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.

Ideally, I'd love to both invert the system to make "elite" armies have more CP over "mass" armies (because that's the point, right? elites use more advanced strategies to offset their numerical disadvantage/lack of obsec) and spread the CP to later in the game to off-set 40K's 1st-turn-focussed game turn.


Maybe like this:

Battalion: +1 CP at the start of each of your turns, as long as at least 1 friendly troop unit is on the battlefield.
Vanguard: +2 CP at the start of each of your turns, as long as at least 1 friendly elite unit is on the battlefield (reduce to +1 CP if your Elite is ObSec).
Spearhead: +2 CP at the start of each of your turns, as long as at least 1 friendly heavy support unit is on the battlefield (reduce to +1 CP if your HS is ObSec).
Etc..

Supreme Commander, Adept of the Codex, stuff farming your own CPs: At the end of your turn, roll a D6 for each CP you still have left. On a 5+, you get an additional CP. Giving incentives to bank CPs for later turns, creating a tactical trade-off between burning them early for in-game advantages or having more later, instead of the no-brainer decision currently.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/757983.page#10005212

To quote myself:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Haravikk wrote:
To be honest I think part of the problem with CP generation is that you can get extra CPs at all, as this was always going to be exploited.

IMO it would be better if the number of CPs per player were fixed by game size, and detachment choices could only lose CPs, not add them. This way you still balance to a degree overuse of certain detachments, but otherwise the number of CPs is the same for both players, barring character bonuses.

I like the idea. Won't ever happen because it's a good idea, but still a good idea.

You start with PL/5 (Agreed Points Limit / 100 rounded for matched play) Command Points. e.g if you have 110 PL in your army you begin with 22 Command points. A 1500 point limit game would have each player start with 15 points (even if you only take 1499 points etc.), a 1750 point limit game would have each player starting with 18 points, and so on.

A Brigade is -0 points.
A Battalion is -1 point.
A Super-Heavy Detachment or Air Wing Detachment is -2 points.
A Vanguard, Spearhead or Outrider detachment is -3 points.
A Supreme Command detachment is -4 points.
A Super-Heavy Auxiliary Detachment and Fortification Network is -5 Command Points
An Auxiliary Support Detachment is -7 points.

To a minimum of 1.

This would require the removal or toning down of CP refund mechanics.

@ Suze:

Oxygen in this room is devoted to creating a limiting factor for detachments, which your proposal does not do. You're not fixing anything with a mid-range detachment. Adding more CP to smaller detachments doesn't fix anything, because CP abusing armies like IG can just abuse those instead of Battalions. Nothing gets "flattened". The CP gap still exists.

There has been no defence offered for your proposal, and plenty of reasoning presented that the CP per Detachment method is deeply flawed. Disliking another argument or saying that this idea is only for people that will agree with your premise is no defense of your proposal. It indicates an inability to support your position.

In short, this idea is gak because it continues an existing flawed design, without fixing the flaw. If it fixed the flaw, there would be proof that this new design fixed CP imbalance between armies of equal points.

EDIT: my bad Suze, someone else was proposing the mid-range detachment. Still, the point about making smaller detachments worth more and other detachments less stands. Compare 3 proposed "Fast Attack" detachments for a Biker Force, to two battalions plus a Fast Attack detachment. The troops and HQ's are still generating more CP, for the same points. The only way to really level the field is to make CP generation divorced from number of detachments.

BCB,
Since Aux only gets you 1 unit of any given slot, would a -2 be more appropriate than a -7? For instance, if I want to add a Troop with no HQ options, 7 CP is really steep.

I love the idea, and the numbers look about right, though.

What should the Patrol be?

It's deliberately steep. Aux slots should be discouraged but permitted.

As for patrol, I would say put it at either -2 or -3.