How to fix command points (by Xeno)

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.

**Audustum**

Marmatag wrote:
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.

So yeah, ITC is way different. NOVA you can conceivably get 6 points (triple) thanks to ObSec and 8 points for objectives per turn.

Fun fact about Custodes: They're actually ALL ObSec except for vehicles. Dawneagle Captains and Bikes? ObSec. Allarus Terminators? ObSec. Wardens? ObSec. They have it almost army-wide.

For other armies, I would say forcing your opponent to direct shooting on Troops or yield a victory point is actually a great trade.

**Marmatag**

Sure - definitely different formats.

Parking a bike captain on an objective will probably hold it. But, then you're paying what, 170 points for a hurricane bolter holding an objective. Not really worth it.

How big of an impact was obsec for you at your last competitive event with that format?

Also remember, you're seeing more obsec because people are rewarded for bringing troops. If they weren't a requirement for CP, you would see more killy stuff. Without question.

**Xenomancers**

Reemule wrote:
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.

The purpose of CA is to balance the game. It has no other purpose.

**Reemule**

Well the last CA has Terminus Est and other Land Raider variants in it.

How did they add to the balance?

I don't believe your premise that the CA only exists to balance the game.

**Marmatag**

Reemule wrote:
Well the last CA has Terminus Est and other Land Raider variants in it.

How did they add to the balance?

I don't believe your premise that the CA only exists to balance the game.

Chapter approved strikes me as a book that is struggling to find an identity.

It makes more sense in the context of Sigmar, with the general's handbook, because points costs are completely abstracted from the codexes. So, a yearly update is viewed as comprehensive. Meanwhile, chapter approved is not comprehensive, it does not include all points across all units and wargear options.

Then, they also add in new rules. In the last CA, they added new stratagems, missions, etc. Now, in this CA, they're adding Sisters beta rules. They may add missions as well, or other game content.

So it's a pretty valid question to ask of chapter approved: What would i be buying? And, how will GW address the problem of incremental changes across chapter approved, when not every weapon is included? If Heavy Venom Cannons go to 30 points in 2018, but Monstrous Rending Claws are unchanged, and then Monstrous Rending Claws go to 5 points in 2019, in order to play Tyranids i'll need to have my codex, 2018 CA, 2019 CA.

It's a frustrating system and I am not a fan of it at all.

**Reemule**

I would argue the rules situation in GW has been a pretty solid joke for 8 editions or so.

I'd love to have a clear indexed, complete living rule set.

And I'd love CA to have a massive repoint in it. Repoint it all. 5% off all the gakky stuff, add 5% to all the good stuff, see how the game changes from that.

**Xenomancers**

Reemule wrote:
Well the last CA has Terminus Est and other Land Raider variants in it.

How did they add to the balance?

I don't believe your premise that the CA only exists to balance the game.

It's true there is other content in there. Is this content we really are stressing with 6 month release schedules? No - it's the rules people want. It's the only reason we are talking about it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Reemule wrote:
I would argue the rules situation in GW has been a pretty solid joke for 8 editions or so.

I'd love to have a clear indexed, complete living rule set.

And I'd love CA to have a massive repoint in it. Repoint it all. 5% off all the gakky stuff, add 5% to all the good stuff, see how the game changes from that.

Yeah - bad rules - I agree.