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.

The updated version in my original post doesn't eliminate elite armies, it doesn't reward 'faction pure' armies either. It rewards fewer detachments.

I'm working on a revised version of it, but will need to playtest it before I'm confident about posting the changes.

Mchagen wrote:
it doesn't reward 'faction pure' armies either. It rewards fewer detachments.

Given you can't ally within a detachment, that's fundamentally the same thing.

Personally, I quite like dividing my pure armies into multiple detachments. I'd actually like to see the Elite/FA/Heavy Support detachments get a CP bump, as I currently feel like there's not quite enough incentive to do this, but when it works I like the feeling of dedicated battlefield roles under the command of separate officers.

No its not fundamentally the same thing. Also, as I've said earlier in the thread, in order for the current proposed detachment system to work, there need to be updated detachments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:
Maxing out on a detachment should be encouraged, not penalized

If a player can get away with using only specific choices in one detachment, then that player will choose the best detachment to maximize their command points. That leads to specific detachments being pointless In this proposed change.

Ideally, this system will encourage maxing out detachments, but also limiting the non-mandatory options in each so there isn't a 'go-to' detachment. It will still be flexible if the detachments are set with the right amount of choices along with the correct CP penalty.

Currently, a battalion can fit most army compositions--why have steeper penalties for taking a vanguard or outrider if a player can take the minimum troops choices (in points), then max out on elites and fast attack.in that same detachment. Updating the detachment options will fix that issue.

Look at top CWE lists. Typically, a pure list. But they'd be hamstrung by this, as they take a lot of troop-less detatchments.

Hamstrung by what? Troop-less detachments will still be an option. Where have I stated otherwise?

Mchagen wrote:
No its not fundamentally the same thing. Also, as I've said earlier in the thread, in order for the current proposed detachment system to work, there need to be updated detachments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:
Maxing out on a detachment should be encouraged, not penalized

If a player can get away with using only specific choices in one detachment, then that player will choose the best detachment to maximize their command points. That leads to specific detachments being pointless In this proposed change.

Ideally, this system will encourage maxing out detachments, but also limiting the non-mandatory options in each so there isn't a 'go-to' detachment. It will still be flexible if the detachments are set with the right amount of choices along with the correct CP penalty.

Currently, a battalion can fit most army compositions--why have steeper penalties for taking a vanguard or outrider if a player can take the minimum troops choices (in points), then max out on elites and fast attack.in that same detachment. Updating the detachment options will fix that issue.

Well that'ts because Battlion only allows max 3 specialization slots per detachment. My RW army for example could be composed of 9 FA slots spread across 2 detachments - under the system where the old min is the new max, why should i be forced to take 3 detachments, threby taking more CP penalties, when I can fit them into 2 detachments? How does this not 'doesn't hurt' elite armies?

You say your system encourages fewer detachments, but are seriously hamstringing certain lists to be able to composed in fewest detachments possible by forcing smaller detachments.

I was talking about the upthread pay-per-detatchment change hamstringing troopless detatchment.

And I meant that in a good way.

 skchsan wrote:
Well that'ts because Battlion only allows max 3 specialization slots per detachment. My RW army for example could be composed of 9 FA slots spread across 2 detachments - under the system where the old min is the new max, why should i be forced to take 3 detachments, threby taking more CP penalties, when I can fit them into 2 detachments? How does this not 'doesn't hurt' elite armies?

You say your system encourages fewer detachments, but are seriously hamstringing certain lists to be able to composed in fewest detachments possible by forcing smaller detachments.

The old min is not the new max, I said there would still be options in each detachment, but that they would be limited.

I'm a fan of supporting minimizing the number of detatchments taken, but not necessarily supporting maxing out the detatchments.

They're not quite the same thing. Minimizing number of detatchments means things like taking a 10-man Tac squad, or using two of your open Heavy Support slots instead of adding a 3 FA through a Vanguard. If you require detatchments to be fully filled, you make it unreasonable to take 2 Elites or 5 Troops.

If a Brigade wants to take every FA slot but only a few HS slots, or vice versa, that doesn't seem to be a problem.

Which Detatchments do you think would be entirely pointless under that scheme? I'm not seeing any, but haven't checked each one.

Bharring wrote:
I'm a fan of supporting minimizing the number of detatchments taken, but not necessarily supporting maxing out the detatchments.

They're not quite the same thing. Minimizing number of detatchments means things like taking a 10-man Tac squad, or using two of your open Heavy Support slots instead of adding a 3 FA through a Vanguard. If you require detatchments to be fully filled, you make it unreasonable to take 2 Elites or 5 Troops.

If a Brigade wants to take every FA slot but only a few HS slots, or vice versa, that doesn't seem to be a problem.

Which Detatchments do you think would be entirely pointless under that scheme? I'm not seeing any, but haven't checked each one.

It applies to the three specialist slots, namely vanguard, outrider and spearhead deteachments. Although super-heavy, air wing and supreme command could also fall under 'specialist' detachments, but it already comes with heavier restrictions.

Having said, certain armies with poor troop choices would be penalized two-fold if maxing out within specialist detachments were discouraged since: you already sacrificed CP gain (loss in the current proposed system) for the sake of not paying troop tax AND being forced to take further CP loss by being forced to take more detachments. Of course, the severity of penalty in the proposed system would vary in degree depending on how the CP loss system is balanced, but at the end of the day, list building will revert back to 6th ed before the introduction of formations in 7th where every list MUST take troops because it makes exponentially more sense to just outright pay the troop tax to get that certain unit you want.

An Armored Battalion would still want a Spearhead detatchment (or even multiple) would it not? You still could play without troops, it's just less beneficial to?

I assumed that the required slots would still be required, and the optional slots would still be optional.

I'd rather the majority of armies be better fielding the CAD, while still making any currently-legal army legal. The CP cost of playing with no troops I saw as a positive, not a negative. That might just be my bias.

For specifics, a CWE army with Supreme Command, Air Wing, and Outriders would do poorly on CP generation - and I think that's a good thing. A Battallion/Brigade-based army at the same points, but with fewer FA and more troops, should have more tactical flexibility (CP).

Which factions/army styles would be unfairly impacted?

Bharring wrote:
An Armored Battalion would still want a Spearhead detatchment (or even multiple) would it not? You still could play without troops, it's just less beneficial to?

I assumed that the required slots would still be required, and the optional slots would still be optional.

I'd rather the majority of armies be better fielding the CAD, while still making any currently-legal army legal. The CP cost of playing with no troops I saw as a positive, not a negative. That might just be my bias.

For specifics, a CWE army with Supreme Command, Air Wing, and Outriders would do poorly on CP generation - and I think that's a good thing. A Battallion/Brigade-based army at the same points, but with fewer FA and more troops, should have more tactical flexibility (CP).

Which factions/army styles would be unfairly impacted?

What's currently being suggested is that optional max slots be reduced, which would hinder certain armies that are already sacrificing CP generation to further expend CP's to make their armies legal.

Furthermore, when you are paying troop tax to generate more CP's, where are those CP's being spent? Currently, troops only serve as screens & CP generation. For armies whose troops make poor screens, it only has 1 purpose - which is to generate CP's.

Don't get me wrong - forcing people to use troops by granting benefits is a great system. However, it's a biased system that benefits armies with viable troop choices.

What would be more fair is that if the rule of three applied to troops as well so that a given army isn't spamming the most point efficient troops 12 times to unlock two brigade detachments.

But then you're really capping some factions who only have 2-3 troops choices. Some even only have one.

I was referring to BCB's suggestion that was sitting in the OP. Sorry, I was talking about something else.

I'd definitely be against reducing optional slots, though. *Maybe* on the Patrol, *maybe*.

I was thinking about this, and I think the best and easiest solution is to make Command Points something that your army "buys".

For those of you who played Malifaux, this will be familiar. You get a cache of "soulstones" which can be used for various things, such as giving yourself a positive flip to a card draw or preventing damage, etc. You get these in your cache through leftover points in list building. So a smaller crew will typically have more soulstones.

Applying this to 40K. Lets say we make each Command Point cost 10 points. So in a 2K point game, I could take a 1,900 point army, and spend 100 points for 10 command points. I'm not sure on the actual value of a command point, but for the sake of this example 10 per is a round number. Basically to get more command points, players must take a smaller army. Against a player with fewer command points you have less points on the table, but more flexibility from your special CP abilities.

Obviously the pricing would need to be adjusted, and perhaps obsec would need to be strengthened so people take troops (or require at least one troop in every detachment).

 akaean wrote:
I was thinking about this, and I think the best and easiest solution is to make Command Points something that your army "buys".

For those of you who played Malifaux, this will be familiar. You get a cache of "soulstones" which can be used for various things, such as giving yourself a positive flip to a card draw or preventing damage, etc. You get these in your cache through leftover points in list building. So a smaller crew will typically have more soulstones.

Applying this to 40K. Lets say we make each Command Point cost 10 points. So in a 2K point game, I could take a 1,900 point army, and spend 100 points for 10 command points. I'm not sure on the actual value of a command point, but for the sake of this example 10 per is a round number. Basically to get more command points, players must take a smaller army. Against a player with fewer command points you have less points on the table, but more flexibility from your special CP abilities.

Obviously the pricing would need to be adjusted, and perhaps obsec would need to be strengthened so people take troops (or require at least one troop in every detachment).

This approach would need entire overhaul of the game system as we have it. I think it's best to keep with the resources we have on hand (i.e. power levels, points, detachments, command benefits) and alter those around rather than changing entirely how army building and CP usages work.

the current subtractive suggestion is essentially the same system we have in terms of how an army is built, how CP are generated (or lost), how stratagems benefit the said army, but overall leverage and even out the CP discrepancies between armies with good/cheap troops and those with worthless/expensive troop choices.

Well, with the insistence of some people saying you can use Jury Rigging infinitely (backed up by FACEBOOK no less!), I'd love that system to have literally unkillable baneblades unless you take off ALL my wounds.

Soup isn't doing more good than harm. You can't write a codex assuming you're going to ally. They should be a compliment, NOT the current crutch that they are.

Agreed. If it was up to me, I'd just outright ban allies in matched play games. After all, matched play is supposed to be the more "balanced" version of the game system allowing for a competitive play. Currently as it stands, the ally system is too exploitable and should just be for narrative or open play options.

 skchsan wrote:
Agreed. If it was up to me, I'd just outright ban allies in matched play games. After all, matched play is supposed to be the more "balanced" version of the game system allowing for a competitive play. Currently as it stands, the ally system is too exploitable and should just be for narrative or open play options.

It doesn't need to be banned. What needs to happen is making armies viable by themselves.

 skchsan wrote:
Agreed. If it was up to me, I'd just outright ban allies in matched play games. After all, matched play is supposed to be the more "balanced" version of the game system allowing for a competitive play. Currently as it stands, the ally system is too exploitable and should just be for narrative or open play options.

The problem with this is GW has written codex with the assumption underlying it that you will have a Battalion minimum regardless of army or such and that you'll be bringing atleast some way to regain or steel CP'S.
To remove the ally system now would just upend one sort of broken for an even more messy broken.

Additionally allies is a sneaky way to get people to start second etc armies oh a few infantry squads and some commanders, of then some heavy weapons, then a might aswell bring some nlos shooting cause thats perfectly balanced. Well its almost 1k may aswell just make it 1k.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
It doesn't need to be banned. What needs to happen is making armies viable by themselves.

Armies ARE viable themselves - it's just not hyper-competitive. Why spend 305 points on 3x scouts, lieutenant and captain when you can buy something that does nearly same amount of damage for 180 points on 3x infantry squads and 2 company commanders?

Mix-and-matching for competitiveness needs to be curbed for matched plays.

Sadly GW's mantra seems to be "Play with all your models, regardless of faction" and seemed to realise "Whoops this would really annoy the people who like to pretend there is even an iota of balance in this game" and made the matched play rules as an afterthought.

I have heard rumours that GW wanted to scrap points altogether and only have power levels, but the playtesters threatened to raise hell if they tried to push it. I can't verify it, but it's not unbelievable.

The easiest solution is either that that you can only generate CP for detachments of your warlord's faction. Only problem is that it doesn't stop pure Guard armies showing up with 25+ CP anyway.

Alternatively, you can only spend CP generated by detachments on that detachments stratagems (the free 3 would be universal). That again stops the usefulness of 180 point battery battalions. The only spanner in the works would be where to the negative for Aux detachments get taken from, so not an Ideal solution. Perhaps make the negative come from the default 3 and limit aux detachments to 3 max, regardless?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Alternatively, you can only spend CP generated by detachments on that detachments stratagems (the free 3 would be universal). That again stops the usefulness of 180 point battery battalions. The only spanner in the works would be where to the negative for Aux detachments get taken from, so not an Ideal solution. Perhaps make the negative come from the default 3 and limit aux detachments to 3 max, regardless?

Strange this is similar to my original post, but you didn't approve of it, 'Eldar vs IG games would be all that we'd see.' Though I figured it was because I suggested using specific <REGIMENT>, <CHAPTER>, etc keywords instead of basing it on codex-level keywords such as Astra Militarum or Adeptus Astartes. I assume this suggestion would use that level of keyword to define 'that detachments stratagems.'

That's the change I made to the original idea based on the feedback in this thread. But when I saw the post of the subtractive idea, I figured that could work better because it had less book-keeping. It's more work to balance it all though.

I've been working on play-testing the subtractive system and getting the values and FoC slots right for each detachment, but haven't played many games lately. Tweaking my original idea would be far less work and only requires minimal book-keeping, it may be what my group ends up using.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Alternatively, you can only spend CP generated by detachments on that detachments stratagems (the free 3 would be universal). That again stops the usefulness of 180 point battery battalions. The only spanner in the works would be where to the negative for Aux detachments get taken from, so not an Ideal solution. Perhaps make the negative come from the default 3 and limit aux detachments to 3 max, regardless?

That was the originally posted idea; the problem is that it doesn't prevent the excessive CP generation at all, it just stops you using it on other detachments, which aren't necessarily the problem. Personally I like the idea of being able to dump CPs into a small strike force if my strategy hinges around it, it's very fluffy for a bigger force to act as a vehicle for an Astartes drop pod assault or whatever. So yeah, it's a well-intentioned idea, but it doesn't really solve the root problem, which is armies that can generate excessive CPs.

This is why the subtractive method is the better overall solution; it puts a ceiling on CPs so in the worst case there is an absolute maximum to how many CPs an abusive list can get, and by having detachments subtract from that pool you're encouraged to take as few detachments as possible, i.e- actually filling them out rather than just taking the bare minimum units to get extra CPs.

 Haravikk wrote:
That was the originally posted idea; the problem is that it doesn't prevent the excessive CP generation at all, it just stops you using it on other detachments, which aren't necessarily the problem. Personally I like the idea of being able to dump CPs into a small strike force if my strategy hinges around it, it's very fluffy for a bigger force to act as a vehicle for an Astartes drop pod assault or whatever. So yeah, it's a well-intentioned idea, but it doesn't really solve the root problem, which is armies that can generate excessive CPs.

This is why the subtractive method is the better overall solution; it puts a ceiling on CPs so in the worst case there is an absolute maximum to how many CPs an abusive list can get, and by having detachments subtract from that pool you're encouraged to take as few detachments as possible, i.e- actually filling them out rather than just taking the bare minimum units to get extra CPs.

[Responding to the added underlined emphasis].

Before we started testing the subtractive system, it was suggested that battalions have a min points value. That could be as simple as adding a restriction to a battalion so that each one is a minimum of 20% of the total points amount of the army. For example, in a 2000 point game, each battalion must be at least 400 points.

I think that is still a viable option if we decide to revert to the original idea.

Mchagen wrote:
Before we started testing the subtractive system, it was suggested that battalions have a min points value. That could be as simple as adding a restriction to a battalion so that each one is a minimum of 20% of the total points amount of the army. For example, in a 2000 point game, each battalion must be at least 400 points.

That could work, but I think it would need to be a flat number of points rather than a percentage, otherwise in larger games you could struggle to hit the minimum points cost. I mean, a Battalion used to be pretty much all you'd get in a 2,000 point game, except maybe a small allied detachment, so I'd look for the minimum to be at least 1,000 points, and you shouldn't even be able to consider a Brigade unless you can put 2,000 into it (maybe 2,500 because of the tripled CP bonus?).

You'd still get people putting in the bare minimum, but it'd definitely curb some of the excess, I'm just not 100% on what the points (or power level) requirements should be.

Yes, the Force Organization Chart was all you'd usually need in 2000 or less in previous editions, but you could still use it in low points games--as low as 400 for most armies. 40k in 40.

That's why I don't like a fixed amount because it skews the games towards a specific points level, and I like playing lower point games as well.

Strange that you brought up not being able to fill out a 20% detachment, but then suggest 1000 point min. Which would require a game of 5000+ points using 20%. Anything at that level is already niche, which is typically open or narrative play anyway.

Mchagen wrote:
Before we started testing the subtractive system, it was suggested that battalions have a min points value. That could be as simple as adding a restriction to a battalion so that each one is a minimum of 20% of the total points amount of the army. For example, in a 2000 point game, each battalion must be at least 400 points.

I think that is still a viable option if we decide to revert to the original idea.

I feel like this will end up as an unnecessary additional constraint that ends up punishing battalions more than help with the CP problem.

Simpler the system, the better.

A true fix to this CP problem is make Command Reroll stratagem "once per turn" only, with 0 CP cost.

 skchsan wrote:

Mchagen wrote:
Before we started testing the subtractive system, it was suggested that battalions have a min points value. That could be as simple as adding a restriction to a battalion so that each one is a minimum of 20% of the total points amount of the army. For example, in a 2000 point game, each battalion must be at least 400 points.

I think that is still a viable option if we decide to revert to the original idea.

I feel like this will end up as an unnecessary additional constraint that ends up punishing battalions more than help with the CP problem.

Simpler the system, the better.

A true fix to this CP problem is make Command Reroll stratagem "once per turn" only, with 0 CP cost.

That's the significant part of the command point problem though--cheap battalions for specific armies providing easy CP. So yes, it would punish cheap battalions, because they're broken currently.

How in any way whatsoever, is your suggestion a 'true fix' to that issue?

Bit off tangent but whatabout to deal with the CP regeneration from "whenever you use strategem" or "for each CP you spend" allies make all such traits only work when using strategem works for strategems from that faction.