcs for three different pools instead of 1, and keep in mind what you need to save from each pool depending on game state, and calcing what your opponent can do from 3 different pools, lol, cmon stop pretending "you'll have it memorized after a few games" that doesn't even make sense. This is exactly the sort of complex and entirely unnecessary game system that GW wants gone.

Look I get you want the rule, but just saying it doesn't add bloat will not make it so. There's plenty of other ways to achieve exactly what this achieves and do an even firmer job of it too so you're not being honest to yourself if you think that adding this bookkeeping is going to be even a consideration. This was the team that considered Twin-linked needed to be streamlined. You're being unrealistic.

I don't think that twin link going away had much to do with it being too complex and more with "Having a lot of weapons that have baked in rerolls is cutting our design space of special rules".

In any case, something that would be nice to try, is using a kill team like CP mechanic, while keeping the current level of CPs given by detachments, which is a good thing for the game. You just make it so that the CPs are spreaded over 4+ turns instead of being frontloaded.

1 CP detachments keep giving you a single CP
Battalions give you 1 CP plus 1 CP every turn
Brigade gives you 3 CPs per turn.
All traits and relics that can generate CPs, cannot generate more than one per turn.
Instead of starting with 3CPs you automatically generate a CP per turn.

This should make things more intereseting and reduce alpha strikes.

Spoletta wrote:
I don't think that twin link going away had much to do with it being too complex and more with "Having a lot of weapons that have baked in rerolls is cutting our design space of special rules".

In any case, something that would be nice to try, is using a kill team like CP mechanic, while keeping the current level of CPs given by detachments, which is a good thing for the game. You just make it so that the CPs are spreaded over 4+ turns instead of being frontloaded.

1 CP detachments keep giving you a single CP
Battalions give you 1 CP plus 1 CP every turn
Brigade gives you 3 CPs per turn.
All traits and relics that can generate CPs, cannot generate more than one per turn.
Instead of starting with 3CPs you automatically generate a CP per turn.

This should make things more intereseting and reduce alpha strikes.

This system would check all the right boxes in an attempt to balance the factions. It would also mean you can't have 7 relics in your 2000 point, 3 detachment army (which is a good thing).

The only thing it's missing is a reward/penalty for sharing/not sharing two faction keywords between all your detachments (trying to balance necrons with imperium, for example).

So, applying this system to a boring, reliable, and competitively common list right now (1 BN of AM, 1 BN of BA, and Super Heavy Aux).. you'd get 2 CP pregame plus 2 every turn. If you replace the BN of AM with a BDE, and knock the BA down to a Supreme Command, you'd start with 2 and get 3 per turn.

Spoletta wrote:
I don't think that twin link going away had much to do with it being too complex and more with "Having a lot of weapons that have baked in rerolls is cutting our design space of special rules".

In any case, something that would be nice to try, is using a kill team like CP mechanic, while keeping the current level of CPs given by detachments, which is a good thing for the game. You just make it so that the CPs are spreaded over 4+ turns instead of being frontloaded.

1 CP detachments keep giving you a single CP
Battalions give you 1 CP plus 1 CP every turn
Brigade gives you 3 CPs per turn.
All traits and relics that can generate CPs, cannot generate more than one per turn.
Instead of starting with 3CPs you automatically generate a CP per turn.

This should make things more intereseting and reduce alpha strikes.

I like this idea. It feels similar to the AOS style (which I really like) but designed for 40k.

I'd also like to see Imperium, Chaos and Aeldari not able to be used as keywords for Batle-forged (let's face it the change they already made to detachments did absolutely nothing as nobody was taking mixed detachments but mixed armies), but that I think means you can't use Harlequins or Custodes (maybe they need a special rule letting them count?) to fix soup.

Sounds like strategems are causing a lot of issues. They did feel like they brought the very swingy formations from 7th to 8th. This is going to be a very unpopular opinion, but I honestly think limiting to those found in the main rule book would fix the issues.

A lot of the force build schnanigans we see are to exploit a few Codex strategems (through cheap Command Points generators) that offer an advantage that cannot be countered, or at the very least is unknown due to the sheer volume of them.

What if you can only use the command points generated by the battalion on said battalion? Wouldn't that make sense. A guard battalion brought into a battle gets that extra 5 points but it can only be used by th guard

Have your Warlord be from your largest % faction, whether by points or power level.

Spoletta wrote:
I don't think that twin link going away had much to do with it being too complex and more with "Having a lot of weapons that have baked in rerolls is cutting our design space of special rules".

can you explain what you mean?

To be honest I always hated how twin-linked was a bonus of rerrolls... like... if they are two weapons... give me double the shoots!

ballzonya wrote:
What if you can only use the command points generated by the battalion on said battalion? Wouldn't that make sense. A guard battalion brought into a battle gets that extra 5 points but it can only be used by th guard

Well then why would you bring a guard battalion? That would hinder sales...

 Smirrors wrote:

ballzonya wrote:
What if you can only use the command points generated by the battalion on said battalion? Wouldn't that make sense. A guard battalion brought into a battle gets that extra 5 points but it can only be used by th guard

Well then why would you bring a guard battalion? That would hinder sales...

Ideally, allies would be chosen because the units compliment your army. As opposed to just taken in minimum cost to fuel you with enough CP that you can practically ignore the cost of the mechanic.

 stonehorse wrote:
Sounds like strategems are causing a lot of issues. They did feel like they brought the very swingy formations from 7th to 8th. This is going to be a very unpopular opinion, but I honestly think limiting to those found in the main rule book would fix the issues.

A lot of the force build schnanigans we see are to exploit a few Codex strategems (through cheap Command Points generators) that offer an advantage that cannot be countered, or at the very least is unknown due to the sheer volume of them.

That would also make armies feel bland. Armies were also designed around stratagems. Stratagems also require more strategy to play that without them it would be pretty boring now. I think the issues are smaller than what everyone is making it out to be that removing stratagems would not be the solution.

I like the idea of CP:

Starting CP: X+1 CP
+2 per Battalion
+4 per Brigade
-1 for Auxiliary

No relics (one?) that regenerate CP can be used in Matched games.

You gain (X) CP per turn, -1 per detachment that is of an allied faction.

(X = 1 per 500 points) [Allied Factions need to be defined]

All of the numbers above could be adjusted to fit the balance of what the expected number of CP should be for a mono army over 5 turns. Allied would have to be defined and some armies could get exceptions to this.

My hope is that they don't listen to a single arm chair generals on dakka and actually balance based on what's actually happening in 40k.

Lemondish wrote:
My hope is that they don't listen to a single arm chair generals on dakka and actually balance based on what's actually happening in 40k.

IMHO removing/nerfing the guard CP regen relics are what needs to happen, beyond that not a huge deal.

Lemondish wrote:
My hope is that they don't listen to a single arm chair generals on dakka and actually balance based on what's actually happening in 40k.

Understandable, but I still hope that when we eventually see an update that they swap the fortification rule for IF for the Bolter Drill strategem. Make the army the shooty Marine build with a focus on bolters with a strategem you can pop the few games it comes up would make me pretty happy.

That said, I'm going to be playing these guys regardless so my wishlisting doesn't really matter and I don't expect it to be in the FAQ.

The only thing that I hope makes the FAQ is a tweaked version of the Rule of Three (maybe tie it to unit keywords and give us a list) and take CP regeneration effects to being once per game.

Lemondish wrote:
My hope is that they don't listen to a single arm chair generals on dakka and actually balance based on what's actually happening in 40k.

They have high quality players like InControl at the very least as playtesters, so we can rest assured that people like w1zard and Kanluwen will never be listened to. The Emperor protects

Anyone else hear the rumor that terrain rules were getting a tweak. That would be awesome.

I want the free vertical charge range changed so that you actually measure base to base.

Only one source of CP regen per roll. Only on a 5+. Only one point returned per strat and only on CP you spend yourself. Don't double dip the chip.

Start with 20 CP. Reduce per detachment. -0 for brig, -2 for bat, -4 for anything else. If you want to adjust these numbers on a per army basis (thinking DE patrols) fine, special rule DE patrols are only a -2, DA/white scars -2, custodes patrols -2, knight super heavies -2.

Bonus to filling out detachments. Guard still have more than everyone else.

Another way to do that is simply imposing an hard cap on CPs per turn, like:

"In a 1000/2000/3000 point game you cannot use more than 3/6/9 CPs per round of game"

That would also fix a lot of stuff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
I don't think that twin link going away had much to do with it being too complex and more with "Having a lot of weapons that have baked in rerolls is cutting our design space of special rules".

can you explain what you mean?

A lot of the auras and bonuses of 8th edition, are based around rerolls to hit. This didn't tie in particularly well with a lot of weapons having rerolls to hit from the beginning. It made judging the effectiveness of those bonuses much harder, since in a lot of situations they would have no impact.

I get ya, makes sense. There's numerous better examples I could have given that was just off top.

 Smirrors wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
Sounds like strategems are causing a lot of issues. They did feel like they brought the very swingy formations from 7th to 8th. This is going to be a very unpopular opinion, but I honestly think limiting to those found in the main rule book would fix the issues.

A lot of the force build schnanigans we see are to exploit a few Codex strategems (through cheap Command Points generators) that offer an advantage that cannot be countered, or at the very least is unknown due to the sheer volume of them.

That would also make armies feel bland. Armies were also designed around stratagems. Stratagems also require more strategy to play that without them it would be pretty boring now. I think the issues are smaller than what everyone is making it out to be that removing stratagems would not be the solution.

Bland?

We have faction rules, sub-faction rules, relics, Sub-faction relics, warlord traits, sub-faction warlord traits, faction psychic powers, and every unit in the game has at least 1 or 2 special rules at bare minimum.

It is far from bland without strategems, in a lot of ways 8th feels like as much a bloated mess that 7th was, just the location of the bloat is now in Codexes as opposed to the main rule book.

Each edition another layer of special rules are being woven into the fabric. It is getting hard to keep track of what is what.

 stonehorse wrote:

 Smirrors wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
Sounds like strategems are causing a lot of issues. They did feel like they brought the very swingy formations from 7th to 8th. This is going to be a very unpopular opinion, but I honestly think limiting to those found in the main rule book would fix the issues.

A lot of the force build schnanigans we see are to exploit a few Codex strategems (through cheap Command Points generators) that offer an advantage that cannot be countered, or at the very least is unknown due to the sheer volume of them.

That would also make armies feel bland. Armies were also designed around stratagems. Stratagems also require more strategy to play that without them it would be pretty boring now. I think the issues are smaller than what everyone is making it out to be that removing stratagems would not be the solution.

Bland?

We have faction rules, sub-faction rules, relics, Sub-faction relics, warlord traits, sub-faction warlord traits, faction psychic powers, and every unit in the game has at least 1 or 2 special rules at bare minimum.

It is far from bland without strategems, in a lot of ways 8th feels like as much a bloated mess that 7th was, just the location of the bloat is now in Codexes as opposed to the main rule book.

Each edition another layer of special rules are being woven into the fabric. It is getting hard to keep track of what is what.

Except almost all those faction rules, sub-faction rules, relics, Sub-faction relics, warlord traits, sub-faction warlord traits, faction psychic powers. Are just copy pasts of the same mechanic as is in 2 other codex's, they arn't unique in any way.
While a number of strategums are also shared they at least mixed with other faction or subfaction rules to allow for some different interactions.

8th edition isn't deep or complicated, it's just spamming the same mechanics with different names and the same strategums with different names for the illusion of depth.
Remove one of those variables and you'd probably be surprised how little in the game is actually unique.